landrider



C

clutccargo69

Guest
Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider"
bikes..pro or cons
 
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.
 
"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
 
Originally posted by clutccargo69
Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider"
bikes..pro or cons
Click to expand...

If you go to thier website 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.
 
"Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[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.
 
"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
 
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
 
"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.
 
[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]
 
<[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!
 
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
 
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!
 
Originally posted by Filmboard
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...........
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Filmboard
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Filmboard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.

Bah. Ask already. I doubt your question can be much sillier
than many I've seen asked. Heck, I doubt it's sillier than
many I've asked. This is a fairly civilized group. Why, we
haven't roasted and eaten anyone for weeks.
>
> Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the
> long posts.

Have you considered getting a newsgroup reader?

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he
comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he next
comes to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to
incivility and procrastination."
- Thomas De Quincey (1785 - 1859)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

?
landrider
Replies
45
Views
4K
Road Cycling
David Kerber
D
F
  • Locked
Comments on LandRider?
Replies
9
Views
13K
Road Cycling
galaxygirl0505
galaxygirl0505
B
  • Locked
LandRider/AutoShift bikes
Replies
10
Views
10K
Road Cycling
Mike Kruger
M
Top Bottom Back