| |
Main
Date: 11 Sep 2007 23:29:07
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
in my own bike).
So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:49:02
From: Scott G.
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
> And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
> haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
> Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicyclesc
Eddy used a 52/13, Rando types used 46-28 with a 13-26 in back.
The English all raced Sturmey FMs, 4 speed medium ratio.
Either everybody was a lot slower in the old days or people have
gotten a lot stronger, must be the drugs. ;-)
11 & 12 are less efficient than a 13 cog, according to Frank Bertos
tests.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:08:13
From:
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:49:02 -0700, "Scott G." <scottg@primax.com >
wrote:
>
>> And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
>> haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
>> Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicyclesc
>
>Eddy used a 52/13, Rando types used 46-28 with a 13-26 in back.
>The English all raced Sturmey FMs, 4 speed medium ratio.
>Either everybody was a lot slower in the old days or people have
>gotten a lot stronger, must be the drugs. ;-)
>
>11 & 12 are less efficient than a 13 cog, according to Frank Bertos
>tests.
Dear Scott,
It's a little more complicated than that.
Briefly, real testing shows little practical difference with
derailleurs when looking at the highest gearing.
Here's Berto's chain efficiency graph for a real Shimano wide range
triple, showing 15 selected gears for 44-32-22 x 12-16-20-26-34. I
added the gear ratios and color:
http://i6.tinypic.com/4kn6wxu.jpg
(It's figure 11 from http://www.ihpva.org/pubs/HP52.pdf, but that
takes forever to load, has no captions, and is hard to figure out. It
was a 9x3 27 speed, but Berto didn't test the rear 14, 18, or 23.)
As you can see, the highest gear (44x12) is the rightmost red data
point, gear number 27.
The rightmost red 44/12 turns out to be right at average efficiency,
not the lowest efficiency.
For chart fiends, note that each rear gear (the five colors) shows the
same pattern of a three-point curve for its combination with the
22-32-44 front rings, with the middle point always lowest for the
middle 32 ring. Just trace any color's 3 data points from left to
right to see what I mean.
One reason for this unexpectedly good performance by the smallest cog
is that the little 11-tooth is paired with the biggest and most
efficient 44-tooth front sprocket.
Another reason is that the chainline for the 44-12 is better than
cross-chaining on many other combinations on the wide triple.
Most of all, at the same bicycle speed, higher gearing means lower
chain speed, which in turn means greater chain tension at the same
power, which is the biggest factor in chain efficiency at these
levels. In the highest gear, 44/12, the chain moves slowly at high
tension and efficiency.
Of course, few riders putting out only 80 to 200 watts care much about
such tiny efficiency changes--and that's what these are, small
differences of less than 10 more watts lost out of 200.
At 200 watts, for example, the best combination is the 44/20, 95.9%
efficient, producing a theoretical 191.8 watts.
At the same 200 watts, the 44/12 is 93.7% efficient, producing a
theoretical 187.4 watts, only 4.4 watts less.
Even that difference of 191.8 watts versus 187.4 watts is deceptive
because in real cycling, human legs put out the 200 watts, not an
electric motor.
At the same bicycle speed of 20 mph, the 44/20 spins frantically at
116 rpm, while the 44/12 cruises along at a gentle 70 rpm. Bending
your knees 60% faster to go the same speed will waste more watts than
the chain efficiency will save.
Another way to put it is to imagine where a 22-32-44 would sit on the
chart if we replaced the 12 with an 11 or a 13. The whole curve isn't
likely to move up or down as much as the difference between any other
sets of 3 data points for the rear cog, since they're all for
increases of 4, 6, or 8 teeth on the rear.
Chain efficiency tends to be more theoretical than practical in
ordinary bicycling.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 18:30:51
From:
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:08:13 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:49:02 -0700, "Scott G." <scottg@primax.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
>>> haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
>>> Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicyclesc
>>
>>Eddy used a 52/13, Rando types used 46-28 with a 13-26 in back.
>>The English all raced Sturmey FMs, 4 speed medium ratio.
>>Either everybody was a lot slower in the old days or people have
>>gotten a lot stronger, must be the drugs. ;-)
>>
>>11 & 12 are less efficient than a 13 cog, according to Frank Bertos
>>tests.
>
>Dear Scott,
>
>It's a little more complicated than that.
>
>Briefly, real testing shows little practical difference with
>derailleurs when looking at the highest gearing.
>
>Here's Berto's chain efficiency graph for a real Shimano wide range
>triple, showing 15 selected gears for 44-32-22 x 12-16-20-26-34. I
>added the gear ratios and color:
>
>http://i6.tinypic.com/4kn6wxu.jpg
>
>(It's figure 11 from http://www.ihpva.org/pubs/HP52.pdf, but that
>takes forever to load, has no captions, and is hard to figure out. It
>was a 9x3 27 speed, but Berto didn't test the rear 14, 18, or 23.)
>
>As you can see, the highest gear (44x12) is the rightmost red data
>point, gear number 27.
>
>The rightmost red 44/12 turns out to be right at average efficiency,
>not the lowest efficiency.
>
>For chart fiends, note that each rear gear (the five colors) shows the
>same pattern of a three-point curve for its combination with the
>22-32-44 front rings, with the middle point always lowest for the
>middle 32 ring. Just trace any color's 3 data points from left to
>right to see what I mean.
>
>One reason for this unexpectedly good performance by the smallest cog
>is that the little 11-tooth is paired with the biggest and most
>efficient 44-tooth front sprocket.
>
>Another reason is that the chainline for the 44-12 is better than
>cross-chaining on many other combinations on the wide triple.
>
>Most of all, at the same bicycle speed, higher gearing means lower
>chain speed, which in turn means greater chain tension at the same
>power, which is the biggest factor in chain efficiency at these
>levels. In the highest gear, 44/12, the chain moves slowly at high
>tension and efficiency.
>
>Of course, few riders putting out only 80 to 200 watts care much about
>such tiny efficiency changes--and that's what these are, small
>differences of less than 10 more watts lost out of 200.
>
>At 200 watts, for example, the best combination is the 44/20, 95.9%
>efficient, producing a theoretical 191.8 watts.
>
>At the same 200 watts, the 44/12 is 93.7% efficient, producing a
>theoretical 187.4 watts, only 4.4 watts less.
>
>Even that difference of 191.8 watts versus 187.4 watts is deceptive
>because in real cycling, human legs put out the 200 watts, not an
>electric motor.
>
>At the same bicycle speed of 20 mph, the 44/20 spins frantically at
>116 rpm, while the 44/12 cruises along at a gentle 70 rpm. Bending
>your knees 60% faster to go the same speed will waste more watts than
>the chain efficiency will save.
>
>Another way to put it is to imagine where a 22-32-44 would sit on the
>chart if we replaced the 12 with an 11 or a 13. The whole curve isn't
>likely to move up or down as much as the difference between any other
>sets of 3 data points for the rear cog, since they're all for
>increases of 4, 6, or 8 teeth on the rear.
>
>Chain efficiency tends to be more theoretical than practical in
>ordinary bicycling.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
An improved version of the colored and captioned Berto graph:
http://i19.tinypic.com/4zux068.jpg
CF
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 05:22:58
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Sep 16, 11:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > PS: I have a 48/36/26 Sugino Crank on the bench ready to go for the
> > Soma and I'd consider running 11/25. Why shouldn't I have any gear I
> > want for anyplace I go?
>
> Indeed, why not? Some of the guys I ride with make fun of me for running a
> 12-27 10-spd block on rides where I don't need anything like a 27. They are
> of the opinion that perhaps in the winter you use the lower gears, but
> in-season, unless you've got something really gnarly on the itinerary, you
> run a 12-25 or even an 11-23.
>
> As if. As if it's going to make a difference having gears just a tiny bit
> closer, at the expense of one cassette that does it all? I've got far better
> excuses than the lack of that perfect gear for why I get dropped when
> climbing! :>)
>
> I'll even admit that I don't even look to see if any of my gearing options
> include the legendary "16" tooth that many seem to not be able to live
> without. Heck, I don't even know what happens when you go from 39/53 to
> 34/50 w/regards the need for that "16" back there. Guess I'll have to turn
> in the keys to the shop now... and since I'm dumb enough to admit this in a
> usenet post, I'll never be able to run away from it either.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "Paul Kopit" <pko...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3hbqe39t2btp3241h2fqbvfkt67nerkamr@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> > <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that
> >>setup.
> >>Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass
> >>was
> >>actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
> >>triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
> >>allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
> >>new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me
> >>with
> >>a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current
> >>setup.
>
> > That's what I run as well. I am an Ergo 10 person. My hubs are
> > ShimaNO. I use 12/27 x 9sp and a current 10sp rear derailleur and it
> > shifts aOK. That's my all around bike, a Soma Smoothine with small
> > rack and 700x28 tires. On another bike, Colnago Ti/CF, I run 12/27 x
> > 10sp but I shift it with an 8sp Record rear derailleur. And the 3rd
> > bike, Cannondale CAAD 9, Campy all around with a made up 12/29. Made
> > up with 1st 4 cogs from 12/29 and 17-19, 21-3/26-29. It's actually
> > better than the Shimano 12/27s. On worn cassettes, the 12/13/14/15
> > are usually ok. The 17,19,21 are usually the cogs that wear first.
> > An IRD 12/28 works ok for Campy too.
>
> > If you are already running a Campy Middle cage rear derailleur, you
> > can also run 12/32. You can do it with a standard cage by changing
> > out the 10 sp derailleur pulley with an 8sp pulley, which has a
> > smaller diameter. Most often, but not always, you need to add a link,
> > 1" of chain.
>
> > PS: I have a 48/36/26 Sugino Crank on the bench ready to go for the
> > Soma and I'd consider running 11/25. Why shouldn't I have any gear I
> > want for anyplace I go?
