Recently on Cyclingnews.com |
 Bayern Rundfahrt Photo ©: Schaaf |
Tech letters for November 5, 2002
Edited by John Stevenson
Confounded by carbon fiber? Need to sound off about superlight stuff? Tech letters is the forum for your gear-related questions and opinions.
Send your emails to Cyclingnews' tech desk
American Classic 350 wheels
Computers
Weight distribution
Chain scrapes on a Quantum
Shimano BB compatibility
Crank length
Creaking Mavic Ksyriums
MTB Downhill brakes
New Bike choices
Once bar tape
Pedals
Rapid Rise
Rear clusters
Shimano XTR
Sloping frames
Washing waterproof garments
Top-pull for 'Cross
American Classic 350 wheels #1
From David Jones, USA
I bought a set of Campagnolo-splined 350s and they are unreal. Since I weigh in at 131lb with clothes I have NO problem with flex using the 28-radial set up, but I used the standard 3X lace with DT Revolutions and Competitions in the rear.
American Classic 350 wheels #2
From Steve Oldani
Simply awesome. Been on a set built by Mike Garcia of www.oddsandendos.com. 569g front, 754g rear. 28-hole both ends, laced radially front with 14/17's and 2x rear non-drive with 14/17's and 3x drive side with 14/15's. Light, strong, and trouble-free. Much lighter than the "M" brand's wheels at far less money. Can't beat 'em!
Computers
From Peter Eva
I have an all Campy road bike and I am thinking that it is time for a computer for the thing. I saw one review on the site for the Cateye 1.0. Any suggestions out there for what you like and don't like in computers?
I like Cateye for their reliability, though I noticed this morning that the OS 1.0 you mention is starting to complain of a low battery, which is slightly surprising after less than a year. I've also been happy with Avocet. I haven't used either the Campagnolo or Shimano computers that hook into their various gear systems though people who have them seem to like them. - JS
Weight distribution
From John Seiller, Ketchum, Idaho, USA
I saw a reader comment re. fore - aft rider weight distribution as it pertains to fit and handling. I'm sure some of this is individual bike and size related and I know it depends on whether it's road, mountain, etc., but for a typical road bike, what is the approximate percentage of the bike and rider weight that should be on the front wheel and the rear for optimal handling. Is it 50/50? Is that possible? It seems like most would be over the back. Would the ideal distribution be different for men and women?
I seem to recall reading years ago that road bikes were typically designed to be 45/55 front/rear, but I can't find anything recent on the subject. How about a Cyclingnews survey to help waste an hour of a dark autumn evening? Get two sets of bathroom scales (borrow your neighbour's) and set your bike up with a wheel on each scales. Sit on the bike in as normal a riding position as possible, have someone note the readings, then swap the scales round and repeat the measurements. Average the front wheel numbers and rear wheel numbers and work out the percentages. Let us know what you find! - JS
Chain scrapes on a Quantum
From Wolfgang Hofmann, Germany
I ride a Klein Quantum Pro, 2001 w/ Campagnolo Chorus 10speed and Campagnolo Proton. When using 53/13 the chain scratches the frame. Can the problem be solved with a 53/12 ? Or is there a better solution?
Shimano BB compatibility
From Thomas Krause
Is there any problem with upgrading a Ultegra bottom bracket with a new Dura Ace bottom bracket as long as they are the same size?
The spline pattern is identical, and according to Shimano's compatibility charts an Ultegra FC-6500 crankset will fit on a Dura-Ace BB-7700 bottom bracket. - JS
Crank length #1
From James Whitesides
In response to Richard Rule's letter, the idea that a shorter crank is great for heart rate and joint health is important, there is something else to consider. I have been diagnosed with tendonitis and patelofemoral syndrome where the tendons in the knee have started to pull my kneecap across the top of the femur. The only thing that I have pinpointed so far has been the fact that a year ago I thought that I should drop to a 170 road crank from my 172.5. this allowed me to spin at a higher rate, 95-100 average, but it also caused my muscle in my leg to develop with an emphasis on tone rather than stability. In other words my quads tightened but my ligaments and tendons became loose and swollen causing my current problem.
The lack of an adequate measuring system for cranks besides feel needs to be addressed, ride what you are comfortable with may not work much longer. I was comfortable for about a month then my injury caught up to me. I am now back to my 172.5s and spinning a slightly lower average.
Consider the effects that a higher spin will have on your knees. A more gradual approach might be better than a quick drop to a shorter length. Most MTBers ride a larger crank anyway because it is more of a power form of cycling. Be wary of spinning in a high range without proper build up and strengthening.
Crank length #2
From Jeremy Trask
In order to get an idea of your current "normal" cadence you could try the following simple method.
1) Pick a stretch of road/trail along which you can pedal at a constant speed that you find comfortable (let's say your "normal" speed and pedaling rate) and note your speed and gear. If you don't have a bike speedo you could do it with a friend that has or time yourself between two points a known distance apart.
2) With the bike in the gear you were using determine how far the bike moves forward for one pedal revolution.
3) (Working in meters as it's easier - but you can adapt for imperial) Multiply your speed in km/h by 1000 and divide by 60 to determine how many meters you travel in 1 minute. Divide the result by the distance your bike moved for 1 pedal rev to get you pedaling rpm, or cadence.
For example, if you were traveling at 24km/h and you bike moved 4m for every pedal rev then your cadence would be ((24 x 1000)/60)/4 = 100 rpm
Once you know what your "comfortable" cadence feels like you can assess how it changes with gears/terrain and decide whether and when you want to change gear to keep "spinning".
As far as crank length being related to rpm, strictly speaking there is no relationship. If you are traveling at a given speed in a given gear the cranks will be rotating at the same angular velocity whatever their length. Of course, in the real world, you have to put in energy by way of force to maintain that speed and a longer lever (crank) means a greater mechanical advantage and hence less applied force for the same effect. However, at high pedal rpm I would think that the advantage of a 180mm crank over a 175mm crank would be minimal - it's when accelerating that the longer crank has some advantage because much greater force is being applied and hence the mechanical advantage has more impact.
To me, one of the issues with crank length is keeping the range of joint movement in a range which offers the best efficiency and advantage without stressing the joints. If you have long legs but you use cranks that are too short the joints will move through a limited range and hence the muscles will not act efficiently. On the other hand if you have short legs but use cranks that are too long the joints will flex excessively and the muscles will be taken outside of their efficient range (either too stretched or too cramped).
Of course there are many factors that come into play, such as the type of cycling you are doing, the frame, you overall position, the pedals and shoes you wear, etc. You might be advised to find a shop that has the jigs to take your body measurements and produce you a bike design for the type of cycling you want to do.
You can then assess your current bike setup against this and perhaps make some adjustments to see if you feel any benefits. Having done that you can consider whether longer cranks might be an option to go for.
Crank length #3
From Brian Davis, USA
I'm 6'4" with a 36" inseam. I ride 180mm cranks on my suspended mountain bike and my road bike. After three years on longer cranks (approximately 20k miles) you could not pry my 180's away from me. I'm not a very powerful rider from an acceleration or top speed standpoint, rather more of an endurance/climber type. I can keep up, and even beat, stronger riders (on long rides, climbs especially) with the advantage of leverage that the longer cranks offer. I've read a lot about shorter cranks allowing you to spin faster but I greatly prefer the leverage that a longer arm offers (especially on the climbs). I still ride 175's on my beater (mountain and road) bikes but as they begin to drop off they will be replaced with bikes with long cranks. You can still spin with long cranks and don't worry about peddling in 'squares'. That's more a function of your technique than it is mechanics. If you do not have a smooth 'spin' already, try unclipping and using one leg to power around. This technique allows your body to 'learn' how to operate the crank, it's also a great work out. I would not be bothering you with all this if I did not believe in the gospel of leverage.
Crank length #4
From Chris Bailey
I've read a lot of varying articles on crank length, but here's my own experience in terms of 180's on mountain bikes...
I'm 6'2" tall as well. I've been riding and racing mountain bikes for over 10 years (I don't race anymore though), and first started using 181mm cranks in I think 1990 or 1991 with some Cooks cranks, on a Klein Rascal. I climbed quite well with this setup, and continued to used 180mm cranks until just this year.
I liked 180's enough that I also ran them on my road bike.
Anyway, this year I bought a DH bike which had 175 XTRs on it. After riding that a bit (I actually ride it uphill a fair bit - to get to the downhills during the winter) I felt like I really preferred the quicker and shorter feel of the 175s and went to Race Face Next LP ISIS 175mm cranks on my XC/trail bike (I think I wasted my money and would go with XT's next time, or the new XTRs now that they're doing compact). I'm very happy I did. I feel like, at least these days, I can pedal that much more easily, efficiently, and with a little less strain.
The 180s will give you great leverage, but they also hit he ground/rocks that much more easily as well. So, after more than 10 years on 180s, I'm now on 175's and loving it, wishing I'd changed sooner. It may very well have changed with my riding style/trails/habits, but the 175s just plain feel better these days.
Crank length #5
From Robert Helton
Do you spin going up a steep hill? A hill that you would consider longer cranks for? greater leverage is better. How heavy are you? Use that weight to an advantage standing on longer cranks. I have done both. It is easy to spin and go slow on the climb, Then you have plenty of energy after the race to ride around the podium while the top three get medals and dollars.
Crank length #6
From Brent Hooper, Canada
I might be able to provide some insight into the whole crank length thing….
I am 6'5" with an inseam of about 35.5" inches and I have used both 175mm cranks and 180mm cranks. I currently use 175mm on all my bikes (road, XC, DH, commuter) and have absolutely no plan on changing to anything else ever… I used to have 180 XTR cranks on my XC bike and changed them to 175mm after spending time on a road bike with 175mm cranks. I felt much smoother and more comfortable on the 175mm. I suffered no pain in any of my joints (not that wasn't there before J ) but I started getting a little pain in my knee after riding the XC bike with 180mm cranks, but not after riding the road bike with 175mm cranks. I learned to pedal higher cadence with 175mm cranks then I could with 180mm cranks and I don't lack any power. This was a few years ago that I did this so my memory of it all might be a bit fuzzy but is was while I was doing a fair bit of XC racing and a little bit of road racing and I continued to get faster on the bikes (probably because of a lot of other stuff too) and I became much smoother on all my bikes. In comparison when I just had the XC bike with 180mm cranks I turned much lower cadence and was not nearly as smooth on a bike. Now I am much smoother, stronger climber and I don't use my upper body as much to try to force the pedals around and my back does not hurt like it did before. Basically I would say stay with 175mm cranks and work on increasing your cadence and keeping your body smooth.
One more thing… 180mm cranks hit more rocks then 175mm cranks!
Creaking Mavic Ksyriums #1
From Rory McAdams
I have one solution to this mess. Mine were giving me Hell then I talked to a Mavic support tech. He told me to remove the cap from the axle itself - this cap should pop off from the hub since it is placed in the axle with a rubber "O" ring.
Now that you have it out, put a little lube around the "O" ring area then put it back on the wheel axle...
Problem solved!
Hope this helps... a lot of other people around the Dallas, Texas area have had this problem as well. But after my suggestion their problem disappears.
BTW, love the site and have been a follower for since the creation ("Bill's Page")
Creaking Mavic Ksyriums #2
From James Whitesides
One thing that you left off the list, that I feel should be on there, is a failing spoke. I had about four miles of creaking and then I blew three drive side spokes on the rear. The spokes have to be tensioned correctly and in the correct direction on the wheel or this will happen. I have no idea what exactly happened, but I think that the spokes may have loosened half way through the race. I didn't crash, but I have one ruined Ksyrium.
Creaking Mavic Ksyriums #3
From Josef Stoltz, Australia
I've just come off a mechanicing position on the HS Tour. I had some trouble with a Ksyrium.
One of our riders had a problem with the free-wheel body transiently failing to engage. I spoke to another couple of the mechanics and it seems another common problem with them is this tight free-wheel body.
I firstly tried fully greasing the whole thing on the inside, that worked for while, but I was later convinced to lube up the ceramic ring at the base of the freewheel, this had better results.
I was surprised to hear the problem was so widespread with our beloved Ksyriums.
Creaking Mavic Ksyriums #4
From Ryan
I would strongly disagree with the option of tightening the skewer as tight as possible if it is a Mavic skewer. Those are high-ratio closure skewers and overtightening them can cause the lever to fall off because the pin that holds it on falls out. Just a warning.
MTB Downhill brakes #1
From Andy Birko
If you look more carefully, you'll see that it's only heavy-(ish) road bikes that use the double disc setup. All Motocross & Trail Bikes all use the single disc setup. Even small displacement Road Racing bikes such as the 125cc machines use a single disc setup to avoid the weight penalty. It would make more sense to put a bigger disc and more powerful caliper on DH machines rather than switching to a dual disc setup. DH machines simply aren't heavy enough to require dual discs.
MTB Downhill brakes #2
From Sam Alison, Czech Republic
Firstly, motorbikes generally only use two rotors on the front wheel, due to the fact that is where the braking power is needed, and that the drivetrain has to go somewhere.
Secondly, yes, this has been tried on bicycles before. I recall very early on in the days of disc brakes there was a system around that used dual rotors mounted either side of the front wheel. Dave Cullinan emerges from the haze of my memory as the promoter of this product, but I can't for the life of me remember it's manufacturer, most likely some 'boutique' US deal.
The other notable application of twin rotors on bicycles was a prototype I saw of the Shimano XT disc brake (not long after the original release) that had two rotors right next two each other with an extra pad in between (if you can't picture this think Big Mac with the buns as pads and the meat as rotors). I never saw or heard anything further of this so I assume it wasn't deemed suitable for production.
My guess as to why this hasn't been exploited further is that with the quality of disc brakes currently available, and the (relatively) low speeds reached by bicycles, braking is rarely a limiting factor.
MTB Downhill brakes #3
From Paul Spencer
Motorcycle brake systems do not have two discs for each wheel. Road-going motorbikes typically have two discs up front (where 90% of the braking force is generated), and one disc in the rear. Off-road motorbikes still only have one disc front and one in the rear. (The complexities of putting a brake disc on the same side of the wheel as the chain and cassette would be an entertaining engineering challenge).
There is no extra "stability" gained here; motorcycle fork designers discovered years ago that a stiff front fork is essential to handling as well as braking, and that balanced discs are not necessary. Some bikes are built with one front disc, but with two calipers, often with four or six pistons each - all of that force on one side, with no discernable difference to stability.
There is no extra reliability either - there is only one single master cylinder for the front wheel, no matter how many brake calipers it drives. A fluid leak will still leave that wheel without brakes. Dual master cylinders, such as in automobiles, are not in use in the motorbike (or bicycle) world.
This idea would not be applicable to downhill racing for several reasons. First of all, current braking systems are more than adequate; they provide more braking force than the traction available. Dual front discs on road-going motorcycles are there to take advantage of the extremely high traction available with a modern sticky slick tyre and good tarmac; an excess of front braking force on a knobby tyre rolling down a rocky dirt hill isn't necessarily a good thing.
There are certainly big downsides to dual front discs as well. Weight would be one major factor; even though downhill bikes weigh 40 pounds, the lighter ones of the bunch are more competitive than the heavier. The other would be reliability - the discs do stick out, and will hit rocks and roots, and can be easily bent or broken. (Just ask Anne-Caroline about her run at Mount Snow last year).
MTB Downhill brakes #4
From Brant Richards
A brand "Cullinan" in the UK was to make dual disc brakes for the front (only the front of course, only a mad man would attempt to work out how to fit dual discs on the back). The design was then developed by Middleburn, but it all seems to have slowed down.
Couple of problems off the top of my (sober) head.
1) I guess, without an increase in fork width, wheel strength could well be
an issue with the space required at each side of the fork.
2) Weight - downhill riders are becoming weight conscious like the rest of us.
So dual discs aren't as attractive.
3) Torsional loading. I wonder if the balance between the two brake discs could
cause torsional issues in the front hub shell, meaning that would have to be
beefed up too? You know, if one disc is pulling harder than the other. I guess
the forces would be somewhat balanced out by having a single hydraulic circuit
supplying both brakes, but disc condition must be affected.
4) Motocross bikes only have one disc, not two.
5) have you ridden a 205mm 4 pot disc brake? I can't even imagine what twice
that power is like.
6) Modulation is best achieved on large diameter discs, so you wouldn't want
to go smaller.
7) Disc brakes - well, heck - they're never going to catch on anyway :-)
To deal with point 3), I think the limiting factor would be tyre adhesion, as it is for single-sided designs, and the hub shell would not need to be any beefier than currently necessary. Is there a Real Engineer in the house?
New Bike choices #1
From Jim Sharrock, UK
I'm always amazed when the phrase 'improve the ride' is used with reference to carbon forks, rear triangle or whatever. I very much doubt anybody that has been blind-folded would know the difference. As regards weight, there may be a difference but, in my opinion it will not improve your ride.
I have a Foco frameset that's solidly built and will last me for years. End of story.
New Bike choices #2
From Chris Streight, Portland, Oregon
Let me first say that no frame material will make up for a poor fit. You must find a reputable person that can fit you to a bike. There is nothing more important than fit. Personally I can't stand aluminum as a frame material. It has a short life, harsh ride, dents easily, poor handling characteristics, and just plain stinks as far as I'm concerned.
I have limited experience with carbon fiber, and therefore remain neutral. Others that have opinions that I trust have stated that ride quality with carbon fiber is closer to aluminum than steel or titanium. I do love my carbon forks.
I am still a lover of steel. The new steels are extremely light, and you will be hard pressed to find a nicer riding bike. The same goes for titanium, it has a beautiful ride when it is done right. If you are going to spring the $$ for titanium I highly recommend looking at Merlin. Their workmanship and ride quality are unbelievable. I personally have never ridden a bike that I like more than Merlin.
If I had to rank the four materials it would be:
A+ Titanium
A Steel
B+ Carbon Fiber
F Aluminum
New Bike choices #3
From Charles White
First lets start with the carbon rear triangle. It is more or less a gimmick at this point. While taking some high end road vibrations away, the end results is typically a heavier rear triangle with no outstanding benefit.
Steel Frames. If you are buying a heavy steel frame bike then you have the wrong steel. Today's steel gives the comforting ride of old with the light weight of newer Aluminum and Titanium. One thing to consider on any purchase is to make sure that the bottom bracket is stiff. The power transfer that you get from a stiff bottom bracket is worth its weight in gold.
Aluminum Frames. Cannondale set the mark in aluminum and now the others follow. If you test ride aluminum frames you will find that some are not really lively. The K2, in my opinion, is a bike with flashy materials and poor design. The harsh ride associated with aluminum can be compensated by several things. Carbon or Ti seat post, suspension saddle (ex. Max Flite), wider tires (23c), a carbon fork, etc. Remember that Aluminum carries road vibration a bit more, but the advantages must be great or the bicycle manufactures wouldn't be churning out as many aluminum bikes as they have in recent years.
Carbon Frames. Look and Trek have set the standard here. Carbon can be as gentle as a pillow or as harsh as a brick. High end road vibrations is almost no existent, but you can still end up with a harsh ride. Again a stiff bottom bracket is key, but you must ride to really see the difference. As with aluminum a stiff carbon frame can be soften.
Titanium Frames. Until the past few years these bikes were mushy and heavy. There is nothing like watching your bottom bracket sway beneath you as you pedal. However, things have begun to change. Again look for a stiff bottom bracket. The comfort will be that of steel and in some cases even better. Litespeed has set the trend, however not the standard. It took the Lotto cycling team to open there eyes. To me the company that set the standard is Seven Bicycles. This company also does some interesting carbon/Ti and carbon/steel mixes. With titanium there are several choices, but the latest approach is double butting the tubing and at some point they will even triple butt. All this butting sounds familiar (steel).
What to look for in a bicycle.
1. Stiff bottom bracket.
2. Geometry. Pay attention to the top tube length. It is just as important as
the seat tube. Traditional or Compact. I like traditional for comfort and typically
lower overall bicycle weight.
3. The most for your money.
4. Components. Try to get Campy Record or Shimano Dura-Ace, they're well worth
the money.
My bicycle suggestions:
Steel: Cervelo
Aluminum: Cannondale
Carbon: Look
Titanium: Litespeed
New Bike choices #4
From Patrick Charles, Melbourne, Australia
Although the Ultrafoco gives a very comfortable ride, it is an extremely thin material; looks like aluminium foil when it breaks! Hence it is probably not a great choice if you want this bike to last a long time. If you are happy to replace it in a few years, go for it.
The choice of the materials you mentioned is fairly arbitrary. You will find more comfort from good tyres and wheels, a good seat and seat post, good nicks, and carbon front forks. The difference between materials is very minor. What is more important is good design. A well designed aluminium frame will be more comfortable than a poorly designed carbon or titanium one.
ONCE bar tape
From Don Marcopulos, Virginia
The bar tape may be Bike Ribbon Grip tape manufactured in Italy by la spirale. At first glance it looks just like cork but it's a foam product that grips much better when wet. According to the la spirale website, AG2R has used it before. It costs around 9 Euros in Italy and from $9 to $13 U.S. here. It cleans up much easier than cork, too.
Pedals #1
From Harry Pugh
I've been biking (40 - 70 mile hilly rides) and running marathons for years. I have been using Speedplay (stainless to titanium) and Sidi Genius 4 shoes. I have never had any knee twinges, the pedals are extremely comfortable and I don't seem to lose any power. It took me all of about 10 minutes to get used to free versus fixed float.
Pedals #2
From Steven Marks, New York City
I had problems, years ago when clipless pedals first came out. Having no float, setup was very exacting. So I switched to Speedplays. Now, with float available in most pedals, I feel the problem has been alleviated. I have used Looks, Campy and Shimano pedals with six degrees of float without problem. If that is not enough float, then the solution might be in fixing the problem with your pedaling stroke. Anyone want to buy some Speedplays?
Rapid Rise #1
From Chris Echelmeier, Boulder, CO
Matt Dambrov couldn't have explained it better as to why Rapid Rise doesn't make sense. The crucial shifts are to lower gears, and I don't want to have to rely on spring tension to make them. I'd rather rely on my shifting technique. Let the spring do the easy work: from big cogs to smaller cogs, from high rpm to lower rpm.
That's why I've been using SRAM for the last couple of years. I got the new XO derailleur in June and it is easier to set up, and quicker shifting, especially under load, than XTR.
Rapid Rise #2
From Jim Morgan, USA
Ignorance is bliss. Those who don't like Rapid Rise have never used Rapid Rise. Yeah it takes a little while to get used to. I've had it on my bikes since its introduction and it never misses a downshift, never. If you passed a buddy of yours on a climb it isn't because of his rear derailleur. Not everything Shimano develops is done with conspiracy in mind. Try Rapid Rise it you'll love it.
Rear clusters
From Steven Marks, New York City
To me the 13/29 is the best use of the 10-speed setup, making it unnecessary to go to a triple.
I use the big gears in the early season to protect my knees before switching to an 11/23.
I will also pull it out occasionally for a long hilly ride or if I have been off the bike for a while.
Shimano XTR
From David McCorkle
Can you use a non rapid rise XTR rear derailleur with the new shifters? Can you use a XT rotor with the new XTR disc calipers?
I haven't tried either combination, but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't work.
Sloping frames #1
From Markus Graf, Austria
About 4 weeks ago, I bought a ScottUSA Team Issue which is also a sloping frame. I like it very much, because it's easier to handle in the descents. The slope is not as extreme as by Giant, but it also looks better. I've heard that Giant frames are not so stiff because of their extreme slope design.
Sloping frames #2
From Barry Rothwell Taylor, Benidorm, Spain
The question of slope or not is mostly academic , there are theoretical advantages to the compact design of Giant ,less weight and less flex of the rear triangle for example .Does it work ? well ONCE seem to have done quite well with it, but in the end it's always the buyers choice , and that depends more on prejudice than fact.
One point though , the one size fits all design will make it a lot easier to sell when the next fashion comes along (ie 50g lighter) and it does make the life of the small dealer very much easier, trying to keep the right stock can be a genuine nightmare.
On a personal note, I've had sloping and non sloping frames and the build quality (but not price, you can pay an awful lot for a name) seems to make more difference than the design philosophy.
Sloping frames #3
From Derek Witts
Steve Smith points out his bendy carbon seat post somehow makes up for a "brutal" Scandium frame.
I've ridden behind a guy with a similar setup and watched the seatpost flex more than an inch each way, from side to side, at each pedal stroke. How can that be efficient? All good engineering needs a balance of design and material selection to address the design brief. Selecting compromise components to compensate for the limitations of other components looks like fashion following to me. I ride a steel Colnago Master.
Sloping frames #4
From James Whitesides
The one thing than many people don't consider is the fact that a bike with a sloping top tube has about 8-10 extra cm of seat post sticking out of it. In my experiences all bikes that have a tall seat post feel very flexible. The geometry on a "classic" frame is much more suitable for most riders and is much more efficient on courses with fewer climbs or sprints. I will say that a compact frame is much faster on a long climb. The BB wastes much less energy and I feel that I can climb faster with the little weight savings I get. One thing to consider about a bike with smaller triangles is the fact that there is less material in the seat tube and seat stays effectively making the bike's CG lower. This may mean that the "stiffness" people feel in the frame may be more of a sensation of less weight transfer than anything. Just an idea.
Sloping frames #5
From Jake Dufresne
Sloping frames can give you more performance, and so can a trike if you have the right engine. Oh well. I cannot speak for everyone, but the sloping top tubes are here to stay. A slipping seatpost is probably user error, as I work in a shop and have never had that problem once it is tightened appropriately. This question of materials, and geometries will be played out endlessly past the lifetimes of you and I. If I win a race, I probably could have done it on a "standard" frame just as well. As I am sure would be the same for anyone else. The mind is the most powerful tool one can have for riding. Not a frame and its parts.
Washing waterproof garments #1
From Jeremy Trask
For what it's worth, I've been machine washing Assos clothing for about a year using Assos brand cleaner at a 30 degree wash, gentle cycle, extra rinse, low spin speed and don't seem to have had any problems. I think the important points are: never ever use fabric conditioner; don't tumble dry (even cool); hang stuff out as soon as the wash has finished.
I've also washed some Gore-Tex waterproofs in the same manner (these don't get washed as frequently) without any apparent loss of functionality.
The Assos brand cleaner is the best value I've come across for frequent washing.
Washing waterproof garments #2
From William Armstrong
For years I have washed with no problems Gore-Tex and other equivalent waterproof garments in a washing machine using a gentle cycle and powder detergent, as opposed to a liquid detergent. I suggest air drying these types of garments as opposed to putting them in the dryer and washing them as seldom as possible, maybe only once or twice a year depending on use. Eventually the waterproofing will degrade, but usually by then the garment will be ready for replacement for other reasons.
Washing waterproof garments #3
From Karl Etzel
I use Nikwax's Tech wash on my Gore-Tex mountaineering jacket and on my waterproof cycling gear. I have not had any troubles. Note that most of the waterproof clothing actually has a water repellent coating on it, and it can be replenished with products from several companies. You will eventually have to replenish it no matter how you wash it. I have not tried it but have heard good things about Revivex which comes in a squirt bottle. I have also used Nikwax's coating with success. Even clothes with truly waterproof materials (like a Gore-Tex membrane) will have this repellent coating on them. Be sure to secure any Velcro closures they can do more damage than anything.
Washing waterproof garments #4
From Charles Manantan
Your Water proof clothing will be so due to either a fabric membrane or a coating. Be careful you know what you have, as one is much easier to wash out that the other. Conversely there are products that actually wash "IN" the waterproofing, and they are available at REI or other good outdoor shops. Note though that you can't wash in a membrane... Also with regard to membranes, the ones that are sandwiched between two other layers are very durable, where as some only have an outer layer and the inside can get damaged. A lot of damage occurs in the Dryer for either Fabric.
Woolite liquid on a gentle cycle is very safe, and hanging it dry is always the best way. Woolite also makes a colorguard light wash, and since Cyclists stuff isn't usually on the "neutral" color end, this is nice...
Washing waterproof garments #5
From Peter Williams
We have a Fisher & Paykel washing machine. I wash all my cycling gear, including my expensive Assos waterproof, on the gentle cycle. Sometimes I spin them fast to dry them at the end of the cycle. My knicks last a lot longer than my other team members. The main deteriorating factor for all cycling gear is drying on the clothes-line in the sun.
Washing waterproof garments #6
From Sarah Potter, Australia
I machine wash my waterproof rain jacket about twice a year, and then iron it to restore the waterproof qualities (as advised by Mountain Design). The manufacturer also advised that a product called "gore-revital" would also restore the garment if I did lose complete waterproofing.
Washing waterproof garments #7
From Dave Hunter
You could put this fabric in the gentle wash cycle of your new machine - It should not harm it if it is gentle. One thing to remember to do, no matter how you wash your jacket, is to double rinse the garment. In a washing machine, they recommend putting the garment through another wash cycle with no detergent! The breathability is dependent on removing any trace of soap from the fabric.
Washing waterproof garments #8
From Dayton
Have worked in a Backpacking store for many year, I can say you will be surprised the way you can wash garments like these.
The best thing, to follow the manufacturers instructions. But, a Gore-Tex shell garment can be washed in a washing machine and machine dried. Which some companies actually recommend machine drying the garment, but with only low heat settings. You do not want it hot enough to melt anything. As for washing, I would a soap that rinses easily.
There is another aspect to a waterproof garment that many do not realize. And,
that is that the fabric is actually layered like plywood. The outside layer
being the shell fabric with the waterproof/breathable laminate on the inside
of that. But the outer shell also has a repellency treatment on it as well.
Similar to the nice car wax you would but on your car (but this treatment does
not restrict the breathability of the fabric). This is why the garment will
bead water when you first buy it. If you wash the garment, machine drying can
help renew this treatment better than hang drying. Also, over time this repellency
treatment will need to be reapplied, and this depends on usage, number of times
washed, etc.
Respond
to this letter
Top-pull for 'Cross
From Mark Jenkins [Original letter]
Thanks for all the responses - I did decide to use the N-Gear jump stop with a single chainring and a Spot chainguard. With an XT cassette, it gives plenty of gear range for cross, and I have had no problem losing the chain.
For post-season road riding, the advice about the XT or XTR derailleurs sounds great.
Recent techTour tech: Zipp's slippery
new wheel revealed |
