Gas pipe love and other depravities.
01-23-23, 03:48 PM
#76
Senior Member
I suspect that may have had something to do with suppressing both knowledge of and sales of better bikes from overseas, as well as US production of same. After all: if very few people know that a substantially better product is available overseas, who's going to demand local sources produce one equally as good? And if no one demands it, who's going to produce one? And who's going to buy the few imports available if they seem outrageously pricey?
Another damping factor I perceive was the US auto culture post-World War II. Cars were considered "cool"; bikes were for "kids". IMO that mindset didn't really start to change in the general US population until the mid/late 1960s, and then only among younger folks ("boomers") who now were getting jobs and able to afford to buy stuff. I believe it was Berto who postulated this as a primary driver of the early 1970s "bike boom" - and I think he nailed it there.
The only parts I think Berto missed was the effect of GI's rotating through Cold War US bases in Europe, and the mid/late 1960s environmental movements. Some GIs stationed in Europe were exposed to good European/UK bikes and brought knowledge of same home (and in some cased, the bikes too). But IMO it took a number of years of that until the US general population started to realize that (1) bikes weren't necessarily just for kids, and (2) high-end European bikes were much better than most locally-produced ones. The environmental movement added to that in the mid/late 1960s IMO.
Last edited by Hondo6; 01-23-23 at 03:58 PM. Reason: Correct typo, add info.
Likes For Hondo6:
01-23-23, 03:59 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
One thing I do not fully understand is the dis-connect between European and British bicycle technology, and that of the Americans. Certainly by the late 1960's American riders were desperate for lighter, higher-quality bikes. I didn't turn 14 till 1971, but nobody I knew had even heard of Masi, Bertin or Claud Butler. You could probably get a Raleigh Clubman if you really dug through the catalogues, and some importers could get their hands on limited models of European racing bikes, but there was a dramatic and befuddling gap in technology between the Europeans and the U.S. bicycle manufacturers.
I'm not really buying that there was no market in the U.S. for what in England were mid-range bikes. (Whenever U.S. companies want a market, they just create one). I understand the tariff situation back then, but we didn't have to import anything but the technology, itself.
Along with the heavier offerings, U.S. companies should have produced some lighter bikes.
I'm not really buying that there was no market in the U.S. for what in England were mid-range bikes. (Whenever U.S. companies want a market, they just create one). I understand the tariff situation back then, but we didn't have to import anything but the technology, itself.
Along with the heavier offerings, U.S. companies should have produced some lighter bikes.
The oldest bike shop in my home town of New Haven must have had a Yale racing club that competed with Harvard guys. When I became interested in bike racing in 1963 at age 12, the shop carried Raleigh, Atala, Legnano, Frejus, and Schwinn Paramounts. And Peugeot PX-10s, too. I believe those sold for around $120 versus $135 or so for the Atalas, a bit more for the other Italian bikes, and (shudder!) $175 for the Paramount. Raleigh, of course, had no comparable high-end model at the time.
Likes For Trakhak:
01-23-23, 05:29 PM
#78
Happy With My Bikes
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,186
Bikes: Hi-Ten bike boomers, a Trek Domane and some projects
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 884 Post(s)
Liked 2,307 Times
in
1,117 Posts
What was behind that? Flat rate labor charges?
__________________
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
01-23-23, 07:44 PM
#79
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked 348 Times
in
195 Posts
The emphasized part above is provably not true.
Because it weighs more, the heavier bike and rider combo (A) will generate more axle bearing friction. It will thus leave less of the rider's maximum power output (remember: same rider, so same maximum power out in either case) available to overcome other frictional losses and losses due to aerodynamic drag. If A/B is 1.05, the heavier bike will generate 5.0% more axle bearing drag than the lighter one.
Repeating this quote for emphasis. Perhaps you should review a bit of “engineering and physics” yourself – as well as do a bit of research on the subjects as they apply to bicycling – before making another statement like this in the future.
I don't personally care what bike you choose to ride, and I'm not overly concerned about the weight of mine. But gratuitous insults without reason aren't exactly cool, "amigo". Neither is implying you’re some kind of “expert” when you are not.
Because it weighs more, the heavier bike and rider combo (A) will generate more axle bearing friction. It will thus leave less of the rider's maximum power output (remember: same rider, so same maximum power out in either case) available to overcome other frictional losses and losses due to aerodynamic drag. If A/B is 1.05, the heavier bike will generate 5.0% more axle bearing drag than the lighter one.
Repeating this quote for emphasis. Perhaps you should review a bit of “engineering and physics” yourself – as well as do a bit of research on the subjects as they apply to bicycling – before making another statement like this in the future.
I don't personally care what bike you choose to ride, and I'm not overly concerned about the weight of mine. But gratuitous insults without reason aren't exactly cool, "amigo". Neither is implying you’re some kind of “expert” when you are not.
The extra ten pounds a "low end" bike may have, will be a small percentage of the total bike/rider weight, making it even less important, not to mention that the weight of the steel rims and hubs of a low-end bike are not part of the weight that is carried by the bearings, making the weight difference even less significant.
In the end the difference in speed would be too small to measure or register with any common equipment. On page 141 of this book it ends a lengthy second paragraph with;
"It appears reasonable, therefore, to refrain from including machinery losses in graphs of power usage for bicycle riding."
And on page 142 in another sentence we find; " hence, it appears reasonable to disregard the bearing restistance."
If the basis for an argument is so small it can not be measured, and that researchers, scientists and engineers tell you to ignore it, then you have no argument at all.
Last edited by beng1; 01-23-23 at 09:14 PM. Reason: Adding information
01-24-23, 12:30 AM
#80
Live not by lies.
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,306
Bikes: BigBox bikes.
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 784 Times
in
582 Posts
The emphasized part above is provably not true.
Consider two bikes identical in all ways except for weight. Let A be the combined weight of the rider and heavier bike, and B be the combined weight of the rider and lighter bike.
Assume both are ridden by the same rider under the same atmospheric conditions on the same day. Further assume this happens on perfectly level ground in a straight line long enough for the rider to attain maximum speed.
Ignoring possible fatigue effects, the rider's maximum possible power output will be the same in either case. And in either case, maximum speed will occur when rider maximum power output equals the sum of frictional losses plus aerodynamic losses.
Above, it was stated that both bicycles have identical axle bearings. However, bicycle axle bearings - like all bearings - generate friction proportional to load (here, the load is the weight of the bike plus rider). This friction consumes some of the rider's maximum power output, making it unavailable to contribute to forward speed.
Because it weighs more, the heavier bike and rider combo (A) will generate more axle bearing friction. It will thus leave less of the rider's maximum power output (remember: same rider, so same maximum power out in either case) available to overcome other frictional losses and losses due to aerodynamic drag. If A/B is 1.05, the heavier bike will generate 5.0% more axle bearing drag than the lighter one.
Bottom line: under these conditions, the otherwise-identical lighter bicycle will be faster. Yes, the difference will be very small; bearing friction typically doesn't consume much power at all. But even a tiny difference in top speed is NOT the same thing as "no difference".
Repeating this quote for emphasis. Perhaps you should review a bit of “engineering and physics” yourself – as well as do a bit of research on the subjects as they apply to bicycling – before making another statement like this in the future.
I don't personally care what bike you choose to ride, and I'm not overly concerned about the weight of mine. But gratuitous insults without reason aren't exactly cool, "amigo". Neither is implying you’re some kind of “expert” when you are not.
Consider two bikes identical in all ways except for weight. Let A be the combined weight of the rider and heavier bike, and B be the combined weight of the rider and lighter bike.
Assume both are ridden by the same rider under the same atmospheric conditions on the same day. Further assume this happens on perfectly level ground in a straight line long enough for the rider to attain maximum speed.
Ignoring possible fatigue effects, the rider's maximum possible power output will be the same in either case. And in either case, maximum speed will occur when rider maximum power output equals the sum of frictional losses plus aerodynamic losses.
Above, it was stated that both bicycles have identical axle bearings. However, bicycle axle bearings - like all bearings - generate friction proportional to load (here, the load is the weight of the bike plus rider). This friction consumes some of the rider's maximum power output, making it unavailable to contribute to forward speed.
Because it weighs more, the heavier bike and rider combo (A) will generate more axle bearing friction. It will thus leave less of the rider's maximum power output (remember: same rider, so same maximum power out in either case) available to overcome other frictional losses and losses due to aerodynamic drag. If A/B is 1.05, the heavier bike will generate 5.0% more axle bearing drag than the lighter one.
