Are two bicycles necessary?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:46:12
From:
Subject: Are two bicycles necessary?

I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
big way.

I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.

And also can see myself doing some light off road
cycling such as dirt trail and roads.

Is it impossible to have only one bike do it all above?

Is it necessary to have a touring AND a MT bike with
front shock?

Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:44:53
From: nash
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > DougC wrote:
> >
> >> The front tire should have /at/ /least/ the same contact patch are as
> >> the rear, /if/ /not/ /more/.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > I've never worried about this on any bike I've ever had, and I don't
> > recall ever suffering as a result, so it comes over as rather more
> > grounded in theory than practice.
> >
> > I don't see why the front tyre needs calibrating to the rear. It
> > doesn't know what pressure the rear is running at or what the contact
> > patch is: shirley whether it will skid or not is down to absolutes, not
> > values relative to the back?
> >
> > Pete.
>
> This is mainly a recumbent/"alternate"-bike issue, as these bicycles
> tend to have wider differences in weight distribution than upright bikes
> do, and riders cannot shift their weight significantly during riding.
>
> The reason that this is important is because if you enter a low-traction
> situation and one of your tires begins to slide, you want it to be the
> rear to slide first rather than the front. The rear tire will follow the
> front tire, even if the rear tire is sliding. On a sandy road surface,
> you can slide short distances with the rear wheel locked up and keep the
> bike upright fairly easily--but it is damn near impossible to slide more
> than a few inches with the front tire locked up (on either road bikes or
> recumbents). Because of the front tire starts to slide, you cannot steer
> at all and you have a far greater chance of crashing.
>
> So (on a two-wheeled vehicle that is not a Segway) the front tire should
> -always- have more traction than the rear. That means since the front is
> carrying less weight, you run a lower front pressure so that the contact
> patch is at least as large as the rear is.
>
> And if you're running narrow tires, you can see some significant
> handling gains by switching to a wider front tire as well. Narrow tires
> do not handle loose surfaces well.

But since narrow tires are 100 psi and mtb 45-60 your saying just
change tires anyway.
Is that an adequate sumy. I changed to narrow because less friction
and lighter tire will give you higher less cumbersome speed.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:49:10
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > ....This is the recumbent bike I would choose for touring:
> > -RANS Rocket- (and not just because I already
> > own one).
> >
>
> Certainly people do tour on the Rocket, but the weird back wheel scares
> me. If the Sachs hub goes out on tour, how easy would it be to find
> another replacement? Is the "typical" bike shop going to have one on
> hand in that size? Probably not. ....This is my justification for
> suggesting a 26/26 LWB bike that uses regular derailleurs. The more
> common parts the recumbent has, the better.

The Rocket comes standard with a regular cassette hub - those with
Sachs 3x7 hubs or SRAM DualDrive were modified by a dealer or owner.

A RANS Rocket with a 47-406 rear tire, an 11-34 Shimano Megarange
cassette, and standard 52/42/30 "road" triple will have a gear range of
about 1.4 to 7.4 meters development (17 to 92 gear inches). This will
produce speeds from about 7=BD to 40 kph (4=BD to 25 mph) at a cadence of
90 rpm, which should be adequate for most touring use.

The ISO 406-mm rear wheel of the Rocket will be significantly stronger
than a larger wheel with the same number of spokes, which is also an
advantage in touring.

> (the Cycle Genius I suggested does use disk brakes, but those are pretty
> common now on bike-store MTB's, which also use 26" wheels--and if a rim
> goes out of true, you're more likely to be able to keep riding on it it
> if you have disk brakes than calipers)
>
> >
> > The RANS Rocket is also a very fun bike to ride, once the rider adapts
> > to the light control forces required.
> >
>
> I had a short wheelbase at first and didn't like it, mainly for one
> reason--that it was fine on smooth clean pavement, but it did not handle
> well in gravel and broken pavement at all. Normally you would not choose
> to ride on gravelly or broken pavement of course, but during emergency
> evasive maneuvers sometimes you end up taking a path that you wouldn't
> choose otherwise. And it was at these exact moments that the SWB felt
> its worst, as if it was going to slide sideways out from under me. The
> LWB has this problem but it's much less severe.

I would much rather ride a SWB on loose surfaces than a LWB. With an
approximate 40%/60% front/rear weight distribution, the Rocket's front
wheel is less likely to skid on loose surfaces, while still having an
effective rear brake. The inherent SWB advantage in low speed handling
can also be helpful on unimproved surfaces. The LWB will typically
ride better (especially a bike with some vertical compliance such as
the RANS Stratus).

--=20
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 29 Nov 2006 04:06:30
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> ....
> The Rocket comes standard with a regular cassette hub - those with
> Sachs 3x7 hubs or SRAM DualDrive were modified by a dealer or owner.
> ....

Well nuts.
Both the Rockets I have seen (on opposite ends of the USA no less) had
geared hubs. -?- I assumed they came that way. Both people /were/
touring on them.

>
> I would much rather ride a SWB on loose surfaces than a LWB. With an
> approximate 40%/60% front/rear weight distribution, the Rocket's front
> wheel is less likely to skid on loose surfaces, while still having an
> effective rear brake. The inherent SWB advantage in low speed handling
> can also be helpful on unimproved surfaces. The LWB will typically
> ride better (especially a bike with some vertical compliance such as
> the RANS Stratus).
>

On the LWB I have, the seat is adjusted almost all the way back and I
weigh 275 lbs, and the weight distribution on the rear is still only
about 66%. I calculated that (on this bike) to push the weight
distribution to 80% rear at my height (6'2") I would need to weigh ~450
lbs.

As far as riding in gravel, I just advise people try it and see. A LWB
is more stable than a SWB for the same reason that drag racers and sand
rails are built long--simply the longer wheelbase.

The reason that front tires on bents slide is simple: in a misguided
effort to achieve minimal rolling resistance, people run tires too
narrow and inflated to a pressure that is too high. The front tire
should be inflated to a pressure (with respect to the rear tire) that is
no greater than the proportion of weight that it is carrying. On the LWB
above for instance--the rear tire is 100 PSI, the front tire is 45 PSI.
If there is a risk of damage from inflating a narrow front tire to a
lower pressure--then you simply need a wider tire in front.
~

Date: 30 Nov 2006 07:44:25
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:

:: The reason that front tires on bents slide is simple: in a misguided
:: effort to achieve minimal rolling resistance, people run tires too
:: narrow and inflated to a pressure that is too high. The front tire
:: should be inflated to a pressure (with respect to the rear tire)
:: that is no greater than the proportion of weight that it is
:: carrying. On the LWB above for instance--the rear tire is 100 PSI,
:: the front tire is 45 PSI. If there is a risk of damage from
:: inflating a narrow front tire to a lower pressure--then you simply
:: need a wider tire in front. ~

Really? You're saying that if I'm riding a 26/26 (SXP) with 100 PSI (max)
tires and I max the rear I should make the front at 45 PSI? What about
pinch flats and stuff? Would those mainly be limited to the rear tire?

Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:51:53
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Really? You're saying that if I'm riding a 26/26 (SXP) with 100 PSI (max)
> tires and I max the rear I should make the front at 45 PSI? What about
> pinch flats and stuff? Would those mainly be limited to the rear tire?
>
>

It depends on what the weight distribution of the particular bike/rider
combination is. Put the front tire on a bathroom scale, and sit on the
bike with your feet resting on the pedals and hold yourself up with a
hand against a wall. Then with the rider and bike total weights you can
figure it out.

The front tire should have /at/ /least/ the same contact patch are as
the rear, /if/ /not/ /more/. So for a bike that carries two-thirds of
its weight on the rear tire, then the front should be inflated to no
more than about one-half the pressure of the rear. If the weight
distribution was 40/60 F/R, then the front tire should be inflated to no
more than 2/3 the pressure of the rear. For a 45/55 F/R bike, the front
should be no more than about 80% of the rear pressure.

There will be no greater danger of a pinch flat in the lower-inflated
front tire because while the pressure is lower, the load on the tire is
lower as well. You are not "increasing" the risk of pinch flats as much
as you are equalizing it; if both were inflated to the same pressure but
the rear was carrying more weight, then the rear would be more at risk
for pinching. You are not saving much of anything by over-inflating the
front tire; the decrease in rolling resistance is minuscule. All it
really gets you is much worse steering response.

