If you ever partake in online cycling discourse, you know that there’s no greater annoyance than when one of the Great Debates of Cycling comes up. It’s like when someone brings up politics at a family gathering around a racist uncle. Suddenly what was pleasant conversation becomes a series of vitriolic tirades making the same tired points and propagating the same misinformation. So in the interest of keeping these subjects from ever coming up again, I’d like to put four of them to rest forever:
Tubulars Vs. Clinchers
Perhaps the ultimate yawn-inducer in roadie forums, this debate has been raging since the advent of the high-end clincher. Typical retorts include:
--Tubulars can be ridden longer flat—that’s how Abraham Olano won the 1995 Worlds. (Yes, there was once a cyclist named Abraham Olano. Google “Indurain” and “Mini-Me” and you should be able to find him.)
--Clinchers are easier to repair
--Tubulars don’t get pinch flats
--Clinchers have lower rolling resistance, as proved by Jobst Brandt. (In the test, uber-curmudgeon Brandt scowled at a clincher and a tubular mounted on rotating wheels; the clincher melted before the tubular, proving the former had lower rolling resistance.)
--Pros Ride Tubulars
And so on.
End of Argument:
Clinchers. Why? Because the only reason pros ride tubulars is the power and influence wielded by the International Pro Bicycle Mechanics Cabal. Think about it. These days, bikes are so simple that even the most inept, dope-riddled domestique can do most necessary repairs with a couple of allen wrenches. Gone are the days of prepping frames, building wheels, and drilling bikes into the sub-20lb realm. So the only thing these mechanics have left to justify their existence is gluing wine cellar-aged tubulars on pre-built wheelsets over the course of four days. And think about that one guy who works for the one French Michelin-sponsored team riding clinchers, and how he feels when he’s surrounded and laughed at by all the other mechanics while he sits in a chair mounting clinchers with a couple of tire irons and taking occasional bites of a Croque Monsieur. Who wants to be that guy?
26” vs. 29” Mountain Bike Wheels
This one’s been raging for the last few years now. 26” wheels handle better. 29” wheels roll over obstacles better. Yadda and so forth.
End of Argument:
While I like to make most points with a little bit of finesse and diplomacy, I have to be frank here. If you’re still asking this question, you’re an idiot. Why? Because this, like all other bicycle-related questions, has been settled once and for all by the Great Trek Bicycle Making Company. The answer? Both!* D’uh.
*Note: The titatium vs. aluminum debate was also settled awhile back by Merlin in the same manner. With this grossly opulent bike, they made the dream of having this exchange a reality:
Question: “So what’s your road bike made out of, carbon or ti?”
Answer: “Yes!”
Campagnolo Vs. Shimano
This is a truly venerable debate, and is a metaphor for the Janus-like spirit of cycling in so many ways. Campagnolo, steeped in Italian tradition and flair, versus Shimano, engineered with Japanese precision and efficiency. To me, however, the real question is what to marvel at more: the fact that this question hasn’t been settled yet, or the fact that people care so much in the first place? Various arguments include:
--Shimano has won eight out of nine of the last Tours de France. (And the only reason they lost one was because it was won by a chemically addled Amish guy with a chip on his shoulder and a testosterone patch on his reproductive musette.)
--Campy wears in, Shimano wears out
--Shimano invented integrated (and indexed) shifting, the waterproof wristwatch, and the first artificial heart
--Campy has Italian Soul and Shimano is an evil OEM behemoth that supplies weapons to our nation's enemies
--Shimano offers mountain bike components, Campy once offered heavy things that bolted onto mountain bikes and didn’t work
And so on.
End of Argument:
Shimano. Why? Compatibility. Not with its mountain bike range, or with other manufacturers’ components. No, I mean compatibility with its fishing equipment range. Yes, all Shimano road and mountain bike component groups are fully compatible with their line of high-end fishing components. And while that may not mean anything to you, it means the world to the many competitors and fans of the cycling/fishing/sulking triathlons that are so popular in the fjords of Norway.
On the other hand, Campagnolo’s road groups can only be made to work with their line of alloy car wheels by employing unsightly kludges and unorthodox cable routings.
Helmets Vs. Not Helmets
This one has been responsible for more threads than the Garment District. Proponents say that only an idiot wouldn’t wear a helmet, and even point to specific instances in which helmets literally saved their lives. Opponents argue that the efficacy of strapping a foam hat to your head is negligible, and that the push towards compulsive helmet-wearing in the cycling community has been largely orchestrated by helmet manufacturers more concerned with their profits than with melon-protection.
End of Argument:
Helmets. Yes, maybe they are largely worthless. In fact, statistics prove that they do little to nothing to prevent against injuries such as broken ribs, fractured collarbones, stubbed toes, saddle sores, paper cuts and road abrasions below the neck. However, anecdotal evidence does suggest that they may be helpful when it comes to actual blows to the head. There’s also the additional benefit of transferring superpowers to the wearer, since strapping one on apparently gives you the ability to tell everyone else what they should do. In any case, whether you wear one or not, it’s a pretty dumb thing to argue about.
