Re: Suspension losses

Am Tue, 14 Jan 2025 11:51:17 -0500 schrieb Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net>:

Wolfgang Strobl <news51@mystrobl.de> writes:
>

Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>

On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
 

On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>

To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device
and _see_ what's wrong....

>

That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.

>
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.

>
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working,
its lifetime is over! Throw it out!

 
That's far too simplistic.
 
It depends.  For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles.  But there are limits. Want
it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
 
 

>
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw
it away."

 
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many
complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime.  Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change.  There are technical limits. So far, I haven't
heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40
years, as you ask for.  To be precise, I don't know of any that I would
like to use or that I would risk using.

>
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.

>
That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable".  If you are lucky, all consumable items
are consumed at the same time.  So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-)  Given that declaring
something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.
>
>

I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.

>
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally
durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
>

>
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work
perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one
time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did
not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted
decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.

>
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore? 
>
I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.
>
Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I
am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.
>
How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what
conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a
display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal
conditions doesn't prove the opposite.  That is not an argument against
repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not
talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.

...

As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being
an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson
drawing:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568

>
Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me.  I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become
comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.

>
Exactly.  It's easy to forget just how complicated and difficult to
manufacture "kleenex" components are:  Bowden cables, bearing balls,
tires, chains ...

Indeed, that's part of the point I'm making: many modern products are an
aggregation of larger components that are repairable only in theory, but
not in practice. While most bicycles still are better repairable than
other products, they still fit this description.  Most of the time, you
just are replacing defective complex components by new ones.

>
There was a fellow in this group that reported on his attempt to do some
small-scale tire manufacturing; it was quite a project.  Imagine trying
to build a serviceable derailleur chain with common tools.

Rohloff, the company that builds and sells the Rohloff SPEEDHUB
(<https://www.rohloff.de/en/products/speedhub>) was founded by the
founder with this machine, for the production of bicycle chains.

-> <https://www.rohloff.de/en/company/rohloff-ag/s-l-t-99/>


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions