How Do These Airborne Specs Look?



G

Gooserider

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since I would automatically add clipless pedals(maybe a combo
>> clip/platform), a rack, and fenders, it would reach $1200 in no time.
>> However, a fifty dollar upgrade here and there amortized over time would
>> be
>> no big deal. I think I would upgrade the derailleurs and crank(go to
>> Deore
>> or even 105, maybe a Sugino crankset). Other than that, it would be OK
>> for
>> years.

>
> That's the thing...what do all these parts mean? If a ti frame isn't
> inherently/obviously/absolutely better than a cromo/steel/alum one, how
> are some cranks and pedals and whatnot better than others?


It depends on what your qualifications for "better" are.I don't think that
frame weight matters for 99% of the population. If you think that a bike
that's five pouds lighter makes a difference, you should lose the five
pounds off your ass and really fly! Higher end components work better,
especially rear deraillerurs. Fenders and a rack are just accessories to
make the bike more useful---racks carry stuff and fenders keep grime off
your back and face. And of course, clipless pedals are self-explanatory.

>> There's a reason Surlys are big with messengers. I think the Cross-Check
>> complete bike package is just about the best deal going.

>
> But what makes it such a good deal, and vis-a-vis the Airborne
> offerings??
>
>> Plus---it doesn't
>> have a flashy paint job, nor does it scream "TITANIUM PLEASE STEAL ME".
>> Wait, any bike screams that in NYC....

>
> LOL -- I've even had quick-release "wings" stolen from my bike!
>
 
G

Gooserider

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>>
>>
>> You want to be comfortable? Here you go:
>>
>> http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/surly-cross-check.html#complete

>
> Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
> LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!


Since TOURING bikes which carry both a rider and up to 60 pounds of gear use
cantilevers, they must work pretty damn well, no? As for steel---there's a
big difference between the Cr-mo Surly's using and the gaspipe hi-tensile
steel you're thinking of. I'm wondering if you truly want to learn anything,
or if you just want to be contrary.

>> Steel frame, fat tires, relaxed geometry. Fender-able, rack-able. Heavier
>> than your 19 pound Chinese wonder machine, but comfortable enough for you
>> to
>> actually ride the thing. You ride the Surly enough and you'll easily drop
>> the 6 pounds of weight difference.

>
> LOL -- but I don't see how you imagine this one more comfortable than
> the Airborne models. Fat tires make for a naturally comfy ride, do
> they? And how is the frame geometry more relaxed?


Yes, fat tires make for more comfort. They are your suspension. Common
knowledge. The surly has relaxed angles and an upright position, which make
for an easy handling and comfortable bike. Again, common knowledge.

>> Plus, the Surly is a better fit for NYC,
>> unless you think the gossamer wheels on the Airborne are going to handle
>> potholes and curbs well.

>
> "Bontrager Select 700c Wheelset, 20/24, 835g/1020g" flimsy??


Yes. Those are race wheels, not designed for a beast like you. At your
weight you need 36 spokes AT LEAST, especially if you are riding in a place
like NYC. One good pothole and the flimsy wheels on the Airborne will taco.
You know, you've come to a place full of people who know a lot about bikes,
and you've learned absolutely nothing. Please, go ahead and buy your
Airborne. Let us know how it goes.
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Gooserider wrote:
>
>
> Since TOURING bikes which carry both a rider and up to 60 pounds of gear use
> cantilevers, they must work pretty damn well, no?


Yeah, but if V-brakes are better, why not use V-brakes? There can
hardly be any "over-kill" for such a critical component, especially
since the costs are the same.

> As for steel---there's a
> big difference between the Cr-mo Surly's using and the gaspipe hi-tensile
> steel you're thinking of. I'm wondering if you truly want to learn anything,
> or if you just want to be contrary.


This matter of learning and, more generally, education is a matter
close and very dear to my heart, so forgive me for expounding at length
on it by way of responding to you and explaining myself.

In a society where an undergraduate degree is what a high school
diploma was sixty years ago, it's distressing that critical thinking
skills are not more widely and often recognized or appreciated.

If I simply take answers at face-value, I may as well stick to the
sales brochures. That I ask follow-up questions and question from
different angles demonstrate not only my ignorance on these matters but
also my desire to understand as thoroughly as possible, given the
limitations of the medium.

"Skepticism," in the true, healthy, philosophical sense, isn't mere
sport for me. It's a main tool of cognition. So please don't be
non-plussed by this coversation at length; though of course you retire
from it at your own convenience, I do not engage these NGs out of
boredom.

> Yes, fat tires make for more comfort. They are your suspension. Common
> knowledge. The surly has relaxed angles and an upright position, which make
> for an easy handling and comfortable bike. Again, common knowledge.


I agree about the fat tires (wasn't snickering at you about them), and
had also assumed the same about the upright position, but someone had
mentioned that insofar as the upright posture translates into using the
back as suspension more than a hunched-over posture(??), it's actually
more "uncomfortable."

> Yes. Those are race wheels, not designed for a beast like you. At your
> weight you need 36 spokes AT LEAST, especially if you are riding in a place
> like NYC. One good pothole and the flimsy wheels on the Airborne will taco.


HOLY SINK HOLES!! You know, I did think it most odd how few spokes
there were, but figured that maybe the wheels were that good or
something!!!

AAAAAAAGGGGRRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

> You know, you've come to a place full of people who know a lot about bikes,
> and you've learned absolutely nothing. Please, go ahead and buy your
> Airborne. Let us know how it goes.


I was really tempted to...but if the wheels won't support my weight,
not to mention my handling...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
I've always thought of women as standard equipment!

I x-posted here since my questions concerned components and specs of a
bike offered for sale. Most a propos, I thoguht.


Sorry!



steve elliott wrote:
> Isn't this a forum for selling bicycle gear? Please take your
> conversation to a more appropriate forum
>
> THanks
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> >
> > Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
> > LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!

>
> I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
> from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
> steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."


ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?

Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.

> The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
> of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
> chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
> last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
> one on the bike.
>
> This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
> bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
> give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.


Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....

> It has
> clearance for fenders and wide tires.


Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
the comfort of fat tires for some speed.

Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
(http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/store/05LB-special.asp)?

> And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
> than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
> 287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
> this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
> tires and fenders.


I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.

> Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
> frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
> about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
> too.
>
> It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
> and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
> anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.


Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
pick-up-and-go affair.

Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
seemingly "simple" things are!

> 20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
> Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
> than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
> and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
> them after every ride.


OMG...this is bad news....

Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
24-spoke wheelset?

> I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
> and more trollish to me.


Trollish schmollish.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
"attractive" to you for whatever reason.

Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
won't be supporting my weight!

What else have y'all been holding back from me? <INSERT SMILELY>
 
W

Werehatrack

Guest
On 22 Jul 2005 19:16:15 -0700, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Vis-a-vis the price, anyway -- $1,300 for 19-lb. bikes!!
>
>http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/Store/05LXTI-special.asp


Deore gruppo; okay, they work...but SRAM gripshifts are not my fave
for a number of reasons. (This is a massive understatement.) The
low-count paired-spoke wheels also fail to impress; pop one spoke and
you may have to carry it home. And then there's the internal headset,
a feature that I personally don't consider an advantage at all. I'd
walk past this in a bike shop without a second glance.

>http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/store/05TB-special.asp


Well, that's an apples-and-oranges pair. Ultegra group, which is
nothing to grouse about, but it still has those fashionable and chic
paired-spoke wheels I detest for reasons already stated, and an
internal headset whose repair parts may be hard to find in years to
come due to lack of standardization. At least it has the whole
Ultegra kit.

If you're the kind of rider who puts 2500 miles on a bike before
selling it three years later, either of these is okay. For the long
haul in both senses, I'd go with something with less exotic and more
serviceable wheels, and a frame with a *standard* headset for which
service parts will be more likely to be available.

>Which one would you get, if these were the choices?


Neither, assuming I was shopping to replace a bike that was still in
service. And these would not be high on my list in any event in a
real shopping situation; there are *always* more choices.

>How do they compare to your current bike -- etc.?


I have nothing that cost me as much as half the ticket of either of
those, but I don't buy new bikes...and I wouldn't take either of them
in trade for my current roadie.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
W

Werehatrack

Guest
On 22 Jul 2005 20:08:25 -0700, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Actually, they're $1,200 -- hot deal?
>
>And how's this seat?
>
>http://pedalpusherbikeshop.com/site/itemdetails.cfm?ID=438&Catalog=39&sort=3rdcharacter


Heavy, and slow to dry out if it gets wet, as my daughter has recently
discovered. We're shopping for a replacement for hers. Fabric-topped
saddles are out of the running. Sweaty-damp is one thing; sodden is
quite another, and it rains here entirely too much.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
G

Gooserider

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since TOURING bikes which carry both a rider and up to 60 pounds of gear
>> use
>> cantilevers, they must work pretty damn well, no?

>
> Yeah, but if V-brakes are better, why not use V-brakes? There can
> hardly be any "over-kill" for such a critical component, especially
> since the costs are the same.


Because regular V-brakes don't work with road levers. Tektro Mini-Vs do, but
they're kind of an oddball selection. I have them on my Ibex, but they don't
allow for easy fender mounting. Cantilevers do. Some touring bikes are
coming with discs, now. Cantis work fine.

>> As for steel---there's a
>> big difference between the Cr-mo Surly's using and the gaspipe hi-tensile
>> steel you're thinking of. I'm wondering if you truly want to learn
>> anything,
>> or if you just want to be contrary.

>
> This matter of learning and, more generally, education is a matter
> close and very dear to my heart, so forgive me for expounding at length
> on it by way of responding to you and explaining myself.


No, you're not responding. You're coming with pre-conceived notions, and
mockingly responding when given information. It's kind of annoying.

> In a society where an undergraduate degree is what a high school
> diploma was sixty years ago, it's distressing that critical thinking
> skills are not more widely and often recognized or appreciated.


I suppose it's the medium in which we are communicating.

> If I simply take answers at face-value, I may as well stick to the
> sales brochures. That I ask follow-up questions and question from
> different angles demonstrate not only my ignorance on these matters but
> also my desire to understand as thoroughly as possible, given the
> limitations of the medium.


Yet you doubt the word of dozens of experienced cyclists, and continue to
cling to your original ideas? Whatever. There comes a point when one must
accept the word of those who know better. I don't know if maybe you just are
"taking the ****" as our British friends would say.

> "Skepticism," in the true, healthy, philosophical sense, isn't mere
> sport for me. It's a main tool of cognition. So please don't be
> non-plussed by this coversation at length; though of course you retire
> from it at your own convenience, I do not engage these NGs out of
> boredom.


I think a few hours of Googling and visiting bike shops would do you good.

>> Yes, fat tires make for more comfort. They are your suspension. Common
>> knowledge. The surly has relaxed angles and an upright position, which
>> make
>> for an easy handling and comfortable bike. Again, common knowledge.

>
> I agree about the fat tires (wasn't snickering at you about them), and
> had also assumed the same about the upright position, but someone had
> mentioned that insofar as the upright posture translates into using the
> back as suspension more than a hunched-over posture(??), it's actually
> more "uncomfortable."


There's a difference between upright and "upright". A properly set up road
bike with drop bars approximately the same height as the saddle will place
weight evenly on the three contact points (bars, pedals, seat). That makes
for comfort. Having the bars set 3-4 inches lower than the saddle places
more weight on the hands, and causes one to strain one's neck. For someone
who weighs what you do, can you not imagine the potential for discomfort?


>> Yes. Those are race wheels, not designed for a beast like you. At your
>> weight you need 36 spokes AT LEAST, especially if you are riding in a
>> place
>> like NYC. One good pothole and the flimsy wheels on the Airborne will
>> taco.

>
> HOLY SINK HOLES!! You know, I did think it most odd how few spokes
> there were, but figured that maybe the wheels were that good or
> something!!!


Those are a case of the racer aesthetic taking over. Racers who weigh 140
pounds and have their bikes taken apart every night don't need durable
equipment. Those of us in the real world do. I hate truing wheels, and the
thought of having to do it on a regular basis does not fill me with joy. I
use 36 spoke wheels on my Gunnar, and I have no fear. I hop curbs with glee.

> AAAAAAAGGGGRRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
>
>> You know, you've come to a place full of people who know a lot about
>> bikes,
>> and you've learned absolutely nothing. Please, go ahead and buy your
>> Airborne. Let us know how it goes.

>
> I was really tempted to...but if the wheels won't support my weight,
> not to mention my handling...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Will they support your weight? Sure. They won't collapse as you pedal off
into the sunset. I wouldn't trust them to handle too many potholes or curbs.
That's OK, because NYC has fantastic road conditions, right? Nice and smooth
like the Autobahh, I've heard. :)
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Gooserider wrote:
>
>
> It depends on what your qualifications for "better" are.I don't think that
> frame weight matters for 99% of the population. If you think that a bike
> that's five pouds lighter makes a difference, you should lose the five
> pounds off your ass and really fly!


Ah, there's the rub...I'm also weight-lifting, and trying to
hypertrophy the muscles apparently also means consuming excess calories
(easy enough, of course! Fine dining is another hobby)...no way to
have one's cake and eat it too; wow! If this isn't an argument for
evolution I don't know what is (natural selection of specific
attributes to specific tasks and environments).

> Higher end components work better,
> especially rear deraillerurs. Fenders and a rack are just accessories to
> make the bike more useful---racks carry stuff and fenders keep grime off
> your back and face. And of course, clipless pedals are self-explanatory.


Yes. I think derailleurs are wha't most critical to me in terms of how
I ride -- always shifting gears to match the situation at hand (or,
under feet, rather!).

Hmm...it looks like the Airborne deals are off...don't fancy spending
$1,200 only to have to buy myself a good set of wheels...too much
bother trying to resell the Bontragers....
 
G

Gooserider

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>> "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
>> > LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!

>>
>> I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
>> from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
>> steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."

>
> ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?
>
> Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.
>
>> The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
>> of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
>> chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
>> last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
>> one on the bike.
>>
>> This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
>> bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
>> give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.

>
> Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....
>
>> It has
>> clearance for fenders and wide tires.

>
> Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
> enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
> the comfort of fat tires for some speed.


Fenders are nice on a commuter, because they keep both you and your
drivetrain cleaner. Fat tires(and by that I mean 700x28 or 700x32) aren't
necessarily slower. I average over 20mph on my Gunnar with 700x28 Panaracer
Ruffy Tuffys, not a race tire. Just pedal.

> Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
> mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
> (http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/store/05LB-special.asp)?


Fine. Hardtail MTBs are great, and can make good commuters with a tire
change. Discs are good and stop well in poor conditions. You'll pay a weight
penalty, and we know you're a weight weenie.

>> And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
>> than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
>> 287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
>> this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
>> tires and fenders.

>
> I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
> stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.


Depends on the cantilever. Again, tourist use them on bikes carrying 60
pounds of gear, so there must be something to them.

>> Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
>> frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
>> about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
>> too.
>>
>> It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
>> and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
>> anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.

>
> Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
> make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
> posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
> the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
> basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
> pick-up-and-go affair.


Fat saddles don't make for comfortable rides because they chafe. Pad your
shorts, not your saddle. The tires, of course, are the only suspension you
have on a road bike.

> Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
> different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
> basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
> seemingly "simple" things are!


Not complicated, really.

>> 20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
>> Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
>> than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
>> and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
>> them after every ride.

>
> OMG...this is bad news....
>
> Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
> 24-spoke wheelset?


Either a lightweight, or someone who uses them on race day only. Not the
wisest choice for a city bike.

>> I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
>> and more trollish to me.

>
> Trollish schmollish.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
> learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
> asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
> person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
> and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
> "attractive" to you for whatever reason.


It would have been nice, I suppose, if it seemed like any of the advice
folks gave you sank in.

> Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
> dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
> asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
> won't be supporting my weight!
>
> What else have y'all been holding back from me? <INSERT SMILELY>


From the start you were advised that your choices were less than ideal.
Specs scmecs. I've pointed out 10 or so bikes which fit your criteria to a
T.
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Werehatrack wrote:
>
>
> Deore gruppo; okay, they work...but SRAM gripshifts are not my fave
> for a number of reasons. (This is a massive understatement.)


Damn, I so love 'em! I know it's possible to accidently shift them,
but I've become very well-practiced in this regard.

> The
> low-count paired-spoke wheels also fail to impress; pop one spoke and
> you may have to carry it home.


This seems critical. I'd hate to spend $1,200 and then looking for new
wheels.

Why would they ever do this -- do they expect folks to ride this on
velodromes only, or do they figure all cyclists are skinny?

> And then there's the internal headset,
> a feature that I personally don't consider an advantage at all.


What would be the point of an "internal" headset?

> I'd
> walk past this in a bike shop without a second glance.


Wow. Doesn't seem to impress anyone here, these bikes! I was
wondering how come they were on sale.

> Well, that's an apples-and-oranges pair.


Yes...I had thought I could use either one as a general all-around
workhorse, though my inclinations are towards the upright hybrid.

What about the caliper brakes? Seems like V-brakes would have been
more powerful.

> Ultegra group, which is
> nothing to grouse about, but it still has those fashionable and chic
> paired-spoke wheels I detest for reasons already stated, and an
> internal headset whose repair parts may be hard to find in years to
> come due to lack of standardization. At least it has the whole
> Ultegra kit.


That means something, then?

> If you're the kind of rider who puts 2500 miles on a bike before
> selling it three years later, either of these is okay. For the long
> haul in both senses, I'd go with something with less exotic and more
> serviceable wheels, and a frame with a *standard* headset for which
> service parts will be more likely to be available.


Oh, Christ...I HATE SHOPPING!!!!

> Neither, assuming I was shopping to replace a bike that was still in
> service. And these would not be high on my list in any event in a
> real shopping situation; there are *always* more choices.


Damn, this sport used to be fun! =p

You know, I'm just crazy enough to risk $1,200 to see for myself....

> I have nothing that cost me as much as half the ticket of either of
> those, but I don't buy new bikes...and I wouldn't take either of them
> in trade for my current roadie.


My old Trek 7500 was good enough. Just wondering if these would be
"better."

> --
> Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
> Some gardening required to reply via email.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
That surly looks nice but for less money you can get the Bianchi Volpe
that has STI. The barcons on the surly turn me off.
Definitely agree that for everyday riding steel is the way to go. For
a pro that looks like he's AIDS-ridden at 5'10" and 140 lbs the stiff
carbon and AL bikes might work.
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Oh, man, this is almost as bad as Zen meditation! Don't confuse me
with details....

All these links have those Bontrager 20/24 wheelsets...??

But the Rivendell link is great -- for its Bike 101 pages!


Many thanks!



Gooserider wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP GOOD STUFF>
 
R

Robin Hubert

Guest
Gooserider wrote:
> "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>
>>>"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
>>>>LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!
>>>
>>>I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
>>>from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
>>>steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."

>>
>>ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?
>>
>>Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.
>>
>>
>>>The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
>>>of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
>>>chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
>>>last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
>>>one on the bike.
>>>
>>>This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
>>>bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
>>>give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.

>>
>>Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....
>>
>>
>>>It has
>>>clearance for fenders and wide tires.

>>
>>Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
>>enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
>>the comfort of fat tires for some speed.

>
>
> Fenders are nice on a commuter, because they keep both you and your
> drivetrain cleaner.


You say. Depends on the environment. I've had it out with the folks on
IBOB about this. No one will believe me though. Where I live, and for
the style of riding in which I engage, fenders don't make enough
difference to be worth the hassle. My road bike goes everywhere, all
times of year. I have had fenders, and I've gone without them. I can
discern no notable difference in either rider or bike cleanliness. If
it's raining, fenders don't help (rain gear does). I noticed no
difference in drivetrain cleanliness. No difference in shoe dryness.

What I did notice is increased toe overlap (lots), maintenance headaches
(fenders really do get in the way), and a real off-road handicap. You
should try riding singletrack and jam a stick up behind your fender
(yes, 700x25-28mm road bike tires). It ain't pretty. If you come upon a
muddy road or trail, fenders clog up with mud much faster than without.

For cafe' bikes, they probably make perfect sense, when you wait for the
rain to stop and ride the wet roads to the local quafferie.

> Fat tires(and by that I mean 700x28 or 700x32) aren't
> necessarily slower. I average over 20mph on my Gunnar with 700x28 Panaracer
> Ruffy Tuffys, not a race tire. Just pedal.


They aren't slower unless they're lower quality casings, or with
excessive tread patterns. I struggle everyday in the business trying to
convince people of the real benefits/deficits of various tire
configurations.

>>Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
>>mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
>>(http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/store/05LB-special.asp)?

>
>
> Fine. Hardtail MTBs are great, and can make good commuters with a tire
> change. Discs are good and stop well in poor conditions. You'll pay a weight
> penalty, and we know you're a weight weenie.


MTB's don't make good commuters, IMHO. People want mtb's as commuters
since they think the upright position makes them more visible and
provides better view. I don't subscribe. You can achieve the same
thing with a drop-bar bike.

>
>>>And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
>>>than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
>>>287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
>>>this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
>>>tires and fenders.

>>
>>I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
>>stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.

>
>
> Depends on the cantilever. Again, tourist use them on bikes carrying 60
> pounds of gear, so there must be something to them.


You are right. If you can easily raise the rear wheel with the front
brake, that's as good as braking can be. Cantilevers, properly setup,
provide this kind of braking power.

Most newbies don't understand that straight pull cantilevers were (re-)
developed to address a safety issue with cantilvers; that is, the
certainty of the straddle wire to stopping the front wheel on the
occasion of a front brake cable failure. Vee-brakes came around for the
same reason as "lawyers lips" on forks.

>
>>>Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
>>>frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
>>>about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
>>>too.
>>>
>>>It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
>>>and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
>>>anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.

>>
>>Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
>>make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
>>posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
>>the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
>>basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
>>pick-up-and-go affair.

>
>
> Fat saddles don't make for comfortable rides because they chafe. Pad your
> shorts, not your saddle. The tires, of course, are the only suspension you
> have on a road bike.
>
>
>>Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
>>different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
>>basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
>>seemingly "simple" things are!

>
>
> Not complicated, really.
>
>
>>>20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
>>>Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
>>>than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
>>>and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
>>>them after every ride.

>>
>>OMG...this is bad news....
>>
>>Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
>>24-spoke wheelset?

>
>
> Either a lightweight, or someone who uses them on race day only. Not the
> wisest choice for a city bike.


The advice for running weaker wheels on race day has always confused me.
What greater stressful environment than racing? I would choose my
stronger wheels for race day.

>
>>>I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
>>>and more trollish to me.

>>
>>Trollish schmollish.
>>
>>I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
>>learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
>>asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
>>person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
>>and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
>>"attractive" to you for whatever reason.

>
>
> It would have been nice, I suppose, if it seemed like any of the advice
> folks gave you sank in.
>
>
>>Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
>>dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
>>asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
>>won't be supporting my weight!
>>
>>What else have y'all been holding back from me? <INSERT SMILELY>

>
>
> From the start you were advised that your choices were less than ideal.
> Specs scmecs. I've pointed out 10 or so bikes which fit your criteria to a
> T.
>
>


Robin (time to start snipping, but I'm too lazy) Hubert
 
G

Gooserider

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Oh, man, this is almost as bad as Zen meditation! Don't confuse me
> with details....
>
> All these links have those Bontrager 20/24 wheelsets...??


Well, the Gunnar is sold as a frameset, so you can have whatever wheels you
want. As for the others, I'm certain the shop would happily swap for a set
of 36 hole Velocity Dyad wheels or something similar. The Rivendell comes
with 36 hole Velocitys, also. Love Rivendell's philosophy, but I'm
uncomfortable buying such an expensive bike mail order.

> But the Rivendell link is great -- for its Bike 101 pages!
>
>
> Many thanks!


You're welcome, dude.
 
G

Gooserider

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>>
>>
>> It depends on what your qualifications for "better" are.I don't think
>> that
>> frame weight matters for 99% of the population. If you think that a bike
>> that's five pouds lighter makes a difference, you should lose the five
>> pounds off your ass and really fly!

>
> Ah, there's the rub...I'm also weight-lifting, and trying to
> hypertrophy the muscles apparently also means consuming excess calories
> (easy enough, of course! Fine dining is another hobby)...no way to
> have one's cake and eat it too; wow! If this isn't an argument for
> evolution I don't know what is (natural selection of specific
> attributes to specific tasks and environments).


I'm in the same boat. If you lift too much you won't be a good cyclist, and
if you do too much cardio your lifting suffers. Another reason to not worry
about a superlight bike. You need a durable bike, you beast. :)

>> Higher end components work better,
>> especially rear deraillerurs. Fenders and a rack are just accessories to
>> make the bike more useful---racks carry stuff and fenders keep grime off
>> your back and face. And of course, clipless pedals are self-explanatory.

>
> Yes. I think derailleurs are wha't most critical to me in terms of how
> I ride -- always shifting gears to match the situation at hand (or,
> under feet, rather!).


You can always go with a nice singlespeed. I like it when my derailleurs
work every time, though. I can't complain about the low end Shimano stuff on
my Ibex, though. It's equipped with Shimano 2200, which is even lower on the
scale than Tiagra, yet it functions flawlessly. My Shimano 105 derailleur is
quieter and shinier though. :)

> Hmm...it looks like the Airborne deals are off...don't fancy spending
> $1,200 only to have to buy myself a good set of wheels...too much
> bother trying to resell the Bontragers....


Yep. If you buy from a shop they'll swap 'em for you no problem.
 
G

Gooserider

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> That surly looks nice but for less money you can get the Bianchi Volpe
> that has STI. The barcons on the surly turn me off.
> Definitely agree that for everyday riding steel is the way to go. For
> a pro that looks like he's AIDS-ridden at 5'10" and 140 lbs the stiff
> carbon and AL bikes might work.


The Volpe is a heck of a good deal. I can't imagine going wrong with a
Bianchi. I like barcons, but STI is cool.
 
A

araby

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> araby wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please don't let on this group if you do otherwise it will generate a
>> thread
>> longer than this one :)

>
> LOL -- no wonder they call y'all the up-wrong crowd!
>
>> If you do, you can forget the 19lb bike weight. Add another 10 and you
>> are
>> getting close -if you don't mind spending more than your $1200. For the
>> $1250 quoted elsewhere on this thread typically you can get an Easy Racer
>> EZ
>> sport. Fine as far as it goes, but forget high performance and weight
>> (well
>> over 30lb).The same manufacturer makes the Ti Gold Rush. Seems right up
>> your
>> street. Probably the best or as good as any touring recumbent out there.
>> Price a mere $5200. Weight 27lb
>> Check out:
>> http://www.easyracers.com/index.htm
>> and another reputable manufacturer,
>> http://www.ransbikes.com/
>> -for all their products.

>
> Lightning's got this $6K 'bent that's 22 lbs. Not bad! =)
>
>> For what it's worth, I have been into and out of the recumbent phase.
>> Four
>> years was more than enough
>> My last recumbent was a Rans Vrex. -$1700 and 30lb.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Roy

>
> Out of the 'bent "phase"?? What happened?


I tried too hard to equal my "upright" performance and finally damaged my
back. They are very fast downhill, OK on the flat, (particularly in
headwinds) and real dogs on hills. On club rides I was always 2-3kph slower
on the Vrex than on an upright Bianchi. I was also less confident in dense
traffic situations or on hill starts.
They have many other shortcomings which I won't mention to prevent the above
predicted firestorm.
..
> Sure looks comfy...that's my next bike, a 'bent!


Have you never heard of "'bent butt"? Very uncomfortable!
You have pay your dues and work through any early discomfort.. Eddie Mercks
says -"ride lots". you will find that a well set up upright is if anything
more comfortable. I have just come in after a fastish 70km ride with no
discomfort at all. But you have to pay your dues. Many 'bent riders hope
they can ignore the conditioning phase and are looking for instant
gratification.
Good luck!
 
J

Jasper Janssen

Guest
On 24 Jul 2005 09:03:13 -0700, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why would they ever do this -- do they expect folks to ride this on
>velodromes only, or do they figure all cyclists are skinny?


Because it sells. It looks cool, it weighs nothing, and it looks expensive
-- we all saw *you* were impressed by them, at least at first. Whether
something will last 3 months or 30 years is not something you can usually
see in a shopfront window, so people don't even think about that.

Jasper