"Dan Volker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:"I don't know Greg, maybe the gene pool you ride in is defective, or you really don't know what
a "variety of terrain means". Gears make a bike go faster in varried terrain. If a single speed
bike was really competitive with multi-geared bikes in varied terrain , then the Tour de France
would be ridden by a few guys on SS's....clue to Greg, it will never happen."Actually, it already has happened. Several times.
If it happened decades ago, there used to be huge differences in fitness between the riders--
today, due to much more effective training, you are not going to find a rider that is so strong
that they can afford to handicap themsleves on the Tour with a single speed bike ( even if this
could work for someone in the 30's or 40's, or even in Merckx's day.
But you said it never will happen. I contend that it already has.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
Your arguments are based on the Green Eggs and Ham Principal. Its funny, in a sad sort of way.You seem intent on defending your opinion, despite the fact that you openly admit you don't know
much or anything about singlespeeds. J.D. rides every day in Fruita/Grand Junction Colorado on a
SS, yet you discount his opinion based on what you "think" is true. And what you think is true
is based on the admittedly ignorant opinion you have on singlespeeds, you seem to me running
around on a big mobius strip of logic.My insistence is based largely on the idea that riding a rigid single speed would be "less fun"
for me, since I see the whole "purest" nonsense you guys are spouting off about, is a bunch of ego
[censored] for little wimpy guys with big mouths.
I don't, never have and never will claim that riding a SS is more pure, or has anything to do with
how I view you and whatever you dig about mountain biking. I ride a SS because that's the type of
bike I prefer to ride. I've ridden everything from a superlight hardtail XC race bike to a Bullit
(which I sold when I started jumping off stuff that was taller than I was). I still have the XC
geared bike. It's my #3 bike, my loaner. The one I give to people just getting in to the sport to
ride. It's a great bike but I simply prefer riding a SS. BTW: I don't care what bike you ride. I
don't care what bike my friends ride. I don't care what type of bike the pro racers ride.
You still haven't answered those people who presented pro riders who prefer SSing. Why not? They
don't support your baseless opinion so therefor you can't address them?
Quoted message said:
It's not going to be as much fun for a bigger rider, and if you can't figure out why, strap 50
pounds of weight into a backpack, and go out on your rigid SS bike and pretend you are a muscular
rider who weighs 210 pounds. Your ride will suck, and then you should understand what's wrong with
your logic.
That's funny, if I pretended that I weighed a muscular 210 pounds, I would actually drop 15 pounds.
If I strapped a 50 pound weight on my back, that would put me at 275 pounds. And yet, every ride I
go on is a great one for some reason or another. I can't recall one ride that I've ever been on
that sucked.
So why exactly will my ride suck if I drop 15 pounds? I don't get it? Incidentally, the many of the
trails in Fruita are great on a SS. Slickrock in Moab is also fun on a SS. In fact, every trail I've
ever ridden is fun on a SS. I raced at the 24 Hours of Old Pueblo on a SS and it still seemed fun,
yet you seem to think that I think that they would suck. You can't be talking out of your ass with
no foundation for your assumptions, can you?