Hello everyone.

Can any of you relate to shopping around for three months for your
wife who wants a bicycle "like the one she saw in the movies " ?

I finally found the exact bicycle my wife is looking for, the Pashley
Sovereign. Its going to be a huge purchase for us, but everything
down to the 5-speed hub gearing, the current specs, the rack, the
color, the basket and the skirt guard are perfect.

I could easily and much cheaper refurbish an old bicycle to look like
the Pashley, but I want something that is new and safe enough to carry
my one year old son on the back without me worrying if the back wheel
is going to slide off while my wife is heading downhill or taking a
tight turn.

Is there ANYTHING else available in the USA that even comes close to
the Pashely in terms of design and function?

AndrewG wrote:
>
> I finally found the exact bicycle my wife is looking for, the Pashley
> Sovereign. Its going to be a huge purchase for us, but everything
> down to the 5-speed hub gearing, the current specs, the rack, the
> color, the basket and the skirt guard are perfect.
>

I know nothing about this bike, but your post made me want to find out,
so I Googled it, and found a rather "funny" description of the S.-A.
hub brakes (which, conincidentally, I had many years ago on a home-assembled
hybrid). The ad in question said:

"Sturmey Archer hub brakes are fitted front and rear to provide reliable
stopping in the majority of situations."

You might want to inquire about the particulars of the "minority of situations"
where the brakes (apparently) do not provide reliable stopping...


Joe


N.b. Above quotation is take from

http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/...-sovereign.asp

AndrewG wrote:

> Hello everyone.
>
> Can any of you relate to shopping around for three months for your
> wife who wants a bicycle "like the one she saw in the movies " ?
>
> I finally found the exact bicycle my wife is looking for, the Pashley
> Sovereign. Its going to be a huge purchase for us, but everything
> down to the 5-speed hub gearing, the current specs, the rack, the
> color, the basket and the skirt guard are perfect.
>
> I could easily and much cheaper refurbish an old bicycle to look like
> the Pashley, but I want something that is new and safe enough to carry
> my one year old son on the back without me worrying if the back wheel
> is going to slide off while my wife is heading downhill or taking a
> tight turn.
>
> Is there ANYTHING else available in the USA that even comes close to
> the Pashely in terms of design and function?

You don't quote the US price. I suggest you find one on eBay. I saw
evidence of them going there for much less than the 500 sterling I found
them for at UK sites.

I don't see anything special about this bike. Try searching sites for
'comfort bikes' and see if you can use one of those to use on your wife.

Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:18:04 -0600, <2q6mrpFrm7kiU1@uni-berlin.de>, Paul
Cassel <paul1@abq.com> wrote:

>I don't see anything special about this bike.

I've seen them, they're classics. They're beautiful. They're sturdy.
They're stable. They're hand built. They're trouble free. They come
ready to ride with lights, rack, fenders, basket and bell. They're one
of the very few step-through bikes available with a skirt protector.
They're heavy but lighter than many other roadsters or classic
European built city bikes. They hold their resale value well.

The Indian made "Hero" brand roadsters are imitations of these of
bikes. I've seen those too and they don't compare favourably.

The Pashley's were in a local shop that builds bents and buzz bikes.
Used, clean but with a touch of rust - $500 CND each - one mens and a
ladies with rod actuated brakes, steel rims and SA 3 spd hubs. They
were marked "sold".

The specs on the new Princess Sovereign with its alloy bits and hub
brakes are a big improvement. One possible upgrade would be a
combined internal brake and dynamo front hub. That's only if you plan
to do much night riding in rain, which the majority of cyclists don't.

>Try searching sites for
>'comfort bikes' and see if you can use one of those to use on your wife.

You missed the part where she said that she wants a bicycle "like the
one in the movies ". There is not substitute for that, but I have to
ask: Does she ride a bike now?

I hope she's not expecting to suddenly be riding on movie sets once
she gets just the "perfect" bicycle.
--
zk

Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:02:14 -0700,
<chl449$i4v$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>, joe <a@b.c> wrote:

>
>You might want to inquire about the particulars of the "minority of situations"
>where the brakes (apparently) do not provide reliable stopping...

Heat fading on long descents.
--
zk

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message news:<414742b0.28294197@news.individual.net>...

> I've seen them, they're classics. They're beautiful. They're sturdy.
> They're stable. They're hand built. They're trouble free. They come
> ready to ride with lights, rack, fenders, basket and bell. They're one
> of the very few step-through bikes available with a skirt protector.
> They're heavy but lighter than many other roadsters or classic
> European built city bikes. They hold their resale value well.
>

Zoot: Thanks for the help, and a thanks to others in here as well.

