Re: Extensive article on Rivendell and Grant Petersen

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:24:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 9/23/2024 2:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:35:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
>

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
>
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
>
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological
simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as
opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
>
YMMV of course.
>

What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)

>
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
>

I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to
the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road
tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the
occasional cobblestone thrown in!

>
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
>

>
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
>
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.

Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
>
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
>
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.

>
>
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's
just you saying it.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, I’d suggest that as with
adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which
was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than
been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has
changed.
>
Roger Merriman

>
I think the road cycling professional teams get whatever they want...
and apparently, they want disk brakes. Were I an average road cyclist,
I'd choose what the pros choose. From what I've seen, the average road
cyclists are not content unless their steaming.. They can't do what
the pros do, but they're doing the best they can to match them. I saw
an awful lot of 20/25/even 30 MPH guys Yesterday.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
More complex than that.  Pros certainly do sometimes run
non-Team gear (famous examples of not-Team frames with Team
graphics) but the sponsors get an even stronger vote; Pros
ride what the sponsor needs to sell, mostly.

 Perhaps, but the teams also want to win.
--
C'est bon
Soloman