• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Show us your bicycles!

Zensō

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
2,740
Likes
6,740
Location
California
I just remember Spot as being one of the first to offer such a system.....not heard of Civia but then not much into commuting or city riding (other than on a road bike or mountain bike depending on the city :) ). I see it as an option on the Sur-Ron X which I'm constantly tempted by, tho :)
Civia was one of QBP’s early brands, started around the time they started Surly. They designed some really innovative city bikes (internal cabling and wiring, belt drives, all sorts of one-off parts), but they were too expensive and never really took off. Most people wanted cheap bikes for commuting (still do) so as to not worry about beating them up or having them stolen. Here’s a photo of my better half on a Civia grocery getter.

8FC72BB6-C82C-4D68-BA92-A2F94CE8C23E.jpeg
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
Civia was one of QBP’s early brands, started around the time they started Surly. They designed some really innovative city bikes (internal cabling and wiring, belt drives, all sorts of one-off parts), but they were too expensive and never really took off. Most people wanted cheap bikes for commuting (still do) so as to not worry about beating them up or having them stolen. Here’s a photo of my better half on a Civia grocery getter.

View attachment 167514
What I'm remembering I think is before QBP had a bike brand of their own at all...back when Spot was a cool new thing out of BC?
 

bt3

Active Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
132
Likes
115
The woman riding Civia as pictured, that looks like a well thought-out commuter bicycle. Those swept back handlebars are a must. I see so many older riders on gravel bikes, commuter bikes with straight bars. Straight bars are a poor choice for older wrists/hands. Go with swept-back bars or drop bars.
I'd have to examine a Civia in person to ascertain any shortcomings though.
Spot Brand bikes to my knowledge, are hand built in Colorado, if they started outside Colorado I am not aware of it.
For bikes with twenty-inch wheels there are compromises, but all bikes have compromises.
For recumbent bikes a used Lightning P-38 tough to best.
For belt drive bikes prefer mechanical disc brakes. If one is getting the benefit of no chain and lubrication required, smell of lubrication coming from same if said bike(s) stored in living area - why mess with small chance of disc brake fluid leak? The point of belt drive is easier service, so go with a quality mechanical disc system IMO.
For recumbent seats, an excellent seat/pad is the Euromesh brand. Have owned many brands and find the Euromesh seat/pad tops for wear, comfort and appearance.
Steel. Titanium. Carbon Fiber. Aluminum. All appropriate frame materials. Design and testing are key.
A properly broken-in leather saddle among most comfortable. Old Avocet's were very popular (even the later Avocet 02 titanium rail saddles very comfortable). I've found fitting saddle to a particular rider takes patience and time.
Nothing bests, to my experience, comfort of well-designed recumbent, as the seat and back are supported. I know folks that have osteo, psoriatric arthritis who switched to recumbent to keep cycling after diamond frame bicycles had put a stop to their cycling. A properly fitted recumbent, designed around a sealed hub, shifted with Shimano thumb shifters (SIS and manual mode) and Schwalbe's best puncture resistant tires - tough to best in comfort especially for older riders. Just add cycling clothes that are highly visible, use bright blinky lights and install a tall flag in back so as to be seen by motorists, especially in where road dips down - that flag will remain visible.
 
Last edited:

Sonny1

Active Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
252
Likes
350
Hmmm. More aero wheels, yes indeed. But lighter? I wrote an article on that topic in Triathlete back in the late 90's, performing some analytics using Tom Compton's web site (now, sadly, gone). Here's my copy on my web page: https://www.rickdenney.com/october_1999.htm.

It takes a lot of weight difference to make a significant difference, as it turns out--more than we think. But light weight sells parts (that break or are wiggly). My MX-Leader is 22 or 23 pounds built up with Campy Chorus, and they were described in the day as the bike the (bigger) pros didn't want to ride up the mountains, but the one they were glad they had coming back down the mountains.

The use of the non-horizontal top tube is a weight-savings measure, but we dang near have to add all that weight back into the seatpost that now has to support our fat butts with a foot and a half showing above the seatpost clamp.

But aero wheels? Yes--that makes a more significant difference for those who do triathlon or time trials. For non-racers, I doubt it matters a whit. Those 32- or 36-spoke shallow-section rims sure were light. :)

Failproof derailleurs? Hmmmm. Certainly the cheap stuff is better. But once in a while I go for a ride on the Moore, and remind myself that those downtube friction shifters (which are light and foolproof) just work, and work actually really well. Sure, I prefer shifting with my hands on the brake lever hoods, particularly if I'm climbing out of the saddle. But I don't confuse convenience of operation with "smooth" and "failproof". In fact, if a Shimano brake-lever-shifter breaks, it's probably time for the trash can. (The Campy Ergo levers of old--which I prefer--seem a little easier to bring back, but that's anecdotal on my part.) I have Gripshift on my MTB, and have had to rebuild it once, despite fairly low (though painful) miles. I have no experience with SRAM, but I hear good things about it. But I've never met a Campy Nuovo Record derailleur I couldn't make perfect, barring crash damage, and the Sun Tour Cyclone of the late 70's totally obsoleted all the prior inexpensive derailleur designs for smooth operation.

Geometry more ergonomic? Only if you like leaning over more. The geometry of race bikes seeks a flatter back than in days of yore (see above about aerodynamics being more important than weight). That's good for efficiency, but hard on the wrists and elbows (and back, and neck). That's why people invented elbow rests, which morphed into tri-bars. Also, as I can attest, after swimming 2.4 miles, the ability to hold up one's upper body with those trashed arms is at a low state. Greg Lemond first used them in the Tour de France and changed pro cycling (in time trials) forever.

Personally, I'm of the mind that older bikes with a longer wheelbase and slacker angles are actually better for just about everything (okay, not track sprints, and--maybe--not criteriums).

One place where technology has improved is in stiffness optimization. We want a bit of fork flex up and down, and we want a long wheelbase to minimize vertical accelerations caused by a given surface profile. The problem with those long chain stays is that they twist easily. The truss design of a double-diamond frame deflects so little under even impact that it hardly makes any difference, but when we clydesdales stand up on those pedals, or when the guys with 30" thighs jump on a sprint, the bottom bracket will wind up torsionally. On a lightweight steel frame, I can make the front derailleur drag on both sides of the cage. On early aluminum bicycles like the wet-noodle Alan of 45 years ago, I can make it shift gears. That's with conventional tubing sets. The Columbus MXL tubing on the MX-Leader includes enormously stiff chain stays--they are the full height of the bottom-bracket shell where they connect to it. That makes all the difference in torsional stiffness, without giving up a bit of comfort. Those specially and asymmetrically shaped tubing sets were indeed a significant improvement, no matter what the material. Carbon bikes can target stiffness right where they want to, and do it with remarkable weight efficiency. Carbon composites that are affordable is another big advance, but not because they are light so much as they are stiff in the right directions and compliant otherwise.

Back when we were buying race bikes in the 70's, we used tall frames, short seatposts, long stems pushed down all the way, and handlebars with deep drops. (My favorites where Cinelli Model 66's.) Racing was done in the drops for the most part.

My old A&M Cycling Team mate John Simmons, a great college road sprinter back before colleges even really had official teams, showing the usual racing position while taking a flyer at a race in 1979:
amct_simmons.JPG


Now, we have shorter frames, longer seatposts (and longer still if the frame has a sloping top tube), "ergo" bars designed for the drops only on special occasions, and brifters. Better? Yes, for getting more aero, and for selling more high-end bikes. John has to be in the drops to get a flat back. Now, you'll see a flat back on the tops (bent elbows, of course).

And aero wheels--yup. That's a big'un.

Rick "figuring his Spinergy HD's saved him 5-6 minutes at the Ironman" Denney

Excellent points, very well written. Thank you!

I gave up on racing a long time ago but I enjoy spirited group rides. Over the years my group got pretty serious and started adopting aggressive goals. We signed up for long and challenging rides and set out to ride several sun-5 century rides. Many guys used this as rational to upgrade to race specific bikes so we started to see some really nice looking stuff bikes like the Specialized Venge and other stuff aero frame designs. I fell in love with the look of the Venge and borrowed one from a friend who was a dealer at the time. After getting my fit close enough (it wasn’t my bike and I didn’t want to pay for an ac to so fitting or put crazy time into it) I took my borrowed Venge on a short (25ish miles) quick ride with the group. It’s a great frame for racers but I knew early on it wasn’t for me. My regular bike has a long wheelbase and relatively long stem. Definitely not a crit or agrees I’ve race bike. That was the day I gave up trying to ride with the fast guys and to focus on comfort and conditioning versus KOM “titles”! My love for cycling was renewed that day. Lucky for me because I was never fast enough to hang with the fast guys (or fast ladies for that matter).

Cheers!
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,658
Likes
5,276
And I thought the efficiency is not as good as that of a chain.
I have seen some measurements but cannot quickly find them. And indeed, a belt is slightly less efficient, but not by much. My biggest gripe against belt drive is that the frame has to be very stiff, and I really do not like such frames.
 

bt3

Active Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
132
Likes
115
Enjoyed your post.
Hmmm. More aero wheels, yes indeed. But lighter? I wrote an article on that topic in Triathlete back in the late 90's, performing some analytics using Tom Compton's web site (now, sadly, gone). Here's my copy on my web page: https://www.rickdenney.com/october_1999.htm.

It takes a lot of weight difference to make a significant difference, as it turns out--more than we think. But light weight sells parts (that break or are wiggly). My MX-Leader is 22 or 23 pounds built up with Campy Chorus, and they were described in the day as the bike the (bigger) pros didn't want to ride up the mountains, but the one they were glad they had coming back down the mountains.

The use of the non-horizontal top tube is a weight-savings measure, but we dang near have to add all that weight back into the seatpost that now has to support our fat butts with a foot and a half showing above the seatpost clamp.

But aero wheels? Yes--that makes a more significant difference for those who do triathlon or time trials. For non-racers, I doubt it matters a whit. Those 32- or 36-spoke shallow-section rims sure were light. :)

Failproof derailleurs? Hmmmm. Certainly the cheap stuff is better. But once in a while I go for a ride on the Moore, and remind myself that those downtube friction shifters (which are light and foolproof) just work, and work actually really well. Sure, I prefer shifting with my hands on the brake lever hoods, particularly if I'm climbing out of the saddle. But I don't confuse convenience of operation with "smooth" and "failproof". In fact, if a Shimano brake-lever-shifter breaks, it's probably time for the trash can. (The Campy Ergo levers of old--which I prefer--seem a little easier to bring back, but that's anecdotal on my part.) I have Gripshift on my MTB, and have had to rebuild it once, despite fairly low (though painful) miles. I have no experience with SRAM, but I hear good things about it. But I've never met a Campy Nuovo Record derailleur I couldn't make perfect, barring crash damage, and the Sun Tour Cyclone of the late 70's totally obsoleted all the prior inexpensive derailleur designs for smooth operation.

Geometry more ergonomic? Only if you like leaning over more. The geometry of race bikes seeks a flatter back than in days of yore (see above about aerodynamics being more important than weight). That's good for efficiency, but hard on the wrists and elbows (and back, and neck). That's why people invented elbow rests, which morphed into tri-bars. Also, as I can attest, after swimming 2.4 miles, the ability to hold up one's upper body with those trashed arms is at a low state. Greg Lemond first used them in the Tour de France and changed pro cycling (in time trials) forever.

Personally, I'm of the mind that older bikes with a longer wheelbase and slacker angles are actually better for just about everything (okay, not track sprints, and--maybe--not criteriums).

One place where technology has improved is in stiffness optimization. We want a bit of fork flex up and down, and we want a long wheelbase to minimize vertical accelerations caused by a given surface profile. The problem with those long chain stays is that they twist easily. The truss design of a double-diamond frame deflects so little under even impact that it hardly makes any difference, but when we clydesdales stand up on those pedals, or when the guys with 30" thighs jump on a sprint, the bottom bracket will wind up torsionally. On a lightweight steel frame, I can make the front derailleur drag on both sides of the cage. On early aluminum bicycles like the wet-noodle Alan of 45 years ago, I can make it shift gears. That's with conventional tubing sets. The Columbus MXL tubing on the MX-Leader includes enormously stiff chain stays--they are the full height of the bottom-bracket shell where they connect to it. That makes all the difference in torsional stiffness, without giving up a bit of comfort. Those specially and asymmetrically shaped tubing sets were indeed a significant improvement, no matter what the material. Carbon bikes can target stiffness right where they want to, and do it with remarkable weight efficiency. Carbon composites that are affordable is another big advance, but not because they are light so much as they are stiff in the right directions and compliant otherwise.

Back when we were buying race bikes in the 70's, we used tall frames, short seatposts, long stems pushed down all the way, and handlebars with deep drops. (My favorites where Cinelli Model 66's.) Racing was done in the drops for the most part.

My old A&M Cycling Team mate John Simmons, a great college road sprinter back before colleges even really had official teams, showing the usual racing position while taking a flyer at a race in 1979:
amct_simmons.JPG


Now, we have shorter frames, longer seatposts (and longer still if the frame has a sloping top tube), "ergo" bars designed for the drops only on special occasions, and brifters. Better? Yes, for getting more aero, and for selling more high-end bikes. John has to be in the drops to get a flat back. Now, you'll see a flat back on the tops (bent elbows, of course).

And aero wheels--yup. That's a big'un.

Rick "figuring his Spinergy HD's saved him 5-6 minutes at the Ironman" Denney
Enjoyed your post rdenney. Especially this: "On a lightweight steel frame, I can make the front derailleur drag on both sides of the cage. On early aluminum bicycles like the wet-noodle Alan of 45 years ago, I can make it shift gears" and "I've never met a Campy Nuovo Record derailleur I couldn't make perfect, barring crash damage, and the Sun Tour Cyclone of the late 70's totally obsoleted all the prior inexpensive derailleur designs for smooth operation."

Never cared for Gripshifts of any iteration. Didn't like the motion nor the pain it caused my right wrist.
Shimano thumb shifters on my old Stumpjumper, Mountain Goat and Ritchey P-xx was the cat's meow.
 
Last edited:

renevoorburg

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
32
Likes
61
My Quest velomobile:
quest.jpg


Fast & comfortable. Not good for urban trips, great for long distance rides.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,856
Excellent points, very well written. Thank you!

I gave up on racing a long time ago but I enjoy spirited group rides. Over the years my group got pretty serious and started adopting aggressive goals. We signed up for long and challenging rides and set out to ride several sun-5 century rides. Many guys used this as rational to upgrade to race specific bikes so we started to see some really nice looking stuff bikes like the Specialized Venge and other stuff aero frame designs. I fell in love with the look of the Venge and borrowed one from a friend who was a dealer at the time. After getting my fit close enough (it wasn’t my bike and I didn’t want to pay for an ac to so fitting or put crazy time into it) I took my borrowed Venge on a short (25ish miles) quick ride with the group. It’s a great frame for racers but I knew early on it wasn’t for me. My regular bike has a long wheelbase and relatively long stem. Definitely not a crit or agrees I’ve race bike. That was the day I gave up trying to ride with the fast guys and to focus on comfort and conditioning versus KOM “titles”! My love for cycling was renewed that day. Lucky for me because I was never fast enough to hang with the fast guys (or fast ladies for that matter).

Cheers!
I never could hang with the fast guys either. My only skill as a cyclist was dogged persistence, and even that comes in measure. On my college team, I was the mechanic the driver, and the photographer, and I trained with them on their slow days. Those guys had dogged persistence, too, but they also had a good dose of fast-twitch muscles and 20-50 fewer pounds (I wasn't fat--body morphology difference alone). And being of lineman shape, I was the guy the little guys hid behind in group rides against the wind on flat terrain, and then they'd say "thanks for the pull, Rick" and scurry up the first big hill, leaving me behind for good. Me and uphills have always had an unfriendly relationship.

Of the bikes I pictured, I've ridden most of them on rides of 100 miles or more, and by far the most comfortable for me has been the Merckx. It has the most street cred as a road-race bike, too, so I take all those descriptions with a grain of salt. The Trek carbon bike was fine once I put a stiffer fork on it so I wasn't white-knuckling downhills, but it was a bit too stiff in some ways, and that interfered with my rhythm on long climbs or hard efforts into the wind. That sounds a bit like subjectivist BS, I know. But I believe there is a relationship between the lateral flexibility of the frame (as fully described, which is complex), the strength/weight of the cyclist, and the pedaling pace and style, particularly out of the saddle. The Merckx and the Moore both wind up the correct amount and in the correct places, and release that stored energy in the pedaling stroke at the right time to do some good that I feel. At least that's my theory. It takes a mighty long ride for that to be a big deal for me, though.

Rick "who puts the most miles--few though they are--on that Cannondale all-terrain bike these days, but not for 100-mile rides" Denney
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
Nomad, 27.5" wheels. Shock is Fox DHX2
Haven't kept up with the coding of colors at SC for a while....looked a little like my Hightower (1st edition) but a little different. Have a Fox DHX5 coil shock (and Vanilla Fork) on my Nomad 1/2 (had the 1, broke the swingarm so it has a v2 swingarm) as well as my Heckler 6. I like SC. :) I also lived in the bay area for a long time....where do you tend to ride?
 

Pe8er

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
167
Likes
346
Location
Bay Area
Haven't kept up with the coding of colors at SC for a while....looked a little like my Hightower (1st edition) but a little different. Have a Fox DHX5 coil shock (and Vanilla Fork) on my Nomad 1/2 (had the 1, broke the swingarm so it has a v2 swingarm) as well as my Heckler 6. I like SC. :) I also lived in the bay area for a long time....where do you tend to ride?
It’s a great company! Good people, well engineered bikes, excellent warranty

I usually ride Skeggs, Soquel Demo Forest, Camp Tamarancho and for longer trips of course Downieville is #1 (photo I posted was taken at Diablo campground near Packer Saddle). I also love Tahoe Rim Trail, it’s endless fun. Where did you ride?
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
It’s a great company! Good people, well engineered bikes, excellent warranty

I usually ride Skeggs, Soquel Demo Forest, Camp Tamarancho and for longer trips of course Downieville is #1 (photo I posted was taken at Diablo campground near Packer Saddle). I also love Tahoe Rim Trail, it’s endless fun. Where did you ride?

LOL thought that photo looked familiar but couldn't pin it down; I lived in Downieville for a year (was a partner in Yuba in 2007). Last place I lived in bay area was on Skyline between Skeggs and Russian Ridge. Before that lived in SF and put many hours into helping build trails at Tamarancho, too and have done a few laps of Soquel in my time :). Have only done TRT a few times, and not the whole thing, someday maybe. I live in Oakridge now and tend to just stick to around home these days :) Anytime you want to come try here, let me know.
 

oldmanhifi

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
27
I never could hang with the fast guys either. My only skill as a cyclist was dogged persistence, and even that comes in measure. On my college team, I was the mechanic the driver, and the photographer, and I trained with them on their slow days. Those guys had dogged persistence, too, but they also had a good dose of fast-twitch muscles and 20-50 fewer pounds (I wasn't fat--body morphology difference alone). And being of lineman shape, I was the guy the little guys hid behind in group rides against the wind on flat terrain, and then they'd say "thanks for the pull, Rick" and scurry up the first big hill, leaving me behind for good. Me and uphills have always had an unfriendly relationship.

Of the bikes I pictured, I've ridden most of them on rides of 100 miles or more, and by far the most comfortable for me has been the Merckx. It has the most street cred as a road-race bike, too, so I take all those descriptions with a grain of salt. The Trek carbon bike was fine once I put a stiffer fork on it so I wasn't white-knuckling downhills, but it was a bit too stiff in some ways, and that interfered with my rhythm on long climbs or hard efforts into the wind. That sounds a bit like subjectivist BS, I know. But I believe there is a relationship between the lateral flexibility of the frame (as fully described, which is complex), the strength/weight of the cyclist, and the pedaling pace and style, particularly out of the saddle. The Merckx and the Moore both wind up the correct amount and in the correct places, and release that stored energy in the pedaling stroke at the right time to do some good that I feel. At least that's my theory. It takes a mighty long ride for that to be a big deal for me, though.

Rick "who puts the most miles--few though they are--on that Cannondale all-terrain bike these days, but not for 100-mile rides" Denney
I have a carbon fiber frame bike I built up a few years ago to go along with my Marinoni Special. I didn't want to miss out on the CF revolution. While the CF is 4.5 lbs lighter (17 lbs), I agree with Rick's observation that when pedaling uphill a good steel frame loads up and unloads at just the right time to keep you in rhythm while you're climbing. My Marinoni's label says Columbus SL tubing, but my recollection is that there is an SP downtube and SP chainstays in the mix to stiffen the bottom bracket. When climbing out of the saddle on that thing it just goes! Plus the suppleness over minor ripples just feels right to me. I am what would be considered a Clydesdale as well. I never raced, but during my century riding days I was probably 190-195 lbs. (somewhat heavier now :) ) and my Marinoni was very fast and comfortable. Still is!
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
I have a carbon fiber frame bike I built up a few years ago to go along with my Marinoni Special. I didn't want to miss out on the CF revolution. While the CF is 4.5 lbs lighter (17 lbs), I agree with Rick's observation that when pedaling uphill a good steel frame loads up and unloads at just the right time to keep you in rhythm while you're climbing. My Marinoni's label says Columbus SL tubing, but my recollection is that there is an SP downtube and SP chainstays in the mix to stiffen the bottom bracket. When climbing out of the saddle on that thing it just goes! Plus the suppleness over minor ripples just feels right to me. I am what would be considered a Clydesdale as well. I never raced, but during my century riding days I was probably 190-195 lbs. (somewhat heavier now :) ) and my Marinoni was very fast and comfortable. Still is!

I've had some good experiences outside of steel, particularly titanium. My old Trek 2300 (carbon tubes, alum lugs) I like very much, too. Some of the basic aluminum frames not so much, but supposedly some particular alloys came close to the steel experience at some point....but then that's for road bikes, things change quite a bit for mountain bikes....hard to beat a good carbon full suspension design these days, steel is just not the good way to go here (and definitely rare for anything remotely competitive).
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,523
Likes
37,056
I've got a carbon/titanium Serotta which is a terrific feeling and riding frame. Tubeless tires help too.
 

oldmanhifi

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
27
I've had some good experiences outside of steel, particularly titanium. My old Trek 2300 (carbon tubes, alum lugs) I like very much, too. Some of the basic aluminum frames not so much, but supposedly some particular alloys came close to the steel experience at some point....but then that's for road bikes, things change quite a bit for mountain bikes....hard to beat a good carbon full suspension design these days, steel is just not the good way to go here (and definitely rare for anything remotely competitive).
I've never ridden titanium but my brother has and he really likes it. Years ago he had a Specialized Allez carbon fiber tube/aluminum lug frame road bike right after they came out and I rode that and really liked it. My mountain bike is an inexpensive aluminum frame Trek hardtail now converted to an e-bike with a Bafang BBS02 mid-drive unit. Don't do any mountain biking anymore.
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
I've never ridden titanium but my brother has and he really likes it. Years ago he had a Specialized Allez carbon fiber tube/aluminum lug frame road bike right after they came out and I rode that and really liked it. My mountain bike is an inexpensive aluminum frame Trek hardtail now converted to an e-bike with a Bafang BBS02 mid-drive unit. Don't do any mountain biking anymore.
The Allez was very similar from what I remember (my Trek 2300 is from late 80s). I have two ti bikes, a custom Moots YBB mountain bike (which uses the flex/return characteristics of ti as part of the "suspension") and an relatively old TST road bike from the late 90s (they made bikes for a variety of brands and briefly sold direct). How do you like the Bafang conversion?
 
Top Bottom