landrider

[Badger_South]

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

 

[David Reuteler]

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]

 

[BanditManDan]

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.



--

 

[Badger_South]

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

 

[Rick Onanian]

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

 

[Filmboard]

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.



--

 

[[email protected]]

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

 

[Rick Onanian]

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

 

[Filmboard]

> 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



--

 

[S o r n i]

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.

 

[Filmboard]

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.



--

 

[S o r n i]

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.

 

[Filmboard]

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.



--

 

[Rich Clark]

"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 **** 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

 

[Filmboard]

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 **** 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.



--

 

[\El Paisano\]

"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

 

[Filmboard]

\"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.



--

 

[\El Paisano\]

"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

 

[Filmboard]

\"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?



--

 

[Bernie]

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