I don't understand - what is this for?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per [email protected]:
>acrobatic
>hopping with locked wheels and motionless cranks:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAUQrQVTTk&eurl=

Every time I watch something like that, I come back to the
commonly-made assertion that the difference between human and
chimpanzee genomes is less than two percent.

Even allowing for a lot of "noise/dead" genes.... I have to
wonder how few genes would need patching to make the diff between
being able to do that stuff and stumbling around like the rest of
us.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Fred Clydesdale <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com">
> wrote:
>
> > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it
> > just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller
> > rear wheel provide any real advantage?
> >
> > What is the deal with single-speed anyway?
> ...
> > Who exactly is the target market for this bike?
>
> personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and a
> singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless.

Fixed gears are just fun, but there is the "hipster effect" that extends
the adoption of these things beyond fun and into "cool." Or is that
"kool?" I can't keep up with what's hip. I used to fixed gear a lot
but a martial arts knee injury and surgery has ended that- I suspect
that the effects of descending would be damaging. I do have a single
speed road bike that is- again- just plain fun. Eliminating gearing
decisions from the ride lets me just pay attention to the ride and not
to the bike. And, heck, on my bikes with derailleurs it's not uncommon
for me to go on a ride of 50 miles and never shift gears.

I think MTBs are generally useless, let alone single speed MTBs, so I'm
not so much the right person to comment on that subset.

A few years ago, Dirt Rag Magazine (or similar) published the "cheapest,
easiest single speed conversion:" "Take your bike and put it in a
medium gear. Never shift again."

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>
> once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally
> beevuh. bad news

Better than some of the diseases one could catch from "beevuh"!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[landotter]

On Aug 4, 8:50 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>
>
>
> > once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally
> > beevuh. bad news
>
> Better than some of the diseases one could catch from "beevuh"!

Jerry Mathers is totally clean now, I asked him first.

 

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 4, 11:33 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> > What is the deal with single-speed anyway?
>
> It's self-identification into a subset of a subset.

AKA, it's different so it must be better.

The only person who has explained his interest in single speeds to me
in any rational terms is a friend (having recently moved back to the
mountains of Colorado) who said "it's mostly a matter of having lived
in Oklahoma City for seven years."

I think the rationale also applies to a "69er."
IMHO the 26/29 thing seems pretty silly. Either 29" tires have
advantages or they don't (I think they do). I guess a "69er" is for
someone who really can't decide.

DR

 

[Chalo]

JeffWills wrote:
>
> DougC wrote:
> >
> > I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was
> > more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear
> > because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a
> > 24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26.
>
> IIRC (becoming more of an issue as time goes by), the 26/24 Cannondale
> MTB was called the "Beast of the East", supposedly because the
> "eastern" riders demanded a more manuverable bike with a lighter rear
> end and higher bottom bracket, as opposed to "western" riders who were
> all about bombing down fire roads and could care less about hopping
> over roots. Cliques are nothing new.

The "Beast of the East" term was coined after the introduction of
level top tube, low BB California-style frames. At the same time, the
sloping top tube frame had its chainstays bobbed to a fashionably
short sub-17" length and its seat angle steepened a bit.

Before there was a silly name for the Beast of the East frame, and
before there was a me-too style Cannondale MTB, all the mountain bikes
Cannondale made had 18" chainstays. So it's pretty clear that the
small rear wheel was not intended to shorten up the rear end. 16" and
18" frames had 24" rear wheels, while 20" and 22" frames had 26" rear
wheels. Why? No idea.

Behold the acres of room between the seat tube and tire on this 1985
24" wheeled bike:

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/85Cdale.htm

In the mid-'80s when the mixed wheel diameter bikes were being
manufactured, MTB tires were pretty lame all the way around, and the
selection in 24" was not categorically worse than that in the 26"
size.

Chalo

 

[JD]

On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and
> > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless.
>
> > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses.
>
> > > i pass at least 5 fixies
> > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things
> > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's
> > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me
> > > up those hills.
>
> > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
> > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's
> > loaded with punks and poseurs.
>
> > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass
>
> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....


If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself.

JD

 

[Chalo]

JD wrote:
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > JD wrote:
> > >
> > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
> > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's
> > > loaded with punks and poseurs.
>
> > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass
>
> > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....
>
> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself.

If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're
kidding yourself.

I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other
bikes.

Chalo

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 12:33 am, Fred Clydesdale <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
> > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
> > provide any real advantage?
>
> > What is the deal with single-speed anyway?
> ...
> > Who exactly is the target market for this bike?
>
> personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and
> a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies
> a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things
> happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's
> sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me
> up those hills. i had somebody on one of those ultra hip surly
> fixies chase me DOWN a hill one time, but he disappeared
> at the halfway point when it threw its chain. i have no idea if
> he hurt himself but it made an extremely entertaining noise.
>
> sometimes technology marches on for no apparent reason, but the
> derailleur was invented to fix a very real problem. so the whole
> derailleur/shifter/cassette system adds a couple of pounds to
> the total: it gets you where you're going faster and with less
> effort.
>
> i'm sure there are a few very specialized areas of competition
> where these things are used. i, however, use my bike for
> recreation and transportation.

I'm a Clydesdale as well and I use my fixed gear for recreation and
transportation too. I pass people all the time up and down hills no
matter what bike I'm on. I also get passed by people up and down
hills. Performance isn't about the bike. The main reason they exist is
they are fun. Lots of folks appreciate this, and I guess a lot more
folks just (erroneously) think it makes them cool. The fact that some
idiots use them by no means makes the bikes idiotic. I've never tried
a single speed MTB, but some guys I know use them almost exclusively
and I take they do it for fun and don't really care if they ultimately
would be faster with a multi-speed bike.

Joseph

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Aug 5, 3:10 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> JD wrote:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > > JD wrote:
>
> > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
> > > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's
> > > > loaded with punks and poseurs.
>
> > > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass
>
> > > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....
>
> > If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself.
>
> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're
> kidding yourself.
>
> I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other
> bikes.
>

Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving
around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All
day, or as long as ya can stand it.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 4, 7:33 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> just passé. Big manufacturers are always behind the times and their
> attempts to be hip are usually embarrassing.

As evidence to support your claim I submit the Specialized Langster in
the NYC version:

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=32826

Joseph

 

[Marty]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> JD wrote:
>>
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> >
>> > JD wrote:
>> > >
>> > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
>> > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like
>> > > it's
>> > > loaded with punks and poseurs.
>>
>> > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass
>>
>> > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....
>>
>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself.
>
> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're
> kidding yourself.
>
> I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other
> bikes.
>
> Chalo
>

I couldn't really care less about carrying speed as you put it but I do care
about climbing (without blowing out a lung gasket) and the occasional flat
ride (like a short 13 miler yesterday on a rail trail with a bunch of Cub
Scouts). Now I admittedly don't understand the fixie/ss thing either but I
can tell you that I have a friend who rides one with me and that man can
CRANK. I never catch him when we ride and he's not trying to be fast he
just kicks my ass. I have no repeat no desire to give up my gears but I can
certainly understand the attraction of the simplicity.

Marty

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Aug 4, 4:38 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>.
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote:
>
> > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
> > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
> > provide any real advantage?
> > What is the deal with single-speed anyway?
> > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
> > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
> > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
> > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?
> > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
> > that causes brain dysfunction?
> > Who exactly is the target market for this bike?
>
> Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time.
> Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied.
>
> Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!
Like Vaugters just said, more important to 'look cool'. Utility and
sense be damned.

 

[landotter]

On Aug 5, 6:24 am, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 3:10 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > JD wrote:
>
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > > > JD wrote:
>
> > > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
> > > > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's
> > > > > loaded with punks and poseurs.
>
> > > > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass
>
> > > > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....
>
> > > If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself.
>
> > If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're
> > kidding yourself.
>
> > I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other
> > bikes.
>
> Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving
> around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All
> day, or as long as ya can stand it.

