landrider

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

  1. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On 19 May 2004 18:56:43 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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]


    Actually, you should threaten to revoke your own permission to post, b/c
    think of the resulting dearth of wit and sagacity around here. ;-p

    -B
     


  2. Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Actually, you should threaten to revoke your own permission to post, b/c
    > think of the resulting dearth of wit and sagacity around here. ;-p


    "Dead! And so great an artist!" -- Nero
    --
    david reuteler
    [email protected]
     
  3. BanditManDan

    BanditManDan Guest

    David Reuteler wrote:
    > 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]




    Opps, I humbly appologize.



    --
     
  4. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On 19 May 2004 19:33:22 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Actually, you should threaten to revoke your own permission to post, b/c
    >> think of the resulting dearth of wit and sagacity around here. ;-p

    >
    >"Dead! And so great an artist!" -- Nero


    Perhaps you could appeal to their sympathy by dressing in black and
    appearing humble, they'd let you live? ;-D

    -B
     
  5. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On 19 May 2004 17:10:13 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    >Doug Huffman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> | 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.


    Why would you want to pool my axes?
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  6. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    I'm not fearful of being roasted and eaten, or feeling silly. What I
    fear is that I'm not likely to get an intelligent answer, unfettered by
    bias and mean-spiritedness.



    --
     
  7. Filmboard <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I'm not fearful of being roasted and eaten, or feeling silly. What I
    > fear is that I'm not likely to get an intelligent answer, unfettered by
    > bias and mean-spiritedness.


    I'm curious on how you feel about other infomercials you see on TV. Do you
    see one of those infomercial's for a set of knives and think "Wow, this knife
    with a cheap looking plastic handle just sliced through concrete yet still cut
    through a tomatoe must have a super strong alloy that no other knife in the
    manufacturer world has discovered, and all for 4 easy payments of 19.95"?

    If a infomercial product really was so wonderful, revolutionary, and
    economical why isn't it on the store shelves selling millions? I would say
    if a infomercial product was in a store, it would not succeed because
    consumers would be able to see the product up close and find it is of low
    quality, overpriced, of dubious value, and worse yet for the manufacturer
    easily returnable for a full refund. Bad products are sold on infomercials
    for a reason.

    This website may be of help for you.

    http://www.infomercialscams.com/


    --
    ---
    Eric Yagerlener
    remove "usenet" from email address to reply
     
  8. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On 20 May 2004 12:53:24 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >If a infomercial product really was so wonderful, revolutionary, and
    >economical why isn't it on the store shelves selling millions? I would say


    Not everybody has access to the same marketing resources. That
    doesn't excuse the quality of most such products, though...

    >if a infomercial product was in a store, it would not succeed because
    >consumers would be able to see the product up close and find it is of low
    >quality, overpriced, of dubious value, and worse yet for the manufacturer
    >easily returnable for a full refund. Bad products are sold on infomercials
    >for a reason.


    Infomercial products do end up on store shelves, after the
    infomercial gets tired. Go to Wal Mart (especially the cooking
    appliance aisle) and note the "As Seen On TV" labels. People buy the
    stuff anyway; they sell a lot cheaper on store shelves, and people
    figure it's worth a try for that price, and they can try it today
    anyway...
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  9. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    > I'm curious on how you feel about other infomercials you see on TV.

    Okay, here's the thing. I guess this shows how we all make assumptions,
    while the reality may be totally different. For example I thought I was
    posting in a controlled forum on cyclingforums.com, but I see that I've
    been posting through their Bike Café forum into a usenet group. Now,
    another assumption has been made that I saw an infomercial and dialed up
    some 800 number, I presume, credit card in hand. Nope, I've never done
    that. I don't know what infomercial you're talking about.

    One day I did an Internet search on something (can't remember what
    right now, but not bicycles), and I think it took me to some kind of
    World Riders site about a CA couple on a world bicycle trek.
    Somewhere in there I saw something about a Landrider, and a few days
    later I remembered the name and did a search, and found their web
    site. I'd already had a real waste of money when I bought the only
    adult size bicydle at the local Sears store, so I eventually placed
    an online order.

    Now I'd be the last person to say that I've only made smart purchases in
    my life. I can immediately think of about $30-40K spent on two
    automobiles that were a disgrace to powered locomotion. I once lost
    money on some land. I took a real beating on some Ashton-Tate stock one
    year. So, if it turns out I've made a horrible mistake here, so be it.
    You know what, I can afford the $400 it cost me, and I have no way of
    measuring just what I should get out of a bicycle per dollar. If I learn
    about something better by participating in this forum. Great. But on the
    other hand, I've read comments about the Landrider that so far, in my
    direct experience, just aren't so. There are people who've said that
    you're in real trouble if you stop fast, because you'll be in a high
    gear, or who are afraid to think what will happen if the shift takes
    place while standing on the pedal. Now maybe it's because I'm a
    different sort of cycler than the rest of this crowd, but the point I
    started to make when I first chimed in, is that there seems to be a lot
    of animosity without direct knowledge about this bicycle. None of those
    things have yet happened to me. I ride several miles every morning, I
    come back and blow off the dust with an air compressor, wipe it down
    with a soft cloth, apply some light oil, and the thing keeps working;
    and I don't feel lousy like I did with the other bicycle.

    At what point can you stop worrying about whether I or someone else was
    gullible, or could have gotten something better for less from the non-
    existent bike shop in my community? At what point can people on this and
    other groups stop their vitriolic attack on someone who asks about auto
    shifting, treating them like they must be pathetic brain-dead misfits,
    and rather explain logically to those who ask, what a better alternative
    might be and why? I've had plenty of stick shift autos (a couple of Fiat
    Spyders stick in my mind). Four or Five on the floor is not something to
    fear either, but I bet a bunch of you, like myself, have had some cars
    with auto transmissions.

    It was years ago that it became second nature to me to set the lens
    aperture and shutter speed on a camera without using a meter and get a
    good shot in most lighting conditions, but that doesn't keep me from
    enjoying using an automatic camera. Because I do professional work, I
    insist that my automatic has manual controls as well, and a good
    eyepiece for focusing. But if you want to take photos while you bicycle
    with some little tyke of a camera that you have to hold at arms length
    so you can try to frame the shot on a poorly lit LCD screen; I'm
    confident you're getting a decent shot with your fully automatic that
    satisfies you, even if I could never use one of those for my own work,
    so I think it's okay for you to use a Sony with a floppy disk in it,
    barrel distortion in the lens and a center-bright flash with rapid edge
    fall-off. Because your use is different than mine. My cycling needs and
    probably most of the others inquiring about Landriders is different
    than yours.

    "A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
    enough people to make it worth the effort." -- Albright



    --
     
  10. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    Filmboard wrote:
    >> I'm curious on how you feel about other infomercials you see on TV.

    >
    > Okay, here's the thing. I guess this shows how we all make
    > assumptions, while the reality may be totally different. For example
    > I thought I was posting in a controlled forum on cyclingforums.com,
    > but I see that I've been posting through their Bike Café forum into a
    > usenet group. Now, another assumption has been made that I saw an
    > infomercial and dialed up some 800 number, I presume, credit card in
    > hand. Nope, I've never done that. I don't know what infomercial
    > you're talking about.
    >
    > One day I did an Internet search on something (can't remember what
    > right now, but not bicycles), and I think it took me to some kind of
    > World Riders site about a CA couple on a world bicycle trek.
    > Somewhere in there I saw something about a Landrider, and a few days
    > later I remembered the name and did a search, and found their web
    > site. I'd already had a real waste of money when I bought the only
    > adult size bicydle at the local Sears store, so I eventually placed
    > an online order.
    >
    > Now I'd be the last person to say that I've only made smart purchases
    > in my life. I can immediately think of about $30-40K spent on two
    > automobiles that were a disgrace to powered locomotion. I once lost
    > money on some land. I took a real beating on some Ashton-Tate stock
    > one year. So, if it turns out I've made a horrible mistake here, so
    > be it. You know what, I can afford the $400 it cost me, and I have no
    > way of measuring just what I should get out of a bicycle per dollar.
    > If I learn about something better by participating in this forum.
    > Great. But on the other hand, I've read comments about the Landrider
    > that so far, in my direct experience, just aren't so. There are
    > people who've said that you're in real trouble if you stop fast,
    > because you'll be in a high gear, or who are afraid to think what
    > will happen if the shift takes place while standing on the pedal. Now
    > maybe it's because I'm a different sort of cycler than the rest of
    > this crowd, but the point I started to make when I first chimed in,
    > is that there seems to be a lot of animosity without direct knowledge
    > about this bicycle. None of those things have yet happened to me. I
    > ride several miles every morning, I come back and blow off the dust
    > with an air compressor, wipe it down with a soft cloth, apply some
    > light oil, and the thing keeps working; and I don't feel lousy like I
    > did with the other bicycle.
    >
    > At what point can you stop worrying about whether I or someone else
    > was gullible, or could have gotten something better for less from the
    > non- existent bike shop in my community? At what point can people on
    > this and other groups stop their vitriolic attack on someone who asks
    > about auto shifting, treating them like they must be pathetic
    > brain-dead misfits, and rather explain logically to those who ask,
    > what a better alternative might be and why? I've had plenty of stick
    > shift autos (a couple of Fiat Spyders stick in my mind). Four or Five
    > on the floor is not something to fear either, but I bet a bunch of
    > you, like myself, have had some cars with auto transmissions.
    >
    > It was years ago that it became second nature to me to set the lens
    > aperture and shutter speed on a camera without using a meter and get a
    > good shot in most lighting conditions, but that doesn't keep me from
    > enjoying using an automatic camera. Because I do professional work, I
    > insist that my automatic has manual controls as well, and a good
    > eyepiece for focusing. But if you want to take photos while you
    > bicycle with some little tyke of a camera that you have to hold at
    > arms length so you can try to frame the shot on a poorly lit LCD
    > screen; I'm confident you're getting a decent shot with your fully
    > automatic that satisfies you, even if I could never use one of those
    > for my own work, so I think it's okay for you to use a Sony with a
    > floppy disk in it, barrel distortion in the lens and a center-bright
    > flash with rapid edge fall-off. Because your use is different than
    > mine. My cycling needs and probably most of the others inquiring
    > about Landriders is different than yours.


    This calm, measured, and well thought out/expressed comment has no place in
    this forum. TYVM. (;-) )

    Bill "get emotional or get out" S.
     
  11. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    wrote:
    > This calm, measured, and well thought out/expressed comment has no place
    > in this forum. TYVM. (;-) )
    > Bill "get emotional or get out" S.




    Okay, so here's another thing. . . All you people with your automatic
    cameras (I know you have them), even though your pix satisfy your need,
    the reason they usually won't measure up to my standard is that while
    you're holding your shutter button down half way waiting for all the
    automatic mechanisms to do their thing (adjust exposure and focus), the
    good shot has long passed. The relaxed candid look in your friends'
    faces, the great composition of an action shot. . . all gone. But, you
    and a large percentage of the rest of the world have sent a clear
    message to camera manufacturers that focusing and exposure are way
    beyond your abilities. I don't happen to believe that; I just think for
    some good reason, you like the idea of pointing and shooting, keeping it
    simple. By the same token, I liked the idea of an automatic shift on a
    bicycle, even tho you think shifting should not be a concern to me.
    There will be others down the road that are intrigued by it too. It's
    not for you, but you know, it may be just the right thing to get them
    out on the road, to help produce more people-powered-vehicles, to
    eventually get cities and counties to make more safe bike paths. You
    won't get that to happen if you try to remain elitists. F.



    --
     
  12. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    Filmboard wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > This calm, measured, and well thought out/expressed comment has

    > no place > in this forum. TYVM. (;-) )
    > > Bill "get emotional or get out" S.

    >
    >
    >
    > Okay, so here's another thing. . . All you people with your automatic
    > cameras (I know you have them), even though your pix satisfy your
    > need,
    > the reason they usually won't measure up to my standard is that while
    > you're holding your shutter button down half way waiting for all the
    > automatic mechanisms to do their thing (adjust exposure and focus),
    > the good shot has long passed. The relaxed candid look in your
    > friends'
    > faces, the great composition of an action shot. . . all gone. But, you
    > and a large percentage of the rest of the world have sent a clear
    > message to camera manufacturers that focusing and exposure are way
    > beyond your abilities. I don't happen to believe that; I just think
    > for some good reason, you like the idea of pointing and shooting,
    > keeping it simple. By the same token, I liked the idea of an
    > automatic shift on a bicycle, even tho you think shifting should not
    > be a concern to me.
    > There will be others down the road that are intrigued by it too. It's
    > not for you, but you know, it may be just the right thing to get them
    > out on the road, to help produce more people-powered-vehicles, to
    > eventually get cities and counties to make more safe bike paths. You
    > won't get that to happen if you try to remain elitists. F.



    Not knowing when to shut up. NOW you're getting the hang of this!

    Bill "non-attribution quoting style notwithstanding" S.
     
  13. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    S O R N I wrote:
    > Not knowing when to shut up. NOW you're getting the hang of this!
    > Bill "non-attribution quoting style notwithstanding" S.



    Touché.



    --
     
  14. Rich Clark

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > Okay, so here's another thing. . . All you people with your automatic
    > cameras (I know you have them), even though your pix satisfy your need,
    > the reason they usually won't measure up to my standard is that while
    > you're holding your shutter button down half way waiting for all the
    > automatic mechanisms to do their thing (adjust exposure and focus), the
    > good shot has long passed. The relaxed candid look in your friends'
    > faces, the great composition of an action shot. . . all gone. But, you
    > and a large percentage of the rest of the world have sent a clear
    > message to camera manufacturers that focusing and exposure are way
    > beyond your abilities. I don't happen to believe that; I just think for
    > some good reason, you like the idea of pointing and shooting, keeping it
    > simple. By the same token, I liked the idea of an automatic shift on a
    > bicycle, even tho you think shifting should not be a concern to me.
    > There will be others down the road that are intrigued by it too. It's
    > not for you, but you know, it may be just the right thing to get them
    > out on the road, to help produce more people-powered-vehicles, to
    > eventually get cities and counties to make more safe bike paths. You
    > won't get that to happen if you try to remain elitists. F.


    It's an apt analogy, but you've applied it backwards.

    Imagine an infomercial that touted automatic cameras. That said that people
    don't take pictures because focusing is too hard, because the concepts of
    aperture and shutter speed are beyond their understanding. That went on for
    an hour explaining why traditional cameras are no good, and automatic
    cameras are much better in every way.

    PLUS -- and here's the kicker -- people are always running out of film.

    So they offer you a fixed-focus, plastic-lens point-and-shoot camera with
    the **revolutionary** **new** **feature** that is can load two rolls of film
    at the same time!

    All for only $199.95!

    That's how we feel about the Landrider. It's everything they *don't* tell
    you about. The cheap, heavy frame. The lack of a variety of frame sizes,
    making perfect fit a crap shoot. The generally low-end complement of parts
    and fittings. The fact that a bike that's better in every way can be had for
    less money at a local bike shop.

    The extra-special gizmo that makes the Landrider so special solves a problem
    that's non-existent for most people once they've spent an hour on a bike. If
    ease of shifting is really an issue, buying a quality bike using one of
    Shimano's Nexus series of internally-geared hubs, that can be shifted while
    stationary and serviced at any bike shop, is a much better solution.

    The price you pay for a Landrider pays for marketing and, it seems likely,
    immense markups on each unit sold. This bike, if made by Huffy and sold at
    WalMart, would retail for $129.

    RichC
     
  15. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    Rich Clark wrote:
    > It's an apt analogy, but you've applied it backwards.
    > Imagine an infomercial . . . . The lack of a variety of frame sizes,
    > making perfect fit a crap shoot. . . The fact that a bike that's better
    > in every way can be had for less money at a local bike shop.



