The suicidal squirrel/CF conversation usually turns into a spoke count conversation :-)
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:50 AM, NickBull <nick.bike.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > Suicidal squirrels seem to be "fairly common," in my experience. I've > had two in the last seven years -- one I ran over, the other bonked > his nose into my rim and then skittered away with what I expect was a > very sore nose. If "unusual wheel configurations" encourage them to > run through and get caught in the spokes, then I'd sure rather be > running 36 spoke wheels :-) > > On Mar 9, 7:56 pm, Michael Glaser <mgla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been hesitant to join the fray because I'd really like this > > entire thread to wind down. We all come to this forum because we > > appreciate the form and function of lugged steel bikes that are built > > with recreational / utility riders in mind. I personally do not enjoy > > the conflict that seems so pervasive in other on-line communities, and > > it saddens me to see it here. > > > > But a few things are gnawing at me. I'll preface this by saying that > > Grant is not only entitled to his opinion, but each member of this > > community obviously agrees with and celebrates many (if not most or > > all) of Grant's views. However, I don't think that we should be > > dogmatic. Critical thinking is a good thing, and not only when > > questioning conventional wisdom that leads folks to buy racing bikes > > that are uncomfortable for recreational riding and unsuitable for day- > > to-day tasks. Here's are my personal heresies: First, I don't agree > > that carbon is an inherently dangerous or inferior to steel. Second, > > I don't agree that the weight savings associated with MCRBs are > > irrelevant for recreational riding. > > > > For what it's worth I recall seeing a number of spectacular failures > > from the early days of carbon (esp. forks) in the late 80s / early > > 90s. Memories of those failures kept me off of carbon for a long > > time. And to be fair, the mode of failure for carbon can be quick and > > dramatic. However, the rate of "just riding along" failures is > > extremely low. Pebbles kicked up while riding do not cause stress > > risers that lead to catastrophic failure, period. That is just > > patently false. Stress risers are caused by serious crashes (inspect, > > inspect, inspect after a crash, regardless of what you are riding), or > > by seriously improper installation (it's wise to use a torque wrench > > when installing parts on any bike, but it's especially important with > > carbon . . . and if you wrench something until it literally crunches, > > you ought to realize that you've broken it). > > > > If you do a non-partisan review of thewww.bustedcarbon.comsite, > > you'll notice that many if not most of the broken bikes are attributed > > either to very serious crashes (e.g., tangling with a car) or non- > > riding incidents (e.g., roof rack vs. garage door, spouse backing over > > bike on floor of garage, etc.). Steel, aluminum and titanium frames > > do not generally fare any better under these circumstances. I have > > seen steel head tubes detached from front triangles. I have also seen > > steel fork blades detached from lugged steel crowns. A car / > > boulder / cast iron bollard can mangle any bike beyond recognition -- > > as well as your body. That doesn't mean that the materials are > > unsafe; it means that cycling itself can be dangerous. And even if > > the bike survives, when a cast iron bollard sends you over the bars > > head first, there's a risk that you will end up with a spinal cord > > injury. I'm not an accident investigator, and I don't know the > > individuals involved, but I think it's possible that this unfortunate > > bike shop owner that Grant mentioned might have been seriously injured > > on any bike. > > > > I think that using the photo at the beginning of this thread to > > demonstrate the inherent vulnerability of carbon is unfair. First, > > I'd submit that it's pretty rare for squirrels to jump into moving > > wheels. Second, take a look at the wheel -- it's one of those > > Bontrager models with a proprietary spoking pattern that leaves huge > > voids between pairs of spokes. Third, even with those huge voids, the > > wheel must have been rotating pretty slowly in order for the squirrel > > to make it half-way through in the time that it took to do less than a > > single full rotation. So, suicidal squirrel plus very unusual wheel > > design at rotational speed low enough for squirrel to pass through the > > wheel equals crash. As someone pointed out, this would have caused a > > crash even with a steel fork (perhaps damaging it beyond rideability), > > but if there's any design flaw to blame here, it's the wheel not the > > fork. Were it not for that very unusual wheel design, I think the > > squirrel probably would have bounced off of the moving spokes. > > > > Some thoughts about weight. It does matter. Especially for > > recreational riders who ride at relatively lower speeds on hilly > > terrain and do not produce gobs of power. This isn't subjective, and > > it isn't about being a racer (I am not, never have been, and don't > > aspire to be). It's simple physics. The less you and your bike > > weigh, the easier it is to pedal up hills. If you'd like to translate > > that into statistics, check out the Analytical Cycling sitehttp:// > www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html. If you're > > turned off by the fact that the site is populated by a bunch of Type A > > wanna-be (or actual) racers, then look into the whole lightweight > > backpacking movement. The pioneers of that movement are not cardio- > > monsters, they're Appalachian Trail through-hikers like Emma "Grandma" > > Gatewood. Smell-the-roses type people who have much more in common > > with Grant Petersen at Rivendell than Gerard Vroomen at Cervelo. All > > things being equal, you can go cover more ground in a shorter span of > > time with less weight, particularly if you're not a paragon of > > physical fitness. > > > > But it's not all about being faster. My Hilsen weighs about 30lbs, > > fully-dressed. My MCRB weighs about half that with the small kit that > > I carry. Would you rather hike up Half Dome with a 30 pounds of gear > > or 15 pounds of gear? I guess it depends on what you plan to do at > > the top of Half Dome. On a day with good weather when you're just > > going to turn around and go back to camp in time for dinner, it's a no > > brainer. It's also a no brainer to reach the opposite conclusion if > > I'm planning to have an elaborate picnic and possibly stay the night. > > For me I ride my Hilsen when it makes sense to ride my Hilsen, and my > > MCRB when it makes sense to ride my MCRB. I love them both for > > different reasons. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<rbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA "Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym." ~Bill Nye, scientist guy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