In as few words as possible, I can say this bicycle has a "definitive
classic style" More importantly, it represents a era in bicycles that
many, if not all, of the US based manufacturers fail to recognize
today.

I am sure the market is there, its just much easier for the big names
today to slap on some fenders and a basket and say a women's bike is a
"commuter" style or "city" style.

What it comes down to is building a spec where a market currently does
not exist, but in the hopes that it will, once the supply is created.

On 8 Sep 2004 12:06:32 -0700, ghezzi@powerlinesports.com (AndrewG)
wrote:

>Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message news:<414742b0.28294197@news.individual.net>...
>
>> I've seen them, they're classics. They're beautiful. They're sturdy.
>> They're stable. They're hand built. They're trouble free. They come
>> ready to ride with lights, rack, fenders, basket and bell. They're one
>> of the very few step-through bikes available with a skirt protector.
>> They're heavy but lighter than many other roadsters or classic
>> European built city bikes. They hold their resale value well.
>>
>
>Zoot: Thanks for the help, and a thanks to others in here as well.
>
>In as few words as possible, I can say this bicycle has a "definitive
>classic style" More importantly, it represents a era in bicycles that
>many, if not all, of the US based manufacturers fail to recognize
>today.

It is because during the equivalent period, the American bicycle scene
was dominated by the "cruiser" type, which is nowhere near as elegant,
efficient, or practical. But it has chrome. Lots and lots of chrome.
And whitewalls. So obviously, it was going to be a hit in America.

I should mention here that the Raleighs and such of the 1950's were
produced in a Britain that was still reconstructing from the
war...Rationing there ended in 1949, and currency controls continued
for much longer. British consumer tastes adjusted accordingly.

The story is much the same on the Continent. There is a reason that
"Bicycle Thieves" is a masterpiece of Italian Realist cinema--because
it reflected a real need for bicycles as transport in the immediate
aftermath of war and reconstruction.

At the same time, American prosperity was at an all-time high.
Automobile ownership increased. And the pent-up demand for consumer
goods was satisfied by enthusiastic industries.

>
>I am sure the market is there, its just much easier for the big names
>today to slap on some fenders and a basket and say a women's bike is a
>"commuter" style or "city" style.

The market is there, but obviously not in sufficient volume in the
United States for the major manufacturers to crank out roadsters for
town use at attractive prices.

The people who would benefit most from modern roadsters are laborers,
for whom transport costs are a significant slice of their budget. In
my town, laborers either arrive in work crews, four or five to a
pickup (construction) or individually, on cheap ($50, US) bicycles.
Those cheap bikes are horrid, sure, but they're affordable and
dependable enough to get these guys to work--so where's the market for
your roadster?

I will surmise that the market segment you're thinking of is busy
being nostalgic for the fat, chrome-encrusted sidewalk behemoths of
its youth and is buying the new cruisers which I see at my bikeshop.
The ones who aren't have been convinced that maybe they get better
value from a hybrid or comfort bike, which has more gears, more
technology, and more...bike, really...at the same or lower cost.

Roadsters for laborers do exist--Flying Pigeon and Hero cycles, for
instance, built in China and India--and I suppose with sufficient
volume, it would be possible for them to be sold at rock-bottom
prices. The trouble is, they look so dowdy next to the latest
gee-whiz X*mart double-boinger....how do you convince someone he's
getting better value for money from a Flying Pigeon than a
dual-suspension "Honda Racing" bicycle?

For the record, I am a big fan of the old roadsters, and think them
excellent, useful machines. I'm just under no illusions regarding a
roadster renaissance in North America.

-Luigi

Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net> wrote:
>
> It is because during the equivalent period, the American bicycle scene
> was dominated by the "cruiser" type, which is nowhere near as elegant,
> efficient, or practical.

Nonsense. The only thing the typical roadster might have to make it
more capable than a balloon-tire cruiser is hub gearing (and not all
roadsters have it) or front brakes (and not all Amercan cruisers lack
those). Both kinds of bike are exceedingly rugged and comfortable,
they both weigh tons/tonnes, and they have both maintained some sort
of following ever since their heyday.

Remember that balloon-tire cruisers evolved into mountain bikes, which
looks to me like a favorable reflection upon their durability,
relative comfort, and utility. I doubt that roadsters would have done
the same if the geographic circumstances had been reversed. Pounding
down Mt. Tamalpais on a rod-braked bike with ridiculously high
standover sounds like a self-punishing mistake.

