Cheapo bike



J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> eh??


The preceding text was an explanation of how to correctly spell and use
the word erroneous. I thought you might find it useful since you failed
to use it correctly in your prior post.

> Well basically yes but I far too modest so say so myself!


Interesting that despite being vastly more intelligent, you have trouble
with simple English grammar. Perhaps you are trying to make us feel at
ease with your deliberate mistakes.

> Yes it is dependent on other factors too but weight is indeed one of them.


Or mass, as is the preferred terminology of most scientists. In the
context of a discussion of "falling due to gravity" the qualification of
"weight" is unnecessary and makes you appear to be ignorant of the
correct terms.

> My opinions are based on facts and are thus facts themselves as I cannot
> lie.


YA George Washington AICMF apples!

> Ah but you idea of reasonable appear to be in contradiction with the

^^^
> laws of physics, which is not particularly surprising considering.


SP: Should read "your".

And when I can apply enough force to cause the cheap plastic brake lever
to bend, yet the brakes are still not powerful enough to lock the
wheels, there is a problem. The problem being that the brakes aren't
good enough. Where you believe there to be a contradiction with physics
in that I do not know.


> > You don't have everyone's best interests at heart?

>
> Did I ever say I had? Please post a link with that quote.


Velvet "I believe everyone that posts here regularly has the best
interests of their fellow riders at heart. But you... y'know, I just
can't put you along side them yet.

Sad, but true."

You: "Yes it sad, but that is the way it is."

Which strongly suggests that you agree with Velvet that it is sad that
you don't have the best interests of your fellow riders at heart. Do
KUATB.

Jon
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
Jon Senior wrote:
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
>> Obviously if you eat less but expend even less energy than you
>> consume you will still gain weight. Pretty straight forward stuff.

>
> "Goalpost. I didn't see any goalpost. Oh. That goalpost. Nah that's
> been there for ages. Hasn't moved one inch."


Goalpost? That's my jumper!

(Takes jumper. Leaves)

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)
 
V

Velvet

Guest
Dave Larrington wrote:
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
>>half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
>>
>>>Obviously if you eat less but expend even less energy than you
>>>consume you will still gain weight. Pretty straight forward stuff.

>>
>>"Goalpost. I didn't see any goalpost. Oh. That goalpost. Nah that's
>>been there for ages. Hasn't moved one inch."

>
>
> Goalpost? That's my jumper!
>
> (Takes jumper. Leaves)
>


Ah, but did you eat shoots first?

(Sorry, I'll get my coat)

--


Velvet
 

> 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.


http://www.falconcycles.co.uk/product.php?c.id=7&s.id=1&p.id=382

I bought my son an Optima stealth this year.It was about £130 setup by
a proper bike shop.He thinks it is fine.
I put some Specialised hemisphere armadillos on it from an old one and
it needs mudguards to taste and the saddle I would replace if I were
to sit on it for more than 1/2 hr.
If I needed a warm-up or work bike for a few miles each way or for
riding on paths and easy trails it would be fine.
When bits wear out one will be faced with the decision of whether to
spend half the cost of a new one on tyres and brake pads .
It's not heavy, about 28lb.At this cost it's not much of a risk.I think
the only problem that I might anticipate is early wear-out of
bearings.Based on previous experience I will be surprised, because
steel is cheap and hard.
I hate the chunky nobbly tyres that these things come with.Other models
come with smoother ones.
I expect to spend some money on a bike to adapt it to what I want after
purchase.This frame seems like a reasonable mount for better bits when
you feel the need,though I wouldn't want to overstate that.

I would rather pay 10 or 20 gbp more to a proper bike shop even at this
price than get a box of bits with no-one to take it back to with
problems.

TerryJ
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> Jon Senior wrote:
>>
>>>half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
>>>
>>>>Obviously if you eat less but expend even less energy than you
>>>>consume you will still gain weight. Pretty straight forward stuff.
>>>
>>>"Goalpost. I didn't see any goalpost. Oh. That goalpost. Nah that's
>>>been there for ages. Hasn't moved one inch."

>>
>> Goalpost? That's my jumper!
>>
>> (Takes jumper. Leaves)

>
> Ah, but did you eat shoots first?


Roots, dear girl. Roots. A kiwi eats roots and leaves. It's rude, but
only if you're an antipodean.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey
 
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...
> > eh??

>
> The preceding text was an explanation of how to correctly spell and use
> the word erroneous. I thought you might find it useful since you failed
> to use it correctly in your prior post.
> > Well basically yes but I far too modest so say so myself!

>
> Interesting that despite being vastly more intelligent, you have trouble
> with simple English grammar. Perhaps you are trying to make us feel at
> ease with your deliberate mistakes.
>


good grammar and spelling are basically a wasteof time, a pointless
academic exercise.

> > Yes it is dependent on other factors too but weight is indeed one of

them.
>
> Or mass, as is the preferred terminology of most scientists. In the
> context of a discussion of "falling due to gravity" the qualification of
> "weight" is unnecessary and makes you appear to be ignorant of the
> correct terms.


Well as most of are cycling on planet earth weight is a perfectly reasonable
term to use, you, being on another planet apparently, may beg to differ.

>
> > My opinions are based on facts and are thus facts themselves as I cannot
> > lie.

>
> YA George Washington AICMF apples!
>
> > Ah but you idea of reasonable appear to be in contradiction with the

> ^^^
> > laws of physics, which is not particularly surprising considering.

>
> SP: Should read "your".


Obviously.
..
>
> And when I can apply enough force to cause the cheap plastic brake lever
> to bend, yet the brakes are still not powerful enough to lock the
> wheels, there is a problem. The problem being that the brakes aren't
> good enough. Where you believe there to be a contradiction with physics
> in that I do not know.
>

I have no plastic break leavers.
Anyone who locks up the wheel loses control of the bike and
may end up seriously injured when u fly over the handle bars.

>
> > > You don't have everyone's best interests at heart?

> >
> > Did I ever say I had? Please post a link with that quote.

>
> Velvet "I believe everyone that posts here regularly has the best
> interests of their fellow riders at heart. But you... y'know, I just
> can't put you along side them yet.
>
> Sad, but true."
>
> You: "Yes it sad, but that is the way it is."
>
> Which strongly suggests that you agree with Velvet that it is sad that
> you don't have the best interests of your fellow riders at heart. Do
> KUATB.


No it doesn't, it suggest it is sad that Velvet thinks that way.

>
> Jon
 
V

Velvet

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Velvet
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Larrington wrote:
>>
>>>Jon Senior wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Obviously if you eat less but expend even less energy than you
>>>>>consume you will still gain weight. Pretty straight forward stuff.
>>>>
>>>>"Goalpost. I didn't see any goalpost. Oh. That goalpost. Nah that's
>>>>been there for ages. Hasn't moved one inch."
>>>
>>>Goalpost? That's my jumper!
>>>
>>>(Takes jumper. Leaves)

>>
>>Ah, but did you eat shoots first?

>
>
> Roots, dear girl. Roots. A kiwi eats roots and leaves. It's rude, but
> only if you're an antipodean.
>


:-D I had no idea what 'rooting' was till I worked with an aussie. He
was *always* tutting at our calling rowters rooters. Me, I happen to
think they're 'rooters', regardless of the conflict with down-under
slang :) That flash of 'did she really just say that' on their face
before they realise I'm talking about a bit of comms kit is very amusing.

People keep asking me about my antipodean heritage. Which is odd, since
the furthest afield I've ever been is greece and france. I can only
think it's some strange combination of south london accent coupled with
being taught to speak proper (which I resisted greatly), and maybe the
influence of a few weekends spent in deepest darkest brummie ;-)

Quite bizarre, but almost into the double-figures of people who would
swear I must have lived on the far side of the world for a while.

--


Velvet
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> good grammar and spelling are basically a wasteof time, a pointless
> academic exercise.


And as you are incapable of even the simplest useful academic exercises,
it is reasonable to assume that a pointless one would also be beyond
your ability.

Good grammar and spelling ensure that your point is understood and well
made.

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

The speech boils down to "Some of us will die, but we'll be remembered
for it every year on St Crispin's day.". Funny how one is rousing, gets
the blood pumping and would have you fighting alongside with the King,
yet the latter would have you running for the hills. As someone who
frequently quotes a text on persuasive writing, you should already know
this! You have read the book I presume?

> Well as most of are cycling on planet earth weight is a perfectly reasonable
> term to use, you, being on another planet apparently, may beg to differ.


However, the discussion was grounded (Sorry) in science, using
scientific terminology. It is a good idea to keep the two separate,
since lay terminology in a scientific discussion can lead to
misunderstanding.

> I have no plastic break leavers.


Good for you. Neither do I.

"However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty [sic] standard." - Your
words.

I have seen brake levers (Note the spelling, are you doing it
deliberately? It just makes you look even more stupid, you know!) like
these on new bikes sold in the UK. Your supposition, as with many of
your opinions, is wrong.

> Anyone who locks up the wheel loses control of the bike and
> may end up seriously injured when u fly over the handle bars.


However, if your brakes are capable of locking the wheel, then you can
exert the maximum stopping force possible which is just less. If your
brakes cannot lock the wheel, then you are always going to be braking at
a slower rate than might be achievable. Locking the wheel is not a good
way of stopping a bike, but it is a good benchmark by which to judge the
efficacy of brakes.

> No it doesn't, it suggest it is sad that Velvet thinks that way.


If that's what you meant then fine. If you had paid more attention to
the "pointless academic exercise" of good spelling and grammar, you
might have managed to avoid the confusion in the first place.

Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Velvet [email protected]in opined the following...
> People keep asking me about my antipodean heritage. Which is odd, since
> the furthest afield I've ever been is greece and france. I can only
> think it's some strange combination of south london accent coupled with
> being taught to speak proper (which I resisted greatly), and maybe the
> influence of a few weekends spent in deepest darkest brummie ;-)


Despite spending no time the company of the far-siders, I picked up the
phrase "no worries" as a part of my vocabulary.

Although it was pronounced in my usual Radio 4 presenter's accent, I
have had a number of people accuse me of the same. Apparently the only
people who use the phrase are Australian, and they're getting better at
disguising the accent.

Jon
 
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...
> > good grammar and spelling are basically a wasteof time, a pointless
> > academic exercise.

>
> And as you are incapable of even the simplest useful academic exercises,
> it is reasonable to assume that a pointless one would also be beyond
> your ability.
>
> Good grammar and spelling ensure that your point is understood and well
> made.
>
> "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
> For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
> Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
> This day shall gentle his condition:
> And gentlemen in England now a-bed
> Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
> And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
> That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
>
> The speech boils down to "Some of us will die, but we'll be remembered
> for it every year on St Crispin's day.". Funny how one is rousing, gets
> the blood pumping and would have you fighting alongside with the King,
> yet the latter would have you running for the hills. As someone who
> frequently quotes a text on persuasive writing, you should already know
> this! You have read the book I presume?


No I haven't I have read other Shakespeare plays though and I am not
sure that Shakespeare is a good exponent of good spelling and grammar
either.

Indeed Shakespeare paid about as much attention to his spelling so
I am in rather good company, be not I?
Indeed, not be the the person witherin company so good? [big grin]

>
> > Well as most of are cycling on planet earth weight is a perfectly

reasonable
> > term to use, you, being on another planet apparently, may beg to differ.

>
> However, the discussion was grounded (Sorry) in science, using
> scientific terminology. It is a good idea to keep the two separate,
> since lay terminology in a scientific discussion can lead to
> misunderstanding.
>
> > I have no plastic break leavers.

>
> Good for you. Neither do I.
>
> "However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
> should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty [sic] standard." - Your
> words.
>
> I have seen brake levers (Note the spelling, are you doing it
> deliberately?


Breaketh levers?

>It just makes you look even more stupid, you know!) like
> these on new bikes sold in the UK. Your supposition, as with many of
> your opinions, is wrong.
>
> > Anyone who locks up the wheel loses control of the bike and
> > may end up seriously injured when u fly over the handle bars.

>
> However, if your brakes are capable of locking the wheel, then you can
> exert the maximum stopping force possible which is just less. If your
> brakes cannot lock the wheel, then you are always going to be braking at
> a slower rate than might be achievable. Locking the wheel is not a good
> way of stopping a bike, but it is a good benchmark by which to judge the
> efficacy of brakes.
>
> > No it doesn't, it suggest it is sad that Velvet thinks that way.

>
> If that's what you meant then fine. If you had paid more attention to
> the "pointless academic exercise" of good spelling and grammar, you
> might have managed to avoid the confusion in the first place.


I am sorry for the confusion, I used a Shakespeareian literary concept
in that line, sadly, spotted it was not.

I am sure there is a posh word for it, double entendre sounds so crude.

half_pint.

>
> Jon
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> :-D I had no idea what 'rooting' was till I worked with an aussie. He
> was *always* tutting at our calling rowters rooters. Me, I happen to
> think they're 'rooters', regardless of the conflict with down-under
> slang :)


Good thing too - I wouldn't want you carving great holes in the computers to
make them talk to each other, tempting though it may be at times.

cheers,
clive
 
R

Richard

Guest
half_pint wrote:

> As I said I spent £100 on a new bike and I have adjusted *nothing* in 5-6
> years.


In message ID <[email protected]> where you say

"I make the adjustment late at night in Sainsburys car park so
I didn't pay to much attention to what I was doing)."

So is this not adjusting something?
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> No I haven't I have read other Shakespeare plays though and I am not
> sure that Shakespeare is a good exponent of good spelling and grammar
> either.


And thus the challenge to find the largest point that half-wit notices
begins. :)

> Indeed Shakespeare paid about as much attention to his spelling so
> I am in rather good company, be not I?
> Indeed, not be the the person witherin company so good? [big grin]


So... you haven't read Shakespeare, but you believe that you can imitate
his style. You haven't even managed Iambic Pentameter. You're not
fooling anyone.

> Breaketh levers?


Ah... humour. Shame you ignored the point in order to make a stab at
humour, but it is not unexpected.

> I am sorry for the confusion, I used a Shakespeareian literary concept
> in that line, sadly, spotted it was not.


No. You were ambiguous at best, and incorrect at worst. What. pray tell,
is a "Shakespeareian literary concept" when it's at home?

> I am sure there is a posh word for it, double entendre sounds so crude.


And would be wrong. Like so many other things that you've said.

Jon
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
Velvet wrote:

> :-D I had no idea what 'rooting' was till I worked with an aussie.
> He was *always* tutting at our calling rowters rooters. Me, I happen
> to think they're 'rooters', regardless of the conflict with down-under
> slang :)


You are this: 100% correct. A "rowter" is a woodworking tool.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)
 
D

Dave Kahn

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

> good grammar and spelling are basically a wasteof time, a pointless
> academic exercise.


.... and then went on to disprove this assertion by writing ...

> I have no plastic break leavers.
> Anyone who locks up the wheel loses control of the bike and
> may end up seriously injured when u fly over the handle bars.


--
Dave...
 
R

Richard

Guest
David E. Belcher wrote:

>>You're still wrong. There are many examples of heavier objects falling
>>slower than lighter objects through air, as well as vice versa.

>
>
> Including a rather implausible one in the world of cinema;
>
> http://www.thegoldengun.co.uk/goldeneye/geyevehiclesdf.htm
>
> <Q>
>
> *Do* try not to defy the laws of physics, 007....


*sigh* sometimes I feel I'm so boring sticking to the real world. :)

R.
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
>
>> No it doesn't, it suggest it is sad that Velvet thinks that way.

>
>If that's what you meant then fine. If you had paid more attention to
>the "pointless academic exercise" of good spelling and grammar, you
>might have managed to avoid the confusion in the first place.


But he said as well as being sad, "that's the way it has to be".
So presumably he recognizes he isn't capable of writing clearly
or being helpful - why else would he be unable to change Velvet's
(widely shared) opinion of him?
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Richard wrote:
>half_pint wrote:
>
>> As I said I spent £100 on a new bike and I have adjusted *nothing* in 5-6
>> years.

>
>In message ID <31[email protected]> where you say
>
>"I make the adjustment late at night in Sainsburys car park so
>I didn't pay to much attention to what I was doing)."
>
>So is this not adjusting something?


I'm curious as to what sort of brakes on a £100 bike can last 5-6 years
in daily use without adjustment or servicing.