On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:00:30 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>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.

:-) I know it's not you - "the German? Guy". You're the guy with no
brakes at all :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 06:57:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
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
>>

The give away is the statement, "I have precisely one friend" :-(

But more to the point, , 'Why not disc brakes?" They don't stop? Or
equally, "What's better about rim brakes?"

Or is it just another arrogant ass trying to influence people to
listen to his song and dance?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:46:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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!

The irony bell rings loudly...

>But the occasional comment from him or from others saying "Just let
>everyone decide everything on their own"

People are going to decide most things "on they own" no mattter how
much you try to malign their opinions. That's because most people
don't put any value on your advice. Why is that not obvious to you?

> or hinting "All opinions are
>valid" pretty much violates the reason for a _discussion_ group!

<EYEROLL> Most discussions don't involve some guy ranting and raving
post after post about how dumb people are if they choose to do things
different from what he does.

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

One reason is because I enjoy watching Krygowski confirming his
insecurities.

People with narcissism tend to be profoundly insecure. Desperate to
avoid shame or humiliation, they dwell in an alternative reality of
their own making, disguising their insecurities through manipulation
and distraction. The last thing narcissists want is to be transparent
about their inner lives and motivations.

Though it is rare for narcissists to be candid about their faults and
limitations, if narcissists were to be completely honest about how
they approach life, they might voice the following less-than-noble
truths:

1) The truth is whatever I say at the moment. I will change facts and
positions whenever it suits me. I don’t need to be consistent. When I
speak, I act 100 percent certain of what I am saying. It’s amazing how
often I convince people I am right by speaking with absolute
certainty.

2) I have a bottomless hunger for attention and respect. Whatever you
do for me will never be enough. However, the longer I can keep you
trying, the better I will feel.

3) I consider most people disposable. I can be secretive, deceptive,
undermine you, or withdraw for no reason. If you ever leave me, I will
replace you as soon as possible and never look back.

4) I love taking credit but I have no interest in taking
responsibility. I never apologize or admit I am wrong. That would
appear weak.

5) My image is all-important. Appearances matter more to me than
substance. I’ll do whatever it takes to look good. If that’s at your
expense, too bad.
6) I am largely unaware of how my actions affect others. Truth be
told, I don’t really care. If I get what I want, anything else is
collateral damage.

7) I seek status, not equality; and victory, not fairness. I view most
people as either threats or suckers. Winning is everything to me. If I
feel slighted, I will attack you for being unfair. However, I have no
intention of playing fair with you.

8) I am mortally afraid of feeling humiliated. I can’t stand being
seen as flawed, inferior, weak, or a “loser.” You will pay dearly if
you ever do anything that makes me feel that way.

9) I feel entitled to do whatever I want. Normal rules and limitations
don’t apply to me. Anything goes if it makes me feel good about
myself.

While we can have compassion for narcissists and their emotionally
barren inner worlds, it doesn’t mean we should allow them to take
advantage of us. Recognizing these truths at the heart of unhealthy
narcissism can help you make sense of the methods and motivations of
narcissists.

You may wonder: “Why did he do that?” But you can come to see: “Of
course! Once again, he needed to be the center of attention.” Instead
of asking yourself: “How could she say such a thing?” You can
recognize, “There she goes again, puffing herself up by putting others
down.”

Dan Neuharth Ph.D., MFT
Narcissism Demystified

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/narcissism-demystified/202106/9-un-noble-truths-about-narcissism

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>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.

I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
are simply producing what the majority of people want.

--
Standing on the tracks to stop the train is not a viable position to
take just because you don't want to ride the train and they won't let
you drive it.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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.

Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time now, so a bike
having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding any advertising
focused on disks at this point!

This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories does one no
favours.

>> 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?
>

Roger Merriman

On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 03:09:46 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>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.
>
>I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
>are simply producing what the majority of people want.

One thing about being old... you remember things, and I remember when
bar end shifters first became common. "So much better shifting, never
take you hand off the bars, etc." Just like the loud noises about disc
brakes today. Of course the difference is that Frankie fell for the
bar end shifters years ago and can conveniently forget the advertising
campaign that convinced him to buy the shifters while the disc brake
adverts are relatively recent and he can loudly rant and rage about
advertisement!

As for me? I didn't fall for it and still have my down tube shifters
on my Bangkok Bike :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 17:22:15 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 03:09:46 -0500, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
>>are simply producing what the majority of people want.
>
>One thing about being old... you remember things, and I remember when
>bar end shifters first became common. "So much better shifting, never
>take you hand off the bars, etc." Just like the loud noises about disc
>brakes today. Of course the difference is that Frankie fell for the
>bar end shifters years ago and can conveniently forget the advertising
>campaign that convinced him to buy the shifters while the disc brake
>adverts are relatively recent and he can loudly rant and rage about
>advertisement!
>
>As for me? I didn't fall for it and still have my down tube shifters
>on my Bangkok Bike :-)

My conversion to disks happened because rim brakes won't work on a
catrike, but I would have gone that way anyway simply because I would
have seen them being used and thought, "those disk brakes look pretty
slick."

THat's the reason, by the way, that I changed over to a Catrike. I
suspect that very few disk using bicyclists have seen any disk brake
advertisements.

I don't fall for bicycle advertisements because I don't see them. I've
never even seen a bicycle magazine until RBT, and I've never hung out
in bike shops except for the brief time I got talked into being part
owner of one.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.

Unless you have spare wheelset’s the it’s fairly hard to find disadvantages
for disks they are a touch heavier, less than 100g between them on groupset
that support both. Which really isn’t something measurable in terms of
performance, ie not even marginal gains, at least for most even racers.

Most of the disadvantages boil down to it’s different to what I’m used to
which is a valid argument.

Ie for most folks they don’t have spare wheels or so on, so for them it’s
fairly hard to tease out disadvantages, and most will get a gain of better
performance, the exception being probably uk hill climb championships which
this year was won by a disk bike but that’s more due to newer high end
bikes models are starting to be sold as disk only.

Clearly these are outlier with 5/6kg bikes that are stripped down.
>
> 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.
>
More they will try stuff, and experiment with it and others ie they are
curious. Vs at the other end folks who know what they like and like what
they know.

It’s more sane somewhere in the middle ie give new technology a year or so
to mature and so on.

Roger Merriman

On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time now, so a bike
> having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding any advertising
> focused on disks at this point!

I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the industry
campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially the default choice on
a new road bike, and I think one would have to search out much less
common models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.

The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the change - either
the shop dude or some fine print saying, effectively, "Of COURSE you
want disc brakes! They're better!" The consumer just nods.

The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear cogs, etc.
And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that level. "Of COURSE you
want these, for safety! We have them for only $$$." I suspect that in a
year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost of the bike, because
the lights will be built-in to the bike.

> This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories does one no
> favours.

If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period when
consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put disc brakes on
it?" I don't think that was the case.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu Feb 29 21:39:12 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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
>

Frank stopped testing "improvements" early. Because of my meemory problems from the concussion, I just went on testing all of the so-called improvements as they appeared. V-brakes were a definite improvement on cyclocross bikes. I expect that discs were a worthwhile improvement on MTB's sinc they have a massive increase in traction with 2" knobbies in soft dirt with full suspention.My 29er showed that pretty dramatically.

But on road bikes I saw no improvement in braking as compared to rfim brakes so as far as road bikes go I agree with Frank.

On cyclocross bikes there was a minimal improvement in braking using disc's and there was the quite clear danger of locking the front wheel up and going over the handlebars on very steep descents. Now, I expect that you could correct that by making the disc itself progressively smaller which they appear to be doing but doesn't that nullify the supposed improvements of the disc?

So it is pretty difficult to argue with frank concerning any advantages of disc's on road bikes.

