| |
Main
Date: 13 Oct 2007 02:48:19
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
can run without risking bead-seat failure?
I recognize that proper bead seating may initially require a higher
pressure, so assume, if you need to, that I pre-pump and properly seat
my tires at high pressure before setting the final pressure.
This question isn't moot: I had a friend test-ride my bike a few races
ago, and with a brand new flexible-bead tire on the front, he rode back
with a goodly portion of the bead utterly unseated. I may have had the
pressure as low as 35 pounds, though I think I ultimately ran the race
at 45 or 50. I fear my records and recollection are a bit shaky.
Also, it's quite possible that I did a poor job of seating the bead in
the first place, so I offer this tale not so much as proof but as the
catalyst that got me to thinking about this.
In other words, these are the questions keeping me up right now:
-will a CX-sized clincher tire spontaneously unseat from a hooked road
(or CX) rim at low but imaginable-for-CX pressures?
-would a wire bead lower the pressure threshold?
-Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
Note that given my own experience, barring repeated bead seat failures
at my typical
Oh, and the specific tires: the old tire that was removed from the rim
was a WTB All Terrainasaurus 35c (nominal), a "hybrid" tire with a wire
bead. The new tire was a flexi-beaded WTB Cross Wolf 32c (nominal). I
know a guy.
http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/
http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/allterrainasaurus/
BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 12:13:06
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 13, 10:02 am, Andrew Martin <andrew.franklin.mar...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Oct 13, 5:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
>
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
> > > in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
>
> > > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
> > > myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
> > > can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>
> > > I recognize that proper bead seating may initially require a higher
> > > pressure, so assume, if you need to, that I pre-pump and properly seat
> > > my tires at high pressure before setting the final pressure.
>
> > > This question isn't moot: I had a friend test-ride my bike a few races
> > > ago, and with a brand new flexible-bead tire on the front, he rode back
> > > with a goodly portion of the bead utterly unseated. I may have had the
> > > pressure as low as 35 pounds, though I think I ultimately ran the race
> > > at 45 or 50. I fear my records and recollection are a bit shaky.
>
> > > Also, it's quite possible that I did a poor job of seating the bead in
> > > the first place, so I offer this tale not so much as proof but as the
> > > catalyst that got me to thinking about this.
>
> > > In other words, these are the questions keeping me up right now:
>
> > > -will a CX-sized clincher tire spontaneously unseat from a hooked road
> > > (or CX) rim at low but imaginable-for-CX pressures?
>
> > VERY common, particularly on rocky/rough courses.
>
> > > -would a wire bead lower the pressure threshold?
>
> > It may, since it will hold onto the rim better.
>
> > > -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
> > Ya suppose?
> > Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
> > pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
> > would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
> > tubulars.
>
> > > Note that given my own experience, barring repeated bead seat failures
> > > at my typical
>
> > > Oh, and the specific tires: the old tire that was removed from the rim
> > > was a WTB All Terrainasaurus 35c (nominal), a "hybrid" tire with a wire
> > > bead. The new tire was a flexi-beaded WTB Cross Wolf 32c (nominal). I
> > > know a guy.
>
> > >http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com...
>
> > > BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
> > > moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
> > > using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
> > > Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
>
> > > --
> > > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> > > "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> > > Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I talked to Tim Rutledge of SeattleBikeSupply (Redline) at Interbike.
> They are going to have their team running new tubeless cross tires
> this season. Hutchison didn't have any to show off, but Tim said they
> were awesome and allowed you to run 32/40psi.
BUT with what wheels? And if not shimano, gotta use that godawful
Stans stuff?
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 12:15:36
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 14, 11:26 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >> I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
> >> 1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
> >> Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
> >> with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
> >> Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
> >> accident).
> still me wrote:
> > Yeah, I saw the Stones for $12 in 1975. But now even the rebel artists
> > have sold out to the "gouge the fans for all I can" model.
>
> > I got a blurb for a Neil Young concert the other day. Neil the rebel
> > crusader "I ain't singin for Bud". So, I thought "He's on my list of
> > 'want to see him in person before he dies'". I check on tickets - $69-
> > $150 before the Ticketbastard fees are added in. Geez... I'd pay that
> > for a CSNY reunion, but there's no way I'd pay that just to see Neil.
>
> > Buffett went the same way. There's an story that Buffett told in days
> > gone by of how he refused to change the words of a song just to sell
> > it to some producer - now he's such a commercial business man it's
> > hard to tell him from Warren Buffett. Tickets are notably way
> > overpriced for his shows right out of the box. They used to be an
> > escape from reality and the business world for a day - now they're a
> > trip to commercial marketing land.
>
> > And the Stones? Forget it. Last show, they charge $150 for the lame
> > seats, good seats were $300 and up.
>
> > Personally, I think I'm done. I like to get kissed when I get... well,
> > you know the phrase.
>
> I think it's great. When they no longer sell out the venue, prices will
> drop. Just as Mick Jagger, London School of Economics '58.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It _is_ an interesting phenomenon. I'm a Stones fan, and I saw them in
'88, but it really is amazing that people still feel the need to go
out and spend the money.
/s
|
| | |
Date: 19 Oct 2007 15:00:54
From: still me
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:15:36 -0700, Scott Gordo
<blubberpuss@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>It _is_ an interesting phenomenon. I'm a Stones fan, and I saw them in
>'88, but it really is amazing that people still feel the need to go
>out and spend the money.
They are way better in concert than any of their records shows. I saw
every tour that came through my area from '75 up until the last one
(which I skipped). Prices were $12 in '75, a little over $100 AFAIR on
the last one I saw. The tour they just did had such outrageous prices
(crappy seats $150, reasonable seats $300, great seats ridiculous)
that I finally decided to quit. I did the same thing with Buffett, who
I caught religiously each year and enjoyed every show. It used to be
an escape from corporate life, now it's an exercise in it.
I don't mind paying a reasonable price, even a steep price for a great
band, but I do mind getting seriously gouged so some rock star can
live a life of dreams.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 00:50:29
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 15, 5:28 am, peteymi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 13, 4:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
> > in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
>
> > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
> > myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
> > can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>
> >http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com...
>
> > BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
> > moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
> > using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
> > Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
>
> What about just running fatter tires? These days you can get 700C
> tires in 40 mm widths and fatter as well as frames that fit them.
> They will take lower pressures with less risk of pinch flats or coming
> unseated.
Well, Ryan might not want to change his frame.
