On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:10:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
> > Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
> > <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
> >
> >
> >> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
> >> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
> >
> > Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
> > "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
> > brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
> > that is....
>
>Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>
>I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
>brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
>first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
>was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
>experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
>harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
>manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
>tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
>
>Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
>enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
>consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
>a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
>having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
>noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
>trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
>purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
>the detriments?
>
>Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
>have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
>bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
>between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
>imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
>requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
>racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
>
>Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
>LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
>yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
>level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
>remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
>headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of
>blinding other road users.
>
>The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
>choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
>shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
>telepathic gear shifts?
>
>So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
>lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
>can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000
>lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
>
>I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
>that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
>
>Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
>very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
>advertising.
>
>Most individuals are not so careful.

Individuals should be very careful about accepting advice from
insecure has-beens.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:12:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>  > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>  >> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>  >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>  >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
>>> and I do
>>>  >> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>  >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
>>> buyers.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>  >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
>>> available
>>>  >> only with discs.
>>>  >>
>>>  > This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>
>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>
>>>  > But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth
>>> with bikes
>>>  > used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the
>>> racers and
>>>  > the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining
>>> about them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new
>>> bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those
>>> people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>
>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
>>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
>>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>
>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to
>>> buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one
>>> with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most
>>> people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she
>>> bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that
>>> bike yet.)
>>
>> and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
>
>:-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
>energy for this forum.

You don't debate, you whine and complain because nobody does what you
want them to do.

On 2/29/2024 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 10:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/28/2024 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand [for
> road discs]. Almost all the
> >> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are
> not complaining
> >> about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
> relatively new
> >> bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never heard
> even those
> >> people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
> >>
> >> So I don't believe they're on discs because of
> dissatisfaction with
> >> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if
> you buy a new
> >> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing
> discs. It's hard to
> >> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
> >>
> >> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm
> only going to
> >> buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.)
> "I'll get one
> >> with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that,
> like most
> >> people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are
> better." IOW, she
> >> bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think
> she's bought that
> >> bike yet.)
> >>
> >
> > It just is. Neither 'good' nor 'bad' absolutely, with a
> huge grey area
> > for personal taste.
>
> While that's true, it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't
> discuss advantages and disadvantages here.
>
> > For example I bent a spindle on a car in 2016 and found
> that a new pair
> > pf spindles was about the same price as a disc brake kit
> with disc
> > spindles. So I changed over, first time for one of my
> many mid-60s GM
> > products.  Most of the time, I don't even notice. In
> extremis, discs are
> > really really nice.  So nice that I remachined them for
> correct
> > clearance and moved them to a different car when the old
> one (service
> > life 1992~2019) was used up.
> >
> > http://www.yellowjersey.org/cars/66mal43.jpg
> Can I assume that mid-60s GM product has a rear mounted
> six?  ;-)
>
> As it happens, last week one of my best friends let me drive
> his 1964 Corvair Monza, with a 4 carb engine. He'd worked
> about two years getting it road ready. (Still needs its
> convertible top installed.) Mine was a 1966 version, 2nd
> generation with the much improved rear suspension.
>
> Driving his was a revelation! As in, "Holy cow, was my
> steering that loose?" (Maybe not; I'd installed quick
> steering arms.) "Did my gearshift feel so vague?" (He's had
> his transaxle apart, but it seemed fine if vague.) "Did I
> have to stomp so hard on the brakes?" (Mine had metallic
> brake shoes.)
>
> I did enjoy the drive and the sweet sound of the six. But it
> certainly was a car that required driver involvement! Heck,
> it didn't even have electronic "lane centering assist"!
>

No, these are with my 283 small block V8.
Corvairs are much lighter and I don't have braking issues.

Same impression here on swing axles. One of my brothers has
an Early; 1962 convertible with one of my high HP engines in
it. The damned thing is really unsafe at speed compared to
a Late with IRS.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/29/2024 12:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> As it happens, last week one of my best friends let me drive his 1964
>> Corvair Monza, with a 4 carb engine. He'd worked about two years
>> getting it road ready. (Still needs its convertible top installed.)
>> Mine was a 1966 version, 2nd generation with the much improved rear
>> suspension.
>>
>> Driving his was a revelation! As in, "Holy cow, was my steering that
>> loose?" (Maybe not; I'd installed quick steering arms.) "Did my
>> gearshift feel so vague?" (He's had his transaxle apart, but it seemed
>> fine if vague.) "Did I have to stomp so hard on the brakes?" (Mine had
>> metallic brake shoes.)
>>
>> I did enjoy the drive and the sweet sound of the six. But it certainly
>> was a car that required driver involvement! Heck, it didn't even have
>> electronic "lane centering assist"!
>>
>
> No, these are with my 283 small block V8.
> Corvairs are much lighter and I don't have braking issues.
>
> Same impression here on swing axles. One of my brothers has an Early;
> 1962 convertible with one of my high HP engines in it.  The damned thing
> is really unsafe at speed compared to a Late with IRS.

This guy's 1964 at least had a transverse leaf spring to help tame the
swing axles. But I certainly didn't throw it fast into any tight curves.
He claims it feels fine to him on freeway exit ramps.

He also owns a 1930 Model A pickup, so he's used to driving
conservatively. And an MGB for real fun on curves.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>
>>
>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>
>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>> that is....
>
> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>
> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
> first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
> experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
> harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
> manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
> tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
>
Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.

> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
> a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
> having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
> noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
> trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
> purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
> the detriments?
>
The biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers
(road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the
neutral service bike more challenging.

And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes
it an expensive upgrade and so on.

Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get
once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last
time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
that.

With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty
rides could trash remarkably quickly!

> Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
> have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
> bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
> between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
> imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
> requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
> racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
>
Difficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
That’s a new one on me!

> Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
> LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
> yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
> level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
> remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
> headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of
> blinding other road users.
>
While a Dynamo doesn’t kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get
to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in
the 200 ish range or less.

As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for
the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed
off road and it doesn’t keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot
newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off
road than on.

Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be
blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles.
Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.

> The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
> choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
> shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
> telepathic gear shifts?
>
Really? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your
range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.

But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes
2*10s

> So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
> lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000
> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
>
> I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
> that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
>
> Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
> advertising.
>
> Most individuals are not so careful.
>
In my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of
technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.

Roger Merriman

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:41:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>>> that is....
>>
>> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>>
>> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
>> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
>> first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
>> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
>> experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
>> harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
>> manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
>> tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
>>
>Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
>
>> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
>> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
>> a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
>> having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
>> noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
>> trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
>> purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
>> the detriments?
>>
>The biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers
>(road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the
>neutral service bike more challenging.
>
>And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes
>it an expensive upgrade and so on.
>
>Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get
>once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last
>time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
>that.
>
>With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty
>rides could trash remarkably quickly!
>
>> Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
>> have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
>> bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
>> between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
>> imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
>> requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
>> racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
>>
>Difficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
>That’s a new one on me!
>
>> Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
>> LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
>> yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
>> level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
>> remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
>> headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of
>> blinding other road users.
>>
>While a Dynamo doesn’t kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get
>to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in
>the 200 ish range or less.
>
>As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for
>the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed
>off road and it doesn’t keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot
>newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off
>road than on.
>
>Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be
>blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles.
>Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
>
>> The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
>> choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
>> shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
>> telepathic gear shifts?
>>
>Really? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your
>range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
>have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
>
>But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes
>2*10s
>
>> So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
>> lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
>> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000
>> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
>>
>> I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
>> that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
>>
>> Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
>> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
>> advertising.
>>
>> Most individuals are not so careful.
>>
>In my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of
>technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.
>
>Roger Merriman
>

Most people are wise enough to decide for themselves how, when, where,
and with what equipement to ride their bicycles. It's not rocket
science.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>
>>
>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>
>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>> that is....
>
> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>
> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach
> centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.

Did you complain about them? Did you hear your contemporaries
complaining?

> I remember how pleased I
> was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
> improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
> reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake
> failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when rims were wet,
> but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost all road
> bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody complained, in my
> experience.
>
> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design
> in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the
> detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are
> problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly
> obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding,
> etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they matter
> enough to justify the detriments?

It is not up to any individual bicycle producer to maintain consumer
choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money. If a
significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake bikes, then an
alternative would be certainly be produced. That does not seem to be
happening.

What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car? I would have to buy an old
one. Where is my choice?

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>  > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>  >> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>  >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>  >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
>>> and I do
>>>  >> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>  >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
>>> bike buyers.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>  >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
>>> available
>>>  >> only with discs.
>>>  >>
>>>  > This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>
>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
>>> about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>
>>>  > But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth
>>> with bikes
>>>  > used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the
>>> racers and
>>>  > the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
>>> complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
>>> relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
>>> heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>
>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
>>> new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
>>> hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>
>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
>>> to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
>>> one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
>>> most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
>>> IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
>>> bought that bike yet.)
>> and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
>
> :-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
> energy for this forum.

I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>  > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>  >> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>>  >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>>  >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
>>>> and I do
>>>>  >> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>>  >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
>>>> bike buyers.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>>  >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
>>>> available
>>>>  >> only with discs.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  > This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>>
>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
>>>> about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>
>>>>  > But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth
>>>> with bikes
>>>>  > used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the
>>>> racers and
>>>>  > the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
>>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
>>>> complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
>>>> relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
>>>> heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
>>>> new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
>>>> hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>>
>>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
>>>> to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
>>>> one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
>>>> most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
>>>> IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
>>>> bought that bike yet.)
>>> and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
>>
>> :-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
>> energy for this forum.
>
>I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
>life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.

Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
doing it all wrong.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:07:00 -0500,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >> On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> >>> On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>>>  > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>  >> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>>>  >>>
> >>>>  >> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
> >>>>  >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
> >>>>  >>
> >>>>  >> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
> >>>>  >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
> >>>> and I do
> >>>>  >> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
> >>>>  >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
> >>>> bike buyers.
> >>>>  >>
> >>>>  >> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
> >>>>  >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
> >>>> available
> >>>>  >> only with discs.
> >>>>  >>
> >>>>  > This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
> >>>>
> >>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
> >>>> about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
> >>>>
> >>>>  > But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth
> >>>> with bikes
> >>>>  > used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the
> >>>> racers and
> >>>>  > the retrogrouches who didn’t.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
> >>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
> >>>> complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
> >>>> relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
> >>>> heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
> >>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
> >>>> new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
> >>>> hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
> >>>> to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
> >>>> one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
> >>>> most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
> >>>> IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
> >>>> bought that bike yet.)
> >>> and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
> >>
> >> :-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
> >> energy for this forum.
> >
> >I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
> >life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
>
> Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
> people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
> doing it all wrong.

Wait, aren't you constantly telling Frank he's doing it wrong?

--
Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> West Lafayette, IN, USA

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 22:13:54 -0000 (UTC), Ted Heise <theise@panix.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:07:00 -0500,
> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> >> On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> >>> On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >>>>  > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>  >> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >>>>  >>>
>> >>>>  >> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>> >>>>  >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>> >>>>  >>
>> >>>>  >> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>> >>>>  >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
>> >>>> and I do
>> >>>>  >> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>> >>>>  >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
>> >>>> bike buyers.
>> >>>>  >>
>> >>>>  >> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>> >>>>  >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
>> >>>> available
>> >>>>  >> only with discs.
>> >>>>  >>
>> >>>>  > This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
>> >>>> about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  > But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth
>> >>>> with bikes
>> >>>>  > used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the
>> >>>> racers and
>> >>>>  > the retrogrouches who didn?t.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
>> >>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
>> >>>> complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
>> >>>> relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
>> >>>> heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>> >>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
>> >>>> new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
>> >>>> hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
>> >>>> to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
>> >>>> one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
>> >>>> most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
>> >>>> IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
>> >>>> bought that bike yet.)
>> >>> and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
>> >>
>> >> :-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
>> >> energy for this forum.
>> >
>> >I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
>> >life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
>>
>> Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
>> people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
>> doing it all wrong.
>
>Wait, aren't you constantly telling Frank he's doing it wrong?

