From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: IFMA News: Rohloff planetary gears hub: 14 speed
Date: 15 Oct 1996 01:15:28 GMT

Mike DeMicco writes:

>>> Several trails I ride regularly are unridable without any suspension 
>>> (unless you're Hans Rey), and usually involve several falls and 
>>> carries with front suspension; but even an average rider can crank up 
>>> these hills without stopping or falling on a full suspension bike.

>> I see.  You really believe that don't you.  It sounds like all the
>> jive I get from knobby fat tire people when I and my friends pass them
>> on some remote trail.  "Hey, you cant ride a ROAD bike here, and on
>> those smooth tires."  Most of these riders are not Thomas Frischknecht
>> and are barely able to make it back to the pickup point with their
>> camelback drained, and I suppose that's largely the reason they
>> believe it isn't possible.  You ought to attend a cyclocross
>> championship so you can see what a thin tired rigid bike can do.

> No offense, but you must ride on some pretty smooth trails with not a lot
> of loose dirt or rock.

You don't have to expose yourself by subscribing to this rubbish.  You
ought to ask guys like Ritchey, Fisher, Breeze and the like where they
got into dirt riding.  It was on Sunday rides in the Santa Cruz
mountains on my weekly rides, before we ever heard of MTB's.  I still
ride these roads as I said and get the gasps from incredulous riders
on squishy fat tired mounts.  I guess you choose to count yourself
among them.  Just like the guy on the MTB who skidded to a halt as
though he wanted to tell me something as I rode down a flight of
stairs yesterday.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com> 

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Cyclocross  Was: Rohloff planetary gears
Date: 15 Oct 1996 18:06:59 GMT

Richard Strayer writes:

>>> No offense, but you must ride on some pretty smooth trails with not
>>> a lot of loose dirt or rock.

>> I have ridden trails all over the state and in the Alps from sand to
>> rock and mud and snow, and you don't need all those knobs.  What do
>> you think we rode before Joe Breeze built the first mountain bike.  We
>> rode tubulars and the roads in the Alps were mostly rock and loose
>> stuff.  These kids!  They think they invented bicycling.  Rully!

> Jobst, is your point simply that off-road riding can be done on a
> "road bike", or that it can't be done better?

You are reading things into what I wrote.  The claim was that some
trails can't be ridden without suspension.  I disagree.

> I've been on off-road rides also, but there are several that I'd
> have been glad to have aggressively treaded tires and/or some
> suspension.

So, that doesn't mean you weren't there and you didn't do it.  Just
think how it would be to ride the suspension knobby tired bike 50
miles back home after that tough spot.  I think seeing the big picture
is more important than optimizing a spot of dirt somewhere.  There are
many people who ride on long road tours with knobby suspension bikes
"for just in case it gets slimy somewhere".  I see them all the time
riding from Seattle to San Diego.  They tell that they need them to
ride across fields when they find a muddy camping site.

>> As I said, go watch a pro cyclocross.  Discover what dirt riding is
>> without a pseudo motorcycle.

> I've seen cyclocross races, but I have also seen cyclocross racers 
> portage terrain that "mountain bikes" simply ride over.  Also, one has to 
> wonder, if a cyclocross bike is superior to a mountain bike, why do the 
> pro mountain bikers ride the latter?  

Yes and most suspension bikes cannot be carried over the shoulder with
one hand.

You keep saying that I claim a road bike or cyclocross bike is better.
Nowhere did I say that.  I merely said that you can do a lot more with
a thin and smooth tired bike than the MTB crowd believe.  Why is it
that when I propose something, you try to disprove it by distorting to
the extreme?  There must be a defensive mentality at work defending a
faith in something that needs defense.

> In the Great Campy Delta debate, you illustrated your position by
> pointing out that the pro pellet-gun refused to use them; the
> implication is that pro riders know equipment, and will not use it
> if it doesn't work.  Now you seem to be saying that pro riders don't
> know equipment, or they'd be riding cyclocross bikes.  Which is it?
> (I'm admittedly ignorant of NORBA regulations...is there some
> prohibition against cross bikes in NORBA sanctioned races?)