.....If the thought of a front pinch flat concerns you and you decide to
run a wider front tire, then it should be at a pressure that is even
lower than the weight proportion. The front needs to be re-figured based
on the proportions of the wider front tire to the narrower rear.
[-I should probably put up a web page explaining all this-]

---------------

The problem I think is that people are used to upright bikes, that all
tend to hold very-close-to 50/50 weight distribution, so people inflate
both [recumbent] tires to the same PSI and forget about it. On a bike
with significantly-different front/rear weight distribution, inflating
both tires to the same pressure is simply not correct.
~

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:01:48
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::
::: Really? You're saying that if I'm riding a 26/26 (SXP) with 100
::: PSI (max) tires and I max the rear I should make the front at 45
::: PSI? What about pinch flats and stuff? Would those mainly be
::: limited to the rear tire?
:::
:::
::
:: It depends on what the weight distribution of the particular
:: bike/rider combination is. Put the front tire on a bathroom scale,
:: and sit on the bike with your feet resting on the pedals and hold
:: yourself up with a hand against a wall. Then with the rider and bike
:: total weights you can figure it out.

I think having to figure weight distribution to ride is an rather extreme
thing to do.

::
:: The front tire should have /at/ /least/ the same contact patch are as
:: the rear, /if/ /not/ /more/. So for a bike that carries two-thirds of
:: its weight on the rear tire, then the front should be inflated to no
:: more than about one-half the pressure of the rear. If the weight
:: distribution was 40/60 F/R, then the front tire should be inflated
:: to no more than 2/3 the pressure of the rear. For a 45/55 F/R bike,
:: the front should be no more than about 80% of the rear pressure.
::
:: There will be no greater danger of a pinch flat in the lower-inflated
:: front tire because while the pressure is lower, the load on the tire
:: is lower as well.

What load? Loads can change based on what happens with road conditions, can
they not?

You are not "increasing" the risk of pinch flats
:: as much as you are equalizing it; if both were inflated to the same
:: pressure but the rear was carrying more weight, then the rear would
:: be more at risk for pinching. You are not saving much of anything by
:: over-inflating the front tire; the decrease in rolling resistance is
:: minuscule. All it really gets you is much worse steering response.

How did you arrive at this definition of overinflating? I think of
overinflating as going beyond rated max psi. Can you direct me to a cite
somewhere?

::
:: .....If the thought of a front pinch flat concerns you and you
:: decide to run a wider front tire, then it should be at a pressure
:: that is even lower than the weight proportion. The front needs to be
:: re-figured based on the proportions of the wider front tire to the
:: narrower rear. [-I should probably put up a web page explaining all
:: this-]

I'd love to see that. I don't want to seem as if I'm attacking you for
responding to my post. But I'm curious as to the basis for your statements.

::
:: ---------------
::
:: The problem I think is that people are used to upright bikes, that
:: all tend to hold very-close-to 50/50 weight distribution, so people
:: inflate both [recumbent] tires to the same PSI and forget about it.
:: On a bike with significantly-different front/rear weight
:: distribution, inflating both tires to the same pressure is simply
:: not correct. ~

I must agree with the other poster....why? Is there some reference for most
of these statements?

Date: 01 Dec 2006 09:31:10
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:

> The front tire should have /at/ /least/ the same contact patch are as
> the rear, /if/ /not/ /more/.

Why?

I've never worried about this on any bike I've ever had, and I don't
recall ever suffering as a result, so it comes over as rather more
grounded in theory than practice.

I don't see why the front tyre needs calibrating to the rear. It
doesn't know what pressure the rear is running at or what the contact
patch is: shirley whether it will skid or not is down to absolutes, not
values relative to the back?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Date: 04 Dec 2006 16:03:25
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Peter Clinch wrote:
> DougC wrote:
>
>> The front tire should have /at/ /least/ the same contact patch are as
>> the rear, /if/ /not/ /more/.
>
> Why?
>
> I've never worried about this on any bike I've ever had, and I don't
> recall ever suffering as a result, so it comes over as rather more
> grounded in theory than practice.
>
> I don't see why the front tyre needs calibrating to the rear. It
> doesn't know what pressure the rear is running at or what the contact
> patch is: shirley whether it will skid or not is down to absolutes, not
> values relative to the back?
>
> Pete.

This is mainly a recumbent/"alternate"-bike issue, as these bicycles
tend to have wider differences in weight distribution than upright bikes
do, and riders cannot shift their weight significantly during riding.

The reason that this is important is because if you enter a low-traction
situation and one of your tires begins to slide, you want it to be the
rear to slide first rather than the front. The rear tire will follow the
front tire, even if the rear tire is sliding. On a sandy road surface,
you can slide short distances with the rear wheel locked up and keep the
bike upright fairly easily--but it is damn near impossible to slide more
than a few inches with the front tire locked up (on either road bikes or
recumbents). Because of the front tire starts to slide, you cannot steer
at all and you have a far greater chance of crashing.

So (on a two-wheeled vehicle that is not a Segway) the front tire should
-always- have more traction than the rear. That means since the front is
carrying less weight, you run a lower front pressure so that the contact
patch is at least as large as the rear is.

And if you're running narrow tires, you can see some significant
handling gains by switching to a wider front tire as well. Narrow tires
do not handle loose surfaces well.
~

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:46:08
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:

> This is mainly a recumbent/"alternate"-bike issue, as these bicycles
> tend to have wider differences in weight distribution than upright bikes
> do, and riders cannot shift their weight significantly during riding.

But it's not a problem on my recumbent tourer either...

> The reason that this is important is because if you enter a low-traction
> situation and one of your tires begins to slide, you want it to be the
> rear to slide first rather than the front.

Why? If it's a rear wheel drive bike (as most are) then you can't get
traction any more if the back is slipping. I've never seen any owners
of freight bikes (I have one for direct experience) fiddle about with
tyre pressures just because they've put 50 Kg load in the front/back
which changes the wheel loading.

> The rear tire will follow the
> front tire, even if the rear tire is sliding. On a sandy road surface,
> you can slide short distances with the rear wheel locked up and keep the
> bike upright fairly easily--but it is damn near impossible to slide more
> than a few inches with the front tire locked up (on either road bikes or
> recumbents). Because of the front tire starts to slide, you cannot steer
> at all and you have a far greater chance of crashing.

I spend a fair bit of time on loose surfaces (my house is on an unmade
track), and most times I've ever come off have been when I've lost all
traction at the back, ground to a halt with no effective power and
toppled over sideways. I've also come off with the back sliding out on
me on gravel.

The only time I've locked up the front wheel is under heavy emergency
braking and I've just slid forwards. Since the front suspension dived
it's fair to say far more weight than the usual riding weight was on the
front wheel, and it skidded anyway because of brake lock, not tyre pressure.

> So (on a two-wheeled vehicle that is not a Segway) the front tire should
> -always- have more traction than the rear. That means since the front is
> carrying less weight, you run a lower front pressure so that the contact
> patch is at least as large as the rear is.

But I don't, /and it isn't a problem/, and nobody else I know aside from
you does, /and they don't have problems either/. So I look at the
empirical data and it doesn't stack up for this being in any way important.

> And if you're running narrow tires, you can see some significant
> handling gains by switching to a wider front tire as well. Narrow tires
> do not handle loose surfaces well.

That's quite true, but as I run 38mm athons it's not something I feel
a need to change.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Date: 01 Dec 2006 16:58:02
From: nash
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

>>>shirley whether it will skid or not is down to absolutes, not
> values relative to the back?

Don't call me shirley

Date: 01 Dec 2006 04:04:27
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:4tab2vF12ovl5U1@mid.individual.net...
> DougC wrote:
>
>> The front tire should have /at/ /least/ the same contact patch are as the
>> rear, /if/ /not/ /more/.
>
> Why?
>
> I've never worried about this on any bike I've ever had, and I don't
> recall ever suffering as a result, so it comes over as rather more
> grounded in theory than practice.
>
> I don't see why the front tyre needs calibrating to the rear. It doesn't
> know what pressure the rear is running at or what the contact patch is:
> shirley [surely] whether it will skid or not is down to absolutes, not
> values relative to the back?
>
> Pete.
>
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Good thinking Pete! Did you learn how to think like this in medical school I
wonder? Too bad you know as little about bicycle physics as you do about
medical physics - whatever the hell that is!