Roadsters are adequately stylish the way they are, which is why the
new ones look exactly like the old ones. But they are clearly not
compelling enough to arouse the imagination of bike customizers, be
they hot rodders, lowriders, or OEMs. Compared to a
cantilever-framed, fat-tired tanker they look, well, Amish.

> I will surmise that the market segment you're thinking of is busy
> being nostalgic for the fat, chrome-encrusted sidewalk behemoths of
> its youth and is buying the new cruisers which I see at my bikeshop.

So what makes a 50lb cruiser a "behemoth" when a 50lb roadster isn't?
They are similar in wheelbase, and the roadster is taller and has
bigger wheels. Maybe the Euro bike is a "leviathan" or a
"juggernaut"?

The few features that functionally distinguish a roadster from a
cruiser are the full chaincase and pump/generator/lighting furniture--
things that lend themselves to allowing some poor schmuck (make that
*bloke*) to slog to work in the rain and dark at 55 degrees latitude.
In that respect such a bike is completely appropriate. For the
intended use of a ballon tire cruiser (that is, carrying a youngster
on short trips around the neighborhood, campus, or newspaper route)
those features are superfluous.

Chalo Colina

Chalo wrote:


>
> Roadsters are adequately stylish the way they are, which is why the
> new ones look exactly like the old ones. But they are clearly not
> compelling enough to arouse the imagination of bike customizers, be
> they hot rodders, lowriders, or OEMs. Compared to a
> cantilever-framed, fat-tired tanker they look, well, Amish.

Now we're at the heart of the matter.

Lowriders, wheelie bikes, chromed-up cruisers with whitewalls: I don't like
them. If you think an old Raleigh (or Batavus, or Gazelle, or Pashley...)
looks Amish, I think the whole curb-crusher cruiser thing looks tacky, and,
frankly, un-bicycle, if there is such a concept.

(Un-bicycle: I should explain that. I have never wanted my bicycle to be
anything other than a bicycle. I don't want it to look like or act like a
streamline train, or a fiftysomething Caddillac, or a Harley, or an F-86,
or whatever. If I wanted a Caddy or a Harley, I'd get one. I just want a
*bicycle*.)

But then, I also have a fairly understated dress-sense, too, so.

<snip>

> The few features that functionally distinguish a roadster from a
> cruiser are the full chaincase and pump/generator/lighting furniture--
> things that lend themselves to allowing some poor schmuck (make that
> *bloke*) to slog to work in the rain and dark at 55 degrees latitude.
> In that respect such a bike is completely appropriate. For the
> intended use of a ballon tire cruiser (that is, carrying a youngster
> on short trips around the neighborhood, campus, or newspaper route)
> those features are superfluous.

And we're back to "utility," aren't we? A fifty-pound roadster is
transport, and meant to be ridden from point A to B. I don't see (maybe
I'm too young to have seen) chromed-up cruisers being put to that same use.
Kids around here ride BMXs, and a quick survey of the bikeracks at a nearby
college campus shows...not a single cruiser. None.

There are at least a few roadsters around town (Raleigh "Sports" types, with
the smaller chainguard), though, being ridden by guys going to and from
work.

We'll agree to disagree here (not the first time, either): You back the
cruiser. Fine. I'll back the roadster. Just so long as we can share the
same road, I'm happy--even if either of us wouldn't be caught dead on the
other's favored bicycle.

-Luigi

de gustibus non est disputandum, quod justus sum, et id tu scis.

--
www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
Photos, Rants, Raves

Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I have never wanted my bicycle to be
> anything other than a bicycle. I don't want it to look like or act like a
> streamline train, or a fiftysomething Caddillac, or a Harley, or an F-86,
> or whatever. If I wanted a Caddy or a Harley, I'd get one.

Ah, but what if you wanted an F-86? ;^)

> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > For the
> > intended use of a ballon tire cruiser (that is, carrying a youngster
> > on short trips around the neighborhood, campus, or newspaper route)
> > those features are superfluous.
>
> A fifty-pound roadster is
> transport, and meant to be ridden from point A to B. I don't see (maybe
> I'm too young to have seen) chromed-up cruisers being put to that same use.
> Kids around here ride BMXs, and a quick survey of the bikeracks at a nearby
> college campus shows...not a single cruiser. None.

But the design intent of those bikes was for conditions in the USA of
the 1950s. At that time, you would have seen such bikes almost
exclusively. Between marketing trends and the fact that teens are
increasingly feeble when it comes to transporting themselves, BMX
bikes have taken over. They are no match for big-wheeled bikes from a
transportation standpoint, but they tolerate a whole lot more
tomfoolery.

I reckon that campus bike rack you checked didn't contain any 40-50 lb
bikes at all outside of Xmart junkers. Am I right?

> There are at least a few roadsters around town (Raleigh "Sports" types, with
> the smaller chainguard), though, being ridden by guys going to and from
> work.

They are hard to fault until you have to replace the BB or the
headset.

> We'll agree to disagree here (not the first time, either): You back the
> cruiser. Fine. I'll back the roadster. Just so long as we can share the
> same road, I'm happy--even if either of us wouldn't be caught dead on the
> other's favored bicycle.

You get me wrong. I bought a beautiful recent model Gazelle for my
sister, and I think it was one of my better bike purchases ever. It
came with internal gears, drum brakes, stainless steel rims,
chaincase, skirt guards, pump, generator, lights, fenders, rear rack,
folding panniers, bungee straps, and a wheel lock-- all original
equipment. It looks sharp, though it leaves little room for
nondestructive personalization. I don't have one because it would
need to be a 72cm frame or so for proper fit.

Stylewise though, there is no comparing the Gazelle updated roadster

http://www.gazelle-hollandrad.de/bik...MEUR_D2_03.jpg

to an updated cruiser like this:

http://nirve.com/main/largepic.asp?id=1408

There's nothing wrong with the dowdier bike, but it fails to lead you
on a flight of fancy.

Chalo Colina

"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b4b7de4.0409091951.3314f421@posting.google.com...
> Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > I have never wanted my bicycle to be
> > anything other than a bicycle. I don't want it to look like or act like
a
> > streamline train, or a fiftysomething Caddillac, or a Harley, or an
F-86,
> > or whatever. If I wanted a Caddy or a Harley, I'd get one.
>
> Ah, but what if you wanted an F-86? ;^)

You could buy one of the few still around. If you had enough money.
Like this guy:
http://popularmechanics.com/science/...2/index3.phtml

or this guy:
http://www.warbirdalley.com/F86-sf.htm

Pete

>> A fifty-pound roadster is
>> transport, and meant to be ridden from point A to B. I don't see (maybe
>> I'm too young to have seen) chromed-up cruisers being put to that same
>> use. Kids around here ride BMXs, and a quick survey of the bikeracks at a
>> nearby
>> college campus shows...not a single cruiser. None.
>
> But the design intent of those bikes was for conditions in the USA of
> the 1950s. At that time, you would have seen such bikes almost
> exclusively.

Sure. What I want to know is when the cantilevered frame became *the* North
American bicycle, when there were so many production advantages to be had
from straight tubes.

> Between marketing trends and the fact that teens are
> increasingly feeble when it comes to transporting themselves, BMX
> bikes have taken over. They are no match for big-wheeled bikes from a
> transportation standpoint, but they tolerate a whole lot more
> tomfoolery.

There are always a bunch of BMX guys tricking in front of the skate shop
here in town. They're pretty neat.

>
> I reckon that campus bike rack you checked didn't contain any 40-50 lb
> bikes at all outside of Xmart junkers. Am I right?

You are correct. I do, however, see, from time to time, a Giant OCR 1.
Some kid is riding from class to class on a roadie...! The funny thing is
that I've only ever seen that bike parked on campus racks.

To wander slightly off-topic, have you noticed that you've begun to
recognize all the *bicycles*, if not the cyclists, in your neighborhood? I
see the same bunch of guys riding around town, and even if I don't know
them personally, I can recognize them by their bikes: The guy on the
Independent Fabrications bike; the guy on the Trek 2200, and so on.

>
>> There are at least a few roadsters around town (Raleigh "Sports" types,
>> with the smaller chainguard), though, being ridden by guys going to and
>> from work.
>
> They are hard to fault until you have to replace the BB or the
> headset.

Many are just ridden until they disintegrate.

<snip>

>
> There's nothing wrong with the dowdier bike, but it fails to lead you
> on a flight of fancy.

And we're back to this. Flights of fancy aren't as immediately useful for
getting to work on time and in presentable condition.

I've seen updated Gazelles in commuter use (in London), and I must say that
they seem pretty practical bikes, but they aren't anywhere near as
good-looking as the older ones.

[A Dutch friend reports that at her high school in Holland, there was a
rivalry between the guys who rode Gazelles and the guys who rode Batavus
bikes. Ford vs. Chevy, Dutch-style, I guess]

IF I had the skill, it would be amusing to attempt to construct a "light
heavyweight" roadster. Maybe a Reynolds 853 main triangle and fork, but in
roadster lines. Or, for even more comedy value, how about a carbon-fiber
roadster frame? You wouldn't even have to paint it, and, if it held up
well to roadster use, it would definitely make me a carbon fiber believer.

-Luigi

--
www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
Photos, Rants, Raves

Luigi de Guzman wrote:
--snip--
> There are always a bunch of BMX guys tricking in front of the skate shop
> here in town. They're pretty neat.

I think it's pretty cool what these guys can do with those little bikes.
Once in a while, my 13-yr-old son tries to imitate them, with rather
messy results. I had to restock the first aid kid last time.

--snip--
> To wander slightly off-topic, have you noticed that you've begun to
> recognize all the *bicycles*, if not the cyclists, in your neighborhood?

This afternoon, the DH and I went out riding, and some guy in lycra
passed us. We kept tooling along. He passed us again.

*blink*

We never saw him at the side of the road or anything. I'm sure it was
the same guy. That was weird.

> IF I had the skill, it would be amusing to attempt to construct a "light
> heavyweight" roadster. Maybe a Reynolds 853 main triangle and fork, but in
> roadster lines. Or, for even more comedy value, how about a carbon-fiber
> roadster frame? You wouldn't even have to paint it, and, if it held up
> well to roadster use, it would definitely make me a carbon fiber believer.

The thing that concerns me about carbon fiber is, I've heard that any
damage to the frame and it will deteriorate quickly from the point of
damage. I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, it would
definitely put me off carbon fiber.

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts

"the black rose" <blackrosequilts@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Qur0d.62940$Kt5.42040@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

> This afternoon, the DH and I went out riding, and some guy in lycra
> passed us. We kept tooling along. He passed us again.
>
> *blink*
>
> We never saw him at the side of the road or anything. I'm sure it was
> the same guy. That was weird.

This happened to me one day on the way home from work. I'm grinding up the
east high rise, and this guy passes me. Then, about two miles later,
approaching the east channel bridge, he passes me again. I put on the
sprint, catch up to his slipstream, and ask him how he managed to do that.
He said that he had stopped at the toilets at the park on the Lid. I guess I
must have passed him while he was in the loo.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

"Luigi de Guzman" <luigi12081@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lQq0d.18966$aW5.105@fed1read07...

> To wander slightly off-topic, have you noticed that you've begun to
> recognize all the *bicycles*, if not the cyclists, in your neighborhood?
I
> see the same bunch of guys riding around town, and even if I don't know
> them personally, I can recognize them by their bikes: The guy on the
> Independent Fabrications bike; the guy on the Trek 2200, and so on.

There's a guy who I've seen now for years who comes down the minor arterial
that leads out of our immediate little neighborhood. He's usually there
about 8:00 AM, and I've seen him maybe on average about once every three
weeks or so -- the timing has to be just right for me to be coming out of
the neighborhood and him to be riding by. Then I've seen him on the reverse
commute much less -- maybe about 2 or 3 instances in total. At this point we
recognize each other on the bikes and do the friendly wave thing.

I made up a whole story about him. He lives in Issaquah and works at
Microsoft, and rides along the lake every morning -- a pleasant 8 mile
commute or so. He's coming up this way because he's rather have a steeper
hill and less traffic.

Then, one morning, about a month ago, I saw him actually turning on to our
minor arterial, and he was coming from the northwest, not the southeast as
if he were coming from Issaquah. My little story was completely blown out of
the water. My new story -- he actually lives quite close by to me -- one of
the adjacent neighborhoods. He works in downtown Redmond. One day I'll
double back, sprint, catch up to him, and ask him really what his story is,
as opposed to the one I've made up for him.

There's other folks I see all the time on the way to work. Some I only see
on certain portions of the route, like the Asian guy on the Klein who I only
see on Lake Hills Blvd., or the the woman who walks her husky dog just in
one particular neighborhood. On the I-90 trail I see the young fellow with
the little round glasses and the black pannier -- he shouldn't be growing
that goatee, it doesn't suit him; and the guy with a hi-vis yellow jacket on
the bent with the flag.

I also often see Dane J. of our newsgroup, too, coming the other way -- I
yelled at him just last week as he was coming up to Eastgate, but he was
oblivious (as usual :-) ).


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky