CFRP drawbacks

Joe Riel said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction
> of a passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on
> a dirt road.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve
of pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two
curves depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out
which is the front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given
front wheel track, the rear on the other track, and see if they
continue to match as you trace the front wheel track. Then try it
going the other direction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It
does appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here,
so I had to work quickly. More testing later...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'll need to explain that in more detail. When I ride a curve,
the front wheel always takes a greater radius than the rear. That
the front wheel proceeded the rear wheel in time and space is also
clear. What is unclear is how the direction of this tracking
occurred. If you can point out the physical trace that reveals in
which direction the two tracks were made, I could better understand
it.

Quoted message said:

One way to imagine it is to assume that the front wheel follows a
perfect sine wave. The rear wheel will then (eventually) also
follow a sine wave (actually, not quite, but close enough) with the
same wavelength, but a smaller amplitude. If the wavelength is
greater than (about) the wheel separation, the sine wave generated
by the rear wheel should have a small lead with respect to the front
wheel. So the direction of the bike must be such that the phase of
rear track leads that of the front track. That is:

Quoted message said:

front track = A*sin(x/L)
rear track ~ B*sin(x/L+phi) with 0 <= phi <= Pi and B < A.

Quoted message said:

If you are looking at this backward (x -> -x) then the phase
difference would be negative (i.e. phase lag).

Quoted message said:

A practical way to deduce the direction with just a yardstick (which
is a good approximation of the wheel separation of a standard bike)
is to lie the stick so that one end is on the front wheel track, the
other end on the rear wheel track, then make the front edge of the
stick follow the front wheel track. If the other end follows the
rear track, you're moving the stick in the proper direction. I will
test this on my walk tonight (part of the walk is along a dirt path
with bike tracks).

That assumes the rider is riding an exaggerated wavy course on a
smoothly paved road, which isn't the norm, nor does it leave a visible
track. Beyond that, I ride on roads with recently swept wide
shoulders by street sweeping machines (the bike lane) because there
are construction projects along the route. This leaves a dusty
shoulder where every bicycle leaves a visible track. These are all
single lines of slightly varying width as the riders make minor
corrections. You cannot distinguish tires or tread profile... nor
direction, although these folks probably follow right hand traffic.

The whole story is an extension of Doyle's character that claims to
see more than there is to see. Holmes should have known though not to
go to Hotel Zwirgi at the top of the Reichenbach Falls near Meiringen
where he and Dr. Moriarty had to plunge over the falls in order to
free Doyle from writing further adventures. The faithful demanded
that Holmes could not die that way and forced Doyle to write that
Holmes saved himself at the last moment by grabbing onto a branch.

http://switzerland.isyours.com/E/guide/berner_oberland/sherlockholmes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichenbach_Falls
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mayumi/watanabe/rtw/9/shstamd/shstamd.htm

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Joe Riel writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A practical way to deduce the direction with just a yardstick (which
is a good approximation of the wheel separation of a standard bike)
is to lie the stick so that one end is on the front wheel track, the
other end on the rear wheel track, then make the front edge of the
stick follow the front wheel track. If the other end follows the
rear track, you're moving the stick in the proper direction. I will
test this on my walk tonight (part of the walk is along a dirt path
with bike tracks).

That assumes the rider is riding an exaggerated wavy course on a
smoothly paved road, which isn't the norm, nor does it leave a visible
track. Beyond that, I ride on roads with recently swept wide
shoulders by street sweeping machines (the bike lane) because there
are construction projects along the route. This leaves a dusty
shoulder where every bicycle leaves a visible track. These are all
single lines of slightly varying width as the riders make minor
corrections. You cannot distinguish tires or tread profile... nor
direction, although these folks probably follow right hand traffic.

I followed through with the test I previously described (above).
Alas, it didn't work. The dirt trail I walk on is multiuse and
consists of hard packed dirt, with a somewhat sandy surface.
The impressions of the bike tires are too faint to clearly distinguish,
except in patches.

After the walk I repeated the tests making tire tracks on the paved
road after wetting the tires in the gutter. It is easy to
distinguish the direction if the bike makes a wavy turn or two
by attempting to recreate the path with a second bike. A clever
person should be able to that visually, however, I found that
difficult; maybe with more practice.

--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A practical way to deduce the direction with just a yardstick
(which is a good approximation of the wheel separation of a
standard bike) is to lie the stick so that one end is on the front
wheel track, the other end on the rear wheel track, then make the
front edge of the stick follow the front wheel track. If the
other end follows the rear track, you're moving the stick in the
proper direction. I will test this on my walk tonight (part of
the walk is along a dirt path with bike tracks).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That assumes the rider is riding an exaggerated wavy course on a
smoothly paved road, which isn't the norm, nor does it leave a
visible track. Beyond that, I ride on roads with recently swept
wide shoulders by street sweeping machines (the bike lane) because
there are construction projects along the route. This leaves a
dusty shoulder where every bicycle leaves a visible track. These
are all single lines of slightly varying width as the riders make
minor corrections. You cannot distinguish tires or tread
profile... nor direction, although these folks probably follow
right hand traffic.

Quoted message said:

I followed through with the test I previously described (above).
Alas, it didn't work. The dirt trail I walk on is multiuse and
consists of hard packed dirt, with a somewhat sandy surface. The
impressions of the bike tires are too faint to clearly distinguish,
except in patches.

Quoted message said:

After the walk I repeated the tests making tire tracks on the paved
road after wetting the tires in the gutter. It is easy to
distinguish the direction if the bike makes a wavy turn or two by
attempting to recreate the path with a second bike. A clever person
should be able to that visually, however, I found that difficult;
maybe with more practice.

I assume you used excursions large enough to separate the front and
rear tire tracks. As I said, that is unrealistic except for slow
travel on a smooth street where choice of path is primarily for
balance than a path around rough spots. I see that for given a front
wheel excursion, the rear one will make a lesser excursion with a peak
lagging by the wheelbase.

I'm not sure that Conan Doyle came up with that although it is
possible, considering that he had technically inclined friends who
could advise him on it. As You see, most people immediately think it
is a simple case of the rear wheel crossing over the front track and
showing which came first, thereby giving direction... which it
doesn't.

This concept assumes slow enough travel that there is a detectable
waviness that could be attributed to front and rear track. One need
not know which tire is more heavily loaded or the tread pattern for
this assessment. Therefore, mentioning which tire was more heavily
loaded is a red herring.

I concede that it is possible, but from my having been confronted with
the problem over years on a local dirt road, I have a hard enough time
discerning whether the rider was going uphill or downhill, the road
surface being such that a dodging course is taken in both directions
and following a separation of front and rear track is less than easy.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll see if I can apply it next time I go
up that road.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

I assume you used excursions large enough to separate the front and
rear tire tracks. As I said, that is unrealistic except for slow
travel on a smooth street where choice of path is primarily for
balance than a path around rough spots. I see that for given a front
wheel excursion, the rear one will make a lesser excursion with a peak
lagging by the wheelbase.

Correct on all counts.

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure that Conan Doyle came up with that although it is
possible, considering that he had technically inclined friends who
could advise him on it. As You see, most people immediately think it
is a simple case of the rear wheel crossing over the front track and
showing which came first, thereby giving direction... which it
doesn't.

This concept assumes slow enough travel that there is a detectable
waviness that could be attributed to front and rear track. One need
not know which tire is more heavily loaded or the tread pattern for
this assessment. Therefore, mentioning which tire was more heavily
loaded is a red herring.

I concede that it is possible, but from my having been confronted with
the problem over years on a local dirt road, I have a hard enough time
discerning whether the rider was going uphill or downhill, the road
surface being such that a dodging course is taken in both directions
and following a separation of front and rear track is less than easy.

Yes, that's my opinion. Possible, but difficult and not really
practical. Things might be different with a softer surface that
permitted clear tire tracks. Presumably English soil is damper...

--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel said:

Quoted message said:

I concede that it is possible, but from my having been confronted with
the problem over years on a local dirt road, I have a hard enough time
discerning whether the rider was going uphill or downhill, the road
surface being such that a dodging course is taken in both directions
and following a separation of front and rear track is less than easy.

Yes, that's my opinion. Possible, but difficult and not really
practical. Things might be different with a softer surface that
permitted clear tire tracks. Presumably English soil is damper...

In the story, it winds up being irrelevant since Holmes follows
the bicycle track both ways, first towards the school and then
away from it. It's just window dressing by Conan Doyle to
make Holmes seem more omniscient. The points about
there being two sets of tracks and matching the second set
to a patched Palmer-tyred bicycle later are more relevant
to the plot.

For someone who invented the master of logical detection,
Conan Doyle's logic doesn't always make sense. But he was
a virtuoso of atmosphere, and that's what counts in the
ink-stained-wretch trade.

Ben

In article <[email hidden]>,

Joe Riel said:

Quoted message said:

All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of a
passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a dirt
road.

It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is the
front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel track,
the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to match as you
trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the other direction.

I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It
does appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so
I had to work quickly. More testing later...

Check. The convolution of the two tracks is not
an even function.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Joe Riel said:

Quoted message said:

All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of
a passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a
dirt road.

Quoted message said:

It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is
the front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel
track, the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to
match as you trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the
other direction.

Quoted message said:

I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It does
appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so I had
to work quickly. More testing later...

You'll need to explain that in more detail. When I ride a curve, the
front wheel always takes a greater radius than the rear. That the
front wheel proceeded the rear wheel in time and space is also clear.
What is unclear is how the direction of this tracking occurred. If
you can point out the physical trace that reveals in which direction
the two tracks were made, I could better understand it.

The amount of curvature in the front wheel track
influences the amount of curvature in the rear wheel
track. Suppose the track runs North-South. Does the
amount of curvature in the front wheel correlate with the
curvature in the rear track to the North or to the South?

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with
plain concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the
perimeter, with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would
have a continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.

For those of us who aren't engineers, could you explain what "vertical
bars" and "hoop bar ties" are? Are we talking about the difference
between just pouring concrete into a column vs reinforcing with what is
commonly called "rebar?" Or something more sophisticated than that?

Looking at the column in plan (top view), the main reinforcement
(typically #8 to #18 [1] deformed steel bars) are arranged in a circle
that is typically about 6 inches smaller in diameter than the column (to
allow for minimum concrete coverage of the reinforcing steel). These bars
serve primarily to carry tensile loads when the column is loaded in
bending or uplift, but also add to the compressive strength of the column.
In a "standard" column, there are circular ties of smaller bars (typically
spaced at 1 foot vertical intervals) that wrap around the vertical bars.
Example at
<http://www.metcad911.org/MDICE/Photo_Album/images/South_tower_002s.JPG>.

For greater integrity to resist seismic or blast loads, the hoop ties are
replaced by helical ties.

[1] The number of a rebar is nominally 1/8 inch, so a #3 rebar is
approximately 3/8 inch in diameter.

Thanks. We're on the same page. I just didn't know the terminology.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with
plain concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the
perimeter, with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would
have a continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.

For those of us who aren't engineers, could you explain what "vertical
bars" and "hoop bar ties" are? Are we talking about the difference
between just pouring concrete into a column vs reinforcing with what is
commonly called "rebar?" Or something more sophisticated than that?

Looking at the column in plan (top view), the main reinforcement
(typically #8 to #18 [1] deformed steel bars) are arranged in a circle
that is typically about 6 inches smaller in diameter than the column (to
allow for minimum concrete coverage of the reinforcing steel). These bars
serve primarily to carry tensile loads when the column is loaded in
bending or uplift, but also add to the compressive strength of the column.
In a "standard" column, there are circular ties of smaller bars (typically
spaced at 1 foot vertical intervals) that wrap around the vertical bars.
Example at
<http://www.metcad911.org/MDICE/Photo_Album/images/South_tower_002s.JPG>.

For greater integrity to resist seismic or blast loads, the hoop ties are
replaced by helical ties.

[1] The number of a rebar is nominally 1/8 inch, so a #3 rebar is
approximately 3/8 inch in diameter.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jasper Janssen said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Jasper Janssen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
> america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
> hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
> start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough --
> and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could be
> made on the PT network.

Also, um, people couldn't afford cars. So it didn't really matter if the
public transit was "good enough." You either took the trolley, walked,
or you didn't go.

Or you took the BICYCLE. Which was what we were TALKING ABOUT. And which
is the *subject of the fricking newsgroup*. We were *not* comparing to
cars.

We were referring to the many people at the turn of the century who had
not even a bicycle, and certainly not a car.

I perhaps distracted everyone by mentioning that these people didn't
have cars, but the point was that bicycle sales levelled off before the
point of effective market saturation. In other words, some people either

You've in fact failed to show that this is the case.

Quoted message said:

didn't want one (rare) or couldn't afford one (common). Their remaining
choices were as discussed above.

The problem is, bicycle saturation is not a 1:1 ratio of bikes to
americans living in densely-populated areas, *let alone* to all americans.
Densely populated areas probably accounted for only a few dozen million
adult(ish) and not too old americans at the time in question, and they
sold a *lot* of bikes compared to *that* number. Especially considering
that, as I said, bikes were not personalised items of property, any more
than many cars are now.

Jasper

Ryan Cousineau said:

(and a third-generation bike commuter (a label
which I'm sure would impress my Dutch relatives only if their
grandparents couldn't afford bicycles))

My grandparents were born in the late teens of the twentieth century, and
every single one of them bicycled, if not always as a commute. I'd guess
that my paternal grandfather did, my paternal grandmother didn't commute
(although she went grocery shopping which is perhaps the house-wife
equivalent which she did do on a bike), my maternal grandmother *still*
does her shopping on the bike (she doesn't use the car much anymore, but
the bike, no problem), and my maternal grandfather.. well, he got a car in
the late 50s early 60s or thereabouts, and I suspect he pretty much
stopped riding a bicycle at that time. My parents still do commute by
bicycle.

Jasper

Quoted message said:

As for riding [censored]'s horse, it's a fun page, and the pictures show
that the U.S. was the first truly mechanized army. Everyone else still
had more horses than we realize. And tradition hung on pretty hard:

Not even just everyone *else*. IIRC from somewhere or other, [censored] in
1940 still had more horses than mechanised transport in the Wehrmacht, and
I suspect the same applied, really, even to the US.

NL had actually phased out most of the horses and replaced them with
bicycles, though. We owned one tank in '40 and it was great war era,
pretty much surplus scrap.

Holding out for 5 days was really quite an accomplishment, even if it does
get you the surrendermonkey label when people aren't busy slinging it at
the french.

Jasper

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:00:17 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

aka Carl Fogel said:

...
As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.

However, the Swiss Army used to have bicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
to purchase a Saris Bones.

Unfortunately, the Swiss Bicycle Infantry Regiment was phased out in '01.
I'm glad I bothered to check before claiming they still had one though 🙂

Jasper

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

...
I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....

butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
around in without attracting attention.

An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage.

Quoted message said:

In some markets, prestige is more important, and a lower price would be
a detriment? Even wonder why high-end Japanese sport cars have not sold
as well as their more expensive (and less reliable) European
equivalents?

The Mazda MX-5 sells like *hotcakes*. I don't actually know of any other
Japanese sportscar that could be considered the "equivalent", in terms of
design and performance, of even mid-end Ferraris & Porsches, or the more
obscure Lambo/Maserati/Bugatti/Bentley sorts of things. They just don't
really build supercars. Argentinians do, and the Pagani Zonda is not
exactly rare to see on (super)car-oriented TV shows.

Americans sometimes have a go at making a supercar (like the recent GT40),
but they tend to stuff it up. They share the common failing of the
American muscle-car (which is a different genre, really) of not going
round corners well at all, and for that matter being less reliable than
even a Ferrari.

When I think of a Japanese performance motor, I think of things like a
Civic Type R or other cars that have been riced up, either before or after
leaving the factory. Those ain't sportscars.

Jasper

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:58:35 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here in the You Ess of Aye, the goal is to get as big as box as possible
for the price. Based on the apartments I have lived in of similar
construction, I would expect most of these new houses to need major work
within 20 years. Crappy roofing, siding, windows, plumbing fixtures,
cabinetry, etc. is the norm. If these houses were bicycle components,
they would be well below Shimano Tourney standard.

The funny thing is, you can get things up to Deore standard for maybe 10
or 20% more (given that a major, major portion is in labour, especially
finishing, which you can not skimp all that much on, not like materials),
and probably up to Goddamn Good XT standard for maybe 50% more. That money
would more than pay for itself over even the 30y running time of the
average mortgage, and probably would pay for itself as well if you were
selling it after the new building smell came off.

This is, of course, speaking from the perspective of someone living in a
place where labour is huuuuugely expensive, land is huuuuugely expensive,
and building costs, meh, who gives a [censored]. On the BBC they occasionally
had an item in the property-auction TV program which either was, or would
be used as, a simple building lot. They usually came out with 2, 300 grand
worth of land and 2, 300 grand worth of building costs and would
sell/value the house they built with another 2/300 grand profit, the
classic 33/33/33 split.

Only sometimes it'd be more than that on the land which would mostly come
out of the profit. Keep in mind those are UKP grands, which convert to
about 2 kilobucks each, so we're talking roughly half a million bucks each
of land, building, and profit.

On the other hand american-style houses, ie timberframe, used to be hard
to even get a mortgage on, and even now they sell for significantly less
than real brick walls. After a fire, after all, the only thing that's left
standing is the brick walls -- that's a safe minimum level of trust to put
in a property as a bank. With timberframe, you won't even have that left.

Jasper

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jasper Janssen said:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

...
I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....

butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
around in without attracting attention.

An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage.

Quoted message said:

In some markets, prestige is more important, and a lower price would be
a detriment? Even wonder why high-end Japanese sport cars have not sold
as well as their more expensive (and less reliable) European
equivalents?

The Mazda MX-5 sells like *hotcakes*. I don't actually know of any other
Japanese sportscar that could be considered the "equivalent", in terms of
design and performance, of even mid-end Ferraris & Porsches, or the more
obscure Lambo/Maserati/Bugatti/Bentley sorts of things. They just don't
really build supercars. Argentinians do, and the Pagani Zonda is not
exactly rare to see on (super)car-oriented TV shows.

The sales volumes of supercars are minuscule. Even among makers like
Ferrari and Porsche, they sell many more of their entry-level cars
(non-turbo 911, Boxster, the still-pricey F430 Ferraris...) than they do
of the top-end versions (FXX, Enzo, Carrera GT...). Arguably, a few
Japanese cars have hit supercar status, or at least supercar-equivalent
performance when they were at their peak (maybe NSX, probably Skyline
GT-R, the stillborn Yamaha OX99-11).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Supercars

Quoted message said:

Americans sometimes have a go at making a supercar (like the recent GT40),
but they tend to stuff it up. They share the common failing of the
American muscle-car (which is a different genre, really) of not going
round corners well at all, and for that matter being less reliable than
even a Ferrari.

The Z06-spec Corvettes are astounding value. Unless Ferrari has done
something while I wasn't looking, the maintenance costs over a
reasonable timeframe for the Corvette will be way less than the Ferrari,
and the Corvette is at least the equal of any Ferrari anywhere near its
price (probably only the Enzo-class red-painted horse cars would beat it
outright). The amusing spec on the Z06 is that it is the cheapest 500-hp
car in the world, and it is the only one to get more than 22.5 mpg on
the EPA combined cycle, making it exempt from Gas Guzzler taxes in the
US. Which is pretty funny.

Also, Chevrolet rear-engine drivetrains are pretty much boringly
reliable. Change the oil, and you're golden.

Quoted message said:

When I think of a Japanese performance motor, I think of things like a
Civic Type R or other cars that have been riced up, either before or after
leaving the factory. Those ain't sportscars.

Nissan 350Z and Skyline. Mazda RX-8 and MX-5. Toyota MR-S and Supra,
when they still made them. Subaru WRX and WRX STi. Honda NSX and S2000.
Mitsubishi Eclipse, Spyder, and Evolution. et cetera.

The heritage of Japanese sporting machinery is deep and wide, going back
at least as far as 60s stuff like the Toyota 2000GT and the Datsun
Fairlady/1600. Notably, every car I have mentioned above is either
rear-wheel drive or all-wheel drive except the Eclipse/Spyder, which
have had AWD options in the past. None of these cars except maybe the
Eclipse/Spyder, and mabye the MR-S or WRX are particularly of the
"ricer" nature that you're thinking of (FWD compacts that have more
sound system than motor).

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Jasper Janssen said:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

...
I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....

butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
around in without attracting attention.

An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage....

The S-Class is also a heavy, dead car. I LIKE to be able to feel what
the road surface is, shift by ear, etc. As for noise, having the windows
open for a blast of fresh air negates the sound deadening advantage.

Can you get cloth seats in a S-Class? I find leather to be a turn off
compared to cloth for most items. Can you get the S-Class with a manual
transmission? I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic, and would
not like to start.

I also would definitely NOT want to be driving the S-Class on my normal
routes through the "hood". No need to attract the attention of gang bangers.

Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
a sin of the first magnitude.

--
Tom "Mutt Person" Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Tom Sherman said:

Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
a sin of the first magnitude.

'beverage spewed on keyboard' award for the day!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Sherman said:

Jasper Janssen said:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
around in without attracting attention.

Quoted message said:

An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage....

The S-Class is also a heavy, dead car. I LIKE to be able to feel what
the road surface is, shift by ear, etc. As for noise, having the windows
open for a blast of fresh air negates the sound deadening advantage.

Can you get cloth seats in a S-Class? I find leather to be a turn off
compared to cloth for most items. Can you get the S-Class with a manual
transmission? I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic, and would
not like to start.

I also would definitely NOT want to be driving the S-Class on my normal
routes through the "hood". No need to attract the attention of gang bangers.

Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
a sin of the first magnitude.

The original premise was "what if an S-Class were the same
price as a Honda Civic." Which is absurd, of course, but if it
were true, lots of people would be driving an S-Class, and you
wouldn't stick out especially driving it through the hood. By the
way, you probably stick out driving through the hood no matter
what you drive. (So would I - it's just, don't let's kind ourselves
that driving clunkers is camouflage.) The more so on that
Zipper-faired recumbent.

The better original example would have been something like
"What if a car as efficient, well-made and reliable as a Honda Civic
cost almost the same as a Chevette or a K-Car, and thus was
affordable to any middle class person?" That question's been
answered by history.

BTW, I grew up in a steel town, and owning a fancy car was
aspirational, not class-traitorism. That perception seems to
be tilted by the chip on your shoulder. An import like the
S-Class might have been shunned, but because it was an
import, not because it was expensive. (A friend's dad had
a red BMW 2002 and it was regarded as his pet exotica,
which we were careful not to scratch or throw balls near.)
These days, I'm not sure anyone in that situation even shuns
imports, except in Michigan.

Ben

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Jasper Janssen said:

Americans sometimes have a go at making a supercar (like the recent GT40),
but they tend to stuff it up. They share the common failing of the
American muscle-car (which is a different genre, really) of not going
round corners well at all,

I have not driven many different cars lately. My impression
accords with JB's assertion. All cars these days get around
corners real well. My 1999 Honda Accord four door does very
well indeed. Corvette owners have told me that they are good
on corners too.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

Jasper Janssen said:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
>> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
>> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
>> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
> butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
> around in without attracting attention.
An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage....

The S-Class is also a heavy, dead car. I LIKE to be able to feel what
the road surface is, shift by ear, etc. As for noise, having the windows
open for a blast of fresh air negates the sound deadening advantage.

Can you get cloth seats in a S-Class? I find leather to be a turn off
compared to cloth for most items. Can you get the S-Class with a manual
transmission? I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic, and would
not like to start.

I also would definitely NOT want to be driving the S-Class on my normal
routes through the "hood". No need to attract the attention of gang bangers.

Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
a sin of the first magnitude.

The original premise was "what if an S-Class were the same
price as a Honda Civic." Which is absurd, of course, but if it
were true, lots of people would be driving an S-Class, and you
wouldn't stick out especially driving it through the hood. By the
way, you probably stick out driving through the hood no matter
what you drive. (So would I - it's just, don't let's kind ourselves
that driving clunkers is camouflage.)

Small, gray, non-luxury sedans are as close as one gets to a "Somebody
else's problem field" vehicle. If I were driving an S-Class, people
would likely think I had an expensive watch, jewelry, lots of cash, etc.
on me.

Quoted message said:

The more so on that
Zipper-faired recumbent.

There is a guy who rides a Vision R-40 recumbent pulling a Burley Nomad
trailer that I see regularly in the "hood".

Quoted message said:

The better original example would have been something like
"What if a car as efficient, well-made and reliable as a Honda Civic
cost almost the same as a Chevette or a K-Car, and thus was
affordable to any middle class person?" That question's been
answered by history.

BTW, I grew up in a steel town, and owning a fancy car was
aspirational, not class-traitorism. That perception seems to
be tilted by the chip on your shoulder. An import like the
S-Class might have been shunned, but because it was an
import, not because it was expensive.

It is not the expense of the car, as much as the statement it makes;
"look at me, I can afford to blow lots of money on an overpriced car!"

Quoted message said:

(A friend's dad had
a red BMW 2002 and it was regarded as his pet exotica,
which we were careful not to scratch or throw balls near.)

"Half a brick on top of a brick"?

Actually, in those days, I would not have minded owning a BMW, since it
was an oddity, not a yuppie status symbol.

Quoted message said:

These days, I'm not sure anyone in that situation even shuns
imports, except in Michigan.

Imports? Except for the low volume lines, practically everything with a
Japanese name plate sold in the US is made in the US or Canada, while
more and more "Big 3" vehicles are made in Mexico.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!