This is entirely apart from the UCI regs. (In some
places, the UCI regs may apply in the A race - definitely
if it's actually a UCI event - but not in the B/C/masters
races, so you'll see flat bar bikes and so on in those
catgories).
Beyond that, I'm not convinced that a larger tire is
less likely to unseat at a given PSI. In fact, even
without unseating, lowish pressure large tires on a
narrow rim can be a rather floppy and sketchy handling
combination.
I think the problem here is the kevlar bead. If you have
slightly undersize rims that are easy to mount tires
on, kevlar bead liftoff can be a problem. Here, I'd want
wire beads, or a rim/tire combination that is somewhat
difficult to mount. (That's a nuisane, but since you rarely
fix flats in the middle of a cross race, a nuisance
you can take care of at your leisure.)
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 08:30:33
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <1192495829.685618.319760@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 5:28 am, peteymi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 4:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
> > > in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
> >
> > > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
> > > myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
> > > can run without risking bead-seat failure?
> >
> > >http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com...
> >
> > > BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
> > > moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
> > > using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
> > > Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
> >
> > What about just running fatter tires? These days you can get 700C
> > tires in 40 mm widths and fatter as well as frames that fit them.
> > They will take lower pressures with less risk of pinch flats or coming
> > unseated.
>
> Well, Ryan might not want to change his frame.
> This is entirely apart from the UCI regs. (In some
> places, the UCI regs may apply in the A race - definitely
> if it's actually a UCI event - but not in the B/C/masters
> races, so you'll see flat bar bikes and so on in those
> catgories).
I have a UCI-legal bike (a Nashbar "X" frame with whatever parts I had
in the pile or could scrounge up), but it probably could take 40 mm
tires. I'd have to check.
> Beyond that, I'm not convinced that a larger tire is
> less likely to unseat at a given PSI. In fact, even
> without unseating, lowish pressure large tires on a
> narrow rim can be a rather floppy and sketchy handling
> combination.
>
> I think the problem here is the kevlar bead. If you have
> slightly undersize rims that are easy to mount tires
> on, kevlar bead liftoff can be a problem. Here, I'd want
> wire beads, or a rim/tire combination that is somewhat
> difficult to mount. (That's a nuisane, but since you rarely
> fix flats in the middle of a cross race, a nuisance
> you can take care of at your leisure.)
After riding an entire lap last weekend with a dead-flat tire and no
roll-off, I'm pretty impressed by the tenacity of my rear tire's kevlar
bead.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 19:03:03
From: Andrew Martin
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 15, 6:34 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <ysrxr6jw3551....@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi>,
> oronk...@ling.helsinki.fi (A R:nen) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > peteymi...@hotmail.com writes:
> > > On Oct 13, 4:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders
> > > > like myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest
> > > > pressure you can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>
> > (Is there a non-cheap-ass clincher option, or just tubulars?)
>
> > > What about just running fatter tires? These days you can get 700C
> > > tires in 40 mm widths and fatter as well as frames that fit them.
> > > They will take lower pressures with less risk of pinch flats or
> > > coming unseated.
>
> > There's the small matter of the 35 mm maximum tire width as per the
> > UCI rules. Next you'll be suggesting disk brakes as well...
>
> In the US, UCI rules about bicycles apply to very, very few races. The
> US sanctioning body maintains its own set of rules. Disk brakes and
> even mountain bikes are often used in cyclo-cross here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still true? I thought USAC was going to adopt UCI rules on equipment
starting in '08? Can't find a reference, but I remember the
discussion.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:20:38
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <1192474983.088662.256610@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com >,
Andrew Martin <andrew.franklin.martin@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 6:34 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <ysrxr6jw3551....@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi>,
> > oronk...@ling.helsinki.fi (A R:nen) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > peteymi...@hotmail.com writes:
> > > > On Oct 13, 4:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX
> > > > > riders like myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is
> > > > > the lowest pressure you can run without risking bead-seat
> > > > > failure?
> >
> > > (Is there a non-cheap-ass clincher option, or just tubulars?)
> >
> > > > What about just running fatter tires? These days you can get
> > > > 700C tires in 40 mm widths and fatter as well as frames that
> > > > fit them. They will take lower pressures with less risk of
> > > > pinch flats or coming unseated.
> >
> > > There's the small matter of the 35 mm maximum tire width as per
> > > the UCI rules. Next you'll be suggesting disk brakes as well...
> >
> > In the US, UCI rules about bicycles apply to very, very few races.
> > The US sanctioning body maintains its own set of rules. Disk
> > brakes and even mountain bikes are often used in cyclo-cross here.-
> > Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Still true? I thought USAC was going to adopt UCI rules on equipment
> starting in '08? Can't find a reference, but I remember the
> discussion.
Well, if they are going to adopt the UCI regulations for bicycles in
2008, the old rules would still hold true...
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 07:35:57
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 13, 9:33 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <vsn2h31ic3rkf8bbj217cmosvmkii1v...@4ax.com>,
> still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:33:15 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > >I just sold my last handmade silk tire to a guy who noted that last
> > >night's concert cost him, and companion, $260 each. Prices are
> > >relative.
>
> > Agreed on the relativity, but concert prices are not a standard to
> > compare to. They have risen by leaps and bounds to satisfy the
> > endless greed of performers - and then they rise another 25-40% for
> > Ticketbastard fees on top.
>
> And now that ticket scalping has been legalized in Minnesota, you've
> also got the scalper's profit margins added in there as they pretty much
> buy up all the seats for the major shows.
>
> I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
> 1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
> Chicago in 1979.
According to the inflation calculator at westegg.com, $10 in 1979 is
$29.86 in "2006 dollars". Keep that in mind as you whine and complain.
> My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
> with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
> Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
> accident).
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 05:28:10
From:
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 13, 4:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
> in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
>
> Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
> myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
> can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>
> I recognize that proper bead seating may initially require a higher
> pressure, so assume, if you need to, that I pre-pump and properly seat
> my tires at high pressure before setting the final pressure.
>
> This question isn't moot: I had a friend test-ride my bike a few races
> ago, and with a brand new flexible-bead tire on the front, he rode back
> with a goodly portion of the bead utterly unseated. I may have had the
> pressure as low as 35 pounds, though I think I ultimately ran the race
> at 45 or 50. I fear my records and recollection are a bit shaky.
>
> Also, it's quite possible that I did a poor job of seating the bead in
> the first place, so I offer this tale not so much as proof but as the
> catalyst that got me to thinking about this.
