[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
My two cents.. I road carbon for 10 years and never had any problems with it. Bikes were beautiful as well as racing machine beauty goes. They were not good for general riding and as stated a one trick pony. The Rivendell to Me is for a different style of riding... Not at jeep or corvette but fills the vast ground in-between. For it's given purpose the steel frame is the best.. Cf cant compete..just as the steel with bar ends will not and can not compete in racing events. I've replaced three cf bikes in those ten years. Kelly -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On May 9, 11:49 am, grant wrote: > It is unlikely that any carbon frame or fork bought in 2012 (I'm > giving them time to improve it still) will be both on the road and > safe on the road in 2020. Something will happen, or at least wise > heads will quit riding them. That seems to me to be an overly pessimistic assessment. I still occasionally see Trek 2300's (CF tubes glued to aluminum lugs) from the early 90's (maybe late 80's?) on the road after some 20 years. Craig Calfee warrantees his frames for 25 years. I suspect quite a few of them will still be on the road in eight years. I wouldn't use a CF frame for touring, shopping, commuting, or back road/off road exploring, steel still makes sense for those purposes. It's no surprise that most of Rivendell's current bikes are suited to just those sorts of rides. When I ride solo, or with a load, or down dirt roads or trails, or with a friend on a casual ride I ride steel. Last Saturday I rode my 1995 Riv Road 62 solo miles with >4500 ft vertical and lots of steep hills and had a lovely time. But I also own a Calfee that I use for for fast, unloaded riding with my bike club. It doesn't need to be versatile, I have other bikes for that. Fenders, racks and baggage would only detract from its intended function, so it doesn't need eyelets to mount any of those things. Its 25 mm tires are wide enough to handle the many miles of decent paved roads within reach of my home. I'm not overly concerned about its longevity, it only gets a couple of thousand miles a year so it should last a long time. All the same, I'm careful not to abuse it. I don't abuse my steel bikes either. I'm also not so worried about cost per ride, or all I'd ride would be Miyata 1000 I bought in 1983 and still ride as a commuter. The cost per ride is low for that bike, but the fun per dollar isn't all that high either. Different tools, different materials for different purposes. Now, can't we all just get along? Bill -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
I think a Rivendell Reader interview with the proprietor of Ruckus Components (Shawn) would be interesting. He's a smart, engaging engineer, with decided views on carbon fiber (pro) and the bicycle industry's use of it (negative? mixed?). He repairs carbon fiber bikes. He's deconstructed a lot of CF bikes, and says there's no correlation between brand reputation and quality of design or execution. I toured his facility with some Portland bike builders, and he made a good case. Two "steel is real" builders left going, "dang, that changed my perception of carbon fiber." Philip Philip Williamson www.biketinker.com On May 9, 2:49 pm, grant wrote: > Carbon fiber matrix > offers > large performance improvement in all kinds of structures. So carbon > fiber > matrix has potential for maintaining the strength and stiffness > required > with much less mass than most metals including the three common bike > frame > materials. However, careful design and fabrication procedures must be > followed. The implementation of carbon fiber in aircraft design has > progressed to the point that large percentages airframes are carbon > fiber. > > Jim Merz is a smart guy---smarter than I am---and maybe I'm > misunderstanding what he's saying here. But---whatever the future > holds for carbon, whatever its objective theoretical points of > superiority---its track record is abyssmal. I wrote that article so > long ago that I don't even remember izzactly what I said or how I said > it, but my opinion hasn't changed, and it's not due to my general > stubbornness. Carbon is chart-topping strong, but it snaps without > warning, and is the most "notch-sensitive" of any common frame or fork > material. So...UTS (ultimate tensile strength---the glamor spec of > frame materials) doesn't really matter with carbon. Glass has a much > higher UTS than CrMo steel, but it doesn't fail in tension. I must > have said that in the column. > > It is unlikely that any carbon frame or fork bought in 2012 (I'm > giving them time to improve it still) will be both on the road and > safe on the road in 2020. Something will happen, or at least wise > heads will quit riding them. > > Steel can break, but it breaks a different way; is the LEAST notch- > sensitive of any frame material; has an enviable---and I'd guess > unpassable track record. Not to mention the looksbut that's in the > eye of the berider, etc. > > I shall now shutup and quit repeating my already well-known 'pinions. > > Best, > > G -- 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-bunch@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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 08:47 -0700, Erik wrote: > I agree with Steve. All of my current bikes are steel now that I'm > not racing anymore, however, I previously owned one of the original > OCLV models. Estimating conservatively, it probably had 30K miles on > it (probably closer to 50K) when I traded it to a friend (who still > rides it) for a vintage Dura-Ace crankset. There are certainly horror > stories of failed carbon forks and resulting injuries, but I wonder to > what extent our global connectedness plays into our overall > perception. When a fork failed twenty years ago, the twenty people > that were in that person's riding circle knew about it...not all of > cyberspace. I, for one, had an acquaintance whose steerer tube > separated from his fork crown (on a steel fork), mid-race, causing > substantial facial and dental injuries. I don't know anyone whose > carbon fork has led to similar circumstances. Does this mean that > carbon is safer? No...it's just a reminder that we can't rely on > anecdotal evidence. > > Yes, I agree that at least 80% of riders on carbon should be on a > different bike, not necessarily because it's inherently unsafe, but > because the design of the bikes is inappropriate. If a carbon bike > were designed sensibly, and slightly overbuilt, I might conceptually > support it. Likewise, there have been steel bikes that tried to push > the technological envelope too far, and have failed unpredictably and > spectacularly. The steel bikes that are out there now, are typically > quite conservative, and thus quite safe. I get all of the stuff about > how different materials fail in different ways, however, my many years > as a rider and shop mechanic (former) have led me to believe that > theory and reality not the same, regarding frame materials. I think a > more accurate generalization might be that well-maintained and > regularly inspected bikes are less likely to have "sudden failures" > than poorly maintained bikes that are never inspected for potential > indicators--regardless of material. The other generalization that I > would make is that racing bikes have become unsafe for long-term use > by recreational cyclists. Companies seem much more willing to push > the weight envelope on their racing frames, and the nature of carbon > manufacturing and consumer (wannabe racers) demands, has put these > same frames in the hands of everyday riders. I am hesitant, however, > too finger a frame material, when it has more to do with design and > marketing decisions that have more tightly intertwined professional > racing and consumer choice. And I agree with every single one of your points! -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Carbon fiber matrix offers large performance improvement in all kinds of structures. So carbon fiber matrix has potential for maintaining the strength and stiffness required with much less mass than most metals including the three common bike frame materials. However, careful design and fabrication procedures must be followed. The implementation of carbon fiber in aircraft design has progressed to the point that large percentages airframes are carbon fiber. Jim Merz is a smart guy---smarter than I am---and maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's saying here. But---whatever the future holds for carbon, whatever its objective theoretical points of superiority---its track record is abyssmal. I wrote that article so long ago that I don't even remember izzactly what I said or how I said it, but my opinion hasn't changed, and it's not due to my general stubbornness. Carbon is chart-topping strong, but it snaps without warning, and is the most "notch-sensitive" of any common frame or fork material. So...UTS (ultimate tensile strength---the glamor spec of frame materials) doesn't really matter with carbon. Glass has a much higher UTS than CrMo steel, but it doesn't fail in tension. I must have said that in the column. It is unlikely that any carbon frame or fork bought in 2012 (I'm giving them time to improve it still) will be both on the road and safe on the road in 2020. Something will happen, or at least wise heads will quit riding them. Steel can break, but it breaks a different way; is the LEAST notch- sensitive of any frame material; has an enviable---and I'd guess unpassable track record. Not to mention the looksbut that's in the eye of the berider, etc. I shall now shutup and quit repeating my already well-known 'pinions. Best, G -- 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-bunch@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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Jim's quoted text is interesting: I wonder how many of those broken carbon bits on that broken carbon site broke because of bad design? If (1) you could make a carbon fiber bike that rides as nicely as the best steel ones and, (2) you could prove that cf is just as reliable and (3) the cf frame can have both these attributes and still be lighter and reasonably priced: what's not to like? The second big defect of present cf frames is that so many of them are just fugging ugly. But I see no reason why you can't make a very nice looking monocoque cf frame and fork. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
I agree with Steve. All of my current bikes are steel now that I'm not racing anymore, however, I previously owned one of the original OCLV models. Estimating conservatively, it probably had 30K miles on it (probably closer to 50K) when I traded it to a friend (who still rides it) for a vintage Dura-Ace crankset. There are certainly horror stories of failed carbon forks and resulting injuries, but I wonder to what extent our global connectedness plays into our overall perception. When a fork failed twenty years ago, the twenty people that were in that person's riding circle knew about it...not all of cyberspace. I, for one, had an acquaintance whose steerer tube separated from his fork crown (on a steel fork), mid-race, causing substantial facial and dental injuries. I don't know anyone whose carbon fork has led to similar circumstances. Does this mean that carbon is safer? No...it's just a reminder that we can't rely on anecdotal evidence. Yes, I agree that at least 80% of riders on carbon should be on a different bike, not necessarily because it's inherently unsafe, but because the design of the bikes is inappropriate. If a carbon bike were designed sensibly, and slightly overbuilt, I might conceptually support it. Likewise, there have been steel bikes that tried to push the technological envelope too far, and have failed unpredictably and spectacularly. The steel bikes that are out there now, are typically quite conservative, and thus quite safe. I get all of the stuff about how different materials fail in different ways, however, my many years as a rider and shop mechanic (former) have led me to believe that theory and reality not the same, regarding frame materials. I think a more accurate generalization might be that well-maintained and regularly inspected bikes are less likely to have "sudden failures" than poorly maintained bikes that are never inspected for potential indicators--regardless of material. The other generalization that I would make is that racing bikes have become unsafe for long-term use by recreational cyclists. Companies seem much more willing to push the weight envelope on their racing frames, and the nature of carbon manufacturing and consumer (wannabe racers) demands, has put these same frames in the hands of everyday riders. I am hesitant, however, too finger a frame material, when it has more to do with design and marketing decisions that have more tightly intertwined professional racing and consumer choice. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
My Bleriot: About $300/ride so far, but I'm workin' it down! I must do the math on my former bikes, sounds like a fun exercise. Steve On May 8, 8:46 am, Earl Grey wrote: > Good stuff as always. Too bad about the math error in the price per > ride piece. I almost don't want to point it out since it seems to have > gone unnoticed so far. The difference in price per ride, with Grant's > conservative numbers, is only a little more than one order of > magnitude, not two: Compared to the carbon bikes $10/ride, the > expensive steel bike is > > 250 rides per year * 20 years = 5000 rides > > 5000 rides / $4000 = $0.80 per ride, NOT $0.09 > > On the other hand, I doubt that most carbon race bikes outside of the > Southwest and California get ridden 50 weeks out of the year, which > would further increase the cost per ride. > > My $2000 Sam Hillborne gets ridden 8-12 times a week (if you count > each commute leg separately, plus one or two fun rides plus errands) > so for the past year and a half that I have owned it, I am already > down to about $2.67 a ride (10 rides x 50 weeks x 1.5 years), and > dropping. > > Cheers, > > Gernot > > On May 7, 1:24 am, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > > > > > Nice buncha articles, tho' Grant's predilections come out strong. > > (Yay for fast, skinny tires! Yay for lower bars! Yay for race-type > > bikes with fenders, racks, bags, dynolights -- esp if you can "match" > > yer bags. Any YAY for good beer, home-made bread, lots of pasta and > > sugar in my coffee!) > > > Anyway: I was particularly pleased with the interview with BS who > > comes across as less of an asshol* than you just might presume from > > his, admittedly very funny, blogs, and who also comes across as, > > undeniable, intelligent and, for our dismally uncultured age, > > literate. Kudos to R, RR and GP for this interview. > > > Patrick "my bars range from 2" below to 3" above saddle, my tires from > > 22 mm to 65 mm" Moore > > > -- > > Patrick Moore > > Albuquerque, NM > > For professional resumes, contact > > Patrick Moore, ACRW > > patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com > > > A billion stars go spinning through the night > > Blazing high above your head; > > But in you is the Presence that will be > > When all the stars are dead. > > (Rilke, Buddha in Glory)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Just to add another data point about the current prevalence of carbon fiber in many bicycle frames, here's a couple of some quotations from the former bikelist.org "Frame" forum. The remarks are those of Jim Merz whose bicycle bona fides are originally as a custom bicycle frame builder going back almost 40 years and a technical expert who worked at Specialized for many years before retiring. "...there is nothing wrong with steel bicycle frames or the people who ride them, like them, or make them. I just proposed to the frame builder list here that steel bikes must be considered as a fashion decision. This is not a put down at all. Lots to things from the past have value but are not very commercially viable. Vinyl records, film cameras, mechanical watches, steel bike frames all have their place with a small fanatic following." and this: "Steel has been used for making bike frames for over 100 years. During this period every trick in the book has been used to make lighter, stronger, stiffer (or let's say correctly stiff) frames. But steel has a high density, and one key feature of steel cannot be changed with alloying or heat treating. This is specific stiffness, or stiffness in relation to mass. It turns out that most metals have very similar specific stiffness values. Aluminum is around 1/3 the density but also 1/3 as stiff as steel, titanium is around 1/2 the density of steel, but also around 1/2 the stiffness. There are a few tricks to improve on this situation. So, in the case of steel tubing one tries to remove material to make the structure lighter by reducing wall thickness. Strength can be maintained with very high tensile steel, but the stiffness suffers with the thinner wall. Increasing the tube diameter will improve the stiffness, but because steel is dense the wall thickness gets very thin. Not good for several reasons, hard to make and sensitive to damage. A way around this is to use a less dense metal. Aluminum is a logical choice as it is only 1/3 the density of steel. Not as strong, but one can make the wall thickness much thicker for strength and stiffness and still be lighter than steel structures. Very high performance cost effective frames can be made this way, along with most aircraft. This design (along with titanium frame material) is however still limited by this specific stiffness ratio mentioned above. But we have a new material that is not limited by the specific stiffness values of typical metals. Carbon fiber matrix offers large performance improvement in all kinds of structures. So carbon fiber matrix has potential for maintaining the strength and stiffness required with much less mass than most metals including the three common bike frame materials. However, careful design and fabrication procedures must be followed. The implementation of carbon fiber in aircraft design has progressed to the point that large percentages airframes are carbon fiber. This is not done for marketing reasons, but because it saves weight and improves service life. Correctly designed bicycle frames made using carbon fiber can show the same benefits. Until some new material comes along it is the first choice for bicycle frames." I've personally never ridden any bicycle, nor have I owned one, that wasn't a steel frame bicycle. I don't, however, think there is any point in criticizing carbon fiber as some inferior material for a bike's frame or components. I also don't give any credence to the idea that carbon fiber is a material that is inherently dangerous or poorly suited to for bicycles. This is, in my opinion, one of those "can't we all just get along" areas. I'm quite happy with my steel frame bicycles. If someone else loves their carbon fiber bike, that's fine with me. Jim Cloud Tucson, AZ On May 9, 5:11 am, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 16:26 -0700, RJ wrote: > > I have known two people locally who had carbon forks break and they > > suffered quite a lot of damage. One is a bikeshop owner riding a > > madone, the other was a racer whose carbon spoked wheels came apart in > > a turn. It can happen with any material, but to say that it doesn't > > happen with carbon, which is what I am getting from your post, is > > ludicrous. > > I am not a fan or defender of carbon. > > What I am saying is to single out carbon as though it was especially > dangerous, above and beyond all other materials, is ludicrous, and if > you go by what I see on the forums and message boards, has gone a long > way towards destroying Grant's credibility. > > If it was as uniquely and urgently dangerous as he makes out, you'd > think that in a 39 year long career of being actively involved in > bicycle clubs and club riding, you'd think I'd have heard of at least > one local instance - but no. -- 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-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from thi
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 16:26 -0700, RJ wrote: > I have known two people locally who had carbon forks break and they > suffered quite a lot of damage. One is a bikeshop owner riding a > madone, the other was a racer whose carbon spoked wheels came apart in > a turn. It can happen with any material, but to say that it doesn't > happen with carbon, which is what I am getting from your post, is > ludicrous. I am not a fan or defender of carbon. What I am saying is to single out carbon as though it was especially dangerous, above and beyond all other materials, is ludicrous, and if you go by what I see on the forums and message boards, has gone a long way towards destroying Grant's credibility. If it was as uniquely and urgently dangerous as he makes out, you'd think that in a 39 year long career of being actively involved in bicycle clubs and club riding, you'd think I'd have heard of at least one local instance - but no. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Sorry. my post was a lame attempt at humor. -Matt (who does not own a pinstripe fitted suit) On May 8, 5:58 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 13:19 -0700, newenglandbike wrote: > > Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go > > with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up > > fast. > > Riding attire has nothing at all to do with carbon. I use cycling > shorts, shoes and jerseys with my steel and titanium bikes, and see no > reason to feel the slightest bit of shame about it. > > On the other hand, that stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Sorry. my post was a lame attempt at humor. -Matt (who does not own a pinstripe fitted suit). On May 8, 5:58 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 13:19 -0700, newenglandbike wrote: > > Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go > > with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up > > fast. > > Riding attire has nothing at all to do with carbon. I use cycling > shorts, shoes and jerseys with my steel and titanium bikes, and see no > reason to feel the slightest bit of shame about it. > > On the other hand, that stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Sorry. my post was a lame attempt at humor. On May 8, 5:58 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 13:19 -0700, newenglandbike wrote: > > Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go > > with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up > > fast. > > Riding attire has nothing at all to do with carbon. I use cycling > shorts, shoes and jerseys with my steel and titanium bikes, and see no > reason to feel the slightest bit of shame about it. > > On the other hand, that stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
I have known two people locally who had carbon forks break and they suffered quite a lot of damage. One is a bikeshop owner riding a madone, the other was a racer whose carbon spoked wheels came apart in a turn. It can happen with any material, but to say that it doesn't happen with carbon, which is what I am getting from your post, is ludicrous. On May 8, 5:08 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 11:13 -0700, grant wrote: > > Yeah, but it's not the Official one...just a stopgap. There are a > > couple other things that'll change for the Permanent Paper addition. > > Edition. The math reference shifted me wrongly there. The tradition of > > pre-paper issues is good, though, so things like this can be caught. > > Thanks. The $10 never did seem quite right, but if you account for > > medical bills that may arise from riding carbon, I think we could get > > it up to $10 or even more, per ride. > > I know lots of people, myself included, who have had medical bills > resulting from cycling. I even had a friend die in a cycling accident. > I've been riding with bicycle clubs virtually every weekend, and > commuting, since 1972 and I know lots of cyclists. But I have never met > one single cyclist who had medical bills that could be attributed to > riding carbon. In fact, I've never met a single cyclist who had as much > as a scratch that could be attributed to riding carbon. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On May 8, 3:08 pm, Steve Palincsar > > I know lots of people, myself included, who have had medical bills > resulting from cycling. I even had a friend die in a cycling accident. > I've been riding with bicycle clubs virtually every weekend, and > commuting, since 1972 and I know lots of cyclists. But I have never met > one single cyclist who had medical bills that could be attributed to > riding carbon. In fact, I've never met a single cyclist who had as much > as a scratch that could be attributed to riding carbon. Well, i met two. One had a carbon fiber frame break at either the down tube or fork, i think it was the fork. He landed on his face at speed. Took him a few years to get back on the bike, numerous surgeries later to reconstruct his face. I told him he was lucky he did not break his neck. The other fellow also landed on his face, riding a spinergy Rev X carbon fiber wheel. The front wheel collapsed, all of a sudden he found his fork tips in the pavement. My friend got in crash a few weeks ago, but someone ran into him in a race. The bikes, as he said, exploded, into lots of small carbon tubes. But he was hurt as a result of hitting the ground, the frame broke after. Mark Howtostretch.com -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
If you insist on adding a clothing budget, then don't forget the cost of the racks'n'bags we all love so dearly. A carbonic unobtanium racy bike will have zero cost in that area. And you all thought cost accounting was dull stuff! dougP On May 8, 3:55 pm, Justin August wrote: > And enough riding-specific clothing is recommende d and sold by Riv > that then you'd have to factor that in too... > > On May 8, 5:58 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 13:19 -0700, newenglandbike wrote: > > > Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go > > > with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up > > > fast. > > > Riding attire has nothing at all to do with carbon. I use cycling > > shorts, shoes and jerseys with my steel and titanium bikes, and see no > > reason to feel the slightest bit of shame about it. > > > On the other hand, that stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it.- > > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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-bunch@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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Looks like the link for the RR preview was removed? Am I not looking in the right place? -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
And enough riding-specific clothing is recommende d and sold by Riv that then you'd have to factor that in too... On May 8, 5:58 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 13:19 -0700, newenglandbike wrote: > > Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go > > with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up > > fast. > > Riding attire has nothing at all to do with carbon. I use cycling > shorts, shoes and jerseys with my steel and titanium bikes, and see no > reason to feel the slightest bit of shame about it. > > On the other hand, that stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it. -- 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-bunch@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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 11:13 -0700, grant wrote: > Yeah, but it's not the Official one...just a stopgap. There are a > couple other things that'll change for the Permanent Paper addition. > Edition. The math reference shifted me wrongly there. The tradition of > pre-paper issues is good, though, so things like this can be caught. > Thanks. The $10 never did seem quite right, but if you account for > medical bills that may arise from riding carbon, I think we could get > it up to $10 or even more, per ride. I know lots of people, myself included, who have had medical bills resulting from cycling. I even had a friend die in a cycling accident. I've been riding with bicycle clubs virtually every weekend, and commuting, since 1972 and I know lots of cyclists. But I have never met one single cyclist who had medical bills that could be attributed to riding carbon. In fact, I've never met a single cyclist who had as much as a scratch that could be attributed to riding carbon. -- 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-bunch@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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 13:19 -0700, newenglandbike wrote: > Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go > with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up > fast. Riding attire has nothing at all to do with carbon. I use cycling shorts, shoes and jerseys with my steel and titanium bikes, and see no reason to feel the slightest bit of shame about it. On the other hand, that stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it. -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up fast.I, on the other hand (and I'm sure I'm not alone) can feel perfectly comfortable riding a steel bike in any old Versace pinstripe fitted suit from the latest collection. Matt -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up fast.I, on the other hand, can feel perfectly comfortable riding a steel bike in any Versace pinstripe fitted suit. Matt -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up fast.I, on the other hand, can feel perfectly comfortable riding a steel bike in any Versace pinstripe fitted suit. Matt On May 6, 2:24 pm, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > Nice buncha articles, tho' Grant's predilections come out strong. > (Yay for fast, skinny tires! Yay for lower bars! Yay for race-type > bikes with fenders, racks, bags, dynolights -- esp if you can "match" > yer bags. Any YAY for good beer, home-made bread, lots of pasta and > sugar in my coffee!) > > Anyway: I was particularly pleased with the interview with BS who > comes across as less of an asshol* than you just might presume from > his, admittedly very funny, blogs, and who also comes across as, > undeniable, intelligent and, for our dismally uncultured age, > literate. Kudos to R, RR and GP for this interview. > > Patrick "my bars range from 2" below to 3" above saddle, my tires from > 22 mm to 65 mm" Moore > > -- > Patrick Moore > Albuquerque, NM > For professional resumes, contact > Patrick Moore, ACRW > patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com > > A billion stars go spinning through the night > Blazing high above your head; > But in you is the Presence that will be > When all the stars are dead. > (Rilke, Buddha in Glory) -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up fast.I, on the other hand, feel perfectly comfortable riding in my Versace pinstripe fitted suit. Matt -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Yeah, but it's not the Official one...just a stopgap. There are a couple other things that'll change for the Permanent Paper addition. Edition. The math reference shifted me wrongly there. The tradition of pre-paper issues is good, though, so things like this can be caught. Thanks. The $10 never did seem quite right, but if you account for medical bills that may arise from riding carbon, I think we could get it up to $10 or even more, per ride. G On May 8, 5:46 am, Earl Grey wrote: > Good stuff as always. Too bad about the math error in the price per > ride piece. I almost don't want to point it out since it seems to have > gone unnoticed so far. The difference in price per ride, with Grant's > conservative numbers, is only a little more than one order of > magnitude, not two: Compared to the carbon bikes $10/ride, the > expensive steel bike is > > 250 rides per year * 20 years = 5000 rides > > 5000 rides / $4000 = $0.80 per ride, NOT $0.09 > > On the other hand, I doubt that most carbon race bikes outside of the > Southwest and California get ridden 50 weeks out of the year, which > would further increase the cost per ride. > > My $2000 Sam Hillborne gets ridden 8-12 times a week (if you count > each commute leg separately, plus one or two fun rides plus errands) > so for the past year and a half that I have owned it, I am already > down to about $2.67 a ride (10 rides x 50 weeks x 1.5 years), and > dropping. > > Cheers, > > Gernot > > On May 7, 1:24 am, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > > > Nice buncha articles, tho' Grant's predilections come out strong. > > (Yay for fast, skinny tires! Yay for lower bars! Yay for race-type > > bikes with fenders, racks, bags, dynolights -- esp if you can "match" > > yer bags. Any YAY for good beer, home-made bread, lots of pasta and > > sugar in my coffee!) > > > Anyway: I was particularly pleased with the interview with BS who > > comes across as less of an asshol* than you just might presume from > > his, admittedly very funny, blogs, and who also comes across as, > > undeniable, intelligent and, for our dismally uncultured age, > > literate. Kudos to R, RR and GP for this interview. > > > Patrick "my bars range from 2" below to 3" above saddle, my tires from > > 22 mm to 65 mm" Moore > > > -- > > Patrick Moore > > Albuquerque, NM > > For professional resumes, contact > > Patrick Moore, ACRW > > patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com > > > A billion stars go spinning through the night > > Blazing high above your head; > > But in you is the Presence that will be > > When all the stars are dead. > > (Rilke, Buddha in Glory) -- 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-bunch@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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Doug, I love you're rationale. I'm going to try using it on my wife. Bill On May 8, 2011, at 11:10 AM, doug peterson wrote: > I don't keep records but Grant's 250 rides per year feels about > right. My Atlantis just celebrated it's 8th b'day. At an original > cost just over $2k (those were the days!), I'm getting close to a buck > a ride. > > dougP > > On May 8, 5:46 am, Earl Grey wrote: >> Good stuff as always. Too bad about the math error in the price per >> ride piece. I almost don't want to point it out since it seems to have >> gone unnoticed so far. The difference in price per ride, with Grant's >> conservative numbers, is only a little more than one order of >> magnitude, not two: Compared to the carbon bikes $10/ride, the >> expensive steel bike is >> >> 250 rides per year * 20 years = 5000 rides >> >> 5000 rides / $4000 = $0.80 per ride, NOT $0.09 >> >> On the other hand, I doubt that most carbon race bikes outside of the >> Southwest and California get ridden 50 weeks out of the year, which >> would further increase the cost per ride. >> >> My $2000 Sam Hillborne gets ridden 8-12 times a week (if you count >> each commute leg separately, plus one or two fun rides plus errands) >> so for the past year and a half that I have owned it, I am already >> down to about $2.67 a ride (10 rides x 50 weeks x 1.5 years), and >> dropping. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gernot >> >> On May 7, 1:24 am, PATRICK MOORE wrote: >> >> >> >>> Nice buncha articles, tho' Grant's predilections come out strong. >>> (Yay for fast, skinny tires! Yay for lower bars! Yay for race-type >>> bikes with fenders, racks, bags, dynolights -- esp if you can "match" >>> yer bags. Any YAY for good beer, home-made bread, lots of pasta and >>> sugar in my coffee!) >> >>> Anyway: I was particularly pleased with the interview with BS who >>> comes across as less of an asshol* than you just might presume from >>> his, admittedly very funny, blogs, and who also comes across as, >>> undeniable, intelligent and, for our dismally uncultured age, >>> literate. Kudos to R, RR and GP for this interview. >> >>> Patrick "my bars range from 2" below to 3" above saddle, my tires from >>> 22 mm to 65 mm" Moore >> >>> -- >>> Patrick Moore >>> Albuquerque, NM >>> For professional resumes, contact >>> Patrick Moore, ACRW >>> patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com >> >>> A billion stars go spinning through the night >>> Blazing high above your head; >>> But in you is the Presence that will be >>> When all the stars are dead. >>> (Rilke, Buddha in Glory)- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > 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-bunch@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. > -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
I don't keep records but Grant's 250 rides per year feels about right. My Atlantis just celebrated it's 8th b'day. At an original cost just over $2k (those were the days!), I'm getting close to a buck a ride. dougP On May 8, 5:46 am, Earl Grey wrote: > Good stuff as always. Too bad about the math error in the price per > ride piece. I almost don't want to point it out since it seems to have > gone unnoticed so far. The difference in price per ride, with Grant's > conservative numbers, is only a little more than one order of > magnitude, not two: Compared to the carbon bikes $10/ride, the > expensive steel bike is > > 250 rides per year * 20 years = 5000 rides > > 5000 rides / $4000 = $0.80 per ride, NOT $0.09 > > On the other hand, I doubt that most carbon race bikes outside of the > Southwest and California get ridden 50 weeks out of the year, which > would further increase the cost per ride. > > My $2000 Sam Hillborne gets ridden 8-12 times a week (if you count > each commute leg separately, plus one or two fun rides plus errands) > so for the past year and a half that I have owned it, I am already > down to about $2.67 a ride (10 rides x 50 weeks x 1.5 years), and > dropping. > > Cheers, > > Gernot > > On May 7, 1:24 am, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > > > > > Nice buncha articles, tho' Grant's predilections come out strong. > > (Yay for fast, skinny tires! Yay for lower bars! Yay for race-type > > bikes with fenders, racks, bags, dynolights -- esp if you can "match" > > yer bags. Any YAY for good beer, home-made bread, lots of pasta and > > sugar in my coffee!) > > > Anyway: I was particularly pleased with the interview with BS who > > comes across as less of an asshol* than you just might presume from > > his, admittedly very funny, blogs, and who also comes across as, > > undeniable, intelligent and, for our dismally uncultured age, > > literate. Kudos to R, RR and GP for this interview. > > > Patrick "my bars range from 2" below to 3" above saddle, my tires from > > 22 mm to 65 mm" Moore > > > -- > > Patrick Moore > > Albuquerque, NM > > For professional resumes, contact > > Patrick Moore, ACRW > > patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com > > > A billion stars go spinning through the night > > Blazing high above your head; > > But in you is the Presence that will be > > When all the stars are dead. > > (Rilke, Buddha in Glory)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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-bunch@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.
[RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Good stuff as always. Too bad about the math error in the price per ride piece. I almost don't want to point it out since it seems to have gone unnoticed so far. The difference in price per ride, with Grant's conservative numbers, is only a little more than one order of magnitude, not two: Compared to the carbon bikes $10/ride, the expensive steel bike is 250 rides per year * 20 years = 5000 rides 5000 rides / $4000 = $0.80 per ride, NOT $0.09 On the other hand, I doubt that most carbon race bikes outside of the Southwest and California get ridden 50 weeks out of the year, which would further increase the cost per ride. My $2000 Sam Hillborne gets ridden 8-12 times a week (if you count each commute leg separately, plus one or two fun rides plus errands) so for the past year and a half that I have owned it, I am already down to about $2.67 a ride (10 rides x 50 weeks x 1.5 years), and dropping. Cheers, Gernot On May 7, 1:24 am, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > Nice buncha articles, tho' Grant's predilections come out strong. > (Yay for fast, skinny tires! Yay for lower bars! Yay for race-type > bikes with fenders, racks, bags, dynolights -- esp if you can "match" > yer bags. Any YAY for good beer, home-made bread, lots of pasta and > sugar in my coffee!) > > Anyway: I was particularly pleased with the interview with BS who > comes across as less of an asshol* than you just might presume from > his, admittedly very funny, blogs, and who also comes across as, > undeniable, intelligent and, for our dismally uncultured age, > literate. Kudos to R, RR and GP for this interview. > > Patrick "my bars range from 2" below to 3" above saddle, my tires from > 22 mm to 65 mm" Moore > > -- > Patrick Moore > Albuquerque, NM > For professional resumes, contact > Patrick Moore, ACRW > patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com > > A billion stars go spinning through the night > Blazing high above your head; > But in you is the Presence that will be > When all the stars are dead. > (Rilke, Buddha in Glory) -- 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-bunch@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.
