Question about Huffy bikes

[Ron Hardin]

innamaze wrote:
>
> It would seem to me that blowing out your bottom bracket, rear wheel
> bearing race, front wheel spindle assembly hardly confirms the quality
> of a huffy....just re-inforces my statements as to the overall rather
> cheap manufacturing processes of huffy....now if you really want to
> have some fun with a huffy, go find and enter a good huffy toss....

Gee, I've gone through probably four bottom bracket sets on my 1998
Huffy (replacement bearing sets are about $3.50 at Huffy parts,
pound out and pound in the replacement). That's over
64,000 miles.

Huffy parts last about as long as any other. The ``quality'' issue
is chiefly price and weight. If anything, the heavier simpler
components fail less.

Oh and you don't mind replacing a chainwheel at $15 for a triple
(with cranks and spindle).

Pay more if you want, it's none of my business.

The problem with Huffy is that they make for the mass market fad,
and the year's crop of offerings may not be the fad you want.
--
Ron Hardin
[email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

[Bill Baka]

innamaze wrote:
> It would seem to me that blowing out your bottom bracket, rear wheel
> bearing race, front wheel spindle assembly hardly confirms the quality
> of a huffy....just re-inforces my statements as to the overall rather
> cheap manufacturing processes of huffy....now if you really want to
> have some fun with a huffy, go find and enter a good huffy toss....
>
I wore it out after 5,000 miles of on road, off road (dirt and grit)
riding. $20 for a replacement, installed, was not a bad deal.
Bill

 

[[email protected]]

that won't beat your body as badly as that huffy, even if you
> don't realize what that bike has been putting you through.....

If a bike lasts for ten years of daily commuting without major repairs
would it be considered reliable? I'd say so. When I was working on the
fourth floor of an industrial building I'd see this guy every morning
on the elevator with a really beat looking Huffy. One morning I noticed
he had a new rear wheel. I asked him about it and he said that he had
been clipped by a car on his way to work and that the driver took him
to the local bike shop and bought him a new rear wheel. He mentioned
that he had been riding the bike every day for eleven years. As a
builder of bikes in the $2-4000 range I think I know a little about
quality and reliability. If you need something to ride back and forth
to work on, just about any of the mass produced department store bikes
will do the job. If you race or do long distance touring then you will
need something designed for those applications. Also, the amount of
hype and BS associated with bike frames is amazing, go into any bike
shop and the guys who work there will tell you that they can tell what
the frame material is by riding the bike. What a crock! A bike frame is
a very simple structure, two triangles that regardless of material have
no suspension characteristics. And you're not going to go any faster on
a $3000 titanium road bike than a $300 steel frame. And as far as
"beating up your body" goes, the Ti road bike with it's 120 psi tires
will "beat you up" much worse than the department store bike with it's
50 psi tires.

**** Ryan

 

[Bill Baka]

[email protected] wrote:
> that won't beat your body as badly as that huffy, even if you
>
>>don't realize what that bike has been putting you through.....
>
>
> If a bike lasts for ten years of daily commuting without major repairs
> would it be considered reliable? I'd say so. When I was working on the
> fourth floor of an industrial building I'd see this guy every morning
> on the elevator with a really beat looking Huffy. One morning I noticed
> he had a new rear wheel. I asked him about it and he said that he had
> been clipped by a car on his way to work and that the driver took him
> to the local bike shop and bought him a new rear wheel. He mentioned
> that he had been riding the bike every day for eleven years. As a
> builder of bikes in the $2-4000 range I think I know a little about
> quality and reliability. If you need something to ride back and forth
> to work on, just about any of the mass produced department store bikes
> will do the job. If you race or do long distance touring then you will
> need something designed for those applications. Also, the amount of
> hype and BS associated with bike frames is amazing, go into any bike
> shop and the guys who work there will tell you that they can tell what
> the frame material is by riding the bike. What a crock! A bike frame is
> a very simple structure, two triangles that regardless of material have
> no suspension characteristics. And you're not going to go any faster on
> a $3000 titanium road bike than a $300 steel frame. And as far as
> "beating up your body" goes, the Ti road bike with it's 120 psi tires
> will "beat you up" much worse than the department store bike with it's
> 50 psi tires.
>
> **** Ryan
>
AMEN,
I have a God awful heavy Mongoose downhill racer that weighs about 80
pounds but will go just as fast in a straight line on the level as a 15
pound racer. Riding it uphill is an exercise in self torture but nothing
short of being run over by a train will hurt it. My Huffy cost about
$85.00 originally and I got all the miles I could ever expect for the
money spent. 5,000/85 is roughly equal to 200,000/3400 dollars. I doubt
that I will ever, even as a life time total, come close to 200,000
miles, even adding in all the miles I rode as a kid. If I can get in an
average of 20 miles a day, time permitting, that is still only 7,000
miles a year, and not even a $3,000 bike can be expected to last that
long, 30 years.
Bill Baka

 

[Sorni]

Bill Baka wrote:
{More snips taken}

> I have a God awful heavy Mongoose downhill racer that weighs about 80
> pounds but will go just as fast in a straight line on the level as a
> 15 pound racer.

WELCOME BACK BULLSHITTIN' BILL!

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka **** Ryan wrote:
> ...Also, the amount of
> hype and BS associated with bike frames is amazing, go into any bike
> shop and the guys who work there will tell you that they can tell what
> the frame material is by riding the bike. What a crock! A bike frame is
> a very simple structure, two triangles that regardless of material have
> no suspension characteristics....

However, steel, aluminium alloy, titanium/titanium alloy and carbon
fiber reinforced composite have differing damping and acoustic
properties, which will create SUBJECTIVELY different riding
experiences.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Bill Baka]

Sorni wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
> {More snips taken}
>
>
>>I have a God awful heavy Mongoose downhill racer that weighs about 80
>>pounds but will go just as fast in a straight line on the level as a
>>15 pound racer.
>
>
> WELCOME BACK BULLSHITTIN' BILL!
>
>
Still here, eh, asshole?
I meant that the weight of the bike has almost nothing to do with going
in a straight line, except maybe a slightly higher rolling resistance on
the tires due to the weight.
Read what I mean, not what you want to interpret as ********.
Wind resistance is the limiting factor on a level course, not weight.
And no, I am not talking about racing, just riding.
Can you understand that VERY simple fact?
Bill

 

[innamaze]

overall speed of any bike is determined by the rider, so yes your 80
lb. "racer" will go as fast as a 15 lb. racer on the flat, however, due
to the physics involved (the rolling resistance of your fat tires vs.
the skinny tires, wind resistance, frame deflection, and energy
required to move mass) but the 15 lb. racer will get to that speed
faster and with less effort than your "racer"...however, on a downhill
slope, where gravity is primary, then the weight and mass of your racer
is a premium to be desired and will beat a lightweight bike,( assuming
the riders are of equal weight and size) I should add that
maintenance is key to any bikes lifespan....a well maintained bike,
properly cleaned, lubricated, adjusted can last indefinitely...a $3,000
bike uncared for will end up in a scrap heap before a well maintained
less expensive bike...I should add that I do not denigrate anyone that
rides a huffy, rather I applaud anyone that rides a bike, especially
for commuting...I was hoping perhaps my comments might get you to try
what might be an easier way to pile up those miles, but if you are
happy on your ride then keep on riding......if I see you on the road, I
will wave and say hi, no matter what your ride might be!!!

 

[Sorni]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>> {More snips taken}
>>
>>
>>> I have a God awful heavy Mongoose downhill racer that weighs about
>>> 80 pounds but will go just as fast in a straight line on the level
>>> as a 15 pound racer.
>>
>>
>> WELCOME BACK BULLSHITTIN' BILL!
>>
>>
> Still here, eh, asshole?

Bill, so hostile! Tsk!

> I meant that the weight of the bike has almost nothing to do with
> going in a straight line, except maybe a slightly higher rolling
> resistance on the tires due to the weight.

Sorry, I replied to what you WROTE.

> Read what I mean, not what you want to interpret as ********.

Sorry, I replied to what you WROTE.

> Wind resistance is the limiting factor on a level course, not weight.
> And no, I am not talking about racing, just riding.
> Can you understand that VERY simple fact?

Sorry, I replied to what you WROTE.

(In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their website. When
others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY couldn't find it, you simply
ignored them and BS'd about other stuff. Good to know you haven't changed!)

Bill "still here, eh, but won't call you a mean name (other than
Bullshittin' Bill, that is)" S.

 

[Bill Baka]

Sorni wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Baka wrote:
>>>{More snips taken}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a God awful heavy Mongoose downhill racer that weighs about
>>>>80 pounds but will go just as fast in a straight line on the level
>>>>as a 15 pound racer.
>>>
>>>
>>>WELCOME BACK BULLSHITTIN' BILL!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Still here, eh, asshole?
>
>
> Bill, so hostile! Tsk!
>
>
>>I meant that the weight of the bike has almost nothing to do with
>>going in a straight line, except maybe a slightly higher rolling
>>resistance on the tires due to the weight.
>
>
> Sorry, I replied to what you WROTE.
>
>
>>Read what I mean, not what you want to interpret as ********.
>
>
> Sorry, I replied to what you WROTE.
>
>
>>Wind resistance is the limiting factor on a level course, not weight.
>>And no, I am not talking about racing, just riding.
>>Can you understand that VERY simple fact?
>
>
> Sorry, I replied to what you WROTE.
>
> (In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their website. When
> others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY couldn't find it, you simply
> ignored them and BS'd about other stuff. Good to know you haven't changed!)
>
> Bill "still here, eh, but won't call you a mean name (other than
> Bullshittin' Bill, that is)" S.
>
>
Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a computer?
I am happy with my Cateye on the road and as a spare flashlight.
I am also not worried about a few lumens more or less, since I can see
fairly well even in country starlight with no moon, so the light is just
as much an advance warning to drivers that there is someone on the road.
The only thing I can't see by starlight is potholes, even though I can
follow the road by it.
Bill

 

[Bill Baka]

innamaze wrote:
> overall speed of any bike is determined by the rider, so yes your 80
> lb. "racer" will go as fast as a 15 lb. racer on the flat, however, due
> to the physics involved (the rolling resistance of your fat tires vs.
> the skinny tires, wind resistance, frame deflection, and energy
> required to move mass) but the 15 lb. racer will get to that speed
> faster and with less effort than your "racer"...however, on a downhill
> slope, where gravity is primary, then the weight and mass of your racer
> is a premium to be desired and will beat a lightweight bike,( assuming
> the riders are of equal weight and size) I should add that
> maintenance is key to any bikes lifespan....a well maintained bike,
> properly cleaned, lubricated, adjusted can last indefinitely...a $3,000
> bike uncared for will end up in a scrap heap before a well maintained
> less expensive bike...I should add that I do not denigrate anyone that
> rides a huffy, rather I applaud anyone that rides a bike, especially
> for commuting...I was hoping perhaps my comments might get you to try
> what might be an easier way to pile up those miles, but if you are
> happy on your ride then keep on riding......if I see you on the road, I
> will wave and say hi, no matter what your ride might be!!!
>
I only ride what is available to me at the time, like no flat tires, not
out of commission for maintenance, etc. The Pacific has been reliable so
far except for the crank set which is just 3 gears tack welded together
and gives me no latitude for change. I have a dozen other crank sets and
the Pacific has an odd offset that prevents me from using any others
unless I change the entire bottom bracket, which will happen if/when I
wear it out. I just ride to ride, not race, but anything done on a bike
is better than anything done watching television.
Bill

 

[Sorni]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
{as usual, snippage necessary for preservation of sanity}

>> (In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their website. When
>> others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY couldn't find
>> it, you simply ignored them and BS'd about other stuff. Good to
>> know you haven't changed!)

> Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a
> computer? I am happy with my Cateye on the road and as a spare
> flashlight. I am also not worried about a few lumens more or less, since I
> can see
> fairly well even in country starlight with no moon, so the light is
> just as much an advance warning to drivers that there is someone on
> the road. The only thing I can't see by starlight is potholes, even
> though I can follow the road by it.

Bill, you wrote the following:

>>> The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct
>>> electric to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web
>>> site and you will see the difference.

At least two different people said they couldn't find what you were
describing and asked for a link, and you COMPLETELY IGNORED THEM both times
and spouted off about {whatever} instead.

Can you point out what you referenced for the unwashed masses?

TYVM, BS

 

[Rich]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> (In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their website.
>> When others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY couldn't find it,
>> you simply ignored them and BS'd about other stuff. Good to know you

> Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a computer?

I can't find it either. And I use a computers so I can make contact
with great bike guru's like you, ********'n Bill. So please help me
find the information.

I await your guidance.

Rich

 

[Bill Baka]

Sorni wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>
> {as usual, snippage necessary for preservation of sanity}
>
>
>>>(In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their website. When
>>>others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY couldn't find
>>>it, you simply ignored them and BS'd about other stuff. Good to
>>>know you haven't changed!)

Here it is, just for you...
http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=19&catId=7&subCatId=2
>
>
>>Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a
>>computer? I am happy with my Cateye on the road and as a spare
>>flashlight. I am also not worried about a few lumens more or less, since I
>>can see
>>fairly well even in country starlight with no moon, so the light is
>>just as much an advance warning to drivers that there is someone on
>>the road. The only thing I can't see by starlight is potholes, even
>>though I can follow the road by it.
>
>
> Bill, you wrote the following:
>
>
>>>>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct
>>>>electric to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web
>>>>site and you will see the difference.
>
>
> At least two different people said they couldn't find what you were
> describing and asked for a link, and you COMPLETELY IGNORED THEM both times
> and spouted off about {whatever} instead.
>
> Can you point out what you referenced for the unwashed masses?
>
> TYVM, BS
>
>
>
>

 

[Bill Baka]

Rich wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>> (In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their website.
>>> When others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY couldn't find
>>> it, you simply ignored them and BS'd about other stuff. Good to know
>>> you
>
>
>> Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a computer?
>
>
> I can't find it either. And I use a computers so I can make contact
> with great bike guru's like you, ********'n Bill. So please help me
> find the information.
>
> I await your guidance.
>
> Rich
Again, here is the URL
http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=19&catId=7&subCatId=2
Bill

 

[Sorni]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>
>> {as usual, snippage necessary for preservation of sanity}
>>
>>
>>>> (In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their
>>>> website. When others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY
>>>> couldn't find it, you simply ignored them and BS'd about other stuff.
>>>> Good to
>>>> know you haven't changed!)

> Here it is, just for you...
> http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=19&catId=7&subCatId=2

Well, at least you finally answered a direct question (albeit in a different
thread and from a true thrid party).

Now, where does it support what you WROTE:

>>>>> "The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct
>>>>> electric to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web
>>>>> site and you will see the difference."

"Direct electric to light conversion (with) no heat wasted" is pretty
amazing. Is it true?

BS

 

[Sorni]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>> (In that Cateye thread, you claimed something was on their website.
>>>> When others asked repeatedly for a link because THEY couldn't find
>>>> it, you simply ignored them and BS'd about other stuff. Good to
>>>> know you
>>
>>
>>> Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a
>>> computer?
>>
>>
>> I can't find it either. And I use a computers so I can make contact
>> with great bike guru's like you, ********'n Bill. So please help me
>> find the information.
>>
>> I await your guidance.
>>
>> Rich

> Again, here is the URL
> http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=19&catId=7&subCatId=2
> Bill

I just searched for "Direct electric to light conversion" and came up empty.
Where did you get THAT, BSB?!?

Bill "sound like Barry Scheck (sp?)" S.

 

[Colorado Bicycler]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
> > Bill Baka wrote:
> >
>
> Here it is, just for you...
> http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=19&catId=7&subCatId=2
> >
> >
> >>Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a
> >>computer? I am happy with my Cateye on the road and as a spare
> >>flashlight. I am also not worried about a few lumens more or less, since I
> >>can see
> >>fairly well even in country starlight with no moon, so the light is
> >>just as much an advance warning to drivers that there is someone on
> >>the road. The only thing I can't see by starlight is potholes, even
> >>though I can follow the road by it.
> >
> >
> > Bill, you wrote the following:
> >
> >
> >>>>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct
> >>>>electric to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web
> >>>>site and you will see the difference.
> >
> >
> > At least two different people said they couldn't find what you were
> > describing and asked for a link, and you COMPLETELY IGNORED THEM both times
> > and spouted off about {whatever} instead.
> >
> > Can you point out what you referenced for the unwashed masses?
> >
> > TYVM, BS
> >
> >
> >
> >

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/olderlights/product_89080.shtml

 

[Sorni]

Colorado Bicycler wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Sorni wrote:
>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Here it is, just for you...
>> http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=19&catId=7&subCatId=2
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a
>>>> computer? I am happy with my Cateye on the road and as a spare
>>>> flashlight. I am also not worried about a few lumens more or less,
>>>> since I can see
>>>> fairly well even in country starlight with no moon, so the light is
>>>> just as much an advance warning to drivers that there is someone on
>>>> the road. The only thing I can't see by starlight is potholes, even
>>>> though I can follow the road by it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill, you wrote the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct
>>>>>> electric to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web
>>>>>> site and you will see the difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> At least two different people said they couldn't find what you were
>>> describing and asked for a link, and you COMPLETELY IGNORED THEM
>>> both times and spouted off about {whatever} instead.
>>>
>>> Can you point out what you referenced for the unwashed masses?
>>>
>>> TYVM, BS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/olderlights/product_89080.shtml


A) That's not "their website" that BS-in' Bill referenced.

B) Still don't see the "direct electric to light conversion (with) no heat
wasted" claim. Not saying it's wrong or doesn't exist; just ain't seen it.

Pardon me if I'm skeptical about almost everything /Bullshittin' Bill Baka/
(copywritable?!?) writes. (Although getting his "speedometer" "calibrated"
to "within 1/1000s of a mile" MUST be true! LOL)

Bill "woke up cynical" S.

 

[Bill Baka]

Sorni wrote:
> Colorado Bicycler wrote:
>
>>Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>>Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Baka wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here it is, just for you...
>>>http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=19&catId=7&subCatId=2
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Cateye has a web site and if you can't find it then why use a
>>>>>computer? I am happy with my Cateye on the road and as a spare
>>>>>flashlight. I am also not worried about a few lumens more or less,
>>>>>since I can see
>>>>>fairly well even in country starlight with no moon, so the light is
>>>>>just as much an advance warning to drivers that there is someone on
>>>>>the road. The only thing I can't see by starlight is potholes, even
>>>>>though I can follow the road by it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bill, you wrote the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct
>>>>>>>electric to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web
>>>>>>>site and you will see the difference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At least two different people said they couldn't find what you were
>>>>describing and asked for a link, and you COMPLETELY IGNORED THEM
>>>>both times and spouted off about {whatever} instead.
>>>>
>>>>Can you point out what you referenced for the unwashed masses?
>>>>
>>>>TYVM, BS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/olderlights/product_89080.shtml
>
>
>
> A) That's not "their website" that BS-in' Bill referenced.
>
> B) Still don't see the "direct electric to light conversion (with) no heat
> wasted" claim. Not saying it's wrong or doesn't exist; just ain't seen it.
>
> Pardon me if I'm skeptical about almost everything /Bullshittin' Bill Baka/
> (copywritable?!?) writes. (Although getting his "speedometer" "calibrated"
> to "within 1/1000s of a mile" MUST be true! LOL)
>
> Bill "woke up cynical" S.
>
>
Let me clarify.
A properly designed LED is about the most efficient light source known
since it depends on the quantum jumps of electrons from one state to
another when excited by electricity. Hence, each combination of elements
to form a particular LED emit a wavelength, visible or not, according to
the characteristics of the elements involved in their fabrication.
Since I am not here to educate you on semiconductor physics you will
just have to look it up for yourselves if you can understand all that.

My speedometer has five digits and at first showed 0.0000 miles. The
calibration factor by default is set for a 700 tire with a number like
2235. For a 26 x 2.25 tire the number is more like 21xx so the best
calibration possible is one part in 2200. The mileage was incrementing
about 0.004 mile for every 3 rotations of the wheel, which fits in with
the distance of one revolution.

BTW, the LED Cateye has a life per charge of about 130 hours and the
Halogens only about 4 hours if I remember the charts correctly. I use
2500maH NiMH rechargeable batteries and do carry spares, as if I need to.

Bill, not bullshitting here, but you can find your own information with
a simple Google just as easily as me.