| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:01:16 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,944 |
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the lower arm spring tension correct.
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
On Tue Sep 16 14:18:47 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the lower arm spring tension correct.
On 9/17/2025 12:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Sep 16 14:18:47 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the lower arm spring tension correct.
Different problem.
I was referring to your comment:
"In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler
wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and
had to order it."
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 12:57:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/17/2025 12:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Sep 16 14:18:47 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the lower arm spring tension correct.
Different problem.
I was referring to your comment:
"In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler
wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and
had to order it."
I don't understand the comment about "removing/installing derailleur rollers."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
On 9/17/2025 2:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 12:57:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/17/2025 12:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Sep 16 14:18:47 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the lower arm spring tension correct.
Different problem.
I was referring to your comment:
"In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler
wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and
had to order it."
I don't understand the comment about "removing/installing derailleur
rollers."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
For chain systems with a dedicated specialty joining rivet
(Campagnolo, Shimano), removing or replacing a rear
derailleur usually means removing the lower pulley and
loosening the upper pulley bolt to open the cage. The
reverse to install is done under spring tension and, since
humans usually have only two hands, this is not simple,
convenient or quick.
With a snaplink, one simply opens the link to get the chain
out of the way.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 17:05:53 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/17/2025 2:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 12:57:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/17/2025 12:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Sep 16 14:18:47 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the lower arm spring tension correct.
Different problem.
I was referring to your comment:
"In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler
wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and
had to order it."
I don't understand the comment about "removing/installing derailleur
rollers."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
For chain systems with a dedicated specialty joining rivet
(Campagnolo, Shimano), removing or replacing a rear
derailleur usually means removing the lower pulley and
loosening the upper pulley bolt to open the cage. The
reverse to install is done under spring tension and, since
humans usually have only two hands, this is not simple,
convenient or quick.
With a snaplink, one simply opens the link to get the chain
out of the way.
Thanks for the info... but...
I'm really out of the "link" here with my experience not going beyond
9SP chain. I assume the snap link is what I call a master link or a
quick link. Apparently, some 12 speed chains don't allow you to use
them? Do the chains come pre-riveted, or is de-riveting/riveting the
chain more difficult than the derailleur cage work?
How often does one change out the rear derailleur. I've only done it
once on the Catrike with just short of 41,000 miles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702: <https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56: <https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
On 9/17/2025 6:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 17:05:53 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/17/2025 2:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 12:57:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 9/17/2025 12:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Sep 16 14:18:47 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike >>>>>>>> so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would >>>>>>>> be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur >>>>>>>> on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed >>>>>>>> up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured >>>>>>>> out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the >>>>>>>> idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn >>>>>>>> Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down >>>>>>>> and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My
average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb >>>>>>>> over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 >>>>>>>> mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I
usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides >>>>>>>> (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. >>>>>>>> Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with >>>>>>>> 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without >>>>>>>> dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner >>>>>> had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the
lower arm spring tension correct.
Different problem.
I was referring to your comment:
"In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler
wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and
had to order it."
I don't understand the comment about "removing/installing derailleur
rollers."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
For chain systems with a dedicated specialty joining rivet
(Campagnolo, Shimano), removing or replacing a rear
derailleur usually means removing the lower pulley and
loosening the upper pulley bolt to open the cage. The
reverse to install is done under spring tension and, since
humans usually have only two hands, this is not simple,
convenient or quick.
With a snaplink, one simply opens the link to get the chain
out of the way.
Thanks for the info... but...
I'm really out of the "link" here with my experience not going beyond
9SP chain. I assume the snap link is what I call a master link or a
quick link. Apparently, some 12 speed chains don't allow you to use
them? Do the chains come pre-riveted, or is de-riveting/riveting the
chain more difficult than the derailleur cage work?
How often does one change out the rear derailleur. I've only done it
once on the Catrike with just short of 41,000 miles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
For you.
Mr Kunich finds endless enjoyment in moving parts from bike
to bike.
On 9/17/2025 12:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Sep 16 14:18:47 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Perhaps I don't understand you. I thought you were talking about quick ereleases on chains. Since you have to completely dismantle a Record 11 to reset the spring tension a quick release would have to effect on that. Shimano has the advantage of being able to remove the lower arm without the necessity to dismantle it into parts.I bought it chezp off of Ebay apparently because the previous owner had misassembled it. I had to reaseEMBLE it many times to get the lower arm spring tension correct.
Different problem.
I was referring to your comment:
"In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler
wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and
had to order it."
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to. It you are using a quick link tool and the link "pops" when you pull it tight it is fine
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702: <https://www.google.com/search?q=3dCampagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56: <https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs: <https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
It you are using a quick link tool and the link "pops" when you pull it tight it is fine
What more - Connex makes 11 and 12 speed quick links that are reuseable many times.
What's more, the means by which you adjust the lower derailleur arm tension means that you are required to disassemble the idler pullys, meaning simply pulling the chain apart isn't enough. Andrew was thinking about Shimano and not Campagnolo when he said that.
So you have the quick link wrong and you are addressing the wrong question in the first place. The world just isnt in your corner.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but
always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information
that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before
it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"?
Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As
far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too
loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702 >>>> Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and >>>> to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but
always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information
that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before
it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"?
Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As
far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too
loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of
the bicycle chain.
A relatively cheap and long life device
The theory is that usually the
the link is used when installing a new chain and ii remains there for
the life of the chain.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702 >>>>> Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and >>>>> to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain". >>>>>
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the >>>>> first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but
always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information
that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a
Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before
it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"?
Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As
far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too
loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of
the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names. <https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link,
KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't
seem to be true: <https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap. <https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
The theory is that usually the
the link is used when installing a new chain and ii remains there for
the life of the chain.
If I were to believe the bicycle chain lubrication marketing
literature, there are riders that regularly clean and lube their
chains in solvents, waxes, and exotic lubricants: <https://bikerumor.com/best-bike-chain-lube/>
Is there really a market for all those chain lubes? If they clean and
lube their bicycle chain that often, it's probably easier to do with
the chain removed from the bicycle.
In fairness the Campagnolo snap link is still relatively new
but the chain with snaplink included isn't all that pricey:
https://www.benscycle.com/campagnolo-chorus-chain---12-speed--114-links--silver-gray-c242-campagnolo-k4509-ch9018/p?idsku=634707&
Note the complete chain with snap link is less than the snap
link alone.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 09:50:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In fairness the Campagnolo snap link is still relatively new
but the chain with snaplink included isn't all that pricey:
https://www.benscycle.com/campagnolo-chorus-chain---12-speed--114-links--silver-gray-c242-campagnolo-k4509-ch9018/p?idsku=634707&
Note the complete chain with snap link is less than the snap
link alone.
Very strange. If the snap links are truly used only once, on initial installation, the pricing scheme might work. That also assumes owners
do not remove the chain for cleaning and lubrication. However, if the
buyers replaces the use-once snap link for any reason, then the supply
of chains without snap links will slowly grow. When the owners of
those orphaned chains attempt to purchase a genuine Campagnolo
snap-link, they're faced with a seriously overpriced replacement
snap-link. Other than clogging eBay with a surplus of un-usable
chains without snap links, the marketing resembles that of a drug
dealer. Give the customer a sample for next to nothing or free, wait
for them to become addicted, and then sell the customer more drugs at
full price with a little added to cover the dealers initial
investment.
Although overpriced repair parts have become standard practice in
almost every industry, there's no easy solution to the problem.
Selling repair parts at a loss is not a long term solution. However,
a partial solution might be for Campagnolo to include two snap links
with every chain. The reason (or excuse) might be to provide a spare
snap link to be used for emergencies in recognition of Campagnolo's
policy of making snap links a disposable component. At least, with a
spare, the buyer is not left stranded waiting for a replacement snap
link that could safely be installed. Maybe Campagnolo could also
include cheap plastic quick link installation tools.
On 9/21/2025 11:42 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 09:50:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In fairness the Campagnolo snap link is still relatively new
but the chain with snaplink included isn't all that pricey:
https://www.benscycle.com/campagnolo-chorus-chain---12-speed--114-links--silver-gray-c242-campagnolo-k4509-ch9018/p?idsku=634707&
Note the complete chain with snap link is less than the snap
link alone.
Very strange. If the snap links are truly used only once, on initial
installation, the pricing scheme might work. That also assumes owners
do not remove the chain for cleaning and lubrication. However, if the
buyers replaces the use-once snap link for any reason, then the supply
of chains without snap links will slowly grow. When the owners of
those orphaned chains attempt to purchase a genuine Campagnolo
snap-link, they're faced with a seriously overpriced replacement
snap-link. Other than clogging eBay with a surplus of un-usable
chains without snap links, the marketing resembles that of a drug
dealer. Give the customer a sample for next to nothing or free, wait
for them to become addicted, and then sell the customer more drugs at
full price with a little added to cover the dealers initial
investment.
Although overpriced repair parts have become standard practice in
almost every industry, there's no easy solution to the problem.
Selling repair parts at a loss is not a long term solution. However,
a partial solution might be for Campagnolo to include two snap links
with every chain. The reason (or excuse) might be to provide a spare
snap link to be used for emergencies in recognition of Campagnolo's
policy of making snap links a disposable component. At least, with a
spare, the buyer is not left stranded waiting for a replacement snap
link that could safely be installed. Maybe Campagnolo could also
include cheap plastic quick link installation tools.
Fortunately we are not yet in a Soviet economy.
As
discussed here frequently, riders have many criteria and
among those, various personal weights of importance, just as
any consumer of anything in our culture.
https://www.performancebike.com/kmc-missinglink-12-silver-12-speed-2pack-missinglink-12-silv/p860809
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 12:03:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Liebermann, your entire life is using the Internet for information that you could not otherwise have. You have the idea that a quick link is not reuseable, not from experience but because Campagnolo says so. Because you know nothing that isn't on Google, you make false claims and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You have absolutely no idea of what a new link feels like when it is installations. But you can pretend that they are the different because it suits your know-it-all belief system.
On 9/21/2025 11:42 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 09:50:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In fairness the Campagnolo snap link is still relatively new
but the chain with snaplink included isn't all that pricey:
https://www.benscycle.com/campagnolo-chorus-chain---12-speed--114-links--silver-gray-c242-campagnolo-k4509-ch9018/p?idsku=3d634707&
Note the complete chain with snap link is less than the snap
link alone.
Very strange. If the snap links are truly used only once, on initial
installation, the pricing scheme might work. That also assumes owners
do not remove the chain for cleaning and lubrication. However, if the
buyers replaces the use-once snap link for any reason, then the supply
of chains without snap links will slowly grow. When the owners of
those orphaned chains attempt to purchase a genuine Campagnolo
snap-link, they're faced with a seriously overpriced replacement
snap-link. Other than clogging eBay with a surplus of un-usable
chains without snap links, the marketing resembles that of a drug
dealer. Give the customer a sample for next to nothing or free, wait
for them to become addicted, and then sell the customer more drugs at
full price with a little added to cover the dealers initial
investment.
Although overpriced repair parts have become standard practice in
almost every industry, there's no easy solution to the problem.
Selling repair parts at a loss is not a long term solution. However,
a partial solution might be for Campagnolo to include two snap links
with every chain. The reason (or excuse) might be to provide a spare
snap link to be used for emergencies in recognition of Campagnolo's
policy of making snap links a disposable component. At least, with a
spare, the buyer is not left stranded waiting for a replacement snap
link that could safely be installed. Maybe Campagnolo could also
include cheap plastic quick link installation tools.
Fortunately we are not yet in a Soviet economy.
True. We've replaced the various failed Russian 5 year plans with
little or no planning. However, we do have all the required
committees (soviets), departments, ministries, agencies, etc to
produce a non-functional government.
As
discussed here frequently, riders have many criteria and
among those, various personal weights of importance, just as
any consumer of anything in our culture.
The American consumer, when faced with multiple almost identical
products, at almost identical prices, will usually select the heaviest
on the assumption that he is getting more for his money. Among the exceptions are bicycles, smart phones, most things that float or fly
and anything that goes into orbit or outer space.
https://www.performancebike.com/kmc-missinglink-12-silver-12-speed-2pack-missinglink-12-silv/p860809
Two for $11 is a much better price than $56 each. <https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
However, it's still non-reusable.
I rather like the idea of interchangeable parts and pieces:
"Campagnolo 12 Speed Chain With SRAM Quick Link Fitted" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZiW00BXMRms> (6:15)
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702 >>>>> Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and >>>>> to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain". >>>>>
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the >>>>> first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but
always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information >>>that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before
it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"? >>>Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As
far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of
the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names. ><https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link,
KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't
seem to be true: ><https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap. ><https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an >hour"... hardly expensive.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702 >>>>>> Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and >>>>>> to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain". >>>>>>
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain >>>>>> link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the >>>>>> first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but >>>>always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information >>>>that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>>Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before
it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"? >>>>Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As >>>>far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of
the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names. >><https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link,
KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't
seem to be true: >><https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap. >><https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:10:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an >>hour"... hardly expensive.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702 >>>>>>> Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and >>>>>>> to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain". >>>>>>>
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain >>>>>>> link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the >>>>>>> first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but >>>>>always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information >>>>>that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>>>Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before >>>>>it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"? >>>>>Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As >>>>>far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>>loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of >>>>the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names. >>><https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link,
KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't
seem to be true: >>><https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap. >>><https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
There's another reason for me to stick with 9 speed chain. I buy KMC
x9.93 in the 13 foot lengths the Catrike requires for $65. The quick
links are $2 apiece.
https://t-cycle.com/collections/chain-in-bulk
Since I bought our Catrikes, Catrike have gone to 10 speed chains for
reasons I don't know nor understand because they're still using the
3x9 systems. I'm pretty sure my drive train is 10 speed compatible,
but I don't know why I'd want to spend $40 more to go to a 10 speed
chain.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:45:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:10:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike >>>>>>>>>> so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would >>>>>>>>>> be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur >>>>>>>>>> on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all >>>>>>>>>> messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I >>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the >>>>>>>>>> parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one >>>>>>>>>> complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn >>>>>>>>>> Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down >>>>>>>>>> and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My >>>>>>>>>> average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb >>>>>>>>>> over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of >>>>>>>>>> 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and >>>>>>>>>> I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat >>>>>>>>>> rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph >>>>>>>>>> average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with >>>>>>>>>> 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without >>>>>>>>>> dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo
12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702 >>>>>>>> Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and >>>>>>>> to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain". >>>>>>>>
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain >>>>>>>> link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the >>>>>>>> first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before >>>>>>> it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of
caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but
always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information >>>>>> that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>>>> Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before >>>>>> it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"? >>>>>> Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As >>>>>> far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>>> loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of >>>>> the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names.
<https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link,
KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't
seem to be true:
<https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap.
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
hour"... hardly expensive.
There's another reason for me to stick with 9 speed chain. I buy KMC
x9.93 in the 13 foot lengths the Catrike requires for $65. The quick
links are $2 apiece.
https://t-cycle.com/collections/chain-in-bulk
Since I bought our Catrikes, Catrike have gone to 10 speed chains for
reasons I don't know nor understand because they're still using the
3x9 systems. I'm pretty sure my drive train is 10 speed compatible,
but I don't know why I'd want to spend $40 more to go to a 10 speed
chain.
I was wrong. Catrikes do come with a 10 speed cassette which I
consider to be extra cost nonsense. 30 speeds????
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:45:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:10:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike >>>>>>>>>>> so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would >>>>>>>>>>> be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur >>>>>>>>>>> on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all >>>>>>>>>>> messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I >>>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the >>>>>>>>>>> parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one >>>>>>>>>>> complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn >>>>>>>>>>> Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down >>>>>>>>>>> and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My >>>>>>>>>>> average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb >>>>>>>>>>> over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of >>>>>>>>>>> 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and >>>>>>>>>>> I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat >>>>>>>>>>> rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph >>>>>>>>>>> average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with >>>>>>>>>>> 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without >>>>>>>>>>> dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo >>>>>>>>>> 12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain". >>>>>>>>>
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain >>>>>>>>> link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the >>>>>>>>> first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before >>>>>>>> it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of
caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to.
Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but >>>>>>> always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information >>>>>>> that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>>>>> Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before >>>>>>> it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"? >>>>>>> Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As >>>>>>> far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>>>> loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of >>>>>> the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names.
<https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link,
KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't >>>>> seem to be true:
<https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap.
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
hour"... hardly expensive.
There's another reason for me to stick with 9 speed chain. I buy KMC
x9.93 in the 13 foot lengths the Catrike requires for $65. The quick
links are $2 apiece.
https://t-cycle.com/collections/chain-in-bulk
Since I bought our Catrikes, Catrike have gone to 10 speed chains for
reasons I don't know nor understand because they're still using the
3x9 systems. I'm pretty sure my drive train is 10 speed compatible,
but I don't know why I'd want to spend $40 more to go to a 10 speed
chain.
I was wrong. Catrikes do come with a 10 speed cassette which I
consider to be extra cost nonsense. 30 speeds????
As is the nature of multiple chainrings thatAs not what you get, the
CatTrike and looking at the gearing, ie the ratios the 30t gives two lower >gears as does the big ring, so you get 14 individual gears, my Gravel bike >with 10speed GRX ie 20 gears works out to 13 individual gears, which is
also the case for my roadie commuter with its 9 speed double that gives 13 >individual gears.
I did input a CatTrike with both the 11-36 10 speed cassette and the
11-32/34 cassette for 9 speed made no difference in terms of individual >gears.
The duplication and so is one reason Triples are much less common, I agree >itAs nice to have relatively affordable consumable parts and stuff thatAs >easy to get and so on, hence i was happy with the Tiagra/GRX 10 speed >groupset and bought a new frame rather than a new bike with more speeds >cassette which do make more sense with 1by systems as 9/10 speed your
playing gear range with having a gaps in the cassette, 1by 12 speed broadly >equals 2by 10 speed.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so
that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be
Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the
Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must
have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was
wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels.
Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order
it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super
Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then
standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up
Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill
was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my
expected average speed is 0.5 mph ...
and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat
rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph
average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many
people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28
mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like
this as well.
On 9/16/25 12:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike
to bike so
that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite
would be
Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear
derailleur on the
Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed
up. I must
have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out
what was
wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the
idler wheels.
Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had
to order
it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a
worn Super
Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down
and then
standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average
speed up
Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over
Failrmont hill
was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph.
Remember thqt my
expected average speed is 0.5 mph ...
0.5mph? That requires darn good balance :-)
and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride.
On flat
rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as
12 mph
average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many
people.
Except by the E-bike jockeys who hardly pedal, never break a
sweat and
probably die fairly young for lack of exercise.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is
smooth with 28
mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to
ride like
this as well.
I still ride my old Gazelle Trim Trophy frame from 1982 or
so. Shimano 600 non-indexed downtube shifters. I replaced
the real derailer with a MicroShift long-arm so I could
mount a cluster with a 42t granny sprocket in there because
I can't get below 39t up front. Getting older, and all that
stuff. And our hills are nasty.
On 9/22/2025 4:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 9/16/25 12:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so
that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be
Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the
Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must
have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was
wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels.
Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order
it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super
Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then
standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up
Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill
was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my
expected average speed is 0.5 mph ...
0.5mph? That requires darn good balance :-)
and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat
rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph
average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many
people.
Except by the E-bike jockeys who hardly pedal, never break a sweat and
probably die fairly young for lack of exercise.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28
mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like
this as well.
I still ride my old Gazelle Trim Trophy frame from 1982 or so. Shimano
600 non-indexed downtube shifters. I replaced the real derailer with a
MicroShift long-arm so I could mount a cluster with a 42t granny
sprocket in there because I can't get below 39t up front. Getting
older, and all that stuff. And our hills are nasty.
Good to hear from you again, Joerg.
On 9/22/25 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/22/2025 4:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 9/16/25 12:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike
to bike so
that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite
would be
Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear
derailleur on the
Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all
messed up. I must
have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out
what was
wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the
idler wheels.
Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had
to order
it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for
a worn Super
Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling
down and then
standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My
average speed up
Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over
Failrmont hill
was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph.
Remember thqt my
expected average speed is 0.5 mph ...
0.5mph? That requires darn good balance :-)
and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon
ride. On flat
rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as
12 mph
average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by
many
people.
Except by the E-bike jockeys who hardly pedal, never
break a sweat and
probably die fairly young for lack of exercise.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is
smooth with 28
mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length
without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to
ride like
this as well.
I still ride my old Gazelle Trim Trophy frame from 1982
or so. Shimano 600 non-indexed downtube shifters. I
replaced the real derailer with a MicroShift long-arm so
I could mount a cluster with a 42t granny sprocket in
there because I can't get below 39t up front. Getting
older, and all that stuff. And our hills are nasty.
Good to hear from you again, Joerg.
Thanks, Andrew. I had a longterm medical care situation and
then a death in the family. Plus the news server I am using
doesn't always seem to propagate all posts. Sometimes only
the header but the message field is blank.
But I am still riding :-)
On 22 Sep 2025 20:29:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:45:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:10:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an >>>>> hour"... hardly expensive.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but >>>>>>>> always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information >>>>>>>> that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>>>>>> Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before >>>>>>>> it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"? >>>>>>>> Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As >>>>>>>> far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>>>>> loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike >>>>>>>>>>>> so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would >>>>>>>>>>>> be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur >>>>>>>>>>>> on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all >>>>>>>>>>>> messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I >>>>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the >>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one >>>>>>>>>>>> complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn >>>>>>>>>>>> Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down >>>>>>>>>>>> and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My >>>>>>>>>>>> average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb >>>>>>>>>>>> over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of >>>>>>>>>>>> 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and >>>>>>>>>>>> I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat >>>>>>>>>>>> rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph >>>>>>>>>>>> average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with >>>>>>>>>>>> 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without >>>>>>>>>>>> dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo >>>>>>>>>>> 12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur
rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain >>>>>>>>>> link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before >>>>>>>>> it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of >>>>>>>>> caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to. >>>>>>>>
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of >>>>>>> the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names.
<https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link, >>>>>> KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't >>>>>> seem to be true:
<https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap.
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
There's another reason for me to stick with 9 speed chain. I buy KMC
x9.93 in the 13 foot lengths the Catrike requires for $65. The quick
links are $2 apiece.
https://t-cycle.com/collections/chain-in-bulk
Since I bought our Catrikes, Catrike have gone to 10 speed chains for
reasons I don't know nor understand because they're still using the
3x9 systems. I'm pretty sure my drive train is 10 speed compatible,
but I don't know why I'd want to spend $40 more to go to a 10 speed
chain.
I was wrong. Catrikes do come with a 10 speed cassette which I
consider to be extra cost nonsense. 30 speeds????
As is the nature of multiple chainrings that-As not what you get, the
CatTrike and looking at the gearing, ie the ratios the 30t gives two lower >> gears as does the big ring, so you get 14 individual gears, my Gravel bike >> with 10speed GRX ie 20 gears works out to 13 individual gears, which is
also the case for my roadie commuter with its 9 speed double that gives 13 >> individual gears.
I did input a CatTrike with both the 11-36 10 speed cassette and the
11-32/34 cassette for 9 speed made no difference in terms of individual
gears.
The duplication and so is one reason Triples are much less common, I agree >> it-As nice to have relatively affordable consumable parts and stuff that-As >> easy to get and so on, hence i was happy with the Tiagra/GRX 10 speed
groupset and bought a new frame rather than a new bike with more speeds
cassette which do make more sense with 1by systems as 9/10 speed your
playing gear range with having a gaps in the cassette, 1by 12 speed broadly >> equals 2by 10 speed.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
For most of my Catrike's life, I've ridden almost exclusively on the
big chainring, which I'd changed to to 53T, and that was even when I
was going north ride in the hilly country. As my age slowed me down, I
began using the middle ring, 44t, but I wasn't happy with the top end
range. Recently I changed over to a 50/38/30 triple, and once again
very seldom shift off the big ring. MY riding speed, mostly flat
asphalt ranges from occasional 20 MPH bursts to 9 MPH meanders,
critter watching and road crossings. My range, on the 50t, on 599
wheel is 115.5 to 35.3 gear inches.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/16/25 12:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so
that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be
Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the
Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must
have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was
wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels.
Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order
it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super
Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then
standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up
Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill
was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my
expected average speed is 0.5 mph ...
0.5mph? That requires darn good balance :-)
and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat
rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph
average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many
people.
Except by the E-bike jockeys who hardly pedal, never break a sweat and probably die fairly young for lack of exercise.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28
mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like
this as well.
I still ride my old Gazelle Trim Trophy frame from 1982 or so. Shimano
600 non-indexed downtube shifters. I replaced the real derailer with a MicroShift long-arm so I could mount a cluster with a 42t granny
sprocket in there because I can't get below 39t up front. Getting older,
and all that stuff. And our hills are nasty.
On 9/22/2025 5:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 9/16/25 12:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so
that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be
Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the
Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must
have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was
wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels.
Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order
it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super
Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then
standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up
Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill
was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my
expected average speed is 0.5 mph ...
0.5mph? That requires darn good balance :-)
and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat
rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph
average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many
people.
Except by the E-bike jockeys who hardly pedal, never break a sweat and
probably die fairly young for lack of exercise.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28
mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like
this as well.
I still ride my old Gazelle Trim Trophy frame from 1982 or so. Shimano
600 non-indexed downtube shifters. I replaced the real derailer with a
MicroShift long-arm so I could mount a cluster with a 42t granny
sprocket in there because I can't get below 39t up front. Getting older,
and all that stuff. And our hills are nasty.
Almost sounds like you want to swap the cassette and the chainrings.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Sep 2025 20:29:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Still looks to be on the lower cadence side, which maybe your style or the >CatTrike set up, I have used recumbents but only Disablity ones around a >park, which are definitely not well designed, for most part fine for a mile >or so wander to look at the deer and park.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:45:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:10:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an >>>>>> hour"... hardly expensive.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but >>>>>>>>> always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information >>>>>>>>> that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>>>>>>> Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before >>>>>>>>> it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"?
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike >>>>>>>>>>>>> so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would >>>>>>>>>>>>> be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all >>>>>>>>>>>>> messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I >>>>>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one >>>>>>>>>>>>> complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn >>>>>>>>>>>>> Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down >>>>>>>>>>>>> and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My >>>>>>>>>>>>> average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb >>>>>>>>>>>>> over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and >>>>>>>>>>>>> I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat >>>>>>>>>>>>> rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph >>>>>>>>>>>>> average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with >>>>>>>>>>>>> 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without >>>>>>>>>>>>> dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo >>>>>>>>>>>> 12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur >>>>>>>>>>>> rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain >>>>>>>>>>> link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before >>>>>>>>>> it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of >>>>>>>>>> caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to. >>>>>>>>>
Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As >>>>>>>>> far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>>>>>> loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of >>>>>>>> the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names.
<https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link, >>>>>>> KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't >>>>>>> seem to be true:
<https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap.
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
There's another reason for me to stick with 9 speed chain. I buy KMC >>>>> x9.93 in the 13 foot lengths the Catrike requires for $65. The quick >>>>> links are $2 apiece.
https://t-cycle.com/collections/chain-in-bulk
Since I bought our Catrikes, Catrike have gone to 10 speed chains for >>>>> reasons I don't know nor understand because they're still using the
3x9 systems. I'm pretty sure my drive train is 10 speed compatible, >>>>> but I don't know why I'd want to spend $40 more to go to a 10 speed
chain.
I was wrong. Catrikes do come with a 10 speed cassette which I
consider to be extra cost nonsense. 30 speeds????
As is the nature of multiple chainrings that?s not what you get, the
CatTrike and looking at the gearing, ie the ratios the 30t gives two lower >>> gears as does the big ring, so you get 14 individual gears, my Gravel bike >>> with 10speed GRX ie 20 gears works out to 13 individual gears, which is
also the case for my roadie commuter with its 9 speed double that gives 13 >>> individual gears.
I did input a CatTrike with both the 11-36 10 speed cassette and the
11-32/34 cassette for 9 speed made no difference in terms of individual
gears.
The duplication and so is one reason Triples are much less common, I agree >>> it?s nice to have relatively affordable consumable parts and stuff that?s >>> easy to get and so on, hence i was happy with the Tiagra/GRX 10 speed
groupset and bought a new frame rather than a new bike with more speeds
cassette which do make more sense with 1by systems as 9/10 speed your
playing gear range with having a gaps in the cassette, 1by 12 speed broadly >>> equals 2by 10 speed.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
For most of my Catrike's life, I've ridden almost exclusively on the
big chainring, which I'd changed to to 53T, and that was even when I
was going north ride in the hilly country. As my age slowed me down, I
began using the middle ring, 44t, but I wasn't happy with the top end
range. Recently I changed over to a 50/38/30 triple, and once again
very seldom shift off the big ring. MY riding speed, mostly flat
asphalt ranges from occasional 20 MPH bursts to 9 MPH meanders,
critter watching and road crossings. My range, on the 50t, on 599
wheel is 115.5 to 35.3 gear inches.
Some uprights as well, which are also slow sluggish bikes, though this one ><https://www.vanraam.com/en-gb/our-bikes/wheelchair-bikes/veloplus>
Which will carry a wheelchair and as itAs designed better rides a lot
better and is more manoeuvrable. ItAs also a lot more expensive!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Good to hear from you again, Joerg.
Thanks, Andrew. I had a longterm medical care situation and then a deathGood to hear from you Jeorge.
in the family. Plus the news server I am using doesn't always seem to propagate all posts. Sometimes only the header but the message field is blank.
But I am still riding :-)
On 23 Sep 2025 10:42:30 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Sep 2025 20:29:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Still looks to be on the lower cadence side, which maybe your style or the >> CatTrike set up, I have used recumbents but only Disablity ones around a
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:45:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:10:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an >>>>>>> hour"... hardly expensive.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but >>>>>>>>>> always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My >>>>>>>>>>>>>> average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph >>>>>>>>>>>>>> average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as
well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo >>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur >>>>>>>>>>>>> rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain >>>>>>>>>>>> link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before >>>>>>>>>>> it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of >>>>>>>>>>> caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to. >>>>>>>>>>
that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a >>>>>>>>>> Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before >>>>>>>>>> it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"?
Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As >>>>>>>>>> far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>>>>>>> loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of >>>>>>>>> the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names.
<https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link, >>>>>>>> KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other
trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't >>>>>>>> seem to be true:
<https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap.
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
There's another reason for me to stick with 9 speed chain. I buy KMC >>>>>> x9.93 in the 13 foot lengths the Catrike requires for $65. The quick >>>>>> links are $2 apiece.
https://t-cycle.com/collections/chain-in-bulk
Since I bought our Catrikes, Catrike have gone to 10 speed chains for >>>>>> reasons I don't know nor understand because they're still using the >>>>>> 3x9 systems. I'm pretty sure my drive train is 10 speed compatible, >>>>>> but I don't know why I'd want to spend $40 more to go to a 10 speed >>>>>> chain.
I was wrong. Catrikes do come with a 10 speed cassette which I
consider to be extra cost nonsense. 30 speeds????
As is the nature of multiple chainrings that?s not what you get, the
CatTrike and looking at the gearing, ie the ratios the 30t gives two lower >>>> gears as does the big ring, so you get 14 individual gears, my Gravel bike >>>> with 10speed GRX ie 20 gears works out to 13 individual gears, which is >>>> also the case for my roadie commuter with its 9 speed double that gives 13 >>>> individual gears.
I did input a CatTrike with both the 11-36 10 speed cassette and the
11-32/34 cassette for 9 speed made no difference in terms of individual >>>> gears.
The duplication and so is one reason Triples are much less common, I agree >>>> it?s nice to have relatively affordable consumable parts and stuff that?s >>>> easy to get and so on, hence i was happy with the Tiagra/GRX 10 speed
groupset and bought a new frame rather than a new bike with more speeds >>>> cassette which do make more sense with 1by systems as 9/10 speed your
playing gear range with having a gaps in the cassette, 1by 12 speed broadly
equals 2by 10 speed.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
For most of my Catrike's life, I've ridden almost exclusively on the
big chainring, which I'd changed to to 53T, and that was even when I
was going north ride in the hilly country. As my age slowed me down, I
began using the middle ring, 44t, but I wasn't happy with the top end
range. Recently I changed over to a 50/38/30 triple, and once again
very seldom shift off the big ring. MY riding speed, mostly flat
asphalt ranges from occasional 20 MPH bursts to 9 MPH meanders,
critter watching and road crossings. My range, on the 50t, on 599
wheel is 115.5 to 35.3 gear inches.
park, which are definitely not well designed, for most part fine for a mile >> or so wander to look at the deer and park.
Some uprights as well, which are also slow sluggish bikes, though this one >> <https://www.vanraam.com/en-gb/our-bikes/wheelchair-bikes/veloplus>
Which will carry a wheelchair and as it-As designed better rides a lot
better and is more manoeuvrable. It-As also a lot more expensive!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My average cadence is in the low 60s, although my max cadence is
usually over 100. IOW, I can crank that fast, but it tires me out more
than cranking 50s and 60s
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2025 10:42:30 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:If your power is dropping slowly, would seem to make sense I believe to >expect and find lower cadences easier. Though some bikes are easier or not
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Sep 2025 20:29:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Still looks to be on the lower cadence side, which maybe your style or the >>> CatTrike set up, I have used recumbents but only Disablity ones around a >>> park, which are definitely not well designed, for most part fine for a mile >>> or so wander to look at the deer and park.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:45:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 22:10:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 23:12:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 22:17:11 -0700, John B."average hourly pay for an American in the United States is $28.16 an >>>>>>>> hour"... hardly expensive.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:59:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:37 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed Sep 17 16:19:24 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:Tom, you have a different problem. You provide your opinions but >>>>>>>>>>> always (and I do mean always) fail to provide any type of information
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:18:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/16/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike
so that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would
be Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur
on the Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messed up. I must have taken it apart two dozen times before I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong. In the process I lost some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the idler wheels. Out of three sets I didn't have one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete set and had to order it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Super Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down
and then standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average speed up Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb
over Failrmont hill was pretty slow with an average speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my expected average speed is 0.5 mph and
I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many people.
The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with
28 mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like this as
well.
Another endorsement for snap links ( as the new Campagnolo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 chain has).
This one? Campagnolo part number CN-SR702:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Campagnolo%20part%20number%20CN-SR702
Two problems:
1. The price. Approx $26 online.
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/235600007048>
Amazon wants $56:
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
Much cheaper versions are available $12 for 5 pairs: >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/146657529652>
2. They're not re-usable:
"Campagnolo recommend not reusing the C-Link after initial install and
to only use a new C-Link whenever installing a Campagnolo 12s chain".
No more futzing around removing/installing derailleur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollers on the bike.
Futzing around is not an option with the Campagnolo CN-SR702 chain
link. It's not reusable, so the work has to be done correctly on the
first futz.
Liebermann - I've asked you before not to talk about things you don't understand.
The Campy 12 speed quick link is reuseable a couple of timez before
it becomes too loose. Just because Campy errs on the side of >>>>>>>>>>>> caution and profit doesn't mean that real mechanics need to. >>>>>>>>>>>
that might be useful for the reader. For example you mention that a
Campagnolo 12 speed quick link is reusable "a couple of timez before
it becomes too loose". How many times? What constitutes "too loose"?
Does the link need to fall off before it considered "too loose". As
far as I can tell, any amount of wiggling should be considered "too >>>>>>>>>>> loose" and the quick link should be replaced.
He seems to be talking about the link used to c0nnect the two ends of
the bicycle chain.
Correct. It has many names.
<https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_m.html#masterlink>
Master Link, quick release link, Craig Super Link, SRAM Power Link, >>>>>>>>> KMC Missing Link, Wipperman Connex. There are probably other >>>>>>>>> trademarks.
I assumed that quick-link was a generic identifier, but that doesn't >>>>>>>>> seem to be true:
<https://baronhardware.com/blog/quick-links-the-different-varieties-and-applications/>
A relatively cheap and long life device
$56 each is NOT cheap.
<https://www.amazon.com/Campagnolo-C-Link-Speed-Chain-Connector/dp/B0DCTG2TM8>
There's another reason for me to stick with 9 speed chain. I buy KMC >>>>>>> x9.93 in the 13 foot lengths the Catrike requires for $65. The quick >>>>>>> links are $2 apiece.
https://t-cycle.com/collections/chain-in-bulk
Since I bought our Catrikes, Catrike have gone to 10 speed chains for >>>>>>> reasons I don't know nor understand because they're still using the >>>>>>> 3x9 systems. I'm pretty sure my drive train is 10 speed compatible, >>>>>>> but I don't know why I'd want to spend $40 more to go to a 10 speed >>>>>>> chain.
I was wrong. Catrikes do come with a 10 speed cassette which I
consider to be extra cost nonsense. 30 speeds????
As is the nature of multiple chainrings that?s not what you get, the >>>>> CatTrike and looking at the gearing, ie the ratios the 30t gives two lower
gears as does the big ring, so you get 14 individual gears, my Gravel bike
with 10speed GRX ie 20 gears works out to 13 individual gears, which is >>>>> also the case for my roadie commuter with its 9 speed double that gives 13
individual gears.
I did input a CatTrike with both the 11-36 10 speed cassette and the >>>>> 11-32/34 cassette for 9 speed made no difference in terms of individual >>>>> gears.
The duplication and so is one reason Triples are much less common, I agree
it?s nice to have relatively affordable consumable parts and stuff that?s >>>>> easy to get and so on, hence i was happy with the Tiagra/GRX 10 speed >>>>> groupset and bought a new frame rather than a new bike with more speeds >>>>> cassette which do make more sense with 1by systems as 9/10 speed your >>>>> playing gear range with having a gaps in the cassette, 1by 12 speed broadly
equals 2by 10 speed.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
For most of my Catrike's life, I've ridden almost exclusively on the
big chainring, which I'd changed to to 53T, and that was even when I
was going north ride in the hilly country. As my age slowed me down, I >>>> began using the middle ring, 44t, but I wasn't happy with the top end
range. Recently I changed over to a 50/38/30 triple, and once again
very seldom shift off the big ring. MY riding speed, mostly flat
asphalt ranges from occasional 20 MPH bursts to 9 MPH meanders,
critter watching and road crossings. My range, on the 50t, on 599
wheel is 115.5 to 35.3 gear inches.
Some uprights as well, which are also slow sluggish bikes, though this one >>> <https://www.vanraam.com/en-gb/our-bikes/wheelchair-bikes/veloplus>
Which will carry a wheelchair and as it?s designed better rides a lot
better and is more manoeuvrable. It?s also a lot more expensive!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My average cadence is in the low 60s, although my max cadence is
usually over 100. IOW, I can crank that fast, but it tires me out more
than cranking 50s and 60s
to spin, the track bike encouraged this, my old MTB commuter, with a more >upright position absolutely doesnAt!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 9/22/2025 5:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 9/16/25 12:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I spent most of yesterday switching components from bike to bike so
that all of the components on the Colnago Master X Lite would be
Super Record. I was intending to put a Record rear derailleur on the
Time but the spring loading on the drop arm was all messed up. I must
have taken it apart two dozen times before I figured out what was
wrong. In the process I lost some of the parts of the idler wheels.
Out of three sets I didn't have one complete set and had to order
it.
In any case, switching out a nearly new Record crank for a worn Super
Record crank on ths DeRosa had me sitting or kneeling down and then
standing up so, my legs were really shot today. My average speed up
Cull Canyon and back over the 200 foot 9% climb over Failrmont hill
was pretty slow with an average speed of 5.77 mph. Remember thqt my
expected average speed is 0.5 mph ...
0.5mph? That requires darn good balance :-)
and I usually meet ot exceed that on the Cull Canyon ride. On flat
rides (generally into a headwind} I've gotten as high as 12 mph
average. Not fast by any means but I don't get passed by many
people.
Except by the E-bike jockeys who hardly pedal, never break a sweat and probably die fairly young for lack of exercise.
Come on! We've been talking about average speeds expected for people in our age category to be 10.5 mph so it's pretty obvious that 0.5 wwas a typo missing the leading 1 don't you think?. MTB's commonly have as large as a 48 cog on the back, especially on 29-ers. Riding what would now be considered to be a gravel bike on the trail around Lake Chabot I would come flying up on these guys having a very difficult time going that slow on bikes that heavy. They would often block the whole trail weaving back and forth.I deverloped the technique of waiting until they were weaving to the right and pass fast on the left.I ould then do the next half of the loop before they could get to the top of that climb.The geometry of the Time is really good. The ride is smooth with 28
mm tires on it and I can turn around in a bike length without
dragging my toes on the cranks. I expect the Colnago to ride like
this as well.
I still ride my old Gazelle Trim Trophy frame from 1982 or so. Shimano
600 non-indexed downtube shifters. I replaced the real derailer with a MicroShift long-arm so I could mount a cluster with a 42t granny
sprocket in there because I can't get below 39t up front. Getting older, and all that stuff. And our hills are nasty.
Almost sounds like you want to swap the cassette and the chainrings.
Catrike broght to light (the what should have been obvious)software bug in the Garmin. That tells me that I am in a great deal better shape than I thought so I will try some of the old mountain roads now that they are repaired.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:27:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Catrike broght to light (the what should have been obvious)software bug in the Garmin. That tells me that I am in a great deal better shape than I thought so I will try some of the old mountain roads now that they are repaired.
Nope. It was you, not Catrike, who contrived a "Garmin bug" theory
for the sole purpose of explaining your unusually high heart rate.
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/HiJ31S3q/thursday-flat-ride#post3>
"I really don't pay much attention to the actual number of present
heart rate unless I'm looking for something specific 190 bpm would be
max heart rate for a 30 year old so the present Garmin software must
have a bug. Perhaps that is why they just updated it again."
Also, where did you get the idea that "what should have been obvious"
is an acceptable excuse for not providing any form of proof?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:27:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>The smartest man in the world speaketh yet more bullshit. My heart rate is not unusually high but the GRAPH of the zone I was in was offset by one and a half training zones.
wrote:
Catrike broght to light (the what should have been obvious)software bug in the Garmin. That tells me that I am in a great deal better shape than I thought so I will try some of the old mountain roads now that they are repaired.
Nope. It was you, not Catrike, who contrived a "Garmin bug" theory
for the sole purpose of explaining your unusually high heart rate.
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/HiJ31S3q/thursday-flat-ride#post3>
"I really don't pay much attention to the actual number of present
heart rate unless I'm looking for something specific 190 bpm would be
max heart rate for a 30 year old so the present Garmin software must
have a bug. Perhaps that is why they just updated it again."
Also, where did you get the idea that "what should have been obvious"
is an acceptable excuse for not providing any form of proof?
I'm trying to be very hard to be polite to you because even if it is only virtual rides you're still riding.
Not to mention, 190 as a max heart rate for 30-year-old is wildly
inaccurate. It's based on the generic formula of 220 - your age. As
recently as last march I hit 189, which is not uncommon Someone who
regular exercises and does interval work. NOTE: a high heart rate is no indication of power, strength or speed. Heart rate is a highly
personalized metric, and a rank amateur such as myself may easily get
his ass kicked by someone who falls well within the generic formula. HR
means very little from person to person.
On Thu Sep 25 17:20:25 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:27:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Catrike broght to light (the what should have been obvious)software bug in the Garmin. That tells me that I am in a great deal better shape than I thought so I will try some of the old mountain roads now that they are repaired.
Nope. It was you, not Catrike, who contrived a "Garmin bug" theory
for the sole purpose of explaining your unusually high heart rate.
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/HiJ31S3q/thursday-flat-ride#post3>
"I really don't pay much attention to the actual number of present
heart rate unless I'm looking for something specific 190 bpm would be
max heart rate for a 30 year old so the present Garmin software must
have a bug. Perhaps that is why they just updated it again."
Also, where did you get the idea that "what should have been obvious"
is an acceptable excuse for not providing any form of proof?
The smartest man in the world speaketh yet more bullshit.My heart rate is not unusually high but the GRAPH of the zone I was in
Exactly how can you be so stupid and actually believe yourself intelligent?
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record. Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:20:24 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Sep 25 17:20:25 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:My heart rate is not unusually high but the GRAPH of the zone I was in
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:27:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Catrike broght to light (the what should have been obvious)software bug in the Garmin. That tells me that I am in a great deal better shape than I thought so I will try some of the old mountain roads now that they are repaired.
Nope. It was you, not Catrike, who contrived a "Garmin bug" theory
for the sole purpose of explaining your unusually high heart rate.
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/HiJ31S3q/thursday-flat-ride#post3> >>> "I really don't pay much attention to the actual number of present
heart rate unless I'm looking for something specific 190 bpm would be
max heart rate for a 30 year old so the present Garmin software must
have a bug. Perhaps that is why they just updated it again."
Also, where did you get the idea that "what should have been obvious"
is an acceptable excuse for not providing any form of proof?
The smartest man in the world speaketh yet more bullshit.
was offset by one and a half training zones.
Exactly how can you be so stupid and actually believe yourself intelligent?
See https://uihc.org/health-topics/target-heart-rate-exercise
70 years old -
Target Heart Rate Zone (50-85%)
75-128 bpm
Average Maximum Heart Rate (100%)
150 bpm
On Thu Sep 25 17:20:25 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:27:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Catrike broght to light (the what should have been obvious)software bug in the Garmin. That tells me that I am in a great deal better shape than I thought so I will try some of the old mountain roads now that they are repaired.
Nope. It was you, not Catrike, who contrived a "Garmin bug" theory
for the sole purpose of explaining your unusually high heart rate.
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/HiJ31S3q/thursday-flat-ride#post3>
"I really don't pay much attention to the actual number of present
heart rate unless I'm looking for something specific 190 bpm would be
max heart rate for a 30 year old so the present Garmin software must
have a bug. Perhaps that is why they just updated it again."
Also, where did you get the idea that "what should have been obvious"
is an acceptable excuse for not providing any form of proof?
The smartest man in the world speaketh yet more bullshit.My heart rate is not unusually high but the GRAPH of the zone I was in
Exactly how can you be so stupid and actually believe yourself intelligent?
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:45:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record. Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
Nope. It seems that your Strava data is very public. ><https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
Your data goes back to Sept 25, 2023. I apologize for not checking
earlier when you removed all your data.
Many of the rides show problems, such as distances and speeds
suggesting that you were recording an automobile ride. For example: ><https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714> ><https://www.strava.com/activities/15912842623>
shows a maximum speed of 26.1 and 27.7 mph. There are plenty other
rides with similar high speeds.
I looked for a Cull Canyon rides but couldn't find any. However, I
didn't try very hard. Could you provide some dates or activity
numbers when you did that ride?
Hint: It would be nice to know which bicycle you were riding.--
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:17:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:45:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava
are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep
sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record.
Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
Nope. It seems that your Strava data is very public.
<https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
Your data goes back to Sept 25, 2023. I apologize for not checking
earlier when you removed all your data.
Many of the rides show problems, such as distances and speeds
suggesting that you were recording an automobile ride. For example:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15912842623>
shows a maximum speed of 26.1 and 27.7 mph. There are plenty other
rides with similar high speeds.
My mistake and my apologies. No excuse. 26.1 and 27.7 mph are
reasonable peak speeds for going downhill on a bicycle and would not
require an automobile.
I looked for a Cull Canyon rides but couldn't find any. However, I
didn't try very hard. Could you provide some dates or activity
numbers when you did that ride?
Never mind. The first activity I listed, on Sept 09, 2025, was on
Cull Canyon:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
I exported the ride to GPX format and converted it to KML/KMZ format
for viewing in Google Earth in 3D. <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/2025-09-09.gpx>
(700KBytes) <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/20250926195722-22252-map.kmz>
(55K)
For those without Google Earth, a JPG: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride.jpg> (1MByte)
Hint: It would be nice to know which bicycle you were riding.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:17:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:45:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava
are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep
sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record.
Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
Nope. It seems that your Strava data is very public.
<https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
Your data goes back to Sept 25, 2023. I apologize for not checking
earlier when you removed all your data.
Many of the rides show problems, such as distances and speeds
suggesting that you were recording an automobile ride. For example:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15912842623>
shows a maximum speed of 26.1 and 27.7 mph. There are plenty other
rides with similar high speeds.
My mistake and my apologies. No excuse. 26.1 and 27.7 mph are
reasonable peak speeds for going downhill on a bicycle and would not
require an automobile.
I looked for a Cull Canyon rides but couldn't find any. However, I
didn't try very hard. Could you provide some dates or activity
numbers when you did that ride?
Never mind. The first activity I listed, on Sept 09, 2025, was on
Cull Canyon:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
I exported the ride to GPX format and converted it to KML/KMZ format
for viewing in Google Earth in 3D.
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/2025-09-09.gpx>
(700KBytes)
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/20250926195722-22252-map.kmz>
(55K)
For those without Google Earth, a JPG:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride.jpg> >> (1MByte)
Seems to be a dead end road,
looks to be a pleasant place to cycle,
presumably relatively low vehicle traffic, and fairly low grades with a sub >2% average.
--Hint: It would be nice to know which bicycle you were riding.
Not sure the differences between road bikes which he says he has would make >much difference, on that sort of steady climb or decent canAt see 23mm or >32mm tyres, rim or disk brakes, down tube shifters and so on making any >difference.
Roger Merriman
On 27 Sep 2025 15:47:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:17:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:45:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava >>>>> are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep
sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record.
Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
Nope. It seems that your Strava data is very public.
<https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
Your data goes back to Sept 25, 2023. I apologize for not checking
earlier when you removed all your data.
Many of the rides show problems, such as distances and speeds
suggesting that you were recording an automobile ride. For example:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15912842623>
shows a maximum speed of 26.1 and 27.7 mph. There are plenty other
rides with similar high speeds.
My mistake and my apologies. No excuse. 26.1 and 27.7 mph are
reasonable peak speeds for going downhill on a bicycle and would not
require an automobile.
I looked for a Cull Canyon rides but couldn't find any. However, I
didn't try very hard. Could you provide some dates or activity
numbers when you did that ride?
Never mind. The first activity I listed, on Sept 09, 2025, was on
Cull Canyon:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
I exported the ride to GPX format and converted it to KML/KMZ format
for viewing in Google Earth in 3D.
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/2025-09-09.gpx>
(700KBytes)
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/20250926195722-22252-map.kmz>
(55K)
For those without Google Earth, a JPG:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride.jpg> >>> (1MByte)
Seems to be a dead end road,
Nope. Cull Canyon is part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail which goes
around the entire San Francisco bay area: <https://511.org/sites/default/files/bike_maps/bay-area-ridge-trail.pdf>
Cull Canyon is on the map towards the right and near the "Alameda"
country name.
However, there are gaps in the trail, which include the northern end
of Tom's ride. That road does continue on the other side of the
buildings but I don't know if it's passable: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20north%20end.jpg>
looks to be a pleasant place to cycle,
presumably relatively low vehicle traffic, and fairly low grades with a sub >> 2% average.
I added an elevation profile to the Google Earth map: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride%20with%20elevation%20profile.jpg>
Max Slope: +7.4deg, -7.2deg
Avg Slope: +1.5deg, -1.5deg
Distance: 26 miles
Elevation loss/gain: +1328ft, -1328ft
Hint: It would be nice to know which bicycle you were riding.
Not sure the differences between road bikes which he says he has would make >> much difference, on that sort of steady climb or decent can-At see 23mm or >> 32mm tyres, rim or disk brakes, down tube shifters and so on making any
difference.
Roger Merriman
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:20:24 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Sep 25 17:20:25 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:27:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Catrike broght to light (the what should have been obvious)software bug in the Garmin. That tells me that I am in a great deal better shape than I thought so I will try some of the old mountain roads now that they are repaired.
Nope. It was you, not Catrike, who contrived a "Garmin bug" theory
for the sole purpose of explaining your unusually high heart rate.
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/HiJ31S3q/thursday-flat-ride#post3> >> "I really don't pay much attention to the actual number of present
heart rate unless I'm looking for something specific 190 bpm would be
max heart rate for a 30 year old so the present Garmin software must
have a bug. Perhaps that is why they just updated it again."
Also, where did you get the idea that "what should have been obvious"
is an acceptable excuse for not providing any form of proof?
John, I am 80 and my maximum recomended heart rate is 140. On my normal rides my max heart rates very between 131 and 138.The smartest man in the world speaketh yet more bullshit.My heart rate is not unusually high but the GRAPH of the zone I was in
was offset by one and a half training zones.
Exactly how can you be so stupid and actually believe yourself intelligent?
See https://uihc.org/health-topics/target-heart-rate-exercise
70 years old -
Target Heart Rate Zone (50-85%)
75-128 bpm
Average Maximum Heart Rate (100%)
150 bpm
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:45:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>Gee, thanks for showing everyone that my mileage reporting for the month is correct. How many miles is it that you've ridden this month? In you life? Be sure and offer a Strava account as proof of your lying claims.
wrote:
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record. Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
Nope. It seems that your Strava data is very public. <https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
Your data goes back to Sept 25, 2023. I apologize for not checking
earlier when you removed all your data.
Many of the rides show problems, such as distances and speeds
suggesting that you were recording an automobile ride. For example: <https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714> <https://www.strava.com/activities/15912842623>
shows a maximum speed of 26.1 and 27.7 mph. There are plenty other
rides with similar high speeds.
I looked for a Cull Canyon rides but couldn't find any. However, I
didn't try very hard. Could you provide some dates or activity
numbers when you did that ride?
Hint: It would be nice to know which bicycle you were riding.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:The flat ride is largely on bike trails with dog walkers and pedestrias walk three abrest across the trail. This Cull Canyon ride has some 10% sections up and down. Both routes are covered with pot holes to avoid so you have to be alert. I don't suppose it makes any difference which bike you ride but I do like steel.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:17:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:45:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava
are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep
sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record.
Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
Nope. It seems that your Strava data is very public.
<https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
Your data goes back to Sept 25, 2023. I apologize for not checking
earlier when you removed all your data.
Many of the rides show problems, such as distances and speeds
suggesting that you were recording an automobile ride. For example:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15912842623>
shows a maximum speed of 26.1 and 27.7 mph. There are plenty other
rides with similar high speeds.
My mistake and my apologies. No excuse. 26.1 and 27.7 mph are
reasonable peak speeds for going downhill on a bicycle and would not require an automobile.
I looked for a Cull Canyon rides but couldn't find any. However, I
didn't try very hard. Could you provide some dates or activity
numbers when you did that ride?
Never mind. The first activity I listed, on Sept 09, 2025, was on
Cull Canyon:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
I exported the ride to GPX format and converted it to KML/KMZ format
for viewing in Google Earth in 3D. <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/2025-09-09.gpx> (700KBytes) <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/20250926195722-22252-map.kmz>
(55K)
For those without Google Earth, a JPG: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride.jpg> (1MByte)
Seems to be a dead end road, looks to be a pleasant place to cycle, presumably relatively low vehicle traffic, and fairly low grades with a sub 2% average.
Hint: It would be nice to know which bicycle you were riding.
Not sure the differences between road bikes which he says he has would make much difference, on that sort of steady climb or decent can?t see 23mm or 32mm tyres, rim or disk brakes, down tube shifters and so on making any difference.
On 27 Sep 2025 15:47:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Only Liebermann could think that a dead end road is part of a trail.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:17:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:45:22 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The smartest man in the world wants proof since my postings to Strava >>>> are no longer public. I keep wondering what is with Strava who keep
sending me emails saying that I was breaking this or that record.
Mostly fairly short portions of my normal rides.
Nope. It seems that your Strava data is very public.
<https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
Your data goes back to Sept 25, 2023. I apologize for not checking
earlier when you removed all your data.
Many of the rides show problems, such as distances and speeds
suggesting that you were recording an automobile ride. For example:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15912842623>
shows a maximum speed of 26.1 and 27.7 mph. There are plenty other
rides with similar high speeds.
My mistake and my apologies. No excuse. 26.1 and 27.7 mph are
reasonable peak speeds for going downhill on a bicycle and would not
require an automobile.
I looked for a Cull Canyon rides but couldn't find any. However, I
didn't try very hard. Could you provide some dates or activity
numbers when you did that ride?
Never mind. The first activity I listed, on Sept 09, 2025, was on
Cull Canyon:
<https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714>
I exported the ride to GPX format and converted it to KML/KMZ format
for viewing in Google Earth in 3D.
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/2025-09-09.gpx>
(700KBytes)
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/20250926195722-22252-map.kmz>
(55K)
For those without Google Earth, a JPG:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride.jpg>
(1MByte)
Seems to be a dead end road,
Nope. Cull Canyon is part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail which goes
around the entire San Francisco bay area: <https://511.org/sites/default/files/bike_maps/bay-area-ridge-trail.pdf>
Cull Canyon is on the map towards the right and near the "Alameda"
country name.
However, there are gaps in the trail, which include the northern end
of Tom's ride. That road does continue on the other side of the
buildings but I don't know if it's passable: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20north%20end.jpg>
looks to be a pleasant place to cycle,
presumably relatively low vehicle traffic, and fairly low grades with a sub >2% average.
I added an elevation profile to the Google Earth map: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride%20with%20elevation%20profile.jpg>
Max Slope: +7.4deg, -7.2deg
Avg Slope: +1.5deg, -1.5deg
Distance: 26 miles
Elevation loss/gain: +1328ft, -1328ft
Hint: It would be nice to know which bicycle you were riding.
Not sure the differences between road bikes which he says he has would make >much difference, on that sort of steady climb or decent can?t see 23mm or >32mm tyres, rim or disk brakes, down tube shifters and so on making any >difference.
It is but it?s not taking the road that the roadies and Tom is riding or at least to the dead end, or at least where the tarmac stops, apparently at number of houses. <https://maps.app.goo.gl/mdUPm2PEYbM7BU578>There IS no ridge trail in the Oakland Berkeley hills. There are a lot of roads and houses but trails are nhot a connected system. At the FAR south end of Skyline Blvd, there is a dirt trail 5 yards west of the road. There is no other place on Skyline where there are trails in Alameda County. There are dirt trails in some of the county parks but they don't go anywhere.
<https://www.strava.com/segments/636879?filter=3doverall>
Strava heat maps show where folks at least with wheels stop which is the
same place.
<https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap/personal-heatmap?sport=3dRideLike&style=3dstandard&terrain=3dfalse&labels=3dtrue&poi=3dtrue&cPhotos=3dtrue&gColor=3dmobileblue&gOpacity=3d100&pColor=3dorange&pCommutes=3dfalse&pHidden=3dtrue&pDate=3dALL_TIME&pPrivate=3dtrue&pPhotos=3dfalse&pClusters=3dfalse#12.57/37.77584/-122.045>
That route map heads west to be that passing the entrance to Cull Canyon or climbing out of it shortly after, it?s unclear as that trail map is low detail but looks to be taking the Redwood road and passing Cull Canyon recreation area but not the Canyon or the road though it.
Only Liebermann could think that a dead end road is part of a trail.
And 7 degree slope is 14% climbs and there's no such place on that road.
From the top of the road there is a dirt road that goes one way to a couple of homes and the other way goes to a nudist colony. There are no trails beyoud those points.
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 18:14:24 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Only Liebermann could think that a dead end road is part of a trail.
And 7 degree slope is 14% climbs and there's no such place on that road.
The Google Earth profile shows +7.4% maximum slope. Look at the black
stripe at the top of the profile graph: <https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride%20with%20elevation%20profile.jpg>
However, I somehow changed the "%" to "deg". My apologies.
There is no 14% slope anywhere on the trail.
There is a web site that shows bicycle road profiles and slopes. We
used it when we were debating the slope of the streets in San
Francisco. Hopefully, it would also include Cull Canyon. However, I
can't seem to find the URL. Some assistance would be helpful.
From the top of the road there is a dirt road that goes one way to a couple of homes and the other way goes to a nudist colony. There are no trails beyoud those points.
I believe you. However, you might want to tell the Bay Area Ridge
Trail Council that this map is incorrect: <https://511.org/sites/default/files/bike_maps/bay-area-ridge-trail.pdf>
as is the map on their web site: <https://ridgetrail.org/interactive-trail-map/>
Enter "Cull" into the search box for two segments that cover the area. (segments 49, 50 and 51).
I think I now understand the problem. On segments 50 and 51, the
trail is the red line on the map, while Cull Canyon Road is the white
road(?) to the right (east) of the trail. This is what I think Roger
pointed out in:
"... itrCOs not taking the road that the roadies and Tom is riding or at least to the dead end, or at least where the tarmac stops, apparently
at number of houses. <https://maps.app.goo.gl/mdUPm2PEYbM7BU578>"
You can also see the two trails or roads on this map: <https://ridgetrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2019_Alameda_EBMUDtoCullCanyon-1.pdf>
I'll try to overlay the GPX data from your ride onto Google Earth Pro
or Google Earth web version. I'm out of time and need to get back to
paying work. I'll get back to this tonight or tomorrow.
On 9/29/2025 3:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 18:14:24 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Only Liebermann could think that a dead end road is part of a trail.
And 7 degree slope is 14% climbs and there's no such place on that road.
The Google Earth profile shows +7.4% maximum slope. Look at the black
stripe at the top of the profile graph:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Tom/Cull%20Canyon%20ride%20with%20elevation%20profile.jpg>
However, I somehow changed the "%" to "deg". My apologies.
There is no 14% slope anywhere on the trail.
nope, not 14, but Strava claims a short section is well over 10% with a
max at 17.2. Using Strava's helpful analysis tools (from tommy's ride https://www.strava.com/activities/15754983714/analysis/5027/5161) I've focused on a small segment near the top. If you place your cursor on the 12.4 mile tick on the zoomed data segment then drag slightly sligtlh
left to the riding time of 1:34:53 , you get 17.2%. I can't comment of
the accuracy of that, but since that's data generated by Strava's
mapping algorithm, even 10% off would be pretty steep.
There is a web site that shows bicycle road profiles and slopes. We
used it when we were debating the slope of the streets in San
Francisco. Hopefully, it would also include Cull Canyon. However, I
can't seem to find the URL. Some assistance would be helpful.
From the top of the road there is a dirt road that goes one way to a
couple of homes and the other way goes to a nudist colony. There are no
trails beyoud those points.
I believe you. However, you might want to tell the Bay Area Ridge
Trail Council that this map is incorrect:
<https://511.org/sites/default/files/bike_maps/bay-area-ridge-trail.pdf>
as is the map on their web site:
<https://ridgetrail.org/interactive-trail-map/>
Enter "Cull" into the search box for two segments that cover the area.
(segments 49, 50 and 51).
I think I now understand the problem. On segments 50 and 51, the
trail is the red line on the map, while Cull Canyon Road is the white
road(?) to the right (east) of the trail. This is what I think Roger
pointed out in:
"... itrCOs not taking the road that the roadies and Tom is riding or at
least to the dead end, or at least where the tarmac stops, apparently
at number of houses. <https://maps.app.goo.gl/mdUPm2PEYbM7BU578>"
You can also see the two trails or roads on this map:
<https://ridgetrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2019_Alameda_EBMUDtoCullCanyon-1.pdf>
That map shows cull canyon road as a dead end. However, the Strava heat
map shows some activity connecting the end of cull canyon road to the
trail network over to the Ridge View trail.
https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?sport=All&style=standard&terrain=false&labels=true&poi=true&cPhotos=true&gColor=mobileblue&gOpacity=100#15.1/37.7905/-122.05781
It's very faint indicating little usage, my even be a rogue trail, or
just someone bushwhacking.
I'll try to overlay the GPX data from your ride onto Google Earth Pro
or Google Earth web version. I'm out of time and need to get back to
paying work. I'll get back to this tonight or tomorrow.
That map shows cull canyon road as a dead end. However, the Strava heat
map shows some activity connecting the end of cull canyon road to the
trail network over to the Ridge View trail.
https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?sport=All&style=standard&terrain=false&labels=true&poi=true&cPhotos=true&gColor=mobileblue&gOpacity=100#15.1/37.7905/-122.05781
It's very faint indicating little usage, my even be a rogue trail, or
just someone bushwhacking.
