Rant about budget bikers.

[thegravestoneman]

Surely to understand about bikes and biking you have to buy, upgrade, change, swap, modify and generally develop each bike you have, moving parts up and down the food chain as time, money and use permits, there will be mistakes and revelations. I had an original moulton years back and upgraded it all to as top spec as I could to get the feel of it, didn't overly like it and changed it back. Every bike I have owned has been developed with a mismatch of parts. My butchers bike uses Sturmey 3 and a saddle that costs 4 times as much as the one on my carbon bike. Good luck to anyone that 'mods' a bike.

 

[Milzy]

I'm one of a small proportion of road bike riders who use SPD pedals. I couldn't care less about the convention, I just find SPD pedals easier and more convenient to use than SPD-SL. As Milzy said: plenty of smiles while doing the miles, nothing else really matters .

I also use SPD's & most people at work do. I have not tried spd-L & don't see the point. If it's not broke don't fix it.

 

[jowwy]

I can't stand triples they infuriate me. 105 !!! You should have at least gone with Shimano Dura ace 7900!

What's wrong with triples???????

 

[Boris Bajic]

What's wrong with triples???????

What's wrong with triples?

One might as well ask what's wrong with hanging your washing downwind of a smoky bonfire or trying parachuting without bringing a parachute.

What's wrong with triples? WHAT'S WRONG WITH TRIPLES?

I'll tell you: Although in likelihood God did not invent the road-racing bicycle we can be pretty certain that had He done so, it would have been with Campagnolo componentry and two chainrings with 39 and 53 teeth or something in that order of magnitude. The larger (as dictated by both logic and convention) would be placed on the oudside.

I can prove this with links to other sites, but I prefer not to. I also suspect that you would lack the wit to follow the link.

It might be argued that God (in His infinite wisdom and Peace be Upon Him although that might be the other chap) would have conceded that on MTBs and some commuter/shopping hybrid bicycles there was a case for more than two chainrings. But on a proper bicycle for doing proper bicycling, it simply does not make sense to have three and it might even be treason or similar to do so. I might mean sacrilege, but treason is not a million miles from that. It might be both.

I hope I have explained the arrant stupidity of triple chainrings on a road-racing bicycle in a way that even the intellectually challenged will understand. Please do not ask for further clarity, as I do not gladly suffer fools.

For the record, God has no strong opinion on carbon-fibre. I abhor it, but God is neutral.

 

[jowwy]

What's wrong with triples?

One might as well ask what's wrong with hanging your washing downwind of a smoky bonfire or trying parachuting without bringing a parachute.

What's wrong with triples? WHAT'S WRONG WITH TRIPLES?

I'll tell you: Although in likelihood God did not invent the road-racing bicycle we can be pretty certain that had He done so, it would have been with Campagnolo componentry and two chainrings with 39 and 53 teeth or something in that order of magnitude. The larger (as dictated by both logic and convention) would be placed on the oudside.

I can prove this with links to other sites, but I prefer not to. I also suspect that you would lack the wit to follow the link.

It might be argued that God (in His infinite wisdom and Peace be Upon Him although that might be the other chap) would have conceded that on MTBs and some commuter/shopping hybrid bicycles there was a case for more than two chainrings. But on a proper bicycle for doing proper bicycling, it simply does not make sense to have three and it might even be treason or similar to do so. I might mean sacrilege, but treason is not a million miles from that. It might be both.

I hope I have explained the arrant stupidity of triple chainrings on a road-racing bicycle in a way that even the intellectually challenged will understand. Please do not ask for further clarity, as I do not gladly suffer fools.

For the record, God has no strong opinion on carbon-fibre. I abhor it, but God is neutral.

Talking nonsense as usual Boris

nothing wrong with triples if it gets someone out on the road and the fulfillment the cycling brings - not everyone is a pro racer, racing snake, or speed whippet.

But each to there own i say - off to take the triple out for a spin, just need to decide which one - titanium road, alloy road or MTB 29er

decisions, decisions

 

[Herzog]

What's wrong with triples???????

Absolutely nothing!!

 

[Profpointy]

What's wrong with triples?

One might as well ask what's wrong with hanging your washing downwind of a smoky bonfire or trying parachuting without bringing a parachute.

What's wrong with triples? WHAT'S WRONG WITH TRIPLES?

I'll tell you: Although in likelihood God did not invent the road-racing bicycle we can be pretty certain that had He done so, it would have been with Campagnolo componentry and two chainrings with 39 and 53 teeth or something in that order of magnitude. The larger (as dictated by both logic and convention) would be placed on the oudside.

I can prove this with links to other sites, but I prefer not to. I also suspect that you would lack the wit to follow the link.

It might be argued that God (in His infinite wisdom and Peace be Upon Him although that might be the other chap) would have conceded that on MTBs and some commuter/shopping hybrid bicycles there was a case for more than two chainrings. But on a proper bicycle for doing proper bicycling, it simply does not make sense to have three and it might even be treason or similar to do so. I might mean sacrilege, but treason is not a million miles from that. It might be both.

I hope I have explained the arrant stupidity of triple chainrings on a road-racing bicycle in a way that even the intellectually challenged will understand. Please do not ask for further clarity, as I do not gladly suffer fools.

For the record, God has no strong opinion on carbon-fibre. I abhor it, but God is neutral.

Completely wrong and utter bollocks, but had to "like" the post as it was such a joyfull and entertaining rant - made my day in fact :-)

 

[Davidc]

....... on .... some commuter/shopping hybrid bicycles there was a case for more than two chainrings. But on a proper bicycle for doing proper bicycling, it simply does not make sense to have three .......

Can I point out a fundamental error here Boris B?

The commuter/ shopping/ hybrid bicycles, and I would add touring bicycles, are proper bicycles. As are folders, Dutch style and Boris bicycles. So are fixed wheel and single speed bicycles. Even Audax bicycles come in the proper bicycles category.

Although some others may share your view of bicycling hardware you are nonetheless in a minority!

The ones which aren't proper bicycles, they're specialised, modified, and improper bicycles, are road racing and track bicycles.

Now both of these latter categories have their own place, and very valuable they are for enabling cycle sport and in some instances being a proving ground for innovations which may later be useful on proper bicycles. That still leaves them as oddities, set apart from the world of proper bicycles used by normal people, real cyclists, some of whom even wear lycra.

It may well be the case that two chainrings are appropriate on the road racing variety of improper minority bicycle, one is appropriate to a track bike as of course is one sprocket and no freewheel. I would go as far as to say that a track bike is much closer to being a proper bicycle than is any road racing bicycle, though you might not choose to commute on THIS beauty.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Can I point out a fundamental error here Boris B?

The commuter/ shopping/ hybrid bicycles, and I would add touring bicycles, are proper bicycles. As are folders, Dutch style and Boris bicycles. So are fixed wheel and single speed bicycles. Even Audax bicycles come in the proper bicycles category.

Although some others may share your view of bicycling hardware you are nonetheless in a minority!

The ones which aren't proper bicycles, they're specialised, modified, and improper bicycles, are road racing and track bicycles.

Now both of these latter categories have their own place, and very valuable they are for enabling cycle sport and in some instances being a proving ground for innovations which may later be useful on proper bicycles. That still leaves them as oddities, set apart from the world of proper bicycles used by normal people, real cyclists, some of whom even wear lycra.

It may well be the case that two chainrings are appropriate on the road racing variety of improper minority bicycle, one is appropriate to a track bike as of course is one sprocket and no freewheel. I would go as far as to say that a track bike is much closer to being a proper bicycle than is any road racing bicycle, though you might not choose to commute on THIS beauty.

This is the sort of reasoned thinking I would expect from a chap who cuts mistletoe from fruit trees in the winter with a golden sickle.

And isn't the sickle on of the symbols of the Communist Party?

And don't the Communists in China ride bicycles? If they don't now, they did - which proves my point.

I'll grant you the bit about tourers. Boris Bikes are silly and I'm currently looking at litigation for theft of title.

As to real cyclists, they don't exist.

I hate triples because people with triple-equipped, super-fandango, carbon-whizz, triple-ringed, titanium-bolted rockets who use them to beat me up the Malvern Hills are cheats and liars and cads and worse.

Also, God probably hates them too. And Mohammed. And God when he's being the Jewish one rather than the Christian one but still essentially the same chap. And Buddha, although he doesn't ride as much as he used to. And the one with all the arms who isn't one of ours but still counts as a god. And the elephant one. They all hate triples.

Which should tell you something.

 

[albion]

The difference is that you might get to be fitter than the rest with that cheap frame.

 

[lejogger]

...Also, God probably hates them too. And Mohammed. And God when he's being the Jewish one rather than the Christian one but still essentially the same chap. And Buddha, although he doesn't ride as much as he used to. And the one with all the arms who isn't one of ours but still counts as a god. And the elephant one. They all hate triples.

Which should tell you something.

I'm pretty sure that Boris has this proof in writing as well. Perhaps carved into a stone tablet delivered to him at the top of a mountain, which he scaled without the use of a triple.

I have upgraded the components on my very middle of the road boardman team carbon (when they've worn, or finances have allowed) to the point that I now have a virtually full SRAM Red setup rather than the (also excellent) middle of the road SRAM Rival. I don't have the brakes yet, but soon will.

Have I committed a crime? Does my crankset feel embarrassed to be sat astride a monocoque churned out of a Taiwanese factory rather than something welded and manipulated between the thighs of a Milanese virgin?

I don't believe they are. I think they are joyous to be themselves part of my pride and joy for I ride them honestly, clean them sympathetically and as yet have not struck them on kerbstone. Regardless, a good knock every now and then is character building.

Maybe one day I shall buy a new frameset and my 'gruppo' shall find itself attached to something far more deserving, while the Boardman will be relegated to its rightful place as a winter hack. What I won't ever do though is convert it to a triple. Oh no.

 

[mattobrien]

Help! I have just realised that I too am a budget biker!

Having totted it up I have spent twice as much on upgrades as I did on the original bike, this has included;
Wheels
Groupset
Saddle
Seatpost
Stem
Pedals
Handlebars
Bar tape
Tyres

Come to think of it, the only thing that is original to the bike is the frame. I wonder what the next upgrade will be...

That leads to the slightly existential question, if I change the frame, will it still be the same bike?

For the record, it's not a triple. It's a compact (said quietly), the groupset was changed before I manned up and got a bike with a double.

 

[DooDah]

That leads to the slightly existential question, if I change the frame, will it still be the same bike?

Trigger would say yes

 

[Boris Bajic]

That leads to the slightly existential question, if I change the frame, will it still be the same bike?

For the record, it's not a triple. It's a compact (said quietly), the groupset was changed before I manned up and got a bike with a double.

Bless you, my son. God admires and respects a compact chainset. So do his pals who are the gods of other faiths.

Slightly kooky, but not evil and not a sacrilege per se.

You may continue as you are, budget or no budget.

Do you see how the triple-riding infidels on these pages rage impotently against my wisdom?

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

 

[4F]

For the record, it's not a triple. It's a compact (said quietly), the groupset was changed before I manned up and got a bike with a double.

Real men ride fixed however you "nearly" redeemed yourself with the double x