Re: Riding through the years.

On 1/6/2025 8:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Catrike Rider <soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 6 Jan 2025 10:27:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/5/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/4/2025 6:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

I ride almost 4 times a week and until recently with a fair sized group.
Now there are about 6 of us that ride together on and off. But a lot
of my
riding now is solo. This largely because the group is aging and losing
the
ability to do the rides that I still do. Saturday rides are easy rides
but
on the way out to the coffee stop, they ride harder than I care to, and
then on the return trips they are riding a lot slower having burned
themselve out.
>
Perhaps one of them is capable of doing my North Palomares route but
if he
did he would drop me like a stone since he is 20 years younger than me.
And he would freeze to death at the top waiting for me. So the group id
sging out from under me. Or too young snd too fast to ride at my speed.

>
Four degrees at dawn today. I skipped; too damned cold.

>
Warmer than that today, but still too cold for me. I took a walk in the
forest preserve instead.
>
I saw someone had ridden a bike through there, based on tracks in the
packed-down snow on one gravel roadway. His tires weren't wider than 32mm.
>
It got me thinking about the old puzzle of trying to determine the
direction a bike was going from its tracks. It's not easy! I could tell
the front tire track from the rear because the front track has a sharper
radius of curvature. But which direction? (Arthur Conan Doyle got this
puzzle wrong in one Sherlock story.)
>
I'm pretty sure I was able to work it out eventually, but from extra
information. The tracks were straight on one short steep hill, which
seemed to be a clue that he descended it instead of climbing it. (In
addition to wobbling a bit on a climb, I think his rear tire might have
spun a bit climbing it.) I was also looking for an obstacle that he
would have swerved a bit to clear, which would have given another clue,
but didn't spot one.
>

>
Some MTB and gravel treads are directional so if the snow is crisp enough
to work out the tire pattern that is one potential clue.
>
Roger Merriman

>
As I understand it, the treads should be pointing opposite each other
on the front vs the back. Even road tires have directional tread, but
I once read a blurb from Schwhalbe where they admitted that the
direction of the tread on their road tires was only for looks.
>

Some tyres yes did be directional depending on front or rear, though
doesn’t seem many if any at moment, I think perhaps combo of being
confusing and being designed for two different uses?
 The Front tyres on my MTB and Gravel bikes are directional and only one
way, the rears are unidirectional.
 The tread on the Big Apples are apparently directional but are cosmetic!
Does I guess show wear rate and how old tyre is, they don’t tend to wear
out but get cut up and become puncture prone eventually.
 Roger Merriman
 

I read an article in Velo news a very long time ago when mountain biking was first becoming big on MTB tread design. The article basically said the only things that matter with MTB tire design are the size and spacing of the lugs. Direction of the tread doesn't really matter. One specific thing I remember from the article was an engineer they interviewed from Specialized who said tread pattern is overrated at best. The quote I remember was "we could make a tire that leaves your name in the tire print and it would be as good as any tire on the market".
The only caveat there is that was when tires were rarely outside 1.95 to 2.35". Bikes back then weren't being built to handle any more than that. These days, I've noticed more of a difference in width than anything, which is why I'm running 2.8R/3.0F on my FS.
--
Add xx to reply