However, it is always good to hear from the peanut gallery. How else would
we ever learn how a screwball Medical Physics IT Officer thinks. And from
Ninewells Hospital too!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 01 Dec 2006 01:02:12
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:4LFbh.18$r71.8@newsfe02.lga...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>
>> Really? You're saying that if I'm riding a 26/26 (SXP) with 100 PSI
>> (max) tires and I max the rear I should make the front at 45 PSI? What
>> about pinch flats and stuff? Would those mainly be limited to the rear
>> tire?
>
> It depends on what the weight distribution of the particular bike/rider
> combination is. Put the front tire on a bathroom scale, and sit on the
> bike with your feet resting on the pedals and hold yourself up with a hand
> against a wall. Then with the rider and bike total weights you can figure
> it out.
>
> The front tire should have /at/ /least/ the same contact patch are as the
> rear, /if/ /not/ /more/. So for a bike that carries two-thirds of its
> weight on the rear tire, then the front should be inflated to no more than
> about one-half the pressure of the rear. If the weight distribution was
> 40/60 F/R, then the front tire should be inflated to no more than 2/3 the
> pressure of the rear. For a 45/55 F/R bike, the front should be no more
> than about 80% of the rear pressure.
>
> There will be no greater danger of a pinch flat in the lower-inflated
> front tire because while the pressure is lower, the load on the tire is
> lower as well. You are not "increasing" the risk of pinch flats as much as
> you are equalizing it; if both were inflated to the same pressure but the
> rear was carrying more weight, then the rear would be more at risk for
> pinching. You are not saving much of anything by over-inflating the front
> tire; the decrease in rolling resistance is minuscule. All it really gets
> you is much worse steering response.
>
> .....If the thought of a front pinch flat concerns you and you decide to
> run a wider front tire, then it should be at a pressure that is even lower
> than the weight proportion. The front needs to be re-figured based on the
> proportions of the wider front tire to the narrower rear.
> [-I should probably put up a web page explaining all this-]
>
> ---------------
>
> The problem I think is that people are used to upright bikes, that all
> tend to hold very-close-to 50/50 weight distribution, so people inflate
> both [recumbent] tires to the same PSI and forget about it. On a bike with
> significantly-different front/rear weight distribution, inflating both
> tires to the same pressure is simply not correct.

Doug is quite correct about all of this, but the reason so many think
otherwise is that they want to be as fast as possible no matter the road
surface. And so they go for maximum pressure tires front and rear, never
dreaming that comfort and security are far more important than mere speed.
Normally, you never go very fast on rough or gravel roads anyway, but the
main thing is that you do not want to be falling. Fat low pressure tires
simply work better on gravel.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 29 Nov 2006 10:30:51
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:

> As far as riding in gravel, I just advise people try it and see. A LWB
> is more stable than a SWB for the same reason that drag racers and sand
> rails are built long--simply the longer wheelbase.

One person's "more stable" is another's "less responsive". If I'm in
gravel and thing start to slide I think I'd sooner be on "more
responsive" but of course mileage varies.

> The reason that front tires on bents slide is simple: in a misguided
> effort to achieve minimal rolling resistance, people run tires too
> narrow and inflated to a pressure that is too high. The front tire
> should be inflated to a pressure (with respect to the rear tire) that is
> no greater than the proportion of weight that it is carrying.

I'd have thought that the weight distribution will change dramatically
under heavy braking, which is one of the occasions you're likely to be
sliding the front wheel... It will also change when you're going up a
steep hill. Personally, ICBA to reinflate my tyres to different
pressures according to the slope I'm on or the braking effect!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Date: 28 Nov 2006 23:36:15
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1164761350.907085.14600@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

DougC wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > ....This is the recumbent bike I would choose for touring:
> > -RANS Rocket- (and not just because I already
> > own one).

Ed Dolan wrote:

In all my years of touring I have seen very few Rockets ever used for that
purpose. 20 inch wheels are best suited for around town, not for the open
road.

> Certainly people do tour on the Rocket, but the weird back wheel scares
> me. If the Sachs hub goes out on tour, how easy would it be to find
> another replacement? Is the "typical" bike shop going to have one on
> hand in that size? Probably not. ....This is my justification for
> suggesting a 26/26 LWB bike that uses regular derailleurs. The more
> common parts the recumbent has, the better.

The Rocket comes standard with a regular cassette hub - those with
Sachs 3x7 hubs or SRAM DualDrive were modified by a dealer or owner.

A RANS Rocket with a 47-406 rear tire, an 11-34 Shimano Megarange
cassette, and standard 52/42/30 "road" triple will have a gear range of
about 1.4 to 7.4 meters development (17 to 92 gear inches). This will
produce speeds from about 7� to 40 kph (4� to 25 mph) at a cadence of
90 rpm, which should be adequate for most touring use.

The ISO 406-mm rear wheel of the Rocket will be significantly stronger
than a larger wheel with the same number of spokes, which is also an
advantage in touring.

Ed Dolan wrote:

Please take all those metric measurements and put them where the sun don't
shine. Or better yet, get thee to France (your true home) where such
nonsense is the norm.

> (the Cycle Genius I suggested does use disk brakes, but those are pretty
> common now on bike-store MTB's, which also use 26" wheels--and if a rim
> goes out of true, you're more likely to be able to keep riding on it it
> if you have disk brakes than calipers)
>
> >
> > The RANS Rocket is also a very fun bike to ride, once the rider adapts
> > to the light control forces required.
> >
>
> I had a short wheelbase at first and didn't like it, mainly for one
> reason--that it was fine on smooth clean pavement, but it did not handle
> well in gravel and broken pavement at all. Normally you would not choose
> to ride on gravelly or broken pavement of course, but during emergency
> evasive maneuvers sometimes you end up taking a path that you wouldn't
> choose otherwise. And it was at these exact moments that the SWB felt
> its worst, as if it was going to slide sideways out from under me. The
> LWB has this problem but it's much less severe.

I would much rather ride a SWB on loose surfaces than a LWB. With an
approximate 40%/60% front/rear weight distribution, the Rocket's front
wheel is less likely to skid on loose surfaces, while still having an
effective rear brake. The inherent SWB advantage in low speed handling
can also be helpful on unimproved surfaces. The LWB will typically
ride better (especially a bike with some vertical compliance such as
the RANS Stratus).

Ed Dolan wrote:

I think most of us would rather take a fall from a LWB than a SWB. The fact
is that no recumbent rides at all well on rough surfaces unless it has been
modified for such use, the principal modification being fat knobby tires.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 28 Nov 2006 06:20:15
From: Buck
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
> > Which is yet another reason I
> >prefer my Xtracycle to a solo + trailer.
>
> Tell me abt your xtracycle and how well it might be for
> long distance tours

Zoot may be the only one around here with an Xtracycle. Here are some
links to folks who have used them for touring:

http://xtracycle.com/media/AdvCyclingReview.pdf

http://www.vancouvertovancouver.com/sponsors.php

http://www.frasercycles.com/bike.shtml

And here are some links to the new Surly Big Dummy. It takes the
integrated approach to Xtracycling:

http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/?p=150

http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/bd/

Follow the links on the links above and you will see that there are
several folks making "longtail" bikes designed to accept Xtracycle
racks.

-Buck

Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:59:04
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On 28 Nov 2006 06:20:15 -0800, "Buck" <bicyclebuck@gmail.com > wrote:

>And here are some links to the new Surly Big Dummy. It takes the
>integrated approach to Xtracycling:
>
>http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/?p=150
>
>http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/bd/
>
>Follow the links on the links above and you will see that there are
>several folks making "longtail" bikes designed to accept Xtracycle
>racks.

The Big Dummy frame certainly looks more elegant than a stock
Xtracycle/MTB combination. According the Surly site it's still in
development and will cost ~$811.00 for a bare frame and fork.

An Xtracycle and complete bicycle can be had starting at $599 from
the Xtracycle folks.

I don't know how much Dane has spent on his rig but I'd bet it didn't
cost as much as the Surly, even with his bomb-squad wheels.

Mine was $250 CND for the Xtracycle with bags, rack and 2 decks.
There was also a Surly Singulator, 2 kick stands and "Rock Sturdy"
accessory stand to sweeten the deal. It was a lightly used demo
model.

It was even less if you want to take off the profit I made by trading
a foundling road bike for a Scott Racing Pro + $60. That's the bike
to which my Xtracycle is currently attached.

The 3 other people I know with Xtracycles just have them attached to
bikes they had laying around. That Surly sure looks nice though.

The Xtracycle folks have a program in Africa helping people build
taxi and truck bikes. The "Worldbike" is the world's lowest cost
cargo-bike.Some of those rigs look ultra heavy duty.
www.xaccess.org/
--
zk

Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:24:22
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2006 06:20:15 -0800, "Buck" <bicyclebuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And here are some links to the new Surly Big Dummy. It takes the
>>integrated approach to Xtracycling:
>>
>>http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/?p=150
>>
>>http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/bd/
>>
>>Follow the links on the links above and you will see that there are
>>several folks making "longtail" bikes designed to accept Xtracycle
>>racks.

And of course the StokeMonkey which we've discussed in some other
threads. I'm not super interested in one of those for myself, but I'm
thinking about one for my wife.

> The Big Dummy frame certainly looks more elegant than a stock
> Xtracycle/MTB combination. According the Surly site it's still in
> development and will cost ~$811.00 for a bare frame and fork.
>
> An Xtracycle and complete bicycle can be had starting at $599 from
> the Xtracycle folks.
>
> I don't know how much Dane has spent on his rig but I'd bet it didn't
> cost as much as the Surly, even with his bomb-squad wheels.

No, definitely less than that. I took a $20 frame and fork (old Schwinn
MTB), and added a lot of cheap/salvaged components. I'd say the most
expensive things on there (aside from the Free radical itself) are the
wheels and rear disc brake mechanism.

> The 3 other people I know with Xtracycles just have them attached to
> bikes they had laying around. That Surly sure looks nice though.

Unfortunately I've always been more interested in 'Road' bikes, so I
didn't have one lying around. I did make do fairly well though.

--
You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it
doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on.
-- Hepler, Systems Design 182

Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:05:44
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote:

>The Big Dummy frame certainly looks more elegant

I'm just curious if the Big Dummy would make a good
long distance tour bike since it has a load platform
already built into it?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:08:27
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:05:44 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:

>>The Big Dummy frame certainly looks more elegant
>
>I'm just curious if the Big Dummy would make a good
>long distance tour bike since it has a load platform
>already built into it?

It has built in attachment points for the FreeRadical's "V-Racks"
that are simply bent pieces of aluminum tubing for $29 USD, each. The
"Free Loader" bags are $79 USD, each. Add another $39 USD for the
snap deck to complete a standard Xtracycle conversion package that
goes for $399 USD.
http://www.xtracycle.com/hitchless-trailers-kits-c-4.html

The Xtracycle Free Radical basic frame and mounting kit alone is $244
USD. That's all that's built into the Big Dummy. That and extra
stiffness. It's designed to be a cargo bike more than a touring bike.

The Big Dummy does not include any of the Xtracycle accessories nor
are they built in. The V-Racks or Wide Loaders must be purchased from
Xtracycle. They are removable, just like on the Free Radical.

If the Big Dummy is going to be like the original concept;
Xtracycle's Free Radical + Surly's Karate Monkey frame, (plus the
Stokemonkey electric motor) it too will likely be built for the 29"
wheels.
http://bikehugger.com/2006/09/the_bettie_download.htm

That's a hard to find tire size outside major uban areas let alone
finding one with a low rolling resistance desireable for touring .
Surly doesn't say on their site what wheel size they're planning to
use nor can I determine the tire size from the photos in the links
Buck posted here.
http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/bd/

Horses for courses. I'd not make an Xtracycle my first choice for a
touring machine. It's my station wagon and possibly the earthquake
evacuation mount.
--
zk

Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:48:33
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Buck" <bicyclebuck@gmail.com > wrote:

>And here are some links to the new Surly Big Dummy. It takes the
>integrated approach to Xtracycling:
>
>http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/?p=150
>
>http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/bd/
>
>Follow the links on the links above and you will see that there are
>several folks making "longtail" bikes designed to accept Xtracycle
>racks.

very very cool! thanks

This is EXCATLKY what I was talking abt..... i.e.
making specific frames with built in load platform!

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:39:37
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> ...
> I have , however, thought abt getting a MT bike for
> daily commuting......and a bent for those tours. I've
> never owned a bent before and am concerned I may not
> put many miles on it given the cost of one....

This is the recumbent bike I would choose for touring:
<http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket07.htm > (and not just because I already
own one). Here is one set up for touring:
<http://www.phred.org/~alex/bikes/rocket.html >. The triangular frame
and short stays also make the Rocket one of the best bikes for towing a
single wheel trailer.

With the appropriate racks and panniers, the Rocket could be set up for
touring for about $1600 or so total cost.

The only real changes I would make from stock are smaller chainrings
and more durable tires (which a good dealer will change when new for
only a small additional charge). The stock wheels should be fine if
properly tensioned and stress-relieved.

The RANS Rocket is also a very fun bike to ride, once the rider adapts
to the light control forces required.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:50:39
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The RANS Rocket is also a very fun bike to ride, once the rider adapts
>to the light control forces required.

cool!

I will give it consideration!

Date: 28 Nov 2006 04:45:57
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> ....This is the recumbent bike I would choose for touring:
> -RANS Rocket- (and not just because I already
> own one).
>

Certainly people do tour on the Rocket, but the weird back wheel scares
me. If the Sachs hub goes out on tour, how easy would it be to find
another replacement? Is the "typical" bike shop going to have one on
hand in that size? Probably not. ....This is my justification for
suggesting a 26/26 LWB bike that uses regular derailleurs. The more
common parts the recumbent has, the better.

(the Cycle Genius I suggested does use disk brakes, but those are pretty
common now on bike-store MTB's, which also use 26" wheels--and if a rim
goes out of true, you're more likely to be able to keep riding on it it
if you have disk brakes than calipers)

>
> The RANS Rocket is also a very fun bike to ride, once the rider adapts
> to the light control forces required.
>

I had a short wheelbase at first and didn't like it, mainly for one
reason--that it was fine on smooth clean pavement, but it did not handle
well in gravel and broken pavement at all. Normally you would not choose
to ride on gravelly or broken pavement of course, but during emergency
evasive maneuvers sometimes you end up taking a path that you wouldn't
choose otherwise. And it was at these exact moments that the SWB felt
its worst, as if it was going to slide sideways out from under me. The
LWB has this problem but it's much less severe.
~

Date: 28 Nov 2006 10:59:46
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

DougC wrote:

> Certainly people do tour on the Rocket, but the weird back wheel scares
> me. If the Sachs hub goes out on tour, how easy would it be to find
> another replacement?

It's a two edged sword: hub gears are intrinsically more reliable than
derailleurs so it's far less likely to go out in the first place. If
you're on tour and 20 miles from anywhere, how easy will it be to get
hold of a new derailleur? I think that's a lot more likely to happen
than a dead hub.

> I had a short wheelbase at first and didn't like it, mainly for one
> reason--that it was fine on smooth clean pavement, but it did not handle
> well in gravel and broken pavement at all. Normally you would not choose
> to ride on gravelly or broken pavement of course, but during emergency
> evasive maneuvers sometimes you end up taking a path that you wouldn't
> choose otherwise. And it was at these exact moments that the SWB felt
> its worst, as if it was going to slide sideways out from under me. The
> LWB has this problem but it's much less severe.

"SWB" and "LWB" don't tell you much on their own. You can have
implementations of either that will suck or blow on different terrains.
My SWB (HPVel Streetmachine GT) tourer is pretty much fine off the
pavement (it's done a few miles in its time fully loaded for touring on
unmade tracks), but I'd not be at all surprised to find SWBs that didn't
do so well.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:26:23
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Dane Buson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Having said that, if I had the time to tour, I would seriously consider
> > a r*c*mb*nt tadpole trike (suspended for light touring, unsuspended for
> > self-contained). While likely a little slower, removing the issue of
> > balance and needing to pay so much attention to road hazards, while
> > sitting in a moderately reclined position, allows one to pay much more
> > attention to one's surroundings (in my experience).
>
> Now, about the road hazards bit, wouldn't a trike exacerbate problems
> with chuckholes and what-not? At least that's been my experience with a
> DF bike with a trailer. The three wheel tracks make it more likely to
> hit road hazards than a singletrack. Which is yet another reason I
> prefer my Xtracycle to a solo + trailer.

Yes and no. While it is hard to avoid potholes with the rear wheel,
suspension or enough of a load on the trike will smooth things out. Fat
tires ( > 44-mm) also are a good idea.

Angled railroad tracks, snow and ice patches, loose gravel, wet leaves,
etc. can easily cause the unwary or unskilled cyclist to loose his/her
balance and fall. On a trike, these conditions can be pretty much
ignored while riding straight ahead.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:43:42
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Having said that, if I had the time to tour, I would seriously consider
>>> a r*c*mb*nt tadpole trike (suspended for light touring, unsuspended for
>>> self-contained). While likely a little slower, removing the issue of
>>> balance and needing to pay so much attention to road hazards, while
>>> sitting in a moderately reclined position, allows one to pay much more
>>> attention to one's surroundings (in my experience).
>> Now, about the road hazards bit, wouldn't a trike exacerbate problems
>> with chuckholes and what-not? At least that's been my experience with a
>> DF bike with a trailer. The three wheel tracks make it more likely to
>> hit road hazards than a singletrack. Which is yet another reason I
>> prefer my Xtracycle to a solo + trailer.
>
> Yes and no. While it is hard to avoid potholes with the rear wheel,
> suspension or enough of a load on the trike will smooth things out. Fat
> tires (> 44-mm) also are a good idea.
>
> Angled railroad tracks, snow and ice patches, loose gravel, wet leaves,
> etc. can easily cause the unwary or unskilled cyclist to loose his/her
> balance and fall. On a trike, these conditions can be pretty much
> ignored while riding straight ahead.
>

Yeah it would seem to me that under /normal/ conditions it's pretty hard
to fall off a tadpole. And when you get tired you can just stop, put on
the parking brake and take a nap. But seriously, my thinking on a
trailer is that aerodynamically speaking, the trailer would be in the
slipstream on the trike / rider system so it might be more aerodynamic
than a bike / trike with front and rear loaded panniers. Plus everything
is loaded into one package rather than four.

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:47:00
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Bike Fit Was: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

In article <jbJah.14266$_x3.3800@trndny02 >,
Stephen Harding <smharding16@msn.com > writes:

> Being one who believes "perfect fit" is more myth than
> reality for a bicycle, I am curious as to what size bike
> was "pretty much useless"

For me that would be if the cockpit is so short that
my knees hit or almost hit the handlebar unless I go
to a longer stem. And then I don't like the handling
with the handlebar so far over the front wheel.

I also like the distance between saddle and handlebar
such that I have some latitude to scootch back in the
saddle to hunker down or get some extra leg extension,
or to move forward for a somewhat more upright position,
or to perch comfortably between those extremes, for a
"normal" riding position.

> and what size would have made
> it "right"? How much of a difference in sizes?

The frame of my usually-ridden MTB is long enough
for my torso & arms, but probably not tall enough for
my gangly gams -- I've got about 7" of seatpost showing,
and the top of the saddle is about 7" above the
handlebar grips. But it's a most comfortable config
for me. I guess I'm a 5'9" guy from the waist up,
and a 6'1" guy from the waist down. So I'm 5'11"
overall.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 27 Nov 2006 12:25:36
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

In article <in9fke.jd8.ln@bud.garden.local >,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes:
> In article <cg9mm25f27gh3f8oaphtkacoitc1cuguq1@4ax.com>,
> me@privacy.net writes:
>> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>
>>>Hopping a bike takes some preparation: getting your
>>>cranks set right, changing your grasp on the handlebar,
>>>adjusting your posture, getting up off the saddle and
>>>compressing your legs, etc. By the time you've got all
>>>that done, you're pretty well into the emgerency
>>>situation anyway.
>>
>> So in theory it sounds good
>>
>> But in practice it really doesn't work that way huh?
>
> I figure if it did, hopping would already be in the suite
> of conventional emergency maneouvers (instant turns,
> panic stops, rock dodging.)

Oh yeah, one more thought. A hop can go wrong -- a
bad landing, forgetting to let go of the brake lever ...
so it might introduce additional risk to an already bad
circumstance where you really need to be in control of
what your bike is doing and where it's going at every moment.
For that, I think it's best to have both wheels on the ground.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:28:58
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:46:12 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:

>I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
>big way.
>
>I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.

My suggestion is that you get yourself a used bike for your utility
and commuting rides and start riding it. You probably wouldn't have
to spend more than ~150 dollars. Get a bike shop brand. Avoid the
*t brand bikes

A rigid mountain bike with slicks is a good all around bike as are
the older sport-touring road bikes. They can take fenders and racks.
They aren't the types of bikes to attract thieves.

Later as you get more experience and gain fitness you'll be more
aware of your actual needs. Plus you'll have acquired some of the
accessories that can be moved to the next bike.

Two bikes are nice to have in case one gets stolen or wrecked.

I consider four bikes to be ideal number. Well, maybe five.
--
zk

Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:31:18
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote:

>I consider four bikes to be ideal number. Well, maybe five.

Ha!

A person after my own heart!

Date: 27 Nov 2006 15:20:11
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:31:18 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:

>Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>I consider four bikes to be ideal number. Well, maybe five.
>
>Ha!
>
>A person after my own heart!

I'm trying to keep it at eleven so I don't feel I need to start a
12-step program.

It seems that whenever I manage to part with a bike there is another
one thrust upon me.
--
zk

Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:17:46
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:31:18 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:
>>Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I consider four bikes to be ideal number. Well, maybe five.
>>
>>Ha!
>>
>>A person after my own heart!
>
> I'm trying to keep it at eleven so I don't feel I need to start a
> 12-step program.

I'm only up to 6 1/2 so far. But I do seem to keep creeping up in
numbers.
>
> It seems that whenever I manage to part with a bike there is another
> one thrust upon me.

Yes, and also the project bikes. I recently had a singlespeed
spontaneously arise (mostly) from the spare parts bin. It's pretty nice
other than being too small for me. I have a friend I'm going to try and
pawn it off on. Otherwise maybe I'll try Craigslist in the spring when
all the hipsters are getting ready to ride again.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"When all else fails, follow instructions."

Date: 12 Dec 2006 20:03:32
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:17:46 -0800, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu >
wrote:

>> I'm trying to keep it at eleven so I don't feel I need to start a
>> 12-step program.
>
>I'm only up to 6 1/2 so far. But I do seem to keep creeping up in
>numbers.
>>
>> It seems that whenever I manage to part with a bike there is another
>> one thrust upon me.
>
>Yes, and also the project bikes. I recently had a singlespeed
>spontaneously arise (mostly) from the spare parts bin. It's pretty nice
>other than being too small for me. I have a friend I'm going to try and
>pawn it off on. Otherwise maybe I'll try Craigslist in the spring when
>all the hipsters are getting ready to ride again.

That's eleven bikes adjusting:

10 bikes arusting, 9 bikes amorphing, 8 bikes need painting, 7 bikes
for sale, 6 bikes aparking.
5 bikes are red.
Four bikes are loaners, 3 bikes are missing, 2 bikes are fading and
a bicycle just to ride.

My biggest projects now are wheels.
Need some new 27" rims and spokes for the Witcomb. First I've gotta
finish cleaning and getting brake parts for my retro, Sachs internal
brake hub/Weinmann double eyeleted rim, wheelset for the Xtracycle.
With its three sets of caged rear axle bearings (one at the outboard
end of the freewheel!) it's going to be more trustworthy than the
SRAM 3X7 on there now. The sixty-three speeds aren't needed and I
really wanted to put that hub on joe-bike to run with a single chain
ring. That means some brazing before I finish painting joe-bike.

The 1952 Sturmey Archer AG (3spd dynahub) needs laced into the rim on
my chopper if I don't decide to go with the Sachs 3spd coaster brake.
Then that can get laced into a 20" for my other "chopper".

Projects are joe-bike and the new/old Miyata 1000. Plus swapping the
Xtracycle to the mixte frame for kicks.
Problem is, that's my priy machine until I get one of those
projects done.
--
zk

Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:10:58
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

In article <cg9mm25f27gh3f8oaphtkacoitc1cuguq1@4ax.com >,
me@privacy.net writes:
> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>>Hopping a bike takes some preparation: getting your
>>cranks set right, changing your grasp on the handlebar,
>>adjusting your posture, getting up off the saddle and
>>compressing your legs, etc. By the time you've got all
>>that done, you're pretty well into the emgerency
>>situation anyway.
>
> So in theory it sounds good
>
> But in practice it really doesn't work that way huh?

I figure if it did, hopping would already be in the suite
of conventional emergency maneouvers (instant turns,
panic stops, rock dodging.)

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 27 Nov 2006 07:32:32
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

In article <29vlm29r5k5vml8rsdgs33m06r0u5uv3hq@4ax.com >,
me@privacy.net writes:
> catzz66 <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote:
>
>>You have not started riding yet, if I recall correctly. So, I would not
>>be in a huge hurry to look for two, but would try to first settle on the
>>one that is most suitable, the one that I felt I was going to be riding
>>the most. I would buy a used one that most nearly meets my needs for
>>most uses and take it from there. I'd add the second bike when and if I
>>actually needed it. It is easier to focus on one thing at a time, anyhow.
>
> Agree on your methodology.
>
> I guess I keep thinking abt a MT bike with a shock
> cause it would allow me to hop curbs in emergency
> situations while riding in heavy metro areas such as
> commute to work.
>
> Any validity to that thinking above?

When I try to picture "emergency situations while riding
in heavy metro areas" it seems to me that to hop out of
many such situations (like if a wrong-way driver is
coming straight at you, or if an overtaking car cuts
you off,) you'd want to hop sideways.

Hopping a bike takes some preparation: getting your
cranks set right, changing your grasp on the handlebar,
adjusting your posture, getting up off the saddle and
compressing your legs, etc. By the time you've got all
that done, you're pretty well into the emgerency
situation anyway. So I don't think there are many situations
where hopping would be a preferable tactic to instant
turns or panic stops, or just plain avoiding getting
into such situations.

Hopping or wheelie-ing a curb head-on is a lot easier
than hopping it sideways, but that would be more for
the convenience of transitioning from the street to the
sidewalk, than to get out of any emergency situation.
And it can be readily done with a rigid fork.

cheers,
TOm

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:53:39
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

>Hopping a bike takes some preparation: getting your
>cranks set right, changing your grasp on the handlebar,
>adjusting your posture, getting up off the saddle and
>compressing your legs, etc. By the time you've got all
>that done, you're pretty well into the emgerency
>situation anyway.

So in theory it sounds good

But in practice it really doesn't work that way huh?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 07:06:09
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 08:59:47
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

catzz66 <catzz66@threeletterservice.com > wrote:

>You have not started riding yet, if I recall correctly. So, I would not
>be in a huge hurry to look for two, but would try to first settle on the
>one that is most suitable, the one that I felt I was going to be riding
>the most. I would buy a used one that most nearly meets my needs for
>most uses and take it from there. I'd add the second bike when and if I
>actually needed it. It is easier to focus on one thing at a time, anyhow.

Agree on your methodology.

I guess I keep thinking abt a MT bike with a shock
cause it would allow me to hop curbs in emergency
situations while riding in heavy metro areas such as
commute to work.

Any validity to that thinking above?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:53:47
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> catzz66 <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You have not started riding yet, if I recall correctly. So, I would not
>>be in a huge hurry to look for two, but would try to first settle on the
>>one that is most suitable, the one that I felt I was going to be riding
>>the most. I would buy a used one that most nearly meets my needs for
>>most uses and take it from there. I'd add the second bike when and if I
>>actually needed it. It is easier to focus on one thing at a time, anyhow.
>
>
> Agree on your methodology.
>
> I guess I keep thinking abt a MT bike with a shock
> cause it would allow me to hop curbs in emergency
> situations while riding in heavy metro areas such as
> commute to work.
>
> Any validity to that thinking above?

That was my thinking when I bought the mountain bike too. It turned out
in my case (and yours may be completely different) that I hated the
suspension fork. It felt too mushy. Also, I stopped hopping curbs as I
got more and more confident riding on the road. Some people love
suspensions but if I ever get another mountain bike or something
similar, I won't get a suspension.

I ride probably 95% plus in an urban area. I ride for my own enjoyment
and if I would have to rely on sidewalks other than just incidentally to
get somewhere, I work out another route even if it takes a little
longer. Good luck with your commuting and all. The main thing is just
to find some suitable equipment you like and get started.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:16:15
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

catzz66 <dingdong@rammalamma.net > wrote:

>That was my thinking when I bought the mountain bike too. It turned out
>in my case (and yours may be completely different) that I hated the
>suspension fork. It felt too mushy. Also, I stopped hopping curbs as I
>got more and more confident riding on the road. Some people love
>suspensions but if I ever get another mountain bike or something
>similar, I won't get a suspension.

Interesting

>I ride probably 95% plus in an urban area. I ride for my own enjoyment
>and if I would have to rely on sidewalks other than just incidentally to
>get somewhere, I work out another route even if it takes a little
>longer. Good luck with your commuting and all. The main thing is just
>to find some suitable equipment you like and get started.

Thanks

Date: 26 Nov 2006 22:16:14
From: peter
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> >I would say that you will find more benefits from getting two bikes than
> >from making one serve all purposes.
>
> OK
>
> Kind of my gut feeling as well..... but just needed you
> guys opinions.
>
> Maybe I will buy two used bikes.... touring and used MT
> bike.

Start with the touring (or cross) bike and you may well find that it
works fine on the type of trail riding you mentioned before in addition
to the commuting and touring. Choice of tires can make a big
difference so get a frame that will let you run some wider tires when
needed.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 20:17:42
From: Earl Bollinger
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

<me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:vmkjm29uhskljl9eoa6di8j55c9bviugve@4ax.com...
> I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
> big way.
>
> I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.
>
> And also can see myself doing some light off road
> cycling such as dirt trail and roads.
>
> Is it impossible to have only one bike do it all above?
>
> Is it necessary to have a touring AND a MT bike with
> front shock?

I would look into getting a cyclecross bike with braze on mount points for
racks.
You can change the tires out for light trail riding and use street tires for
touring.
A steel framed touring bike would work too. Usually you can mount 700c35
cyclecross tires no problem.
You do not need suspension for light trail riding.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:53:46
From: Will
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> >I would say that you will find more benefits from getting two bikes than
> >from making one serve all purposes.
>
> OK
>
> Kind of my gut feeling as well.....

Like I said before... give cross-bikes a good look. Why?

They typically have great tire and fender clearance. What this means
is you can run everything from slicks to studs. And with fenders you
can stay dry. Yes... you can get two sets of wheels. But you can also
learn to quickly change tires. The reality is that you change tires for
a particular project, like an extended tour, or with the seasons. For
my money, the second set of wheels would include a hub generator, for
winter commuting.

They typically have cantilever brake bosses. So you can run canti's or
V-brakes.

The bottom brackets are lower. Better balance, less wobble under load.

The head tube is a bit more relaxed. Loaded handling is better. And you
can take your hands off the bars once in a while to sit upright without
putting the bike in a ditch.

They can use mountain bike drive trains, so you can get excellent
low-to-high gear leverages. Which also means you can spec rock solid
groups like Shimano XT.

Whatever you do... the real trick is getting the correct top tube match
for your torso. Too short and your butt will suffer, too long and it's
your neck...

Date: 27 Nov 2006 08:58:04
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Will" <waller.william@gmail.com > wrote:

>Whatever you do... the real trick is getting the correct top tube match
>for your torso. Too short and your butt will suffer, too long and it's
>your neck...

Bingo!

I didn't do that on my last bike...didn't buy the
correct size.

It made the bike pretty much useless for me and I had
to take a big loss selling it on used ket.

I guess why that's why I'm being extra careful on my
next bike purchase.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 21:57:35
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Bike Fit Was: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Will" <waller.william@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Whatever you do... the real trick is getting the correct top tube match
>>for your torso. Too short and your butt will suffer, too long and it's
>>your neck...
>
> Bingo!
>
> I didn't do that on my last bike...didn't buy the
> correct size.
>
> It made the bike pretty much useless for me and I had
> to take a big loss selling it on used ket.
>
> I guess why that's why I'm being extra careful on my
> next bike purchase.

Being one who believes "perfect fit" is more myth than
reality for a bicycle, I am curious as to what size bike
was "pretty much useless" and what size would have made
it "right"? How much of a difference in sizes?

Obviously, 50 cm frame isn't going give very good fit
for someone who really needs a 63cm, but I ride four
bikes (2 mtn - 2 road) that differ considerably in size
and I find all of them very ridable: I could probably
go the day on both MTBs (54cm and 19in) and touring on
both road bikes (58cm and 60cm). I feel the 60cm bike
could have been a 63cm for an even better fit but I'm
not certain and went with 60 because there wasn't any
thing else between it and the 63 [Trek 2000], and my
Trek 520 in 58cm was quite comfortable.

If I had it to do again, I think I'd order my Trek 520
in something bigger than 58cm, but given I've ridden
that bike across the country and commute three seasons
for 22-25 miles/day on it, it doesn't seem to be too
"wrong" a fit.

Just curious as to what size bikes people had that they
felt were so bad a fit as to be nearly useless, or cause
great reluctance to ride, versus the bike that fit them
so perfectly they could ride it around the world. Did
one size up or down really make a difference?

I'll bet many people [most??] could ride any of perhaps
three sized bikes without terrible discomfort.

[I know this observation becomes difficult between
different makes or styles of bike with nominally the
same size values.]

SMH

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:03:39
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Touring Trikes (was: Are two bicycles necessary?)

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I would seriously consider
> >a r*c*mb*nt tadpole trike (suspended for light touring, unsuspended for
> >self-contained).
>
> Did you mean the reveres? Suspended for full load tour....

Unsuspended trikes tend to ride rather roughly, especially since one
tends to hit potholes with the rear wheel after straddling them with
the front wheels. However, a heavy touring load will tend to smooth out
the ride on an unsuspended trike.

Trikes are subject to significantly higher torsional loads than
bicycles. Putting a heavy load on a suspended trike will likely result
in rapid wear of suspension pivots and spring/shock mounting points.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:53:07
From: daniel
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

I agree with Will on this. Get a cross bike. They are rigid enough
(compared to a standard road bike) to handle the bumps and dips on a
trail and they also have easy spinning tires for easy street rolling.
I have seen guys touring on MTN bikes and I think its a bit silly. I
find that really all you need is a nice strong set of wheels to handle
the load and any unseen bumps in the road and you will be fine. I have
done several self supported long distance tours on both road and 'cross
bikes and I typically prefer the 'cross bike. The most recent
excursion being SF to Phoenix...plenty of mountainous dirt trails on
that route! I had no problems using a rigid 'cross bike.

Also...to adress the front fork issue. You really dont gain much from
having a front fork in touring and light offroad use. Unless your fork
is quality and tuned properly..you probably wont be getting much
benefit from it aside from a front end that goes up and down.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 16:50:20
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:46:12 -0600, me wrote:

> I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
> big way.
>
> I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.
>
> And also can see myself doing some light off road
> cycling such as dirt trail and roads.
>
> Is it impossible to have only one bike do it all above?

Anything that could handle all of that would be a compromise. I would say
that, if all you want "offroad" is to ride on bike-path type trails and
dirt roads, then your touring bike would be fine for that. If you want to
do something you would not want to chance on the touring bike, then you do
need a mountain bike for that.

But, on the other hand, I would not agree with the idea of using a
mountain bike for touring. Yes, it has been done, but you are making it
harder on you than you need to. The flat bars are not as comfortable over
a long distance as drop bars (really), and the extra weight, especially
from a suspension fork, would be unwelcome. The tires of a mountain bike
would really slow you down, as well, so you would need at least an extra
set of wheels/tires for the touring.

Commuting -- depends. Short commute? Then any bike will do. Long one?
Then the touring bike would be far better than the mountain bike. I have
two commuters, even with a short commute; a single-speed road bike, and a
rigid mountain bike with studded tires for snow and ice.

I would say that you will find more benefits from getting two bikes than
from making one serve all purposes.

--

David L. Johnson

__o

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:53:19
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote:

>I would say that you will find more benefits from getting two bikes than
>from making one serve all purposes.

OK

Kind of my gut feeling as well..... but just needed you
guys opinions.

Maybe I will buy two used bikes.... touring and used MT
bike.

I'm leery of spending any big bucks till I find out
what my riding style is.

Plus.....I have a ton of equip that is yet to be
bought....camping gear, rain gear and shells,
shoes...you name it

Date: 26 Nov 2006 21:39:56
From: nash
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

<me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:vmkjm29uhskljl9eoa6di8j55c9bviugve@4ax.com...
> I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
> big way.
>
> I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.
>
> And also can see myself doing some light off road
> cycling such as dirt trail and roads.
>
> Is it impossible to have only one bike do it all above?
>
> Is it necessary to have a touring AND a MT bike with
> front shock?

If I was touring I would want a road bike but having said that my new GT
Avalanche has front suspension that you can turn on and off.
While at the bike store I also saw a Devinci MTB that they gave a set of
road bike wheels with so you would have 2 bikes in one. Maybe that is what
you want. Do not ask me about the clearance issue. I did not look close
enough.
Either way the idea is the same.
I have 1.25" tires on the GT and it feels like a road bike but has the
hardiness to be a utility bike for my errands.
So you could just swap tires or you could swap wheels if you want.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 13:26:29
From: Will
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Peter Cole wrote:
> I'd buy an aluminum MTB with a rigid fork & put
> slicks on it. If you decided you wanted drops or even aero bars they're
> easy enough to add. You should be able to outfit a perfect bike for
> under $400.

Or buy a cross bike so you have good geometry and tire clearance. Rack
and fender it for light duty travel. Add a B.O.B. trailer for utility
hauling and touring.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:14:45
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:50:41
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:

>No. If I were you, I'd buy an aluminum MTB with a rigid fork & put
>slicks on it.

Would that bike be efficient on say a 50 mile road tho?

Or will a lot of my cycling energy be lost in the MT
bike frame geometry and such?

I'm VERY out of shape...... so I'm thinking a road or
touring bike for anything more than 15 miles or so.
Not true?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 10:24:57
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> No. If I were you, I'd buy an aluminum MTB with a rigid fork & put
>> slicks on it.
>
> Would that bike be efficient on say a 50 mile road tho?

Sure, I know people who have gone cross-country (USA) on them.

> Or will a lot of my cycling energy be lost in the MT
> bike frame geometry and such?

No, not if set up right, the differences are trivial.

> I'm VERY out of shape...... so I'm thinking a road or
> touring bike for anything more than 15 miles or so.
> Not true?

Touring bikes are my first choice for "all 'rounders", but then I'm not
on a strict budget and build up my own bikes. You get lots more bang for
buck with MTB's than touring or cross bikes mainly due to the economies
of scale.

A lot of people make a big deal about drop bars and hand positions, but
most of the folks I've seen rarely use the drops at all. I's entirely
possible to put drops on a MTB -- or even aerobars for that matter, it
does force you to use much more expensive "road" shifters and brakes.

The biggest drawbacks to a MTB for road use are the lower gearing and
typically high bottom bracket. The latter is corrected to a large degree
when you replace the designed for knobbies with skinnier slicks. Lower
gearing is usually not a problem for distance riding, especially loaded
touring.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:55:32
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Ken C. M. wrote:
> ...
> How often do you plan of touring? If it's going to be a yearly thing (or
> more often) You might consider a r[*]c[*]mb[*]nt. Lots of people who tour a
> lot ride r[*]c[*]mb[*]nt style bikes on tour....

You are not supposed to advocate r*c*mb*nt bicycles on rec.bicycles.*!

Having said that, if I had the time to tour, I would seriously consider
a r*c*mb*nt tadpole trike (suspended for light touring, unsuspended for
self-contained). While likely a little slower, removing the issue of
balance and needing to pay so much attention to road hazards, while
sitting in a moderately reclined position, allows one to pay much more
attention to one's surroundings (in my experience).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:24:18
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> Having said that, if I had the time to tour, I would seriously consider
> a r*c*mb*nt tadpole trike (suspended for light touring, unsuspended for
> self-contained). While likely a little slower, removing the issue of
> balance and needing to pay so much attention to road hazards, while
> sitting in a moderately reclined position, allows one to pay much more
> attention to one's surroundings (in my experience).

Now, about the road hazards bit, wouldn't a trike exacerbate problems
with chuckholes and what-not? At least that's been my experience with a
DF bike with a trailer. The three wheel tracks make it more likely to
hit road hazards than a singletrack. Which is yet another reason I
prefer my Xtracycle to a solo + trailer.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Thus spake the master programmer:
"Without the wind, the grass does not move.
Without software, hardware is useless."
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Date: 27 Nov 2006 15:58:40
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote:

> Which is yet another reason I
>prefer my Xtracycle to a solo + trailer.

Tell me abt your xtracycle and how well it might be for
long distance tours

Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:19:48
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
>> Which is yet another reason I
>>prefer my Xtracycle to a solo + trailer.
>
> Tell me abt your xtracycle and how well it might be for
> long distance tours

Well, mine wouldn't be very appropriate, it being very upright with very
flat bars. In general though, Xtracycles would be fine for touring.
The only problem would be the ability to overload yourself that they
would lend you.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"... because 'They hate our freedom'(tm)"

Osama just called to say he's hung up his terrorism hat.
We no longer have enough freedom to be worth hating.
-- PatientZero on /.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 15:35:19
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:58:40 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:

>Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
>> Which is yet another reason I
>>prefer my Xtracycle to a solo + trailer.
>
>Tell me abt your xtracycle and how well it might be for
>long distance tours

Except for the ability to overload yourself it could be okay. The
long wheel base makes for a comfy ride. It's designed to fit standard
mountain bikes with 26" wheels. When loaded it handles better with
wide handlebars.

I've not tried drop bars on mine yet. Moustache bars might be an
option but I think an upright riding position is better for handling
when it's loaded. A more aero position is better for touring where
you're likely to encounter head winds for days at a time.

The bags don't keep out the rain, they collect it. Everything would
have to go into submersible sacks like "canoe bags". The bags aren't
removable so leaving the bike unattended would require dealing with a
bunch of bags or putting everything into two duffle bags.
--
zk

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:35:35
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:34:47
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote:

>>Tell me abt your xtracycle and how well it might be for
>>long distance tours
>
>Except for the ability to overload yourself it could be okay. The
>long wheel base makes for a comfy ride. It's designed to fit standard
>mountain bikes with 26" wheels. When loaded it handles better with
>wide handlebars.

Well the reason I ask is this:

The more I think abt a good touring bike the more I
wonder why a rack is not built in to the bike frame
itself? IOW....and integral part of the bike frame and
not something bolted on.

My logic could be flawed... but an integral rack could
also afford many benefits besides just carrying "stuff"
on a tour. It could also be sued on a practical level
for day to day commuting, shopping by bike, etc.

I investigated trailers for an upcoming tour next year
(first ever). What I learned was that a single wheel
trailer put a lot of twist on the frame since you and
the bike must keep it upright.

Two wheel trailers are much better in that respect but
of course a much wider track.

So...it seems to me that an integral rear rack would
eliminate ALL the problems trailers have both single
and two wheel.

What you guys think?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:45:25
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:34:47 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:

>>>Tell me abt your xtracycle and how well it might be for
>>>long distance tours
>>
>>Except for the ability to overload yourself it could be okay. The
>>long wheel base makes for a comfy ride. It's designed to fit standard
>>mountain bikes with 26" wheels. When loaded it handles better with
>>wide handlebars.
>
>Well the reason I ask is this:
>
>The more I think abt a good touring bike the more I
>wonder why a rack is not built in to the bike frame
>itself? IOW....and integral part of the bike frame and
>not something bolted on.

An integral rack comes at a premium. AFAIK, we're talking custom
builds now.

Many bikes, both touring and MTB, have mounting points brazed to the
seat stays for bolting standard type racks. Some bikes, like the old
Miyata 1000, come with a rack but it can be removed if you break it
or wish to change it out for something fancier.

A broken rack can spoil a tour. They're hard to jury-rig. The
Xtracycle FreeRadical is sturdier than any rack I've yet seen. But,
like I said, one would be tempted to carry too much stuff especially
if they added front rack too for better weight distribution. With the
longer wheel base though weight distribution won't be much of a
factor. You just need to keep it balanced from side to side.

The Xtracycle eliminates the added drag of an extra wheel or two.
It doesn't require an extra lock to secure it as would a trailer.
It handles more like a normal bike than a bike towing a trailer.
--
zk

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:47:27
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:

>I would seriously consider
>a r*c*mb*nt tadpole trike (suspended for light touring, unsuspended for
>self-contained).

Did you mean the reveres? Suspended for full load
tour....

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:01:51
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>> ...
>> How often do you plan of touring? If it's going to be a yearly thing (or
>> more often) You might consider a r[*]c[*]mb[*]nt. Lots of people who tour a
>> lot ride r[*]c[*]mb[*]nt style bikes on tour....
>
> You are not supposed to advocate r*c*mb*nt bicycles on rec.bicycles.*!
>
Silly Ken!

> Having said that, if I had the time to tour, I would seriously consider
> a r*c*mb*nt tadpole trike (suspended for light touring, unsuspended for
> self-contained). While likely a little slower, removing the issue of
> balance and needing to pay so much attention to road hazards, while
> sitting in a moderately reclined position, allows one to pay much more
> attention to one's surroundings (in my experience).
>
Yes I would agree with you on the tadpole suggestion. If and when I get
to tour often, more than once a year I think I will probably set myself
up with a trike with a trailer.

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:39:22
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
> big way.
>
> I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.
>
> And also can see myself doing some light off road
> cycling such as dirt trail and roads.
>
> Is it impossible to have only one bike do it all above?
>
> Is it necessary to have a touring AND a MT bike with
> front shock?

As long as you have reasonably wide tires (i.e. 28-mm or greater) and
are willing to portage the bicycle over rougher areas and not attempt
stunts like "getting big air", most off-road trails can be negotiated
with a road bicycle, including single-track. I would also suggest
conventional wheels with reasonably strong rims and 36 or more spokes,
as one or two broken spokes can temporarily be accommodated, which is
generally not true for low-spoke count "boutique" wheels.

The only times that I find front suspension on an ATB to be of
significant benefit are over sections where there are a LOT of roots or
wash-boarding, or when failing to miss cobble size rocks.

Wide knobby tires are helpful in loose gravel and mud, but not
essential. Mud is best avoided for environmental reasons, and because
it fouls the braking surface on rim braked bicycles. Clean sand is the
one area where wide tires and lower pressures are a near requirement,
but this is not too commonly encountered in many geographic regions.

The bonus of having a road bike that can accommodate moderate off-road
use is that it will be more stable to ride on the road, suffer from
fewer pinch flats, have better weight distribution (longer chain
stays), and clearances to accommodate fenders and some wheel
mis-alignment. The loss in speed compared to a dedicated racing bike is
small enough it will take a stopwatch to measure.

An option that will cost a couple of hundred dollars is to have two
wheel sets; one with a relatively narrow (e.g. 25-mm) tires for paved
road use and one with relatively wide (e.g. 32-mm) tires for mixed and
off-road use.

The opinions of a well known poster who frequently rides on unpaved
roads and trails on a drop-bar road bike:
<http://yarchive.net/bike/mountain_bike.html >.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 27 Nov 2006 05:00:54
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1164566362.752477.188070@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The opinions of a well known poster who frequently rides on unpaved
> roads and trails on a drop-bar road bike:
> <http://yarchive.net/bike/mountain_bike.html>.
>

Here's a picture of Jobst on a rough gravel road in the Alps with a road
bike.
http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos/f64.html

See also the pictures ahead and behind it in this series.

Heck, the entire picture series is worth spending time with.
Jobst also posted his 2006 alpine tour notes over in rec.bicycle.rides.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 18:22:48
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:46:12 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:

>I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
>big way.
>
>I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.
>
>And also can see myself doing some light off road
>cycling such as dirt trail and roads.
>
>Is it impossible to have only one bike do it all above?
>
>Is it necessary to have a touring AND a MT bike with
>front shock?

If you're not insistent upon having the ultimate machine for each
venue, it's easy to blend the worlds. Buy a lightweight MTB with a
front shock that can be either locked or adjusted up very stiff, and
build a spare set of wheels with skinny street slicks on them. That
describes what I did for my all-purpose bike that I take on road trips
when I'm not sure what kind of riding will be possible along the way.
The only down side is the fact that it's hard to put panniers on a
suspension fork...but if your trails are all smooth enough, you can
overcome this as well, by using a non-suspension bike as the starting
point.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 13:28:35
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:46:12 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> I'm on a budget but want to get back into cycling in a
>> big way.
>>
>> I need a bike for long distance touring and commuting.
>>
>> And also can see myself doing some light off road
>> cycling such as dirt trail and roads.
>>
>> Is it impossible to have only one bike do it all above?
>>
>> Is it necessary to have a touring AND a MT bike with
>> front shock?
>
> If you're not insistent upon having the ultimate machine for each
> venue, it's easy to blend the worlds. Buy a lightweight MTB with a
> front shock that can be either locked or adjusted up very stiff, and
> build a spare set of wheels with skinny street slicks on them. That
> describes what I did for my all-purpose bike that I take on road trips
> when I'm not sure what kind of riding will be possible along the way.
> The only down side is the fact that it's hard to put panniers on a
> suspension fork...but if your trails are all smooth enough, you can
> overcome this as well, by using a non-suspension bike as the starting
> point.

It is possible to put panniers on your front suspension fork. The people
at Old Man Mountain racks can help out. I bought a set of pannier racks
from them for my hybrid. And they also have racks for the back of a full
suspension bike as well.

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

Date: 26 Nov 2006 13:12:36
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:06:38
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

Ken C. M. wrote:
> ....
> How often do you plan of touring? If it's going to be a yearly thing (or
> more often) You might consider a recumbent. Lots of people who tour a
> lot ride recumbent style bikes on tour.
> ....
>
> Ken

A recumbent is good to consider anyway: the advantage of a recumbent is
comfort and lots of it. The main disadvantage I have seen is that
recumbents tend to be more difficult to transport.

If -I- was doing a tour, I would put a fork and 26" front wheel on the
Cycle Genius Falcon I already have--just so the tires front/rear are the
same size.

------------

I got a RANS Fusion now and it's a "upright" sort-of, but it's damn nice
too.
~

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:46:09
From:
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

"Ken C. M." <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote:

>
>How often do you plan of touring? If it's going to be a yearly thing (or
>more often) You might consider a recumbent. Lots of people who tour a
>lot ride recumbent style bikes on tour.

I see myself making maybe two actual long distance bike
tours a year. But maybe several smaller ones on
weekends only.

My main riding would be daily commuting.

I have , however, thought abt getting a MT bike for
daily commuting......and a bent for those tours. I've
never owned a bent before and am concerned I may not
put many miles on it given the cost of one.

I've also thought abt a touring bike for
everything.....upright touring bike that is.

And the other combination I've thought abt is a Bike
Friday for touring.....and MT bike for putzing around
town on.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 19:00:14
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Are two bicycles necessary?

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
>
>> How often do you plan of touring? If it's going to be a yearly thing (or
>> more often) You might consider a recumbent. Lots of people who tour a
>> lot ride recumbent style bikes on tour.
>
> I see myself making maybe two actual long distance bike
> tours a year. But maybe several smaller ones on
> weekends only.
>
> My main riding would be daily commuting.
>
Given these two statements, I might be inclined to say that you might be
better off with either two bikes, which would cost greater than $1000
for the bikes alone with no extras. Or just one bike that would be good
for both touring and commuting. That being said any bike (steel or
aluminum) that makes a good touring bike will also serve you well as a
commuter.

Ken

--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong