Is there such a thing as an ideal bike?

[Coyoteboy]

GeeDubb wrote:
> I compromised, I got a Titus and a Subaru (which given the choice between a
> Porsche and a Subaru, the Sube wins hands down in wet/snowy weather).
>
> Gary

Bet it wouldnt against a Porsche 911 4x4. Scoobs dont grip as well
as my alltrac anyway Just to be slightly off topic

J

 

[jack]

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> jack wrote:
> > "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > jack wrote:
> > > > Titus made the Consumer Product Safety Commission
> > > > recall list in 2002 for frame failure.
> > >
> > >
> > > Old news travels slowly in your case. Can you predict the future as
> > well?
> >
> > Are you saying Titus canned the idiots who built the garbage bike and
> > recently hired people who know what they're doing? Or they they
recently
> > figure out what the term "QC" means. Otherwise, yes history repeats
itself.
>
>
> I have a novel idea, beat the dead horse yourself by googling it in
> this newsgroup. That is, if you can read and comprehend. Otherwise
> I'll get my crayon out for you and write on a note to pin to your
> shirt.
>
> JD
>

Great idea!!! Every time you praise the Titus brand as superior to all
others you can also repost my posts of the fact that Titus did produce, sale
and was force to recall by the CPSC an entire line of bikes for deadly frame
failure. You can also explain of their great customer service denying
anything was wrong with the design. In fact Titus was claiming that the
buyers were abusing the bikes. (basically calling their customers liars)
Titus was going to only replace the frames under warranty for those that
broke. Titus was unwilling to replace unbroken frames at deadly great risk
to the buyers until forced to by the CPSC. Oh yeah, the new replacement
frames that the customers had to wait months for was a brand new design.

That would be great that way I won't have to waste my time posting about a
company of which "QC" means nothing. Totally unacceptable for a so called
"boutique" manufacturer.

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

GeeDubb wrote:
> I compromised, I got a Titus and a Subaru
(which given the choice
> between a Porsche and a Subaru, the Sube wins hands down in wet/snowy
> weather).

Sorry, but you're misinformed.

Porsches, even 2WD Porsches, are very capable in
the wet and snow.

An AWD Porsche simply stomps Subarus in the wet,
in my experience driving at the adhesion limit
with a bunch of Subarus in the rain.

-----back to "mark all read" mode-----

 

[[email protected]]

p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> GeeDubb wrote:
> > I compromised, I got a Titus and a Subaru
> (which given the choice
> > between a Porsche and a Subaru, the Sube wins hands down in wet/snowy
> > weather).
>
> Sorry, but you're misinformed.
>
> Porsches, even 2WD Porsches, are very capable in
> the wet and snow.

The pre-'79 911s sucked ass in the snow. Low to the ground and quite
unforgiving of any sort of throttle inputs. Snow tires helped. A lot.

> An AWD Porsche simply stomps Subarus in the wet,
> in my experience driving at the adhesion limit
> with a bunch of Subarus in the rain.

That ain't saying much. Low-end AWD Audis also whip Scoobies in the
wet. BTDT.

In the snow, AWD Porsches are limited only by ground clearance. Those
couple of inches between the Scooby and the Porsche make all the
difference.

How would I know - my S6 never had any problem with any weather.

E.P.

 

[Dave Dowler]

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Even a "lowly" 2WD 911 doesn't have much problem with snow...
>
> http://hoheacht.free.fr/vids/nordschleife_winter.mpg
>
Snow flurries, maybe! I wouldn't even fire up the snowthrower for that much
snow.

And regardless, why would you subject a fine car like that to real world
winter driving, which includes salt, sand, 8" frost heaves and yahoos trying
to drive massive SUVs like they are in a car ad?

Dave D

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

[email protected] wrote:
> p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:

> The pre-'79 911s sucked ass in the snow. Low to the ground and quite
> unforgiving of any sort of throttle inputs. Snow tires helped. A lot.

And how did the pre-'79 Audis compare...?

>>An AWD Porsche simply stomps Subarus in the wet,
>>in my experience driving at the adhesion limit
>>with a bunch of Subarus in the rain.
>
>
> That ain't saying much. Low-end AWD Audis also whip Scoobies in the
> wet. BTDT.

Uh, AWD Porsches also destroy "high end," even
heavily modified "higher end" Audis in the wet, in
my experience.

> In the snow, AWD Porsches are limited only by ground clearance. Those
> couple of inches between the Scooby and the Porsche make all the
> difference.

Even a "lowly" 2WD 911 doesn't have much problem
with snow...

http://hoheacht.free.fr/vids/nordschleife_winter.mpg

 

[[email protected]]

p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > The pre-'79 911s sucked ass in the snow. Low to the ground and quite
> > unforgiving of any sort of throttle inputs. Snow tires helped. A lot.
>
> And how did the pre-'79 Audis compare...?

Pretty well. FWD, narrow tires, low power, lots of clearance.

Preferable, in the cases of unplowed streets.

> >>An AWD Porsche simply stomps Subarus in the wet,
> >>in my experience driving at the adhesion limit
> >>with a bunch of Subarus in the rain.
> >
> >
> > That ain't saying much. Low-end AWD Audis also whip Scoobies in the
> > wet. BTDT.
>
> Uh, AWD Porsches also destroy "high end," even
> heavily modified "higher end" Audis in the wet, in
> my experience.

Uh, yeah. Ever heard of a thing called HP:weight?

Unless an Audi like mine has 450+WHP, it's going to have a tough time.

> > In the snow, AWD Porsches are limited only by ground clearance. Those
> > couple of inches between the Scooby and the Porsche make all the
> > difference.
>
> Even a "lowly" 2WD 911 doesn't have much problem
> with snow...

What does that have to do with ground clearance? If the air dam is
pushing three inches of snow, you're not going far.

E.P.

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

Dave Dowler wrote:
> "p e t e f a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Even a "lowly" 2WD 911 doesn't have much problem with snow...
>>
>>http://hoheacht.free.fr/vids/nordschleife_winter.mpg
>>
>
> Snow flurries, maybe! I wouldn't even fire up the snowthrower for that much
> snow.
>
> And regardless, why would you subject a fine car like that to real world
> winter driving, which includes salt, sand, 8" frost heaves and yahoos trying
> to drive massive SUVs like they are in a car ad?

Because they are meant to be driven rather than
being coddled as garage queens.

http://www.petefagerlin.com/images/fftf04/996tt/DSC_0282.jpg

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

[email protected] wrote:

>>Uh, AWD Porsches also destroy "high end," even
>>heavily modified "higher end" Audis in the wet, in
>>my experience.
>
>
> Uh, yeah. Ever heard of a thing called HP:weight?

Sure thing. Ever heard of a thing called grip or
the friction circle?

> Unless an Audi like mine has 450+WHP, it's going to have a tough time.

What stock AWD Porsche has 450+WHP?

>>>In the snow, AWD Porsches are limited only by ground clearance. Those
>>>couple of inches between the Scooby and the Porsche make all the
>>>difference.
>>
>>Even a "lowly" 2WD 911 doesn't have much problem
>>with snow...
>
>
> What does that have to do with ground clearance? If the air dam is
> pushing three inches of snow, you're not going far.

Apparently you would be surprised at how well they
do with snow cresting the air dam. Kind of like
you would apparently be surprised by how well they
do in "just" the wet versus highly modified
Subarus and Audis...

 

[[email protected]]

p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>Uh, AWD Porsches also destroy "high end," even
> >>heavily modified "higher end" Audis in the wet, in
> >>my experience.
> >
> >
> > Uh, yeah. Ever heard of a thing called HP:weight?
>
> Sure thing. Ever heard of a thing called grip or
> the friction circle?

Having nice, wide tires is great for wet, but hinders in snow.

In addition, suspesion designed for a luxury sport sedan is not going
to match well with a suspension designed for a sports coupe.

That's IN ADDITION to HP:weight.

> > Unless an Audi like mine has 450+WHP, it's going to have a tough time.
>
> What stock AWD Porsche has 450+WHP?

Who said anything about the Porsche's WHP? Read for comprehension.

> >>>In the snow, AWD Porsches are limited only by ground clearance. Those
> >>>couple of inches between the Scooby and the Porsche make all the
> >>>difference.
> >>
> >>Even a "lowly" 2WD 911 doesn't have much problem
> >>with snow...
> >
> >
> > What does that have to do with ground clearance? If the air dam is
> > pushing three inches of snow, you're not going far.
>
> Apparently you would be surprised at how well they
> do with snow cresting the air dam.