    Here's where you've got the upper hand on me, I guess. I still have no
    knowledge of an infomercial. But it's becoming clear that's what has
    most of you so bent out of shape. As for lack of frame sizes, I had my
    choice of 12" 14" 15" 17" 18" 19.5" and 22" when I placed my online
    order (some of those are positioned as women's and some as men's); how
    many more would the LBS provide me? I don't know. And I've made it
    abundantly clear in the previous postings, there is no LBS in my
    community, and if I have to travel a hundred miles it's no longer a
    "L"BS, in my opinion. I don't expect you to use one of these bikes, or
    even recommend it; but it would be nice if it wasn't totally
    misrepresented here. But the public is misrepresented about digital
    cameras every day (perhaps not in an infomercial). Ooo, so you got a 5
    megapixel camera; if its acquisition is on a single chip smaller than
    half of your little pinkie fingernail, you have virtually no correct
    color and a very sharp tonal curve in your photos, and you have a camera
    that is grossly overpriced for what it delivers. And if it's fully
    automatic, it likely stops the lens down first and then adjusts to the
    light with the shutter speed next, so that on a cloudy day or in the
    shade when you hold it out in front of you at arms length because they
    neglected to insert a $2 eyepiece, you just can't get as sharp a photo
    as you should simply because you can't hold it steady out there. If you
    by chance have one of these, you've been misled and are just as
    gullible; only an entire industry has gulled you, with more finesse than
    in this infomercial you refer to.



    --
     
  16. \El Paisano\

    \El Paisano\ Guest

    "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > wrote:
    > > This calm, measured, and well thought out/expressed comment has no

    place
    > > in this forum. TYVM. (;-) )
    > > Bill "get emotional or get out" S.

    >
    > Okay, so here's another thing. . . All you people with your automatic
    > cameras (I know you have them), even though your pix satisfy your need,
    > the reason they usually won't measure up to my standard is that while


    Be fair with the analogies. What is the ***same-priced*** alternative that
    is vastly superior to my point-and-shoot.

    Matthew
     
  17. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    \"El Paisano\ wrote:
    > Be fair with the analogies. What is the ***same-priced*** alternative
    > that is vastly superior to my point-and-shoot. Matthew




    There are hundreds of examples. (I thought I'd find an example in the
    same budget range as I paid for a Landrider, and I'll stay away from
    used items for the time being). B&H Photo is currently featuring a Nikon
    35mm camera $350 with a $50 rebate. $400 without the rebate. It has a
    28-80mm lens and you'll see that it has a nice piece of glass on the
    front which should collect plenty of light for your images. It shoots on
    35mm film which can easily net you 28 megapixel images. There are
    WalMarts and Walgreens all over the nation that will give you one-hour
    processing and convert your film to digital if that's a need.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetai-
    l&Q=&sku=199520&is=USA&si=spec#goto_itemInfo

    Without going to Circuit City or Costco, on the same site I find a
    digital point and shoot. In fact, to be as fair in the comparison as
    possible I took the first Nikon on the list for the same $400: a Nikon
    Coolpix 3700, 3.2 Megapixel, 3x Optical/4x Digital Zoom, Point-and-
    shoot, Digital Camera. This has a 5.4-16.2mm (35-105mm equivalent )
    lens. What that means is that the diagonal dimension of the acquisition
    chip (replacing the film) is about 7.5 mm or about 1/3 of an inch as
    opposed to the 1.8 inches diameter of a frame of 35mm film. And it comes
    with a wimpy 16MB digital card which will only hold about 2 of the 3.2
    megapixel images, so you'll have to spend another $50 minimum to get a
    bigger digital card.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetai-
    l&Q=&sku=304026&is=REG&si=spec#goto_itemInfo

    Now, lest you try to pin some other motive on me, because you've not
    read the entire thread. My point is that I'm not going to be critical of
    you for your choice of auto point-and-shoot camera as long as it gets
    you out there capturing some photos. And if you asked me what I thought
    about your purchasing the second Nikon, I'd probably conclude, just
    because you're asking that it may be the best camera for you (unless I
    know of another similar one for about the same price that could do
    something else you want to do with it. But, the photos you get with the
    second Nikon will not be publishable at anywhere near the sizes or
    resolutions of what I could shoot with the first Nikon. There are good
    reasons for wanting an automatic digital camera (size, speed of getting
    images into your computer and up on the web or attached to an email (tho
    I've known plenty of folks who've never figured out the part of the
    process that gets the image out of the camera). But if I was going to
    limit myself to the same $400 expenditure, I'd choose the first Nikon in
    a heartbeat because of the added capability, and because I can't
    understand what all the fuss is about setting the exposure and focus
    manually is all about. I know you'll be able to dream up all kinds of
    holes to poke in my analogy, but I think it's fairer than you'd like to
    admit. I have only one gripe that I feel I've been consistent in
    maintaining and that is that there is a knee-jerk negative reaction to a
    bike that most of you have never seen or riden.



    --
     
  18. \El Paisano\

    \El Paisano\ Guest

    "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > \"El Paisano\ wrote:
    > > Be fair with the analogies. What is the ***same-priced*** alternative
    > > that is vastly superior to my point-and-shoot. Matthew

    >
    > There are hundreds of examples. (I thought I'd find an example in the
    > same budget range as I paid for a Landrider, and I'll stay away from
    > used items for the time being). B&H Photo is currently featuring a Nikon
    > 35mm camera $350 with a $50 rebate. $400 without the rebate. It has a


    Sorry for being unclear. I paid $70 for my Olympus Stylus Epic (no zoom)
    point-and-shoot film camera. Is there another camera at that price-point
    that would be superior? I ask this question because most of the people
    reading this group could point you to a superior bike for the same amount
    you paid for the Landrider.

    Matthew
     
  19. Filmboard

    Filmboard Guest

    \"El Paisano\ wrote:
    > Sorry for being unclear. I paid $70 for my Olympus Stylus Epic (no zoom)
    > point-and-shoot film camera. Is there another camera at that price-point
    > that would be superior? I ask this question because most of the people
    > reading this group could point you to a superior bike for the same
    > amount you paid for the Landrider.
    > Matthew




    Nope. Have no recommendation for a better camera in that price range;
    you've done great, because you stuck to film in that low-end range. And
    I'm sure you don't have a better recommendation for the bike that I
    bought from Sears in that price range (which is a true pile of junk.
    Look back in this thread, though. Do you see anyone coming forward with
    a single recommendation. Don't try to alter my point, which I reiterated
    in the prior message. I think this group is negatively over-reactive
    about a bike for it sounds to me they have no personal knowledge. No one
    offered a suggestion for a better bike. But there were criticisms that
    it comes in only one frame size, which is not true. There were
    criticisms about the weight, which I've found plenty of other bikes that
    weigh the same or more as mine. I'm happy with my Landrider, it gets me
    out; I've admitted I may have been able to do better, but I can afford
    it, so what's the big deal?



    --
     
  20. Bernie

    Bernie Guest

    Filmboard wrote:

    >\"El Paisano\ wrote:
    > > Sorry for being unclear. I paid $70 for my Olympus Stylus Epic (no zoom)
    > > point-and-shoot film camera. Is there another camera at that price-point
    > > that would be superior? I ask this question because most of the people
    > > reading this group could point you to a superior bike for the same
    > > amount you paid for the Landrider.
    > > Matthew

    >
    >
    >
    >Nope. Have no recommendation for a better camera in that price range;
    >you've done great, because you stuck to film in that low-end range. And
    >I'm sure you don't have a better recommendation for the bike that I
    >bought from Sears in that price range (which is a true pile of junk.
    >Look back in this thread, though. Do you see anyone coming forward with
    >a single recommendation. Don't try to alter my point, which I reiterated
    >in the prior message. I think this group is negatively over-reactive
    >about a bike for it sounds to me they have no personal knowledge. No one
    >offered a suggestion for a better bike. But there were criticisms that
    >it comes in only one frame size, which is not true. There were
    >criticisms about the weight, which I've found plenty of other bikes that
    >weigh the same or more as mine. I'm happy with my Landrider, it gets me
    >out; I've admitted I may have been able to do better, but I can afford
    >it, so what's the big deal?
    >
    >

    The best point(s) you make about your bike are:
    1) YOU like it
    2) it gets you out
    Can't argue with that. In Vancouver BC this year and last year at
    least, bike shops are selling beach cruiser bikes like there's no
    tomorrow. I'd never consider one, but I believe "each to his own taste"
    should always apply. I hope you continue to enjoy the ride.
    Bernie
     
Loading...
Loading...