Nope. I couldn't care less how he rides his bike. Most of my comments
to him are about how and why he can't seem to get my bike riding out
of his mind

On 2/29/2024 3:52 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>>> that is....
>>
>> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>>
>> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach
>> centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
>
> Did you complain about them? Did you hear your contemporaries
> complaining?
>
>> I remember how pleased I
>> was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
>> improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
>> reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake
>> failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when rims were wet,
>> but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost all road
>> bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody complained, in my
>> experience.
>>
>> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
>> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design
>> in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the
>> detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are
>> problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly
>> obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding,
>> etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they matter
>> enough to justify the detriments?
>
> It is not up to any individual bicycle producer to maintain consumer
> choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money. If a
> significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake bikes, then an
> alternative would be certainly be produced. That does not seem to be
> happening.
>
> What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car? I would have to buy an old
> one. Where is my choice?

Drum brakes AND no seal belt tickets? What's to decide??
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>
>>>> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
>>>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
>> buyers.
>>>>
>>>> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
>>>> only with discs.
>>>>
>>> This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>
>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>
>>> But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with
>> bikes
>>> used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
>>> the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
>> them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
>> about their old bikes' brakes.
>>
>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>
>Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets
>yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available,
>and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable.
>
>Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped
>in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just
>a new thing!
>>
>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
>> disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
>> she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
>>
>
>Don’t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
>aren’t.
>
>Roger Merriman

Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy.
Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode
them too.

But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 05:35:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
>>>>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
>>> buyers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
>>>>> only with discs.
>>>>>
>>>> This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>
>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>
>>>> But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with
>>> bikes
>>>> used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
>>>> the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
>>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
>>> them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
>>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
>>> about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>
>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
>>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
>>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>
>>Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets
>>yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available,
>>and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable.
>>
>>Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped
>>in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just
>>a new thing!
>>>
>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
>>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
>>> disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
>>> she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
>>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
>>>
>>
>>Don’t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
>>aren’t.
>>
>>Roger Merriman
>
>Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
>backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
>later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy.
>Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode
>them too.
>
>But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
>

Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give
Krygowski a reason. How dare she.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:47:12 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thu Feb 29 13:57:43 2024 Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>> >>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>> >>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
>> >>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>> >>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
>> > buyers.
>> >>>
>> >>> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>> >>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
>> >>> only with discs.
>> >>>
>> >> This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>> >
>> > ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>> > their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>> >
>> >> But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with
>> > bikes
>> >> used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
>> >> the retrogrouches who didn?t.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
>> > I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
>> > them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
>> > is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
>> > about their old bikes' brakes.
>> >
>> > So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>> > their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
>> > bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
>> > buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>
>> Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets
>> yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available,
>> and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable.
>>
>> Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped
>> in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just
>> a new thing!
>> >
>> > I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
>> > one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
>> > disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
>> > she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
>> > the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
>> >
>>
>> Don?t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
>> aren?t.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
>
>Roger, I think that you have very fixed views based almost entirely on advertising and prejudice, Your comments about Gatorskins and now disc brake simply do not match reality. I have 600 miles so far this year and this is a wet year and we've already had 18 inches of rain which is the seasonal average and we are entering the wet season just now. Trying to get Gatorskins to slip on both roads and STEEL bridges turned up negative and since I can make my tires skid on dry roads or wet with rim brakes,what possible gain do you suppose you could get with discs?
>
>Please don't take this as an insult since I am only speaking my own experience, Yours might be different but I simply can't see how.