>
> In other words, these are the questions keeping me up right now:
>
> -will a CX-sized clincher tire spontaneously unseat from a hooked road
> (or CX) rim at low but imaginable-for-CX pressures?
>
> -would a wire bead lower the pressure threshold?
>
> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
> Note that given my own experience, barring repeated bead seat failures
> at my typical
>
> Oh, and the specific tires: the old tire that was removed from the rim
> was a WTB All Terrainasaurus 35c (nominal), a "hybrid" tire with a wire
> bead. The new tire was a flexi-beaded WTB Cross Wolf 32c (nominal). I
> know a guy.
>
> http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/allterrainasaurus/
>
> BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
> moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
> using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
> Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
What about just running fatter tires? These days you can get 700C
tires in 40 mm widths and fatter as well as frames that fit them.
They will take lower pressures with less risk of pinch flats or coming
unseated.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 15:59:38
From: A R:nen
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
peteymills@hotmail.com writes:
> On Oct 13, 4:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
> > myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
> > can run without risking bead-seat failure?
(Is there a non-cheap-ass clincher option, or just tubulars?)
> What about just running fatter tires? These days you can get 700C
> tires in 40 mm widths and fatter as well as frames that fit them.
> They will take lower pressures with less risk of pinch flats or coming
> unseated.
There's the small matter of the 35 mm maximum tire width as per the
UCI rules. Next you'll be suggesting disk brakes as well...
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 08:34:45
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <ysrxr6jw3551.fsf@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi >,
oronkain@ling.helsinki.fi (A R:nen) wrote:
> peteymills@hotmail.com writes:
> > On Oct 13, 4:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders
> > > like myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest
> > > pressure you can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>
> (Is there a non-cheap-ass clincher option, or just tubulars?)
>
> > What about just running fatter tires? These days you can get 700C
> > tires in 40 mm widths and fatter as well as frames that fit them.
> > They will take lower pressures with less risk of pinch flats or
> > coming unseated.
>
> There's the small matter of the 35 mm maximum tire width as per the
> UCI rules. Next you'll be suggesting disk brakes as well...
In the US, UCI rules about bicycles apply to very, very few races. The
US sanctioning body maintains its own set of rules. Disk brakes and
even mountain bikes are often used in cyclo-cross here.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 23:21:07
From: A R:nen
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > writes:
> In the US, UCI rules about bicycles apply to very, very few races. The
> US sanctioning body maintains its own set of rules. Disk brakes and
> even mountain bikes are often used in cyclo-cross here.
(Obvious lame US-invading-Canada quip deleted.)
Anyway, actually I did know that, but isn't the point with that to
accommodate beginners with more diverse equipment, and wouldn't
constructing a dedicated CX race machine outside the UCI specs be
considered bad form, even if technically permitted? Then again, the
criteria are quite trivial and arbitrary, so "who cares" is an
acceptable position as far as I'm concerned.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 00:54:43
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <ysrxk5poceoc.fsf@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi >,
oronkain@ling.helsinki.fi (A R:nen) wrote:
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
> > In the US, UCI rules about bicycles apply to very, very few races. The
> > US sanctioning body maintains its own set of rules. Disk brakes and
> > even mountain bikes are often used in cyclo-cross here.
>
> (Obvious lame US-invading-Canada quip deleted.)
>
> Anyway, actually I did know that, but isn't the point with that to
> accommodate beginners with more diverse equipment, and wouldn't
> constructing a dedicated CX race machine outside the UCI specs be
> considered bad form, even if technically permitted? Then again, the
> criteria are quite trivial and arbitrary, so "who cares" is an
> acceptable position as far as I'm concerned.
The local rule is that UCI restrictions are enforced in the "A"-level
races, which is to say, the groups that are actually competing for
provincial and national championships.
In "B" and "C" races, mountain bikes, discs, and judging by what
happened last year, even old English singlespeeds are permitted. This is
a sop to beginners and intermediates who don't want to buy a new bike
for two months of racing.
Lately, the CX course construction has been getting pretty Euro around
here, which is all to the good. I don't think a mountain bike would be
an advantage on any of the courses we had this year, though in the more
sand-centric courses, MTB-width tires might float through where CX tires
sank in.
At any rate, I was able to outrun some riders through the sand at last
weekend's race,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 05:50:50
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 14, 5:54 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:33:23 -0500, Tim McNamara
>
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
> >1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
> >Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
> >with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
> >Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
> >accident).
>
> Yeah, I saw the Stones for $12 in 1975. But now even the rebel artists
> have sold out to the "gouge the fans for all I can" model.
>
> I got a blurb for a Neil Young concert the other day. Neil the rebel
> crusader "I ain't singin for Bud". So, I thought "He's on my list of
> 'want to see him in person before he dies'". I check on tickets - $69-
> $150 before the Ticketbastard fees are added in. Geez... I'd pay that
> for a CSNY reunion, but there's no way I'd pay that just to see Neil.
Well, somebody's paying those prices. So it would be
nice if the performers held prices down, but wouldn't
the chief effect be that it would be even harder to
get tickets? $12 in 1975 is $48 today, which sounds
expensive, so they were never totally cheap. I usually
pay about $20 to see semi-popular indie acts. The Stones
now charge much more than the inflation-adjusted $48. But
don't forget that in 1975, no 50 year olds and hardly
any 40 year olds wanted to see the Stones. But now
the 40-50 y.o. do. The Stones' target audience has a
lot more disposable income than they did in 1975.
There are other issues that make touring expensive,
like cost of arenas, labor, and so on. People now
expect a much more sophisticated sound and light
system than they did 30 years ago. And so on.
Finally, as you may have noticed, the economics of
the music industry has changed. Not just because
of digital downloading and piracy, but overall
declining CD sales even among people who don't
file-share. Artists now depend on the income from
touring; record sales are secondary. The Stones
have enough money already, but almost everybody
else needs the income, probably including Neil Young.
Finally, let's talk about expensive tires for a
moment. I never buy the things. But I recognize
that something like an A. Dugast tubular is
expensive because it's handmade in a place with
high labor costs. The same goes for frames -
a frame from the framebuilders I've known costs
over $1000 and a frame welded anonymously in
China costs $200. One can't simultaneously
complain about how outsourcing is destroying
American industry and the artisanal tradition,
and whine about the high costs of artisanally
made goods.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 08:47:06
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <1192427450.883001.166500@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> On Oct 14, 5:54 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:33:23 -0500, Tim McNamara
> >
> > <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center
> > >in 1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park
> > >West in Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg
> > >and Angel Band with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago
> > >for $42 each (no Tony Rice, though, as he was recovering from a
> > >back injury sustained in an accident).
> >
> > Yeah, I saw the Stones for $12 in 1975. But now even the rebel
> > artists have sold out to the "gouge the fans for all I can" model.
> >
> > I got a blurb for a Neil Young concert the other day. Neil the
> > rebel crusader "I ain't singin for Bud". So, I thought "He's on my
> > list of 'want to see him in person before he dies'". I check on
> > tickets - $69- $150 before the Ticketbastard fees are added in.
> > Geez... I'd pay that for a CSNY reunion, but there's no way I'd pay
> > that just to see Neil.
>
> Well, somebody's paying those prices. So it would be nice if the
> performers held prices down, but wouldn't the chief effect be that it
> would be even harder to get tickets? $12 in 1975 is $48 today, which
> sounds expensive, so they were never totally cheap. I usually pay
> about $20 to see semi-popular indie acts. The Stones now charge much
> more than the inflation-adjusted $48. But don't forget that in 1975,
> no 50 year olds and hardly any 40 year olds wanted to see the Stones.
> But now the 40-50 y.o. do. The Stones' target audience has a lot
> more disposable income than they did in 1975.
There's a big flap locally as Minnesota basically caved in and legalized
scalping. Tickets for major shows are selling for 200% to 600% of face
value, being bought up by professional scalpers. The upcoming "Hannah
Montana" concert sold out in about 15 seconds, virtually all to ticket
brokers. You want a pair of tickets on the main floor? Plan on
forking out $300 or so.
> There are other issues that make touring expensive, like cost of
> arenas, labor, and so on. People now expect a much more
> sophisticated sound and light system than they did 30 years ago. And
> so on.
And backup dancers, a Busby Berkley-style stage show, etc. Madonna,
Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, etc have in particular pushed this
aspect of concerts.
I miss the Grateful Dead. No stage show per se, just music. Didn't
have to deal with Jerry Garcia busting a move. Nowadays the concerts I
go to still have some of that same vibe: Richard Thomspon, Jorma
Kaukonen and Jack Casady, David Bromberg a couple weeks ago, Pat
Metheny, etc. Just music, no frippery. Good grief, when did I become
my parents?
> Finally, as you may have noticed, the economics of the music industry
> has changed. Not just because of digital downloading and piracy, but
> overall declining CD sales even among people who don't file-share.
> Artists now depend on the income from touring; record sales are
> secondary. The Stones have enough money already, but almost
> everybody else needs the income, probably including Neil Young.
20-30 years ago, touring was a form of advertising for record sales.
Tours often operated at a loss or at break-even. Times have changed
record sales have tanked for a variety of reasons (the RIAA blames file
sharing, I blame the lousy quality of music) and tours are now a major
income center for bands.
> Finally, let's talk about expensive tires for a moment. I never buy
> the things. But I recognize that something like an A. Dugast tubular
> is expensive because it's handmade in a place with high labor costs.
> The same goes for frames - a frame from the framebuilders I've known
> costs over $1000 and a frame welded anonymously in China costs $200.
> One can't simultaneously complain about how outsourcing is destroying
> American industry and the artisanal tradition, and whine about the
> high costs of artisanally made goods.
Oh, yes, one can. ;-) It's just not logically consistent. But when
has that stopped people?
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 21:32:29
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> There's a big flap locally as Minnesota basically caved in and legalized
> scalping. Tickets for major shows are selling for 200% to 600% of face
> value, being bought up by professional scalpers. The upcoming "Hannah
> Montana" concert sold out in about 15 seconds, virtually all to ticket
> brokers. You want a pair of tickets on the main floor? Plan on
> forking out $300 or so....
What kind of moronic parents would spend that much money to take a
pre-teen/teen daughter [1] to a concert? Adjusted for inflation, that is
about as much as was spent on non-necessities during my childhood.
I would only pay that much money if it involved time travel: the first
performance of the Manzoni Requiem, the Berlin Callas/di Stefano von
Karajan Lucia, 1942 BPO/Furtwängler Beethoven 9th or other performances
that are both revelatory and unique.
[1] I would assume that this is the bulk of the audience for "Hannah
Montana".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 11:19:41
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> ...
>> There's a big flap locally as Minnesota basically caved in and
>> legalized scalping. Tickets for major shows are selling for 200% to
>> 600% of face value, being bought up by professional scalpers. The
>> upcoming "Hannah Montana" concert sold out in about 15 seconds,
>> virtually all to ticket brokers. You want a pair of tickets on the
>> main floor? Plan on forking out $300 or so....
Tom Sherman wrote:
> What kind of moronic parents would spend that much money to take a
> pre-teen/teen daughter [1] to a concert? Adjusted for inflation, that is
> about as much as was spent on non-necessities during my childhood.-snip-
Your parents felt you were worth $300 an hour???
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 19:46:35
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Andrew Muzi mused:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> ...
>>> There's a big flap locally as Minnesota basically caved in and
>>> legalized scalping. Tickets for major shows are selling for 200% to
>>> 600% of face value, being bought up by professional scalpers. The
>>> upcoming "Hannah Montana" concert sold out in about 15 seconds,
>>> virtually all to ticket brokers. You want a pair of tickets on the
>>> main floor? Plan on forking out $300 or so....
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> What kind of moronic parents would spend that much money to take a
>> pre-teen/teen daughter [1] to a concert? Adjusted for inflation, that
>> is about as much as was spent on non-necessities during my
>> childhood.-snip-
>
> Your parents felt you were worth $300 an hour???
They didn't kick me out that quickly!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 14:39:53
From: still me
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:47:06 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>> Well, somebody's paying those prices. So it would be nice if the
>> performers held prices down, but wouldn't the chief effect be that it
>> would be even harder to get tickets? $12 in 1975 is $48 today, which
>> sounds expensive, so they were never totally cheap. I usually pay
>> about $20 to see semi-popular indie acts. The Stones now charge much
>> more than the inflation-adjusted $48. But don't forget that in 1975,
>> no 50 year olds and hardly any 40 year olds wanted to see the Stones.
>> But now the 40-50 y.o. do. The Stones' target audience has a lot
>> more disposable income than they did in 1975.
