landrider

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by -, May 7, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
     
    Tags:


  2. John Everett

    John Everett Guest

  3. John Everett wrote:

    >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons


    > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.


    I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
    comment on the pessimism of this group...

    --
    m.
     
  4. Rich Clark

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > John Everett wrote:
    >
    > >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons

    >
    > > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.

    >
    > I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
    > comment on the pessimism of this group...


    It's a condemnation of Landrider, which is an overpriced, low-quality,
    ill-conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    Any decent bike shop can sell you a better bike for less money.

    RichC
     
  5. BanditManDan

    BanditManDan Guest

    clutccargo69 wrote:
    > Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons




    If you go to thier
    http://www.healthandbeautydirect.com/landrider/faq.htmlwebsite and read
    the FAQ it will only take a few seconds to realize how stupid their
    arguments are.

    For example;
    * They claim that shifting gears is confusing on regular bikes.

    * They claim the Land Rider is faster than a 21 speed bike because you
    arn't wasting time shifting.

    * They claim to be safer since your not focused on shifting and can
    focus better on the road.

    Come on, those are way exagerated or all out false claims. Shifting
    isn't really a big issue, and this is more of a gimick than anything
    else. Stick with a regular bike, they are much more reliable and
    better quality.

    Dan.



    --
     
  6. "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:v4-dnaZ0iY[email protected]
    >
    > "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > John Everett wrote:
    > >
    > > >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons

    > >
    > > > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.

    > >
    > > I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a

    general
    > > comment on the pessimism of this group...

    >
    > It's a condemnation of Landrider, which is an overpriced, low-quality,
    > ill-conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
    >
    > Any decent bike shop can sell you a better bike for less money.
    >
    > RichC


    Absolutely. I can't believe how much they charge for those things, based on
    the gimmick that it makes things 'easier.' Yeah, easier for the shmucks
    getting rich on ripping off the gullible!

    For that money,get a mountain bike! I can't remember if it was here,or
    somewhere else, but someone posted about finding one IN THE TRASH! And was
    barely able to scavenge any decent components. Maybe some nuts or bolts.
     
  7. "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > John Everett wrote:
    >
    > >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons

    >
    > > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.

    >
    > I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider,


    Condemnation of the Landrider.

    > or a general
    > comment on the pessimism of this group...


    We love cycling, and love to share our enthusiasm with others. That's why
    we're down on this Piece O' S---.


    --
    Warm Regards,

    Claire Petersky
    Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
    Home of the meditative cyclist:
    http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
    See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
     
  8. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    BanditManDan
    >
    > * They claim to be safer since your not focused on shifting and can
    > focus better on the road.


    * keyboard *

    The last time I spent more than ten seconds thinking about shifting, it was
    my first ten-speed, oh, about 1974.

    Austin
     
  9. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Marlene Blanshay" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > For that money,get a mountain bike! I can't remember if it was here,or
    > somewhere else, but someone posted about finding one IN THE TRASH! And was
    > barely able to scavenge any decent components. Maybe some nuts or bolts.


    I think that was me. I salvaged pretty much only the frame from a trash-day
    example of its predecessor, the "AutoBike". Of course, it had hardly been
    ridden, no wear on rim walls, tires or (clean) sprockets. Same idea, automatic
    shifting. People get conned into buying these after watching an infomercial,
    somehow being convinced that shifting was the thing that made bicycling so
    difficult in the dim past. If someone can't deal with today's indexed shifting
    then perhaps they should consider another pastime. These bikes are made to be
    garage ornaments.

    I replaced: the cranks, wheels, BB, pedals, tires, stem, bars, brakes, brake
    levers, shifters, chain, cables, grips, saddle, seatpost. I added fenders,
    rear rack, front bar-bag, and grocery pannier. It's now a pretty nice bike.
    Damn frame/fork is awfully heavy, and the headset is junk, though. Perhaps
    after I swap those out it'll be perfect.
     
  10. [email protected] wrote:
    > Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons


    I think that most people who say that a bicycle is too difficult or confusing
    to shift either....

    A. Have only ridden a bike from many years ago with friction shifting.
    B. Ridden a bike with poorly adjusted indexed shifting.

    Before I bought a good bicycle with indexed shifting, my only experiences were
    with a Huffy w/friction shifting, a Murray with a double chainring only, an
    old bike with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed, and finally single speeds with coaster
    brakes.

    An infomercial company could probably make money selling bikes with *indexed*
    shifting as the main selling point since many people don't realize the
    technology has changed over the years!



    --
    ---
    Eric Yagerlener
    [email protected]
     
  11. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons

    >
    > I think that most people who say that a bicycle is too difficult or

    confusing
    > to shift either....
    >
    > A. Have only ridden a bike from many years ago with friction shifting.
    > B. Ridden a bike with poorly adjusted indexed shifting.
    >
    > Before I bought a good bicycle with indexed shifting, my only experiences

    were
    > with a Huffy w/friction shifting, a Murray with a double chainring only,

    an
    > old bike with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed, and finally single speeds with

    coaster
    > brakes.
    >
    > An infomercial company could probably make money selling bikes with

    *indexed*
    > shifting as the main selling point since many people don't realize the
    > technology has changed over the years!
    >

    I think the landrider is definelty aimed at those who have outmoded or
    outdated or just wrong ideas about bikes, that they're 'complicated' or
    'fancy'. JUst this weekend there was an article about 'funny bikes' in our
    local paper, ie bents, electrics, cruisers, and other odd looking bikes, and
    why people like them. One woman said she liked her cruiser because she
    didn't want a 'fancy' mountain bike. Well, whatever suits her, she probably
    just rides the bike a few blocks here and there, but I'd hardly call my
    mountain bike fancy. And truthfully,with the shape some of our roads in the
    city,you're better off with a mountain bike. I'd be nervous going over a
    pothole or bump with one of those cruisers!
     
  12. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    says...
    >John Everett wrote:
    >>>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons

    >> Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.

    >I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
    >comment on the pessimism of this group...


    landriders are a bad idea. The reason is quite simple. A human is not a
    machine that puts out the same power all the time. When you start out
    riding you are probably feeling nice and strong. As your ride progresses
    and you get tired, the shifting stays the same, which is not going to be
    optimal and you will find the bike is in the wrong gear all the time.
    Shifting gears is not that complicated. It only takes a little practice
    to learn how to do it. Why pay extra for an inferior product with inferior
    results? For the price of a landrider you can get a decent bike.
    ---------------
    Alex
     
  13. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    There seems to be an incredible amount of knee-jerk animosity for the
    Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, it
    doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'll
    agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or less
    money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike shop
    in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here is
    pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, it
    holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from about
    35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. For the terrain in my valley where we have
    very mildly rolling country, but at a tilt (about 200 feet difference in
    a mile of travel), the bike doesn't shift much and I'm pleased to ride
    at the level it puts me at. I'm not brain-dead, I don't find it
    difficult to use another method of adjusting a derailleur, I just happen
    to prefer riding the Landrider when I'm out looking for a photo.

    I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and if
    you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders or
    digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult to
    imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here in
    this and other bicycle enthusiast forums.

    By the way, when I was twelve I travelled from Colorado to St Louis on a
    3-speed Raleigh that cost me $12 at the local hardware store. The
    following year, I two-wheeled from Central Kansas to New York and back.
    The bike shouldn't have lasted the trip, but every night I heated a cup
    of oil and used it to clean and soak the chain. But I have no interest
    in doing that kind of ride now at age 60. Did I research my purchase
    thoroughly? Probably not. But I could afford the bike, it arrived almost
    immediately at my doorstep in the boonies, it went together easily and
    it's proving itself daily. That from someone who's touched one.

    Peace!



    --
     
  14. BanditManDan

    BanditManDan Guest

    Filmboard wrote:
    > There seems to be an incredible amount of knee-jerk animosity for the
    > Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, it
    > doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'll
    > agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or less
    > money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike shop
    > in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here is
    > pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, it
    > holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from about
    > 35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. .............
    > I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and if
    > you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders or
    > digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult to
    > imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here in
    > this and other bicycle enthusiast forums...........



    First let me say that I'm glad that your happy with your landrider and
    arent just using it for garage decorations. But let me explain the
    reason for the negative comments. The comments come from experience,
    perhaps not first hand experience but experience just the same. I have
    ridden enough bikes over the years to know what features are important
    and which are just pure marketing hype. Shifting is not a big problem on
    todays average bike and adding a auto-shifting derailer is just another
    thing that will eventually need adjusting/fixing.

    You also mentioned that your cadence ranges from 35 to 70 rpm's, but
    what about people with bad knee's? I personally will get pain in my
    knees if I pedal slower than 70 rpm's for extended periods of time. In
    my case the auto-shifting bike would make biking painful an thus prevent
    me from riding for more that about 30 minutes a day.

    Since your a video professional I would hope that you would give an
    honest opinion when someone asks for it. For example, I'm planning on
    buying an expensive digital camera ($1000). Perhaps you could tell me if
    it's worth the money. It has 640 x 480 resolution (low I know) but I
    really like this new "auto" zoom feature. I would like to take pictures
    mainly for my family albumn and perhaps my bike clubs news letter.
    Should I buy it?

    Enjoy your riding :)

    Dan.



    --
     
  15. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    Dan,

    You're absolutely right; I would give you an honest opinion when asked,
    even on your hypothetical camera. Something on the order of. . .

    "So from what I understand as the primary specifications of your
    hypothetical camera. . . If you have intentions of mainly producing
    photos for email and the web, a 640x480 camera with a large acquisition
    chipset (which I expect you'll find in a camera of that resolution with
    a $1000 price tag) will actually give you better color quality images
    than a 4-megapixel with a tiny acquisition chip. On the other hand if
    your bike club newsletter is printed by a commercial printer, you'll
    find that the printer will likely require an image of a minimum of 200
    dpi (dots per inch) at whatever image size you want to use in the
    newsletter and will probably even request a 300 dpi image. Now if your
    640x480 pixel camera has a large chip, it will probably store these
    images at about 144 dpi, so you will be able to have 6"x4.5" uncropped
    images in your newsletter that look fairly nice (proportionally smaller
    at 300dpi). If it uses a tiny chip and stores images at 72 dpi, your
    uncropped images will only be able to be a little over 3"x2" in your
    newsletter without looking pixelated; that's something you'd want to
    keep in mind, as it may be a reason to look for a camera that has a
    larger pixel resolution. As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought
    they don't exist, Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you,
    and you can afford it, go for it. The two that I've used allow you to
    have the camera memorize a face or other feature in the veiwfinder, by
    drawing a box around it, and then the auto-zoom feature keeps the
    framing fairly accurate as the memorized subject moves closer and
    farther from the camera. The framing will not always be as aesthetic as
    framed by a good professional photographer, but some do a decent job.
    Because of the nature of the beast, an auto-zoom lens will be
    considerably more expensive than a manual or standard power zoom.
    Hopefully if enough people who have interest in this feature demonstrate
    their interest through purchases and information requests, the cost will
    eventually come down as the quality improves, and more people can
    benefit from this technology.

    I get asked for a lot of advice on cameras and that's about the way my
    responses really come out. But I doubt that I would respond by saying:

    "What you're looking at is an overpriced, low-quality, ill-conceived
    solution to a problem that doesn't exist; the last time I thought about
    how to use a manual zoom must have been with my first 35mm camera some
    45 years ago. Come on, auto zoom is way exagerated and a false claim.
    Zooming isn't really a big issue, This is more of a gimick than anything
    else. Stick with a manual or power zoom camera, they are much more
    reliable and better quality. I can't believe how much they charge for
    those automated cameras, based solely on the gimmick that it makes
    things 'easier' for the gullible! It's because I love photography that I
    can't let you use this Piece O' S---. Any decent camera shop could sell
    you a better camera for less money."

    Dan, I feel I've made my point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor
    over this issue. Thanks for your response.



    --
     
  16. BanditManDan

    BanditManDan Guest

    Filmboard wrote:
    > As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought they don't exist,
    > Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you, and you can
    > afford it, go for it. .......... ........ Dan, I feel I've made my
    > point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor over this issue.
    > Thanks for your response.




    Good response, and you've made your point. After going back and reading
    my original post I guess it was somewhat condesending, I'm not trying to
    put anyone's choices down. But it still doesnt change my opinion on the
    benifits of the bike itself. Bottom line, as I've stated before, having
    a mechanism that auto selects my cadance is not desirable for most
    cyclists. In my case it actually would cause great discomfort to my
    knees and therefore would limit my riding time. Not to mention the
    possible problems in getting it serviced if need be.

    And BTW, no I didn't know that camera's had auto-zoom. But that's
    very cool. :)

    Dan.



    --
     
  17. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    Dan, I can tell you're a decent guy. I just felt that there's a kind of
    anger in the bicycling forums; perhaps it comes from cyclists being a
    target on the road every day. Perhaps the group as a whole doesn't like
    people who bike in their chinos as opposed to Spandex. And it's not just
    this forum.

    I was the producer of a 13-week PBS series that ran in 95-96 about the
    Internet. On the program we solicited email comments about the show. On
    the whole we got a lot of positive comments but there seemed to be a
    rather large contingent of negative email from people claiming we were
    misrepresenting the Internet experience, among other things. I requested
    a statistical analysis of the email responses, and a pattern screamed
    out at us; I'll never forget these numbers, because I use them in
    marketing talks all the time. The negative email responses were about
    35% of all email received. Of the negative responses 93% were from
    people with AOL in their email address. Of the positive responses, only
    about 7% were from people with AOL ISP accounts. I'm convinced to this
    day, that something about the AOL Internet experience during that time
    period had something to do with those extreme ratios. I've had a bit of
    the same concern about all the cycling forums I've haunted lately.

    The unfortunate thing is that, having seen the vitriolic feedback about
    Landrider bikes, I'm afraid to pose the question I started searching
    forums for advice on. I guess I need to start a cycling forum for the
    casual rider as opposed to the serious hobbyist or professional.

    Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.



    --
     
  18. Doug Huffman

    Doug Huffman Guest

    "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]
    ||
    | Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
    |
    |


    "Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.
     
  19. BanditManDan

    BanditManDan Guest

    David Reuteler wrote:
    > Doug Huffman <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pB-
    > > [email protected]:p[email protected]
    > > e08.usenetserver.com...
    > > ||
    > > | Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
    > >
    > > "Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.

    > no, no. that would be me. the man behind the curtain.
    > now be nice or i'll pull your access.
    > --
    > david reuteler [email protected]



    If you guys paid attention you might have noticed that she posted from
    [email protected]com. Perhaps thats why she mentioned the
    forum leader, she may not have even known that she was posting outside
    the forum.

    Dan.



    --
     
  20. BanditManDan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > If you guys paid attention you might have noticed that she posted from
    > [email protected]. Perhaps thats why she mentioned the
    > forum leader, she may not have even known that she was posting outside
    > the forum.


    question me again and i'll revoke your permission to post.
    --
    david reuteler
    [email protected]
     
Loading...
Loading...