How Do These Airborne Specs Look?



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 Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:40:20 GMT, RonSonic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:33:41 GMT, Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul 2005 06:32:01 -0700, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Does it seem suspicious he also deals in
>>>used bikes, on the side, on his own?).

>>
>>Only inasmuch as he's probably fencing stolen goods. If that doesn't
>>bother you, they're probably pretty good value for money.

>
>Why assume they're stolen?


Because they usually are. A big association of official bike dealers here
in .nl recently started a program where they would pledge not to deal in
stolen bikes any more (think it through).


Jasper
 
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
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Au contraire -- I didn't even notice the wheels, as exclaimed in my
posts. Now that I'm counting the spokes, I'm like, huh?!

I don't get it...who the hell are these bike companies building for
anyway? I expect something like Huffy to get into gimmicks, but
Specialized and Trek, too???



Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>
> 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
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Rich Clark wrote:
> >
> >
> > One is a flat bar bike, the other is a drop bar bike. They are not
> > comparable. If you don't know whether you're in the market for one or the
> > other, you shouldn't be considering either one.

>
> I prefer the more upright one (flatbar), but I'm thinking its
> components may be less than desirable, since it's a titanium frame
> selling for the same as the aluminum one which the same manufacturer is
> claiming to be spec'ed-out nicely (which may well be true since it
> actually weighs in slightly less than the ti!).


The Ti has a 105/Deore mix, which is fine if you don't need the lightest
possible setup, but it is still perfectly functional. My Tourer came
with a Tiagra/Deore mix, and I love it. About 5k miles on it in 2
years.

>
> > I can attest to the quality and overall wonderfulness of the Airborne Carpe
> > Diem I bought four years ago, FWIW. It's still my #1 bike, with somewhere
> > around 14k miles on it.
> >
> > RichC

>
> Yes, I know Airborne has a good reputation in general...just wondering
> about these particular models.
>
> Are titanium frames stronger than aluminum ones, typically? Lighter,
> more flexible or less? Etc.


It all depends on the design criteria, but the Ti is *probably* more
flexible. It will certainly be more corrosion-resistent, though, which
would be a strong point in its favor if you ride all year round in an
area that has a real winter (like me). If you're in Phoenix, though, it
wouldn't matter at all.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Rich Clark wrote:
> >
> >
> > One is a flat bar bike, the other is a drop bar bike. They are not
> > comparable. If you don't know whether you're in the market for one or the
> > other, you shouldn't be considering either one.

>
> I prefer the more upright one (flatbar), but I'm thinking its
> components may be less than desirable, since it's a titanium frame
> selling for the same as the aluminum one which the same manufacturer is
> claiming to be spec'ed-out nicely (which may well be true since it
> actually weighs in slightly less than the ti!).


The Ti has a 105/Deore mix, which is fine if you don't need the lightest
possible setup, but it is still perfectly functional. My Tourer came
with a Tiagra/Deore mix, and I love it. About 5k miles on it in 2
years.

>
> > I can attest to the quality and overall wonderfulness of the Airborne Carpe
> > Diem I bought four years ago, FWIW. It's still my #1 bike, with somewhere
> > around 14k miles on it.
> >
> > RichC

>
> Yes, I know Airborne has a good reputation in general...just wondering
> about these particular models.
>
> Are titanium frames stronger than aluminum ones, typically? Lighter,
> more flexible or less? Etc.


It all depends on the design criteria, but the Ti is *probably* more
flexible. It will certainly be more corrosion-resistent, though, which
would be a strong point in its favor if you ride all year round in an
area that has a real winter (like me). If you're in Phoenix, though, it
wouldn't matter at all.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Rich Clark wrote:
> >
> >
> > One is a flat bar bike, the other is a drop bar bike. They are not
> > comparable. If you don't know whether you're in the market for one or the
> > other, you shouldn't be considering either one.

>
> I prefer the more upright one (flatbar), but I'm thinking its
> components may be less than desirable, since it's a titanium frame
> selling for the same as the aluminum one which the same manufacturer is
> claiming to be spec'ed-out nicely (which may well be true since it
> actually weighs in slightly less than the ti!).


The Ti has a 105/Deore mix, which is fine if you don't need the lightest
possible setup, but it is still perfectly functional. My Tourer came
with a Tiagra/Deore mix, and I love it. About 5k miles on it in 2
years.

>
> > I can attest to the quality and overall wonderfulness of the Airborne Carpe
> > Diem I bought four years ago, FWIW. It's still my #1 bike, with somewhere
> > around 14k miles on it.
> >
> > RichC

>
> Yes, I know Airborne has a good reputation in general...just wondering
> about these particular models.
>
> Are titanium frames stronger than aluminum ones, typically? Lighter,
> more flexible or less? Etc.


It all depends on the design criteria, but the Ti is *probably* more
flexible. It will certainly be more corrosion-resistent, though, which
would be a strong point in its favor if you ride all year round in an
area that has a real winter (like me). If you're in Phoenix, though, it
wouldn't matter at all.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Rich Clark wrote:
> >
> >
> > One is a flat bar bike, the other is a drop bar bike. They are not
> > comparable. If you don't know whether you're in the market for one or the
> > other, you shouldn't be considering either one.

>
> I prefer the more upright one (flatbar), but I'm thinking its
> components may be less than desirable, since it's a titanium frame
> selling for the same as the aluminum one which the same manufacturer is
> claiming to be spec'ed-out nicely (which may well be true since it
> actually weighs in slightly less than the ti!).


The Ti has a 105/Deore mix, which is fine if you don't need the lightest
possible setup, but it is still perfectly functional. My Tourer came
with a Tiagra/Deore mix, and I love it. About 5k miles on it in 2
years.

>
> > I can attest to the quality and overall wonderfulness of the Airborne Carpe
> > Diem I bought four years ago, FWIW. It's still my #1 bike, with somewhere
> > around 14k miles on it.
> >
> > RichC

>
> Yes, I know Airborne has a good reputation in general...just wondering
> about these particular models.
>
> Are titanium frames stronger than aluminum ones, typically? Lighter,
> more flexible or less? Etc.


It all depends on the design criteria, but the Ti is *probably* more
flexible. It will certainly be more corrosion-resistent, though, which
would be a strong point in its favor if you ride all year round in an
area that has a real winter (like me). If you're in Phoenix, though, it
wouldn't matter at all.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
threefire wrote:
> You must be joking. You think economically sanctioning a country will
> help improve its human rights? You think the ruler rather than the
> regular people are going to suffer more from a poor economy? The
> "enemy" thing is nothing more than a fear out of ignorance. When was
> the last time China was of any real and actual threat to the US?


Try this on. It is an obvious and well published fact that the Chinese
are building their military for a future invasion of Tiawan, no doubt
about it. When they do, then it will be interesting to see what the US
and others, like Japan, who will also be threatened, will do. Is China
a threat to attack the US? Of course not, not any more than the former
Soviet Union was. But USSR was a threat to the economic center of
Europe and China is a threat to the economic strength of Asia, and
hence a threat to Europe and the US. To ignore this is foolhardy.

How
> many of the claims you made were from first hand experience instead of
> politically motivated propaganda (you believe everything said on TV?
> they also say you can lose 70 pounds in a month on TV)? The human
> rights violation theory is way overrated. It's in many people's
> interests to exaggerate these things.
>
> Besides, half of the goods sold in this country are made in China. You
> better stop buying anything now.
>
> Gooserider wrote:
> > >> Airborne is fine, if you don't mind buying a Chinese bicycle. I don't
> > >> support communist dictatorships. I own three Taiwanese bikes, and an
> > >> American bike. The American bike is head and shoulders above the
> > >> Taiwanese quality wise, but it was far more expensive, too. I wouldn't
> > >> buy the Airborne, but that's purely on an ethical level. I'm sure the
> > >> quality is fine.
> > >
> > > I don't mind buying Chinese bikes, I have three of them from this
> > > manufacturer. Whether a dictatorship is communist or capitalist is all the
> > > same to me.
> > > My titanium mountain bike has taken a pounding and is still going strong.

> >
> > The problem with buying Chinese goods is the very real possibility that
> > doing so supports our enemy.War with China over Taiwan is not out of the
> > question. The Chinese have a horrible human rights record, you know. People
> > there are routinely put in re-education camps, undergo forced sterilization,
> > are placed in forced labor camps, and face other such horrible acts. Every
> > dollar you spend on Chinese goods goes to strengthen them both economically
> > and militarily. I would no more buy Chinese goods than I would buy conflict
> > diamonds.
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
threefire wrote:
> You must be joking. You think economically sanctioning a country will
> help improve its human rights? You think the ruler rather than the
> regular people are going to suffer more from a poor economy? The
> "enemy" thing is nothing more than a fear out of ignorance. When was
> the last time China was of any real and actual threat to the US?


Try this on. It is an obvious and well published fact that the Chinese
are building their military for a future invasion of Tiawan, no doubt
about it. When they do, then it will be interesting to see what the US
and others, like Japan, who will also be threatened, will do. Is China
a threat to attack the US? Of course not, not any more than the former
Soviet Union was. But USSR was a threat to the economic center of
Europe and China is a threat to the economic strength of Asia, and
hence a threat to Europe and the US. To ignore this is foolhardy.

How
> many of the claims you made were from first hand experience instead of
> politically motivated propaganda (you believe everything said on TV?
> they also say you can lose 70 pounds in a month on TV)? The human
> rights violation theory is way overrated. It's in many people's
> interests to exaggerate these things.
>
> Besides, half of the goods sold in this country are made in China. You
> better stop buying anything now.
>
> Gooserider wrote:
> > >> Airborne is fine, if you don't mind buying a Chinese bicycle. I don't
> > >> support communist dictatorships. I own three Taiwanese bikes, and an
> > >> American bike. The American bike is head and shoulders above the
> > >> Taiwanese quality wise, but it was far more expensive, too. I wouldn't
> > >> buy the Airborne, but that's purely on an ethical level. I'm sure the
> > >> quality is fine.
> > >
> > > I don't mind buying Chinese bikes, I have three of them from this
> > > manufacturer. Whether a dictatorship is communist or capitalist is all the
> > > same to me.
> > > My titanium mountain bike has taken a pounding and is still going strong.

> >
> > The problem with buying Chinese goods is the very real possibility that
> > doing so supports our enemy.War with China over Taiwan is not out of the
> > question. The Chinese have a horrible human rights record, you know. People
> > there are routinely put in re-education camps, undergo forced sterilization,
> > are placed in forced labor camps, and face other such horrible acts. Every
> > dollar you spend on Chinese goods goes to strengthen them both economically
> > and militarily. I would no more buy Chinese goods than I would buy conflict
> > diamonds.
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
threefire wrote:
> You must be joking. You think economically sanctioning a country will
> help improve its human rights? You think the ruler rather than the
> regular people are going to suffer more from a poor economy? The
> "enemy" thing is nothing more than a fear out of ignorance. When was
> the last time China was of any real and actual threat to the US?


Try this on. It is an obvious and well published fact that the Chinese
are building their military for a future invasion of Tiawan, no doubt
about it. When they do, then it will be interesting to see what the US
and others, like Japan, who will also be threatened, will do. Is China
a threat to attack the US? Of course not, not any more than the former
Soviet Union was. But USSR was a threat to the economic center of
Europe and China is a threat to the economic strength of Asia, and
hence a threat to Europe and the US. To ignore this is foolhardy.

How
> many of the claims you made were from first hand experience instead of
> politically motivated propaganda (you believe everything said on TV?
> they also say you can lose 70 pounds in a month on TV)? The human
> rights violation theory is way overrated. It's in many people's
> interests to exaggerate these things.
>
> Besides, half of the goods sold in this country are made in China. You
> better stop buying anything now.
>
> Gooserider wrote:
> > >> Airborne is fine, if you don't mind buying a Chinese bicycle. I don't
> > >> support communist dictatorships. I own three Taiwanese bikes, and an
> > >> American bike. The American bike is head and shoulders above the
> > >> Taiwanese quality wise, but it was far more expensive, too. I wouldn't
> > >> buy the Airborne, but that's purely on an ethical level. I'm sure the
> > >> quality is fine.
> > >
> > > I don't mind buying Chinese bikes, I have three of them from this
> > > manufacturer. Whether a dictatorship is communist or capitalist is all the
> > > same to me.
> > > My titanium mountain bike has taken a pounding and is still going strong.

> >
> > The problem with buying Chinese goods is the very real possibility that
> > doing so supports our enemy.War with China over Taiwan is not out of the
> > question. The Chinese have a horrible human rights record, you know. People
> > there are routinely put in re-education camps, undergo forced sterilization,
> > are placed in forced labor camps, and face other such horrible acts. Every
> > dollar you spend on Chinese goods goes to strengthen them both economically
> > and militarily. I would no more buy Chinese goods than I would buy conflict
> > diamonds.