How Do These Airborne Specs Look?



If I have to go buy an engagement ring I want the diamond cheap. Dont
really care how many third world hands heads and feet get chopped for
me to have it. The people in those countries are just uncivilized and
live like animals and are totally lost without European colonial
influence
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
It's too bad you're the type who thinks that unless someone agrees with
you, they obviously don't understand -- or is simply trolling.

When you grow up some more, you'll find discussions a lot more
pleasant, even if contrary.



di wrote:
>
>
> No, you're here to troll and argue, not get information.
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>
> That's nice. Now that you've admitted that your primary motivation for
> posting is annoying us, I think i wont' be reading any more of your posts.


Circulus in probando. Capish?

> You are the weakest link, goodbye.
>
>
> Jasper


Good riddance, I say!
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
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!

> 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?

> 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??
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
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?

> 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!
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
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?

Sure looks comfy...that's my next bike, a 'bent!
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> If I have to go buy an engagement ring I want the diamond cheap. Dont
> really care how many third world hands heads and feet get chopped for
> me to have it. The people in those countries are just uncivilized and
> live like animals and are totally lost without European colonial
> influence



LOL -- me personally, I'm sick of hearing about Africa all the time.
It's amazing that with all the BILLIONS spent on Africa during the past
forty years, it's still the same old whine about colonialism, racism,
economic exploitation, etc.

It's too bad you've got real racists on one side who really think
Africans should be enslaved for their own good and idiots on the other
side who suffer from a case of White Man's Guilt and think they have to
go out of their way to baby the Africans.
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Gooserider wrote:
>
>
> Comfort has about nothing to do with bike weight, NYC. If you want to climb
> hills, then the bike's gearing needs to be appropriate. A triple crankset
> with wide enough range in the rear cassette will make climbing easy.


That too. But it helps to not be pedaling 30 lbs. and only 19! And of
course, the speed -- which, to my way of thinking, also means
"comfort," though in a rather more indirect sense, insofar as lighter
is faster which means that I go further for the same amount of work....

It's all very abstract, I know, and real-world experiences would mean a
mere 2 or 3 percent difference, probably...but I'm figuring that they
all add up.

ANYWAY NO OFFENSE BUT YOU KNOW THIS THREAD'S BEEN "HIJACKED" BY Y'ALL
GOING ON ABOUT ALL KINDS OF ISSUES I DIDN'T BRING UP...don't get me
wrong -- the discussion's been very interesting and informative, but
ultimately my original question hasn't been answered in a direct way:
what do you think of the specs on those two Airborne models?

> I've heard (and experienced) of more people having hand pain/numbness than
> any other bike complaint. Why? Because people ride ill-fitting bikes.


Hand pains over ass pains? Wow, that's news to me.
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Actually, no quite. If I haven't spent any money yet, I haven't paid
them -- and a less time-consuming customer would be given priority over
a "tire-kicker" like me.

Besides, they have a vested interest in moving product. Here,
commercial pressures are most likely not a factor.



RonSonic wrote:
>
>
> They get paid for it.
>
> Ron
 
H

Hank Wirtz

Guest
"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."

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. It has
clearance for fenders and wide tires.

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.

>
> 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 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.

>
>> 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??


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.


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

NYC XYZ

Guest
RonSonic wrote:
>
>
> I just want a hooker who's a virgin and can cook.


You can certainly have it, depending on the order.

> We'll all get tired of explaining things long before you know everything.


Well, yes, that too...I am grateful for the feedback, but much of it is
general and actually kind of side-steps my original question about how
the Airborne specs look. It's been a very interesting and informative
discussion for me, thank you once again, but my questions haven't been
answered directly and exactly as much as other issues relating to fit,
LBSes, Chinese Commies, other brands, etc.

> Like anything else they wear and need maintenance. You seem to put in some
> pretty serious mileage too.


Basically, my bike is my car. I guess I just got to grow out of that
kid's mindset of a bike being...well, just a bike! Something you ride
hard and beat up on, if you know what I mean.

> Yeah, that can be rough on parts. I'm not much lighter.


Right, so I was wondering if the Airborne parts are good reliable
parts...for example, even though I'm a noob when it comes to technical
matters even I know that metal pedals will outlast plastic ones.

> I'd suggest starting from there. What about the Trek would you change or
> improve? Look at it from a baseline, unless you just want to try something
> completely different.


Could be even lighter! That's why these Airbornes appeal to me so
much...the upright Airborne seems like a Trek 7500, but much lighter!
I was also hoping the titanium frame was stronger than aluminum.

> Really isn't all that complicated is it. Shouldn't be painful or uncomfortable
> though. I think the difference between a bike that fits well and one that
> doesn't is that you can adapt to the one that fits, the one that doesn't is
> always gonna hurt.


Well I guess it's like describing colors to a congenitally blind man --
I just haven't any idea how it couldn't "hurt" to some degree.

> For example we talk about "breaking in" a saddle, and when you feel that heavy
> "chew toy" grade leather then reach down and feel your own ass you gotta wonder
> just which is the one doing the breaking in. Nonetheless we do get comfortable
> after some miles.


I'd always supposed I'd gotten used to it, is all.

Actually, the problem is most semantic and epistemological here...what
does "pain" and "comfort" mean here, and can it ever be communicated
adequately? Perhaps I've made y'all think of undue pain when in fact I
may be describing simple physical inconveniences such as any sport
would task of the human body.

> Ron
 
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....