That's quite the facile comparison. Our legs aren't made of steel
gears, but of meat, thin thread, and muesli. Legs do change gears, but
in a different way. Look at a horse for example, how its muscles have
different rhythms at different gaits. You'd see the same thing in my
muscles when I'm out for a forty miler on a fixed gear or my single
speed--I just wouldn't look nearly as handsome in slow motion. If you
slowed down my 27mph spin, it would look nothing like my 10mph climb,
which involves every muscle group down to clenching eyelids.

Gears are fine and good, but in these parts, they wouldn't make me any
faster, they'd just change my gait.I don't see the point. On my beer
and dog chow bike, I've got three, and it's plenty enough to keep me
from sweating on hills.and my cigarette ash from going ***** nilly.

 

[JD]

On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving
> around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All
> day, or as long as ya can stand it.


Put the banjo down and go ride your bike.

JD

 

[JD]

On Aug 5, 5:52 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 4:38 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>.
>
> > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote:
>
> > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
> > > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
> > > provide any real advantage?
> > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway?
> > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
> > > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
> > > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
> > > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?
> > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
> > > that causes brain dysfunction?
> > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike?
>
> > Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time.
> > Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied.
>
> > Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago.
> > --
> > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!
> Like Vaugters just said, more important to 'look cool'. Utility and
> sense be damned.


Funny, it wasn't PT Barnum who coined that phrase, but was his
business partner.

BTW, riding bicycles for recreation is about fun, not "utility". Your
idea of fun is not the same idea of fun as it may be for others. I'm
sure that's hard for many to grasp though, so carry on because I'm
sure you will.

JD

 

[Steve Baker]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote:
> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>.

<snip>

> Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


Tom,
Basic rule is "If you have to ask, then it's not you."
If you don't understand, then you won't enjoy it, so stop worrying, and
especially stop denigrating just coz it's beyond you. That's how
bigotry starts.
Relax, enjoy what you DO ride, and get on with life.
Steve

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Aug 5, 3:10 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> JD wrote:
>>
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> JD wrote:
>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's
>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs.
>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass
>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....
>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself.
>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're
>> kidding yourself.
>>
>> I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other
>> bikes.
>>
>
> Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving
> around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All
> day, or as long as ya can stand it.

Since a clutch replacement is ~$900 US, I will pass on Ozark's suggestion.

Similarly, since knee repair is even more expensive, I will climb using
gears that allow me to maintain a reasonably fast cadence.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Steve Baker wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote:
>> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Who exactly is the target market for this bike?
>
>
> Tom,
> Basic rule is "If you have to ask, then it's not you."
> If you don't understand, then you won't enjoy it, so stop worrying, and
> especially stop denigrating just coz it's beyond you. That's how
> bigotry starts....

Geeeze, and I thought it was curiosity.

However, the question remains, is the target market buying the Trek
69er, or will 2007 models be available at your local Trek dealer next
year at a highly discounted price?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:16:38 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote:

>See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>.
>
>Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
>demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
>provide any real advantage?

The bigger front wheel does go over obstacles better and the smaller rear wheel
lets you fit someone who isn't over 6' to the bike. A full 29er does have a bit
of a height requirement for the rider.

The double crown fork suggests this thing is a bit of a basher.

>What is the deal with single-speed anyway?

It's fun and simple and quiet and light and efficient and elegant in a way that
is what's nice about bikes in the first place. I live in Florida and for the 15
miles of singletrack I rode yesterday I used three gears. I would've used more
if I were racing (perhaps 5 gears) but could've used fewer if I were willing to
grunt on the slow parts and relax on the fast bits.

>Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
>because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
>customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
>products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?

The "69er" nomenclature is common for this sort of bike and not nearly as
naughty as you might think. This bike is not nearly as unusual as you seem to
think.

>Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
>that causes brain dysfunction?
>
>Who exactly is the target market for this bike?

People who want a simple bike for personal fun and enjoyment on rough terrain.
Doesn't seem the least bit odd to me.

Ron