"His own experience"??? Roger, you are talking with a guy that wasn't
able to install a seat post without help. And after he got the seat
post inserted couldn't install the seat :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:40:19 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:41:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>>>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>>>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>>>> that is....
>>>
>>> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>>>
>>> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
>>> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
>>> first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
>>> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
>>> experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
>>> harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
>>> manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
>>> tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
>>>
>>Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
>>
>>> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
>>> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
>>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
>>> a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
>>> having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
>>> noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
>>> trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
>>> purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
>>> the detriments?
>>>
>>The biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers
>>(road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the
>>neutral service bike more challenging.
>>
>>And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes
>>it an expensive upgrade and so on.
>>
>>Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get
>>once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last
>>time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
>>that.
>>
>>With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty
>>rides could trash remarkably quickly!
>>
>>> Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
>>> have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
>>> bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
>>> between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
>>> imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
>>> requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
>>> racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
>>>
>>Difficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
>>That’s a new one on me!
>>
>>> Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
>>> LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
>>> yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
>>> level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
>>> remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
>>> headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of
>>> blinding other road users.
>>>
>>While a Dynamo doesn’t kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get
>>to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in
>>the 200 ish range or less.
>>
>>As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for
>>the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed
>>off road and it doesn’t keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot
>>newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off
>>road than on.
>>
>>Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be
>>blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles.
>>Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
>>
>>> The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
>>> choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
>>> shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
>>> telepathic gear shifts?
>>>
>>Really? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your
>>range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
>>have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
>>
>>But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes
>>2*10s
>>
>>> So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
>>> lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
>>> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000
>>> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
>>>
>>> I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
>>> that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
>>>
>>> Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
>>> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
>>> advertising.
>>>
>>> Most individuals are not so careful.
>>>
>>In my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of
>>technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.
>>
>>Roger Merriman
>>
>
>Most people are wise enough to decide for themselves how, when, where,
>and with what equipement to ride their bicycles. It's not rocket
>science.

Haven to Betsy! Do you mean that it is possible to determine what sort
of bicycle brakes are best.... without Frank's assistance?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 06:12:36 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:40:19 -0500, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:41:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>>>>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>>>>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>>>>> that is....
>>>>
>>>> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>>>>
>>>> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
>>>> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
>>>> first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
>>>> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
>>>> experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
>>>> harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
>>>> manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
>>>> tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
>>>>
>>>Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
>>>
>>>> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
>>>> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
>>>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
>>>> a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
>>>> having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
>>>> noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
>>>> trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
>>>> purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
>>>> the detriments?
>>>>
>>>The biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers
>>>(road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the
>>>neutral service bike more challenging.
>>>
>>>And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes
>>>it an expensive upgrade and so on.
>>>
>>>Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get
>>>once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last
>>>time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
>>>that.
>>>
>>>With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty
>>>rides could trash remarkably quickly!
>>>
>>>> Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
>>>> have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
>>>> bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
>>>> between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
>>>> imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
>>>> requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
>>>> racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
>>>>
>>>Difficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
>>>That’s a new one on me!
>>>
>>>> Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
>>>> LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
>>>> yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
>>>> level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
>>>> remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
>>>> headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of
>>>> blinding other road users.
>>>>
>>>While a Dynamo doesn’t kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get
>>>to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in
>>>the 200 ish range or less.
>>>
>>>As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for
>>>the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed
>>>off road and it doesn’t keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot
>>>newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off
>>>road than on.
>>>
>>>Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be
>>>blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles.
>>>Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
>>>
>>>> The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
>>>> choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
>>>> shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
>>>> telepathic gear shifts?
>>>>
>>>Really? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your
>>>range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
>>>have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
>>>
>>>But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes
>>>2*10s
>>>
>>>> So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
>>>> lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
>>>> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000
>>>> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
>>>>
>>>> I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
>>>> that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
>>>> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
>>>> advertising.
>>>>
>>>> Most individuals are not so careful.
>>>>
>>>In my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of
>>>technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.
>>>
>>>Roger Merriman
>>>
>>
>>Most people are wise enough to decide for themselves how, when, where,
>>and with what equipement to ride their bicycles. It's not rocket
>>science.
>
>
>Haven to Betsy! Do you mean that it is possible to determine what sort
>of bicycle brakes are best.... without Frank's assistance?

Like I said. It's not rocket science. It's not worth the time and
digital storage space. Nobody has, or is going to change their opinion
on the subject. Same with helmets, wheels, pedals and shoes, shift
mechanisms, lights, etc.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:07:00 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>  > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>  >> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>>>  >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>>>  >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
>>>>> and I do
>>>>>  >> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>>>  >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
>>>>> bike buyers.
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>>>  >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
>>>>> available
>>>>>  >> only with discs.
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  > This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>>>
>>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
>>>>> about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth
>>>>> with bikes
>>>>>  > used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the
>>>>> racers and
>>>>>  > the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
>>>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
>>>>> complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
>>>>> relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
>>>>> heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
>>>>> new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
>>>>> hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
>>>>> to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
>>>>> one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
>>>>> most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
>>>>> IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
>>>>> bought that bike yet.)
>>>> and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
>>>
>>> :-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
>>> energy for this forum.
>>
>>I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
>>life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
>
>Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
>people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
>doing it all wrong.

Goodness! Are you telling us that you don't bow down toward that tiny
town in Ohio every morning and repeat, "Frank is Right! Frank is
Wonderful!, I will always do as Frank says!

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:55:04 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 05:35:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>>>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>>>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
>>>>>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
>>>> buyers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
>>>>>> only with discs.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>>
>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>
>>>>> But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with
>>>> bikes
>>>>> used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
>>>>> the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
>>>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
>>>> them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
>>>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
>>>> about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
>>>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
>>>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>
>>>Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets
>>>yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available,
>>>and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable.
>>>
>>>Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped
>>>in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just
>>>a new thing!
>>>>
>>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
>>>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
>>>> disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
>>>> she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
>>>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don’t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
>>>aren’t.
>>>
>>>Roger Merriman
>>
>>Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
>>backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
>>later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy.
>>Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode
>>them too.
>>
>>But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
>>
>
>Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give
>Krygowski a reason. How dare she.

The purpose of my little ,story above was to try and demonstrate how
really negligible brakes are in the scheme of thing.

A German (I believe) bloke has posted about riding discs in ice in
snow, for example. Would he abandon riding a bicycle if there were no
disc brakes made? I doubt it. History shows that people that want to
ride a bicycle do ride a bicycle.... "Mr. Muzi, and I'm sure others,
have been known to ride bicycles with no brakes at all :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/29/2024 4:52 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>>> that is....
>>
>> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>>
>> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach
>> centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
>
> Did you complain about them? Did you hear your contemporaries
> complaining?
>
>> I remember how pleased I
>> was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
>> improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
>> reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake
>> failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when rims were wet,
>> but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost all road
>> bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody complained, in my
>> experience.
>>
>> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
>> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design
>> in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the
>> detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are
>> problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly
>> obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding,
>> etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they matter
>> enough to justify the detriments?
>
> It is not up to any individual bicycle producer to maintain consumer
> choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money. If a
> significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake bikes, then an
> alternative would be certainly be produced. That does not seem to be
> happening.

It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop you
faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with discs. Few
consumers have the background knowledge to even question the "better"
claim.

> What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car? I would have to buy an old
> one. Where is my choice?

With cars, the benefits of discs (at least in front) are significant. My
main point is that it's not true for road bikes. But you can still buy
plenty of cars with drums in the rear. And many heavy trucks still use
drum brakes, as do their trailers.

Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your road bikes
have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones that have rim brakes?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/29/2024 3:41 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
>>> "complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
>>> brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
>>> that is....
>>
>> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
>>
>> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
>> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
>> first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
>> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
>> experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
>> harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
>> manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
>> tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
>>
> Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
>
>> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
>> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
>> a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
>> having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
>> noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
>> trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
>> purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
>> the detriments?
>>
> The biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers
> (road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the
> neutral service bike more challenging.
>
> And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes
> it an expensive upgrade and so on.
>
> Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get
> once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last
> time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
> that.
>
> With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty
> rides could trash remarkably quickly!
>
>> Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
>> have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
>> bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
>> between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
>> imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
>> requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
>> racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
>>
> Difficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
> That’s a new one on me!
>
>> Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
>> LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
>> yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
>> level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
>> remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
>> headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of
>> blinding other road users.
>>
> While a Dynamo doesn’t kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get
> to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in
> the 200 ish range or less.
>
> As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for
> the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed
> off road and it doesn’t keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot
> newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off
> road than on.
>
> Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be
> blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles.
> Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
>
>> The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
>> choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
>> shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
>> telepathic gear shifts?
>>
> Really? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your
> range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
> have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
>
> But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes
> 2*10s
>
>> So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
>> lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
>> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000
>> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
>>
>> I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
>> that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
>>
>> Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
>> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
>> advertising.
>>
>> Most individuals are not so careful.
>>
> In my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of
> technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.

I can discuss each of the analogous examples I gave, if you want; but
that's getting pretty far into the weeds and away from my point that not
every "improvement" is worth accepting. One really should consider
whether benefits are really significant; and one should also pay
attention to associated detriments.

As to your last point: Younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches for
the same reason they tend to be Swifties. They are very susceptible to
advertising and other promotion, and they are short on decades of
experience. They go for what's shiny and new.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/29/2024 5:13 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:07:00 -0500,
> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>  > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>  >> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>>  >> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>>>>  >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>  >> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>>>>  >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
>>>>>> and I do
>>>>>>  >> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>>>>  >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
>>>>>> bike buyers.
>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>  >> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>>>>  >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
>>>>>> available
>>>>>>  >> only with discs.
>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>  > This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
>>>>>> about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  > But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth
>>>>>> with bikes
>>>>>>  > used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the
>>>>>> racers and
>>>>>>  > the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
>>>>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
>>>>>> complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
>>>>>> relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
>>>>>> heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>>>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
>>>>>> new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
>>>>>> hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
>>>>>> to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
>>>>>> one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
>>>>>> most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
>>>>>> IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
>>>>>> bought that bike yet.)
>>>>> and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
>>>>
>>>> :-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
>>>> energy for this forum.
>>>
>>> I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
>>> life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
>>
>> Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
>> people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
>> doing it all wrong.
>
> Wait, aren't you constantly telling Frank he's doing it wrong?

:-) The Florida guy isn't exactly excellent regarding self awareness!

But the occasional comment from him or from others saying "Just let
everyone decide everything on their own" or hinting "All opinions are
valid" pretty much violates the reason for a _discussion_ group!

It makes me wonder why such a person bothers to read posts here.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/29/2024 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:55:04 -0500, Catrike Ryder
> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 05:35:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>>>>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>>>>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
>>>>>>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
>>>>> buyers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
>>>>>>> only with discs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>>>
>>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with
>>>>> bikes
>>>>>> used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
>>>>>> the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
>>>>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
>>>>> them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
>>>>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
>>>>> about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
>>>>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
>>>>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>>
>>>> Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets
>>>> yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available,
>>>> and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable.
>>>>
>>>> Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped
>>>> in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just
>>>> a new thing!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
>>>>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
>>>>> disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
>>>>> she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
>>>>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don’t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
>>>> aren’t.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>> Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
>>> backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
>>> later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy.
>>> Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode
>>> them too.
>>>
>>> But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
>>>
>>
>> Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give
>> Krygowski a reason. How dare she.
>
> The purpose of my little ,story above was to try and demonstrate how
> really negligible brakes are in the scheme of thing.
>
> A German (I believe) bloke has posted about riding discs in ice in
> snow, for example. Would he abandon riding a bicycle if there were no
> disc brakes made? I doubt it. History shows that people that want to
> ride a bicycle do ride a bicycle.... "Mr. Muzi, and I'm sure others,
> have been known to ride bicycles with no brakes at all :-)

Careful, John! You're agreeing with me!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/29/2024 8:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:55:04 -0500, Catrike Ryder
> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 05:35:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
>>>>>>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
>>>>>>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
>>>>>>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
>>>>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
>>>>> buyers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
>>>>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
>>>>>>> only with discs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
>>>>>
>>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
>>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with
>>>>> bikes
>>>>>> used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
>>>>>> the retrogrouches who didn’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
>>>>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
>>>>> them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
>>>>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
>>>>> about their old bikes' brakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
>>>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
>>>>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
>>>>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
>>>>
>>>> Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets
>>>> yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available,
>>>> and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable.
>>>>
>>>> Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped
>>>> in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just
>>>> a new thing!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
>>>>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
>>>>> disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
>>>>> she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
>>>>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don’t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
>>>> aren’t.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>> Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
>>> backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
>>> later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy.
>>> Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode
>>> them too.
>>>
>>> But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
>>>
>>
>> Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give
>> Krygowski a reason. How dare she.
>
> The purpose of my little ,story above was to try and demonstrate how
> really negligible brakes are in the scheme of thing.
>
> A German (I believe) bloke has posted about riding discs in ice in
> snow, for example. Would he abandon riding a bicycle if there were no
> disc brakes made? I doubt it. History shows that people that want to
> ride a bicycle do ride a bicycle.... "Mr. Muzi, and I'm sure others,
> have been known to ride bicycles with no brakes at all :-)

That's not me.
I do prefer fixed gear in sloppy snow or slush but always
with a front brake.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/29/2024 8:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:52 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever
>>>>> complained about
>>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple
>>>> fact" and
>>>> "complained", though.  People around here didn't
>>>> complain about rim
>>>> brakes on steel rims, either.   As long as there wasn't
>>>> an alternative,
>>>> that is....
>>>
>>> Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in
>>> general.
>>>
>>> I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long
>>> reach
>>> centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
>>
>> Did you complain about them?  Did you hear your
>> contemporaries
>> complaining?
>>
>>>                                             I remember
>>> how pleased I
>>> was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
>>> improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
>>> reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced
>>> total brake
>>> failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when
>>> rims were wet,
>>> but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost
>>> all road
>>> bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody
>>> complained, in my
>>> experience.
>>>
>>> Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but
>>> I'd say not
>>> enough to justify a major industry shift, one that
>>> effectively removes
>>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each
>>> bike design
>>> in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides
>>> the
>>> detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the
>>> frame, there are
>>> problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's
>>> less visibly
>>> obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for
>>> bleeding,
>>> etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they
>>> matter
>>> enough to justify the detriments?
>>
>> It is not up to any individual bicycle producer to
>> maintain consumer
>> choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money.
>> If a
>> significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake
>> bikes, then an
>> alternative would be certainly be produced.  That does not
>> seem to be
>> happening.
>
>
> It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are
> being told by advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are
> way better. They stop you faster" or other nonsense. And
> almost all new bikes come with discs. Few consumers have the
> background knowledge to even question the "better" claim.
>
>> What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car?  I would have to
>> buy an old
>> one.  Where is my choice?
>
> With cars, the benefits of discs (at least in front) are
> significant. My main point is that it's not true for road
> bikes. But you can still buy plenty of cars with drums in
> the rear. And many heavy trucks still use drum brakes, as do
> their trailers.
>
> Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your
> road bikes have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones
> that have rim brakes?
>

The world is not bereft of new rim brake bicycles.
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/sompr23.jpg

There are more new models with discs, just not exclusively.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971