On Fri Mar 1 12:11:18 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time now, so a bike
> > having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding any advertising
> > focused on disks at this point!
>
> I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the industry
> campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially the default choice on
> a new road bike, and I think one would have to search out much less
> common models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.
>
> The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the change - either
> the shop dude or some fine print saying, effectively, "Of COURSE you
> want disc brakes! They're better!" The consumer just nods.
>
> The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear cogs, etc.
> And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that level. "Of COURSE you
> want these, for safety! We have them for only $$$." I suspect that in a
> year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost of the bike, because
> the lights will be built-in to the bike.
>
> > This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories does one no
> > favours.
>
> If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period when
> consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put disc brakes on
> it?" I don't think that was the case.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>

And truth be told, the onlu reason that they "invented" disc's was so that they could run very thin and light deep wheels which are nevertheless heavier than standard size aluminum wheels using rim brakes.
When you are threatened with wearing out a $4,000 carbon rim it becomes worthwhile to take another choice for braking. My experience was 5hat with the hard hill riding I was doing wore the brake pads out very rapidly and if I replaced them with metalic pads, the disc's wore out rapidly.

On Fri Mar 1 03:09:46 2024 Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >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.
>
> I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
> are simply producing what the majority of people want.
>
> --
> Standing on the tracks to stop the train is not a viable position to
> take just because you don't want to ride the train and they won't let
> you drive it.
>

That is definitely NOT what Frank is doing. I think that your Catrike has discs on the later models but they lend no improvements at all. And setting them up for a double wheels is absolutely not what the drop bar levers are created for. Though flat bar levers may work nominally.

You have to remember that very few people ride trikes and recumbentws.

People do not "want" disc brakes.They couldn't care less, They want adequate brakes and that is rim brakesz.

On 3/1/2024 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time
>> now, so a bike
>> having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding
>> any advertising
>> focused on disks at this point!
>
> I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the
> industry campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially
> the default choice on a new road bike, and I think one would
> have to search out much less common models to get a new road
> bike with rim brakes.
>
> The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the
> change - either the shop dude or some fine print saying,
> effectively, "Of COURSE you want disc brakes! They're
> better!" The consumer just nods.
>
> The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear
> cogs, etc. And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that
> level. "Of COURSE you want these, for safety! We have them
> for only $$$." I suspect that in a year or two, that $$$
> will be built into the cost of the bike, because the lights
> will be built-in to the bike.
>
>> This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories
>> does one no
>> favours.
>
> If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period
> when consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put
> disc brakes on it?" I don't think that was the case.
>

It is the case. People did and do regularly ask that. It's
almost always infeasible, at least for a total price the
inquirer finds acceptable (new chainstay/fork blade, brake
mounts, paint, braking system, often new shifters, new
wheels...).

Much is necessarily unknown about millions of individual
decisions in millions of situations, drawing from billions
of prior experiences and within millions of economic
scenarios. You may be right and you are probably equally
wrong, depending.

Nothing you wrote would be inappropriate to walk-around
telephones or electric autos, BTW.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri Mar 1 17:22:15 2024 John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 03:09:46 -0500, Catrike Ryder
> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> ><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> >I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
> >are simply producing what the majority of people want.
>
> One thing about being old... you remember things, and I remember when
> bar end shifters first became common. "So much better shifting, never
> take you hand off the bars, etc." Just like the loud noises about disc
> brakes today. Of course the difference is that Frankie fell for the
> bar end shifters years ago and can conveniently forget the advertising
> campaign that convinced him to buy the shifters while the disc brake
> adverts are relatively recent and he can loudly rant and rage about
> advertisement!
>
> As for me? I didn't fall for it and still have my down tube shifters
> on my Bangkok Bike :-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
>

Working really hard to show what a dumbnass you are4 huh? Bar end shifters didn't NEED an advertising campaign because they were a cure for a problem. And that was for touring bikes. They were never used by racers but the same problem was solved by Shimano's Brifters. And what all does any of this have to do withy you since you once upon a time rode bicycles with "sit up and beg" handebars with 3 speed hubs?

On 3/1/2024 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time now, so a bike
>>> having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding any advertising
>>> focused on disks at this point!
>>
>> I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the industry
>> campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially the default choice
>> on a new road bike, and I think one would have to search out much less
>> common models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.
>>
>> The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the change - either
>> the shop dude or some fine print saying, effectively, "Of COURSE you
>> want disc brakes! They're better!" The consumer just nods.
>>
>> The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear cogs, etc.
>> And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that level. "Of COURSE you
>> want these, for safety! We have them for only $$$." I suspect that in
>> a year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost of the bike,
>> because the lights will be built-in to the bike.
>>
>>> This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories does one no
>>> favours.
>>
>> If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period when
>> consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put disc brakes on
>> it?" I don't think that was the case.
>>
>
> It is the case.  People did and do regularly ask that.  It's almost
> always infeasible, at least for a total price the inquirer finds
> acceptable (new chainstay/fork blade, brake mounts, paint, braking
> system, often new shifters, new wheels...).
>
> Much is necessarily unknown about millions of individual decisions in
> millions of situations, drawing from billions of prior experiences and
> within millions of economic scenarios.  You may be right and you are
> probably equally wrong, depending.
>
> Nothing you wrote would be inappropriate to walk-around telephones or
> electric autos, BTW.

There was a local frame builder in Lowell MA who was brazing disc mount
tabs on steel frames for a while.

Before that, he was modifying road frames for CX before real CX frames
were readily availability (This would have been in the late 80's/early
90's). He did that for me for the first CX bike I ever had - I found a
Schwinn Tempo for cheap. He brazed canti mounts onto the fork and seat
stays, and pinched the chainstays in a bit so I could fit a knobby tire.
I did a few CX races on it (there weren't many to do back then) but
mostly rode it as a winter beater.

It met a untimely(?) demise one crisp october morning on my way to work
- the city of Cambridge had put in new curbing with 'bump outs' leading
into the cross walks. With the sun at the perfect angle to glare out my
riding glasses, I hit one of the new bump-outs at full clip, tossing me
endo into mailbox. I was unscathed save a scraped knee and elbow. I got
back up and checked the bike - the front wheel was still inflated and
spun true. It wasn't until I tried to saddle up when I realized - the
downtube had acted as a crumple zone. It has creased at enough of an
angle that it was hitting the sidewall of the tire. I was still a few
miles from work, so I deflated the tire which allowed the steering to
center but even the deflated tire was rubbing the downtube. By the time
I made it to work, the paint had been completely worn off the downtube
where the tire was rubbing.

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/1/2024 12:50 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> The give away is the statement, "I have precisely one friend" :-(
>
> But more to the point, , 'Why not disc brakes?" They don't stop? Or
> equally, "What's better about rim brakes?"
>
> Or is it just another arrogant ass trying to influence people to
> listen to his song and dance?

John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2024 5:22 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> One thing about being old... you remember things...

:-) You've displayed the opposite, John!

> I remember when
> bar end shifters first became common. "So much better shifting, never
> take you hand off the bars, etc."

I don't think bar end shifters were ever very common. They were
certainly never the majority of shifters sold.

> Of course the difference is that Frankie fell for the
> bar end shifters years ago and can conveniently forget the advertising
> campaign that convinced him to buy the shifters ...

Nope. My change to bar ends came because the first "good" bike I had,
which was my only bike for ten years, was (and is) a bit small for me. I
didn't have a lot of money at the time, and I acquired it by trade, from
a good friend.

One side effect of the small frame size was that the downtube shifters
were lower than they should have been. For a long time I mentally
complained about doing a sort of mini-pushup each time I wanted to shift
- the opposite of sports car reviews touting the "shifter falls readily
to hand." I even thought about stem mounted shifters for a while, but
settled on bar-ends, in part because SunTour's retro-friction shifters
were so good. (I'd already installed the down tube version on that bike.)

I don't recall seeing an advertisement of bar-ends. I guess they must
have existed, but there was certainly no big campaign compared to the
current disc brake industry move.

> As for me? I didn't fall for it and still have my down tube shifters
> on my Bangkok Bike :-)

And what type of brakes? That's very pertinent to this discussion! :-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2024 1:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time now, so a bike
>>>> having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding any advertising
>>>> focused on disks at this point!
>>>
>>> I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the industry
>>> campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially the default choice
>>> on a new road bike, and I think one would have to search out much
>>> less common models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.
>>>
>>> The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the change -
>>> either the shop dude or some fine print saying, effectively, "Of
>>> COURSE you want disc brakes! They're better!" The consumer just nods.
>>>
>>> The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear cogs, etc.
>>> And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that level. "Of COURSE you
>>> want these, for safety! We have them for only $$$." I suspect that in
>>> a year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost of the bike,
>>> because the lights will be built-in to the bike.
>>>
>>>> This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories does one no
>>>> favours.
>>>
>>> If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period when
>>> consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put disc brakes on
>>> it?" I don't think that was the case.
>>>
>>
>> It is the case.  People did and do regularly ask that.  It's almost
>> always infeasible, at least for a total price the inquirer finds
>> acceptable (new chainstay/fork blade, brake mounts, paint, braking
>> system, often new shifters, new wheels...).
>>
>> Much is necessarily unknown about millions of individual decisions in
>> millions of situations, drawing from billions of prior experiences and
>> within millions of economic scenarios.  You may be right and you are
>> probably equally wrong, depending.
>>
>> Nothing you wrote would be inappropriate to walk-around telephones or
>> electric autos, BTW.
>
> There was a local frame builder in Lowell MA who was brazing disc mount
> tabs on steel frames for a while.
>
> Before that, he was modifying road frames for CX before real CX frames
> were readily availability (This would have been in the late 80's/early
> 90's). He did that for me for the first CX bike I ever had - I found a
> Schwinn Tempo for cheap. He brazed canti mounts onto the fork and seat
> stays, and pinched the chainstays in a bit so I could fit a knobby tire.

I don't doubt that there were some riders who had their frames
customized. I very much doubt that happened with even 1% of bikes - or
even 1% of avid riders' bikes.

And even if, as Andrew says, people "regularly" asked for discs on a
road bike ("regularly" being one every month??), the question for a
technical discussion group should be "Why?" Was it because of problems
they had with rim brakes? Or was it because discs were "new and shiny"?

It might be good to ask (again): How many posting here are still running
rim brakes on their bikes used on-road? Have _all_ of the disc advocates
switched over completely to discs?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2024 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> And truth be told, the onlu reason that they "invented" disc's was so that they could run very thin and light deep wheels which are nevertheless heavier than standard size aluminum wheels using rim brakes.
> When you are threatened with wearing out a $4,000 carbon rim it becomes worthwhile to take another choice for braking.

That was a big factor that I haven't mentioned lately. Yes, Carbon Fiber
rims are on the big racers' bikes. Carbon fiber rims make rim brakes
difficult, so they switched to discs.

Then the contingent that imitates the racers saw the very visible discs
and said "Oooh, I want those too." Even if they didn't want to pay for
CF rims. And here we are.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2024 12:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time
>>>> now, so a bike
>>>> having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding
>>>> any advertising
>>>> focused on disks at this point!
>>>
>>> I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because
>>> the industry campaign has been completed. Discs are
>>> essentially the default choice on a new road bike, and I
>>> think one would have to search out much less common
>>> models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.
>>>
>>> The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the
>>> change - either the shop dude or some fine print saying,
>>> effectively, "Of COURSE you want disc brakes! They're
>>> better!" The consumer just nods.
>>>
>>> The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+
>>> rear cogs, etc. And Daytime Running Lights are
>>> approaching that level. "Of COURSE you want these, for
>>> safety! We have them for only $$$." I suspect that in a
>>> year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost of the
>>> bike, because the lights will be built-in to the bike.
>>>
>>>> This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy
>>>> theories does one no
>>>> favours.
>>>
>>> If it were consumer led, there would have been a long
>>> period when consumers could say "I like this bike, but
>>> can you put disc brakes on it?" I don't think that was
>>> the case.
>>>
>>
>> It is the case.  People did and do regularly ask that.
>> It's almost always infeasible, at least for a total price
>> the inquirer finds acceptable (new chainstay/fork blade,
>> brake mounts, paint, braking system, often new shifters,
>> new wheels...).
>>
>> Much is necessarily unknown about millions of individual
>> decisions in millions of situations, drawing from billions
>> of prior experiences and within millions of economic
>> scenarios.  You may be right and you are probably equally
>> wrong, depending.
>>
>> Nothing you wrote would be inappropriate to walk-around
>> telephones or electric autos, BTW.
>
> There was a local frame builder in Lowell MA who was brazing
> disc mount tabs on steel frames for a while.
>
> Before that, he was modifying road frames for CX before real
> CX frames were readily availability (This would have been in
> the late 80's/early 90's). He did that for me for the first
> CX bike I ever had - I found a Schwinn Tempo for cheap. He
> brazed canti mounts onto the fork and seat stays, and
> pinched the chainstays in a bit so I could fit a knobby
> tire. I did a few CX races on it (there weren't many to do
> back then) but mostly rode it as a winter beater.
>
> It met a untimely(?) demise one crisp october morning on my
> way to work - the city of Cambridge had put in new curbing
> with 'bump outs' leading into the cross walks. With the sun
> at the perfect angle to glare out my riding glasses, I hit
> one of the new bump-outs at full clip, tossing me endo into
> mailbox. I was unscathed save a scraped knee and elbow. I
> got back up and checked the bike - the front wheel was still
> inflated and spun true. It wasn't until I tried to saddle up
> when I realized - the downtube had acted as a crumple zone.
> It has creased at enough of an angle that it was hitting the
> sidewall of the tire. I was still a few miles from work, so
> I deflated the tire which allowed the steering to center but
> even the deflated tire was rubbing the downtube. By the time
> I made it to work, the paint had been completely worn off
> the downtube where the tire was rubbing.
>

As pilots say, if you walk away it was a good landing.

(p.s. I've done dozens of race bike frames to 'cross' with
brake mounts)
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> 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.

Those who actually use disk brakes seem to disagree with yout.

>> 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?

I have explained several times to you specifically that I am cheap,
lazy, and hate change. Hence I have no bikes with disk brakes. But
it's not all about me, is it? It's also not all about you.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:

> 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 :-)

I think you refer to Herr Strobl. I think that even if he might not,
others might opt to just take the bus when it snowed, instead of riding
the bike. I confess that when it looks likely to rain heavily or snow,
I tend either to not ride or at least not ride very far and do it
slowly.

On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 17:32:38 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Fri Mar 1 03:09:46 2024 Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
>> are simply producing what the majority of people want.
>>
>> --
>> Standing on the tracks to stop the train is not a viable position to
>> take just because you don't want to ride the train and they won't let
>> you drive it.
>>
>
>That is definitely NOT what Frank is doing. I think that your Catrike has discs on the later models but they lend no improvements at all. And setting them up for a double wheels is absolutely not what the drop bar levers are created for. Though flat bar levers may work nominally.
>
>You have to remember that very few people ride trikes and recumbentws.
>
>People do not "want" disc brakes.They couldn't care less, They want adequate brakes and that is rim brakesz.

Like I said. Had I not got a Catrike, I would have tried disk brakes
because they look cool and they work as well as rim brakes. So why
not?

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:23:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/1/2024 12:50 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> The give away is the statement, "I have precisely one friend" :-(
>>
>> But more to the point, , 'Why not disc brakes?" They don't stop? Or
>> equally, "What's better about rim brakes?"
>>
>> Or is it just another arrogant ass trying to influence people to
>> listen to his song and dance?
>
>John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you?

If you want to discuss something, don't start by saying everybody that
doesn't do what I do is too stupid to know what best for them.

How about trying something like, "I prefer rim brakes because....."

On 3/1/2024 4:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Those who actually use disk brakes seem to disagree with yout.

On road bikes? I'm not hearing it. Granted, most of my riding buddies
still use rim brakes. One of the few on disks mentioned that it took the
shop where he bought it multiple tries go stop weird noises from the
rear disc. One tourist who we put up overnight complained about pads
wearing out rapidly during one hilly tour. Others haven't said anything
about their disc brakes at all.

>>
>> 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?
>
> I have explained several times to you specifically that I am cheap,
> lazy, and hate change. Hence I have no bikes with disk brakes. But
> it's not all about me, is it? It's also not all about you.

It's not _all_ about you, of course. But you're one of countless data
points indicating that rim brakes work fine for almost all road
cyclists. If that were false, you'd have switched, whatever your
personal traits.

--
- Frank Krygowski