Bottom line: under these conditions, the otherwise-identical lighter bicycle will be faster. Yes, the difference will be very small; bearing friction typically doesn't consume much power at all. But even a tiny difference in top speed is NOT the same thing as "no difference".
Repeating this quote for emphasis. Perhaps you should review a bit of “engineering and physics” yourself – as well as do a bit of research on the subjects as they apply to bicycling – before making another statement like this in the future.
I don't personally care what bike you choose to ride, and I'm not overly concerned about the weight of mine. But gratuitous insults without reason aren't exactly cool, "amigo". Neither is implying you’re some kind of “expert” when you are not.
Because the bearings and tires have more rolling resistance, I would think the chain of the heavier bike would also have slightly more resistance.
That said, I don’t really care. I’ll still ride a gas pipe bike.
Those molded aluminum lugs are really cool, like electroforge welding, but different. Neat idea for mass production.
01-24-23, 04:33 AM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
Yes, the flat rate labor charge for a basic tuneup meant that the shop would usually lose money, because tuning up a department store 10-speed bike required much more work, since (a) it had been assembled in a slipshod manner at the factory and then by the inept stock boy at the department store and (b) the wheels and other components were designed and manufactured solely to meet the lowest possible retail price point: lowest-quality materials, loose tolerances, etc.
So the bikes took longer to tune to reach the shop's standard of acceptability for function and safety. And, often, fasteners or other parts would have failed (e.g., one or more previously undertensioned spokes would break in the course of truing the wheels), leading to the classic argument with the bike customer:
Mechanic: In addition to the basic tuneup, I had to do this additional work ($) and replace these parts ($$).
Customer: What??!? The bike only cost me $100 at the department store! You're charging me almost half that to repair it!
Mechanic: It costs that much to repair because it's a $100 bike. Bike store bikes are better quality and are easier to repair.
Customer: [Rant about being discriminated against for buying a department store bike---"It looks the same as the bikes you sell!"---and being ripped off, sometimes followed by a demand for the repair cost to be reduced to the bare minimum rate.]
Result: customers are almost always unhappy and sometimes belligerent; mechanics have had to spend yet more time explaining in detail what had had to be done, just like all the other times they've had the same conversation that they've been dreading; customers are still disgruntled when they leave and likely bad-mouth the shop to their friends,
In short: the department store wins because they sold the bike at what the customer considers a fair price ("There's no such thing as a bike worth over $100!"), unlike those elitist, snobby bike stores. The bike shop, despite the mechanic having spent an inordinate amount of time all but rebuilding the bike to get it to where it's at least usable and safe, is the bad guy for not pro-rating the repair cost to an acceptable fraction of the bike's original selling price.
So the bikes took longer to tune to reach the shop's standard of acceptability for function and safety. And, often, fasteners or other parts would have failed (e.g., one or more previously undertensioned spokes would break in the course of truing the wheels), leading to the classic argument with the bike customer:
Mechanic: In addition to the basic tuneup, I had to do this additional work ($) and replace these parts ($$).
Customer: What??!? The bike only cost me $100 at the department store! You're charging me almost half that to repair it!
Mechanic: It costs that much to repair because it's a $100 bike. Bike store bikes are better quality and are easier to repair.
Customer: [Rant about being discriminated against for buying a department store bike---"It looks the same as the bikes you sell!"---and being ripped off, sometimes followed by a demand for the repair cost to be reduced to the bare minimum rate.]
Result: customers are almost always unhappy and sometimes belligerent; mechanics have had to spend yet more time explaining in detail what had had to be done, just like all the other times they've had the same conversation that they've been dreading; customers are still disgruntled when they leave and likely bad-mouth the shop to their friends,
In short: the department store wins because they sold the bike at what the customer considers a fair price ("There's no such thing as a bike worth over $100!"), unlike those elitist, snobby bike stores. The bike shop, despite the mechanic having spent an inordinate amount of time all but rebuilding the bike to get it to where it's at least usable and safe, is the bad guy for not pro-rating the repair cost to an acceptable fraction of the bike's original selling price.
Likes For Trakhak:
01-24-23, 05:12 AM
#82
Senior Member
. . . . on page 145 which falls in this chapter, after several pages of information and graphs, it states that the loss of pedaler's energy to ALL the bearings in a bicycle, wheel, pedal and bottom-bracket, amount to less than one-percent.. . .
In the end the difference in speed would be too small to measure or register with any common equipment. On page 141 of this book it ends a lengthy second paragraph with;
"It appears reasonable, therefore, to refrain from including machinery losses in graphs of power usage for bicycle riding."
And on page 142 in another sentence we find; " hence, it appears reasonable to disregard the bearing restistance ."
In the end the difference in speed would be too small to measure or register with any common equipment. On page 141 of this book it ends a lengthy second paragraph with;
"It appears reasonable, therefore, to refrain from including machinery losses in graphs of power usage for bicycle riding."
And on page 142 in another sentence we find; " hence, it appears reasonable to disregard the bearing restistance ."
I'll paraphrase what you said above. "Yes, you are right. But here's how I'm going to justify refusing to admit I was wrong."
FWIW: you should find a different quotation to "support" your argument if you're going to use the "appeal to authority" rhetorical technique when attempting to rationalize away your error. I added emphasis above to highlight the fact that the author you cited (1) acknowledges that the frictional losses I referenced indeed exist, and (2) willfully chooses to ignore them (presumably because they're small - and I'm not sure I'd consider something approaching 1% "insignificant" and choose to ignore it), even though he knows they exist. Ignoring something because it's small and thus difficult to measure is very different than claiming it doesn't exist.
As I said previously: yes, the difference will be very small; axle bearing friction typically doesn't consume much power at all. But even a tiny difference in top speed is NOT the same thing as "no difference". In your original comment, you claimed the latter ("no difference"), not the former.
Last edited by Hondo6; 01-24-23 at 05:55 AM.
Likes For Hondo6:
01-24-23, 05:34 AM
#83
Standard Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,268
Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1297 Post(s)
Liked 940 Times
in
490 Posts
There were pockets around the country where bike racing was still alive---Chicago definitely (lots of Schwinn Paramounts being raced on velodromes), California definitely (same), maybe here and there elsewhere. The Century Road Club of America was (I believe) based in New York City; the Chesapeake Wheelmen (Baltimore) was the oldest club in the country, although it was dormant for a couple of decades before it was revived (in the late '60s, I think).
The oldest bike shop in my home town of New Haven must have had a Yale racing club that competed with Harvard guys. When I became interested in bike racing in 1963 at age 12, the shop carried Raleigh, Atala, Legnano, Frejus, and Schwinn Paramounts. And Peugeot PX-10s, too. I believe those sold for around $120 versus $135 or so for the Atalas, a bit more for the other Italian bikes, and (shudder!) $175 for the Paramount. Raleigh, of course, had no comparable high-end model at the time.
The oldest bike shop in my home town of New Haven must have had a Yale racing club that competed with Harvard guys. When I became interested in bike racing in 1963 at age 12, the shop carried Raleigh, Atala, Legnano, Frejus, and Schwinn Paramounts. And Peugeot PX-10s, too. I believe those sold for around $120 versus $135 or so for the Atalas, a bit more for the other Italian bikes, and (shudder!) $175 for the Paramount. Raleigh, of course, had no comparable high-end model at the time.
__________________
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
01-24-23, 05:40 AM
#84
Senior Member
A heavier bike will also have more rolling resistance in the tires.
Because the bearings and tires have more rolling resistance, I would think the chain of the heavier bike would also have slightly more resistance.
That said, I don’t really care. I’ll still ride a gas pipe bike.
Those molded aluminum lugs are really cool, like electroforge welding, but different. Neat idea for mass production.
Because the bearings and tires have more rolling resistance, I would think the chain of the heavier bike would also have slightly more resistance.
That said, I don’t really care. I’ll still ride a gas pipe bike.
Those molded aluminum lugs are really cool, like electroforge welding, but different. Neat idea for mass production.
Pretty sure you're correct about the tire rolling resistance vs. weight issue. I didn't address that earlier because (1) good data relating rolling resistance of tires vs weight is harder to find, and (2) addressing it wasn't necessary to prove my point. The same is also very likely true for the chain as well - more weight to propel would certainly lead one to believe that the chain would experience higher load and thus more friction as well. Didn't address that for the same reason.
In practice, there would almost certainly be far more differences affecting the drivetrains. An early/mid 1970s lower end bike would also be very likely to have lower quality bearings (wheels, bottom bracket, pedals) vs. a higher-end bike of the same era. It would also likely have far cheaper tires capable of running at lower maximum pressures - both of which would increase the tire rolling resistance in the lower end bike when compared to the higher end bike when ridden on smooth, level pavement.
This last likely difference (e.g., different tires and tire pressures between low-end and high-end bikes) would almost certainly NOT be insignificant. Today, a simple change in tires (from, say, Gatorskins to high end Conti clinchers) can produce a substantial savings in rolling resistance (on the order of 5 to 10 watts per tire, if I recall correctly) at the same inflation pressure. I suspect much the same was true for tires in the 1970s as well.
I generally run Gatorskins or other highly puncture-resistant tires on my bikes. I accept the power consumption due to increased rolling resistance (and thus lower top and average speeds) because I'm not racing anybody - and I absolutely hate changing flats roadside. Plus, I don't want the hassles associated with going tubeless. Others may choose a different approach.
Last edited by Hondo6; 01-24-23 at 08:29 AM. Reason: Clarification.
01-24-23, 10:49 AM
#85
Live not by lies.
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,306
Bikes: BigBox bikes.
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 784 Times
in
582 Posts
Ride whatever suits you. Whether it suits anyone else is irrelevant.
Pretty sure you're correct about the tire rolling resistance vs. weight issue. I didn't address that earlier because (1) good data relating rolling resistance of tires vs weight is harder to find, and (2) addressing it wasn't necessary to prove my point. The same is also very likely true for the chain as well - more weight to propel would certainly lead one to believe that the chain would experience higher load and thus more friction as well. Didn't address that for the same reason.
In practice, there would almost certainly be far more differences affecting the drivetrains. An early/mid 1970s lower end bike would also be very likely to have lower quality bearings (wheels, bottom bracket, pedals) vs. a higher-end bike of the same era. It would also likely have far cheaper tires capable of running at lower maximum pressures - both of which would increase the tire rolling resistance in the lower end bike when compared to the higher end bike when ridden on smooth, level pavement.
This last likely difference (e.g., different tires and tire pressures between low-end and high-end bikes) would almost certainly NOT be insignificant. Today, a simple change in tires (from, say, Gatorskins to high end Conti clinchers) can produce a substantial savings in rolling resistance (on the order of 5 to 10 watts per tire, if I recall correctly) at the same inflation pressure. I suspect much the same was true for tires in the 1970s as well.
I generally run Gatorskins or other highly puncture-resistant tires on my bikes. I accept the power consumption due to increased rolling resistance (and thus lower top and average speeds) because I'm not racing anybody - and I absolutely hate changing flats roadside. Plus, I don't want the hassles associated with going tubeless. Others may choose a different approach.
Pretty sure you're correct about the tire rolling resistance vs. weight issue. I didn't address that earlier because (1) good data relating rolling resistance of tires vs weight is harder to find, and (2) addressing it wasn't necessary to prove my point. The same is also very likely true for the chain as well - more weight to propel would certainly lead one to believe that the chain would experience higher load and thus more friction as well. Didn't address that for the same reason.
In practice, there would almost certainly be far more differences affecting the drivetrains. An early/mid 1970s lower end bike would also be very likely to have lower quality bearings (wheels, bottom bracket, pedals) vs. a higher-end bike of the same era. It would also likely have far cheaper tires capable of running at lower maximum pressures - both of which would increase the tire rolling resistance in the lower end bike when compared to the higher end bike when ridden on smooth, level pavement.
This last likely difference (e.g., different tires and tire pressures between low-end and high-end bikes) would almost certainly NOT be insignificant. Today, a simple change in tires (from, say, Gatorskins to high end Conti clinchers) can produce a substantial savings in rolling resistance (on the order of 5 to 10 watts per tire, if I recall correctly) at the same inflation pressure. I suspect much the same was true for tires in the 1970s as well.
I generally run Gatorskins or other highly puncture-resistant tires on my bikes. I accept the power consumption due to increased rolling resistance (and thus lower top and average speeds) because I'm not racing anybody - and I absolutely hate changing flats roadside. Plus, I don't want the hassles associated with going tubeless. Others may choose a different approach.
Yes, I still remember the difference in weight and rolling resistance. It just felt dead.
01-24-23, 11:21 AM
#86
Senior Member
I wrote "tire rolling resistance vs. weight" above. That's a bit ambiguous. What I meant and should have written was "tire rolling resistance vs. weight supported (AKA load)".
But if I understand you correctly here, the point you are making is also IMO generally correct. In addition to having greater rolling resistance at the same inflation pressure, lower-end tires also tend to be heavier than equivalent higher-end tires of the same size and manufacturer.
So it's a "double-whammy": more load leads to more rolling resistance, PLUS the lower-end tire is both heavier and has higher intrinsic rolling resistance than a higher-end counterpart.
Likes For Hondo6:
01-24-23, 12:16 PM
#87
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: 700 Ft. above sea level.
Posts: 3,249
Bikes: More than there were awhile ago.
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 637 Post(s)
Liked 1,279 Times
in
608 Posts
__________________
".....distasteful and easily triggered."
".....distasteful and easily triggered."
Likes For Murray Missile:
01-24-23, 12:41 PM
#88
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,193
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1565 Post(s)
Liked 1,295 Times
in
865 Posts
I've been riding a relatively-modern (~2007?) Department store Schwinn Hybrid of late, which I have been evaluating for it's not-that-bad lack of performance.
I agree tires are a really big deal, and even the modest (and much-fatter) tires I installed on this bike's super-narrow "aero" rims actually give the bike decent pedaling ease and usefulness.
The bike's cheap bearings seem totally fine, no tight or dry bearings on this bike!
The generous chainstay length of this presumably-stiff aluminum frame definitely affects the feel while pedaling off of the saddle, the added length seeming to generate enough lateral leverage to push the front end around, flexing the floppy suspension fork (with it's skinny stanchions, and with lowers fabricated from thin, welded steel sheet). The fork does have nice aluminum dropout castings press-fitted into the sheet-steel lowers, which keeps things from being too floppy at the front axle. The long chainstays also hinder rear tire traction off road.
My conclusions from riding this Costco-sourced <$300 bike is that it's not bad for gentler riding, and that the Hutchinson Python 29x2.1" tires (pumped to 30psi) are a real highlight to both rolling smoothness and speed.
Also, that since I removed the rear rack/trunk, the bike feels much more lively (though noticeably at the expense of climbing traction).
Sorry for the off-topic nature of this beast, it was $40 at Goodwill and I liked the look of the frame and fork with the gusseted head tube!
It's perfectly sized for me, so I put a good bit of work into the bike, especially tensioning the weathered wheels, and rebuilding the fork.
I agree tires are a really big deal, and even the modest (and much-fatter) tires I installed on this bike's super-narrow "aero" rims actually give the bike decent pedaling ease and usefulness.
The bike's cheap bearings seem totally fine, no tight or dry bearings on this bike!
The generous chainstay length of this presumably-stiff aluminum frame definitely affects the feel while pedaling off of the saddle, the added length seeming to generate enough lateral leverage to push the front end around, flexing the floppy suspension fork (with it's skinny stanchions, and with lowers fabricated from thin, welded steel sheet). The fork does have nice aluminum dropout castings press-fitted into the sheet-steel lowers, which keeps things from being too floppy at the front axle. The long chainstays also hinder rear tire traction off road.
My conclusions from riding this Costco-sourced <$300 bike is that it's not bad for gentler riding, and that the Hutchinson Python 29x2.1" tires (pumped to 30psi) are a real highlight to both rolling smoothness and speed.
Also, that since I removed the rear rack/trunk, the bike feels much more lively (though noticeably at the expense of climbing traction).
Sorry for the off-topic nature of this beast, it was $40 at Goodwill and I liked the look of the frame and fork with the gusseted head tube!
It's perfectly sized for me, so I put a good bit of work into the bike, especially tensioning the weathered wheels, and rebuilding the fork.
01-24-23, 01:42 PM
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
dddd's post (no. 88) is relevant in this "gas pipe" thread despite the pictured bike being aluminum. I have a low-end aluminum Chinese road bike (drop bars, skinny rims and tires, Shimano 16-speed drive train with 52-42 cranks and a 13-to-25 freewheel) tucked away in the basement that I bought in a pawn shop. Red, white, and blue U.S. flag color scheme.
The bike is labeled "AMC Patriot." Stunningly heavy. Must be the cheapest aluminum tubing that can be used for welding. I believe it was sold in Toys'r'Us stores, briefly.
Wow. Can't find a single mention or picture of the bike via variously worded Google searches. Rare!
The bike is labeled "AMC Patriot." Stunningly heavy. Must be the cheapest aluminum tubing that can be used for welding. I believe it was sold in Toys'r'Us stores, briefly.
Wow. Can't find a single mention or picture of the bike via variously worded Google searches. Rare!
01-24-23, 01:54 PM
#90
Standard Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,268
Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1297 Post(s)
Liked 940 Times
in
490 Posts
During the early 1960s, the US tariff rate on imported bicycles was 30%. Dunno when that changed, but it dropped to11% and stayed there for quite a before 2019's selective increases.
I suspect that may have had something to do with suppressing both knowledge of and sales of better bikes from overseas, as well as US production of same. After all: if very few people know that a substantially better product is available overseas, who's going to demand local sources produce one equally as good? And if no one demands it, who's going to produce one? And who's going to buy the few imports available if they seem outrageously pricey?
Another damping factor I perceive was the US auto culture post-World War II. Cars were considered "cool"; bikes were for "kids". IMO that mindset didn't really start to change in the general US population until the mid/late 1960s, and then only among younger folks ("boomers") who now were getting jobs and able to afford to buy stuff. I believe it was Berto who postulated this as a primary driver of the early 1970s "bike boom" - and I think he nailed it there.
The only parts I think Berto missed was the effect of GI's rotating through Cold War US bases in Europe, and the mid/late 1960s environmental movements. Some GIs stationed in Europe were exposed to good European/UK bikes and brought knowledge of same home (and in some cased, the bikes too). But IMO it took a number of years of that until the US general population started to realize that (1) bikes weren't necessarily just for kids, and (2) high-end European bikes were much better than most locally-produced ones. The environmental movement added to that in the mid/late 1960s IMO.
I suspect that may have had something to do with suppressing both knowledge of and sales of better bikes from overseas, as well as US production of same. After all: if very few people know that a substantially better product is available overseas, who's going to demand local sources produce one equally as good? And if no one demands it, who's going to produce one? And who's going to buy the few imports available if they seem outrageously pricey?
Another damping factor I perceive was the US auto culture post-World War II. Cars were considered "cool"; bikes were for "kids". IMO that mindset didn't really start to change in the general US population until the mid/late 1960s, and then only among younger folks ("boomers") who now were getting jobs and able to afford to buy stuff. I believe it was Berto who postulated this as a primary driver of the early 1970s "bike boom" - and I think he nailed it there.
The only parts I think Berto missed was the effect of GI's rotating through Cold War US bases in Europe, and the mid/late 1960s environmental movements. Some GIs stationed in Europe were exposed to good European/UK bikes and brought knowledge of same home (and in some cased, the bikes too). But IMO it took a number of years of that until the US general population started to realize that (1) bikes weren't necessarily just for kids, and (2) high-end European bikes were much better than most locally-produced ones. The environmental movement added to that in the mid/late 1960s IMO.
__________________
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
01-24-23, 02:20 PM
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
Syd Bruskin had opened the shop in 1938 and must have picked up racing bikes at some time thanks to requests from Yalie racers. Maybe pretty early on. When I worked for him in the mid-1970s, he mentioned that he'd just thrown out several dozen wooden rims for tubular tires.
Or maybe there was an even longer history of such bikes in New Haven. From a quick search:
---"Bicycle: The History," by historian and freelance writer David V. Herlihy, recounts how in 1866 French mechanic Pierre Lallement, who had settled in Ansonia, Connecticut, filed the first published specification of a true bicycle featuring cranks and rotary pedals for propulsion. Hence, as the home of the first bicycle patent, New Haven has the distinction of being considered the bike's birthplace. A brass plaque on the upper New Haven Green commemorates the date.
Likes For Trakhak:
01-24-23, 02:31 PM
#92
Señor Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hardy, VA
Posts: 17,923
Bikes: Mostly English - predominantly Raleighs
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1491 Post(s)
Liked 1,090 Times
in
638 Posts
This is sorta gas-pipe... 4130 qualify? Giant Iguana with marshmallow tires.
__________________
In search of what to search for.
In search of what to search for.
Likes For USAZorro:
01-24-23, 03:05 PM
#93
Senior Member
dddd's post (no. 88) is relevant in this "gas pipe" thread despite the pictured bike being aluminum. I have a low-end aluminum Chinese road bike (drop bars, skinny rims and tires, Shimano 16-speed drive train with 52-42 cranks and a 13-to-25 freewheel) tucked away in the basement that I bought in a pawn shop. Red, white, and blue U.S. flag color scheme.
The bike is labeled "AMC Patriot." Stunningly heavy. Must be the cheapest aluminum tubing that can be used for welding. I believe it was sold in Toys'r'Us stores, briefly.
Wow. Can't find a single mention or picture of the bike via variously worded Google searches. Rare!
The bike is labeled "AMC Patriot." Stunningly heavy. Must be the cheapest aluminum tubing that can be used for welding. I believe it was sold in Toys'r'Us stores, briefly.
Wow. Can't find a single mention or picture of the bike via variously worded Google searches. Rare!
There's one on "OfferUp" now (Arlington VA). Similar item listed on "5miles" (Butler NJ) and "ShoppOK" (Chippewa Falls, WI).
They're all listed as "AMX Patriot".
01-24-23, 03:10 PM
#94
Senior Member
Doesn't really surprise me. I don't even think I ever saw one in person until I was in either HS or college. In most of America, my guess is that drop bar bikes were rare indeed prior to the early 1970s "bike boom".
Last edited by Hondo6; 01-24-23 at 03:15 PM.
Likes For Hondo6:
01-24-23, 03:25 PM
#95
Senior Member
01-24-23, 03:55 PM
#96
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked 348 Times
in
195 Posts
Hey, you're the one who brought up "physics and engineering" (in the process of making an unjustified gratuitous insult to another commenter) and implied that they backed your claims. I simply used basic physics and engineering principles to show you were wrong. Doesn't matter whether you were wrong by just a whisker or by a mile - you were still wrong.
There is no measurable difference in the speed on a flat between one bicycle and another carrying an extra ten pounds of steel or rider.
01-24-23, 04:23 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,371
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
01-24-23, 05:17 PM
#98
Standard Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,268
Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1297 Post(s)
Liked 940 Times
in
490 Posts
I had never seen one, until I looked in the Revell model catalogue. I think it was '69 or '70. They used to have a model of a ten-speed bike and it had something I had never heard of before: "derailleur gears". What will they think of next?
__________________
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
01-24-23, 05:24 PM
#99
Standard Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,268
Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1297 Post(s)
Liked 940 Times
in
490 Posts
Interesting. New Haven must have been an outlier, with the New Haven Bicycle Center carrying three brands of Columbus-tubing Italian racing bikes in stock, plus Peugeots, up to and including the PX-10.
Syd Bruskin had opened the shop in 1938 and must have picked up racing bikes at some time thanks to requests from Yalie racers. Maybe pretty early on. When I worked for him in the mid-1970s, he mentioned that he'd just thrown out several dozen wooden rims for tubular tires.
Or maybe there was an even longer history of such bikes in New Haven. From a quick search:
---"Bicycle: The History," by historian and freelance writer David V. Herlihy, recounts how in 1866 French mechanic Pierre Lallement, who had settled in Ansonia, Connecticut, filed the first published specification of a true bicycle featuring cranks and rotary pedals for propulsion. Hence, as the home of the first bicycle patent, New Haven has the distinction of being considered the bike's birthplace. A brass plaque on the upper New Haven Green commemorates the date.
Syd Bruskin had opened the shop in 1938 and must have picked up racing bikes at some time thanks to requests from Yalie racers. Maybe pretty early on. When I worked for him in the mid-1970s, he mentioned that he'd just thrown out several dozen wooden rims for tubular tires.
Or maybe there was an even longer history of such bikes in New Haven. From a quick search:
---"Bicycle: The History," by historian and freelance writer David V. Herlihy, recounts how in 1866 French mechanic Pierre Lallement, who had settled in Ansonia, Connecticut, filed the first published specification of a true bicycle featuring cranks and rotary pedals for propulsion. Hence, as the home of the first bicycle patent, New Haven has the distinction of being considered the bike's birthplace. A brass plaque on the upper New Haven Green commemorates the date.
__________________
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
Unless you climb the rungs strategically, you’re not going to build the muscle you need to stay at the top.
01-24-23, 05:32 PM
#100
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked 348 Times
in
195 Posts
A heavy Schwinn ten-speed someone put out for trash. I grabbed it and got it rideable and gave it to my wife's cousin who wanted to try riding a road bike again, and who had a Schwinn ten-speed back in the 70s. Like most bicycles, it was too small for me........ I just love the paint color on this bike though, like candy emerald green over a gold base.
Likes For beng1: