smd4

Straight forks, seatpost collar and a threadless headset/angled-up stem do not make for a good-looking bike.

Maelochs

Oi .... people ....

Aesthetics are subjective. I can name some CF bikes which i think are awesome and amazing ... and I can appreciate classic steel .... just as I like women of almost any age and a huge variety of body types. I never understood the sense of having only one "type," but hey, whatever floats your boat ......

This is ... INTELLIGENT people can tell fact from opinion, and don't argue one against the other.

If one guy thinks the Colnago is the epitome of cycle aesthetics ... it is. if another thinks is it a plastic turd, it is ....

That is opinion. Wholly subjective.

On the other hand, some people think whatever they say is logic, it seems ….
Logic implies a string of interwoven facts, each supported by the one before and supporting the one after … a conceptual structure wherein if one taps in at any point and asks “Why?” one can point to an adjoining bit of information which explains it.

Some folks don’t seem to be able to grasp that.

Oh, and to be successfully snarky, you have to be logical.

Here for instance you imply that what I take as my standard for judging a good ride, I am trying to deny to you.

However, breaking it down logically … YOU are the one who set as the goal, YOU are the one who picked another standard. I think my standard makes a lot more sense, particularly because to me, “sense’ involves walking one’s talk. If I say I value rides by the pleasure I take in riding, and go ride, however poorly, and enjoy it … I have met my standard.

You, however are hypocritical. As I said above, Yet, you are not. Your further attempt at snark— is ludicrous and pathetic because, my fellow cyclist and trash poster … YOU are the one who has a problem following what you claim is the guiding idea determining your tire choices.

I sort of suggest you back away from this one … plenty of other stuff to discuss …….

Eric F 

That's your personal bias speaking. I have preferred the look of straight forks since Colnago started putting them on their steel bikes, and I still do today (my personal bias speaking). IMO, this bike is legendary, iconic, classic, and the epitome of an Italian racing bike of its era. 20+ years later, there are a whole lot of folks who still feel lusty about this machine...timeless.

Fredo76

Straight forks may be timeless, since it looks like we're stuck with them until the end of it, but they are not classic. Classic forks are curved.

Atlas Shrugged

The romanticization of mass-produced Columbus tubed, lugged construction steel bikes ending in a vowel has extended beyond the protected confines of the C&V subforum, prompting a need for commentary. The 70s and 80s witnessed a period of stagnant and unremarkable bicycle development, dominated by branding hype alone. Countless bikes, virtually identical in materials, geometry, and build techniques, flooded the market, each supposedly superior to the other. Were there true distinctions among the tens of thousands of Masi, Colnago, Olmo, Pinarello, Basso, Cinelli, etc. mass-welded across Italy? In an era when Italy was criticized for subpar workmanship, these bikes stand out as an anomaly. I remain unconvinced. Legendary only in the eyes of a child of the 70s, the market for these old bikes has virtually collapsed as us old-timers move on to pickleball. VW Beetles were also considered legendary but I will take my E63 any day of the week.

ofajen

Technically yes, I recently bought a 23mm home trainer tire.

However, I don’t ride roads except to reach or connect to trails. So 32mm is skinny to me. My (1980s) road bike has had 32s for years and I think it can run 35s but I need wider rims to feel ok about that.

Otto

Koyote

If this thread demonstrates anything, it's that some posters are more into riding, and some are more into bikes as fetish objects.

Atlas Shrugged

You be you, however, 25mm tires at 130psi, WTF?

3alarmer 

...what a relief. I was afraid I'd have to be someone else.

smd4

OP, pay attention to the utter vitriol shown here that you will have to endure should you decide to run narrow, high pressure tires. Happens to me every single time I mention my preferred tire size and pressure.Whatever reason you provide for doing so will be derided as “illogical.” You will be called names. People will demand explanations of you, as if you were obliged to explain anything. Simply saying that you prefer the ride won’t be enough. No reason will be acceptable. Going against the herd mentality will not be tolerated, even though many are fond of saying things like “you do you.”

Don’t be discouraged. Not everyone behaves this way.

3alarmer 

...today, I rode a steel framed bicycle, made by Boone McReynolds, a couple of hours around town, stopping at the food co-op and then Costco, to pick up some stuff. It has fenders, and some of the last edition of Ruffy Tuffy tires that the infamous retrogrouch Grant Petersen kind of popularized, for a while way back when. They are 700x28, because I think that was the only size they came in.

The bike has shiny chrome steel fenders, and is set up more or less as a touring bike, but rack and bags are in the back, and a front bar bag makes up the rest of the cargo space.

I use those tires because they are a practical alternative, given their relative resistance to flats. I ride the at 120psi because that's pretty much how they seem to work best for me, given my size as a taller person, and my weight of 236, before I add any cargo to the bags. I certainly don't want to revisit the issues raised in the long and tedious thread about rotating weight versus weight of the frame and the rider. But I do ride a bike quite a bit, and have ridden many miles in pursuit of a means of alternative transportation over the past 40 years or so.

I wonder if it is the winter weather that has people so intensely interested in the tires I use and the inflation pressures I find most enjoyable in using them ? I would offer an alternative theory of what this thread demonstrates. And it's not bikes as fetish objects. It's more about the silliness of the various opinions offered in an endless stream, from people who know what works for them, and are sure it must work for everyone the same way.

Or to go back to retro-grouch Jan Heine's writing in BQ :
Let's take a moment to review. I've stated clearly the bulk of my riding is on asphalt, even if some of it is a tad rough in places. I'm not riding back roads, for the most part, and I do weigh in at a heavier than average 236# (although I'm also 6'2" tall, and formed about the way you'd expect for someone who exercised for overall strength, because he earned his living in a physical occupation.) I know enough about cycling from those 40 years of interest, to realize that not all opinions carry equal weight, and that opinions in the world of bicycle are frequently transient. And sometimes I ride loaded down with stuff.

I simply offered up a description of my current practice here. I didn't even express it as an opinion that it might be right or wrong for someone else.

There might very well be some fetishization going on, but I can assure you it's not me engaging in it. Unless somehow having dry weather bicycles that go more toward old race bikes, and different wet weather bicycle setups is too kinky for your tastes. Which it very well might be...I'm not here to judge.

Koyote

I think you have me confused with someone who cares what you ride. (i.e., I never addressed a single post to you, and don't care what you -- or anyone else -- chooses to ride.)

RChung

I follow the science on Crr. I use a slightly narrower tire in front and a slightly wider one in back. That's for two reasons: first, cuz I follow the science on *both* Crr *and* CdA; and second, cuz I still had a narrow tire that hasn't worn out yet and I'm kinda cheap. I run latex in both front and back, though.

Road Fan

I have a few very nice-riding bikes which can't accept a 38 or 42 without frame surgery. Since some are collectible, I don't have any plans for radical bending of the chainstay or the fork blades. So when those bikes need tires and they have tubular rims, I put on good (and sometimes not-so-good) tires ranging from 21 mm width up to 28 mm rims, depending what the frame has room for. So it's not unreasonable, to my mind, to look at the seemingly universal changover to wide tires. Yes, there is some science and some engineering, for example the tire pressure criteria. But so what? Science saying "yes, it's better" does not imply "this change is essential, in my opinion."

So, enjoy your skinny tires. If you wear them out soon you can just go out and buy better ones.

smd4

Unfortunately, your “commentary” is biased, not to mention uninformed. I know the name of the guy that hand-built my Cinelli. Who (or what) built your bike(s)?

3alarmer 

...and I think maybe when you toss off a post about "some posters...some", you open yourself up to all sorts of confusion. It is a custom frame, from a somewhat obscure local maker. It is old, probably from the 80's. It has no disc brakes, and it has tires (28's) inflated to pressures you find irrational (120 psi). It might very well be one of those fetish objects you abjure.

And I'm obviously saying clearly to you that the rotating weight of the wheel rims and tires is more important to me, than the overall weight of the bike. Because of how that 'feels" when I ride the bicycle.

It has steel fenders, for gosh sakes. And they are shiny chrome. Sorry, but chromed steel is, in and of itself, easily seen as fetishization in the era of plastic bikes. You can hardly blame me for presuming that my own tastes and practices have been called into question. Apparently, my only recourse is to be someone else. I hope, at least, that guy is better looking.

shelbyfv

smd4

Welcome to the club! Somehow someone demands that I justify, “logically,” what I enjoy using. As if I owe ANYONE here an explanation.

”You be you.” “Ride what you like.”

A load of BS. Spouted from sheep.

Atlas Shrugged

If I know the guy who made my hamburger at McDonald’s does that make it special? This so called unique bicycle is manufactured with the same tubing, lugs, brazing materials and techniques as tens of thousands of other bikes made that year what would make it so cherished. Check out this staged image of Cinellis so called shop. There must be one hundred frames hanging in the background awaiting some gullible consumer buying into their limited production BS. Check out all the pre cut tubes awaiting some random welder to hammer out a few hundred more frames on demand.

smd4

Oh, so every frame he produced shot out the door upon completion?

Why didn’t you also post the photo’s caption?

You’re better than that. And comparing a burger to a bike frame? Really? And no, you don’t know the guy who made your McDonalds burger.

smd4

And you have a problem with…what? You ride more than me (maybe)? Is riding a bike all that’s important to you? You don’t know me. Stop it with the superiority complex.

Oh sorry. I’m not sure this was directed to me. OK to respond anyway? I bow in deference to your all knowing judgment.

3alarmer 

...Cinelli was certainly no stranger to marketing. But I do think maybe you have the wrong idea about the level of skill required in various aspects of metal fabrication, to produce a very good to excellent bicycle frame, using the steel tubing and lug brazing materials that were available at the time. But maybe I'm just another gullible consumer of the artisanal bicycle conspiracy propaganda.

In their own way, those small Italian builders were much more insidious than "Big Bicycle".

Atlas Shrugged

Perhaps that is why I am such a cynic regarding these old lugged bicycles and the bizarre romanticism attached to them. I spent decades as a toolmaker and precision metal worker. The skill required to build a lugged bicycle is very basic and easily within the capabilities of a 6th month apprentice. That is why a vast majority of frame builders are self taught or have taken a basic frame building course lasting a few weeks. Someone with a strong mechanical aptitude can learn how to build a frame in a month or so which would be indistinguishable from these so called storied frame builders. Of all the steel frame building techniques lugged steel is by far the easiest to learn and the most forgiving. It also lends itself to batch production, main frame, rear triangle, forks then final,assembly. Nothing special about that at all.

Maelochs

Two quotes from the article:

"At Bicycle Quarterly, we’ve been researching tire performance for the last eight years, and the most revolutionary finding is this: Tire pressure has almost no effect on a tire’s speed."

Followed by: "On smooth surfaces like the one used in the tests shown above, moderately high tire pressure – say 100-110 psi for a 25 mm tire – actually rolls slower than either a lower pressure (80 psi) or a higher pressure (130 psi). On rough surfaces, higher pressures roll significantly slower."

If the supposed experts cannot help but contradict themselves in subsequent paragraphs, I would not trust any of the conclusions in the article. That is not science, that is journalism approaching fiction... which is great, but not informative.

Maelochs

Dude you are psychotic.

Maybe you can fool some people but when you say stuff like that, you look like a fool to rational people.

If you think all that was "vitriol," I hope you never get me angry ,.. you will melt as if actual vitriol were poured on you.

All anyone did was ask you to use logic ... instead you chose to go in the other direction, but ... you do you.

By the way .... if you actually read what other people post, you would have noted that on two of my bikes I run 23s at 115-125 psi.

Funny, I have no acid burns on me anywhere.

Oh, sorry .... you are not interested in facts Or logic.