Cheapo bike



S

Simon Brooke

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

> 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?


He's amazing, isn't he? He's really winding me up. How can a human being
be so categorically wrong about _everything_? I suppose I should dust
off the old kill-file.

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

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

>
>
> 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.


OK, here's a reality test. Would you rather ride 200 miles on an a 9Kg
(20lb) bike or on a 13Kg (30lb) bike? Sure, it's only a very small
proportion of the total weight, but at the end of a long ride it feels
like a very big difference, let me assure you!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> "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.


In Britain, we have things called 'hills'. You may not have heard of
them.

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

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.
 
Z

Zardoz

Guest
> as well
>as center pull brakes which is a "must".


Bad, dangerous advice.

Have you investigated this claim or did you just write it without
thinking? Someone's life might depend on them having good brakes and
this doesn't help.
 
M

Martin Wilson

Guest
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:42:56 +0000, Zardoz <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>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)


Wasn't the nut just loose? A lot of the cheap bikes need careful
assembly and checking of things like nuts being fully screwed in.
Presumably the crank couldn't come off without the nut first coming
off.

> - the bendy brake handles (more squishy than an old cucumber)


I've not seen any squishy ones but some of them do look pretty cheap I
must admit.
> - Awful plastic pedals


Well the peddles that came with my cheap bike have pretty meaty ball
bearings as I serviced them with new grease just to be safe. I also
recently serviced a higher price set of peddles and the ball bearings
in that were much smaller and a lot more of them. Probably made them a
lot smoother but certainly they looked less robust.
> - The shitty clunky gears with awful shifters


If your talking about shimano tourney gears you do get the same gears
on much more expensive bikes. Possibly better setup but the same
actual hardware.

>- Totally unresponsive ride (because of weight)
>


I'm not sure what a totally unresponsive ride is as surely the bike
responds to any actions you give it with regard steering, peddling,
gear change and braking. Maybe you felt the weight of the bike was
slowing down your progress or the frame made the bike uncomfortable to
ride or harsh I don't know. However my cheap bike rides very well and
I would say it is reponsive. However going up a hill I wish it was a
bit lighter and won't deny it. I still think its a great little bike
for the money though and an excellent purchase.

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


I
 
D

Doki

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Doki ('[email protected]')
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.

>
> OK, here's a reality test. Would you rather ride 200 miles on an a 9Kg
> (20lb) bike or on a 13Kg (30lb) bike? Sure, it's only a very small
> proportion of the total weight, but at the end of a long ride it feels
> like a very big difference, let me assure you!


I'd sooner ride the lighter one. *But*, when you're talking about half
decent bikes in the first place, there's nothing like that amount of weight
to be saved. If you look on the Dawes website, the difference between their
fairly boggo hardtail and their team bike is only a couple of pounds. The
number of pounds quid you'd have to spend to get the weight saving is a lot
more.

All I'm saying is there's a point where worrying about weight is stupid.
Obviously, there are functional differences as well between different pieces
of kit, but beyond a certain level everything's pretty decent. Bikes remind
me of hifi in a way - a lot of people worrying about having the best /
better kit when they should just be using it.
 
half_pint wrote:
> 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).


The guarantee has nothing to do with the retailer. That's something
the manufacturer offers in addition to your statutory rights. That's
why it's a "manufacturer's guarantee".

--
Hywel
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> OK, here's a reality test. Would you rather ride 200 miles on an a 9Kg
> (20lb) bike or on a 13Kg (30lb) bike? Sure, it's only a very small
> proportion of the total weight, but at the end of a long ride it feels
> like a very big difference, let me assure you!


Ummm, acksherlee, having had a job to do of riding 300 miles earlier
this year I did it on the bike I'd specifically bought for just that
sort of thing which weighs about 20 Kg! Roos did likewise.

so ITYM "if all else is equal, would you rather etc. etc." All things
aren't in many cases, this one included, but if all things /are/ equal
then lighter is better.

Also the case that if you're riding 2 miles rather than 200 and you're
not in much of a hurry then one tends more towards the realm of "who
really cares?" as long as the saddle and riding position is okay and the
gears work and are in the right range.

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

Simon Brooke

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

>> as well
>>as center pull brakes which is a "must".

>
> Bad, dangerous advice.
>
> Have you investigated this claim or did you just write it without
> thinking? Someone's life might depend on them having good brakes and
> this doesn't help.


Judging by the description of the bike he doesn't mean centrepulls, he
means cantis, but even so...!

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

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin
 
Z

Zardoz

Guest

>Wasn't the nut just loose? A lot of the cheap bikes need careful
>assembly and checking of things like nuts being fully screwed in.
>Presumably the crank couldn't come off without the nut first coming
>off.



Because of the tapered spline on the bottom bracket you normally can't
just get away with tightening it up (as the bike shop did every time
we brought it in). I think it just needs hammering on pretty
thoroughly first.


>I've not seen any squishy ones but some of them do look pretty cheap I
>must admit.


The plastic handles on cheap bikes are terrible - worst than that I've
seen plastic brake arms. You pull, they bend. Yeuck.

>
>I'm not sure what a totally unresponsive ride is as surely the bike
>responds to any actions you give it with regard steering, peddling,
>gear change and braking. Maybe you felt the weight of the bike was
>slowing down your progress or the frame made the bike uncomfortable to
>ride or harsh I don't know. However my cheap bike rides very well and
>I would say it is reponsive. However going up a hill I wish it was a
>bit lighter and won't deny it.


I soon as you want to peddle out the the saddle (climbing) or if
you're rattling along uneven ground the weight of the bike makes these
cycling styles unpleasant.

> I still think its a great little bike
>for the money though and an excellent purchase.


This thing was OK. I saw a bike on e-bay earlier though

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=72573&item=7116857224&rd=1

£56. Seems like better value for money, that's all.
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"Martin Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> >- Totally unresponsive ride (because of weight)
> >

>
> I'm not sure what a totally unresponsive ride is as surely the bike
> responds to any actions you give it with regard steering, peddling,
> gear change and braking.


If it was phrased as 'relatively unresponsive ride' would you be happier? A
nice light bike feels better to ride. I think it's to do with the way the
bike moves around underneath you.

(responsive is actually more normally a function of geometry)

cheers,
clive
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:52:39 -0000, "half_pint"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[much waffle]

So many opinions and so little knowledge!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
H

half_pint

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
> > 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).

>
> The guarantee has nothing to do with the retailer. That's something
> the manufacturer offers in addition to your statutory rights. That's
> why it's a "manufacturer's guarantee".


Some/many/most manufacturers sell the guarantees to the retailer
as Bush did when Powerhouse went bust.

A pretty disgusting practise and I will *never* buy a Bush product again
(or shop at Powerhouse, which went bust but is still selling the same old
**** from the same shop with the same name.
>
> --
> Hywel
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> in message <[email protected]>, half_pint
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > "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.

>
> In Britain, we have things called 'hills'. You may not have heard of
> them.


We also have people called idiots, I am sure you hear one of those every
time you open your mouth.
Hills go down as well as up you know!! Doh!!

>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
> Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.
 
H

half_pint

Guest
Its a pity someone knowledge about bikes was not there when she bought it.

"Zardoz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> >Wasn't the nut just loose? A lot of the cheap bikes need careful
> >assembly and checking of things like nuts being fully screwed in.
> >Presumably the crank couldn't come off without the nut first coming
> >off.

>
>
> Because of the tapered spline on the bottom bracket you normally can't
> just get away with tightening it up (as the bike shop did every time
> we brought it in). I think it just needs hammering on pretty
> thoroughly first.
>
>
> >I've not seen any squishy ones but some of them do look pretty cheap I
> >must admit.

>
> The plastic handles on cheap bikes are terrible - worst than that I've
> seen plastic brake arms. You pull, they bend. Yeuck.
>
> >
> >I'm not sure what a totally unresponsive ride is as surely the bike
> >responds to any actions you give it with regard steering, peddling,
> >gear change and braking. Maybe you felt the weight of the bike was
> >slowing down your progress or the frame made the bike uncomfortable to
> >ride or harsh I don't know. However my cheap bike rides very well and
> >I would say it is reponsive. However going up a hill I wish it was a
> >bit lighter and won't deny it.

>
> I soon as you want to peddle out the the saddle (climbing) or if
> you're rattling along uneven ground the weight of the bike makes these
> cycling styles unpleasant.
>
> > I still think its a great little bike
> >for the money though and an excellent purchase.

>
> This thing was OK. I saw a bike on e-bay earlier though
>
>

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=72573&item=7116857224&rd=1
>
> £56. Seems like better value for money, that's all.
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> >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
> ;-)


Well As I don't *need* to cycle in the rain I don't, and headwinds are going
to be a problem if you are kitted out in a huge plastic kagool.
>
> 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--
>
>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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.


Granted you will go up faster than me but I will be faster going down!!

>
> 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.


Yes generally but if you do not eat a healthy ammount you will not feel
very energetic at all!

>
> > 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?


Well yes it is a bit of an 'old wives tale' but there tends to be quite a
lot
of truth in them, if you eat in the morning you may well feel more energetic
and burn that energy off, you will not burn much energy off when you are
asleep!

>
> Jon
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

>
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Doki ('[email protected]')
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.

>>
>> OK, here's a reality test. Would you rather ride 200 miles on an a
>> 9Kg (20lb) bike or on a 13Kg (30lb) bike? Sure, it's only a very
>> small proportion of the total weight, but at the end of a long ride
>> it feels like a very big difference, let me assure you!

>
> I'd sooner ride the lighter one. *But*, when you're talking about half
> decent bikes in the first place, there's nothing like that amount of
> weight to be saved. If you look on the Dawes website, the difference
> between their fairly boggo hardtail and their team bike is only a
> couple of pounds. The number of pounds quid you'd have to spend to get
> the weight saving is a lot more.


Weight saving on bikes is a law of diminishing returns; every time you
double the price, the amount of weight actually saved is less (there
must actually be some sort of spurious mathematical formula for this).
But a bog standard low cost road bike weighs about 27-32 lbs, for a bit
over a thousand pounds you can knock a third off that (e.g. my home
built Dolan), for around five thousand pounds you can half it (e.g.
Cannondale 6-13 Record, quoted at 6.7Kg (14.7lbs).

> All I'm saying is there's a point where worrying about weight is
> stupid.


There's a point where worrying about weight is very expensive indeed,
certainly.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> 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.

>
> Granted you will go up faster than me but I will be faster going
> down!!


I'd like to see you try it. What's your current record downhill speed,
Jon?

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

:: Wisdom is better than weapons of war ::
:: Ecclesiastes 9:18 ::