bar-end shifters



[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> The Wogster wrote:
>>
>>> Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
>>> for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
>>> bike total.

>>
>> Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by
>> bike, chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most
>> CYCLISTS have more than one bike -- especially if they're into
>> off-road at all.

>
> You're showing a lack of imagination. Specifically, you're imagining
> cyclists are all people just like those posting here - or worse, that
> they're all people just like you.
>
> There's a good-sized contingent of people who are bike commuters
> because that's the best way for them to get around. In some cases,
> it's the only way; they can't afford a car, there's no mass transit,
> and it's too far to walk.
>
> You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
> That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
> Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
> cans to sell.


Apparently the word "most" got past you.

Twice.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]> writes:

> Apparently the word "most" got past you.


Anyways, maybe most cyclists tend to end up with
as many bikes as they've got room for.


cheers, & nature deplores a vacuum,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Apparently the word "most" got past you.

>
> Anyways, maybe most cyclists tend to end up with
> as many bikes as they've got room for.


Definitely possible.

> cheers, & nature deplores a vacuum,


but not suction, necessarily,

Bill "slow night...obviously!" S.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> Sorni wrote:
>>> The Wogster wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
>>>> for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
>>>> bike total.
>>>
>>> Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by
>>> bike, chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most
>>> CYCLISTS have more than one bike -- especially if they're into
>>> off-road at all.

>>
>> You're showing a lack of imagination. Specifically, you're imagining
>> cyclists are all people just like those posting here - or worse, that
>> they're all people just like you.
>>
>> There's a good-sized contingent of people who are bike commuters
>> because that's the best way for them to get around. In some cases,
>> it's the only way; they can't afford a car, there's no mass transit,
>> and it's too far to walk.
>>
>> You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
>> That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
>> Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
>> cans to sell.

>
> Apparently the word "most" got past you.
>
> Twice.


I'd wager that by far the majority of cyclists in the world have only one
bike, even if you restrict the definition of cyclist to people who ride not
less frequently than weekly.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> I'd wager that by far the majority of cyclists in the world have only
> one bike, even if you restrict the definition of cyclist to people
> who ride not less frequently than weekly.


Wogster wrote, "Most people are not going to have one bike for on road,
another bike for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to
have ONE bike total."

My (intended) point was that people who ride all or most of those ways
(road, off-road, commuting, touring, etc.) ARE in fact likely to have more
than one bike.

Bill "at least if off-road means actual trails and not bike paths" S.
 
The Wogster wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.
> >>>
> >>>I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common bike I
> >>>see when I walk to work.
> >>
> >>I understand. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.

> >
> >
> > I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
> > riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I walk
> > to work. On the road.

>
> Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike for
> off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE bike
> total. Given enough training, I could ride a century on an MTB, I could
> ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail, on an MTB. Trail riding
> on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.


With reasonable width tires and properly built regular wheels, normal
hiking trails and fire roads can be ridden with no problem on a
drop-bar road bike.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> ...
> I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
> majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.


Are the majority of cyclists racers? If not, they would be better off
with less expensive, more reliable bar-end shifters than more
expensive, less reliable brifters.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)
 
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.
>>>>>
>>>>>I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common bike I
>>>>>see when I walk to work.
>>>>
>>>>I understand. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.
>>>
>>>
>>>I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
>>>riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I walk
>>>to work. On the road.

>>
>>Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike for
>>off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE bike
>>total. Given enough training, I could ride a century on an MTB, I could
>>ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail, on an MTB. Trail riding
>>on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.

>
>
> With reasonable width tires and properly built regular wheels, normal
> hiking trails and fire roads can be ridden with no problem on a
> drop-bar road bike.
>


I have a 700c fixed gear (80's Fuji tourer frame) with a "flip-flop"
hub. I have ridden it to trail heads, flipped the wheel to get the
freewheel side, and ridden the "mountain bike loop". The tires are 28mm.
MTB-ers have expressed surprise at seeing a "road bike" on the trails,
but it's no big deal.

I can understand the popularity of MTB's for short commutes. They're
cheap, rugged and handle bad pavement and other road hazards without a
lot of rider skill.
 
Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >> If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by
> >> bike, chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most
> >> CYCLISTS have more than one bike -- especially if they're into
> >> off-road at all.

> >
> > You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
> > That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
> > Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
> > cans to sell.

>
> Apparently the word "most" got past you.
>
> Twice.


Nope. That's not the problem. I think the problem is your definition
of "cyclist" and perhaps your defiinition of "most."

If you exclude hundreds of millions of people in other countries, and
hundreds of thousands of poor people in America, and define "cyclist"
as an avid American hobbiest who, perhaps, uses his computer to discuss
bikes on the internet, then you may be correct.

But that's an odd definition of "cyclist" and an odd definition of
"most"!

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>> If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by
>>>> bike, chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most
>>>> CYCLISTS have more than one bike -- especially if they're into
>>>> off-road at all.
>>>
>>> You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
>>> That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
>>> Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
>>> cans to sell.

>>
>> Apparently the word "most" got past you.
>>
>> Twice.

>
> Nope. That's not the problem. I think the problem is your definition
> of "cyclist" and perhaps your defiinition of "most."


Wogster used the term "most" in a specific context, and THAT is what I was
addressing. Here's my reply to someone else about this:

{Quote}
Wogster wrote, "Most people are not going to have one bike for on road,
another bike for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to
have ONE bike total."

My (intended) point was that people who ride all or most of those ways
(road, off-road, commuting, touring, etc.) ARE in fact likely to have more
than one bike. {End quote}

Especially if those people do "real" mountain biking on trails and not just
call gravel paths "off road".

Bill "knew I should have stayed out of this thread" S.
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Nope. That's not the problem. I think the problem is your definition
> of "cyclist" and perhaps your defiinition of "most."
>
> If you exclude hundreds of millions of people in other countries, and
> hundreds of thousands of poor people in America, and define "cyclist"
> as an avid American hobbiest who, perhaps, uses his computer to discuss
> bikes on the internet, then you may be correct.
>
> But that's an odd definition of "cyclist" and an odd definition of
> "most"!


REAL CYCLISTS [TM] are people who enjoy riding bicycles.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)
 
On 21 Jan 2006 08:59:00 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> ...
>> I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
>> majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

>
>Are the majority of cyclists racers? If not, they would be better off
>with less expensive, more reliable bar-end shifters than more
>expensive, less reliable brifters.


Its' so funny that you feel the urge to say this, when the evidence
(in terms of what people ride) is so strongly the opposite.

Take any cross section of cyclists to a bike shop. Tell them they can
spend a little more to get STI or Ergo (perhaps cutting corners on
some other aspect of the bike to keep costs the same), and it'll be
less reliable than the alternative -- bar ends -- like it'll last five
years instead of 10+. See what they choose.

Or take a loot at what people buy after-market for their bikes.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Fashionable Tomlinson wrote:

<snipped>

>
> Or take a loot at what people buy after-market for their bikes.
>


The "Freudian slip" of a Shimano mole? :)
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Johnny Sunset <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> ...
>> I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
>> majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

>
> Are the majority of cyclists racers? If not, they would be better off
> with less expensive, more reliable bar-end shifters than more
> expensive, less reliable brifters.


At last - someone not afraid to commit to a position !!!

Why ? Because you can tickle your behind while riding ?

What about the drudge of a "normal" bike ...

(This is designed to offer you the springboard you want ........ )
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Peter Cole <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>> The Wogster wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common
>>>>>> bike I see when I walk to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
>>>> riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I
>>>> walk to work. On the road.
>>>
>>> Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another
>>> bike for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to
>>> have ONE bike total. Given enough training, I could ride a century
>>> on an MTB, I could ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail,
>>> on an MTB. Trail riding on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.

>>
>>
>> With reasonable width tires and properly built regular wheels, normal
>> hiking trails and fire roads can be ridden with no problem on a
>> drop-bar road bike.
>>

>
> I have a 700c fixed gear (80's Fuji tourer frame) with a "flip-flop"
> hub. I have ridden it to trail heads, flipped the wheel to get the
> freewheel side, and ridden the "mountain bike loop". The tires are
> 28mm. MTB-ers have expressed surprise at seeing a "road bike" on the
> trails, but it's no big deal.


You are my new hero !!!!!!!
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].
 
Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by
>>>>>bike, chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most
>>>>>CYCLISTS have more than one bike -- especially if they're into
>>>>>off-road at all.
>>>>
>>>>You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
>>>>That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
>>>>Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
>>>>cans to sell.
>>>
>>>Apparently the word "most" got past you.
>>>
>>>Twice.

>>
>>Nope. That's not the problem. I think the problem is your definition
>>of "cyclist" and perhaps your defiinition of "most."

>
>
> Wogster used the term "most" in a specific context, and THAT is what I was
> addressing. Here's my reply to someone else about this:
>
> {Quote}
> Wogster wrote, "Most people are not going to have one bike for on road,
> another bike for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to
> have ONE bike total."
>
> My (intended) point was that people who ride all or most of those ways
> (road, off-road, commuting, touring, etc.) ARE in fact likely to have more
> than one bike. {End quote}
>
> Especially if those people do "real" mountain biking on trails and not just
> call gravel paths "off road".
>
> Bill "knew I should have stayed out of this thread" S.
>


True, if you state that cyclist is a person who rides a bicycle on a
regular basis, that would include the old guy who rides an upright 3
speed, just about everywhere. He was on it this morning in a blizzard
that reminded one of that old Paul Simon song, "Slip slidin' away". Of
course after it quit snowing, the sun had come out and most of the
streets had cleared, the city came along and put salt on the dry
pavement....

Now, it is possible to use a MTB for road use, but it's difficult to use
a road bike for trail use, so if your limited by financial or space
constraints to a single bicycle, and you plan on doing both on and off
road biking, with some commuting thrown in, then an MTB has the most
flexability.

W
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sorni wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>> If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by
>>>> bike, chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most
>>>> CYCLISTS have more than one bike -- especially if they're into
>>>> off-road at all.
>>>
>>> You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
>>> That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
>>> Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
>>> cans to sell.

>>
>> Apparently the word "most" got past you.
>>
>> Twice.

>
> Nope. That's not the problem. I think the problem is your definition
> of "cyclist" and perhaps your defiinition of "most."
>
> If you exclude hundreds of millions of people in other countries, and
> hundreds of thousands of poor people in America, and define "cyclist"
> as an avid American hobbiest who, perhaps, uses his computer to
> discuss bikes on the internet, then you may be correct.
>
> But that's an odd definition of "cyclist" and an odd definition of
> "most"!


But I have been reminded to keep my European opinions to myself.
By your definition of "cyclist", I guess you are. But that's a European
opinion, endowed with an adequate sense of humour.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].
 
On 21 Jan 2006 11:05:12 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Fashionable Tomlinson wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>>
>> Or take a loot at what people buy after-market for their bikes.
>>

>
>The "Freudian slip" of a Shimano mole? :)


Yeah, I'm having trouble with my eye$ight and keep hitting the wrong
key$.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2006 08:59:00 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
> >> majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

> >
> >Are the majority of cyclists racers? If not, they would be better off
> >with less expensive, more reliable bar-end shifters than more
> >expensive, less reliable brifters.

>
> Its' so funny that you feel the urge to say this, when the evidence
> (in terms of what people ride) is so strongly the opposite.
>
> Take any cross section of cyclists to a bike shop. Tell them they can
> spend a little more to get STI or Ergo (perhaps cutting corners on
> some other aspect of the bike to keep costs the same), and it'll be
> less reliable than the alternative -- bar ends -- like it'll last five
> years instead of 10+. See what they choose.
>
> Or take a loot at what people buy after-market for their bikes.


The majority of cyclists who do club and other medium distance rides
but never race buy bicycles that have inadequate clearances for fenders
and reasonably wide tires. Is this the best choice for them? No.

Much of what is sold (at least in the US) is due to fashion, marketing,
and what the manufacturers choose to put on the bicycles.

Although that data is not readily available, I suspect that a majority
of non-racing, experienced and knowledgeable cyclists prefer bar-end
shifters for the reasons I mentioned.

There are plenty of examples outside of cycling where people spend more
money on something less suitable due to fashion and marketing (e.g.
purchasing a SUV instead of a minivan or station wagon).

RANT: I wish someone made high quality 9-speed thumb-shifters with a
friction option.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)
 
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > ...
> > I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
> > majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

>
> Are the majority of cyclists racers?



No, but many "wannabe".



If not, they would be better off
> with less expensive, more reliable bar-end shifters than more
> expensive, less reliable brifters.
>


Less expensive, more flexible, more reliable - sure. But they're not
what Lance rides.
 

Similar threads

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