Tubulars Vs. Clinchers
Perhaps the ultimate yawn-inducer in roadie forums, this debate has been raging since the advent of the high-end clincher. Typical retorts include:
--Tubulars can be ridden longer flat—that’s how Abraham Olano won the 1995 Worlds. (Yes, there was once a cyclist named Abraham Olano. Google “Indurain” and “Mini-Me” and you should be able to find him.)
--Clinchers are easier to repair
--Tubulars don’t get pinch flats
--Clinchers have lower rolling resistance, as proved by Jobst Brandt. (In the test, uber-curmudgeon Brandt scowled at a clincher and a tubular mounted on rotating wheels; the clincher melted before the tubular, proving the former had lower rolling resistance.)
--Pros Ride Tubulars
And so on.
End of Argument:
Clinchers. Why? Because the only reason pros ride tubulars is the power and influence wielded by the International Pro Bicycle Mechanics Cabal. Think about it. These days, bikes are so simple that even the most inept, dope-riddled domestique can do most necessary repairs with a couple of allen wrenches. Gone are the days of prepping frames, building wheels, and drilling bikes into the sub-20lb realm. So the only thing these mechanics have left to justify their existence is gluing wine cellar-aged tubulars on pre-built wheelsets over the course of four days. And think about that one guy who works for the one French Michelin-sponsored team riding clinchers, and how he feels when he’s surrounded and laughed at by all the other mechanics while he sits in a chair mounting clinchers with a couple of tire irons and taking occasional bites of a Croque Monsieur. Who wants to be that guy?
26” vs. 29” Mountain Bike Wheels
This one’s been raging for the last few years now. 26” wheels handle better. 29” wheels roll over obstacles better. Yadda and so forth.
End of Argument:
While I like to make most points with a little bit of finesse and diplomacy, I have to be frank here. If you’re still asking this question, you’re an idiot. Why? Because this, like all other bicycle-related questions, has been settled once and for all by the Great Trek Bicycle Making Company. The answer? Both!* D’uh.
*Note: The titatium vs. aluminum debate was also settled awhile back by Merlin in the same manner. With this grossly opulent bike, they made the dream of having this exchange a reality:
Question: “So what’s your road bike made out of, carbon or ti?”
Answer: “Yes!”
Campagnolo Vs. Shimano
This is a truly venerable debate, and is a metaphor for the Janus-like spirit of cycling in so many ways. Campagnolo, steeped in Italian tradition and flair, versus Shimano, engineered with Japanese precision and efficiency. To me, however, the real question is what to marvel at more: the fact that this question hasn’t been settled yet, or the fact that people care so much in the first place? Various arguments include:
--Shimano has won eight out of nine of the last Tours de France. (And the only reason they lost one was because it was won by a chemically addled Amish guy with a chip on his shoulder and a testosterone patch on his reproductive musette.)
--Campy wears in, Shimano wears out
--Shimano invented integrated (and indexed) shifting, the waterproof wristwatch, and the first artificial heart
--Campy has Italian Soul and Shimano is an evil OEM behemoth that supplies weapons to our nation's enemies
--Shimano offers mountain bike components, Campy once offered heavy things that bolted onto mountain bikes and didn’t work
And so on.
End of Argument:
Shimano. Why? Compatibility. Not with its mountain bike range, or with other manufacturers’ components. No, I mean compatibility with its fishing equipment range. Yes, all Shimano road and mountain bike component groups are fully compatible with their line of high-end fishing components. And while that may not mean anything to you, it means the world to the many competitors and fans of the cycling/fishing/sulking triathlons that are so popular in the fjords of Norway.
On the other hand, Campagnolo’s road groups can only be made to work with their line of alloy car wheels by employing unsightly kludges and unorthodox cable routings.
Helmets Vs. Not Helmets
This one has been responsible for more threads than the Garment District. Proponents say that only an idiot wouldn’t wear a helmet, and even point to specific instances in which helmets literally saved their lives. Opponents argue that the efficacy of strapping a foam hat to your head is negligible, and that the push towards compulsive helmet-wearing in the cycling community has been largely orchestrated by helmet manufacturers more concerned with their profits than with melon-protection.
End of Argument:
Helmets. Yes, maybe they are largely worthless. In fact, statistics prove that they do little to nothing to prevent against injuries such as broken ribs, fractured collarbones, stubbed toes, saddle sores, paper cuts and road abrasions below the neck. However, anecdotal evidence does suggest that they may be helpful when it comes to actual blows to the head. There’s also the additional benefit of transferring superpowers to the wearer, since strapping one on apparently gives you the ability to tell everyone else what they should do. In any case, whether you wear one or not, it’s a pretty dumb thing to argue about.
We should all have a good laugh when we pull these things out 10 years from now. “God, remember when people actually used to ride these things?” At least we’ll be able to unlace the wheels and re-use the hubs. Unless the whole thing boomerangs on us and they’ve gone retro-chic by then. I guess we won’t be laughing in that case.
The compact revolution has allowed thousands of road cyclists to dispense with their ungainly triple cranksets. Sure, on the road you still need the wide range of the triple for applications like touring, but the days of the race-level triple are surely numbered. So it should be fun to see this thing in 10 years. We can reminisce about a time when heavyset riders made rationalizations like, “Well, Roberto Heras used one on the Angliru.”
