wav3ydave

@JubilantJaguar WD40 is useful in a chain cleaning routine but not really a lubricant. if you’re touring and want to be able to top up the chain lube I’d just carry a small squeezy bottle of something, you’re not going to need very much. wax-based lubes tend to run cleaner but they’re not as good in the rain, wet lubes are more tenacious but can get pretty filthy especially if you’re on dirt at any point.

@Prontomomo @mettwurstkaninchen I find most of the “problems with chains” that belts purport to solve are problems with derailleurs, not chains. Get a hub gear if that’s a problem. Doesn’t have to be a belt drive one.

@voiceofunreason @pete @adamrice @MrAndrewD @bicycling yeah i’ve not tried that yet but it’s a good idea if it works

@pete @adamrice @MrAndrewD @bicycling i have, twice i think. pretty bad luck both times

@adamrice @MrAndrewD @bicycling same for me: brilliant as a backup to tubeless because they’re tiny and you rarely need them. The ride feel of them is definitely superior to a butyl tube on a road bike, and of course they’re loads lighter: on the “spend money to save weight” spready they’re a good buy. The main issue with them is repairability: you *can* repair them but you can’t easily do it out on the road like you can with butyl tubes. the flip side of that is that two spares take up no space

@stark @Diplomjodler3 yeah, there’s an element of that: a $10k superbike isn’t as good for getting the shopping as a $500 city bike, if getting the shopping is all you’re doing. I’m more talking about performance bikes for enthusiast cyclists here, be they roadies/mtbers/gravel riders/whatever. I’ve reviewed a *lot* of bikes over the years, and for the most part you genuinely do get what you pay for, but with diminishing returns the more you spend.

@Diplomjodler3 yeah, i absolutely agree. diminishing returns applies from dollar zero, though, and everyone’s tipping point is going to be different. someone saying they couldn’t justify spending $2k on a bike is entirely reasonable. Someone saying they don’t think it *can* be justified is wrong, though :-)

@Diplomjodler3 @retrospectology Everyone will have a tipping point, where they couldn’t justify spending more on a bike for the improvement you get. Mine’s around $4k: I couldn’t really justify spending more for better components, lighter weight, etc. Much as I’d like to. But I could easily justify a $2k bike. It’s a different number for everyone though.

@Diplomjodler3 @retrospectology Diminishing returns apply to bikes, just as they apply to everything else: the $15k pro-spec Specialized SL8 isn’t more than ‘twice as good’ as the $6k SL8 at the bottom of the range. But $400 doesn’t buy you much bike these days, and a $2k bike will be measurably better in every single way. Depends on what you’re doing really. If you’re riding to the shops a couple of times a week, not worth spending extra. If you’re doing 1,000 miles a month, definitely is.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

@benchwhistler @18107 @ajsadauskas https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

“This is fundamentally an infrastructure and public policy problem, not a problem of individual consumer choice.”

The infrastructure is the millions of barrels of oil and the policies & systems in place to maintain its distribution for profit. You may or may not be able to switch out your boiler or use your car less. Many people won’t have any other option without huge systemic changes. Making it about individual choices won’t fix it.