You can always tell your friends that you have gaps between gears to
make your ride more challenging and get a better workout.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:40:38
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
>
> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
> >
> > Ben C napisa (a):
> >
> >> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
> >>
> > Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
> > just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
> > first place.
>
> no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
> it'll work, but it's fugly.
Yes, there is an efficiency and wear penalty for 11t and 12t
sprockets. There is for 13t sprockets too, for that matter; it just
seems like a good place to draw the line for diminishing returns.
I use 11-34 freewheels and cassettes for almost all my derailleur
bikes now. The range they offer makes it easy for me to settle for a
single ring, which in turn makes it easy to use a strong and cost-
effective 3-piece BMX crank. I can keep low gears for hill climbing
and load carrying without unduly truncating top speed. But I've
switched to 11-34 even on my bikes with front changers. The benefits
there are a smaller big ring (e.g. 49t) and deeper overlap between
ranges. For the relative infrequency and modest power levels with
which I use the small sprocket, I'm not too concerned about excessive
losses and wear.
Note that BMX/freestyle bikes are increasingly equipped with 9 tooth
rear drivers on their single-speed cassette hubs. 25/9 is the typical
gear combination. I recently saw an 8 tooth driver for the first
time. You can get a 9 tooth driver made from 7075 aluminum! I
imagine that this fad will pass before too long, but in the meantime,
manufacturers are going to make a bundle on replacement drivers (which
are specific to the hub and cost a lot more than freewheels).
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 22:28:17
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>>> Ben C napisa (a):
>>>> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
>> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>> first place.
> jim beam wrote:
>> no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
>> it'll work, but it's fugly.
Chalo wrote:
> Yes, there is an efficiency and wear penalty for 11t and 12t
> sprockets. There is for 13t sprockets too, for that matter; it just
> seems like a good place to draw the line for diminishing returns.
>
> I use 11-34 freewheels and cassettes for almost all my derailleur
> bikes now. The range they offer makes it easy for me to settle for a
> single ring, which in turn makes it easy to use a strong and cost-
> effective 3-piece BMX crank. I can keep low gears for hill climbing
> and load carrying without unduly truncating top speed. But I've
> switched to 11-34 even on my bikes with front changers. The benefits
> there are a smaller big ring (e.g. 49t) and deeper overlap between
> ranges. For the relative infrequency and modest power levels with
> which I use the small sprocket, I'm not too concerned about excessive
> losses and wear.
>
> Note that BMX/freestyle bikes are increasingly equipped with 9 tooth
> rear drivers on their single-speed cassette hubs. 25/9 is the typical
> gear combination. I recently saw an 8 tooth driver for the first
> time. You can get a 9 tooth driver made from 7075 aluminum! I
> imagine that this fad will pass before too long, but in the meantime,
> manufacturers are going to make a bundle on replacement drivers (which
> are specific to the hub and cost a lot more than freewheels).
Yeah, I wonder why the popular Profile Racing 9t integrated driver is
Ti? - they sure don't last all that long! A steel piece that small just
couldn't be much extra weight. But then again I don't ride them myself...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:38:05
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Sep 14, 2:21 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <7luke310t97ck0suklcsehm4s3snmtp...@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
> > Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
> > 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
> > light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
> > even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
> > absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
>
> That's a slippery slope.
> Soon you will be running a 13-23.
>
> --
> Michael Press
>
> Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.
13-23 9 speed cassette works very well with a 53-42.
I do use a 12-23 or 12-25 10 speed with the compact crankset with
either 48-40 or 46-30 rings. Or 13-29 when going for mountain riding.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:27:21
From: JG
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Yes, but the double shifts are killers...
JG
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 07:21:17
From: JG
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
But! it's an 11.
JG - obligatory Spinal Tap joke.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 02:02:22
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 13, 6:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> RS wrote:
> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> > a 9-speed system.
>
> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
Who made you the arbiter of everyone's gearing?
You live on the SF peninsula, right? There are plenty of
hills that are challenging in a 39/27 for anyone but Jobst
or a Cat 1/2 rider. In Santa Cruz County, Jamison Creek
Road and Alba Road come to mind. Try them sometime.
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
I don't own a compact (except on my cross bike), or an 11, but how
does using a compact crank force you to use an 11? 50/12 is
already a reasonably tall gear.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: compact crank cassette options
|
>> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
>> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut
>> > it, 50-11
>> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is
>> > nice and
>> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running
>> > such a
>> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine
>> > though it is
>> > a 9-speed system.
>>
>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> Who made you the arbiter of everyone's gearing?
> You live on the SF peninsula, right? There are plenty of
> hills that are challenging in a 39/27 for anyone but Jobst
> or a Cat 1/2 rider. In Santa Cruz County, Jamison Creek
> Road and Alba Road come to mind. Try them sometime.
>
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I don't own a compact (except on my cross bike), or an 11, but how
> does using a compact crank force you to use an 11? 50/12 is
> already a reasonably tall gear.
>
> Ben
Ben: I live on the SF Peninsula, but I'm not the person making any of the
comments above. I started this thread on an entirely different subject, and
it morphed into a treatise on gear mashers vs crunchers somehow. I think Jim
Beam might have made the remarks you find curious, and maybe he does live in
the SF Bay Area, I don't know.
For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that setup.
Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass was
actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me with
a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current setup.
And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 13:38:29
From: Paul Kopit
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that setup.
>Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass was
>actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
>triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
>allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
>new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me with
>a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current setup.
That's what I run as well. I am an Ergo 10 person. My hubs are
ShimaNO. I use 12/27 x 9sp and a current 10sp rear derailleur and it
shifts aOK. That's my all around bike, a Soma Smoothine with small
rack and 700x28 tires. On another bike, Colnago Ti/CF, I run 12/27 x
10sp but I shift it with an 8sp Record rear derailleur. And the 3rd
bike, Cannondale CAAD 9, Campy all around with a made up 12/29. Made
up with 1st 4 cogs from 12/29 and 17-19, 21-3/26-29. It's actually
better than the Shimano 12/27s. On worn cassettes, the 12/13/14/15
are usually ok. The 17,19,21 are usually the cogs that wear first.
An IRD 12/28 works ok for Campy too.
If you are already running a Campy Middle cage rear derailleur, you
can also run 12/32. You can do it with a standard cage by changing
out the 10 sp derailleur pulley with an 8sp pulley, which has a
smaller diameter. Most often, but not always, you need to add a link,
1" of chain.
PS: I have a 48/36/26 Sugino Crank on the bench ready to go for the
Soma and I'd consider running 11/25. Why shouldn't I have any gear I
want for anyplace I go?
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 22:28:34
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
> PS: I have a 48/36/26 Sugino Crank on the bench ready to go for the
> Soma and I'd consider running 11/25. Why shouldn't I have any gear I
> want for anyplace I go?
Indeed, why not? Some of the guys I ride with make fun of me for running a
12-27 10-spd block on rides where I don't need anything like a 27. They are
of the opinion that perhaps in the winter you use the lower gears, but
in-season, unless you've got something really gnarly on the itinerary, you
run a 12-25 or even an 11-23.
As if. As if it's going to make a difference having gears just a tiny bit
closer, at the expense of one cassette that does it all? I've got far better
excuses than the lack of that perfect gear for why I get dropped when
climbing! : >)
I'll even admit that I don't even look to see if any of my gearing options
include the legendary "16" tooth that many seem to not be able to live
without. Heck, I don't even know what happens when you go from 39/53 to
34/50 w/regards the need for that "16" back there. Guess I'll have to turn
in the keys to the shop now... and since I'm dumb enough to admit this in a
usenet post, I'll never be able to run away from it either.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Paul Kopit" <pkopit@att.net > wrote in message
news:3hbqe39t2btp3241h2fqbvfkt67nerkamr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that
>>setup.
>>Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass
>>was
>>actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
>>triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
>>allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
>>new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me
>>with
>>a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current
>>setup.
>
> That's what I run as well. I am an Ergo 10 person. My hubs are
> ShimaNO. I use 12/27 x 9sp and a current 10sp rear derailleur and it
> shifts aOK. That's my all around bike, a Soma Smoothine with small
> rack and 700x28 tires. On another bike, Colnago Ti/CF, I run 12/27 x
> 10sp but I shift it with an 8sp Record rear derailleur. And the 3rd
> bike, Cannondale CAAD 9, Campy all around with a made up 12/29. Made
> up with 1st 4 cogs from 12/29 and 17-19, 21-3/26-29. It's actually
> better than the Shimano 12/27s. On worn cassettes, the 12/13/14/15
> are usually ok. The 17,19,21 are usually the cogs that wear first.
> An IRD 12/28 works ok for Campy too.
>
> If you are already running a Campy Middle cage rear derailleur, you
> can also run 12/32. You can do it with a standard cage by changing
> out the 10 sp derailleur pulley with an 8sp pulley, which has a
> smaller diameter. Most often, but not always, you need to add a link,
> 1" of chain.
>
> PS: I have a 48/36/26 Sugino Crank on the bench ready to go for the
> Soma and I'd consider running 11/25. Why shouldn't I have any gear I
> want for anyplace I go?
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 14:10:43
From: Paul Kopit
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:38:29 GMT, Paul Kopit <pkopit@att.net > wrote:
> Made
>up with 1st 4 cogs from 12/29 and 17-19, 21-3/26-29.
Correction, 1st 4 cogs from a 12/25.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 08:37:17
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>>> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
>>> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut
>>> > it, 50-11
>>> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is
>>> > nice and
>>> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running
>>> > such a
>>> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine
>>> > though it is
>>> > a 9-speed system.
>>>
>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>
>> Who made you the arbiter of everyone's gearing?
>> You live on the SF peninsula, right? There are plenty of
>> hills that are challenging in a 39/27 for anyone but Jobst
>> or a Cat 1/2 rider. In Santa Cruz County, Jamison Creek
>> Road and Alba Road come to mind. Try them sometime.
