From: chandler@wc.novell.com (Mark Chandler)
Subject: Re: Questions on mountain bikes (~$400 range)
Organization: Novell, Inc. - Walnut Creek
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:48:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.190506.5751@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> goell@nomad.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeremy Goell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.164152.15132@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>, epstein@sparc9.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:
>|> 
>|> 2. All of these bikes except the Bianchi have oversized fork and
>|> headset.  The Bianchi dealer (of course) said that they were
>|> unnecessary, but common sense seems to indicate that it would be
>|> better to have the sturdier equipment.  Comments?
>
>Yeah, I got comments on Bianchi, but they belong in a different
>group--alt.obscene.language.  I'll simply say that 1 1/8" headsets
>are what you see on the UPPER end of most bike lines, including
>Trek and Giant, and 1" are on the LOWER.  You can draw your own
>conclusions.  Essentially, you get what you pay for, so figure out
>how hard you're gonna ride the bike.  If it's never going to see
>dirt, and the largest bump's gonna be a pothole, then you don't
>NEED oversized headset/fork.  But since you're talking about the
>same $$$ for the Bianchi as the others, I see no reason NOT to
>go w/ the fat stuff....  Some ATB lines even use 1 1/4 headsets...

Hmmm.  I guess the Bridgestone mountain bikes, which have been highly
praised in the cycling press and on the net, are inferior due to their
use of "girly-man" 1"-headsets.  And let's not forget about Ritchey's
P-2x bikes which have been ridden to numerous off-road titles; these
too use 1" headsets.  My new frame features a 1" headset and cost more
than most complete Treks or Giants, do you suppose I was ripped-off?

I've ridden mountain bikes for ten years; all on 1"-headsets, and I've
never damaged a fork/headset/stem/etc.  Manufacturers spec things because
it's a bullet on chart somewhere.  I'll admit that "oversized" headsets
make sense on really big frames and/or tandems, but they're really overkill
for the majority of the riders out there.

>|> 3. How about the difference between cables routed on the top tube vs.
>|> those routed below - is that at all significant?  Common sense
>|> suggests to me there is a difference, although perhaps minor.  (All of
>|> the bikes I mentioned above have top-cable routing, but I was also
>|> looking at some of the bikes just below these, and some of them
>|> don't).
>
>Again, you know what kind of riding you'll be doing.  If it involves
>splashing, mudding, slamming and other ATB-type things, top-routed
>cables are a plus.  If you ride on the street, matters less, though
>I suppose if it rains often, it's better to have top-routed with the
>clear teflon housing to keep as much water off as possible (I live in
>S. Cal--I can't remember what rain looks like...).

And if your derailleur uses a pulley, then the *pulley* gets clogged
with the gunk your cables are supposedly free of.

>Michael Batchelder
>mpb@nomad.jpl.nasa.gov 


--
Mark Chandler               Novell, Inc.          510/975-4522
chandler@wc.novell.com      Walnut Creek, CA      510/938-2562 FAX
==================================================================
     The opinions expressed above are mine, not my employer's.