I'm a cycling enthusiast and have been building bikes & wheels since the 80s....
Thus, the big change has been heavier, stronger rims. Many are deep to provide a blade shape for reducing aerodynamic drag, which makes them much stronger in bending. And if the cross-section is greater (and it is), it will provide more tangential compressive strength allowing tighter (more heavily biased) spokes.
We used to race on very light box-section rims with no bead, using tires that are sewn together to contain the inner tube and then glued to the rim. Now, we use beaded tires, and the rim has more material to provide the bead. Even without the blade shape, modern rims are heavier and stronger.
Spokes are not much stronger than they used to be. I was using DT stainless steel spokes 50 years ago, and they still sell them. But stronger rims permit heavier gauges and higher tensions. My race wheels in the mid-70’s were 36h, three-cross, 15-17-15 butted Trois Etoiles spokes with brass nipples (which are still much better than aluminum nipples) on Dura Ace hubs. I still have them. Current wheels are 32h, two-cross, 14-15-14 butted DT stainless spokes in Campy Chorus hubs. But the rims on the new wheels are heavier and have twice the section depth.
The key is that spokes must be tight. We did not used to tighten them enough, and many still don’t. They really should be tightened to a high percentage of yield strength—75-80%. The highest stress on a spoke is when the wheel is unloaded, because the bias tension should be higher than compressive stresses, which can only reduce tension in the spoke.
An impact makes a wheel collapse either by buckling the rim or by momentarily unloading enough spokes so that the rim can no longer impart compressive strength and it becomes unstable. When spokes break, it’s because of fatigue, and fatigue cracks are more likely if spokes are not over-tensioned briefly when the wheels are built to force any residual internal stresses to yield. Those internal residual stresses provide roots for fatigue cracks. Good builders always squeeze pairs of spokes together—hard—to perform this function.
We used to think that increasing the number of crosses made a wheel more comfortable, but that’s mostly myth. Increasing the crosses does permit slightly greater spoke tension, however, which makes the slightly wheel stronger.
Rick “fewer spokes are more aerodynamic, too” Denney
It's like a concept car - it's not meant to be practical. As a visually striking and mechanically interesting thing it's a win. As an everyday alternative to a conventional bike it's worse in pretty much every respect.What do you think of this prototype idea for a bike?
To me it looks neat but might be a mechanical nightmare. Violates the rule of "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
It's like a concept car - it's not meant to be practical. As a visually striking and mechanically interesting thing it's a win. As an everyday alternative to a conventional bike it's worse in pretty much every respect.
is still a concept at its stage, the designer believes that, with enough money and investment, his bike model can turn into a sellable product for users to ride.
Moots RSL and Passoni Titanio - my current stable.
Ice trikes, a UK manufacturer. They do sell into the USA, but they are not low cost.Hi and sorry for the reviving. What is the brand and model of this trike? I'm stuck in the middle - on the one side, I've always been interested in similar rides, on the other hand - my wife is a fan of tricycles and advised me of this model. A decent one, but what to choose finally. Can you tell me more about the pros and cons?
... due to less wind resistance, and seating comfort, no stress for the neck and the hands.Main advantage of the "recument" (lie back) style is stability and hence speed potential.
The rule of thumb is to ride 1000 km in flat terrain before attempting to climb longer hills or mountain roads.It is a different pedalling style though and uses different muscles (or the same ones in a different way) It takes some months to build up the strength.
Wowowow. Myself I put wide downhill racing bars on my mountain bike. Extra wide for more leverage when stomping on it and when climbing and just more stability. It's interesting that we find opposites work.cutting the steering bar to a width I felt more comfortable with
Ah yes. I might explain it by the difference in terrain (maybe?). In Holland we've got some hills but not that high; the trails I ride are narrow and the ground covered with pine roots. Usually there are lots of potholes in the sandy ground from braking by fellow mtb riders.Wowowow. Myself I put wide downhill racing bars on my mountain bike. Extra wide for more leverage when stomping on it and when climbing and just more stability. It's interesting that we find opposites work.
I'm currently learning to ride a Cruzbike T50. With the front wheel drive it's like being 6 years old again ...Nice to see a bunch of recumbents on this thread. These are front wheel drive “moving bottom bracket” bikes from Cruzbikes.
I bought a Kona mountain bike with narrow 650 tires and it was horrible. It rode like a hard stone, cornered poorly and the tubes went dead flat in ~14 days. All in all compared to my 26" wheeled mountain bike with 2.25" wide tires the 650 tired machine sucked. I think taking that experience and having a bigger rim like the 29'er with the wider tire will be very comfy to ride on. I think a fat mountain bike will be slow at accelerating and require lots of power to keep @ speed. I have never tried a fat mountain bike this is just my best guess from observation and from reading. So many trade-off and benefits at the same time.Ah yes. I might explain it by the difference in terrain (maybe?). In Holland we got some hills but not that high; the trails I ride are narrow and the ground covered with pine roots. Usually there are lots of potholes in the sandy ground from braking by fellow mtb riders.
That's also why I changed to wider tires. Tbh if I'd choose again it would probably be a 29-er: more comfortable over potholes. I might even consider a fat mtb bike.
A co-worker of mine commutes to work 40kms total every weekday (25mi in freedom units). One year he spent like 25k on bikes and accessoires. He has a lot of first hand knowledge. He had everything, cyclocross, gravel bike, 650B MTB, 650B Plus, Fatbikes...I think a fat mountain bike will be slow at accelerating and require lots of power to keep @ speed. I have never tried a fat mountain bike this is just my best guess from observation and from reading. So many trade-off and benefits at the same time.
I observed riders with fat bikes doing this exact thing in summer and winter. It does appear to be a good ride over bumpy stuff. We get iced up here for about 5 months of the year and it can be a pretty bumpy ride. So a fatty would be excellent in those conditions. As well the roads are a work in-progress with the constant freezing/thawing cycles creating potholes and snakes in the road. There I can see a fat bike being really good.One of his fastest, easiest and most comfortable commutes was with a fully fat bike. The reason being, you don't have to look where you drive. It doesn't matter. You can simply plow over everything.
How is a tubeless at speed? Say 50 km/h downhill. Is the balance of the rim and tire assembly better? Does anybody even balance these things?Personally, lower tire pressures were a really interesting concept to explore. It also caused me a dent in a rim, but still I like it. I will say while still running tubes this caused me a lot of snakebites, but since I went tubeless it was totally worth it. I could not run the pressures I run with tubes.
Yeah handlebar width has sure changed over the years (back in the day I used fairly narrow bars, now I'm fairly wide but stems have changed a lot too), and varies a lot on what bikes are equipped with but these days they tend to come pretty wide. What was the width before/after?...tried to find a spec on it but couldn't find one.Wonderful thread!
I have two bikes for completely different purposes (pictures will follow):
*Bianchi Jab 27.3 MTB in yellow
*Gazelle cargo in black for biking the kids to school
I sold my day to day driver because we just had to many bikes in the shed:
A small bike for my daughter
A wooden balance bike for my son
A bike for my wife
And an extra bike to get around for visitors.
The mtb I changed quite a few things on: wider tires for better grip and comfort, changing the saddle for a more comfortable one (the design coming from a scientific study, a rare thing in the world of saddles apparently), cutting the steering bar to a width I felt more comfortable with, changing the grips for ones with good shock absorbing properties.
I observed riders with fat bikes doing this exact thing in summer and winter. It does appear to be a good ride over bumpy stuff. We get iced up here for about 5 months of the year and it can be a pretty bumpy ride. So a fatty would be excellent in those conditions. As well the roads are a work in-progress with the constant freezing/thawing cycles creating potholes and snakes in the road. There I can see a fat bike being really good.
How is a tubeless at speed? Say 50 km/h downhill. Is the balance of the rim and tire assembly better? Does anybody even balance these things?
I haven't noticed a difference. I mean nobody balances their bicycle wheels right? As long as the sealant is fresh or you use the bike it's no problem. If you didn't use it during winter and do the first ride in spring it can be a bit bumpy because the sealant will have dried out and the solid parts of it are sticking to some part of the tire which makes it imbalanced, but that fixes itself in the same day just by riding it.How is a tubeless at speed? Say 50 km/h downhill. Is the balance of the rim and tire assembly better? Does anybody even balance these things?