bar-end shifters



"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tSz*[email protected]...
> Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
>>>>"Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
>>>>imagine.
>>>The most recent bike they tested in VBQ was a 2005 Weigle randonneur
>>>and they gave it top marks- the equal of Rene Herse or Alex Singer.
>>>And it had Ergo.

>>Gasp! A brifter setup? Oh, my....

>
> Oh, my, my "name" is JJ and I am trying to weasel out of admitting I was
> flat wrong about VBQ. Ooops!


The fact that this vintage cycling mag tested an '05 bike doesn't change Mr.
Heine's well known penchant for ancient equipment.


> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
> Today is Tuesday, January.
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> JJ wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Pat Lamb wrote:

>
> <snipped>
>
>> >>
>> >> If I may interrupt the on-going flame war with an on-topic question -
>> >>
>> >> Is a left/front bar-end shifter _indexed_, like STI, or ratcheting,
>> >> like
>> >> Ergo?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Shimano barends, the left (front) shifter is a well-designed, pure
>> > friction lever. IMO, indexed front shifting, with all it's limitations,
>> > is one of the worst aspects of STI.

>>
>> I rather liked the friction shift on the fdr. The STI is ok for the
>> front,
>> but I wouldn't plan on any speed shifting running a triple.
>>
>> >

>
> In fact, indexed front shifting was the first indication that road STI
> *wasn't* going to be put on my #1 bike back in '93. Among other things,
> it meant replacing my perfectly fine, three year-old Campy Record FD
> Record for no good reason. Furthermore, it was a warning sign of the
> limitations and "closed" nature of the Shimano technology. Instead, I
> fitted a set of 8SP indexed barends (I had been using a 7SP set on
> another bike for two years) and happily rode on, free to use the
> components of *my* choice. And I never looked back!


*Your* choice? Hah! I guarantee you that you must be using bar ends solely
because of a secret subconscious marketing program by the manufacturer.
 
JJ wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > JJ wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Pat Lamb wrote:

> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> If I may interrupt the on-going flame war with an on-topic question -
> >> >>
> >> >> Is a left/front bar-end shifter _indexed_, like STI, or ratcheting,
> >> >> like
> >> >> Ergo?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Shimano barends, the left (front) shifter is a well-designed, pure
> >> > friction lever. IMO, indexed front shifting, with all it's limitations,
> >> > is one of the worst aspects of STI.
> >>
> >> I rather liked the friction shift on the fdr. The STI is ok for the
> >> front,
> >> but I wouldn't plan on any speed shifting running a triple.
> >>
> >> >

> >
> > In fact, indexed front shifting was the first indication that road STI
> > *wasn't* going to be put on my #1 bike back in '93. Among other things,
> > it meant replacing my perfectly fine, three year-old Campy Record FD
> > Record for no good reason. Furthermore, it was a warning sign of the
> > limitations and "closed" nature of the Shimano technology. Instead, I
> > fitted a set of 8SP indexed barends (I had been using a 7SP set on
> > another bike for two years) and happily rode on, free to use the
> > components of *my* choice. And I never looked back!

>
> *Your* choice? Hah! I guarantee you that you must be using bar ends solely
> because of a secret subconscious marketing program by the manufacturer.


You're right! And they dictate what FD I can and cannot use, and which
chainring combinations. I just love to be told what to do!
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>>I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
>>to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

>
>
> "Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does not
> seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
> who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
> than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on display in
> any LBS I've been into. I don't know how the ratio of vocal participants
> is biased relative to those who remain silent; however, it is an extremely
> good indication to me that marketing forces are biased towards integrated
> shifters in spite of relative merits rather than because of them.


Maybe this indicates that STI drives people away from cycling! Those
who don't buy STI are more likely to ride their bikes, at least from the
sample that spends their free time posting to bicycle groups.

-)

Pat
 
In article <fUszf.16315$sq.1305@trnddc01>,
"JJ" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> True now. But what about the period before STI was available and
> >> barcons were?

> >
> > That's an interesting question. I think that there are several
> > reasons. One of them relates to the Shimano innovation that made
> > reliable indexing with STI possible- SIS cable housing. Prior to
> > that, we have just spiral wound housing, which resulted in imprecise
> > shifting. For STI to work well, Shimano needed a way to have a stiff
> > contant-length cable housing- which also improves the performance of
> > bar-end shifters noticeably.
> >
> > Prior to STI, DT shifters were more common. DT shift levers felt a
> > bit crisper and more accurate, and also were more popular with racers
> > because of this and the weight issue. However, a number of famous
> > racers used bar ends, including climbers such as Charly Gaul and
> > sprinters like Abjujaparov (sp?). Not to mention thousands of pro
> > 'cross racers (many of whom still use bar-end shifters rather than
> > brifters) and many tourists.
> >
> >> If you think a bunch of blowhards like Ozark and Cole are at all
> >> representative of a normal cross-section of cyclists, you're way off.
> >> At least when I use obscure stuff myself, I don't try to paint it as
> >> useful for any significant portion of the cycling community and I
> >> recognize that.

> >
> > Just when it seems like you are getting it, you ****** defeat from the
> > jaws of victory. The condescension drips off your last sentence,
> > hence why this stupid thread continues. I will have to content myself
> > with being insignificant in the cycling community, I guess. Thank you
> > for teaching me my place in the grand scheme of things, O Most Wise
> > One.
> >
> > ROTFL!

>
> This thread would have died long ago except for your continuing repetitive
> and inane commentary. Proof would be for you to just shut up and watch how
> fast it ends.


Do you think the thread would end more quickly if you
stopped posting to it?

--
Michael Press
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> JJ wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > JJ wrote:
>> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> > Pat Lamb wrote:
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If I may interrupt the on-going flame war with an on-topic
>> >> >> question -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is a left/front bar-end shifter _indexed_, like STI, or ratcheting,
>> >> >> like
>> >> >> Ergo?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Shimano barends, the left (front) shifter is a well-designed,
>> >> > pure
>> >> > friction lever. IMO, indexed front shifting, with all it's
>> >> > limitations,
>> >> > is one of the worst aspects of STI.
>> >>
>> >> I rather liked the friction shift on the fdr. The STI is ok for the
>> >> front,
>> >> but I wouldn't plan on any speed shifting running a triple.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>> > In fact, indexed front shifting was the first indication that road STI
>> > *wasn't* going to be put on my #1 bike back in '93. Among other things,
>> > it meant replacing my perfectly fine, three year-old Campy Record FD
>> > Record for no good reason. Furthermore, it was a warning sign of the
>> > limitations and "closed" nature of the Shimano technology. Instead, I
>> > fitted a set of 8SP indexed barends (I had been using a 7SP set on
>> > another bike for two years) and happily rode on, free to use the
>> > components of *my* choice. And I never looked back!

>>
>> *Your* choice? Hah! I guarantee you that you must be using bar ends
>> solely
>> because of a secret subconscious marketing program by the manufacturer.

>
> You're right! And they dictate what FD I can and cannot use, and which
> chainring combinations. I just love to be told what to do!


Well, don't be a hostage. Damn the FD... Rebel against The Man and use the
tongs!
 
"Pat Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
>>>to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

>>
>>
>> "Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does
>> not
>> seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
>> who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
>> than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on display
>> in
>> any LBS I've been into. I don't know how the ratio of vocal participants
>> is biased relative to those who remain silent; however, it is an
>> extremely
>> good indication to me that marketing forces are biased towards integrated
>> shifters in spite of relative merits rather than because of them.

>
> Maybe this indicates that STI drives people away from cycling! Those who
> don't buy STI are more likely to ride their bikes, at least from the
> sample that spends their free time posting to bicycle groups.
>
> -)
>
> Pat
>


ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
 
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <fUszf.16315$sq.1305@trnddc01>,
> "JJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> True now. But what about the period before STI was available and
>> >> barcons were?
>> >
>> > That's an interesting question. I think that there are several
>> > reasons. One of them relates to the Shimano innovation that made
>> > reliable indexing with STI possible- SIS cable housing. Prior to
>> > that, we have just spiral wound housing, which resulted in imprecise
>> > shifting. For STI to work well, Shimano needed a way to have a stiff
>> > contant-length cable housing- which also improves the performance of
>> > bar-end shifters noticeably.
>> >
>> > Prior to STI, DT shifters were more common. DT shift levers felt a
>> > bit crisper and more accurate, and also were more popular with racers
>> > because of this and the weight issue. However, a number of famous
>> > racers used bar ends, including climbers such as Charly Gaul and
>> > sprinters like Abjujaparov (sp?). Not to mention thousands of pro
>> > 'cross racers (many of whom still use bar-end shifters rather than
>> > brifters) and many tourists.
>> >
>> >> If you think a bunch of blowhards like Ozark and Cole are at all
>> >> representative of a normal cross-section of cyclists, you're way off.
>> >> At least when I use obscure stuff myself, I don't try to paint it as
>> >> useful for any significant portion of the cycling community and I
>> >> recognize that.
>> >
>> > Just when it seems like you are getting it, you ****** defeat from the
>> > jaws of victory. The condescension drips off your last sentence,
>> > hence why this stupid thread continues. I will have to content myself
>> > with being insignificant in the cycling community, I guess. Thank you
>> > for teaching me my place in the grand scheme of things, O Most Wise
>> > One.
>> >
>> > ROTFL!

>>
>> This thread would have died long ago except for your continuing
>> repetitive
>> and inane commentary. Proof would be for you to just shut up and watch
>> how
>> fast it ends.

>
> Do you think the thread would end more quickly if you
> stopped posting to it?
>
> --
> Michael Press


Well, you obviously are not part of the solution.
 
Pat Lamb wrote:
> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>> I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
>>> to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

>>
>>
>>
>> "Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does
>> not
>> seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
>> who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
>> than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on
>> display in
>> any LBS I've been into. I don't know how the ratio of vocal participants
>> is biased relative to those who remain silent; however, it is an
>> extremely
>> good indication to me that marketing forces are biased towards integrated
>> shifters in spite of relative merits rather than because of them.

>
>
> Maybe this indicates that STI drives people away from cycling! Those
> who don't buy STI are more likely to ride their bikes, at least from the
> sample that spends their free time posting to bicycle groups.


Right now, around here, the biggest issue with riding is the weather,
one day it rains, the next day it sleets, the next day it's snowing, the
next day the sun comes out, but the temperture drops 25C first.... Will
a Magical Foam Hat protect against frost bite? I guess best ride day,
looks like Friday, warm with late day sunny breaks.....

As for posters, the barcon guys seem to be doing their fair share, so
maybe those barcons are not working that well either....

W




Then it clouds over, the temps go up,
 
"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Bwaaahahaha....! Please quote me. Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't
>>> have the time. So do please continue to make it up as you go
>>> along. It's a real *timesaver* for you.

>>
>> Heh. Why should I bother, JJ? I don't for a moment think that you
>> are going to learn from having your own words quoted back to you,
>> if you didn't get it when you wrote them.

>
> Why should you? It's more like "Why should you not?" Because it will
> show how you continually revise what others write.


Fortunately foe me, JJ, your words need no revision. Funny though
that you keep complaining that everyone who disagrees with you is
twisting your words, but you offer no proof of that claim. Perhaps
there is some disconnection between what you think you mean and what
you actually write. Of perhaps it is a convenient way to try to put
the attention off your your lame arguments and to try to make the
thread about something else.

>>>> and pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."
>>>
>>> It was obvious so why are you complaining? Or you just don't get
>>> itt?

>>
>> LOL! I suppose it's just too tempting, you know? All those easy
>> targets.

>
> No, more like you don't get it.


What I get, JJ, is that for you brifters are the better choice. And
you are so convinced they are the better choice that you think they
are the better choice for almost everyone, the half-dozen "grouches"
being the exceptions. LOL!

In point of fact, there is no argument. There is no disagreement of
fact on which to base an argument. Yet you go on acting like there
is. That's what you don't get. Got it now? :)
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:52:35 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The condescension drips off your last sentence, hence why this
>>stupid thread continues.

>
> He who smelt it dealt it.


Now there's high quality argumentation! I haven't heard that since,
when, "Porky's?"
 
"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> This thread would have died long ago except for your continuing
> repetitive and inane commentary. Proof would be for you to just shut
> up and watch how fast it ends.


ROTFLMAO! Thanks for making my day, JJ!
 
"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <fUszf.16315$sq.1305@trnddc01>,
>> "JJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
>>> >
>>> >> True now. But what about the period before STI was available
>>> >> and barcons were?
>>> >
>>> > That's an interesting question. I think that there are several
>>> > reasons. One of them relates to the Shimano innovation that
>>> > made reliable indexing with STI possible- SIS cable housing.
>>> > Prior to that, we have just spiral wound housing, which resulted
>>> > in imprecise shifting. For STI to work well, Shimano needed a
>>> > way to have a stiff contant-length cable housing- which also
>>> > improves the performance of bar-end shifters noticeably.
>>> >
>>> > Prior to STI, DT shifters were more common. DT shift levers
>>> > felt a bit crisper and more accurate, and also were more popular
>>> > with racers because of this and the weight issue. However, a
>>> > number of famous racers used bar ends, including climbers such
>>> > as Charly Gaul and sprinters like Abjujaparov (sp?). Not to
>>> > mention thousands of pro 'cross racers (many of whom still use
>>> > bar-end shifters rather than brifters) and many tourists.
>>> >
>>> >> If you think a bunch of blowhards like Ozark and Cole are at
>>> >> all representative of a normal cross-section of cyclists,
>>> >> you're way off. At least when I use obscure stuff myself, I
>>> >> don't try to paint it as useful for any significant portion of
>>> >> the cycling community and I recognize that.
>>> >
>>> > Just when it seems like you are getting it, you ****** defeat
>>> > from the jaws of victory. The condescension drips off your last
>>> > sentence, hence why this stupid thread continues. I will have
>>> > to content myself with being insignificant in the cycling
>>> > community, I guess. Thank you for teaching me my place in the
>>> > grand scheme of things, O Most Wise One.
>>> >
>>> > ROTFL!
>>>
>>> This thread would have died long ago except for your continuing
>>> repetitive and inane commentary. Proof would be for you to just
>>> shut up and watch how fast it ends.

>>
>> Do you think the thread would end more quickly if you
>> stopped posting to it?

>
> Well, you obviously are not part of the solution.


A better man would walk away from this...

"Whereas you are part of the solution? LOL!"

Well, I guess I'm a bad man.
 
"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:tSz*[email protected]...
>
>> Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
>>>>>"Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
>>>>>imagine.
>>>>
>>>>The most recent bike they tested in VBQ was a 2005 Weigle
>>>>randonneur and they gave it top marks- the equal of Rene Herse or
>>>>Alex Singer. And it had Ergo.
>>>
>>>Gasp! A brifter setup? Oh, my....

>>
>> Oh, my, my "name" is JJ and I am trying to weasel out of admitting
>> I was flat wrong about VBQ. Ooops!

>
> The fact that this vintage cycling mag tested an '05 bike doesn't
> change Mr. Heine's well known penchant for ancient equipment.


And you remain wrong still. Nice to know some things in the universe
are constant, eh? It's reassuring somehow.
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Well, you obviously are not part of the solution.

>
> A better man would walk away from this...
>
> "Whereas you are part of the solution? LOL!"


Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

> Well, I guess I'm a bad man.


Probably. ;)

I don't know, as one of those bar-end using grouches, I feel I should
be contributing more noise to the discussion. But I don't really have
time at this particular moment. Instead I'll be pulling on my
3l337 customized booties and engaging in the Marine Adventure that is
cycling home from work in a Winter Seattle.

Maybe we could veer into a discussion of wool vs. synthetic jerseys,
perhaps with a detour into clinchers vs. tubulars.

Wouldn't that be fun! No?

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
If the designers of X-window built cars, there would be no fewer than five
steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same
prinicples -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful
feature, that. -- From the programming notebooks of a heretic, 1990.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dane Buson <[email protected]> writes:

> Maybe we could veer into a discussion of wool vs. synthetic jerseys,
> perhaps with a detour into clinchers vs. tubulars.
>
> Wouldn't that be fun! No?


It's hard to find any commuter/hybrid/practical bikes
with rigid forks anymore. Those cheap-o RST suspension
forks must be superior. Everybody wants them. Their
ubiquitousness is solely due to the market responding to
the clamour of popular demand, because everybody knows
they're way better than rigid forks on a city bike.
Especially if you want/need to install fenders.

(I'm a bad man too :) )


cheers, & I really, really, really need a suspension seatpost,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:42:37 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>It's hard to find any commuter/hybrid/practical bikes
>with rigid forks anymore. Those cheap-o RST suspension
>forks must be superior. Everybody wants them. Their
>ubiquitousness is solely due to the market responding to
>the clamour of popular demand, because everybody knows
>they're way better than rigid forks on a city bike.
>Especially if you want/need to install fenders.


It's pretty clear that many people -- esp casual riders -- want more
comfort on their bikes. That's one reason large tired bikes have
become widely more popular in comparison to the more narrow-tired
"racing bikes" that were pushed (via marketing) in the 70s and 80s.
Marketing can push some things, but unless the things are appropriate
for the user, the popularity will wane over time. (Biopace, drillium,
aero brake calipers, etc, etc. are examples) Whether suspension forks
are well-executed at low price points is another issue but their
popularity is a response to consumer desires.

I don't think many casual riders care much about riding in the rain or
on very wet roads -- full-size fenders haven't been popular for
adult-sized bikes in the US for my lifetime or maybe more (40 years?
ever?) and recent forks dont' have much to do with that.

Tim -- now it's time for you to try to get the last word in.
Waiting....

JT

PS -- I rode a bike with full-size fenders a lot a few winters ago and
loved it so don't rag on me for not valuing fenders.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> It's pretty clear that many people -- esp casual riders -- want more
> comfort on their bikes. That's one reason large tired bikes have
> become widely more popular in comparison to the more narrow-tired
> "racing bikes" that were pushed (via marketing) in the 70s and 80s.
> Marketing can push some things, but unless the things are appropriate
> for the user, the popularity will wane over time. (Biopace, drillium,
> aero brake calipers, etc, etc. are examples) Whether suspension forks
> are well-executed at low price points is another issue but their
> popularity is a response to consumer desires.
>
> I don't think many casual riders care much about riding in the rain or
> on very wet roads -- full-size fenders haven't been popular for
> adult-sized bikes in the US for my lifetime or maybe more (40 years?
> ever?) and recent forks dont' have much to do with that.
>
> Tim -- now it's time for you to try to get the last word in.


Can I have his turn?

Your idea seems to be that what's on the market is there because people
want it, and what's not on the market is absent because people don't
want it.

I think it's more common that people are _told_ what they should want,
and then believe it. It's a fashion thing. And fashion is driven, at
least in America, by the racing image.

Biopace is derided these days... um, except by the friend of mine who
claimed they saved his knees and still searches for them. And by this
guy Sheldon Brown, whom you may have heard of, and who says the racer
crowd drove them out of fashion. (Sheldon's got a reputation for
knowledge, you may recall.)

Aero brake calipers are out of fashion. Does it mean they didn't work?
Not exactly. Sure, the aero advantages were minute and negligible,
but the significant "disadvantage" was probably that Shimano had
something else it wanted to be "in style." Remember the ancient car
ads from the 1950s? "Wouldn't you rather have _this_ year's model?"

Regarding the suspension forks on road bikes: People don't want
suspension forks per se. They want comfort. There are far better ways
to get comfort on a bike than by fastening a lot of bouncy metal to the
front wheel. But people aren't going to bother to learn about things
like proper fit, tire sizes, handlebar styles, etc. that could solve
their "problem" simply and effectively.

Instead, they're going to buy what appears, on five minutes of first
glances, to be a throw-money-at-it solution: an extra feature _this_
bike has that justifies another $100. And of course, there will be a
bike shop employee on commission who will help confirm their wisdom.
Even if it results in a bike that's more expensive, heavier, and with
one more thing to break that can't be easily fixed by the owner.

Suspension forks for road bikes and STI are much alike, in my view.
They both fit that last paragraph perfectly.

All this is not to say nobody should use them. It's just to say that
some of the people who choose _not_ to use them may be doing so
specifically because they're knowledgeable enough to know what's best
for themselves.


BTW, I should mention: Last year, I helped a friend of mine, an
electrical engineer, choose his first bike. He wanted something for
low-moderate paced cruising around town and on bike paths with his
young daughter. Like most good engineers, he did his preliminary
searching online. Based on the info on manufacturers' websites (i.e.
"What we sell") he narrowed it down to two nearly identical comfort
bikes with bouncy seatposts, wide saddles, suspension forks, and
angular-adjustable stems set way high.

I didn't know the guy very well at that time, so when a mutual friend
suggested I consult, I approached it very gingerly. I showed up, we
visited various bike shops, and I very gently suggested he try some
other sorts of bikes as well. I helped with adjustment and fit, and
pointed out some things the websites hadn't - like the detriments of
wide saddles, bouncy seatposts and springs in the front. But I was
careful to merely suggest. It was his decision.

And, based on just a little extra information, he ended up with a rigid
mountain bike that was far lighter, rode much better, was at least as
comfortable, and cost less money. He was lucky that one shop had it
languishing there, an unsold 'orphan" from a previous year, displaced
by all the road bikes with useless suspension.

He now loves that bike.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Dane Buson <[email protected]> writes:

> In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, you obviously are not part of the solution.

>>
>> A better man would walk away from this...
>>
>> "Whereas you are part of the solution? LOL!"

>
> Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
> precipitate.


Dang, I like that!

>> Well, I guess I'm a bad man.

>
> Probably. ;)
>
> I don't know, as one of those bar-end using grouches, I feel I
> should be contributing more noise to the discussion. But I don't
> really have time at this particular moment.


Heck, there's enough noise already and probably not a danged thing
worth reading in the past 10 days. Everybody's entrenched in their
viewpoints and that's that.

> Instead I'll be pulling on my 3l337 customized booties and engaging
> in the Marine Adventure that is cycling home from work in a Winter
> Seattle.


We jus' got cold and slush here in Minneesohtah.

> Maybe we could veer into a discussion of wool vs. synthetic jerseys,
> perhaps with a detour into clinchers vs. tubulars.
>
> Wouldn't that be fun! No?


Another time, perhaps?
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:42:37 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>>It's hard to find any commuter/hybrid/practical bikes with rigid
>>forks anymore. Those cheap-o RST suspension forks must be superior.
>>Everybody wants them. Their ubiquitousness is solely due to the
>>market responding to the clamour of popular demand, because
>>everybody knows they're way better than rigid forks on a city bike.
>>Especially if you want/need to install fenders.

>
> It's pretty clear that many people -- esp casual riders -- want more
> comfort on their bikes. That's one reason large tired bikes have
> become widely more popular in comparison to the more narrow-tired
> "racing bikes" that were pushed (via marketing) in the 70s and 80s.


I think that's true- at least on the Internet there seems to be such a
trend. I don't know if it translates into bike shop sales, though.
Also there is a contrary trend to ultraminimalist track bikes with no
brakes and handlebars a foot lower than the saddle... Takes all
kinds, I guess.

> Marketing can push some things, but unless the things are
> appropriate for the user, the popularity will wane over
> time. (Biopace, drillium, aero brake calipers, etc, etc. are
> examples) Whether suspension forks are well-executed at low price
> points is another issue but their popularity is a response to
> consumer desires.


I mostly agree, with the caveat that more user-appropriate options
have to remain available in the marketplace; and that consumer desires
are malleable and subject to influence at the time of purchase. And
often the person either stops riding or buys more suitable stuff-
hopefully the latter.

> I don't think many casual riders care much about riding in the rain
> or on very wet roads -- full-size fenders haven't been popular for
> adult-sized bikes in the US for my lifetime or maybe more (40 years?
> ever?) and recent forks dont' have much to do with that.


Even most non-casual riders don't really care much about riding in
the rain, unless their local climate is such that's it's unavoidable.

> Tim -- now it's time for you to try to get the last word in.
> Waiting....


Gents, I be done with dis here thread. This deceased equine be
adequately tenderized IMHO. I'll leave the last words for you: ;-)

>
> JT
>
> PS -- I rode a bike with full-size fenders a lot a few winters ago and
> loved it so don't rag on me for not valuing fenders.
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
20
Views
525
Cycling Equipment
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J