Yes, somebody is. And $300-$1000 per seat is just a bit higher than
inflation rate, but that's what they charged for the good seats, even
without a scalper.
I'm not complaining that they can't execute free enterprise - just
that it's disgusting that so many of them concentrate on the greed
these days. As I noted it, even includes the folks who were so
anti-corporate - Jimmy Buffett, Neil Young, many others.
>There's a big flap locally as Minnesota basically caved in and legalized
>scalping. Tickets for major shows are selling for 200% to 600% of face
>value, being bought up by professional scalpers. The upcoming "Hannah
>Montana" concert sold out in about 15 seconds, virtually all to ticket
>brokers. You want a pair of tickets on the main floor? Plan on
>forking out $300 or so.
That's a bargain. They are selling for $1000 or more from the scalpers
for good seats. You can't get any seats in most areas for less than
$200.
>I miss the Grateful Dead. No stage show per se, just music. Didn't
>have to deal with Jerry Garcia busting a move. Nowadays the concerts I
>go to still have some of that same vibe: Richard Thomspon, Jorma
>Kaukonen and Jack Casady, David Bromberg a couple weeks ago, Pat
>Metheny, etc. Just music, no frippery. Good grief, when did I become
>my parents?
Some folks still play that way. Mostly folks who are not considered
"main stream". They also tend to be the people who don't gouge. The
Dead were the only ones to ever successfully buck the ticketbastard
monopoly. To bad others didn't follow suit.
>20-30 years ago, touring was a form of advertising for record sales.
>Tours often operated at a loss or at break-even. Times have changed
>record sales have tanked for a variety of reasons (the RIAA blames file
>sharing, I blame the lousy quality of music) and tours are now a major
>income center for bands.
I agree on the quality of music. I don't know how many CD's I own
where there are two or three songs even worth listening to - with the
other 15 just a waste. Interestingly, it's again most of the
non-mainstream folks that produce CD's worth listening to.
>> One can't simultaneously complain about how outsourcing is destroying
>> American industry and the artisanal tradition, and whine about the
>> high costs of artisanally made goods.
>
>Oh, yes, one can. ;-) It's just not logically consistent. But when
>has that stopped people?
An FWIW, I haven't seen that much music being outsourced to China.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:30:14
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <bqs6h3tglbdootfbil64as3825n739s8fv@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:47:06 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >I miss the Grateful Dead. No stage show per se, just music. Didn't
> >have to deal with Jerry Garcia busting a move. Nowadays the
> >concerts I go to still have some of that same vibe: Richard
> >Thomspon, Jorma Kaukonen and Jack Casady, David Bromberg a couple
> >weeks ago, Pat Metheny, etc. Just music, no frippery. Good grief,
> >when did I become my parents?
>
> Some folks still play that way. Mostly folks who are not considered
> "main stream". They also tend to be the people who don't gouge. The
> Dead were the only ones to ever successfully buck the ticketbastard
> monopoly. To bad others didn't follow suit.
Towards the end of the Dead's career, they were basically renting the
places they played and handled ticket sales themselves. The GD Hotline
had a tight set of rules to minimize scalping and got them paid up front
instead of having to collect the cash from the local promoter during or
after the show. I think that Phish did some of this as well; and ISTR
there being a lawsuit against Pearl Jam by Ticketmaster or vice versa.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 15:31:09
From: still me
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:30:14 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>Towards the end of the Dead's career, they were basically renting the
>places they played and handled ticket sales themselves. The GD Hotline
>had a tight set of rules to minimize scalping and got them paid up front
>instead of having to collect the cash from the local promoter during or
>after the show. I think that Phish did some of this as well; and ISTR
>there being a lawsuit against Pearl Jam by Ticketmaster or vice versa.
The Pearl Jam revolt flopped, and they ended up canceling shows
according to what I've read. They really needed more than a lawsuit -
they needed a revolt. There were too few bands wiling to sign on and
buck the ticketmaster monopoly.
Oddly, the one thing that is bringing some of the ticket issue out in
front is the Hannah Montana show. Now that "kids" are affected, some
people are taking notice. Perhaps Congress will take a look at the
Ticketmaster monopoly and put some pressure on.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 01:00:22
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 12, 10:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
Why don't you try gluing the clincher bead to the rim ? I'm surprised
you haven't tried this.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 02:19:06
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <1192323622.124172.34620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 10:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
> >
>
> Why don't you try gluing the clincher bead to the rim ? I'm surprised
> you haven't tried this.
That's so crazy it just might work.
Actually, it's close to what the Stan's system does, what with using
some sort of goo to make the "air chamber" airtight.
Last year I said I'd try latex tubes in my clinchers on the CX bike, but
I clearly forgot.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 14:12:59
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 13, 12:36 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1192277846.992660.71...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
> > Ya suppose?
>
> > Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
> > pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
> > would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
> > tubulars.
>
> I dunno, I had way more trouble with tubulars than clinchers back when I
> raced 'cross. The Ritchey 'cross clinchers were quite good (but the
> tubulars looked cooler).
I think this is a good application for tubulars since you get good
pinch flat protection at low inflation pressures -- and around here,
the racers change inflation pressure a lot depending on how wet the
course is or how much pavement it includes. What I don't believe is
that some of them are spending well over $100 per tire (and not just A
riders) -- on Dugast tires for example. Now that's a waste IMO. Not
that I would bother with tubulars at any price if I were racing
cross. I would probably want to flat so I could go sip some coffee
instead of hacking up a lung. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 22:14:21
From:
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Jay Beattie writes:
>>>> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>>> Ya suppose?
>>> Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
>>> pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
>>> would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you
>>> need tubulars.
>> I dunno, I had way more trouble with tubulars than clinchers back
>> when I raced 'cross. The Ritchey 'cross clinchers were quite good
>> (but the tubulars looked cooler).
> I think this is a good application for tubulars since you get good
> pinch flat protection at low inflation pressures -- and around here,
> the racers change inflation pressure a lot depending on how wet the
> course is or how much pavement it includes. What I don't believe is
> that some of them are spending well over $100 per tire (and not just
> A riders) -- on Dugast tires for example. Now that's a waste IMO.
> Not that I would bother with tubulars at any price if I were racing
> cross. I would probably want to flat so I could go sip some coffee
> instead of hacking up a lung.
To what do you attribute pinch flat immunity?
From the years I rode tubulars, it was the thin latex tubes that
didn't perforate as easily as butyl tubed tires of either kind. We
often had dented rims without a pinch flat. You can test this by how
easily a pinch flat can be caused by hammering on a solidly supported
bare tube.
The other effect is TPI, or coarseness of casing weave. Our silk
Clements had twice the TPI of most clinchers. That makes a smoother
compression of the tube when the tire bottoms. Although it is often
said that the tube gets pinched by the rim bead, this is not true.
The tube is pinched between casing walls, like pinching your cheek
with the tongue in between.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 02:20:01
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <4711433d$0$14098$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Jay Beattie writes:
>
> >>>> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
> >>> Ya suppose?
>
> >>> Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
> >>> pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
> >>> would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you
> >>> need tubulars.
>
> >> I dunno, I had way more trouble with tubulars than clinchers back
> >> when I raced 'cross. The Ritchey 'cross clinchers were quite good
> >> (but the tubulars looked cooler).
>
> > I think this is a good application for tubulars since you get good
> > pinch flat protection at low inflation pressures -- and around here,
> > the racers change inflation pressure a lot depending on how wet the
> > course is or how much pavement it includes. What I don't believe is
> > that some of them are spending well over $100 per tire (and not just
> > A riders) -- on Dugast tires for example. Now that's a waste IMO.
> > Not that I would bother with tubulars at any price if I were racing
> > cross. I would probably want to flat so I could go sip some coffee
> > instead of hacking up a lung.
>
> To what do you attribute pinch flat immunity?
>
> From the years I rode tubulars, it was the thin latex tubes that
> didn't perforate as easily as butyl tubed tires of either kind. We
> often had dented rims without a pinch flat. You can test this by how
> easily a pinch flat can be caused by hammering on a solidly supported
> bare tube.
>
> The other effect is TPI, or coarseness of casing weave. Our silk
> Clements had twice the TPI of most clinchers. That makes a smoother
> compression of the tube when the tire bottoms. Although it is often
> said that the tube gets pinched by the rim bead, this is not true.
> The tube is pinched between casing walls, like pinching your cheek
> with the tongue in between.
Doesn't the object pushing on the casing walls matter?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:33:15
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
>>> On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>>>> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>> Ya suppose?
>>> Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
>>> pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
>>> would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
>>> tubulars.
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> I dunno, I had way more trouble with tubulars than clinchers back when I
>> raced 'cross. The Ritchey 'cross clinchers were quite good (but the
>> tubulars looked cooler).
Jay Beattie wrote:
> I think this is a good application for tubulars since you get good
> pinch flat protection at low inflation pressures -- and around here,
> the racers change inflation pressure a lot depending on how wet the
> course is or how much pavement it includes. What I don't believe is
> that some of them are spending well over $100 per tire (and not just A
> riders) -- on Dugast tires for example. Now that's a waste IMO. Not
> that I would bother with tubulars at any price if I were racing
> cross. I would probably want to flat so I could go sip some coffee
> instead of hacking up a lung. -- Jay Beattie.
I just sold my last handmade silk tire to a guy who noted that last
night's concert cost him, and companion, $260 each. Prices are relative.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 00:20:03
From: still me
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:33:15 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>I just sold my last handmade silk tire to a guy who noted that last
>night's concert cost him, and companion, $260 each. Prices are relative.
Agreed on the relativity, but concert prices are not a standard to
compare to. They have risen by leaps and bounds to satisfy the endless
greed of performers - and then they rise another 25-40% for
Ticketbastard fees on top.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 21:33:23
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <vsn2h31ic3rkf8bbj217cmosvmkii1v03s@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:33:15 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I just sold my last handmade silk tire to a guy who noted that last
> >night's concert cost him, and companion, $260 each. Prices are
> >relative.
>
> Agreed on the relativity, but concert prices are not a standard to
> compare to. They have risen by leaps and bounds to satisfy the
> endless greed of performers - and then they rise another 25-40% for
> Ticketbastard fees on top.
And now that ticket scalping has been legalized in Minnesota, you've
also got the scalper's profit margins added in there as they pretty much
buy up all the seats for the major shows.
I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
accident).
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:20:01
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-97B398.21331813102007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <vsn2h31ic3rkf8bbj217cmosvmkii1v03s@4ax.com>,
> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:33:15 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I just sold my last handmade silk tire to a guy who noted that last
>> >night's concert cost him, and companion, $260 each. Prices are
>> >relative.
>>
>> Agreed on the relativity, but concert prices are not a standard to
>> compare to. They have risen by leaps and bounds to satisfy the
>> endless greed of performers - and then they rise another 25-40% for
>> Ticketbastard fees on top.
>
> And now that ticket scalping has been legalized in Minnesota, you've
> also got the scalper's profit margins added in there as they pretty much
> buy up all the seats for the major shows.
>
> I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
> 1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
> Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
> with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
> Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
> accident).
Back in those days touring was looked at as an expense to sell music. Now
the majority of music is not paid for so the bands use touring as their
primary source of revenue.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 21:35:45
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Frank Drackman wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-97B398.21331813102007@news.iphouse.com...
>> In article <vsn2h31ic3rkf8bbj217cmosvmkii1v03s@4ax.com>,
>> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:33:15 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just sold my last handmade silk tire to a guy who noted that last
>>>> night's concert cost him, and companion, $260 each. Prices are
>>>> relative.
>>> Agreed on the relativity, but concert prices are not a standard to
>>> compare to. They have risen by leaps and bounds to satisfy the
>>> endless greed of performers - and then they rise another 25-40% for
>>> Ticketbastard fees on top.
>> And now that ticket scalping has been legalized in Minnesota, you've
>> also got the scalper's profit margins added in there as they pretty much
>> buy up all the seats for the major shows.
>>
>> I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
>> 1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
>> Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
>> with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
>> Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
>> accident).
>
> Back in those days touring was looked at as an expense to sell music. Now
> the majority of music is not paid for so the bands use touring as their
> primary source of revenue.
Then and now, the record companies and publishers took most of the
money, leaving relative scraps for all but a few of the most popular
performers.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 00:54:49
From: still me
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:33:23 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
>I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
>1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
>Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
>with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
>Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
>accident).
Yeah, I saw the Stones for $12 in 1975. But now even the rebel artists
have sold out to the "gouge the fans for all I can" model.
I got a blurb for a Neil Young concert the other day. Neil the rebel
crusader "I ain't singin for Bud". So, I thought "He's on my list of
'want to see him in person before he dies'". I check on tickets - $69-
$150 before the Ticketbastard fees are added in. Geez... I'd pay that
for a CSNY reunion, but there's no way I'd pay that just to see Neil.
Buffett went the same way. There's an story that Buffett told in days
gone by of how he refused to change the words of a song just to sell
it to some producer - now he's such a commercial business man it's
hard to tell him from Warren Buffett. Tickets are notably way
overpriced for his shows right out of the box. They used to be an
escape from reality and the business world for a day - now they're a
trip to commercial marketing land.
And the Stones? Forget it. Last show, they charge $150 for the lame
seats, good seats were $300 and up.
Personally, I think I'm done. I like to get kissed when I get... well,
you know the phrase.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 22:26:51
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
>Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> I remember seeing Jethro Tull for $6 at the St. Paul Civic Center in
>> 1978. I think I paid $10 to see Rory Gallagher at the Park West in
>> Chicago in 1979. My wife took me to see David Bromberg and Angel Band
>> with Tony Rice and Peter Rowan a couple weeks ago for $42 each (no Tony
>> Rice, though, as he was recovering from a back injury sustained in an
>> accident).
still me wrote:
> Yeah, I saw the Stones for $12 in 1975. But now even the rebel artists
> have sold out to the "gouge the fans for all I can" model.
>
> I got a blurb for a Neil Young concert the other day. Neil the rebel
> crusader "I ain't singin for Bud". So, I thought "He's on my list of
> 'want to see him in person before he dies'". I check on tickets - $69-
> $150 before the Ticketbastard fees are added in. Geez... I'd pay that
> for a CSNY reunion, but there's no way I'd pay that just to see Neil.
>
> Buffett went the same way. There's an story that Buffett told in days
> gone by of how he refused to change the words of a song just to sell
> it to some producer - now he's such a commercial business man it's
> hard to tell him from Warren Buffett. Tickets are notably way
> overpriced for his shows right out of the box. They used to be an
> escape from reality and the business world for a day - now they're a
> trip to commercial marketing land.
>
> And the Stones? Forget it. Last show, they charge $150 for the lame
> seats, good seats were $300 and up.
>
> Personally, I think I'm done. I like to get kissed when I get... well,
> you know the phrase.
I think it's great. When they no longer sell out the venue, prices will
drop. Just as Mick Jagger, London School of Economics '58.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 14:42:00
From: still me
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:26:51 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>I think it's great. When they no longer sell out the venue, prices will
>drop. Just as Mick Jagger, London School of Economics '58.
>--
Well, FWIW, I have noticed a rising number of emails from
Ticketbastard a few days before event offering tickets for sale for
some major bands. So, maybe there's a little back pressure. But, it's
still obscene.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 20:33:21
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> I just sold my last handmade silk tire to a guy who noted that last
>> night's concert cost him, and companion, $260 each. Prices are relative.
still me wrote:
> Agreed on the relativity, but concert prices are not a standard to
> compare to. They have risen by leaps and bounds to satisfy the endless
> greed of performers - and then they rise another 25-40% for
> Ticketbastard fees on top.
Customer noted that after buying an hour or two of not-quite-famous
singer (x2), the tire didn't seem expensive to him. Tom Sherman might
have conniptions at these numbers but our customer was quite happy.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 09:02:43
From: Andrew Martin
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 13, 5:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
> > in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
>
> > Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
> > myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
> > can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>
> > I recognize that proper bead seating may initially require a higher
> > pressure, so assume, if you need to, that I pre-pump and properly seat
> > my tires at high pressure before setting the final pressure.
>
> > This question isn't moot: I had a friend test-ride my bike a few races
> > ago, and with a brand new flexible-bead tire on the front, he rode back
> > with a goodly portion of the bead utterly unseated. I may have had the
> > pressure as low as 35 pounds, though I think I ultimately ran the race
> > at 45 or 50. I fear my records and recollection are a bit shaky.
>
> > Also, it's quite possible that I did a poor job of seating the bead in
> > the first place, so I offer this tale not so much as proof but as the
> > catalyst that got me to thinking about this.
>
> > In other words, these are the questions keeping me up right now:
>
> > -will a CX-sized clincher tire spontaneously unseat from a hooked road
> > (or CX) rim at low but imaginable-for-CX pressures?
>
> VERY common, particularly on rocky/rough courses.
>
>
>
> > -would a wire bead lower the pressure threshold?
>
> It may, since it will hold onto the rim better.
>
>
>
> > -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
> Ya suppose?
> Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
> pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
> would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
> tubulars.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Note that given my own experience, barring repeated bead seat failures
> > at my typical
>
> > Oh, and the specific tires: the old tire that was removed from the rim
> > was a WTB All Terrainasaurus 35c (nominal), a "hybrid" tire with a wire
> > bead. The new tire was a flexi-beaded WTB Cross Wolf 32c (nominal). I
> > know a guy.
>
> >http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com...
>
> > BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
> > moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
> > using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
> > Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
>
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> > "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> > Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I talked to Tim Rutledge of SeattleBikeSupply (Redline) at Interbike.
They are going to have their team running new tubeless cross tires
this season. Hutchison didn't have any to show off, but Tim said they
were awesome and allowed you to run 32/40psi.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 09:17:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Andrew Martin wrote:
> On Oct 13, 5:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
>>> in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
>>> Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
>>> myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
>>> can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>>> I recognize that proper bead seating may initially require a higher
>>> pressure, so assume, if you need to, that I pre-pump and properly seat
>>> my tires at high pressure before setting the final pressure.
>>> This question isn't moot: I had a friend test-ride my bike a few races
>>> ago, and with a brand new flexible-bead tire on the front, he rode back
>>> with a goodly portion of the bead utterly unseated. I may have had the
>>> pressure as low as 35 pounds, though I think I ultimately ran the race
>>> at 45 or 50. I fear my records and recollection are a bit shaky.
>>> Also, it's quite possible that I did a poor job of seating the bead in
>>> the first place, so I offer this tale not so much as proof but as the
>>> catalyst that got me to thinking about this.
>>> In other words, these are the questions keeping me up right now:
>>> -will a CX-sized clincher tire spontaneously unseat from a hooked road
>>> (or CX) rim at low but imaginable-for-CX pressures?
>> VERY common, particularly on rocky/rough courses.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -would a wire bead lower the pressure threshold?
>> It may, since it will hold onto the rim better.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>> Ya suppose?
>> Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
>> pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
>> would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
>> tubulars.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Note that given my own experience, barring repeated bead seat failures
>>> at my typical
>>> Oh, and the specific tires: the old tire that was removed from the rim
>>> was a WTB All Terrainasaurus 35c (nominal), a "hybrid" tire with a wire
>>> bead. The new tire was a flexi-beaded WTB Cross Wolf 32c (nominal). I
>>> know a guy.
>>> http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com...
>>> BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
>>> moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
>>> using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
>>> Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
>>> --
>>> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
>>> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
>>> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I talked to Tim Rutledge of SeattleBikeSupply (Redline) at Interbike.
> They are going to have their team running new tubeless cross tires
> this season. Hutchison didn't have any to show off, but Tim said they
> were awesome and allowed you to run 32/40psi.
>
just like tubies?
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 05:17:26
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
> in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
>
> Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
> myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
> can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>
> I recognize that proper bead seating may initially require a higher
> pressure, so assume, if you need to, that I pre-pump and properly seat
> my tires at high pressure before setting the final pressure.
>
> This question isn't moot: I had a friend test-ride my bike a few races
> ago, and with a brand new flexible-bead tire on the front, he rode back
> with a goodly portion of the bead utterly unseated. I may have had the
> pressure as low as 35 pounds, though I think I ultimately ran the race
> at 45 or 50. I fear my records and recollection are a bit shaky.
>
> Also, it's quite possible that I did a poor job of seating the bead in
> the first place, so I offer this tale not so much as proof but as the
> catalyst that got me to thinking about this.
>
> In other words, these are the questions keeping me up right now:
>
> -will a CX-sized clincher tire spontaneously unseat from a hooked road
> (or CX) rim at low but imaginable-for-CX pressures?
VERY common, particularly on rocky/rough courses.
>
> -would a wire bead lower the pressure threshold?
It may, since it will hold onto the rim better.
>
> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
Ya suppose?
Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
tubulars.
>
> Note that given my own experience, barring repeated bead seat failures
> at my typical
>
> Oh, and the specific tires: the old tire that was removed from the rim
> was a WTB All Terrainasaurus 35c (nominal), a "hybrid" tire with a wire
> bead. The new tire was a flexi-beaded WTB Cross Wolf 32c (nominal). I
> know a guy.
>
> http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/allterrainasaurus/
>
> BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
> moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
> using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
> Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 04:46:08
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
On Oct 15, 7:39 am, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >> One can't simultaneously complain about how outsourcing is destroying
> >> American industry and the artisanal tradition, and whine about the
> >> high costs of artisanally made goods.
>
> >Oh, yes, one can. ;-) It's just not logically consistent. But when
> >has that stopped people?
>
> An FWIW, I haven't seen that much music being outsourced to China.
And that's why seeing live music is expensive. Or
marginally expensive - if you cut off the top end of
very popular musicians playing large arenas, it's
not really that expensive. If I and 200 of my pals
pay $20 to see a five-piece touring indie band, the gate
is $4000 - that has to pay the club (including sound guy),
promoter, and the band. Once you add in the band's
gas expenses, I can't figure out how anyone makes any
profit. Except the club making money on drinks, if they
serve them.
It's sorta possible that a $20/ticket band is only
breaking even in smaller venues, and making money just
from the sale of CDs and T-shirts at the merch table,
since they can keep those sales without having to give
the usual retailers a cut.
Mass production and technological innovation mean
that much stuff gets cheaper over time. The advent of
so many relatively sophisticated thingies we can buy
for under $9.99 makes individually produced items
such as art, music, craft items, handsewn clothing,
custom work, and repairs look expensive, although
they may not be expensive in historical terms.
Once, only aristocrats and rich people could afford
musicians.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 14:36:11
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
In article <1192277846.992660.71180@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
> Ya suppose?
>
> Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
> pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
> would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
> tubulars.
I dunno, I had way more trouble with tubulars than clinchers back when I
raced 'cross. The Ritchey 'cross clinchers were quite good (but the
tubulars looked cooler).
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 09:18:20
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Clinchers and Cyclocross
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> Jobst got me to thinking about CX tires, typically run at low pressure,
>> in another thread, and I decided to start a new line of inquiry.
>>
>> Given the typical kinds of clincher rims that cheap-ass CX riders like
>> myself are using (ie, 700C road rims), what is the lowest pressure you
>> can run without risking bead-seat failure?
>>
>> I recognize that proper bead seating may initially require a higher
>> pressure, so assume, if you need to, that I pre-pump and properly seat
>> my tires at high pressure before setting the final pressure.
>>
>> This question isn't moot: I had a friend test-ride my bike a few races
>> ago, and with a brand new flexible-bead tire on the front, he rode back
>> with a goodly portion of the bead utterly unseated. I may have had the
>> pressure as low as 35 pounds, though I think I ultimately ran the race
>> at 45 or 50. I fear my records and recollection are a bit shaky.
>>
>> Also, it's quite possible that I did a poor job of seating the bead in
>> the first place, so I offer this tale not so much as proof but as the
>> catalyst that got me to thinking about this.
>>
>> In other words, these are the questions keeping me up right now:
>>
>> -will a CX-sized clincher tire spontaneously unseat from a hooked road
>> (or CX) rim at low but imaginable-for-CX pressures?
>
> VERY common, particularly on rocky/rough courses.
>> -would a wire bead lower the pressure threshold?
>
> It may, since it will hold onto the rim better.
>
>> -Is bead seat failure a plausible argument for CX tubulars?
>
> Ya suppose?
> Tubies are the best idea for rough courses, anytime you need low
> pressure. For courses like all grass, like Cross-Vegas, clinchers
> would have been fine but if you are 'serious' about cross, you need
> tubulars.
truedat.
>> Note that given my own experience, barring repeated bead seat failures
>> at my typical
>>
>> Oh, and the specific tires: the old tire that was removed from the rim
>> was a WTB All Terrainasaurus 35c (nominal), a "hybrid" tire with a wire
>> bead. The new tire was a flexi-beaded WTB Cross Wolf 32c (nominal). I
>> know a guy.
>>
>> http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/crosswolf/http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/hybrid/allterrainasaurus/
>>
>> BTW, if you're wondering, the Cross Wolf is very pleasing in the touted
>> moist-to-wet conditions. I was very pleased with the traction I got
>> using it on the front, as compared to the densely-knobbied All
>> Terrainasaurus. You feel less stupid saying the name, too.
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
>> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
>> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
>
>
|
|
