Recently on Cyclingnews.com |
 Mont Ventoux Photo ©: Sirotti |
Tech letters for March 4, 2003
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
Rim failure
Frame for a big rider
Avid brake
Chamois cream
Integrated headset durability
Crank length and knee angle
Measuring Q-factor
Relative frame sizes
Rotor Cranks
Chrono-Systeme hub
650C vs 700C wheels
Carbon rear stays and Scandium Frames
Dedaccai EM2 vs U2 tubing
Crank length
Cross brake set-up
Flight Deck bracket
Lance pedals
Pedal/shoe position
Speedplay Zero vs SPD SL
Crank lengths - Murray adjustable
Time Impact pedals
Tyre wear
Wheels
Wippermann ten speed chain
Rim failure
|
How to achieve this :-)
1) Ride in the rain & not replace your brakes
2) Keep doing this until you hear a nasty metallic scraping sound
3) Inflate your tyre to 120psi
4) Somewhere around 110, stand back as the rim will split and the tube will
explode.
5) Find somewhere to relax and soothe your ringing head !
David Cowie
UK
Thursday, February 20 2003
The classic technique to avoid this embarrassing and potentially dangerous mishap is to regularly inflate your tyres to twice their usual operating pressure (or about twice the manufacturer's maximum rated pressure). This will crack a weakened rim, and may cost you an inner tube, but tubes are cheaper than faces.
Frame for a big rider
I want to change my Columbus-EL OS-steel frame. I am 37 yrs-old, 6'4" and 210-212 lbs, and in quite a good shape. (Don't need to tell me; if I had known I was going to get this big I would've taken football when I was a teenager but hey, I love cycling). I hear all kinds of things around frame material and size for big rider. Here's my questions ? Where can I find valuable information for selecting material and frame dimensions that are appropriate for me? I need an equivalent 61cm top tube and I already have a 135-mm stem. What do you think of the Litespeed Ultimate in the larger standard size (63 cm)? Stiff enough? Would carbon be better?
Pierre Champagne
Canada
Monday, March 3 2003
Avid brake
A question about the new Avid brakes. Does the knob merely change the distance of the pads from the rotor to adjust lever travel, or is the adjustment of lever travel independent of pad distance? If it's the former, this adjustment would seem to be similar to that offered on the Hope brakes, this is how it appears from the photo.
Sam Alison
Czech Republic
Monday, March 3 2003
It's our understanding, from reading Avid's literature, that the adjustment of the Juicy Seven lever is independent of the pad/rotor adjustment.
Chamois cream
I have a nagging question for you not on bike tech but on accessory (clothing) tech. We all ride and for most, ride a hell of a long way. As a result we all wear knicks, right. Well my question to the floor is, is it advisable to use a chamois cream, and if so why? If there is a reason on why then which one is highly recommended?
Luke
Australia
Thursday, February 27 2003
Integrated headset durability
I'm going to be buying a new road bike at the end of the year, but spending all year riding in Scotland (in the rain, sleet, salty roads etc.) I'm still very wary of integrated headsets. I have no intention of having to buy another frame in a couple of years because the head tube has corroded around the bearings. Now that they've been around a couple of years, does anyone have any good info on how robust and well sealed integrated headsets really are?
Colin Scotland
Friday, February 21 2003
Crank length and knee angle
There has been much discussion regarding the 'correct' crank arm length for a given height/leg length. The combination of leg length, seat height and crank length all result in a knee joint angle at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke.
Has there been testing done to determine optimum angles for greatest pedaling efficiency?
TLM
Thursday, February 27 2003
Measuring Q-factor
Does anybody know how to measure your natural, individual Q-factor. I know everybody has a different hip width. How do I measure this? I'm trying to figure out the best way to apply this measurement to the bike and my cleat position.
Zach Zimmerman
USA
Monday, February 24 2003
Relative frame sizes
I have a question about the influence of frame size on handling and performance. For any set of distances between three major bike contact points (butt/saddle, hands/hoods, and feet/pedals/bottom bracket), it seems more than one frame size can fit those points comfortably with 1-3 cm differences in seatpost show/stemlength. As a tall rider with a long torso, a couple of different adjustable bike fit set-ups have suggested a 62 x 62 frame with an 11 cm stem. Is there any way to predict in general terms how that bike would handle differently than something like a 60 x 60-ish cm frame in terms of non-crit road racing and riding? Either could be made to fit my contact points without radical seatpost or stem lengths, but neither geometry is stock, and both would be very different from my current ride. I know that geometry and tube materials, etc will play roles, but any thoughts or rules of thumb would be appreciated.
Rolf Windh
Wednesday, February 19 2003
Rotor Cranks
I really enjoyed Ben Larsen's review a few months back of the Rotor Cranks system. I'm passing comments on my own experience with Rotors thus far, and hope others will as well.
First, a few caveats.
* It is winter here in the USA's "mid-Atlantic" region (and what a winter it's been!). I received and mounted my Rotor cranks on Dec 21st, and (due to the weather) all my experience thus far with them has been indoor training, with my TT-bike mounted on a Cateye CS-1000 trainer. But, as so few riders are yet using this system, I thought it might be worthwhile to provide feedback based on two months of indoor use.
* My sole intended/desired application for the cranks -- and thus, my entire calculus for their utility -- is time trialing. In fact, its even narrower than that -- it's short (10k to 40k) TT's on relatively flat, out-and-back courses. So if you primarily ride crits or climb mountains, even the little experience I have with them may not be relevant to your interests.
* One final disclosure: on flat TT's, I am a big gear "masher", and I use long (180 mm) cranks. For those who are high rev spinners, the adjustment to the feel of the Rotors will no doubt take more getting used to than it did for someone with my approach.
On the other hand, I do have quite a few years' worth of structured winter indoor training data against which to compare this winter's experience with the Rotors. It's therefore apples-to-apples ("ceterus paribus") info. that I can impart here. I.E., same frame, trainer, rear wheel and tire -- and because it's indoor performance I'm assessing, weather, temperature and wind are definitely not factors in the mix.
Now the good news... For me, the Rotors have thus far yielded impressive benefits. If it ever stops snowing here, I hope to validate all this on the road relatively soon (my first season TT is April 5).
Objective data
The performance gains I've noticed for maximum efforts of 1km, 4km, and 40km, respectively, are on a par with those you recount in the "Testing" section of your own review.
Leave aside the fact that the CS-1000 trainer's readouts are clearly quite a bit exaggerated (or else I'm an as-yet-undiscovered combination of Arnaud Tournant and Kent Bostick!), and use the following for comparative purposes only. All times "flying starts":
Best time 1995-2002 Best time winter 2002-2003
180mm DuraAce cranks 180mm Rotor cranks
1km 62.1 secs 58.0 secs 6.6%
4km 4:34.3 4:21.2 4.8%
40km 49:45 48:46 2.0%
Subjective data
The immediate effect I noticed -- aside from getting more 'result' from a given amount of sustained effort -- was that the location of post-maximal-effort soreness shifted, particularly in by upper and outer quadriceps.
It wasn't more painful -- just a slightly different locus. If you've ever done heavy squat work in the weight room, I would compare the sensation to that you might get from altering the position and width of your feet, or doing your squats with you heels on a slightly raised platform. A natural byproduct of stressing a different (and no doubt more powerful) muscle area, I would think.
Summary
Again, this feedback is necessarily preliminary -- if it ever stops snowing here, I hope to validate all this on the road shortly (first season TT is April 5).
But I have done nearly 50 workouts using the Rotors, and frankly am very impressed with what I've experienced. I don't think my overall fitness level at this point in the calendar is any different from what it's been in past years -- so if I'm getting more output "bang for the buck" from the Rotors indoors, that ought to lead to palpable gains on the road as well.
Thanks for your very helpful review. I'll keep you posted.
best regards,
Richard Burkholder
Stockton NJ USA
(New Jersey state individual TT champion, masters age group: 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002)
Wednesday, February 26 2003
Chrono-Systeme hub
The Cinelli Bivalent hub, circa 1960's I believe, was the precursor to this design. The selling point then was you left the chain on the cassette while removing the wheel. You could also swap wheels without having to supply a new cluster with the wheel. Actually it doesn't seem to be too bad a concept.
Scott Grimshaw
Friday, February 28 2003
Quite a few people pointed out that this wasn't a new idea, which is why we carefully didn't use the word 'new' when we mentioned it - thanks for jogging our memory as to where we'd seen it before. Looks like a neutral support nightmare though, as another letter-writer pointed out.
650C vs 700C wheels #1
Just an FYI to the problem of flats and 650 tubes, in a pinch you can use a 700 tube just fold the excess rubber over.
Aldaco
Tuesday, February 18 2003
650C vs 700C wheels #2
Ah, Alex Moulton - a great engineer in anyone's books. Actually had the honour of meeting the guy once when at school and if I remember rightly part of the benefit of the smaller wheels was that the tyres could be pumped up to much higher pressures (we're talking over 200psi if I remember correctly) which then resulted in lower rolling resistance - and several speed records can't be wrong. Of course this was in the seventies and was years ahead of the 650 vs 700 debate. The was Alex tells the story is that his bikes were pretty revolutionary at the time (small wheels + suspension) and Raleigh, then a big manufacturer in the UK who felt a bit threatened by Moulton, released a small wheel shopping bike with small wheels, low pressure fat tyres and no suspension. Of course it rode like a dog and as a result small wheels fell largely out of favour. Some things never change...
Peter Kirkham
Wednesday, February 19 2003
Carbon rear stays and Scandium Frames
This reply is directed to Lindsay Norval of European Cycle Imports in regard to his comments about the addition of carbon seat stays in bike frames and in particular in Scandium based aluminium frames. Firstly I feel reasonably well qualified to make a response to his comments as we have built close to 1000 frames over the past 3 1/2 years using Easton's Sc7000 tubing.
Firstly bike frames are not built from Scandium but rather the element Scandium is added in small quantities as a grain refiner enabling higher tensile strength materials to be drawn into thinner walled tubes eg the thinnest wall thickness of an Easton Sc7000 MTB top tube is only .8mm. Easton were the first to produce frame tubing using Scandium as a grain refiner but there are several other tube manufacturers who have reportedly developed their own eg Hodaka in Taiwan and Dedacciai's U2 tubing. A second important fact is that Easton up until recently only made the 3 main tubes in Sc7000 (road and MTB) with chainstays only being added in the last 12 months. The seat stays, chainstays, head tube and BB shell have all been standard 7005 material with the chainstays and seat stays being available in Elite and Ultralite. Easton were conscious of the need to ensure that the Sc7000 tubing remained compatible with 7005 for ease of fabrication and developed their own welding filler rod for a stronger weld. The post artificial age cycle was also adjusted quite considerably to ensure full strength was regained after welding.
I have to admit that I am a little puzzled at Mr. Norval's comments about scandium based frames riding harshly as I have not received one comment in the past 3 1/2 years to support his view. In fact the opposite is true with many, many extremely satisfied customers (from amateurs to pro's) making the comment about how well the Sc7000 based frames ride and how it doesn't feel like aluminium. I would refer Mr. Norval to the following web site where Dan Empfield has actually compared extensively a frame built from Easton's UltraLite tubing with one built from Sc7000. Mr. Empfield actually sums up by commenting that he doesn't actually believe that Scandium has any thing to do with the ride factor but rather tubing diameters. He also makes the comment that "if his view on tube diameters holds any water, the Scandium tubes are going to be hard to beat for comfort".
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/scandium.html
A couple of further points of clarification maybe worthy of comment now:
1. Dedacciai's Sc61:10a aluminium tubeset is not Scandium based but is rather a alloy similar in composition to 7005
2. Easton have recently launched their 5th evolution of the Sc7000 tubing with the release of their Scandium based GX2 tubing taking on numerous profiled shapes etc.
Peter Teschner
www.teschnerbikes.com
Wednesday, February 26 2003
Carbon rear stays
Regarding the carbon rear stay, there are numerous disadvantages to this design.
Although it may seem to you that the carbon fiber will absorb road shock, when considering the number of places on your bicycle that will flex and absorb vibrations, it is actually extremely trivial. An entire carbon frame would definitely do well in terms of dampening, but just having the seat stays is much yields much less function. Remember that road shock travels perpendicular to the surface of the road. The seat stays will absorb about 36% of the net shock. Factor in the saddle flex, and the tires, the wheel spokes (you would be surprised at how much they take in), which all absorb shock vertically, and you'll see that the carbon fiber rear stays don't do that much.
Some may find the carbon stays elegant and attractive, and a product of cutting edge technology. You would be surprised to discover that the carbon is bonded to the metal using a typical JB weld. In the case of which, would be significantly weakened after a crash with sufficient impact. Imagine what would happen if the rear triangle were to separate from the main frame on a ride. Carbon fiber is extremely easy to damage too, it's not just the bond to the frame. With the eye it is difficult to tell whether or not the inside or the weave is damaged, and by the time the rider discovers it, the stays could have already delaminated on you. Although the bike won't fall into pieces (remember that the stays take less of your force than other tubes, such as the top and down tube), it is still sketchy business.
Lastly, the carbon weave presents no advantage in weight, and either maintains the same weight of it's precedent, or actually adds weight to the frame.
Nothing beats the ride of a good full steel frame, and even a full aluminum frame without the seatstays would be amazingly comfortable pending that you pick the right tires and wheels.
Sheen Yen
Fremont, CA
Friday, February 21 2003
Carbon rear stays
It's about time someone said something rational about the carbon stays. I completely agree. Carbon stays are more for creating a higher profit margin than a comfortable ride. Gluing/Bonding Stays is far cheaper and requires less skill than a highly trained welder performing his craft. I've found many aluminum frames just as comfortable or more than some carbon stayed frames. Cannondale is a good example. They are one of the few companies that have not sold out. This could be due to their having already purchased large quantities of aluminum and therefore do not want to make an additional investment or of course the Chapter 11 deal. Regardless companies do not usually embrace "new" technology for the customers benefit alone. While everyone pretty much accepts that carbon generally is more plush & stiff in the right places than many aluminum designs, the final piece will only be as good as it's design/fiber orientation and lay-up. The same can be said for any material. For the moment my opinion is to ignore the hype. And buy proven designs regardless of materials used.
