HP Velo Design Flaw????



N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Mike Berger wrote:
> From several websites:
> " In its simplest form, Regulation "E" states: "An account holder has
> 120 days to contact their bank to reverse any unauthorized electronic
> debit to their account." This can be verified at your local bank or
> Federal Reserve location."
>
> Since the deposit was authorized, and may not have been an electronic
> debit, it's not going to apply.


I asked specifically about this over the phone, and was told that
except in cases of fraud on my part I am entitled to refunds, even if I
only changed my mind. Any time you use your card it's "electronic,"
and any time you decide you want out of a deal it's
"unauthorized"...now there will be a two-week investigation by the
bank, but apparently the result is assured, especially when no delivery
of merchandise has been taken.

Do you still understand matters differently? I'm curious 'cause on the
one hand such a policy seems too good to be true -- surprised the
business community haven't gotten it repealed -- yet on the other, it
does sound like something that should be on the books in the public
interest where consumers are concerned.

> And seller's attitude notwithstanding -- you made a decision to do
> business with him and paid a deposit. The deposit is often required
> to insure that the dealer doesn't get stuck with merchandise he
> doesn't want if the customer changes his mind. You may not be
> entitled to it if he's already expended some costs on your order,
> or if you signed a contract.


No, no contract was signed. I understand the point of a deposit, but
the deposit seems invalid to me if work isn't being done, or not done
right, etc. Ultimately, I just don't feel comfortable doing business
with this guy anymore. Long story -- for which you can peruse the rest
of this thread, I suppose -- but I'm feeling like he doesn't really
*deserve* my business.

I mean, let's say someone insults you, for whatever reason. Surely you
have a right, then, to just take your money back? It's really like
that here; I'm spending $4K and he's actually complained about how much
work I'm making him do! Forget that, you find someone else to do
business with, then -- and I want my deposit back!
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Mike Berger wrote:
> From several websites:
> " In its simplest form, Regulation "E" states: "An account holder has
> 120 days to contact their bank to reverse any unauthorized electronic
> debit to their account." This can be verified at your local bank or
> Federal Reserve location."
>
> Since the deposit was authorized, and may not have been an electronic
> debit, it's not going to apply.


I asked specifically about this over the phone, and was told that
except in cases of fraud on my part I am entitled to refunds, even if I
only changed my mind. Any time you use your card it's "electronic,"
and any time you decide you want out of a deal it's
"unauthorized"...now there will be a two-week investigation by the
bank, but apparently the result is assured, especially when no delivery
of merchandise has been taken.

Do you still understand matters differently? I'm curious 'cause on the
one hand such a policy seems too good to be true -- surprised the
business community haven't gotten it repealed -- yet on the other, it
does sound like something that should be on the books in the public
interest where consumers are concerned.

> And seller's attitude notwithstanding -- you made a decision to do
> business with him and paid a deposit. The deposit is often required
> to insure that the dealer doesn't get stuck with merchandise he
> doesn't want if the customer changes his mind. You may not be
> entitled to it if he's already expended some costs on your order,
> or if you signed a contract.


No, no contract was signed. I understand the point of a deposit, but
the deposit seems invalid to me if work isn't being done, or not done
right, etc. Ultimately, I just don't feel comfortable doing business
with this guy anymore. Long story -- for which you can peruse the rest
of this thread, I suppose -- but I'm feeling like he doesn't really
*deserve* my business.

I mean, let's say someone insults you, for whatever reason. Surely you
have a right, then, to just take your money back? It's really like
that here; I'm spending $4K and he's actually complained about how much
work I'm making him do! Forget that, you find someone else to do
business with, then -- and I want my deposit back!
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Mike Berger wrote:
> And you probably bought from a store that sold at retail, didn't
> compete with Walmart and the Internet, and paid some kid $ 1.50/hour
> (under the table if it was a small store) to assemble it.


IOW, the LBS, back in the '80s.

So much for supporting your friendly neighborhood small business, eh?
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
>
> Great! But as well as deciding you want the bike based on trying it,
> you're specifying all sorts of extras you haven't tried, to improve on
> stuff you don't really know wehther needs improving for your uses or not.


Well, geez, Petey you old curmudgeon, but of course! Where the hell am
I to find an SMGTe spec'ed just as I like to first try out??? Insofar
as I take your word for anything, I take others' good words, too, and
hope that sheer love of the sport makes for the sort of honest
discussion which helps and informs!

> There is a very big difference between "I will probably want something
> like a Spiirt" and "I want something like a Spirit". Why decide apropos
> of no experience when you can decide in light of the experience.


Because the decision is based on what I know right now. When I know
otherwise, which an actual trial run on them 'bents will prove, I'll
update accordingly.

> If
> you'll be testing it anywhay, why make your mind up first? Wiat until
> you've had a few weeks seat time on the SMGT and then you'll be in a
> much better position to work out what next than you are now. Patience!


Semantics, my good man -- don't know why it's an issue for you, it
ain't for me: of course the proof is in the pudding. I'm just studying
the recipe at the mo'....

> What's this thread about, nominally? It's a clear demonstration that
> your "thought model" doesn't work as well as you've just suggested.
> *That* is why you need a model!


Pete, I do think you've mistaken me for Ed if you think I'm going to
carry on like this with you all over left field....

> And as this thread demontstrates, with a propstand that will apparently
> not work with panniers, even though I know from years of personal use
> that it works just fine, your reasoning out can be wrong.


Right, so I updated my understanding, and if I haven't already done so,
let me thank you explicitly, O Grate One!

But there are times when I am right, like with the SMGTe -- after some
research, it emerged the favorite, and sure enough, a test-ride
confirmed my fondest hopes!

> And as
> previous threads have witnessed, such as not seeing that fork length is
> dependent on wheel size, your reasoning out can be inadequate by virtue
> of being more poorly informed than you suspect.


Of course, it's called life. No reason to stop living just 'cause
death stalks the land.

> No, I'm saying make sure you know what strawberries taste like before
> you make them into a soup. "I've heard that strawberries are very
> nice!" may well be true, but it doesn't make them a sure thing for good
> soup.


But I haven't heard that, what I've heard is that adding lemon and
cheese to chicken broth is good, and so I'm investigating the kind of
cheese to apply. Now will you please get out of the kitchen!

> Research first, then try. You're researching and then coming to a
> preconceived conclusion based on other people's subjective needs and
> wants, and you could find out for yourself before there's any need to
> commit. The research is a better basis of what to try rather than what
> to get, if you're in a position to try (and you are, or easily can be).


I honestly, honestly think you've come to a preconceived conclusion
that I've come to some preconceived conclusion.

For me, the Spirit/Maxarya is a clear favorite, after the SMGTe, for
what I envision myself (and others, really; this is a "guest bike")
doing on a 'bent. Of course I will test-ride anything before I
actually buy it. If time warrants it, I'll try other makes and models,
too, just for fun.

It's all very simple, really. Please run for public office if you feel
like twisting things into something they're not.

> Why? First up, pro racers go down hills at those speeds on a routine
> basis and they use mechanical rim brakes okay. And in any case, discs
> are not intrinsically more powerful than something like HS-33 hydraulic
> rim brakes at much lower price and rather easier maintenance


Well now, isn't that just an opinion, too -- only yours, in this case?

Pros and cons all around, to be sure -- no perfect option, else there
wouldn't be so many, don't you reckon?

> Are these the same guys who apparently love /everything/ they review to
> the extent you wonder if you can trust them?


Yes, but even the Devil believes in God, man!

> What is "a significant
> difference?". One significant difference between the grades of shocker
> is the ability to fiddle with damping and rebound levels, but if you're
> not really interested in fiddling (probably not if all you've ever done
> is fix flats) then that's /not/ a good thing. And so on.


I imagine myself carrying a load sooner or later -- light touring, to
be sure, but it's supposed to be more convenient and will perform
better.

> But why not see what "worthwhile" is based on what *you* find?


Where am I supposed to find an SMGTe with all these gee-gaws to try out
first????

> It's not
> difficult to put a new rear shocker in, just a couple of allen bolts and
> in with the new one.


Exactly! Which is why I'm rather miffed this guy Johannes at NE
Recumbents has the gall to actually complain about "a lot of work" when
I told him again that I wanted the upgrades.

> But you can choose to do it based on actual
> personal knowledge of need, rather than someone else's perception, who
> has different priorities.


I see myself touring on the 'bent, now that I really know how comfy it
is! I see myself commuting on a fairly regular basis, too. Most folks
have just these priorities in mind for themselves. I find their
opinions interesting. Sue me.

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

Peter Clinch

Guest
NYC XYZ wrote:

>> Why? First up, pro racers go down hills at those speeds on a routine
>> basis and they use mechanical rim brakes okay. And in any case, discs
>> are not intrinsically more powerful than something like HS-33 hydraulic
>> rim brakes at much lower price and rather easier maintenance

>
> Well now, isn't that just an opinion, too -- only yours, in this case?


It is a fact that pro racers use mechanical rim brakes. As for
hydraulic rims being more powerful, they're potentially /more/ powerful
because they're working further out, but discs can catch up with a
harder rotor than a wheel rim. But where discs really score is on
mountain bikes, where the rims get covered in mud. Not generally an
issue on roads.
So no, it's not "just my opinion".

> Pros and cons all around, to be sure -- no perfect option, else there
> wouldn't be so many, don't you reckon?


Absolutely. And my point remains that your own experience will be a
better way of informing your choice than someone else's. So my
preference for hydraulic rim brakes is for me, not you, I just used it
to show you how your assumptions don't carry all the information you can
get with more experience.

> I imagine myself carrying a load sooner or later -- light touring, to
> be sure, but it's supposed to be more convenient and will perform
> better.


I've never done anything with the rear shocker on mine except grease the
bushes once a year, which you'll have to do on the upgrade shocker too.
How is anything going to be "more convenient" than that?

> Where am I supposed to find an SMGTe with all these gee-gaws to try out
> first????


You don't, you start off with something that's basically competent
(which the basic machine is) and then assess upgrades according to need
as you ride. I didn't get the better shocker at the back as at the time
I couldn't afford it, though I /wanted/ it. Experience has told me that
actually the basic unit is perfectly acceptable for my needs, so I don't
have to spend the money I thought I'd want to spend. I got that from
experience.

> I see myself touring on the 'bent, now that I really know how comfy it
> is! I see myself commuting on a fairly regular basis, too. Most folks
> have just these priorities in mind for themselves. I find their
> opinions interesting.


I tour on mine and use it for local trips too. My main finding since
starting on 'bents is that an ounce of empirical experience is worth
about about a hundredweight of other folks' opinions, and I'm trying to
get that across to you.

Look in the recumbent bike buyers' guide in the back of the last VV
again, and note carefully the bit about "it's easy to over-research" and
the importance of personal seat time. I'm just saying the same thing.

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

NYC XYZ

Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> It is a fact that pro racers use mechanical rim brakes. As for
> hydraulic rims being more powerful, they're potentially /more/ powerful
> because they're working further out, but discs can catch up with a
> harder rotor than a wheel rim. But where discs really score is on
> mountain bikes, where the rims get covered in mud. Not generally an
> issue on roads.
> So no, it's not "just my opinion".


Blah blah blah...IOW, same stuff I've read on BROL, here, etc. It's an
opinion even if you've actually experienced mud on your MTB.

Can you at least try to be ironic and self-effacing like Ed the Grate?

> Absolutely. And my point remains that your own experience will be a
> better way of informing your choice than someone else's.


But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing my right to ask around and take
into consideration other's opinions. Has it been a rainy few weeks
over there by you?

> So my
> preference for hydraulic rim brakes is for me, not you, I just used it
> to show you how your assumptions don't carry all the information you can
> get with more experience.


Insofar as we might share common values (once upon a dream, anyway) and
might face similar conditions given the similar things we might want to
do to our bikes, yeah, actually, your opinion means something to me,
even if it's coming from you!

> I've never done anything with the rear shocker on mine except grease the
> bushes once a year, which you'll have to do on the upgrade shocker too.
> How is anything going to be "more convenient" than that?


Apparently it works better -- more cushion -- and easier to adjust --
some kinda tuning dial there.

> You don't, you start off with something that's basically competent
> (which the basic machine is) and then assess upgrades according to need
> as you ride.


When you "assess" upgrades, aren't you simply back at Square One, where
I'm at right now , finding out info, which means gathering opinions,
etc.?

It's one thing to talk outta yo' ass, but quite another to chase it as
well! No offense, old chap, but really you outdo Ed here in circular
reasoning.

> I didn't get the better shocker at the back as at the time
> I couldn't afford it, though I /wanted/ it. Experience has told me that
> actually the basic unit is perfectly acceptable for my needs, so I don't
> have to spend the money I thought I'd want to spend. I got that from
> experience.


Yes, and I thank you for sharing your experience. I can afford the air
shock and I'm gonna get it, knowing full well that factory default will
be great as a back-up.

> I tour on mine and use it for local trips too. My main finding since
> starting on 'bents is that an ounce of empirical experience is worth
> about about a hundredweight of other folks' opinions, and I'm trying to
> get that across to you.


But I'm NOT disagreeing with you about that! Being that this is
usenet, however, all there is to do is talk -- which means opinions.
Of course I will test-ride and so forth if I can! When I get the air
shock installed I'll note my opinions for the group, just for the
record, too.

> Look in the recumbent bike buyers' guide in the back of the last VV
> again, and note carefully the bit about "it's easy to over-research" and
> the importance of personal seat time. I'm just saying the same thing.


I know -- I just don't know why you keep saying it, when all I'm saying
is yes, yes, thank you, but this is usenet, no way to test-ride here,
except through others' experiences.

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

Peter Clinch

Guest
NYC XYZ wrote:

> But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing my right to ask around and take
> into consideration other's opinions.


And I'm not saying you shouldn't. What I'm saying is why take anyone's
word for it when you can get better data from your own experience. So,
"do I need to upgrade the basic brakes?" is easily done by trying the
basic brakes and seeing what (if any) limitations they have that might
cause you to want to upgrade. Any cycle shop can fit discs on for you,
they're standard fixings, so my point is why jump now, when you can jump
any time in the future armed with better information?

> Insofar as we might share common values (once upon a dream, anyway) and
> might face similar conditions given the similar things we might want to
> do to our bikes, yeah, actually, your opinion means something to me,
> even if it's coming from you!


But I, nor anybody else, can tell you "am I happy with the Avid V
Brakes that come as standard?" as well as you could if you gave them a
try. It won't cost you any more, it may cost you significantly less,
you can get the work done at any shop instead of a choice of one, unless
you're jumping straight into extreme braking applications what do you
have to lose?

> Apparently it works better -- more cushion -- and easier to adjust --
> some kinda tuning dial there.


"easier to adjust" is a moot point if you never feel the need to adjust
it. I've never wanted the bike setup differently to how it came set up,
so extra adjustment would be more expense for something more likely to
go wrong. Again, any shop can source and replace the shock for you,
you've nothing much to lose by field testing the basic unit first
yourself and see if it's found wanting. Why take BROL's word for it
being wonderful, their reviewer has different tastes and agenda to you.

> When you "assess" upgrades, aren't you simply back at Square One, where
> I'm at right now , finding out info, which means gathering opinions,
> etc.?


Up to a point, but only up to a point. If the info you have from riding
the bike is that, actually, the Avid Vs that the bike comes with are
perfectly adequate for what you have in mind (and they could well be,
lost of very serious touring gets done with mechanical rim brakes), then
you know that the uberbrakes are less of an issue than you think now.
They *are* good enough while you get the hang of the bike, it'll take a
wee while to get used to it and your 'bent muscles up to speed, use that
time to assess the basic equipment by seeing how it performs in
practice. One test is worth 1000 reviews.

> But I'm NOT disagreeing with you about that!


But you are very much not putting it into practice!

> I know -- I just don't know why you keep saying it, when all I'm saying
> is yes, yes, thank you, but this is usenet, no way to test-ride here,
> except through others' experiences.


The same could be said of VeloVision's advice in print, yet the editor
saw fit to say it. Why? Because it's very, very useful advice!

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

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I urge you to study Marcus Aurelius, Erich Fromm, Khrisnamurti, and
> Alan Watts, because I think you might have a mistaken notion of "true
> happiness."


Kurt Vonnegut (Breakfast of Champions),
Siddhartha Guatama (the "desire causing all suffering" thing),
John Steinbeck (Tortilla Flat),
and George Carlin:
http://www.writers-free-reference.com/funny/story085.htm
..... and maybe some Moliere.


cheers,
Tom

> Your mileage may vary, but I doubt I'm out and out wrong.
>
>
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>
>> I urge you to research "lifestyle simplification", because I
>> think your true happiness may lie within it.
>>
>> Of course I might be wrong. But what's to lose?
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> -- Nothing is safe from me.
>> Above address is just a spam midden.
>> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

>


--
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca