Another request for a recommendation!

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Alex Veitch, Jun 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael MacClancy wrote:
    >
    <snip>
    > It really depends on what you mean by 'light trails'. If this means well-surfaced forest tracks or
    > canal towpaths or former railway tracks then a hybrid could be your best bet. It's a fairly common
    > response on this NG that you don't need front suspension on a low-end bike but it's difficult to
    > find suitable models. The Ridgeback Rapide Series (www.ridgeback.co.uk) seems to have a range of
    > models filling this need. The Bullitt looks particularly attractive.
    >
    >

    I bought myself a Ridgeback Velocity last year following advice from this board and bike shops etc.
    My requirements were similar to yours - ie general purpose on road and light off-road. Overall I'm
    very pleased with the bike - it seems reasonably well put together with a good balance of
    componentry although the chainwheels seem a bit on the cheap side. Also, it doesn't have sus forks
    as I consider them pointless on this type of bike. I *will* change the tyres soon though as the side
    knobbly bits just seem to be there for appearance sake and actually tend to reduce grip and
    stability when cornering on the road.

    Martin
    --
    mob at freenet dotcodotuk
     


  2. Tenex

    Tenex Guest

    James Hodson wrote:
    > Evans cycles seem to have a reasonably good selection of "last years" bikes for reasonable prices.
    > They do appear to stock bikes made by all the usual suspects.

    Very limited actually, a lot are womens only or only the smaller frames.
     
  3. Gwyn Oakley

    Gwyn Oakley Guest

    In message <[email protected]> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Mads Hilberg wrote:
    >
    > > Well exactly. I really don't understand why so many people in the UK choose mountain bikes for
    > > town/city use.
    >
    > There isn't a cycling culture, so folk tend to get what's currently seen to be the In Thing. Most
    > people, AFAICT, genuinely don't realise that an MTB as typically supplied is harder work than
    > alternatives.
    >
    > > maintenance, typically have rather wide tyres and there is no chain guard so if you're cycling
    > > to work you are likely to arrive with oil on your trousers.
    >
    > Another product of no general utility cycling culture is that bikes are often bought as a
    > "lifestyle statement", and bikes are often bought on the grounds of the image they project. A lot
    > of people like to think of themselves as sporty outdoor types rather than not, so that means
    > chaincases, hub gears, racks and mudguards are seen as Bad Things by many who might benefit from
    > them. There's also a culture of thinking that what works for someone doing something extreme must
    > be the best for routine use, so "obviously" full suspension and 21+ gears are better than no
    > suspension and 3. Though it is realised in general that the cheapest car available is not always
    > the best, this mindset has generally not crossed over to cycle buying in many cases. A Lada may
    > have a 1.6 litre 4 cylinder engine, 5 gears and 4 wheels just as a Ford Focus does, but most
    > people would sooner spend the money on the Ford.

    And the Ford Focus is the biggest heap of shite I have ever driven and yes ive driven
    plenty of shite

    >

    --
    Gwyn
     
  4. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    Peter Clinch wrote:

    >> I define it as making a grin appear on the rider's face and making them say "ooh, that's nice!".
    >> I found my brother's bog standard MTB rode much nicer (more comfortable and quicker, smoother)
    >> than my Raleigh Royal tourer. This experience helped encourage me to upgrade the old tourer - but
    >> it still doesn't seem to ride as "nice". (I've got to do some more tweaking!).
    >
    > I think this says more about your old tourer!

    Maybe it does - about frame & forks - because almost everything else is now actually of quite good
    modern quality (wheels & cranks & other stuff that was ok on a road bike). Fatter tyres that MTB's
    have is one big reason for their "nice" ride.

    > I have found MTBs conform more to John Franklin's description in Cyclecraft, which is along the
    > lines of "Sluggish and poor for manoeuvring in traffic".

    That's not my experience at all. If any bike is sluggish, it's a traditional hub geared roadster.
    Note that most couriers use mountain bikes because they are good in inner city traffic. An MTB is of
    course quite a bit slower on the open road and uphill than a lightweight road race bike but that's a
    different comparison.

    >> The bikes are genuinely inferior in /some/ ways for typical urban use. People are not
    >> totally daft.
    >
    > What ways?

    Heavy and sluggish - especially up hills; heavy to lift. Plus the other ways I've mentioned
    previously.

    > If they're genuinely inferior why are they so popular and common in places with urban utility
    > bike culture?

    As I've mentioned already, they're more popular in flatter countries, and poorer countries, and
    because it would be seen as "odd" to use anything different just because those kind of bikes have
    been so popular for so long. The kind of road layouts and may also be a factor.

    > Or do you *really* think citizens of the UK actually far more enlightened than the rest of the
    > world when it comes to bike choices for general use?

    I think they're choosing bikes that are more suited to the UK, and yes I really think Britain (along
    with some other countries) are ahead of other parts of the world in using more modern bicycle
    technology. We are quicker to adopt new technology than others in some fields.

    re "cool": Image may greatly affect the choices kids make, but I don't accept it makes a huge
    difference for *many* of the adults recently returning to cycling. (I'm excluding those who want to
    appear particularly sporty, who I do not think make up the majority).

    ~PB
     
  5. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    More to add to my previous reply...............

    Peter Clinch wrote:

    [mudgaurds & racks]
    > They should IMHO, but they don't, because they're both "uncool"...

    Actually, they do fit mudguards on some, and are doing so increasingly. Sensible adults don't regard
    them as uncool, and even kids think some of the flashier (but still reasonably effective) mudgaurds
    look cool. And some users do fit racks.

    > What ways? If they're genuinely inferior why are they so popular and common in places with urban
    > utility bike culture? Or do you *really* think citizens of the UK actually far more enlightened
    > than the rest of the world when it comes to bike choices for general use?

    Another reason: People in certain other countries are happier to ride at a more sedate pace because
    of a different general culture or different road/cycle facilities.

    > My comments on people buying into perceptions of cool are based not only what I see, but exactly
    > what I was like as a kid (and after), and everyone I knew then too. We had to have "racers"
    > despite comedy mudguards being pointless and despite the fact they were primarily used to hack
    > round the local woods and never in anything but top gear.

    But they were probably the most suitable bikes generally available for what you did on them at the
    time. The other bikes were regarded as uncool by you and your ilk because they were not so well
    suited. People doing different types of things regard different types bikes as cool.

    > And now you "have to have" a MTB, which though ideal for pratting about with your friends is not
    > great general transport

    That's where we disagree. If I didn't want to keep my tourer with drop bars for longer distances (or
    if had money & space for a third bike), I would get one myself for general transport (because I have
    used them before for this and know they're very good at it).

    My comments on people buying mountain bikes now are based on what I see in London (all sorts of
    ordinary people on them, doing ordinary cycling well) plus people I know who are returning to
    cycling as adults who care little about the image.

    Mountain bikes are so common in the UK that they're now just regarded as "ordinary bikes" so have a
    neutral image. They're not cool any more. They're just bikes. I think the image thing is turning
    full circle again and road race bikes have a more "wow!" image in the general public's mind when
    they see them, BUT they're not buying them in huge numbers because they know MTB's are more
    practical for them!

    I think we've been in a post-cool era for bicycles for a while because the MTB is has been such a
    genuinely good design. This may be changing with the advent of cheapo full sus bikes.

    ~PB
     
  6. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Pete Biggs wrote:

    > Heavy and sluggish

    Ah, the CTC mag's last issue actually extolled the virtues of a raodster in traffic in an answer to
    one of Guy's epistles on the letters page, so you disagree with the editor of that as well as me.
    Heavy is not actually necessarily the same as sluggish (ask my friends who go out for a day with a
    guy on a bike weighing over 40 lbs).

    > - especially up hills

    There's no shortage of good hills round here, one of the busier ones has a god 40m of ascent on it
    on the OS map and I often see a chap who's well past 70 and looks like a textbook frail old geezer
    headed up without any obvious trouble on his old roadster (with hub gears and chaincase). Best tell
    him... Most people have problems up hills that I see because they use the wrong gears, despite
    having (or perhaps because of?) so many to choose from.

    > As I've mentioned already, they're more popular in flatter countries

    All of northern europe isn't flat, any more than Greater London. Note how in previous answers about
    catalogue availability Switzerland and Austria got mentioned. Neither known for the poverty or flat
    ground within their borders.

    > and because it would be seen as "odd" to use anything different just because those kind of bikes
    > have been so popular for so long.

    Which is exactly my point about the sort of bikes bought here. MTBs have been, well, just what you
    buy, for well over a decade now. Since they're so conservative on the continent that must account
    for Germany and the NL being the main centres of recumbent use. Do you really think they're afraid
    of MTBs or they're not available there?

    > I think they're choosing bikes that are more suited to the UK

    I think they're generally choosing bikes that are suited to current image requirements (note that
    u.r.c. is *not* a representative cross section of Normal People with bikes in the UK). The Brompton
    is a British bike and works well in Britain, is widely regarded as a brilliant design and sells
    throughout the world well enough that the company making them are almost at the point of beating off
    customers with a shitty stick. When I ride mine I get laughed at because of its appearance. People
    say of my 'bent that they couldn't ride one, when I ask them why not they say it's just too
    different. A friend is interested in one and his (adult) son tells him he mustn't "because people
    will look at you". IME image has far, far more to do with bike purchases made by Mr. and Mrs. J
    Public (for themselves and their 2.4 adorably typical children) than anything else, and they're
    primarily seen as purely leisure toys rather than useful tools (nothing wrong with leisure toys btw,
    I'd love to spend lots on a Windcheetah for *excatly* that purpose).

    > really think Britain (along with some other countries) are ahead of other parts of the world in
    > using more modern bicycle technology. We are quicker to adopt new technology than others in
    > some fields.

    We're very quick to adopt, say, descent bike technology, because MTBing is fashionable (go and look
    at the new stands for evidence). The same goes for other sport-led recreational stuff. That's not
    necessarily terribly much use on the street commuting to work though. The biggest changes in my
    cycling have come from two inventions, the chair and the hinge, that are both *very* old and make
    far more difference than any change to hi-tech stuff does, yet people won't adopt either when the
    bike looks "wrong" or "uncool".

    > re "cool": Image may greatly affect the choices kids make, but I don't accept it makes a huge
    > difference for *many* of the adults recently returning to cycling.

    An item of simple disagreement. They tell me they couldn't ride a 'bent because they're too
    different and they'd be the centre of attention, regardless of any other problems/qualities. If that
    isn't thinking dominated by image I don't know what is.

    > (I'm excluding those who want to appear particularly sporty, who I do not think make up the
    > majority).

    Looking in bicycle shops I see they are far more dominated by sporting machinery than I ever get to
    see actually out in use on roads or trails. Same for the ads in the rags. Somebody's buying them but
    they're not riding them in the same quantities round here. A friend recently met someone who was in
    her student class here, commented to this body-armour clad chap on a very expensive MTB that she
    didn't remember him being a cyclist when an undergrad. And the subsequent conversation revealed he'd
    just gone out and bought into the MTB "lifestyle" with a loaded Visa card because it looked cool
    (and he was subsequently left in the dust by her old rigid M-Trax...).

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  7. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Pete Biggs wrote:

    > But they were probably the most suitable bikes generally available for what you did on them at
    > the time.

    But they weren't. They had narrower wheels and tyres, the wheels were a bit big for us as we wuz
    only small so steering was relatively bad and the drop handlebars weren't so good in the woods.
    Since we only ever used top gear the derailleurs were a non-issue.

    > The other bikes were regarded as uncool by you and your ilk because they were not so well suited.

    Again, simply not the case. A single speed bike with flat bars and smaller wheels (basically, more
    like an MTB) would have been far more suited to riding round the woods than a kid's racer, but you
    had to have a racer 'cause they were cool. You had to have more gears than anyone else, 'cause that
    was cool. Your penknife had to have more blades (even though we never used *any* of them), 'cause
    that was cool.

    > People doing different types of things regard different types bikes as cool.

    Indeed the case in sporting circles, but look at equivalents in motoring... Though lots of people
    will regard a sports car as cool many are very willing to drive boring 1.3 family hatchbacks because
    though they look at MX5s and say "cool" they have a job to do with their cars and can't afford an
    extra 15K for the sporty one too. But put them in a bike shop where they don't *need* the bike and
    it's only a couple of hundred pounds and the perspective changes, and as I've pointed out higher up
    perception of the values of marketed features, as opposed to just being well put together, is very
    different too.

    Very few people aside from weirdos like me would regard a utility bike as cool, in the same way they
    won't think of an Astra 1.3 as cool. They do buy 1.3 Astras, they don't buy utility bikes so much
    (though they do now more than they did a few years ago, I'll grant you).

    > That's where we disagree. If I didn't want to keep my tourer with drop bars for longer distances
    > (or if had money & space for a third bike), I would get one myself for general transport (because
    > I have used them before for this and know they're very good at it).

    But you're not representative of the typical UK bike buyer.

    > My comments on people buying mountain bikes now are based on what I see in London (all sorts of
    > ordinary people on them, doing ordinary cycling well) plus people I know who are returning to
    > cycling as adults who care little about the image.

    You can go cycling on them and get about, and people do. But a lot of them don't really know much
    different, and if they do it's likely the same sort of comedy racer I used as a kid which is far
    worse than a bad MTB for most folk. But everyone had comedy racers and you had to have them so you
    did, and despite them being terrible in relative terms I did get to love cycling on one and it did
    do the job I wanted to some degree. Doesn't mean I couldn't have been on something easier for me,
    but I didn't want it because image was more important (and I was not nearly as fashion-led as many).
    And it's because UK cycling is so dominated by image rather than a culture of utility that I thought
    that, and most people I see think that.

    > Mountain bikes are so common in the UK that they're now just regarded as "ordinary bikes" so have
    > a neutral image. They're not cool any more. They're just bikes.

    Quite so, but though they're not cool they're not *uncool* and they got to be ordinary commodities
    by being cool in the fist place. In the same way as Full Sus is currently a bit different to old
    bikes so is cool (and image, rather than utility led) but is becoming increasingly normal. People
    are getting "just bikes" based on what the last lot of image conscious people bought, assuming that
    because they're common they're utilitarian.

    > I think the image thing is turning full circle again and road race bikes have a more "wow!" image
    > in the general public's mind when they see them, BUT they're not buying them in huge numbers
    > because they know MTB's are more practical for them!

    An MTB being more practical than a racer is frankly damming with faint praise. But people *are*
    buying road race bikes if what I see in the shops and ads is anything to go by, and they're not
    using them much.

    > I think we've been in a post-cool era for bicycles for a while because the MTB is has been such a
    > genuinely good design.

    It is a genuinely good design, but so is the roadster. But the roadster is "uncool" as opposed
    to Normal.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  8. In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
    <[email protected]> writes
    >All of northern europe isn't flat, any more than Greater London. Note how in previous answers about
    >catalogue availability Switzerland and Austria got mentioned. Neither known for the poverty or flat
    >ground within their borders.

    You're misrepresenting what I wrote. See quote below. You probably didn't look to see what the
    T-series is.

    >Several of the T-series are only available in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (see same site)

    I didn't provide a link because I was only making the point that Trek has a regional marketing
    policy but here is one.

    http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2003/citybike/t550e.jsp

    All the T-series bikes marketed in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have 24 speeds, making them
    much more suitable for use in these countries than the hub-geared L-series varieties marketed in
    the Benelux.

    I think the Germans, Austrians and Swiss realise they need more gears than the hub-geared roadster
    provides and Trek is quite happy to meet the demand. That's what marketing is about.
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  9. In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
    <[email protected]> writes
    >It is a genuinely good design, but so is the roadster. But the roadster is "uncool" as opposed
    >to Normal.

    Might the roadster, with all its bits and bobs, not be more expensive than the equivalent MTB?
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  10. Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > Follow my wife's theory. It's the colour that's the most important aspect of any bike. ;-)

    One of the guys at my LBS said much the same when I sent my frame off to Dave Yates for a respray.
    He reckoned that my choice of pillarbox red [1] was a good one because "it makes the bike look
    fast"! :)

    David E. Belcher

    Dept. of Chemistry, University of York

    [1] It's a cyclo-cross frame, though, so usually hidden under a "top coat" of muck!
     
  11. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Michael MacClancy wrote:

    > You're misrepresenting what I wrote. See quote below. You probably didn't look to see what the
    > T-series is.

    Indeed the case.

    > All the T-series bikes marketed in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have 24 speeds, making them
    > much more suitable for use in these countries than the hub-geared L-series varieties marketed in
    > the Benelux.

    Lots of hub gears get used in Germany. It's a big place.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  12. Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > Oh, don't make it more confusing than it needs to be. What you're describing is the Giant FCR. The
    > OCR has dropped bars as does the TCR. But Giant isn't the only manufacturer of something like an
    > FCR by a long way.

    Indeed - Ridgeback make one too, which my LBS sells, and only this morning I saw something similar
    from Claud Butler.

    David E. Belcher

    Dept. of Chemistry, University of York
     
  13. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Michael MacClancy wrote:

    > Might the roadster, with all its bits and bobs, not be more expensive=20 than the equivalent MTB?

    It is more expensive here, but not simply a matter of "bits". Roadsters =

    in the UK are, rather like recumbents, sold into a relatively small=20 market of people specifically
    seeking them out. These people are=20 generally more aware of the value of high standards of
    construction in a =

    cycle than Mr. and Mrs. J Public, so are willing to pay more and get more=
    =2E
    As has often been opined here, if you spend more on an MTB you'll get=20 more. Lots of people get
    =A3100 gaspipe "MTBs" in preference to a vastly=
    =20
    superior =A3200 MTB, even though over the useful life of the product the =

    extra investment will be repaid many times over. And in many cases it=20 isn't like they don't have
    the extra =A3100: many would be quite prepared=
    =20
    to spend that on alloy wheels and metallic paint for a car, or a stereo=20 with more buttons, etc.
    It is not widely perceived that where bicycles=20 are concerned you get what you pay for, certainly
    not to the extent it=20 is perceived with cars.

    At ca. =A3400 a Pashley Roadster Classic is still well within a lot of=20 budgets but wouldn't be
    bought simply because of the way it looks. I=20 certainly wouldn't have been seen dead on one for
    the great majority of=20 my cycling career to date, and I'm a *lot* less image conscious than=20
    many riders.

    My neighbour thinks the Brompton he bought a year ago has paid for=20 itself already in pure
    financial terms. But again, most people just=20 won't ride a bike that they get laughed at on (which
    is fair enough:=20 it's the lack of a utility cycling culture that causes eejits to laugh=20 at them
    rather than riders being made uncomfortable by being subject to=20 ridicule).

    Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
    Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  14. In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
    <[email protected]> writes
    >At ca. £400 a Pashley Roadster Classic is still well within a lot of budgets but wouldn't be bought
    >simply because of the way it looks.

    I have to disagree with this. The fact that it only has three speeds is surely a major consideration
    for many people. It is also probably very heavy. In respect to its looks, it would be much better if
    available in colours other than black.
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  15. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Michael MacClancy wrote:

    > I have to disagree with this. The fact that it only has three speeds is surely a major
    > consideration for many people.

    If they're the right speeds, far less of one than you might think. As I've pointed out already, I
    can get around a hilly town with only 3 speeds quite happily, colleagues getting 20+ gears admit to
    confusion resulting from them and I see lots of people with 20+ gears who clearly have no idea what
    constitutes a suitable one.

    > It is also probably very heavy.

    My Streetmachine is almost certainly heavier. This is less of an issue for utility cycling than most
    people seem to think. Full suspension is heavier than none, yet people are happily buying FS bikes
    for general use (and there's the pogoing as well as the weight to draw power off).

    > In respect to its looks, it would be much better if available in colours other than black.

    Black has never been out of fashion. You're not *seriously* suggesting this is why people think they
    look silly, are you?

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  16. In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Michael MacClancy wrote:
    >
    >> I have to disagree with this. The fact that it only has three speeds is surely a major
    >> consideration for many people.
    >
    >If they're the right speeds, far less of one than you might think.

    I said 'many people' not 'you'. I think you have to allow them to make their own decisions. When I
    had a three speed I used to push it up a lot of hills and I was/am fitter than most.

    > As I've pointed out already, I can get around a hilly town with only 3 speeds quite happily,
    > colleagues getting 20+ gears admit to confusion resulting from them and I see lots of people with
    > 20+ gears who clearly have no idea what constitutes a suitable one.
    >
    >> It is also probably very heavy.
    >
    >My Streetmachine is almost certainly heavier. This is less of an issue for utility cycling than
    >most people seem to think.

    This doesn't stop them thinking it is an issue. I would always choose a lighter bike than a
    needlessly heavy one at the same price point.

    >Full suspension is heavier than none, yet people are happily buying FS bikes for general use (and
    >there's the pogoing as well as the weight to draw power off).

    But they probably perceive that at least the extra weight of the suspension has _some_ function.
    >
    >> In respect to its looks, it would be much better if available in colours other than black.
    >
    >Black has never been out of fashion. You're not *seriously* suggesting this is why people think
    >they look silly, are you?

    I never implied that this was why people think they look silly. A black car doesn't look sillier
    than one in any other colour. But black isn't to everybody's taste and this bike would appeal to me
    more in a colour other than black.

    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  17. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Michael MacClancy wrote:

    > I said 'many people' not 'you'. I think you have to allow them to make=
    =20
    > their own decisions. When I had a three speed I used to push it up a=20 lot of hills and I was/am
    > fitter than most.

    And I said the *right* 3 speeds is important: I couldn't get up a lot of =

    stuff here without the (standard option) gearing reduction I have. I=20 could if I was in London,
    though I'd prefer not to. My mum *is* "many=20 people", only she's overweight, over 70 and currently
    undergoing a=20 course of chemotherapy too. But *she* manages to get around on a 3=20 speed (she's
    never had anything different). People have been riding=20 bikes since well before triple chainring
    derailleurs with 6+ sprockets=20 were common, and getting a lot of useful work out of them.

    > This doesn't stop them thinking it is an issue. I would always choose =
    a=20
    > lighter bike than a needlessly heavy one at the same price point.

    "Needlessly", yes. But a chaincase isn't "needless", it's very useful=20 on an urban utility bike
    used where road gritting happens. Damn site=20 more useful than FS and disc brakes round town, yet
    people will pay for=20 FS and disc brakes and ride around town and not much else. If they=20 really
    thought about it, they wouldn't be buying those bikes. They=20 wouldn't buy =A399 heavy bikes rather
    than =A3200 ones that are considera= bly=20 lighter, but they're more concerned with looks unless
    they read the=20 sports-based rags in which case they get hung up on grammes where=20 they're not
    actually that important.

    > But they probably perceive that at least the extra weight of the=20 suspension has _some_
    > function.

    Absolutely they do. They think it must be better than none (well, why=20 wouldn't it be?). Just as
    20+ gears *must* be better than 3. It's a=20 lack of utility cycling culture that means people are
    influenced unduly=20 by superficial perception, which *is* rather the point I'm trying to make=
    =2E

    > I never implied that this was why people think they look silly. A blac=
    k=20
    > car doesn't look sillier than one in any other colour. But black isn't=
    =20
    > to everybody's taste and this bike would appeal to me more in a colour =

    > other than black.

    Most bike models come in *a* colour for any given year. If you want=20 something other than black
    buy a Gazelle rather than a Pashley Roadster. =

    Prefer blue to red? buy an EBC Country rather than a (basically the=20 same) Dawes Horizon and
    so on. Of course, you get more choice in MTBs=20 because there are more of them, which is
    another positive feedback point =

    for popularity that's nothing to do with how well they actually work=20 relative to a roadster.

    Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
    Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  18. Peter Clinch wrote:

    > "Needlessly", yes. But a chaincase isn't "needless", it's very useful on an urban utility bike
    > used where road gritting happens. Damn site more useful than FS and disc brakes round town, yet
    > people will pay for FS and disc brakes and ride around town and not much else.

    While full-sus is a nice-to-have, even round here where road repairs are done with a mixture of
    mashed potato and lard, disc brakes are Very Useful Indeed around town. Especially when it rains
    which, I note with displeasure, it is currently doing with some vigour :-(

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  19. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Dave Larrington wrote:

    > While full-sus is a nice-to-have, even round here where road repairs are done with a mixture of
    > mashed potato and lard, disc brakes are Very Useful Indeed around town. Especially when it rains
    > which, I note with displeasure, it is currently doing with some vigour :-(

    Dave, having ridden a Speedmachine and been struck as it having the best brakes of any cycle I've
    ever used, I can see where you're coming from. However, I really don't think those are truly
    representative of typical entry level systems designed primarily to look like the Real Thing at a
    fraction of the cost rather than stop a bike as well as possible, any more than the No Squat rear
    sus setups on our respective HP Velotechniks are representative of the pogo springs being shipped
    out from Asda and the like :-(

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  20. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    I think this conclusion sums up all my points - so I won't continue to argue the details and I'll
    try and make this my last post in this thread........

    Peter Clinch wrote:

    > [The MTB] is a genuinely good design, but so is the roadster. But the roadster is "uncool" as
    > opposed to Normal.

    The roadster has a more limited number of applications and isn't good at what many UK users want to
    do (including ride up hills), and is mainly regarded as uncool for those reasons.

    ~PB
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...