Yeah - show me a Porsche pushing 3 inches of Cascade Concrete and
you've got a point. Even 3 inches of powder is a tough push with a
wide, low, powerful car. Pete, I've been there. But hey, if you want
to pretend ground clearance is moot, be my guest.

> Kind of like
> you would apparently be surprised by how well they
> do in "just" the wet versus highly modified
> Subarus and Audis...

You obviously haven't read what I wrote. Read it again for
comprehension.

E.P.

 

[Westie]

[email protected] wrote:
> p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Uh, AWD Porsches also destroy "high end," even
>>>>heavily modified "higher end" Audis in the wet, in
>>>>my experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>Uh, yeah. Ever heard of a thing called HP:weight?
>>
>>Sure thing. Ever heard of a thing called grip or
>>the friction circle?

OK, boys, one of you pussys actually gonna draw or we just gonna be
sitting here all day having a pissing match? ;-)
--
Westie

 

[JD]

jack wrote:
> Every time you praise the Titus brand as superior to all
> others

Why don't yuu try putting words in the mouth of someone else? In fact,
since you are such a great historian, why don't you post where I praise
Titus as "superior to all others"?

JD

 

[Coyoteboy]

Both are very capable cars, but I'd take a subaru out if it was snowy
simply for damage limitation - more clearance, slightly less refined
4WD but pays off with lower costs when you wrap it round a street
light. Any 4x4 car handles well in the snow - lets face it we arent
going to be power-sliding in the streets as in that vid (ive tried it,
and desipite 4WD it is still scary!) IMO all that vid shows is the
skill of the driver, not the abilities of the car - snow is a great
leveller, tyres are the main parameter in the snow-grip equation and
even the best diffs and traction control wont stop your car
understeering if your tyres just dotn grip the snow.

The more torque you have the more you are going to slip. One of the
best cars ive seen in snow is a Fiat Panda 4x4. About a foot of ground
clearance, less power and torque than a dying frog but its tiny little
tyres dug in well and grip firm. My alltrac celica is all well and good
in snow providing you keep it off-boost, much like the subarus ive
known, if the turbo spools you are into slippy world much like that
porsche round the nurburg ring - which is NOT what you want on roads.

J

 

[MattB]

Coyoteboy wrote:
> Both are very capable cars, but I'd take a subaru out if it was snowy
> simply for damage limitation - more clearance, slightly less refined
> 4WD but pays off with lower costs when you wrap it round a street
> light. Any 4x4 car handles well in the snow - lets face it we arent
> going to be power-sliding in the streets as in that vid (ive tried it,
> and desipite 4WD it is still scary!) IMO all that vid shows is the
> skill of the driver, not the abilities of the car - snow is a great
> leveller, tyres are the main parameter in the snow-grip equation and
> even the best diffs and traction control wont stop your car
> understeering if your tyres just dotn grip the snow.
>
> The more torque you have the more you are going to slip. One of the
> best cars ive seen in snow is a Fiat Panda 4x4. About a foot of ground
> clearance, less power and torque than a dying frog but its tiny little
> tyres dug in well and grip firm. My alltrac celica is all well and good
> in snow providing you keep it off-boost, much like the subarus ive
> known, if the turbo spools you are into slippy world much like that
> porsche round the nurburg ring - which is NOT what you want on roads.
>
> J
>

I kind of like it when I get on my Subie and it breaks free a little,
only to pop back into line as I let up. Of course I don't do it in
traffic, but when conditions are right it's a blast. It's also good
practice in case it does happen when I'm not expecting it.
It's also pretty fun on Monarch pass with a foot of unplowed powder
(definitely not cement) billowing over the hood. Of course if I'm doing
that it means great skiing is about to happen so it could be a little
bit of Pavlovian response.

Matt (needs new tires this winter though)

 

[Coyoteboy]

Last thing you want to do with a 4x4 is let off if the rear breaks -
far better to keep the power smoothly on and pull it out of it. It can
be fun - i choose large open carparks (beware of hidden drainage
channels lol)

J

 

[GeeDubb]

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news[email protected]...
> GeeDubb wrote:
> > I compromised, I got a Titus and a Subaru (which given the choice
>> between a Porsche and a Subaru, the Sube wins hands down in wet/snowy
>> weather).
>
> Sorry, but you're misinformed.
>
> Porsches, even 2WD Porsches, are very capable in the wet and snow.
>
> An AWD Porsche simply stomps Subarus in the wet, in my experience driving
> at the adhesion limit with a bunch of Subarus in the rain.
>
> -----back to "mark all read" mode-----

I don't doubt you but I'm thinking this has more to do with the driver than
the car. I've seen videos of the WRX doing something similar to the
Porsche video (niether of which I have the balls to do). A good driver can
do a lot, and to get back on topic........a good rider can do a lot with a
simple rigid single speed bicycle showing that the operator is more
important than the vehicle.

Gary (sorry for starting a pissing match between others)

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

[email protected] wrote:
> p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Uh, AWD Porsches also destroy "high end," even
>>>>heavily modified "higher end" Audis in the wet, in
>>>>my experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>Uh, yeah. Ever heard of a thing called HP:weight?
>>
>>Sure thing. Ever heard of a thing called grip or
>>the friction circle?
>
>
> Having nice, wide tires is great for wet, but hinders in snow.
>
> In addition, suspesion designed for a luxury sport sedan is not going
> to match well with a suspension designed for a sports coupe.
>
> That's IN ADDITION to HP:weight.
>
>
>>>Unless an Audi like mine has 450+WHP, it's going to have a tough time.
>>
>>What stock AWD Porsche has 450+WHP?
>
>
> Who said anything about the Porsche's WHP? Read for comprehension.

So you're claiming that the Audi would need a
great deal more HP than the AWD Porsche to be
competitive?

>>Apparently you would be surprised at how well they
>>do with snow cresting the air dam.

> Pete, I've been there. But hey, if you want
> to pretend ground clearance is moot, be my guest.

No, I'm not claiming that ground clearance is
moot. It has an effect obviously. I think you're
over playing the effect based upon my experience.


>>Kind of like
>>you would apparently be surprised by how well they
>>do in "just" the wet versus highly modified
>>Subarus and Audis...
>
>
> You obviously haven't read what I wrote. Read it again for
> comprehension.

No need, but here are some of your comments:

"which given the choice between a Porsche and a
Subaru, the Sube wins hands down in wet/snowy weather"

"That ain't saying much. Low-end AWD Audis also
whip Scoobies in the wet."

 

[Coyoteboy]

ITs ok, it was my thread and i carried it on pmsl.

J

 

[[email protected]]

p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Uh, AWD Porsches also destroy "high end," even
> >>>>heavily modified "higher end" Audis in the wet, in
> >>>>my experience.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Uh, yeah. Ever heard of a thing called HP:weight?
> >>
> >>Sure thing. Ever heard of a thing called grip or
> >>the friction circle?
> >
> >
> > Having nice, wide tires is great for wet, but hinders in snow.
> >
> > In addition, suspesion designed for a luxury sport sedan is not going
> > to match well with a suspension designed for a sports coupe.
> >
> > That's IN ADDITION to HP:weight.
> >
> >
> >>>Unless an Audi like mine has 450+WHP, it's going to have a tough time.
> >>
> >>What stock AWD Porsche has 450+WHP?
> >
> > Who said anything about the Porsche's WHP? Read for comprehension.
>
> So you're claiming that the Audi would need a
> great deal more HP than the AWD Porsche to be
> competitive?

It would need more. "A great deal" is subjective. Assuming equal
driver skill, naturally.

> >>Kind of like
> >>you would apparently be surprised by how well they
> >>do in "just" the wet versus highly modified
> >>Subarus and Audis...
> >
> > You obviously haven't read what I wrote. Read it again for
> > comprehension.
>
> No need, but here are some of your comments:
>
> "which given the choice between a Porsche and a
> Subaru, the Sube wins hands down in wet/snowy weather"
>
> "That ain't saying much. Low-end AWD Audis also
> whip Scoobies in the wet."

What I wrote and what you claim I'm apparently amazed by aren't
anything close to the same thing.

Try again?

E.P.

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

[email protected] wrote:
> What I wrote and what you claim I'm apparently amazed by aren't
> anything close to the same thing.
>
> Try again?
>

You're not going to get anywhere here. I've tried in similar
conversations and it's pointless. Let it rest.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws