Cheapo bike



D

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

Guest
>Well I tend not to use my bike when it is raining as you will get soaked
>anyway and it is no fun (and far more dangerous riding in the wet).


*Beep* wrong. Appropriate wet wetaher gear means you don't have to get soaked
anyway - and cycling in the rain is no hassle - the real hassle are headwinds
;-)

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
D

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

Guest
>My point was more that it's far far better to get a second hand thing of
>good quality than something new and made of cheese.


Absolutely. There's a big difference between something being cheap and
something being good value for money.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
M

MSeries

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>half_pint wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My tip is avoid anything with mudguards on it!!! If you intend to
>>>cycle in the rain you will get soaked anyway!! And mudguards mean
>>>rattles!!

>>
>>But if you ride a mudguardless bike on roads covred in wet mud and
>>slurry you and your bike will get covered in wet mud and slurry. By
>>slurry I of course mean cow ****. I used a road on Saturday which for
>>about 3 miles was covred in this stuff, my mudguards kept most of it off
>>me and the bike, it hadn't rained that day nor the day. I prefer not to
>>be covered in cow ****, you of course may have a different view.

>
>
> The only cows within 3 miles of me are chopped up and on display
> on the shelves at Sainsburys (when they are not out of stock of course).
>
>

LOL, its probably their **** all over my bike !!!
 
M

MSeries

Guest
half_pint wrote:
..
>
>
> I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.


and you'd be wrong.
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
> .
> >
> >
> > I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.

>
> and you'd be wrong.



What a pity you cannot back up your claim.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, half_pint
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> IMO, bike weight is pretty irrelevant much of the time. Even with a
>> 10

> stone
>> rider, a weight saving of 10 pounds on the bike is only 7%.

>
> I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.


You've neither of you actually ridden a bicycle, have you? Admit it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.
 
H

Hywel Jenkins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > "half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > My tip is avoid anything with mudguards on it!!! If you intend to
> > > cycle in the rain you will get soaked anyway!! And mudguards mean
> > > rattles!!

> >
> > Bad advice. Mudguards make a huge difference on wet roads.

>
> I avoid wet roads, apart from anything else you are probably
> twice (or more) likely to be involved in an accident.


You are soooooo full of ****.

--
Hywel
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Hywel Jenkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> >
> > "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > "half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > > My tip is avoid anything with mudguards on it!!! If you intend to
> > > > cycle in the rain you will get soaked anyway!! And mudguards mean
> > > > rattles!!
> > >
> > > Bad advice. Mudguards make a huge difference on wet roads.

> >
> > I avoid wet roads, apart from anything else you are probably
> > twice (or more) likely to be involved in an accident.

>
> You are soooooo full of ****.


Yes but not under the wheels of an articulated lorry :O)

>
> --
> Hywel
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> in message <[email protected]>, half_pint
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> IMO, bike weight is pretty irrelevant much of the time. Even with a
> >> 10

> > stone
> >> rider, a weight saving of 10 pounds on the bike is only 7%.

> >
> > I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.

>
> You've neither of you actually ridden a bicycle, have you? Admit it.


what is far more important is the aerodynamics of bike and rider.

>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; When all else fails, read the distractions.
>
 
J

James Annan

Guest
half_pint wrote:


> I avoid wet roads, apart from anything else you are probably
> twice (or more) likely to be involved in an accident.


****. Who dragged half-wit into u.r.c?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
D

Doki

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> You're one of these people who buy Beko tellys and sit there
>> thinking you've got something over on someone who's bought a decent
>> one, claims that 8p a tin baked beans taste exactly the same as
>> heinz and that panda cola tastes just like coke.

>
> Just because you pay £500 for a telly does not mean it will not
> fail in a couple of years.
> I have bought many "bottom of the range items, TV, computer video
> which have proved extremely reliable.
> My mid-range "Bush" Stereo radio set proved to be a lemon as did
> the one which it was replaced with.
> My older Matsui video proved rather unreliable, I am much happier
> with the Sharp one I replaced it with. (sllightly better brand Sharp
> but hardly top of the range).


A telly should last 10 years easily IMO. Any of them. The difference with
good tellys VS poor tellys is mostly in terms of how well they're set up in
the factory (there are plenty of pots to adjust if you open one up, or get
into the service menu on a modern set), how well the remote works and how
well the system handles SCART input and the various on screen menus. IME
shite tellys often have dodgy setup and issues with scart. Though there are
plenty of expensive sets that come with absolutely shot geometry. Anyway,
this isn't uk.rec.tellybuying so I'll shut up.

> Paying through the noise does not guarantee quality, and your
> product "guarentee" may not turn out to be worth the
> paper it is printed on, (if the retailer goes bust, for instance).


Guarantees on electrical goods are for the hard of thinking. SOGA should
cover most eventualities.

>> I'm no fan of spending money, but if I were given the option
>> between buying a brand new Kia for £5k or a second hand Jag or BMW,
>> I'd go for quality over having something new everytime.

>
> I would leave the second hand Jag alone if I was you!!


You clearly know nowt about cars either then. The X300 onwards models have
consistently come up well in terms of reliability.
 
D

Doki

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, half_pint
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> IMO, bike weight is pretty irrelevant much of the time. Even with a
>>> 10

>> stone
>>> rider, a weight saving of 10 pounds on the bike is only 7%.

>>
>> I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.

>
> You've neither of you actually ridden a bicycle, have you? Admit it.


I often ride my bike, and while a heavy frame can be a pain in the ****,
it's not the be all and end all that lots of people make it out to be.
Saving 1lb in weight off the frame is going to be 0.7% of the total mass of
bike and rider if the rider weighs 10 stone. I don't and never will weigh 10
stone, unless I take up fasting as hobby, so it gets even dafter spending
lots of money to save a pound or two. Like a lot of stuff, you pay an awful
lot for smaller and smaller returns the higher up the scale you go. And if
you can find me a half decent bike that could be 10lbs lighter, I'll eat my
hat (hat will be of my choosing and preferably vaguely edible).

I'm not suggesting that everybody should go around on Apollo full suspension
jobbies that weigh in at 40lbs or something daft, just that there's not an
enormous point in worrying about the weight of thebike much of the time. The
rider's just lot heavier than the bike ever will be.
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> You're one of these people who buy Beko tellys and sit there
> >> thinking you've got something over on someone who's bought a decent
> >> one, claims that 8p a tin baked beans taste exactly the same as
> >> heinz and that panda cola tastes just like coke.

> >
> > Just because you pay £500 for a telly does not mean it will not
> > fail in a couple of years.
> > I have bought many "bottom of the range items, TV, computer video
> > which have proved extremely reliable.
> > My mid-range "Bush" Stereo radio set proved to be a lemon as did
> > the one which it was replaced with.
> > My older Matsui video proved rather unreliable, I am much happier
> > with the Sharp one I replaced it with. (sllightly better brand Sharp
> > but hardly top of the range).

>
> A telly should last 10 years easily IMO. Any of them. The difference with
> good tellys VS poor tellys is mostly in terms of how well they're set up

in
> the factory (there are plenty of pots to adjust if you open one up, or get
> into the service menu on a modern set), how well the remote works and how
> well the system handles SCART input and the various on screen menus. IME
> shite tellys often have dodgy setup and issues with scart. Though there

are
> plenty of expensive sets that come with absolutely shot geometry. Anyway,
> this isn't uk.rec.tellybuying so I'll shut up.


My cheapo Goodmans TV has a great picture, immaculate, it is occasionally
prone to losing (slightly) its channel tracking (usually BBC2) when the
seasons
change from hot to cold (probably cheap resistors with poor thermal
properties)
but other than that it is fine. That only occurs when you change channel,
once
it is locked on to a good signal it never loses it.
>
> > Paying through the noise does not guarantee quality, and your
> > product "guarentee" may not turn out to be worth the
> > paper it is printed on, (if the retailer goes bust, for instance).

>
> Guarantees on electrical goods are for the hard of thinking. SOGA should
> cover most eventualities.


( apart from the retailer going bellly up, as I found).

>
> >> I'm no fan of spending money, but if I were given the option
> >> between buying a brand new Kia for £5k or a second hand Jag or BMW,
> >> I'd go for quality over having something new everytime.

> >
> > I would leave the second hand Jag alone if I was you!!

>
> You clearly know nowt about cars either then. The X300 onwards models have
> consistently come up well in terms of reliability.


Is that a modern one? (I assume so but I am no Jag fan, wouldn't be seen
dead in one!!).

British made cars were generally ****, thats why we don't make em anymore.


>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > in message <[email protected]>, half_pint
> > ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> >> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >>>
> >>> IMO, bike weight is pretty irrelevant much of the time. Even with a
> >>> 10
> >> stone
> >>> rider, a weight saving of 10 pounds on the bike is only 7%.
> >>
> >> I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.

> >
> > You've neither of you actually ridden a bicycle, have you? Admit it.

>
> I often ride my bike, and while a heavy frame can be a pain in the ****,
> it's not the be all and end all that lots of people make it out to be.
> Saving 1lb in weight off the frame is going to be 0.7% of the total mass

of
> bike and rider if the rider weighs 10 stone. I don't and never will weigh

10
> stone, unless I take up fasting as hobby, so it gets even dafter spending
> lots of money to save a pound or two. Like a lot of stuff, you pay an

awful
> lot for smaller and smaller returns the higher up the scale you go. And if
> you can find me a half decent bike that could be 10lbs lighter, I'll eat

my
> hat (hat will be of my choosing and preferably vaguely edible).
>
> I'm not suggesting that everybody should go around on Apollo full

suspension
> jobbies that weigh in at 40lbs or something daft, just that there's not an
> enormous point in worrying about the weight of thebike much of the time.

The
> rider's just lot heavier than the bike ever will be.


And I often have 20lbs of shopping or more (a full basket and a bag of
potatoes)
on mine.

Weight makes you take a little longer to reach a given speed, but once
you attain that speed it is easier to maintain as you have more momentum
(kinetic energy).
Air resistance is far far more important thats why cyclicts have figure
hugging clothes, which may not be a great idea if you are 20 stone!!.

Losing weightis not that difficult if you stick to a normal sensible
eating plan, dieting does not work, you will put on weight in the long
run because your body will think it is in danger of starving to death and
will hence, make you feel extremely hungry *and* lethargic.

Cut out all sweets and crisps and fast food and eat 3 square meals a
day (big breakfast though) and aviod eating much in the evening as that
is turned into fat as you sleep.
>
>
 
H

Hywel Jenkins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> >
> > Simon Brooke wrote:
> > > in message <[email protected]>, half_pint
> > > ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[email protected]
> > >>>
> > >>> IMO, bike weight is pretty irrelevant much of the time. Even with a
> > >>> 10
> > >> stone
> > >>> rider, a weight saving of 10 pounds on the bike is only 7%.
> > >>
> > >> I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.
> > >
> > > You've neither of you actually ridden a bicycle, have you? Admit it.

> >
> > I often ride my bike, and while a heavy frame can be a pain in the ****,
> > it's not the be all and end all that lots of people make it out to be.
> > Saving 1lb in weight off the frame is going to be 0.7% of the total mass

> of
> > bike and rider if the rider weighs 10 stone. I don't and never will weigh

> 10
> > stone, unless I take up fasting as hobby, so it gets even dafter spending
> > lots of money to save a pound or two. Like a lot of stuff, you pay an

> awful
> > lot for smaller and smaller returns the higher up the scale you go. And if
> > you can find me a half decent bike that could be 10lbs lighter, I'll eat

> my
> > hat (hat will be of my choosing and preferably vaguely edible).
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that everybody should go around on Apollo full

> suspension
> > jobbies that weigh in at 40lbs or something daft, just that there's not an
> > enormous point in worrying about the weight of thebike much of the time.

> The
> > rider's just lot heavier than the bike ever will be.

>
>
> Losing weightis not that difficult if you stick to a normal sensible
> eating plan, dieting does not work, you will put on weight in the long
> run because your body will think it is in danger of starving to death and
> will hence, make you feel extremely hungry *and* lethargic.
>
> Cut out all sweets and crisps and fast food and eat 3 square meals a
> day (big breakfast though) and aviod eating much in the evening as that
> is turned into fat as you sleep.


More ******** from half_wit. You really are still a pleb.

--
Hywel
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> Weight makes you take a little longer to reach a given speed, but once
> you attain that speed it is easier to maintain as you have more momentum
> (kinetic energy).


Except in situations of obvious continuous acceleration such as hill-
climbing, where having a lighter bike is noticeable. I bought a new road
bike just over a year ago which was pretty similar in spec to the old
one I replaced (Both Shimano 105 equipped), but had an aluminium frame
and more modern components.

It is considerably faster off the mark than the old one. Up to that
point I too had been of the "greatest roportion of weight is the rider"
philosophy, but it really does make a difference.

It also makes it a pleasure to ride, which encourages you to ride!

> Air resistance is far far more important thats why cyclicts have figure
> hugging clothes, which may not be a great idea if you are 20 stone!!.


And why the ones that want to go really fast, all ride recumbents.

> Losing weightis not that difficult if you stick to a normal sensible
> eating plan, dieting does not work, you will put on weight in the long
> run because your body will think it is in danger of starving to death and
> will hence, make you feel extremely hungry *and* lethargic.


That depends greatly upon the diet.

> Cut out all sweets and crisps and fast food and eat 3 square meals a
> day (big breakfast though)


Generally good advice. Although it must be said that weight loss / gain
is basically simple maths. If you consume more energy than you use,
you'll gain weight and vice versa.

> and aviod eating much in the evening as that
> is turned into fat as you sleep.


Utter drivel. Would you like to explain the biochemical and
physiological mechanisms by which this occurs? Or are you just quoting
something you once read in the "Health" section of the Daily Wail?

Jon
 
M

MSeries

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>half_pint wrote:
>>.
>>
>>>
>>>I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.

>>
>>and you'd be wrong.

>
>
>
> What a pity you cannot back up your claim.
>
>



Go on take it McCourt.
 
Z

Zardoz

Guest

>I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.


I think you should try a nice expensive low friction, light wight bike
and see how pleasureable cycling becomes.

My experience with very cheap bikes (wife paid £99 for one which we
quickly got rid of) is that they are great if you don't do much
cycling. If you can put up with
- the crank continually falling off (it did)
- the bendy brake handles (more squishy than an old cucumber)
- Awful plastic pedals
- The shitty clunky gears with awful shifters
- Totally unresponsive ride (because of weight)


Once we'd sorted out the mechanical problems the bike ws quite usable.
Just not very nice.