Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!

https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/

Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
Roadster (635mm) size.

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/31/2023 7:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat.  But hey, more's the merrier!
> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>
> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>
> Actual rim size?  660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> Roadster (635mm) size.
>
> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>
> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>
> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> Roadster (635mm) size.
>
> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>

If you go to “more wheel sizes thread” I linked to WTB being interviewed by
Ben Delaney as to why and what they are doing, seems to be focusing on the
gravel racers who I’m sure it would be faster for example on something like
unbound.

Not convinced that uk hack about the woods and so on and frankly my gravel
bike is few year old and hasn’t the clearances I’d like so if I did buy a
new Gravel bike I’d be more interested in large clearances over larger
wheels per say.

But I’m fairly woefully at predicting and they (WTB) do apparently get 29er
right. So who knows.

Roger Merriman

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:46:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> > 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> > 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> > Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
> >
> > https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
> >
> > Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> > Roadster (635mm) size.
> >
> > https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
> >
> If you go to “more wheel sizes thread” I linked to WTB being interviewed by
> Ben Delaney as to why and what they are doing, seems to be focusing on the
> gravel racers who I’m sure it would be faster for example on something like
> unbound.
>
> Not convinced that uk hack about the woods and so on and frankly my gravel
> bike is few year old and hasn’t the clearances I’d like so if I did buy a
> new Gravel bike I’d be more interested in large clearances over larger
> wheels per say.
>
> But I’m fairly woefully at predicting and they (WTB) do apparently get 29er
> right. So who knows.
>
> Roger Merriman
Moots entire success has been keeping their doors open. So I wouldn't think that they could succeed in making a new tire size standard. I have trouble lifting my leg over the saddle the way it is and I'm 6'4".

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:46:40 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>
>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>
>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>
>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>
>> If you go to “more wheel sizes thread” I linked to WTB being interviewed by
>> Ben Delaney as to why and what they are doing, seems to be focusing on the
>> gravel racers who I’m sure it would be faster for example on something like
>> unbound.
>>
>> Not convinced that uk hack about the woods and so on and frankly my gravel
>> bike is few year old and hasn’t the clearances I’d like so if I did buy a
>> new Gravel bike I’d be more interested in large clearances over larger
>> wheels per say.
>>
>> But I’m fairly woefully at predicting and they (WTB) do apparently get 29er
>> right. So who knows.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
> Moots entire success has been keeping their doors open. So I wouldn't
> think that they could succeed in making a new tire size standard. I have
> trouble lifting my leg over the saddle the way it is and I'm 6'4".
>
It’s more WTB who have made the prototypes and new machines apparently.

https://youtu.be/XDY_-wFx_gY?si=FKCaMPbvpaaeq4Ag

Moots frame will have been made but this looks like WTB lead, and they are
clearly talking to others in the industry.

Roger Merriman

On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>
> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>
> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> Roadster (635mm) size.
>
> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>

God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).

I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
stock.

pH

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> > 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> > 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> > Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
> >
> > https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
> >
> > Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> > Roadster (635mm) size.
> >
> > https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
> >
> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>
> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
> stock.
>
> pH
>
Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
> > On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > > Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> > > 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> > > 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> > > Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
> > >
> > > https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
> > >
> > > Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> > > Roadster (635mm) size.
> > >
> > > https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
> > >
> > God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
> > favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
> >
> > I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
> > stock.
> >
> > pH
> >
> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
> >
PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
> > > On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > > > Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> > > > 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> > > > 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> > > > Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
> > > >
> > > > https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
> > > >
> > > > Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> > > > Roadster (635mm) size.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
> > > >
> > > God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
> > > favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
> > >
> > > I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
> > > stock.
> > >
> > > pH
> > >
> > Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
> > >
> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I can look up or ask about. -- AJ
> >
PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>

On 9/3/2023 4:31 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>
>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>
>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>
>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>> stock.
>>>>
>>>> pH
>>>>
>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>
>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>
> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>
>

SKS covers darned near everything.
Click the right-arrow top right of your screen here:

https://www.sks-germany.com/en/productcategories/mudguards/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 18:00:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/3/2023 4:31 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>>
>>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>>> stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> pH
>>>>>
>>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>>
>>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>>
>> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>>
>>
>
>SKS covers darned near everything.
>Click the right-arrow top right of your screen here:
>
>https://www.sks-germany.com/en/productcategories/mudguards/

To my mind it isn't the "mud guard" itself that is important it is the
mounting and "V braces", I think they are called, and the attaching
clamps.

I can assure you that when you are roaring down Big Mountain
Boulevard, all tucked in, and the front V brace comes loose from the
fender and is sort of flopping around and is likely to get into the
spokes, it does make you "sit up and take notice" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>
>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>
>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>
>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>> stock.
>>>>
>>>> pH
>>>>
>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes
>>> and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>
>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the
>> implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being
>> displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I
>> can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>
> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on
> bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard
> maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are
> 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for
> the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes
> with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>
>
>
Off road bikes don’t routinely run guards like many I have a fork guard on
the MTB to stop most of the face aimed stuff. But nothing else as well
seems more hassle than it’s worth.

With gravel bikes most like myself run no guards and folks racing unbound
and the like which the 750d is aimed at be zero.

Also while they are good against water even standing water mud tends to be
their downfall, ie potential clogging with mud and vegetation matter.

Hence mud protection off road is stuff like goggle and what not.

Roger Merriman

On 9/4/2023 4:44 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>>
>>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>>> stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> pH
>>>>>
>>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes
>>>> and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>>
>>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the
>>> implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being
>>> displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I
>>> can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>>
>> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on
>> bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard
>> maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are
>> 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for
>> the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes
>> with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>>
>>
>>
> Off road bikes don’t routinely run guards like many I have a fork guard on
> the MTB to stop most of the face aimed stuff. But nothing else as well
> seems more hassle than it’s worth.
>
> With gravel bikes most like myself run no guards and folks racing unbound
> and the like which the 750d is aimed at be zero.
>
> Also while they are good against water even standing water mud tends to be
> their downfall, ie potential clogging with mud and vegetation matter.
>
> Hence mud protection off road is stuff like goggle and what not.

I've almost always run fenders or mudguards even on my mountain bike.
That frame has room for lots of spacing between the tires and the
fenders. On long off-road rides to other towns, I was the only one in
the group who could enter a diner looking reasonably clean.

Once I experienced an odd downside of mountain bike fenders. Two friends
and I were doing some pretty extreme (for me) stuff at some abandoned
strip mines. There was fine black coal dust coating parts of the ground.
Some of the dust that flung off my rear tire was caught by the rear
fender and dropped onto my rear cogs. Its consistency was just right to
clog most of the cogs and prevent shifting until I dug it out.

We did have a bad fender vs. mud problem riding our touring bikes on the
C&O Towpath Trail west of Washington DC. The sticky mud built up inside
the fender until it scraped on the tire tread and had to be scraped out.
But that surface was entirely mud that day. I've never had a similar
problem riding roads, where fenders are really valuable.

As to John's problem with fender stays coming loose: For small bike
fasteners like fender screws, blue Loctite prevents lots of problems.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/4/2023 4:44 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>>>> stock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pH
>>>>>>
>>>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes
>>>>> and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>>>
>>>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the
>>>> implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being
>>>> displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I
>>>> can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>>>
>>> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on
>>> bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard
>>> maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are
>>> 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for
>>> the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes
>>> with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Off road bikes don’t routinely run guards like many I have a fork guard on
>> the MTB to stop most of the face aimed stuff. But nothing else as well
>> seems more hassle than it’s worth.
>>
>> With gravel bikes most like myself run no guards and folks racing unbound
>> and the like which the 750d is aimed at be zero.
>>
>> Also while they are good against water even standing water mud tends to be
>> their downfall, ie potential clogging with mud and vegetation matter.
>>
>> Hence mud protection off road is stuff like goggle and what not.
>
> I've almost always run fenders or mudguards even on my mountain bike.
> That frame has room for lots of spacing between the tires and the
> fenders. On long off-road rides to other towns, I was the only one in
> the group who could enter a diner looking reasonably clean.
>
> Once I experienced an odd downside of mountain bike fenders. Two friends
> and I were doing some pretty extreme (for me) stuff at some abandoned
> strip mines. There was fine black coal dust coating parts of the ground.
> Some of the dust that flung off my rear tire was caught by the rear
> fender and dropped onto my rear cogs. Its consistency was just right to
> clog most of the cogs and prevent shifting until I dug it out.
>
> We did have a bad fender vs. mud problem riding our touring bikes on the
> C&O Towpath Trail west of Washington DC. The sticky mud built up inside
> the fender until it scraped on the tire tread and had to be scraped out.
> But that surface was entirely mud that day. I've never had a similar
> problem riding roads, where fenders are really valuable.
>
> As to John's problem with fender stays coming loose: For small bike
> fasteners like fender screws, blue Loctite prevents lots of problems.
>

For your commuters and what not is a no brained, I have some full length
MTB ones on the old commute bike, which keeps my feet mostly dry.

Can’t say I’ve had mudguards get loose, mine are attached to forks via
straps (mtb full size ones) so can wiggle down but happens maybe once a
year needs adjusted back up.

I’d expect both my Gravel and MTB to cope fine with mud, after all British!
The gravel bike can clog if lots of vegetation in the mud as well, normally
around the fork crown.

The MTB will just claw its way through, be that pure mud or stuff with
vegetation which adds binding properties why some homemade tubeless sealant
used glitter.

Essentially with MTB the gap to allow for mud clearance means to be
effective the guard has to be huge, and generally adds a level of faff with
limited protection, with a gravel bike the argument is less clear cut and
depending on usage, is a option though don’t see many doing so.

Roger Merriman

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:00:18 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 4:31 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> >>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> >>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> >>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> >>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
> >>>>>
> >>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
> >>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
> >>>>
> >>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
> >>>> stock.
> >>>>
> >>>> pH
> >>>>
> >>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
> >>>>
> >> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I can look up or ask about. -- AJ
> >>>
> > PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
> >>
> >
> SKS covers darned near everything.
> Click the right-arrow top right of your screen here:
>
> https://www.sks-germany.com/en/productcategories/mudguards/
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
My point was in the other direction, viz that for 700C covers (heh-heh, nice pun, Andrew!) you can get reliable high quality P65s from SKS --
https://www.sks-germany.com/en/productcategories/mudguards/
-- but who knows from who else, and what quality they'll be, or how long they'll last.
>
SKS is one of my favourite component makers/suppliers. Among other gear I have from them are two (so we can have one handy without having to fetch it from elsewhere) of the superb SKS Rennkompressor garage (floor) pumps with a variety of heads so that when pedalpals arrive at my door, we can pump up their tyres before we set off (the link isn't for you, because you know already, but for those who don't yet have a reliable and powerful floor pump with half a century or more of provenance):
https://www.sks-germany.com/en/floorpumps/
>
Andre Jute
I'm too poor to buy anything but the best. The best lasts forever, the replacement costs of alsorans will soon add up to more than the cost of the best. On top of that, the frustrations of fashion-victim gear takes years off your life, and that's priceless.
>

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:00:18 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/3/2023 4:31 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44 PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
> > >>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> > >>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> > >>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> > >>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> > >>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
> > >>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
> > >>>> stock.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> pH
> > >>>>
> > >>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
> > >>>>
> > >> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I can look up or ask about. -- AJ
> > >>>
> > > PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
> > >>
> > >
> > SKS covers darned near everything.
> > Click the right-arrow top right of your screen here:
> >
> > https://www.sks-germany.com/en/productcategories/mudguards/
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > a...@yellowjersey.org
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >
> My point was in the other direction, viz that for 700C covers (heh-heh, nice pun, Andrew!) you can get reliable high quality P65s from SKS --
> https://www.sks-germany.com/en/productcategories/mudguards/
> -- but who knows from who else, and what quality they'll be, or how long they'll last.
> >
> SKS is one of my favourite component makers/suppliers. Among other gear I have from them are two (so we can have one handy without having to fetch it from elsewhere) of the superb SKS Rennkompressor garage (floor) pumps with a variety of heads so that when pedalpals arrive at my door, we can pump up their tyres before we set off (the link isn't for you, because you know already, but for those who don't yet have a reliable and powerful floor pump with half a century or more of provenance):
> https://www.sks-germany.com/en/floorpumps/
> >
> Andre Jute
> I'm too poor to buy anything but the best. The best lasts forever, the replacement costs of alsorans will soon add up to more than the cost of the best. On top of that, the frustrations of fashion-victim gear takes years off your life, and that's priceless.
> >
I'm lucky enough to live in California where rain is infrequent enough that I am able to ride around it with my retired lifestyle. Also I am able to buy and use bicycles that are not set up to use fenders and all of the noise that engenders. This is Krygowski's hell hole that he repeatedly claims it to be. Besides that it isn't 99.7% white. So it is easy to see why he would consider it a hell hole. He would consider Heaven a hell hole since there are minorities there.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 16:40:03 GMT, Roger Meriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2023 4:44 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>>> Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>>>>> stock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes
>>>>>> and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>>>>
>>>>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the
>>>>> implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being
>>>>> displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I
>>>>> can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>>>>
>>>> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on
>>>> bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard
>>>> maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are
>>>> 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for
>>>> the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes
>>>> with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Off road bikes don’t routinely run guards like many I have a fork guard on
>>> the MTB to stop most of the face aimed stuff. But nothing else as well
>>> seems more hassle than it’s worth.
>>>
>>> With gravel bikes most like myself run no guards and folks racing unbound
>>> and the like which the 750d is aimed at be zero.
>>>
>>> Also while they are good against water even standing water mud tends to be
>>> their downfall, ie potential clogging with mud and vegetation matter.
>>>
>>> Hence mud protection off road is stuff like goggle and what not.
>>
>> I've almost always run fenders or mudguards even on my mountain bike.
>> That frame has room for lots of spacing between the tires and the
>> fenders. On long off-road rides to other towns, I was the only one in
>> the group who could enter a diner looking reasonably clean.
>>
>> Once I experienced an odd downside of mountain bike fenders. Two friends
>> and I were doing some pretty extreme (for me) stuff at some abandoned
>> strip mines. There was fine black coal dust coating parts of the ground.
>> Some of the dust that flung off my rear tire was caught by the rear
>> fender and dropped onto my rear cogs. Its consistency was just right to
>> clog most of the cogs and prevent shifting until I dug it out.
>>
>> We did have a bad fender vs. mud problem riding our touring bikes on the
>> C&O Towpath Trail west of Washington DC. The sticky mud built up inside
>> the fender until it scraped on the tire tread and had to be scraped out.
>> But that surface was entirely mud that day. I've never had a similar
>> problem riding roads, where fenders are really valuable.
>>
>> As to John's problem with fender stays coming loose: For small bike
>> fasteners like fender screws, blue Loctite prevents lots of problems.
>>
>
It was years ago,but they were top of the market fenders with some
sort of magic rapid connectors so that the fenders were removable in
just seconds. Super light weight plastic too. After my experience I
replaced the wonderful, removable, connectors and V braces with proper
threaded fittings and a solid strap across the fender as an attaching
point. No problems since.

>For your commuters and what not is a no brained, I have some full length
>MTB ones on the old commute bike, which keeps my feet mostly dry.
>
>Can’t say I’ve had mudguards get loose, mine are attached to forks via
>straps (mtb full size ones) so can wiggle down but happens maybe once a
>year needs adjusted back up.
>
>I’d expect both my Gravel and MTB to cope fine with mud, after all British!
>The gravel bike can clog if lots of vegetation in the mud as well, normally
>around the fork crown.
>
>The MTB will just claw its way through, be that pure mud or stuff with
>vegetation which adds binding properties why some homemade tubeless sealant
>used glitter.
>
>Essentially with MTB the gap to allow for mud clearance means to be
>effective the guard has to be huge, and generally adds a level of faff with
>limited protection, with a gravel bike the argument is less clear cut and
>depending on usage, is a option though don’t see many doing so.
>
>Roger Merriman
>

Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.

Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
paved roads.

Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".

I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
and demand to be served ice cream (:-?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2023 07:32:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 16:40:03 GMT, Roger Meriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2023 4:44 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>>>> Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>>>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>>>>>> stock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes
>>>>>>> and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the
>>>>>> implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being
>>>>>> displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I
>>>>>> can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on
>>>>> bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard
>>>>> maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are
>>>>> 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for
>>>>> the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes
>>>>> with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Off road bikes don’t routinely run guards like many I have a fork guard on
>>>> the MTB to stop most of the face aimed stuff. But nothing else as well
>>>> seems more hassle than it’s worth.
>>>>
>>>> With gravel bikes most like myself run no guards and folks racing unbound
>>>> and the like which the 750d is aimed at be zero.
>>>>
>>>> Also while they are good against water even standing water mud tends to be
>>>> their downfall, ie potential clogging with mud and vegetation matter.
>>>>
>>>> Hence mud protection off road is stuff like goggle and what not.
>>>
>>> I've almost always run fenders or mudguards even on my mountain bike.
>>> That frame has room for lots of spacing between the tires and the
>>> fenders. On long off-road rides to other towns, I was the only one in
>>> the group who could enter a diner looking reasonably clean.
>>>
>>> Once I experienced an odd downside of mountain bike fenders. Two friends
>>> and I were doing some pretty extreme (for me) stuff at some abandoned
>>> strip mines. There was fine black coal dust coating parts of the ground.
>>> Some of the dust that flung off my rear tire was caught by the rear
>>> fender and dropped onto my rear cogs. Its consistency was just right to
>>> clog most of the cogs and prevent shifting until I dug it out.
>>>
>>> We did have a bad fender vs. mud problem riding our touring bikes on the
>>> C&O Towpath Trail west of Washington DC. The sticky mud built up inside
>>> the fender until it scraped on the tire tread and had to be scraped out.
>>> But that surface was entirely mud that day. I've never had a similar
>>> problem riding roads, where fenders are really valuable.
>>>
>>> As to John's problem with fender stays coming loose: For small bike
>>> fasteners like fender screws, blue Loctite prevents lots of problems.
>>>
>>
>It was years ago,but they were top of the market fenders with some
>sort of magic rapid connectors so that the fenders were removable in
>just seconds. Super light weight plastic too. After my experience I
>replaced the wonderful, removable, connectors and V braces with proper
>threaded fittings and a solid strap across the fender as an attaching
>point. No problems since.
>
>>For your commuters and what not is a no brained, I have some full length
>>MTB ones on the old commute bike, which keeps my feet mostly dry.
>>
>>Can’t say I’ve had mudguards get loose, mine are attached to forks via
>>straps (mtb full size ones) so can wiggle down but happens maybe once a
>>year needs adjusted back up.
>>
>>I’d expect both my Gravel and MTB to cope fine with mud, after all British!
>>The gravel bike can clog if lots of vegetation in the mud as well, normally
>>around the fork crown.
>>
>>The MTB will just claw its way through, be that pure mud or stuff with
>>vegetation which adds binding properties why some homemade tubeless sealant
>>used glitter.
>>
>>Essentially with MTB the gap to allow for mud clearance means to be
>>effective the guard has to be huge, and generally adds a level of faff with
>>limited protection, with a gravel bike the argument is less clear cut and
>>depending on usage, is a option though don’t see many doing so.
>>
>>Roger Merriman
>>
>
>Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.
>
>Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
>hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
>even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
>certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
>paved roads.
>
>Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
>you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
>around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
>
>I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
>and demand to be served ice cream (:-?

There's the power of "I think that activity/device looks
interesting/fun/useful, I think I'll try it."

It's called intrinsic motivation, when people do things or have things
for the simple joy of them. It's different from extrinsic motivation,
when people do things for fame, fortune, or wellbeing.

People who are primarily intrinsically motivated are more in control
of their lives. People who are primarily extrinsically motivated must
rely on external sources for fulfillment.

It sticks out like a sore thumb when people are constantly trying to
inject themselves into other person's lives, criticizing and demanding
explanations as to why others think or do what they do.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 16:40:03 GMT, Roger Meriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2023 4:44 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>>>> Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
>>>>>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
>>>>>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
>>>>>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
>>>>>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
>>>>>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
>>>>>>>> stock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes
>>>>>>> and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the
>>>>>> implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being
>>>>>> displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I
>>>>>> can look up or ask about. -- AJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on
>>>>> bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard
>>>>> maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are
>>>>> 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for
>>>>> the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes
>>>>> with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Off road bikes don’t routinely run guards like many I have a fork guard on
>>>> the MTB to stop most of the face aimed stuff. But nothing else as well
>>>> seems more hassle than it’s worth.
>>>>
>>>> With gravel bikes most like myself run no guards and folks racing unbound
>>>> and the like which the 750d is aimed at be zero.
>>>>
>>>> Also while they are good against water even standing water mud tends to be
>>>> their downfall, ie potential clogging with mud and vegetation matter.
>>>>
>>>> Hence mud protection off road is stuff like goggle and what not.
>>>
>>> I've almost always run fenders or mudguards even on my mountain bike.
>>> That frame has room for lots of spacing between the tires and the
>>> fenders. On long off-road rides to other towns, I was the only one in
>>> the group who could enter a diner looking reasonably clean.
>>>
>>> Once I experienced an odd downside of mountain bike fenders. Two friends
>>> and I were doing some pretty extreme (for me) stuff at some abandoned
>>> strip mines. There was fine black coal dust coating parts of the ground.
>>> Some of the dust that flung off my rear tire was caught by the rear
>>> fender and dropped onto my rear cogs. Its consistency was just right to
>>> clog most of the cogs and prevent shifting until I dug it out.
>>>
>>> We did have a bad fender vs. mud problem riding our touring bikes on the
>>> C&O Towpath Trail west of Washington DC. The sticky mud built up inside
>>> the fender until it scraped on the tire tread and had to be scraped out.
>>> But that surface was entirely mud that day. I've never had a similar
>>> problem riding roads, where fenders are really valuable.
>>>
>>> As to John's problem with fender stays coming loose: For small bike
>>> fasteners like fender screws, blue Loctite prevents lots of problems.
>>>
>>
> It was years ago,but they were top of the market fenders with some
> sort of magic rapid connectors so that the fenders were removable in
> just seconds. Super light weight plastic too. After my experience I
> replaced the wonderful, removable, connectors and V braces with proper
> threaded fittings and a solid strap across the fender as an attaching
> point. No problems since.
>
>> For your commuters and what not is a no brained, I have some full length
>> MTB ones on the old commute bike, which keeps my feet mostly dry.
>>
>> Can’t say I’ve had mudguards get loose, mine are attached to forks via
>> straps (mtb full size ones) so can wiggle down but happens maybe once a
>> year needs adjusted back up.
>>
>> I’d expect both my Gravel and MTB to cope fine with mud, after all British!
>> The gravel bike can clog if lots of vegetation in the mud as well, normally
>> around the fork crown.
>>
>> The MTB will just claw its way through, be that pure mud or stuff with
>> vegetation which adds binding properties why some homemade tubeless sealant
>> used glitter.
>>
>> Essentially with MTB the gap to allow for mud clearance means to be
>> effective the guard has to be huge, and generally adds a level of faff with
>> limited protection, with a gravel bike the argument is less clear cut and
>> depending on usage, is a option though don’t see many doing so.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.
>
> Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
> hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
> even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
> certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
> paved roads.
>
> Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
> you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
> around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
>
> I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
> and demand to be served ice cream (:-?

Bikes are not homogeneous in either their ability or uses.

Older or even new un sealed roads aren’t great for utility type bikes, and
dull as dishwater on MTB’s but are a hoot on the Gravel bike.

Roger Merriman

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:09:36 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 16:40:03 GMT, Roger Meriman <ro...@sarlet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> On 9/4/2023 4:44 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
> >>>> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:25:05?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:19:21?PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 6:44:44?PM UTC+1, pH wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-08-31, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Since 700-D utterly failed 30 years ago, we've seen basic
> >>>>>>>>> 26" 559 and 700-C 622 formats overridden by new '27.5' 26"
> >>>>>>>>> 584 and '29' 700 622 Fat. But hey, more's the merrier!
> >>>>>>>>> Since standards are good we ought to have a lot of them!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://bikerumor.com/new-bicycle-wheel-size-moots-prototype-750d-wheels-tires-wtb/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Actual rim size? 660mm (!) larger than the classic 28"
> >>>>>>>>> Roadster (635mm) size.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/moots-routt-crdd-750d-gallery/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> God, of course, would have preferred that we stick with His (and my)
> >>>>>>>> favourite....27" (Is that 630 or 632mm).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I feel sorry for the bike shops having to keep all those myriad sizes in
> >>>>>>>> stock.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> pH
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Basically they don't stock all those sizes. They keep the popular sizes
> >>>>>>> and, if you're lucky, will order other sizes for you on request. -- Andre Jute
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> PS 700C at 622mm and 26in at 559mm, both mentioned by Andrew with the
> >>>>>> implication that they're old-fashioned or at least in danger of being
> >>>>>> displaced by new "standards", are the only ones I remember. The rest I
> >>>>>> can look up or ask about. -- AJ
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> PPS Hmm. The reason I remember those two is that I invariably ride on
> >>>>> bikes with mudguards, what Americans call "fenders". My fave mudguard
> >>>>> maker is SKS, whose P65 I like, and which is essential if your tyres are
> >>>>> 60mm wide Big Apples. If you insist on being an unpaid beta-tester for
> >>>>> the newest fave of the fashion victims in wheel sizes, a wet bum comes
> >>>>> with the package, no extra cost. That's not me. -- AJ
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Off road bikes don’t routinely run guards like many I have a fork guard on
> >>>> the MTB to stop most of the face aimed stuff. But nothing else as well
> >>>> seems more hassle than it’s worth.
> >>>>
> >>>> With gravel bikes most like myself run no guards and folks racing unbound
> >>>> and the like which the 750d is aimed at be zero.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also while they are good against water even standing water mud tends to be
> >>>> their downfall, ie potential clogging with mud and vegetation matter..
> >>>>
> >>>> Hence mud protection off road is stuff like goggle and what not.
> >>>
> >>> I've almost always run fenders or mudguards even on my mountain bike.
> >>> That frame has room for lots of spacing between the tires and the
> >>> fenders. On long off-road rides to other towns, I was the only one in
> >>> the group who could enter a diner looking reasonably clean.
> >>>
> >>> Once I experienced an odd downside of mountain bike fenders. Two friends
> >>> and I were doing some pretty extreme (for me) stuff at some abandoned
> >>> strip mines. There was fine black coal dust coating parts of the ground.
> >>> Some of the dust that flung off my rear tire was caught by the rear
> >>> fender and dropped onto my rear cogs. Its consistency was just right to
> >>> clog most of the cogs and prevent shifting until I dug it out.
> >>>
> >>> We did have a bad fender vs. mud problem riding our touring bikes on the
> >>> C&O Towpath Trail west of Washington DC. The sticky mud built up inside
> >>> the fender until it scraped on the tire tread and had to be scraped out.
> >>> But that surface was entirely mud that day. I've never had a similar
> >>> problem riding roads, where fenders are really valuable.
> >>>
> >>> As to John's problem with fender stays coming loose: For small bike
> >>> fasteners like fender screws, blue Loctite prevents lots of problems.
> >>>
> >>
> > It was years ago,but they were top of the market fenders with some
> > sort of magic rapid connectors so that the fenders were removable in
> > just seconds. Super light weight plastic too. After my experience I
> > replaced the wonderful, removable, connectors and V braces with proper
> > threaded fittings and a solid strap across the fender as an attaching
> > point. No problems since.
> >
> >> For your commuters and what not is a no brained, I have some full length
> >> MTB ones on the old commute bike, which keeps my feet mostly dry.
> >>
> >> Can’t say I’ve had mudguards get loose, mine are attached to forks via
> >> straps (mtb full size ones) so can wiggle down but happens maybe once a
> >> year needs adjusted back up.
> >>
> >> I’d expect both my Gravel and MTB to cope fine with mud, after all British!
> >> The gravel bike can clog if lots of vegetation in the mud as well, normally
> >> around the fork crown.
> >>
> >> The MTB will just claw its way through, be that pure mud or stuff with
> >> vegetation which adds binding properties why some homemade tubeless sealant
> >> used glitter.
> >>
> >> Essentially with MTB the gap to allow for mud clearance means to be
> >> effective the guard has to be huge, and generally adds a level of faff with
> >> limited protection, with a gravel bike the argument is less clear cut and
> >> depending on usage, is a option though don’t see many doing so..
> >>
> >> Roger Merriman
> >>
> >
> > Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.
> >
> > Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
> > hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
> > even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
> > certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
> > paved roads.
> >
> > Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
> > you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
> > around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
> >
> > I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
> > and demand to be served ice cream (:-?
> Bikes are not homogeneous in either their ability or uses.
>
> Older or even new un sealed roads aren’t great for utility type bikes, and
> dull as dishwater on MTB’s but are a hoot on the Gravel bike.
>
> Roger Merriman

Slocomb has to show his ignorance with EVERY posting - he denies that roads were paved for bicycles while the first paved roads occurred before there were automobiles and most of the paving started before there were sufficient automobiles to be a voting block. In fact - automobiles weren't even important to voters until Henry Ford started paying his employees enough to afford his products in 1914. I wonder if there is anything that ass Slocomb will ever really understand?

On 9/4/2023 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.

About _all_ bicyclists? Sounds like you're pretending all cyclists are
identical. That's far from true.

> Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
> hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
> even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
> certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
> paved roads.

That's not fiction. Read some history, please. Try Carlton Reid's book
_Roads Were Not Built For Cars_, or dozens of other sources.

And from what I've read, the Good Roads movement wasn't jumping, waving
or hollering. It was a well organized political campaign, with allies
from the farming community and industry. The argument was that good
roads would help economic development by reducing transportation costs -
for example, making it much easier for crops to get to city markets. Of
course, cyclists knew they'd benefit from easier riding.

> Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
> you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
> around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
>
> I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
> and demand to be served ice cream (:-?

I don't think the new and fashionable "gravel bike" riders are demanding
anything. My impression is that they just seek out gravel roads and ride
them. Certainly, they're not as demanding as the cyclists who want Ye
Magicke Grene Paint (it repels crashes!) applied to the entire surface
of every bike lane, which must be separated from all motor vehicles by
massive truck-proof obstacles.

In any case, I'm sure a lot of "gravel riders" do it because they don't
like being around motor vehicles. Some mentally exaggerate the dangers
and are very afraid of cars. Others have a more aesthetic preference,
and enjoy being closer to what they perceive as wilderness. There are
probably other motivations as well, because again, cyclists are far from
identical.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:30:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/4/2023 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.
>
>About _all_ bicyclists? Sounds like you're pretending all cyclists are
>identical. That's far from true.
>
> > Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
> > hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
> > even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
> > certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
> > paved roads.
>
>That's not fiction. Read some history, please. Try Carlton Reid's book
>_Roads Were Not Built For Cars_, or dozens of other sources.
>
>And from what I've read, the Good Roads movement wasn't jumping, waving
>or hollering. It was a well organized political campaign, with allies
>from the farming community and industry. The argument was that good
>roads would help economic development by reducing transportation costs -
>for example, making it much easier for crops to get to city markets. Of
>course, cyclists knew they'd benefit from easier riding.
>
> > Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
> > you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
> > around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
> >
> > I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
> > and demand to be served ice cream (:-?
>
>I don't think the new and fashionable "gravel bike" riders are demanding
>anything. My impression is that they just seek out gravel roads and ride
>them. Certainly, they're not as demanding as the cyclists who want Ye
>Magicke Grene Paint (it repels crashes!) applied to the entire surface
>of every bike lane, which must be separated from all motor vehicles by
>massive truck-proof obstacles.
>
>In any case, I'm sure a lot of "gravel riders" do it because they don't
>like being around motor vehicles. Some mentally exaggerate the dangers
>and are very afraid of cars. Others have a more aesthetic preference,
>and enjoy being closer to what they perceive as wilderness. There are
>probably other motivations as well, because again, cyclists are far from
>identical.

Krygowski can't reply to a post without trying to belittle anyone who
does things different from the way he does them. For some strange
reason, it helps him to feel better about himself.

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:06:18 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:30:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/4/2023 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >
> > > Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.
> >
> >About _all_ bicyclists? Sounds like you're pretending all cyclists are
> >identical. That's far from true.
> >
> > > Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
> > > hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
> > > even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
> > > certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
> > > paved roads.
> >
> >That's not fiction. Read some history, please. Try Carlton Reid's book
> >_Roads Were Not Built For Cars_, or dozens of other sources.
> >
> >And from what I've read, the Good Roads movement wasn't jumping, waving
> >or hollering. It was a well organized political campaign, with allies
> >from the farming community and industry. The argument was that good
> >roads would help economic development by reducing transportation costs -
> >for example, making it much easier for crops to get to city markets. Of
> >course, cyclists knew they'd benefit from easier riding.
> >
> > > Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
> > > you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
> > > around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
> > >
> > > I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
> > > and demand to be served ice cream (:-?
> >
> >I don't think the new and fashionable "gravel bike" riders are demanding
> >anything. My impression is that they just seek out gravel roads and ride
> >them. Certainly, they're not as demanding as the cyclists who want Ye
> >Magicke Grene Paint (it repels crashes!) applied to the entire surface
> >of every bike lane, which must be separated from all motor vehicles by
> >massive truck-proof obstacles.
> >
> >In any case, I'm sure a lot of "gravel riders" do it because they don't
> >like being around motor vehicles. Some mentally exaggerate the dangers
> >and are very afraid of cars. Others have a more aesthetic preference,
> >and enjoy being closer to what they perceive as wilderness. There are
> >probably other motivations as well, because again, cyclists are far from
> >identical.
> Krygowski can't reply to a post without trying to belittle anyone who
> does things different from the way he does them. For some strange
> reason, it helps him to feel better about himself.

When you have nothing else to show for yourself you can only make the achievements of others look less than yours.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/4/2023 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.
>
> About _all_ bicyclists? Sounds like you're pretending all cyclists are
> identical. That's far from true.
>
>> Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
>> hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
>> even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
>> certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
>> paved roads.
>
> That's not fiction. Read some history, please. Try Carlton Reid's book
> _Roads Were Not Built For Cars_, or dozens of other sources.
>
> And from what I've read, the Good Roads movement wasn't jumping, waving
> or hollering. It was a well organized political campaign, with allies
> from the farming community and industry. The argument was that good
> roads would help economic development by reducing transportation costs -
> for example, making it much easier for crops to get to city markets. Of
> course, cyclists knew they'd benefit from easier riding.
>
>> Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
>> you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
>> around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
>>
>> I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
>> and demand to be served ice cream (:-?
>
> I don't think the new and fashionable "gravel bike" riders are demanding
> anything. My impression is that they just seek out gravel roads and ride
> them. Certainly, they're not as demanding as the cyclists who want Ye
> Magicke Grene Paint (it repels crashes!) applied to the entire surface
> of every bike lane, which must be separated from all motor vehicles by
> massive truck-proof obstacles.
>
> In any case, I'm sure a lot of "gravel riders" do it because they don't
> like being around motor vehicles. Some mentally exaggerate the dangers
> and are very afraid of cars. Others have a more aesthetic preference,
> and enjoy being closer to what they perceive as wilderness. There are
> probably other motivations as well, because again, cyclists are far from
> identical.
>
I don’t get that impression most are roadies so well also ride on road,
it’s generally more normal to come to gravel from the road than MTB side.
As well they are road bikes if rather beefed up.

I’ve heard online folks comment that but that doesn’t appear to be the
driving force, after all could go MTBing or running etc to avoid cars.

I encounter many more cars on a gravel ride than MTB where I’d only see
them if any at a car park normally.

Did you ever explore the Amish Trails?

Roger Merriman

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:06:18 PM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:30:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/4/2023 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >
> > > Something I've always wondered about bicyclists.
> >
> >About _all_ bicyclists? Sounds like you're pretending all cyclists are
> >identical. That's far from true.
> >
> > > Way back when cyclists were jumping up and down, waving their arms and
> > > hollering that they wanted paved roads to ride on. In fact you can
> > > even read that bicycles were the reason for American paving roads -
> > > certainly fiction but equally evidence that Bicyclists wanted smooth
> > > paved roads.
> >
> >That's not fiction. Read some history, please. Try Carlton Reid's book
> >_Roads Were Not Built For Cars_, or dozens of other sources.
> >
> >And from what I've read, the Good Roads movement wasn't jumping, waving
> >or hollering. It was a well organized political campaign, with allies
> >from the farming community and industry. The argument was that good
> >roads would help economic development by reducing transportation costs -
> >for example, making it much easier for crops to get to city markets. Of
> >course, cyclists knew they'd benefit from easier riding.
> >
> > > Today, the U.S. has, generally speaking, paved roads about everywhere
> > > you want to go and what are the cyclists doing? Now they are running
> > > around in the bushes on unpaved "roads".
> > >
> > > I wonder... do these same people visit their local pub of an evening
> > > and demand to be served ice cream (:-?
> >
> >I don't think the new and fashionable "gravel bike" riders are demanding
> >anything. My impression is that they just seek out gravel roads and ride
> >them. Certainly, they're not as demanding as the cyclists who want Ye
> >Magicke Grene Paint (it repels crashes!) applied to the entire surface
> >of every bike lane, which must be separated from all motor vehicles by
> >massive truck-proof obstacles.
> >
> >In any case, I'm sure a lot of "gravel riders" do it because they don't
> >like being around motor vehicles. Some mentally exaggerate the dangers
> >and are very afraid of cars. Others have a more aesthetic preference,
> >and enjoy being closer to what they perceive as wilderness. There are
> >probably other motivations as well, because again, cyclists are far from
> >identical.
> Krygowski can't reply to a post without trying to belittle anyone who
> does things different from the way he does them. For some strange
> reason, it helps him to feel better about himself.
>
Nothing strange about Krygowski's sick need to belittle everyone else. Even a half-asleep psychiatrist, any psychiatrist, regardless of which coolaid he drinks, will recognise Krygowski's need to belittle and denigrate as a defining symptom of an advanced stage of narcissism. -- AJ
>