C Parks
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Dedaccai EM2 vs U2 tubing
Can someone please compare/contrast Dedaccai EM2 and U2 tubing. I'm in the market for a new frame and I needed info on ride characteristics and weights of these tube sets.
Rene Decquir
Monday, March 3 2003
Crank length #1
With regard to crank length, I am a rider just over 6'6'' and have used everything from 170s to 180s. As you would be aware, the choice is all about leverage. There is a huge advantage to being able to use the longer cranks, but there is also a price to be paid. Obviously, with longer cranks your legs need to travel further, and this means that while you have more leverage and can therefore push larger gears, you actually need to spin faster than another person in a comparable gear. This can cause issues if you happen to spin out a gear. Likewise, there are cornering issues with larger cranks. For individual efforts such as time-trials or climbing solo, you cannot beat larger cranks, but for reaction time where you might want to spin quickly out of a corner or to react to an attack by spinning rather than stomping, then smaller cranks seem have an advantage. For this reason, I use 175s. Using 180s meant I was riding about 2 cogs smaller than others to spin at the same speed. This might mean the difference between a 14 and 12 cog. In wind or fast sections, this can make a difference, as you would appreciate.
As to the pros; Indurain, who was of similar height to yourself used 180s, and some larger riders use them for time trials, but not for road stages, ie Rik Verbrugghe. This seems to be the pattern that most follow. You will find that most riders your size do use 175 cranks, which are not significantly larger than anything else others use, and so, rarely cause problems of the type I have described. Be warned that it can take some time for your body to adapt to the new crank length, sometimes causing pain, and initially, a seeming drop in performance as the muscles adapt.
Matt Jones
Australia
Thursday, February 20 2003
Crank length #2
It depends what kind of rider you are. Marty Nothstein is your height and uses 170s. He needs them for mad acceleration and high cadence. Johan Museeuw is almost 6 feet and he uses 177.5s. He needs them for better leverage in his ability to grind big gears over the cobbles.
I'm more of an all rounder that likes to spin but can generate some power especially on short climbs so I use 175s. I'm 6 feet.
Zach Zimmerman
Bike Doctor/Cannondale Elite Cycling Team
Monday, February 24 2003
Cross brake set-up #1
Route a longer piece of brake housing over the top of your stem diagonally, so it goes down 4 or 8 o'clock from where it started, either at 10 or 2 o'clock.
This provides a gentler curve and cleaner route to the housing stop. Also try to use the housing stop with the most amount of drop you can.
I don't use top mounted brake levers, and concede that this may present a small amount of difficulty. But I think that this may still work for you.
Geoff Gunderson
Monday, February 17 2003
Cross brake set-up #2
In response to CJ's question about front brake cable routing, there are two common ways to go about it. First is to "S"-curl the housing next to the stem and have the cable stop (the part that mounts like a spacer) offset to one side slightly. It doesn't affect brake performance or adjustment. The second way is to use a "L" shaped ferrule that goes into the cable stop and easily clears the underside of the stem.
Both systems can be seen in pictures of cyclocross racers, especially smaller size frames. Try the pictures section of cyclocrossworld.com.
Patricia Moisan
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Cross brake set-up #3
Tektro make what they call a "mini V-brake" that works really well on a cross bike (models 917A and 917B). The arms of the brake are shorter; thus the amount of cable pull required is less than a standard V-brake and equal to the pull of road brake levers. Like all V-brakes, the cable is routed directly from the lever to the brake, so no guide is required.
The performance of these brakes is outstanding. They offer a great combination of power and control. Possibly the only knock against them is that they provide somewhat limited mud clearance compared to high- profile cantilever brakes (Empella, Spooky, etc.). The best part is price - less than $20 a wheel, including pads.
Denny Yunk
Milwaukee, WI
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Cross brake set-up #4
I had a similar problem on my cross bike. The solution I had was to use V-Brakes with a roller cam adapter to change the leverage ratio of a road lever. Lots of cross riders here in Vancouver use this set up.
My brakes are now more powerful than a typical cantilever, and the cable runs from the bar to the brake without attaching to the stem.
Rob Gill
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Cross brake set-up #5
I've had good luck routing my 'cross brakes under the stem using the noodle from a V-brake. The benefits include: you can modify the bend and trim as necessary.
Mike Shaw
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Cross brake set-up #6
Hi CJ,
I know what you mean, I have that piece of hardware on my cross bike. It's just a small aluminium hanger placed between a stem bolt. I got it along with my Ridley frame. Perhaps you can get it thru cyclocrossworld.com or any other Ridley dealer. Or you can make it yourself out of a rear cable stop. Cyclocrossworld.com at least offers one possible alternative: travel agents, look under brake sets. Another possible alternative is the cable stop Cannondale uses: it's mounted on the fork, right above the brakes, and it works perfectly. You can probably get that at any Cannondale dealer, and if you fork doesn't have a hole, it shouldn't be hard to drill one in it, as long as it's not carbon...
Eric Schulte
Netherlands
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Cross brake set-up #7
This is in response to CJ from Spain, concerning cross brake set-up. The "fancy hardware" is nothing more than a rear seat binder cable hanger, suspended from the lower faceplate bolt (assuming you are using an open-face stem). Just be sure that the hanger is thin enough to move freely in between the face plate and the stem body, or that the bolt doesn't bottom out on the hanger, which could possibly strip the stem bolt threads. A more common way to route front brake cables is to position the headset hanger just off center from the stem; That is, if looking down the head tube towards the front hub, the cable stop should be peeking out from either side of the stem. Route a new brake cable and sufficient housing so that the housing leaves the handlebar tape, routes OVER the stem extension, and drops to the straddle wire hanger. This might result in a slightly off-center brake, which can be remedied by adjusting the caliper spring tension.
Doug
Etats-Unis
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Cross brake set-up #8
To help with strange cable routings, an Avid Rollamajig works well sometimes.
David C. Brayton
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Cross brake set-up #9
 |
This problem is very easily rectified. I run a relatively small frame and hence I would normally suffer the same problem as you I.e. the cable binding. What you don't mention is what type of cable stop you are using on the front of the bike. I use a integrated AHead cable stop which works really well, the other solution is to use a cable stop that is attached to the fork crown.
The real trick to a smooth cable run is to run the front brake cable over the top of the bars and down to the cable hanger. This provides a really smooth run for the cable and negates any binding issues.
Peter Nichols
London
Wednesday, February 19 2003
Flight Deck bracket #1
Paul, what you need is this;
Shimano Flight Deck handlebar clamp for road and mountain wireless kits.
Comes in two sizes: 26.0 mm for normal bars or 31.8 mm for oversized handlebars.
CY-65-60 Wireless 26.0 Bar Clamp $9.88
CY-65-64 Wireless 31.8 Bar Clamp $9.88
http://www.branfordbike.com/computer/comp6.html
Flemming Stig Hansen
Denmark
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Flight Deck bracket #2
Take a look at Minoura Space Grip SG 1 or 2
David B. Dowling
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Flight Deck bracket #3
Paul, the pictures you see with the flight deck in front of the stem is the Dura-Ace model, which also has a wireless speed sensor. The head peice is universal, you will just need to get the Dura-Ace mounting kit w/ speed sensor. Good luck.
Jeremy McDaniel
cycles de ORO Bicycle Shop
Greensboro, NC USAWednesday, February 19 2003
Lance pedals #1
Got the pedals. Love 'em. Broke a cleat but Shimano was great about the replacement. I didn't pay anything near the "Lance Price" in your review. Looking forward to trying the fixed position red cleat, but understand they are not available yet.
Kevin J. Buckholtz
Thursday, February 20 2003
Lance pedals #2
I have recently purchased some (lance pedals). I find that they are a far better pedal than my previous pedals (Time MID 57's), the entry and exit on the pedals is so much cleaner and I find them to be more comfortable on a long ride than my previous pedals. The build quality is excellent and I am glad I invested in the pedals even with the high price of them. Overall very good pedals
Jasonwares
Thursday, February 27 2003
Pedal/shoe position #1
Regarding the shoe/cleat question, Jay Meuller wrote in part: "The gist of the website seemed to be that too far aft caused undue calf strain, while too far forward caused loss of effective downward thrust."
The comment "too far aft caused undue calf strain" is nonsensical. The further back on the shoe the cleat is, the shorter the pivot arm and the less strain on the calf muscle. If the cleat were moved directly under the pivot point of the heel there would be no strain on the calf whatsoever.
Of the three muscles involved in pushing (gluts, quadriceps, calf) the calf muscle is the weakest and force limiting. And, the calf really doesn't do much work but, rather, mainly supports the foot while the gluts and quads do the big motions. Correct me if I am wrong but champion weight lifters do not do dead lifts standing on the balls of their feet. The main problem in moving the cleat back is primarily one of safety, keeping the foot out of the way of the wheel when cornering. Moving the cleat towards the toe may have some benefit at very high pedal speeds (cadences).
Further, if one is a triathlete there are additional reasons to moving the cleat back. Moving it back reduces the forces on the calf during cycling, providing glycogen sparing for this muscle that is required for the run portion of the race.
Frank Day
PowerCranks
USA
Friday, February 21 2003
Pedal/shoe position #2
No formula but I would say you should first mark the center of the Time plate. The center can be found by clicking the shoe into the pedal and looking at the tiny arrow on the outside of the pedal. I'm assuming the Impact model has this same arrow mark as the other older model (which I ride). After making the corresponding mark on the plate, use a straight edge and a miniature leveler to line up the plate mark with the mark on your shoe that indicates the center of the ball of you foot. The straight edge should be perpendicular to the plane of the plate. Hope that works.
Zach Zimmerman
Bike Doctor/Cannondale Elite Cycling Team
Annapolis, MD
Monday, February 24 2003
Speedplay Zero vs SPD SL #1
Having used SPD-R, Time, Zero and now the SPD-SL I can say that at the end of the day you still need the fitness and strength to pedal all four systems. Those of you that think either system will give you a distinct advantage over the other is kidding themselves. Proper cleat set up, seat height etc. will make far more difference than the type of shoe or pedal.
In my experience I have found that:
SPD-R - great cleat never wears out; Time - the same and a great system; the ZERO has a BIG cleat, easy to get in and out off but very small pedal and found hot spots in long races; SPD-L - great float, cleat should last a little longer than Look, excellent platform, no hotspots and they are cheap (Ultegra).
I hope G Byrne has used both systems before she/he recommends one over the other!
Go spend your money on a new set of fast tyres, will make more difference and cheaper!
Paul Turner
Australia
Speedplay Zero vs SPD SL #2
I recently switched from Speedplay Zeros to the SPD SL system ("Lance" pedals). You will hear endless debate about this, most likely, so I will just relate my experience. I used Times for some time without any major problems. After they finally broke, I replaced them with a pair of the Zeros. About two weeks later I developed severe pain in the front of my patella. After several months of physical therapy with little results, I pulled off the Speedplays and replaced them with the SPD SLs. The pain subsided in about a week. I will acknowledge up front that this may not be causal, but that was my experience for what its worth. My own assessment is that the Speedplays do not provide a wide enough "platform" for people with wider feet. My tendency was to "curl" the outer part of my foot down since there is little foot support except for directly below the ball of the foot. If your feet are naturally bowed out a bit, I would worry about this.
As for the weight of each pedal issue, I wouldn't even consider it. On this point, I think the Speedplays are a gimmick, because the cleat system weighs in a about 50 grams per side, making their "functional" weight about the same as the Durace SPD SLs. The weight of the bike, of course, only matters when you are on it...
As a last FYI, Shimano recently recalled the first generation of SPD SL cleats that were shipped out. My bike store swapped mine out without a problem, but be sure you know what vintage your pedals are if yo go with the Shimanos.
Derek Darves
Saturday, February 15 2003
Speedplay Zero vs SPD SL #3
I am a big guy, (220 lb) who likes to sprint and have ridden the x pedals (stainless) for years and will never ride anything else. I came from Look pedals and did not notice any power loss. A second point. if Marty Norstien can ride them on his track bike. I don't think loss or power would be an issue.
Mark T. Oestreich
Atlanta
Thursday, February 27 2003
Crank lengths - Murray adjustable
All this talk of crank lengths reminds me of a South African manufacturer : Murray who makes adjustable carbon road cranks. Maybe somebody from that region has used them & can comment. The idea is not new , I remember the Shimano DX BMX cranks of the early 80's with eccentric pedal inserts which could be adjusted around a 1cm? I notice these South African cranks can be adjusted infinitely from 160-183mm. which as long as they stay in place could be an easy fix for riders with uneven leg lengths or for varying disciplines of the sport.
The link is: http://www.murraytourdeforce.co.za/cranks.htm
Steve
Prague
Wednesday, February 19 2003
Tyre wear
In his reply to an earlier letter of mine, Travis Hartman wrote:
"Russ Williams writes: "You should rotate your tires front to rear, if they are not specific to either end, every 1,000 miles or so..."
I used to do this myself until I read the following article by Sheldon Brown on his website: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-rotation.html. Keeping the good tire in front sounds wise to me... new one on the front, front one on the rear, and the worn out rear one into the pile of "wind-trainer" tires."
Travis, thanks for the heads-up on that article. However I will submit that Sheldon does not necessarily state that tire rotation is bad, but states that putting a tire in danger of blowing out on the front wheel is dangerous. I recommended rotating tires at 1,000 mile intervals which is a short enough length of time (every 3 to 4 weeks for me) to allow for slight wear before you start to seriously wear the rear tire to the point that it is thin enough to worry about it blowing out on a ride. Sheldon states that a blow out on the rear wheel is controllable, but one on the front wheel is less so. He is correct. However that is the meat of his argument. That putting a well worn tire on the front wheel puts you at a greater risk of an uncontrollable blow out. However in your cutting and pasting of my original reply to this subject you also cut out the most important aspect of my advice about tire rotation. That was that you should thoroughly inspect your tires for wear, cuts, and glass as well as burs and other deformities on your rims every time you rotate your tires. If a tire is in obvious disrepair, I would not put it on either wheel. I would only recommend rotating tires to someone who is knowledgeable about bicycle maintenance and someone who inspects their bike frequently enough to notice a potential problem before it is a real problem.
I also do not like the idea of junking a $50 tire every 6 weeks which is why I rotate them to get a better lifespan from the pair. And I would not put a tire that is in danger of blowing out on my front rim or the rear either. I would not even put a tire that worn in the "trainer pile" but instead send it straight outside to the recycle bin.
Again, I thank you for the heads-up on that article, and I am not trying to discredit what you or Sheldon say, however I believe what he is talking about is quite different than what I am talking about. The whole idea behind frequent rotation of your tires is so that they don't ever wear to the point you are worried they will blow out on a ride. If you rotate them frequently enough and inspect them when you do, they will hopefully never get to that state of disrepair.
I have used this system of tire rotation for the last 13 years with no problems. I have had some tires wear out prematurely, but that was caught when I went to swap them around. I have ridden between 15,000 and 19,000 miles every year for the last 13 years, and I still check my bike out before every single ride, and inflate my tires to the proper pressure every ride too. I would hate to be 60 miles from home and have a mechanical problem arise that I didn't foresee.
Russ Williams
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wheels #1
Damon, check out the Chris King website and their advice on radial lacing of a wheel. www.chrisking.com This is a cut and paste from their FAQ section about radial lacing...
"Does the hub warranty cover radial lacing?
answer: Not anymore. Too much additional load is placed on the weakest part of the hub (the flanges) and little is gained by radial lacing. It is not stronger than a 2X pattern and hardly lighter. Why do it? "
There are companies that do build hubs that can handle radial lacing, but I would advise you that unless a company specifically states that radial lacing is OK, then assume it is NOT, and don't do it.
American Classic hubs are designed with thicker hub flanges and will specifically handle a radial laced front wheel build. Check their info out at www.amclassic.com and you can read their advice on it. If you are set on radial lacing, use an American Classic Micro front hub. It's a whole lot lighter than the Record front hub too. Or if you get another Record hub, simply lace it 1 or 2 cross.
Most companies the use radial lacing tend to use special hub designs that eliminate the "J" bend of a spoke and it's pull on the flange. For example Mavic uses straight pull spokes for their radial lacing patterns. Cane Creek anchors their spokes with a Nylock nut inside the hub's body to eliminate (or at least fortify) that stress. But if you like the ride of a radial laced front wheel, you can use an American Classic hub, it was designed to be used that way.
Russ Williams
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wheels #2
Many years ago, I heard stories about the Campagnolo Record track hubs failing at the flanges and for this reason a lot of the sprinters used the old style Super Record track hubs, especially the tandems. Spend the money on a Chris King front hub. It is warranteed for 5 years, and they'll slot it for you for aero spokes. I have three fronts with them, all radial spoked: road, mtn bike and track. No problems for 3+ seasons.
Chris Echelmeier
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wheels #3
It's pretty common knowledge at my Local Bike Shop, that the new (post 1999) Campagnolo Record hubs are not the best things to spoke radially. The owner (ex-racer) used to build wheels that way for many customers, but now declines to do so, due to the sheer number of failures he's seen.
The previous design was much better at handling the stresses, but they still failed occasionally.
So yeah crossed-anything up front is a safe bet.
Mark Chen
Singapore
Wednesday, February 19 2003
Wheels #4
I am a 95kg 6'3" track rider and for the last 15 years I've used a pair of crossing three 28 hole wheels as my track league wheels. I had a pair of lightweight radial and half radial wheels that would go out of true every time I rode them. The only radial wheels that I have ever rode that were realiable were Shamals. With all other wheels I would get them built tangentally.
Rob Jefferies
London UK
Sunday, February 23 2003 11:22:24 EST
Wippermann ten speed chain #1
I use the stainless steel chain and it is better than the Campagnolo chain. It lasts at least 4 times longer. Someone told me it will last 10 times longer but I'm not sure if that's true.
The connect link is similar to SRAM's power link in that it requires no tools and is very easy, unlike Campagnolo's chain. The quality is also excellent.
Patricia Moisan
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #2
I ride a Whipperman chain, and I love it. But I didn't buy it initially as an alternative to the Campagnolo chain, but as a requirement to my wheels. I just recently switched from Dura-Ace to Record 10, and I have 3 nice high end wheelsets already built that are Shimano compatible. I bought a couple of American Classic Conversion cassettes and they say they are not compatible with the Campagnolo PermaLink Chain Pin. So instead of buying a Campagnolo Chain I had to buy the Whipperman instead. I am using the stainless chain, and it's real nice. The Connex link is easy to use and has held up great on the road. However the Campagnolo chain is lighter (if you care) and you can usually find it cheaper than the Whipperman chain by about $10 or so. An alternative I would like to try next is the Interloc Chain. I have heard good things about it from a friend who has the same Shimano Cassette Campagnolo Cog combo I have. If you are looking for a chain alternative to the Campagnolo because of the PermaLink, IRD (Interloc Racing Design) makes a replaceable link to use with the Campagnolo chain. It's just the link, not the whole chain, so if you have a Campagnolo chain and like to pull it apart to clean it easier, it may be worth looking into.
Russ Williams
Gainesville, FL
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #3
I have got a Wippperman on my main bike and used it last year for 3/4's of last season and also numerous training rides, this was used on a Record cassette, all I can say is that I have had no problems with it and would not hesitate to use one again if no Campagnolo chain was available. I have just upgraded to 10 on my training bike, this time with the Campagnolo chain, and to be honest have noticed no difference in performance, reliability between the 2 chains.
Ian Partridge
Birmingham, UK
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #4
I can give a very short answer to this question. Wippermann is better (shifts better), it is stronger (lasts longer) and they also have a higher maximum load (harder to break). Note that Wippermann is also coming out with a titanium 10 speed chain this year which is going to be at least 50g lighter than Campagnolo's normal 10 speed chain.
Thomas S. Villadsen
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #5
I've been using a Wippermann ten speed for a year, now. No problems. It is cheaper, and requires no special tools.
Harley Wayne
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #6
I've been using these chains for about eight months, and I find them to be of much finer construction than the Campagnolo ones. The outside of the links are machined to be almost flat which makes shifting amazingly smooth and quiet. Additionally, the removable link in the Wippermann is awesome.
David Jones
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #7
I have a 10 speed Daytona group set. I've had lots of trouble with the chain link . At 3000km the link went bang and I landed on the ground! I changed to a Wippermann chain and have managed 5200 km. The chains on the way out but I've had no problems with it. They are terrific for keeping clean.
C McDonald
Darwin, Australia
Wednesday, February 19 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #8
My experience was pretty bad. First of all, I never got it too shift quite right. I'm a professional bike shop mechanic, so I'm sure it was the chain, and not my inability to adjust gears. After a straight swap to a Campagnolo chain all my shifting problems disappeared. Foolishly, I decided to use the quick link on the Campagnolo chain. It broke in a sprint. I sat down on the asphalt at 40mph. After two weeks of not sitting down, sleeping on my stomach and peeling my clothes off of me, I will never use one again. I will never recommend one, and never sell one to a customer. If I ever see one on a customer's bike, I will offer to sell them a Campagnolo chain at cost just to get them to throw it away. I wouldn't use this chain on my worst enemy's garage door opener. I hope this helps you in your decision.
Eric Doswell
Tulsa, OK
Wednesday, February 26 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #9
After 3,000 km all is OK -shifts well, no signs of wear on the chain or cassette and the joining link is fantastic, provided that you fit it right side up. I had no problems with the Campagnolo chains except that it was not easy to find the link tool. I will be interested on see how it wears above 5,000km.
I read with interest that the new SRAM Hollow Pin chain is usable on Campagnolo 10 speed, and might be a step up on the Connex 10 speed as it could be quieter as well as lighter.
Paul Davine
Australia
Tuesday, February 25 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #10
I have just changed back to using a Campagnolo chain.
The Wippermann chain is fine.
My complaints are only small but here they are:
The Wippermann does not shift as smoothly as Campagnolo.
It certainly does last longer than Campagnolo but it appears (to me) to wear cassettes and the chain rings faster than Campagnolo.
Also the Wippermann seems to wear the cassette teeth a little differently to Campagnolo so once you have used a Wippermann you will not be able to move back to Campagnolo until you have also replaced the cassette.
I had done around 7000 kilometres on a Wippermann and wanted to go back to Campagnolo. The new Campagnolo chain did not want to work, it jumped, skipped etc. Replaced the cassette and everything worked well.
Now I may have to replace the cassette on my set of race wheels as the new Campagnolo chain may not like the cassette after the Wippermann chain had worn it differently. I have not done too many K's on the race wheels so I may be OK.
I would recommend to stay with the Campagnolo chain.
My group set is 10sp Record.
Chris Marassovich
Australia
Wednesday, February 19 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #11
Our store preferred the Wippermanns for their durability. Campagnolo was coming to grips with their joining pin problem. Now the Campys join like a Shimano (not exactly the same, read the directions) and they may be less prone to break( though that only happened on chains with more than 1200 mi/1800 kms on them).
One important note. The Wippermann connector link is directionally specific. If you mount it upside down, it will skip in high gear. So again, read the directions.
They both offer excellent wear, especially in the rollers, if well maintained with a dry Teflon lube (but not White Lightning). Wippermann makes all kinds of chains from Mercedes timing chains to tiny things for copiers. They know chains.
Paul Rinehart
Williamstown MA
Tuesday, February 18 2003
Wippermann ten speed chain #12
I use both the Wippermann and Campagnolo chains, and I use the Wippermann link with the Campagnolo chain. It seems like they both last about the same.
The Campagnolo chain seems more flexible and I can't say one is stronger than the other.
Peter Nugent
Wednesday, February 19 2003