>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>
>> I don't own a compact (except on my cross bike), or an 11, but how
>> does using a compact crank force you to use an 11? 50/12 is
>> already a reasonably tall gear.
>>
>> Ben
>
>Ben: I live on the SF Peninsula, but I'm not the person making any of the
>comments above. I started this thread on an entirely different subject, and
>it morphed into a treatise on gear mashers vs crunchers somehow. I think Jim
>Beam might have made the remarks you find curious, and maybe he does live in
>the SF Bay Area, I don't know.
>
>For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that setup.
>Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass was
>actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
>triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
>allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
>new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me with
>a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current setup.
>
>And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
>haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
>Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).
First, I think that the fact that a former Cat 2 racer, now
"middle-aged", uses and loves 50/34 compact rings is very instructive.
If pros, who TT at over 30 mph and climb the Alps and Pyrenees at,
what 15 or 20?, use 53/39, why would amateurs who, if they are really
strong, might hold 25 mph over a 10 mile TT and get up the same
mountain at 11 mph, need or even want the same gearing?
It would behoove the amateur to gear down to get the rpm's up, because
neither their strength or fitness approaches remotely that of a pro.
Second, the gear ratio of an 11 tooth cog with a 50 tooth ring is
roughly equivalent to 53:12, which is probably the most common high
gear used on the road (at least where I live, where the shops stock
bikes with 53/39 rings and 12-25 cassettes).
If 53:12 is more than you need, then you certainly don't need an 11
if you switch to compact.
Why the 11 is prevalent among compact users is that they ride with
friends who have still have the 53:12 as a high gear. So there are
instances when the compact geared rider is trying to keep pace with
the standard geared riders (downhill), and finds that 50:12 is too
fast and tiring to spin.
Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 13:46:47
From: Paul Kopit
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:37:17 -0400, Doug Taylor
<dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>Why the 11 is prevalent among compact users is that they ride with
>friends who have still have the 53:12 as a high gear. So there are
>instances when the compact geared rider is trying to keep pace with
>the standard geared riders (downhill), and finds that 50:12 is too
>fast and tiring to spin.
I've had little trouble with a compact and a 12 w/o an 11. I've
rarely lost contact with some fast pacelines. I do have to spin it up
but not much. The times I've missed an 11 is when drafting a tandem
on a downgrade and they are spinning and not coasting. Downgrade, by
myself, I'm scared to spin up the 50/11 anyway.
A good friend and a former 10 year, European pro, claims that going up
the hill quickly is the glory and coming down fast is crazy. You
only need to go down fast when keeping up with a pack of riders so
that you are in contact when they get to the flat or uphill grade.
The thrills of descending quickly are overcome by touching down on the
pavement of going off road a couple of times.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 16:30:51
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:46:47 GMT, Paul Kopit <pkopit@att.net > wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:37:17 -0400, Doug Taylor
><dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>>Why the 11 is prevalent among compact users is that they ride with
>>friends who have still have the 53:12 as a high gear. So there are
>>instances when the compact geared rider is trying to keep pace with
>>the standard geared riders (downhill), and finds that 50:12 is too
>>fast and tiring to spin.
>
>I've had little trouble with a compact and a 12 w/o an 11. I've
>rarely lost contact with some fast pacelines. I do have to spin it up
>but not much. The times I've missed an 11 is when drafting a tandem
>on a downgrade and they are spinning and not coasting. Downgrade, by
>myself, I'm scared to spin up the 50/11 anyway.
The 12 might be a good choice, and it might not depending on the rider
and the circumstances. I'm no former Cat 2, but my personal
experience was that I too often found myself spinning overly hard and
fast for personal comfort @ 50:12 in various situations when hammering
(or trying to) with the animals. Of course if I'm by myself or doing
long slow distance, then absolutely it is a wasted gear.
Be that as it may, my point was simply to explain to the OP why
cassettes starting with an 11 are prevalent among compact users. There
are enough of those riders now "everybody" except Shimano offers
"wide" cassettes (starting with an 11 and ending with 25,26,27, or 28)
for 9 and 10 speed. That was not the case 4 years ago when I first
switched to compact. Then, if you wanted a wide range cassette, you
could cob together individual cogs, or buy a "High and Wide" from
Harris Cyclery if you had 9 speed. IRD, a company which uniquely
"promoted" the resurgence of compacts in the last few years, was the
first I could find that actually sold "compact friendly" wide
cassettes for 9 and 10 speed 3 years ago, and because of that I remain
loyal to IRD and buy all my chains and cassettes from their on line
shop.
Healthy variety of cassettes, and the 10 speed chain is great because
it has a "snap-link" which works like a SRAM 9 speed power link
(symmetrical as opposed to Wipperman connex).
http://store.interlocracing.com/
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:21:28
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
In article
<7luke310t97ck0suklcsehm4s3snmtp98h@4ax.com >,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
That's a slippery slope.
Soon you will be running a 13-23.
--
Michael Press
Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 23:32:43
From: Kinky Cowboy
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:21:28 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:
>In article
><7luke310t97ck0suklcsehm4s3snmtp98h@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
>> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
>> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
>> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
>> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
>
>That's a slippery slope.
>Soon you will be running a 13-23.
Maybe I'm on the way down the slope...48-34 / 14-25. The 48/14 is good
for 30mph without outrageous spinning, any faster than that and I'll
enjoy the freewheeling.
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:59:36
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:21:28 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:
>In article
><7luke310t97ck0suklcsehm4s3snmtp98h@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
>> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
>> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
>> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
>> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
>
>That's a slippery slope.
>Soon you will be running a 13-23.
I'll kill myself before I get that old :-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 12:43:29
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-444AEE.12212814092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <7luke310t97ck0suklcsehm4s3snmtp98h@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
>> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
>> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
>> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
>> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
>
> That's a slippery slope.
> Soon you will be running a 13-23.
>
> --
> Michael Press
>
> Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.
Campagnolo Centaur Compact Crank 50/46
Shimano ultegra 9sp (with downtube shifters)
Cassette: 11-23 Racing Wheel (30% of the time)
Cassette: 12-25 Training Wheel (70% of the time)
-tom
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 09:27:16
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: compact crank cassette options
|
In article <fceo91$r9s$1@news.Stanford.EDU >,
"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-444AEE.12212814092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article
> > <7luke310t97ck0suklcsehm4s3snmtp98h@4ax.com>,
> > Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
> >> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
> >> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
> >> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
> >> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
> >
> > That's a slippery slope.
> > Soon you will be running a 13-23.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Press
> >
> > Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.
>
> Campagnolo Centaur Compact Crank 50/46
> Shimano ultegra 9sp (with downtube shifters)
> Cassette: 11-23 Racing Wheel (30% of the time)
> Cassette: 12-25 Training Wheel (70% of the time)
Tom, I remember reading that you installed a compact
crank recently and liked it. Did you write such a message?
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 01:25:07
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 13, 5:46 pm, Derk <nob...@invalid.org > wrote:
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
> > about 20 mph.
>
> Pfewww...Iuse a 42/18 or 42/19 when doing 20 mph.
>
> > Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
> > low cadence.
>
> As long as the knees don't object....
Note the term "mindlessly happy". It explains alot.
>
> I noticed that friends of mine who make many RPM change their BB far less
> soften than I do. One of them did 150.000 km with a bike and still has the
> same original BB.
>
> Derk
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 18:29:38
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 13, 12:26 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1189695326.434125.40...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> RS wrote:
> >>> In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>> mik...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> >>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>>>> (only
> >>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>>>> instead
> >>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>>>> all.
> >>>> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
> >>>> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
> >>>> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
> >>>> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
> >>>> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
> >>>> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
> >>>> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>
> >>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
> >>>> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
> >>>> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
> >>>> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
> >>>> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
> >>> some
> >>>> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
> >>>> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
> >>>> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
> >>>> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
> >>>> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
> >>>> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
> >>>> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>
> >>>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote
> >>> in
> >>>> message
> >>>news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> >>>>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
> >>> bracket
> >>>>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
> >>>>>> Ultegra
> >>>>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> >>>>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> >>>>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
> >>>>>> goes
> >>>>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> >>>>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> >>>>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
> >>>>>> '105
> >>>>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
> >>>>>> above.
> >>>>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
> >>>>>> diff
> >>>>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> >>>>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
> >>>>>> them
> >>>>>> in my own bike).
>
> >>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>>>> (only
> >>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>>>> instead
> >>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>>>> all.
>
> >>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>
> >>> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> >>> figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> >>> is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> >>> works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> >>> setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> >>> a 9-speed system.
>
> >> compact makes no sense.
>
> >>From a practical standpoint, they don't make much sense. But, they
> >sell because the wannabes want lower gears without the "stigma" of a
> >triple, IMO.
>
> >> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> >> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.
>
> >And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
> >"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.
>
> >> if you're not fit enough, or are
> >> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> >IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
> >close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".
>
> That is the course I took, and am happy with the result.
> 13-23 nine speed gives a 13-19 straight block.
>
> --
> Michael Press
Yes. I actually prefer a 13-2* and use such on my own bikes. I
mentioned 12-2* cassettes merely to keep those who think they want
longer gears from having a fit. :)
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 21:17:31
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article
<1189708178.762395.278250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:26 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1189695326.434125.40...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ozark Bicycle
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > >On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
[...]
> > >> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> > >> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.
> >
> > >And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
> > >"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.
> >
> > >> if you're not fit enough, or are
> > >> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
> >
> > >IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
> > >close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".
> >
> > That is the course I took, and am happy with the result.
> > 13-23 nine speed gives a 13-19 straight block.
>
> Yes. I actually prefer a 13-2* and use such on my own bikes. I
> mentioned 12-2* cassettes merely to keep those who think they want
> longer gears from having a fit. :)
Can't throw a stone at every barking dog.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 10:53:44
From: JG
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
No, the reason for a 50-34 compact is the 47% jump between rings.
With 10 cogs and cross-over gearing, you are losing a lot of gears due
to reduncancy. The 47% difference allows a bit less overlap.
JG
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 11:24:00
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article
<1189706024.115085.239600@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >
,
JG <jchg@cox.net > wrote:
> No,
What are you talking about?
> the reason for a 50-34 compact is the 47% jump between rings.
> With 10 cogs and cross-over gearing, you are losing a lot of gears due
> to reduncancy. The 47% difference allows a bit less overlap.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 14:55:26
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> RS wrote:
> > In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> > mik...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> >>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>> (only
> >>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>> instead
> >>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>> all.
> >> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
> >> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
> >> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
> >> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
> >> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
> >> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
> >> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>
> >>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
> >> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
> >> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
> >> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
> >> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
> > some
> >> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
> >> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
> >> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
> >> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
> >> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
> >> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
> >> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>
> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote
> > in
> >> message
> >news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
> > wrote:
> >>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> >>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
> > bracket
> >>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
> >>>> the
> >>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
> >>>> Ultegra
> >>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> >>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> >>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
> >>>> goes
> >>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> >>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> >>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
> >>>> they
> >>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
> >>>> that
> >>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
> >>>> '105
> >>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
> >>>> above.
> >>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
> >>>> diff
> >>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> >>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
> >>>> to
> >>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
> >>>> them
> >>>> in my own bike).
>
> >>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>> (only
> >>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>> instead
> >>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>> all.
>
> >>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>
> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> > a 9-speed system.
>
> compact makes no sense.
>From a practical standpoint, they don't make much sense. But, they
sell because the wannabes want lower gears without the "stigma" of a
triple, IMO.
> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.
And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.
> if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".
>
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 10:26:36
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article
<1189695326.434125.40030@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> RS wrote:
>>> In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> mik...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>>>> (only
>>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>>>> all.
>>>> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
>>>> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
>>>> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
>>>> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
>>>> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
>>>> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
>>>> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>>
>>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>>> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
>>>> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
>>>> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
>>>> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
>>> some
>>>> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
>>>> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
>>>> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
>>>> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
>>>> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
>>>> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
>>>> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>>
>>
>>>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote
>>> in
>>>> message
>>>news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>
>>>>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
>>> bracket
>>>>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>>>>>> Ultegra
>>>>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>>>>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>>>>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>>>>>> goes
>>>>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>
>>>>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>>>>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>>>>>> '105
>>>>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>>>>>> above.
>>>>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>>>>>> diff
>>>>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>>>>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> in my own bike).
>>
>>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>>>> (only
>>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>>>> all.
>>
>>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>
>>> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
>>> figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
>>> is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
>>> works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
>>> setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
>>> a 9-speed system.
>>
>> compact makes no sense.
>
>>From a practical standpoint, they don't make much sense. But, they
>sell because the wannabes want lower gears without the "stigma" of a
>triple, IMO.
>
>
>> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.
>
>And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
>"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.
>
>
>> if you're not fit enough, or are
>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
>IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
>close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".
That is the course I took, and am happy with the result.
13-23 nine speed gives a 13-19 straight block.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 07:04:48
From: Adam Kadlubek
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Ben C napisa (a):
> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
A jump between 15 and 14 is about 7%. A jump between 12 and 11 is 9%.
When riding at 12T cog you are at high power levels - so you'd prefer
closer jump (7% or less) to next gear for better inertia management,
and 11 is 9% away, which might knock you out from your pace.
Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
first place.
Regards
--
Adam Kadlubek
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 22:01:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Adam Kadlubek wrote:
> Ben C napisa (a):
>
>> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
>
> A jump between 15 and 14 is about 7%. A jump between 12 and 11 is 9%.
> When riding at 12T cog you are at high power levels - so you'd prefer
> closer jump (7% or less) to next gear for better inertia management,
> and 11 is 9% away, which might knock you out from your pace.
>
> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
> first place.
>
> Regards
> --
> Adam Kadlubek
>
no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
it'll work, but it's fugly.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:16:49
From: Derk
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Adam Kadlubek wrote:
> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
> first place.
yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
group.
Derk
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 14:02:30
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:16:49 +0200, Derk <nobody@invalid.org > wrote:
>Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>
>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>> first place.
>yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
>friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
>used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
>group.
>
>Derk
Dear Derk,
I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
low cadence.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 20:51:19
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>> first place.
> Derk <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>> yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
>> friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
>> used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>> Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
>> group.
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
> about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
> low cadence.
Fine if that's what you like. Riders are each expert on their own taste.
For every 100" top gear guy (me) there's a happy 130" (Carl) rider.
Today we changed a Campagnolo Gunnar to 30-45-56 with a 12~25 (yep, 33"
to 126") and also un-ten-speeded a bike to a single 66" gear. It's all
good but I'm peeved by assertions like "nobody needs a _____" .
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:43:16
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>>> first place.
>
>> Derk <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>>> yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new
>>> cassette for a
>>> friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he
>>> ever
>>> used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>>> Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding
>>> in a
>>> group.
>
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
>> about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
>> low cadence.
>
> Fine if that's what you like. Riders are each expert on their own taste.
>
> For every 100" top gear guy (me) there's a happy 130" (Carl) rider.
> Today we changed a Campagnolo Gunnar to 30-45-56 with a 12~25 (yep, 33"
> to 126") and also un-ten-speeded a bike to a single 66" gear. It's all
> good but I'm peeved by assertions like "nobody needs a _____" .
Me, too. Gear preference is really a matter of cadence preference. Maybe
it's just my size, but a 20% lower cadence on the flats works for me.
Some people seem to be really sensitive to big jumps, I'm not, I often
shift 2 at a time. I like wide range cassettes (11-28 typically on road,
11-32 MTB), the jumps don't bother me as much as double shifts.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 13:14:20
From: RS
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article <pl5je3lk0usmtr62pi17tlahj302futqe9@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net says...
>
>
>On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:16:49 +0200, Derk <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>
>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>> first place.
>>yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
>>friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
>>used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>>Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
>>group.
>>
>>Derk
>
>Dear Derk,
>
>I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
>about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
>low cadence.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Well said!
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 06:57:04
From: Adam Kadlubek
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam napisa (a):
> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
Questionable. I am using a compact 46-34 on a 14-28 rear. Thank you
very much.
Regards
--
Adam Kadlubek
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 05:50:35
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 12, 6:10 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
> >> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >> (only thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is
> >> black instead of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost
> >> of a '105 is around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> > Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> >www.yellowjersey.org
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
> consider joining that list; lots of good information there.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Not to me but Andy but we used to belong and dern near every bit of
info related to the 'big shop sceanrio' that was
trekspecializedgiantcannondale..didn't really apply, at least to
Vecchio's..I'll let Andy speak for himself, but I wonder how
applkicable NBDA would be for him either.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 23:49:12
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>> I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
>> consider joining that list; lots of good information there.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> Not to me but Andy but we used to belong and dern near every bit of
> info related to the 'big shop sceanrio' that was
> trekspecializedgiantcannondale..didn't really apply, at least to
> Vecchio's..I'll let Andy speak for himself, but I wonder how
> applkicable NBDA would be for him either.
Here are the latest subjects of discussion, in order-
VOIP phone systems
Time to consider a new point-of-sale system?
Backpacks on bikes (how kids can haul all their stuff to school on a bike)
Credit card processing at remote events
Extra long 1" 14ga nipples needed for rebuilding wood rims
Digging yourself into a hole (embarassing conversations with customers)
Hand held wireless inventory management
Giant's "Biking Solutions" program
Folding bike ride in Las Vegas
Need a shop to refer someone to in Tucson
Putting together a consortium to buy "green" shopping bags
One world/Two wheels advocacy
Need 700x28 long-valve SV tubes
Need 18 x 1.75 PV tubes
Revolutons start with small things (trying to move trade show out of Las
Vegas)
Bikes stolen from dealer
Why we don't sell light-colored cycling shorts to guys
Credit card fraud
Need huge road bike
Open or closed on labor day
So as you can see, there are a couple of threads that deal with the
mega-company issues, but the majority do not. Not to say it's terribly
exciting though; we never have discussions like the recent one here on
carbon fiber!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:49:28
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>> (only thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is
>>>> black instead of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost
>>>> of a '105 is around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>I (am@yellowjersey.org) whined:
>>> Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>> I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
>> consider joining that list; lots of good information there.
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> Not to me but Andy but we used to belong and dern near every bit of
> info related to the 'big shop sceanrio' that was
> trekspecializedgiantcannondale..didn't really apply, at least to
> Vecchio's..I'll let Andy speak for himself, but I wonder how
> applkicable NBDA would be for him either.
I never saw the point either, despite a very close friend's exhortations
for years when he was on their Board.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 07:48:47
From: Derk
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore.
You can still buy them online in Europe if you really need one. I stock 10
Ital 9s 109.5mm OCtalink Ultegra BB and 3 BSA ones, just in case....
Derk
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 14:35:51
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> in my own bike).
>
> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 00:10:03
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>> (only thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is
>> black instead of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost
>> of a '105 is around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
consider joining that list; lots of good information there.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 11:42:49
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 12, 8:13 am, mike <mwe...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 8:19 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
>
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> > > This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> > > replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> > > war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> > > Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> > > Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> > > distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> > > on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> > > So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> > > manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> > > will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> > > they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> > > and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> > > The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> > > between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> > > something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> > > figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> > > in my own bike).
>
> > > So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> > > from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> > > doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> > > thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> > > of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> > > around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> > > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> > Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> > low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> > NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> > now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> > older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> > all.
>
> > Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> > to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> > XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> > 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As someone who is going to select the components and frame for his
> next bike, is it going to be smarter to choose campy components
> instead???