As they say in politics, "there you go again", putting spin on my
riding the bike that I ride.  I get passed regularly on rough rocky
descents by fat tired bikes, some of which have suspension.  That does
not mean I NEED to have one to ride there, nor do I want one to ride
the road miles that lie between my house and the Santa Cruz mountains.

> Also, you seem to deny the benefits of suspension; but how do you
> explain the trend towards suspension forks in road races such as
> Paris-Roubaix?

Trend.  I'll wait and see if that holds up.  I am not convinced.  I
also don't know that there are any significant hills in that route, so
a generally flat route makes a sprung fork that weighs a little more
acceptable.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com> 

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Cyclocross  Was: Rohloff planetary gears
Date: 16 Oct 1996 18:38:59 GMT

Richard Strayer writes:

>>> Jobst, is your point simply that off-road riding can be done on a
>>> "road bike", or that it can't be done better?

>> You are reading things into what I wrote.  The claim was that some
>> trails can't be ridden without suspension.  I disagree.

> I'm actually attempting to clarify your position on this issue based
> on impressions I've received from numerous posts, rather than the
> one thread.

>>> I've been on off-road rides also, but there are several that I'd
>>> have been glad to have aggressively treaded tires and/or some
>>> suspension.

>> So, that doesn't mean you weren't there and you didn't do it.  Just
>> think how it would be to ride the suspension knobby tired bike 50
>> miles back home after that tough spot.  I think seeing the big picture
>> is more important than optimizing a spot of dirt somewhere.  

> I think your "big picture" differs from many others.  I only have to
> ride 3 miles to encounter rugged, off-road terrain, which may then
> continue on for the next 50 (or more.)  Given those circumstances
> don't you agree that it's more desirable to optimize for the latter,
> rather than the "spot" of pavement?

Well in civilized society, here in the west, there are no reasonable
100 mile muddy dirt roads that one might go riding on.  The land is a
network of paved roads with some region of trails.  That's true of the
whole area, including noted Marin county.  Sure, I've flown across the
USA and seen hundred miles of dirt roads but that's not where I go for
a weekend ride.  I go out on a 100 miler every week and some part of
that, like 20 miles or so, goes though rough terrain and trails.  Most
of these trails are used by horses and hikers so they are not ankle
busting boulders.  When such sections arise, I portage.  The rest of
the day is pavement.

> That I've been there on my "road bike" says nothing; attempting to
> ride over a field of rocks the size of softballs, ford streams,
> climb steep embankments slippery with mud, and navigate through
> roots and fallen branches one after the other on a road bike begins
> to approach the "grueling death rides" you often profess to despise.

Why do I keep running into exaggerations of the extreme whenever I
mention anything.  I never said I scale tall buildings at a single
bound, more powerful than a speeding locomotive, or eat bullets shot
from rifles.  What's going on here?  I merely said that I prefer to
use my smooth tired road bike and enjoy trails, so I get a rash of
"you can't do that" and "you're wrong", its boulders and branches and
grueling conditions.  I believe there is a lot of dirt riding that can
be done with an all around bike.  In similar fashion, you'll mostly
see Tom Ritchey on a road bike out in the rough.  When I find smooth
tire tracks on a remote trail, they're usually his.

> Also, who says that everyone rides to their destination on smooth
> roads?  Many people don't have time (or fitness) to ride 50 miles to
> (or from) their favorite trails, and drive to a trailhead.  From
> what I understand of "Jobst Rides", they are 1-day tours with a
> mixed bag of road and trail.  A road bike is fine for this kind of
> riding, but that's not the way everybody rides.

Who ever said everyone must do this?  There you go again, generalizing
to the extreme.  All I said was that I do this and find it more
convenient than burdening my ride with a full suspension knobby tired
MTB because most of the ride is not a challenge of man and machine
against nature, but rather a ride to enjoy the outdoors.  My tour in
the Alps is a 2000 mile version of the same thing.  It includes road,
trails, rocks, and snow.

> Most of the cyclocross I've seen is similar to this, with mud, mud,
> mud and some technical sections; only all of it is off-road rather
> than alternating between the two.  Most of the MTBing I've done has
> been just the reverse, with mud being considered easy riding.  Your
> admonition to look at cyclocross as an example of what road bikes
> can do off-road is, therefore, inadequate for me.

A good cyclocross course has obstacles that require portage, some
degree of trials riding, and a road section that is uphill and
relatively fast.  If you put that together, you'll find no suspension
bikes and probably no mountain bikes in the race.  A fast descent over
rocks benefits the fat tire and I've seen courses where this was
purposely included to benefit the MTB's and give a good mix of
equipment.

>> Why is it that when I propose something, you try to disprove it by
>> distorting to the extreme?  There must be a defensive mentality at
>> work defending a faith in something that needs defense.

> I question why you find it necessary to "defend" road bikes whenever
> the subject of off-road riding comes up.  Your posts are unprovoked;
> I can't say that I've ever seen anyone report that "you can't do
> that on a road bike", yet you chime in anyway to assure everyone
> that you can.

I think you'll find that to be incorrect and puts the cart before the
horse.  I seldom if ever initiate a news thread and generally am
responding to postings that spread misinformation.  This thread got
started when I said I rode trails with my road bike and was told that
my trails were too smooth and that where the action is, I could not
ride without suspension.  I disagreed and said why.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com> 

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Cyclocross  Was: Rohloff planetary gears
Date: 17 Oct 1996 22:04:28 GMT

Benson Tongue writes:

> This is an interesting observation and I want to be sure I'm getting
> it right. Ritchey was one of the "founders" of mountain bikes as I
> understand it. When I bought my Ritchey Outback (1988) I don't
> recall the catalog as listing any road bikes, although I know he
> offers the Road Logic frame now (or recently at least).

He still builds road frames and built me a custom frame that I rode
for nearly ten years before I wrecked it.  It was the lightest bike I
ever had and rode wonderfully.  It was for this bike that I designed
his logo and headbadge, because I didn't like the old "Lettra-set" T.
RITCHEY he had been using.  It is on his hand made frames where his
exquisite workmanship and fillet brazed joints that need no filing can
be fully appreciated.

> In spite of all this mountain bike building, you're saying he
> usually rides a regular road bike (dropped handlebars, skinny tires,
> etc, etc)?  I'm not doubting you - just making sure of your
> assertion. Certainly it doesn't seem like a great way to push your
> own product.  

I think it is, because it's one of his own bikes and he uses his own
hardware if someone were to notice.  I doubt that anyone recognizes
him out there, he rides trails not seen by MTB riders who don't want
to ride that far from the truck and on pavement.  On the road people
don't take note of him although he rides his team jersey.  You'd have
to look for his handlebar mustache.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com> 

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Mountain Bike as Tourer?
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Message-ID: <BABNd.5686$m31.71305@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:50:57 GMT

Bill Baka writes:

> As long as it is a bicycle (of any kind) and works it is good to be
> riding.  A cheap mountain bike serves the purpose of exercise as
> well as the kilobuck class bikes, so why argue over it? The MTB
> gives me the option of going places a road bike really couldn't go,
> like a side trail off from a paved road ride, or something to
> explore rather than a serious training ride.  Training for what,
> exactly, at 56???? I am out to have some fun and not exactly
> concerned with me exact speed, mileage or much of anything else.  If
> I can ride a $5.00 garage sale special for a month before it falls
> apart I am still ahead of the game.

That has some other effects.  Besides a $5.00 bicycle probably not
being up to the task mechanically, the riding position of a MTB is
more stretched to avoid endo's on trail riding, that is the distance
from handlebar to seat is greater, which makes long distance pedaling
less comfortable and effective.  Another is that most MTB's are
equipped almost exclusively with knobby tires that roll miserably,
especially on hard surfaces, those on which most bicycle touring take
place.

I encounter European tourists traveling along the California Pacific
coast on HWY1 with MTB's on ultra knobby tires.  They make slow
progress even with the tailwind that regularly blows from the north in
summer.  I coast down some of the grades sitting upright and pass them
with a significant speed margin, one that tells me their rolling
resistance is significantly greater than my road slicks.  Of course we
know that from RR tests.

If you insist on using an MTB, at least get some slicks and try to fix
the position by using a short bar stem or even a short one turned
backward.  Of course, I see the same thing in the Alps because young
(non-bikie) athletic people who can do these things without a lot of
training believe MTB's are made for riding in mountains.  They are
not.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Hazard of cycling as we get older
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Message-ID: <SxgUc.8032$54.120418@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 05:17:38 GMT

Ryan Cousineau writes:

>>>>> Then:
>>>>> http://www-math.science.unitn.it/Bike/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Al
>>>>> and Now:
>>>>> http://www-math.science.unitn.it/Bike/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps_Gallery/103-0339_IMG.JPG

>>>>> 30 years later.

>>>> Gotta give you credit.  You look terrific.

>>> Never mind the rider. The bike after 30 years!

>>> That is the same bike, isn't it?

>> No, the early one is a Cinelli after which came a Peter Johnson, a
>> Tom Ritchey, and another Peter Johnson that I ride today.  I
>> switched to yellow because cracks are easier to detect with light
>> colors.  Early Cinellis had a few failures, especially rear
>> dropouts caused by flexing Campagnolo axle flex and failure.

> Interesting... Okay, so I'm assuming the Cinelli more or less wore
> out; what governed your decisions to get the next three frames?

> I know I ask a lot of these annoying questions (Google back and
> you'll find me quizzing Jobst on the component mix, too), but I
> think there is some interesting insights to be found in a rider's
> decision to get a new bike. Well, at least among riders where
> getting a new bike is done with more care than picking up the most
> fashionable new model every 1-3 years.

The Cinelli had my first "Campagnolo" vertical dropouts but was brazed
in a process that caused fatigue failures at the BB/Seat tube.  Peter
Johnson built me a bicycle that had all the same dimensions and it
worked excellently except that the right chainstay was a bad tube.  We
don't know what it had but it broke at mid span.  A parch was brazed
on and Tom Ritchey offered to build me a new bicycle.

That was the lightest frame I owned but I ruined it about 10 years
later by descending a forest road that had a fairly short "rolling
drain" (a diagonal cross ditch that almost matched the wheel diameter.
That incident wrinkled the top and downtube but the bicycle was
ridable.  In the following week, before I could arrange repairs, I
was struck broadside at an intersection across the street from my
house as a driver made a left turn into me from a stop sign.  The
frame was a loss and peter Johnson built me the frame in the picture,
also the same size and with long chainstays.

> Full disclosure: I'm still riding the converted Pinarello (105
> 6-speed group converted with Sora right-side shifter and 8v 13-26
> rear cluster; front rings are 52(53?)-39. Rear Nisi wheel replaced
> by a Mavic deep-section wheel w/RSX hub after the former got bent in
> a racing incident (the replacement was offered really cheaply).

I changed frames because the old one was ruined.

> Commuter bike is a mid-80s Bianchi with an RSX dual-pivot front
> brake replacing the stock long-reach Dia-Compe, and an SLR
> aero-lever to match. Drivetrain is SunTour 6-speed, bound to be
> replaced soon. Rims are Nisi, I think, but there may be an Araya in
> there too, since I have a lot of those around.

I have only one bicycle, the one in the picture, that is my racing,
touring, MTB and commuter.  I've never had more than one bicycle.

> Both bikes run 165 mm cranks, a quirk of mine with two
> justifications: it might help a bit with my Achilles tendinitis, and
> it helps me accelerate out of corners a bit quicker in crits.

> Mountain bike is a nondescript 8-speed Kona Kilauea, a steel XC
> hardtail with a '97 Marzocchi Z.2 (65mm travel) with Enduro seals,
> which are nice. mostly XT components, dorky riser bar which I should
> narrow and change for a flat bar; I also have a shorter-than-stock
> rising stem.  This bike has oddly long 175mm cranks, but those will
> be swapped for shorter when I get the opportunity.

> All three bikes have the same style of Selle Italia Nitrox, a
> narrow, thinly-padded vinyl-and-plastic thing that works superbly
> for me. I own five copies, purchased for an average of about $3.

> The BMX LX: a BMX with a seven-speed drivetrain. That bike was
> immediately adopted by my wife.

Too much maintenance.  Besides my bicycle fulfills all the tasks well
enough.  Sometimes on a rough descent I would like to snap my fingers
and have two inch cross section tires but then I don't need to go that
fast.  I still get down those rough trails as fast as others with whom
I ride.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org