No necessarily altho I will always vote for Campagnolo due to
rebuildable and maintanable levers. Many more compacts, better levers,
true long cage RDers, 29t big cogs, better BB/crank design is why I
would choose Campagnolo.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 07:13:55
From: mike
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 12, 8:19 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> > This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> > replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> > war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> > Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> > Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> > distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> > on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> > So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> > manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> > will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> > they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> > and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> > The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> > between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> > something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> > figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> > in my own bike).
>
> > So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> > from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> > doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> > thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> > of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> > around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> all.
>
> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As someone who is going to select the components and frame for his
next bike, is it going to be smarter to choose campy components
instead???
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 05:19:43
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> in my own bike).
>
> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
all.
Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 15:52:01
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>> (only
>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>> instead
>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> all.
Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." : >)
> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on some
of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
forks on 4-year-old bikes.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>
>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>> the
>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>> Ultegra
>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>> goes
>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>
>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>> they
>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>> that
>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>> '105
>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>> above.
>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>> diff
>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>> to
>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>> them
>> in my own bike).
>>
>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>> (only
>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>> instead
>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> all.
>
> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 19:45:15
From: RS
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net >,
mikej1@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>
>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>> (only
>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>> instead
>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>> all.
>
>Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
>Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
>but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
>do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
>brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
>around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
>dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>
>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>
>Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
>they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
>option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
>the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
some
>of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
>mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
>of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
>assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
>mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
>almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
>forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote
in
>message
news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>>
>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
bracket
>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>>> the
>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>>> Ultegra
>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>>> goes
>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>>
>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>>> they
>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>>> that
>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>>> '105
>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>>> above.
>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>>> diff
>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>>> to
>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>>> them
>>> in my own bike).
>>>
>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>> (only
>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>> instead
>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>> all.
>>
>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>
With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
a 9-speed system.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 07:40:19
From: Larry Dickman
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article <XN2dnbnkc8bbOXXbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
RS <r_schiller@comcast.net > wrote:
> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard
> to figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't
> cut it, 50-11 is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end
> having the 28 is nice and works fine with modern short-cage
> derailleurs, I'm currently running such a setup w/ a DA7700 front and
> DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is a 9-speed system.
Because officially, Shimano says the max cog size for their road
derailleurs is 27 tooth.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 13:12:51
From: RS
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article <LDickman-5CE1C0.07401913092007@individual.net >,
LDickman@comcast.net says...
>
>
>In article <XN2dnbnkc8bbOXXbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> RS <r_schiller@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard
>> to figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't
>> cut it, 50-11 is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end
>> having the 28 is nice and works fine with modern short-cage
>> derailleurs, I'm currently running such a setup w/ a DA7700 front and
>> DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is a 9-speed system.
>
>Because officially, Shimano says the max cog size for their road
>derailleurs is 27 tooth.
I suppose Shimano is very conservative. So there is what is "official".
And there is what works. I suspect many people commonly use 28 with a
contemporary Shimano short cage with no problem.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 06:25:00
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
RS wrote:
> In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> mikej1@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>> (only
>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>> instead
>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>>
>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>> all.
>> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
>> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
>> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
>> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
>> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
>> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
>> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>>
>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
>> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
>> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
>> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
> some
>> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
>> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
>> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
>> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
>> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
>> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
>> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote
> in
>> message
> news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>>>
>>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
> bracket
>>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>>>> the
>>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>>>> Ultegra
>>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>>>> goes
>>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>>>
>>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>>>> they
>>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>>>> that
>>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>>>> '105
>>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>>>> above.
>>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>>>> diff
>>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>>>> to
>>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>>>> them
>>>> in my own bike).
>>>>
>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>> (only
>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>> instead
>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>>
>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>>
> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> a 9-speed system.
>
>
compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:34:06
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:27:59
From: Larry Dickman
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article <xvydnfTUD4pTEHfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
> > from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> > ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
Ever hear of chordal action? That's one good reason not to use 11 tooth
sprockets.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 09:35:00
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Larry Dickman wrote:
> In article <xvydnfTUD4pTEHfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
>
> Ever hear of chordal action? That's one good reason not to use 11 tooth
> sprockets.
Sure, I'm familiar with the effect (not the term). Creates a variation
in chain speed.
Using a formula I found (1 - cos (180°/N)), I calculate:
11T - 4%
12T - 3.4%
13T - 2.9%
I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Smaller sprockets also cause a loss in efficiency due to greater
articulation, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, either.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:35:59
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> Larry Dickman wrote:
>> In article <xvydnfTUD4pTEHfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
>>
>> Ever hear of chordal action? That's one good reason not to use 11
>> tooth sprockets.
>
> Sure, I'm familiar with the effect (not the term). Creates a variation
> in chain speed.
>
> Using a formula I found (1 - cos (180�/N)), I calculate:
>
> 11T - 4%
> 12T - 3.4%
> 13T - 2.9%
>
> I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
>
> Smaller sprockets also cause a loss in efficiency due to greater
> articulation, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, either.
ignorance is bliss.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 09:24:32
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Larry Dickman wrote:
>>> In article <xvydnfTUD4pTEHfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly.
>>>>> compacts ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
>>>
>>> Ever hear of chordal action? That's one good reason not to use 11
>>> tooth sprockets.
>>
>> Sure, I'm familiar with the effect (not the term). Creates a variation
>> in chain speed.
>>
>> Using a formula I found (1 - cos (180�/N)), I calculate:
>>
>> 11T - 4%
>> 12T - 3.4%
>> 13T - 2.9%
>>
>> I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
>>
>> Smaller sprockets also cause a loss in efficiency due to greater
>> articulation, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, either.
>
> ignorance is bliss.
Just what am I ignorant of? Put up or shut up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 21:01:19
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Larry Dickman wrote:
>>>> In article <xvydnfTUD4pTEHfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly.
>>>>>> compacts ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>>>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
>>>>
>>>> Ever hear of chordal action? That's one good reason not to use 11
>>>> tooth sprockets.
>>>
>>> Sure, I'm familiar with the effect (not the term). Creates a
>>> variation in chain speed.
>>>
>>> Using a formula I found (1 - cos (180�/N)), I calculate:
>>>
>>> 11T - 4%
>>> 12T - 3.4%
>>> 13T - 2.9%
>>>
>>> I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
>>>
>>> Smaller sprockets also cause a loss in efficiency due to greater
>>> articulation, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, either.
>>
>> ignorance is bliss.
>
> Just what am I ignorant of?
geeze peter, do i really have to list all that? i don't post this crap
on my employers time, so there's limits to what i can help you with there...
> Put up or shut up.
how about you stop being a prick first?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 00:33:42
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:D4qdnYZqGZCS327bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Put up or shut up.
>
> how about you stop being a prick first?
I guess as soon as you stop being an obvious fraud, you'll get lots more
agreement here.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 21:51:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:D4qdnYZqGZCS327bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Put up or shut up.
>> how about you stop being a prick first?
>
> I guess as soon as you stop being an obvious fraud, you'll get lots more
> agreement here.
yeah. "modulus is strength to weight" - it takes a real fraud to point
out that only a moron could write that.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:16:07
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:lKudnab7d5hF0G7bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:D4qdnYZqGZCS327bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Put up or shut up.
>>> how about you stop being a prick first?
>>
>> I guess as soon as you stop being an obvious fraud, you'll get lots more
>> agreement here.
>
> yeah. "modulus is strength to weight" - it takes a real fraud to point
> out that only a moron could write that.
Yeah. Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much you insist
upon it.
Fraud.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:55:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
like that's a logical connection?
and i see little to support this "engineer" claim. after all, you also
confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a pretty fundamental error
for a real engineer to make. unless you were deliberately bullshitting
of course...
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 15:01:20
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>
>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
>
> like that's a logical connection?
>
> and i see little to support this "engineer" claim.
You wouldn't.
> after all, you also
> confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a pretty fundamental error
> for a real engineer to make.
Repetition doesn't make truth.
> unless you were deliberately bullshitting
> of course...
Your all-purpose answer.
Where did you get your "engineers[sic] viewpoint"?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 12:34:09
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>>
>>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
>>
>> like that's a logical connection?
>>
>> and i see little to support this "engineer" claim.
>
> You wouldn't.
>
>> after all, you also confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a
>> pretty fundamental error for a real engineer to make.
>
> Repetition doesn't make truth.
er, /who/ cited plasticity as a comparison with elasticity? denial
doesn't repair ignorance.
>
>> unless you were deliberately bullshitting of course...
>
> Your all-purpose answer.
only when it's observed to be the case. when you don't bullshit, you'll
never catch me calling you on it! duh.
>
> Where did you get your "engineers[sic] viewpoint"?
you mean where do i get my opinion of people that call themselves
"engineers"? watching them make stupid-ass mistakes, and then let their
ego prevent them learning that which would prevent them from making the
same mistakes in the future, that's where.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 16:56:17
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>> after all, you also confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a
>>> pretty fundamental error for a real engineer to make.
>>
>> Repetition doesn't make truth.
>
> er, /who/ cited plasticity as a comparison with elasticity?
I dunno, I didn't.
>>> unless you were deliberately bullshitting of course...
>>
>> Your all-purpose answer.
>
> only when it's observed to be the case. when you don't bullshit, you'll
> never catch me calling you on it! duh.
I live for that day.
>> Where did you get your "engineers[sic] viewpoint"?
>
> you mean where do i get my opinion of people that call themselves
> "engineers"? watching them make stupid-ass mistakes, and then let their
> ego prevent them learning that which would prevent them from making the
> same mistakes in the future, that's where.
That's all? I thought from the depth of your bitterness they beat you up
and took you lunch money too.
Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 08:27:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> after all, you also confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a
>>>> pretty fundamental error for a real engineer to make.
>>>
>>> Repetition doesn't make truth.
>>
>> er, /who/ cited plasticity as a comparison with elasticity?
>
> I dunno, I didn't.
er, so who, when being asked about elasticity wrote:
"25% for 6061." on 08/20/2007 @ 11:09 AM?
clue: initials - p.c.
>
>
>>>> unless you were deliberately bullshitting of course...
>>>
>>> Your all-purpose answer.
>>
>> only when it's observed to be the case. when you don't bullshit,
>> you'll never catch me calling you on it! duh.
>
> I live for that day.
apparently not since you just can't resist bullshitting - see above.
>
>
>>> Where did you get your "engineers[sic] viewpoint"?
>>
>> you mean where do i get my opinion of people that call themselves
>> "engineers"? watching them make stupid-ass mistakes, and then let
>> their ego prevent them learning that which would prevent them from
>> making the same mistakes in the future, that's where.
>
> That's all? I thought from the depth of your bitterness they beat you up
> and took you lunch money too.
eh? so which way do you want it? one minute i'm the bully, now i'm the
bullied? make up your mind!
>
> Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
something i learned in school. here, read this since you didn't have
that opportunity yourself.
http://www.renold.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=611&sID=860
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 20:02:46
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>>> after all, you also confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a
>>>>> pretty fundamental error for a real engineer to make.
>>>>
>>>> Repetition doesn't make truth.
>>>
>>> er, /who/ cited plasticity as a comparison with elasticity?
>>
>> I dunno, I didn't.
>
> er, so who, when being asked about elasticity wrote:
> "25% for 6061." on 08/20/2007 @ 11:09 AM?
>
> clue: initials - p.c.
From that post:
" >> I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force
>> and energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon fibers
>> also elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%).
> which compares with __%'s for a steel/ti/al alloys? you know, materials
> that have dislocations and therefore yield well below their theoretical
> strength?
25% for 6061. You can look up the others yourself. E-series glass is
4-5%, BTW ( >3x CF, as I said). "
Obviously I said "elongation before fracture"
Next point?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> unless you were deliberately bullshitting of course...
>>>>
>>>> Your all-purpose answer.
>>>
>>> only when it's observed to be the case. when you don't bullshit,
>>> you'll never catch me calling you on it! duh.
>>
>> I live for that day.
>
> apparently not since you just can't resist bullshitting - see above.
>
You can't read, and as a result have been posting this petulant proof of
my "bullshit" for weeks now. Grow up.
>>
>>
>>>> Where did you get your "engineers[sic] viewpoint"?
>>>
>>> you mean where do i get my opinion of people that call themselves
>>> "engineers"? watching them make stupid-ass mistakes, and then let
>>> their ego prevent them learning that which would prevent them from
>>> making the same mistakes in the future, that's where.
>>
>> That's all? I thought from the depth of your bitterness they beat you
>> up and took you lunch money too.
>
> eh? so which way do you want it? one minute i'm the bully, now i'm the
> bullied? make up your mind!
Oh, you're a bully all right. As usual though you turn things around so
that you're the abused one. Right.
>
>
>>
>> Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
>
>
> something i learned in school. here, read this since you didn't have
> that opportunity yourself.
>
> http://www.renold.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=611&sID=860
>
Was there anything specific that I'm supposed to read, or do you expect
me to wade through all 29 pages and guess? Unlike you, I'm not a mind
reader. If you have a point just make it or stop wasting my time.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:36:13
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> after all, you also confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a
>>>>>> pretty fundamental error for a real engineer to make.
>>>>>
>>>>> Repetition doesn't make truth.
>>>>
>>>> er, /who/ cited plasticity as a comparison with elasticity?
>>>
>>> I dunno, I didn't.
>>
>> er, so who, when being asked about elasticity wrote:
>> "25% for 6061." on 08/20/2007 @ 11:09 AM?
>>
>> clue: initials - p.c.
>
> From that post:
>
> ">> I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force
> >> and energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon fibers
> >> also elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%).
>
> > which compares with __%'s for a steel/ti/al alloys? you know, materials
> > that have dislocations and therefore yield well below their theoretical
> > strength?
>
> 25% for 6061. You can look up the others yourself. E-series glass is
> 4-5%, BTW (>3x CF, as I said). "
>
> Obviously I said "elongation before fracture"
deliberately fudging context between plastic and elastic!
>
> Next point?
how about not being evasive?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> unless you were deliberately bullshitting of course...
>>>>>
>>>>> Your all-purpose answer.
>>>>
>>>> only when it's observed to be the case. when you don't bullshit,
>>>> you'll never catch me calling you on it! duh.
>>>
>>> I live for that day.
>>
>> apparently not since you just can't resist bullshitting - see above.
>>
>
> You can't read, and as a result have been posting this petulant proof of
> my "bullshit" for weeks now. Grow up.
are you getting sore? it's easy to fix - stop evading the truth.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Where did you get your "engineers[sic] viewpoint"?
>>>>
>>>> you mean where do i get my opinion of people that call themselves
>>>> "engineers"? watching them make stupid-ass mistakes, and then let
>>>> their ego prevent them learning that which would prevent them from
>>>> making the same mistakes in the future, that's where.
>>>
>>> That's all? I thought from the depth of your bitterness they beat you
>>> up and took you lunch money too.
>>
>> eh? so which way do you want it? one minute i'm the bully, now i'm the
>> bullied? make up your mind!
>
> Oh, you're a bully all right. As usual though you turn things around so
> that you're the abused one. Right.
buddy, those are all your words. i simply asked you whether you were
going to make up your mind.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
>>
>>
>> something i learned in school. here, read this since you didn't have
>> that opportunity yourself.
>>
>> http://www.renold.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=611&sID=860
>>
>
> Was there anything specific that I'm supposed to read, or do you expect
> me to wade through all 29 pages and guess? Unlike you, I'm not a mind
> reader. If you have a point just make it or stop wasting my time.
er, go to the section on tooth count?
it's a bit rich to be bleating about wanting to be spoon fed when you're
the guy wanting citations all the time. now you have one. it's easy to
navigate. you take it from here.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 09:14:27
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
>>>
>>>
>>> something i learned in school. here, read this since you didn't have
>>> that opportunity yourself.
>>>
>>> http://www.renold.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=611&sID=860
>>>
>>
>> Was there anything specific that I'm supposed to read, or do you
>> expect me to wade through all 29 pages and guess? Unlike you, I'm not
>> a mind reader. If you have a point just make it or stop wasting my time.
>
> er, go to the section on tooth count?
Er, there is no section on "tooth count". Tooth count is discussed in
several places in different contexts. Why are you being so coy?
> it's a bit rich to be bleating about wanting to be spoon fed when you're
> the guy wanting citations all the time. now you have one. it's easy to
> navigate. you take it from here.
Sounds like you're unsure of yourself. I make statements then offer
cites to back them up. You have yet to make a statement, other than 11
tooth sprockets are "ugly" -- which is pretty ambiguous. If you have a
point, make it. Put up or shut up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:35:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>>>> Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> something i learned in school. here, read this since you didn't have
>>>> that opportunity yourself.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.renold.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=611&sID=860
>>>>
>>>
>>> Was there anything specific that I'm supposed to read, or do you
>>> expect me to wade through all 29 pages and guess? Unlike you, I'm not
>>> a mind reader. If you have a point just make it or stop wasting my time.
>>
>> er, go to the section on tooth count?
>
> Er, there is no section on "tooth count".
er, yes there is.
> Tooth count is discussed in
> several places in different contexts.
er, the one on wear rate is the one of interest, since that was what we
were discussing.
> Why are you being so coy?
i'm not. why are you so evasive?
>
>> it's a bit rich to be bleating about wanting to be spoon fed when you're
>> the guy wanting citations all the time. now you have one. it's easy to
>> navigate. you take it from here.
>
> Sounds like you're unsure of yourself. I make statements then offer
> cites to back them up.
what, like the above? you'll need to better than that!
> You have yet to make a statement, other than 11
> tooth sprockets are "ugly" -- which is pretty ambiguous. If you have a
> point, make it. Put up or shut up.
i'm not going to write a dissertation every time i post, prick. and
don't [conveniently] forget your claim that "i'm an engineer and i ride
11 teeth" as if it was some kind of justification for ignorance about
the science. it's not. just read the information and learn. it's not
hard.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 09:23:41
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> something i learned in school. here, read this since you didn't have
>>>>> that opportunity yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.renold.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=611&sID=860
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was there anything specific that I'm supposed to read, or do you
>>>> expect me to wade through all 29 pages and guess? Unlike you, I'm
>>>> not a mind reader. If you have a point just make it or stop wasting
>>>> my time.
>>>
>>> er, go to the section on tooth count?
>>
>> Er, there is no section on "tooth count".
>
> er, yes there is.
>
>> Tooth count is discussed in several places in different contexts.
>
> er, the one on wear rate is the one of interest, since that was what we
> were discussing.
I don't know who "we" is.
A (complete) summary of the comments from the archives:
"from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe. "
"no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
it'll work, but it's fugly. "
"jim beam"
"Yes, there is an efficiency and wear penalty for 11t and 12t
sprockets. There is for 13t sprockets too, for that matter; it just
seems like a good place to draw the line for diminishing returns. "
"For the relative infrequency and modest power levels with
which I use the small sprocket, I'm not too concerned about excessive
losses and wear. "
"Chalo"
"You get nasty vibrations as they are dozensided or worse ie not round."
"M-gineering "
"11 & 12 are less efficient than a 13 cog, according to Frank Bertos
tests. "
"Scott G."
"Briefly, real testing shows little practical difference with
derailleurs when looking at the highest gearing. "
"Carl Fogel "
Chalo was the only one to raise (& dismiss) the issue of wear.
>> You have yet to make a statement, other than 11 tooth sprockets are
>> "ugly" -- which is pretty ambiguous. If you have a point, make it. Put
>> up or shut up.
Correction, you also said "mechanical meshing issues". Again, not very
clear.
> i'm not going to write a dissertation every time i post, prick. and
> don't [conveniently] forget your claim that "i'm an engineer and i ride
> 11 teeth" as if it was some kind of justification for ignorance about
> the science. it's not. just read the information and learn. it's not
> hard.
OK. The reference you cited, in the context of wear and tooth count has
the following to say:
"Wear depends on the following variables in a drive system:
NUMBER OF TEETH - The fewer the number of teeth in a
sprocket, the greater the degree of articulation, the higher the wear"
That's it, in all 29 pages.
In light of all this, just who is ignorant? Where's the "information"
you're providing?
My statement of being an engineer who uses 11's, was only a rebuttal of
your position that the "engineer's viewpoint" of an 11 was "ugly". Not
mine, and I'm definitely an engineer.
Yeah, I know, I'm a "prick" -- but what are you?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 20:59:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Now, which engineer told you an 11 tooth sprocket was ugly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> something i learned in school. here, read this since you didn't have
>>>>>> that opportunity yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.renold.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=611&sID=860
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was there anything specific that I'm supposed to read, or do you
>>>>> expect me to wade through all 29 pages and guess? Unlike you, I'm
>>>>> not a mind reader. If you have a point just make it or stop wasting
>>>>> my time.
>>>>
>>>> er, go to the section on tooth count?
>>>
>>> Er, there is no section on "tooth count".
>>
>> er, yes there is.
>>
>>> Tooth count is discussed in several places in different contexts.
>>
>> er, the one on wear rate is the one of interest, since that was what
>> we were discussing.
>
> I don't know who "we" is.
how odd! quite extraordinary in fact!!!
>
> A (complete) summary of the comments from the archives:
>
> "from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe. "
>
> "no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
> it'll work, but it's fugly. "
> "jim beam"
>
> "Yes, there is an efficiency and wear penalty for 11t and 12t
> sprockets. There is for 13t sprockets too, for that matter; it just
> seems like a good place to draw the line for diminishing returns. "
>
> "For the relative infrequency and modest power levels with
> which I use the small sprocket, I'm not too concerned about excessive
> losses and wear. "
> "Chalo"
>
>
> "You get nasty vibrations as they are dozensided or worse ie not round."
> "M-gineering "
>
>
> "11 & 12 are less efficient than a 13 cog, according to Frank Bertos
> tests. "
> "Scott G."
>
> "Briefly, real testing shows little practical difference with
> derailleurs when looking at the highest gearing. "
> "Carl Fogel "
>
>
> Chalo was the only one to raise (& dismiss) the issue of wear.
>
>
>>> You have yet to make a statement, other than 11 tooth sprockets are
>>> "ugly" -- which is pretty ambiguous. If you have a point, make it.
>>> Put up or shut up.
>
> Correction, you also said "mechanical meshing issues". Again, not very
> clear.
>
>> i'm not going to write a dissertation every time i post, prick. and
>> don't [conveniently] forget your claim that "i'm an engineer and i
>> ride 11 teeth" as if it was some kind of justification for ignorance
>> about the science. it's not. just read the information and learn.
>> it's not hard.
>
> OK. The reference you cited, in the context of wear and tooth count has
> the following to say:
>
> "Wear depends on the following variables in a drive system:
>
> NUMBER OF TEETH - The fewer the number of teeth in a
> sprocket, the greater the degree of articulation, the higher the wear"
>
> That's it, in all 29 pages.
>
> In light of all this, just who is ignorant? Where's the "information"
> you're providing?
>
> My statement of being an engineer who uses 11's, was only a rebuttal of
> your position that the "engineer's viewpoint" of an 11 was "ugly".
[yawn through the usual peter cole crap]
have you done wriggling and squirming yet?
> Not
> mine, and I'm definitely an engineer.
really? so how come you don't know the difference between elasticity
and plasticity? or even know what fatigue endurance is, come to that.
>
> Yeah, I know, I'm a "prick" -- but what are you?
someone that dares to call someone for what they are.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 00:32:49
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:D4qdnYdqGZAW3G7bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Yeah, I know, I'm a "prick" -- but what are you?
>
> someone that dares to call someone for what they are.
Don't be so modest beamboy, you also constantly bleat about your
"qualifications" of being a "metalergist" who went to "Metarials Skool".
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 21:50:24
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:D4qdnYdqGZAW3G7bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Yeah, I know, I'm a "prick" -- but what are you?
>> someone that dares to call someone for what they are.
>
> Don't be so modest beamboy, you also constantly bleat about your
> "qualifications" of being a "metalergist" who went to "Metarials Skool".
>
>
you figured out what modulus is yet? moron.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:15:24
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:lKudnaf7d5gN0G7bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:D4qdnYdqGZAW3G7bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I know, I'm a "prick" -- but what are you?
>>> someone that dares to call someone for what they are.
>>
>> Don't be so modest beamboy, you also constantly bleat about your
>> "qualifications" of being a "metalergist" who went to "Metarials Skool".
> you figured out what modulus is yet? moron.
Is that specific modulus = Young's modulus? Everyone else knows that's not
true except you, beamboy.
Fraud.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:25:09
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:lKudnaf7d5gN0G7bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:D4qdnYdqGZAW3G7bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, I know, I'm a "prick" -- but what are you?
>>>> someone that dares to call someone for what they are.
>>> Don't be so modest beamboy, you also constantly bleat about your
>>> "qualifications" of being a "metalergist" who went to "Metarials Skool".
>> you figured out what modulus is yet? moron.
>
> Is that specific modulus = Young's modulus? Everyone else knows that's not
> true except you, beamboy.
>
> Fraud.
>
>
not my words, moron.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:26:45
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:25:09 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>not my words, moron.
Dude.... you're not making yourself look any better by going on responding
to an obvious troll, with harsh words no less.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:01:03
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:Gc6dnUYON8lo82nbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Is that specific modulus = Young's modulus? Everyone else knows that's
>> not true except you, beamboy.
>>
>> Fraud.
>
> not my words, moron.
Who then, your invisible friend? Lying fraud.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:09:44
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:Gc6dnUYON8lo82nbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> Is that specific modulus = Young's modulus? Everyone else knows that's
>>> not true except you, beamboy.
>>>
>>> Fraud.
>> not my words, moron.
>
> Who then, your invisible friend? Lying fraud.
>
>
actually, they're your fiction, moron.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1bcfcf210bb37916
probably because you can't read your own shit and aren't smart enough to
figure out how to google archives.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:22:14
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:1LKdneY_r-blGmnbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> not my words, moron.
>>
>> Who then, your invisible friend? Lying fraud.
> actually, they're your fiction, moron.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1bcfcf210bb37916
> probably because you can't read your own shit and aren't smart enough to
> figure out how to google archives.
Great. Let's look at that archive:
Beamboy ejaculated: >> er, actually modulus = stress/strain.
Jambo stated: > Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's
modulus.
So you don't know the difference between specific modulus and Young's
modulus, and instead you think modulus is all the same (i.e. stress/strain).
You're over, beamboy. Your years of fraud and lies have come to an end.
Why prolong your agony?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:37:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:1LKdneY_r-blGmnbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>> not my words, moron.
>>> Who then, your invisible friend? Lying fraud.
>> actually, they're your fiction, moron.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1bcfcf210bb37916
>> probably because you can't read your own shit and aren't smart enough to
>> figure out how to google archives.
>
> Great. Let's look at that archive:
>
> Beamboy ejaculated: >> er, actually modulus = stress/strain.
>
> Jambo stated: > Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's
> modulus.
that's a logical disconnect - and have no relation to what i said.
moron. not only are you too fucking moronic to comprehend the trivially
basic science, you can't fucking read!!!
>
> So you don't know the difference between specific modulus and Young's
> modulus, and instead you think modulus is all the same (i.e. stress/strain).
no, that's your moronic mental block, not what i said. oh, you snipped
my unequivocal statements of the science. how moronically convenient.
>
> You're over, beamboy. Your years of fraud and lies have come to an end.
> Why prolong your agony?
you need meds. moron.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:12:18
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:wKednfPUnPaFE2nbnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> that's a logical disconnect - and have no relation to what i said. moron.
> not only are you too fucking moronic to comprehend the trivially basic
> science, you can't fucking read!!!
Er, it was the link you were referring to, beamboy. Now you disconnect
yourself to it?
And I do wish I can't read - I would have avoided all the garbage you've
been posting.
>> So you don't know the difference between specific modulus and Young's
>> modulus, and instead you think modulus is all the same (i.e.
>> stress/strain).
>
> no, that's your moronic mental block, not what i said.
But that's just it, beamboy. You DIDN'T day it because you DIDN'T know the
difference!
> oh, you snipped my unequivocal statements of the science. how moronically
> convenient.
Oh, you mean the Googled definitions you posted after you got caught out not
knowing the difference? Too late for that, beamboy.
>>
>> You're over, beamboy. Your years of fraud and lies have come to an end.
>> Why prolong your agony?
>
> you need meds. moron.
You're over, beamboy. Your years of fraud and lies have come to an end.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:59:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:wKednfPUnPaFE2nbnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> that's a logical disconnect - and have no relation to what i said. moron.
>> not only are you too fucking moronic to comprehend the trivially basic
>> science, you can't fucking read!!!
>
> Er, it was the link you were referring to, beamboy. Now you disconnect
> yourself to it?
>
> And I do wish I can't read - I would have avoided all the garbage you've
> been posting.
er, actually moron, the sentence you're attributing to /me/ is one that
/you/ wrote. but i guess that when you're a complete fucking moron, you
make mistakes like that.
>
>>> So you don't know the difference between specific modulus and Young's
>>> modulus, and instead you think modulus is all the same (i.e.
>>> stress/strain).
>> no, that's your moronic mental block, not what i said.
>
> But that's just it, beamboy. You DIDN'T day it because you DIDN'T know the
> difference!
er, moron, /i/ am the guy that informed /you/ of the difference. /i/
learned this shit at grade school. i don't know what the fuck /you/ did
at grade school, but it surely wasn't getting to grips with the basic
fundamentals like density, elasticity, modulus, etc.
>
>> oh, you snipped my unequivocal statements of the science. how moronically
>> convenient.
>
> Oh, you mean the Googled definitions you posted after you got caught out not
> knowing the difference? Too late for that, beamboy.
fuck you, moron. if you can't even read a goddamned thread, that's your
own damned stupid problem, but don't accuse me of /your/ inadequacy.
>
>>> You're over, beamboy. Your years of fraud and lies have come to an end.
>>> Why prolong your agony?
>> you need meds. moron.
>
> You're over, beamboy. Your years of fraud and lies have come to an end.
>
take your meds. goddamned moron.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:27:29
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:KpOdnRBXlfLSEGvbnZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> take your meds. goddamned moron.
Yes, I see it all now.
"jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
- CF Fork Whisperer
- "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
- CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
- Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
existed (Was it Bell? Was it "sikorski"? It's all CLASSIFIED)
Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
Okay?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:45:52
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:KpOdnRBXlfLSEGvbnZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> take your meds. goddamned moron.
>
> Yes, I see it all now.
>
> "jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
>
> - CF Fork Whisperer
> - "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
> - CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
> - Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
> existed (Was it Bell? Was it "sikorski"? It's all CLASSIFIED)
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> Okay?
>
>
moron, you're dumb enough as it is. repetition won't help.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 11:47:59
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:wvmdnQ64bvTNO2vbnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:KpOdnRBXlfLSEGvbnZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>> take your meds. goddamned moron.
>>
>> Yes, I see it all now.
>>
>> "jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
>>
>> - CF Fork Whisperer
>> - "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
>> - CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
>> - Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
>> existed (Was it Bell? Was it "sikorski"? It's all CLASSIFIED)
>>
>> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
>> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>>
>> Okay?
>>
>>
>
> moron, you're dumb enough as it is. repetition won't help.
You're right. Repetition won't help YOU.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:30:50
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes
I can trump that logic.
I'm a Spinal Tap fan. And yet mine only goes to 12! : >)
More seriously, I have great fear that, if I had an 11, I'd actually use it.
I think it would kill me when sprinting, because I just wouldn't have the
power to attack, recover, and attack again. With a 12 I can handle a fast
downhill charge, sit behind someone's wheel, move around them, hold the
speed, and be able to make a second charge if they pull up alongside. Sure,
if I had an 11, I wouldn't have to use it... but knowing me, I probably
would!
Funny thing is, I climb in relatively-high gears, and do a ton of standing
compared to most.
What works for me, works for me. I can't pretend it's what everybody else
should be doing. Besides, cycling isn't all about technique and one right
way to do something. That's one of the things that makes it so great. You
can be riding in a big group and yet you're still an individual, with your
own style (providing that style isn't wobbling around too much, or, worse
yet, being the guy who, on a climb, stands up and instantly drops 1 or 2
mph, putting your front wheel into his rear).
On the other hand, as a retailer of bicycles, you have no idea, or maybe you
do, how many people come into the store complaining that their hybrid's
gearing of 48x11 isn't big enough, and that they could go faster (on flat
land) if they just had a higher gear. That's a 118" high gear!!! And they're
claiming they could ride 30 mph on the flats if only their gear was higher.
Seriously, we get this more often than you would think. As soon as they see
that the large chainring is smaller than a 53 they demand something larger.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:43:18
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes
>
> I can trump that logic.
>
> I'm a Spinal Tap fan. And yet mine only goes to 12! :>)
>
> More seriously, I have great fear that, if I had an 11, I'd actually use it.
> I think it would kill me when sprinting, because I just wouldn't have the
> power to attack, recover, and attack again. With a 12 I can handle a fast
> downhill charge, sit behind someone's wheel, move around them, hold the
> speed, and be able to make a second charge if they pull up alongside. Sure,
> if I had an 11, I wouldn't have to use it... but knowing me, I probably
> would!
>
> Funny thing is, I climb in relatively-high gears, and do a ton of standing
> compared to most.
>
> What works for me, works for me. I can't pretend it's what everybody else
> should be doing. Besides, cycling isn't all about technique and one right
> way to do something. That's one of the things that makes it so great. You
> can be riding in a big group and yet you're still an individual, with your
> own style (providing that style isn't wobbling around too much, or, worse
> yet, being the guy who, on a climb, stands up and instantly drops 1 or 2
> mph, putting your front wheel into his rear).
>
> On the other hand, as a retailer of bicycles, you have no idea, or maybe you
> do, how many people come into the store complaining that their hybrid's
> gearing of 48x11 isn't big enough, and that they could go faster (on flat
> land) if they just had a higher gear. That's a 118" high gear!!! And they're
> claiming they could ride 30 mph on the flats if only their gear was higher.
> Seriously, we get this more often than you would think. As soon as they see
> that the large chainring is smaller than a 53 they demand something larger.
I use the 11 on my MTB because I often need to ride the road to the
woods or between park sections.
On my road bikes I have a 53 on one and a 55 on the other. I use the 11
on time trials for slight descents or tailwinds on the flats. My fastest
cadence is probably a lot lower than most because of my size.
On club rides, I found that I could never climb as fast as guys that I
could out ride on the flats (size again). After trying to improving my
climbing for years, with only limited success, I found I was better off
getting faster on the flats to catch up after being dropped. That's when
I added the 11 & the clip-on aerobars. Soon after that, I found that, if
I could get a jump off the top of a hill, I could break away on some of
the descents and stay away if I had a tail wind and a flat section.
These were the only conditions I ever could get a breakaway on, and it
finally got to the point where everyone would anticipate my move and
grab my wheel when I jumped. I still managed the occasional breakaway,
but that involved pedaling hard down a fairly good slope and counting on
my power to drag advantage, and my 11, to shake them off. Silly perhaps,
but fun. Nothing like the adrenaline rush of seeing a whole pack bearing
down trying to reel you in. If I could hold a gap and get lucky at a
traffic light, I might stay out for a few miles.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 18:53:46
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
-snip snip snip-
jim beam wrote:
> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
??
Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
--
Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 21:21:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
In article <13ejjae40qik004@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> -snip snip snip-
> jim beam wrote:
> > compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> > can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> > touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
> >
> > from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> > ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> ??
> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
> --
> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
What is between 13 and 25?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 00:58:08
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>> -snip snip snip-
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> ??
>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
Michael Press wrote:
> What is between 13 and 25?
some cogs, but not an 11!
Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
on rider's taste.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 00:36:57
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:58:08 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>>> -snip snip snip-
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>>
>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> ??
>>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
>
>Michael Press wrote:
>> What is between 13 and 25?
>
>some cogs, but not an 11!
>Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
>on rider's taste.
Dear Andrew,
Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 12:49:26
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
>>>> -snip snip snip-
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> ??
>>>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>>>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> What is between 13 and 25?
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> some cogs, but not an 11!
>> Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
>> on rider's taste.
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
When Suntour began shipping cog boards and freewheel bodies, every shop
had a 17-17-17-17-17-17 on display. Often next to the drilled-out TA
water bottle.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 12:08:16
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:49:26 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>>>>> -snip snip snip-
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>>>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>>>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
>>>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> ??
>>>>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>>>>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
>
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> What is between 13 and 25?
>
>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> some cogs, but not an 11!
>>> Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
>>> on rider's taste.
>
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>
>When Suntour began shipping cog boards and freewheel bodies, every shop
>had a 17-17-17-17-17-17 on display. Often next to the drilled-out TA
>water bottle.
Dear Andrew,
I like the true corncob 17! Eliminate those pesky half steps! No need
to wonder what gear you're in!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:02:48
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
[this message is not suitable for those aged under 18]
everybody gone ?
Junior racers might try to cheat with ..15-14-13-14 , hoping the
commissonair doesn't spot the smaller illegal cog next to last ;)
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:42:28
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:02:48 +0200, M-gineering
<ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>[this message is not suitable for those aged under 18]
>
>everybody gone ?
>
>Junior racers might try to cheat with ..15-14-13-14 , hoping the
>commissonair doesn't spot the smaller illegal cog next to last ;)
Dear Marten,
I love your idea about turning a 10-speed into a more useful 9-speed.
There's a future for you as a NASCAR mechanic!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 23:57:56
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
A slant parallelogram rear derailleur wouldn't like to see a group of gears
like that. It makes an assumption that each adjacent gear inward is bigger
than the one preceding it.
That doesn't mean that I've never built up a set like that just for fun.
I'll bet many of us have.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:46:38
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:57:56 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>
>A slant parallelogram rear derailleur wouldn't like to see a group of gears
>like that. It makes an assumption that each adjacent gear inward is bigger
>than the one preceding it.
>
>That doesn't mean that I've never built up a set like that just for fun.
>I'll bet many of us have.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Dear Mike,
So the first step (well, all the steps) is to use a Cyclo Standard
derailleur:
http://i12.tinypic.com/4umulhl.jpg
http://members.aol.com/SatoruMas/brands/cyclo.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 22:03:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <13ejjae40qik004@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> -snip snip snip-
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>> ??
>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
>
> What is between 13 and 25?
>
shimano.com? campagnolo.com? rhetoricalquestion.com?
cantbebotheretolook.com? wanttopickafight.com?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 08:46:17
From: Ben C
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On 2007-09-13, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
[...]
> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
What's wrong with 12 & 11?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2007 17:14:01
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-09-13, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
You get nasty vibrations as they are dozensided or worse ie not round.
Try the same gear with bigger rings and you'll find it will run a lot
smoother
Stick a 14-25 or something on your bike and unless you're a racer or
extremely fit you might be pleasantly surprised
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:03:30
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Shimano Octalink road BB future
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:29:07 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
Maybe the Ultegra Bottom Bracket Machine wore out because that
item was so popular, and they don't want to replace it :-)
|
|
