Opinions on REI brand bikes (Novara)?



T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> -the virtues of a custom frame-
>
> > But a custom bike is nice to have, especially of you want
> > non-trendy design features like long chainstays or a fork with more
> > than 45 mm offset.

>
> Or lugged construction, the paint of your choice, the absence of
> garish, oversize logos in ten different places, etc., etc.
>
> And the idea that the frame was made by a skilled craftsman, not
> welded by a robot in a "dark factory" nor popped out of a mold.


What he said.
 
D

dvt

Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> But a
>> custom bike is nice to have, especially of you want non-trendy design
>> features like long chainstays or a fork with more than 45 mm offset.

>
> Or lugged construction, the paint of your choice, the absence of
> garish, oversize logos in ten different places, etc., etc.
>
> And the idea that the frame was made by a skilled craftsman, not welded
> by a robot in a "dark factory" nor popped out of a mold.


I've no problem with any of that. But it's quite different than
Michael's statement...

Michael Press wrote:
> A bicycle must be constructed as painstakingly as a good suit.


Most bicycles do *not* need to be custom.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
 
S

SMS

Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Mike Reed wrote:
>>> He means it's outsourced to another company with different management,
>>> employees, and payroll.
>>>
>>> Nike does the same thing. They don't own any shoe factories.
>>>
>>> Coca Cola is also similar, as they don't produce any consumable
>>> beverages. They produce syrup and independent bottlers produce the
>>> beverages using it. It's even funnier for water because Coca Cola
>>> produced a purification process for local tap water, so they don't
>>> produce anythig tangible for Dasani. On top of that, Dasani costs more
>>> money to produce than Coke, including the syrup.

>> Maybe they should introduce a new high end variant of Coke, that is
>> based on purified Dasani water, and that uses cane sugar instead of corn
>> syrup.

>
> Ah! Charging a premium for using cane sugar syrup. The final piece of
> the Coke/New Coke/Coke Classic gambit pays off at long last.


Actually, Royal Crown did make a premium cola with pure sugar cane. It
was very good. I bought a six pack of bottles from Target once. Of
course Royal Crown is not really a household name.
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dane Buson - [email protected]
> The Official MBA Handbook on business cards:
> Avoid overly pretentious job titles such as "Lord of the Realm,
> Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" or "Director of Corporate Planning."


Intelligence test: which title does not fit with the other
three? The first three are typically borne by wielders of
real power. The fourth only succeeds in painting a
bulls-eye on the back of the bearer.

Never was there an Emperor of India.

--
Michael Press
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Dane Buson wrote:
> > In rec.bicycles.misc Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > SMS wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Maybe they should introduce a new high end variant of Coke, that is
> > >> based on purified Dasani water, and that uses cane sugar instead of corn
> > >> syrup.
> > >
> > > Ah! Charging a premium for using cane sugar syrup. The final piece of
> > > the Coke/New Coke/Coke Classic gambit pays off at long last.

> >
> > You think too small, it's obviously part of the international Communist
> > conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
> > That's why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure
> > grain alcohol.

>
> You'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company.


ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
We have a winner.

--
Michael Press
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> >> But a
> >> custom bike is nice to have, especially of you want non-trendy design
> >> features like long chainstays or a fork with more than 45 mm offset.

> >
> > Or lugged construction, the paint of your choice, the absence of
> > garish, oversize logos in ten different places, etc., etc.
> >
> > And the idea that the frame was made by a skilled craftsman, not welded
> > by a robot in a "dark factory" nor popped out of a mold.

>
> I've no problem with any of that. But it's quite different than
> Michael's statement...
>
> Michael Press wrote:
> > A bicycle must be constructed as painstakingly as a good suit.

>
> Most bicycles do *not* need to be custom.


Neither does a business suit. A fine frame maker is a fit
artist, an engineer, and an artisan. Works out the
dimensions that will suit the rider, and implements it in
hardware. Once built up, any tweaks on the fit via saddle
position, stem length, and bar height start from an
initial configuration that is very good.

Contrast with an off the rack frame where the above
mentioned adjustments are made to accommodate the
particular rider, and he can end up with noticeable
compromises.

Two experienced riders, 1.72 m, 70 kg, `normal
proportions'. Give each of them identical 54 or 55 cm
frames, identical saddle, stem, and bars. Let them fit
themselves to the bicycles and compare the results. Call
this pair A1 and A2. Now let them pick saddle, stem, and
bars for themselves. Call this pair B1 and B2.

What do you think will happen? I think that A1 and A2 will
be significantly different. I think that B1 and B2 will
be significantly different.

A good frame maker will build different frames for each of
these two riders; frames that will match the positions
each rider chose for his components in the B pair.

--
Michael Press
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >> Mike Reed wrote:
> >>> He means it's outsourced to another company with different management,
> >>> employees, and payroll.
> >>>
> >>> Nike does the same thing. They don't own any shoe factories.
> >>>
> >>> Coca Cola is also similar, as they don't produce any consumable
> >>> beverages. They produce syrup and independent bottlers produce the
> >>> beverages using it. It's even funnier for water because Coca Cola
> >>> produced a purification process for local tap water, so they don't
> >>> produce anythig tangible for Dasani. On top of that, Dasani costs more
> >>> money to produce than Coke, including the syrup.
> >> Maybe they should introduce a new high end variant of Coke, that is
> >> based on purified Dasani water, and that uses cane sugar instead of corn
> >> syrup.

> >
> > Ah! Charging a premium for using cane sugar syrup. The final piece of
> > the Coke/New Coke/Coke Classic gambit pays off at long last.

>
> Actually, Royal Crown did make a premium cola with pure sugar cane. It
> was very good. I bought a six pack of bottles from Target once. Of
> course Royal Crown is not really a household name.


It was in my childhood neighborhood outside Detroit.

--
Michael Press
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, Royal Crown did make a premium cola with pure sugar cane.
> > It was very good. I bought a six pack of bottles from Target once.
> > Of course Royal Crown is not really a household name.

>
> It was in my childhood neighborhood outside Detroit.


Readily available near Chicago, too. It was my favorite as a kid. But
Vernor's Ginger Ale wasn't available in Chicago, only at my
grandparent's in Michigan. Great stuff!
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
Dane Buson wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe they should introduce a new high end variant of Coke, that is
> >> based on purified Dasani water, and that uses cane sugar instead of corn
> >> syrup.

> >
> > Ah! Charging a premium for using cane sugar syrup. The final piece of
> > the Coke/New Coke/Coke Classic gambit pays off at long last.

>
> You think too small, it's obviously part of the international Communist
> conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
> That's why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure
> grain alcohol.
>
>


But, do you deny women your essence?
 
Tim McNamara writes:

>>> Actually, Royal Crown did make a premium cola with pure sugar
>>> cane. It was very good. I bought a six pack of bottles from
>>> Target once. Of course Royal Crown is not really a household
>>> name.


>> It was in my childhood neighborhood outside Detroit.


> Readily available near Chicago, too. It was my favorite as a kid.
> But Vernor's Ginger Ale wasn't available in Chicago, only at my
> grandparent's in Michigan. Great stuff!


But did you know the name of the company was formerly Nehi and that
old Nehi bottles appear in rummage sales around here now and then.

http://www.gono.com/museum2003/museum collect info/nehicola.htm

Vienna:

http://members.kabsi.at/eischer/g/bilder/rad_weg/zweierlinie/041_besser.jpg

Note that there are still intelligent people who do NOT follow the
arrow as you can see from the tire tracks on the asphalt.

Jobst Brandt
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>eh? who mentioned "damping properties"? metal frames/wheels don't
>>do that - they essentially have no hysteresis loop. and we haven't
>>yet discussed carbon composites, which /do/ attenuate force
>>transmission depending on rate of application, but that's a whole
>>different debate.
>>
>>getting back to the original point, we agree, tires affect the
>>magnitude of road force transmission to the structure, but where we
>>don't seem to agree is recognition of the fact that once this road
>>force has been transmitted /to/ the structure by the tire, the way
>>the structure reacts to that force will entirely determine "feel".

>
>
> jim, it seems as though those two paragraphs contradict each other
> (ignoring the comment about CF frames). Perhaps you could clarify.


hmmm, why do i have a bad feeling when you ask a question like that?
with respect, if you don't understand the distinctions, i don't want to
have to spend a bunch of time arguing with you about misconceptions
before we can get back to the facts.

>
> As far as I can tell from what you've said in your first paragraph, if
> frames provide no damping, then they would act as solid objects


see what i mean? springs do not damp - they essentially have no
hysteresis loop. they return all their energy.

> and thus
> would not contribute to differences in road feel through flex or shock
> absorption. Yet in your second paragraph you imply that frames have
> some kind of damping or flex that affects "feel."


flex is not damping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>eh? who mentioned "damping properties"? metal frames/wheels don't
> >>do that - they essentially have no hysteresis loop. and we haven't
> >>yet discussed carbon composites, which /do/ attenuate force
> >>transmission depending on rate of application, but that's a whole
> >>different debate.
> >>
> >>getting back to the original point, we agree, tires affect the
> >>magnitude of road force transmission to the structure, but where we
> >>don't seem to agree is recognition of the fact that once this road
> >>force has been transmitted /to/ the structure by the tire, the way
> >>the structure reacts to that force will entirely determine "feel".

> >
> > jim, it seems as though those two paragraphs contradict each other
> > (ignoring the comment about CF frames). Perhaps you could clarify.

>
> hmmm, why do i have a bad feeling when you ask a question like that?
> with respect, if you don't understand the distinctions, i don't want
> to have to spend a bunch of time arguing with you about
> misconceptions before we can get back to the facts.


Just looking for clarity, jim. Perhaps if you wrote more clearly
there'd be less confusion about what you're trying to say?

> > As far as I can tell from what you've said in your first paragraph, if
> > frames provide no damping, then they would act as solid objects

>
> see what i mean? springs do not damp - they essentially have no
> hysteresis loop. they return all their energy.


I didn't see "springs" in your post. You conceive of frames as springs?
What is the spring rate of a tetrahedron? What is the spring rate of a
triangle?

> > and thus would not contribute to differences in road feel through
> > flex or shock absorption. Yet in your second paragraph you imply
> > that frames have some kind of damping or flex that affects "feel."

>
> flex is not damping.


Indeed. I have not, however, noticed my bike springing up and down when
I ride. Do you?
 
J

jim beam

Guest
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>eh? who mentioned "damping properties"? metal frames/wheels don't
>>>>do that - they essentially have no hysteresis loop. and we haven't
>>>>yet discussed carbon composites, which /do/ attenuate force
>>>>transmission depending on rate of application, but that's a whole
>>>>different debate.
>>>>
>>>>getting back to the original point, we agree, tires affect the
>>>>magnitude of road force transmission to the structure, but where we
>>>>don't seem to agree is recognition of the fact that once this road
>>>>force has been transmitted /to/ the structure by the tire, the way
>>>>the structure reacts to that force will entirely determine "feel".
>>>
>>>jim, it seems as though those two paragraphs contradict each other
>>>(ignoring the comment about CF frames). Perhaps you could clarify.

>>
>>hmmm, why do i have a bad feeling when you ask a question like that?
>>with respect, if you don't understand the distinctions, i don't want
>>to have to spend a bunch of time arguing with you about
>>misconceptions before we can get back to the facts.

>
>
> Just looking for clarity, jim. Perhaps if you wrote more clearly
> there'd be less confusion about what you're trying to say?


there's none so blind as a man that will not see. and you are such a
man when...

>
>
>>>As far as I can tell from what you've said in your first paragraph, if
>>>frames provide no damping, then they would act as solid objects

>>
>>see what i mean? springs do not damp - they essentially have no
>>hysteresis loop. they return all their energy.

>
>
> I didn't see "springs" in your post. You conceive of frames as springs?
> What is the spring rate of a tetrahedron? What is the spring rate of a
> triangle?


how was i able to sniff out your desire to try picking a fight tim?
when you're ready to talk engineering [which you're clearly not right
now] get back to me. otherwise, you know what you can do. byeee!

>
>
>>>and thus would not contribute to differences in road feel through
>>>flex or shock absorption. Yet in your second paragraph you imply
>>>that frames have some kind of damping or flex that affects "feel."

>>
>>flex is not damping.

>
>
> Indeed. I have not, however, noticed my bike springing up and down when
> I ride. Do you?
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsky

Guest
> Or lugged construction, the paint of your choice, the absence of
> garish, oversize logos in ten different places, etc., etc.
>
> And the idea that the frame was made by a skilled craftsman, not welded
> by a robot in a "dark factory" nor popped out of a mold.


Three points to make here-

#1: Lugs are beautiful. They show off artistic and technical talent
big-time. But from a practical standpoint, they don't make the best use of
the modern, air-hardened alloys that have resulted in steel frames
dramatically lighter than those of the past, and yet substantially stronger
as well. I fought tig-welded frames big-time when they came out, and
continued longer than I should have. The truth is that tig-welded frames
made from air-hardened steel alloys are far less likely to buckle in a crash
than the frames of yesteryear. Unfortunately, they're nowhere near as nice
to look at.

#2: It's a misconception that mass-produced frames are made by robots.
They're typically welded by hand. It's simply cheaper & easier to do it that
way. When there are no longer 3rd-world countries with cheap labor to
exploit, we'll probably see more use of robotics.

#3: As for popping frames out of a mold, that's been an industry dream for
decades, but isn't reality. Parts of frames come out of molds, but nobody's
figured out how to do a one-piece molded frame that just pops out, ready for
finishing & paint. At best you get two half shells, which are joined
together with material wrapped around them. There is still an awful lot of
craftsmanship that goes into a "plastic" bike.

We have yet to even come up with inexpensive ways to "extrude" carbon fiber
into round tubes.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
> Michael Press wrote:
>> And people are not proportioned the same. Ask a tailor. A bicycle must
>> be constructed as painstakingly as a good suit.


dvt wrote:
> I don't agree. The human body has a high capacity for adapting to
> various positions. Even if it didn't, very few people ride far and long
> enough to require a carefully tailored bicycle fit.
> If you need proof of this, stand near a bike rack on a campus near you
> and estimate the number of people with carefully fit cycles.


You make a good point.

That doesn't mean people who are very tall, very short or
unusually proportioned couldn't benefit from something
different.

We suggest that when riders ask for 'custom' they consider
the difference between changing bar width, stem
length/height, tire section, gearing etc and a frame made
especially for them. Some riders will straight out tell us
it's just to get that special color, others want to finally
not need a 150 stem.

Yes, most humans are pretty adaptable to whatever bike is
handy but 'acceptable' and 'ideal' might be different.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
> Mike Reed wrote:
>> He means it's outsourced to another company with different management,
>> employees, and payroll.
>> Nike does the same thing. They don't own any shoe factories.
>> Coca Cola is also similar, as they don't produce any consumable
>> beverages. They produce syrup and independent bottlers produce the
>> beverages using it. It's even funnier for water because Coca Cola
>> produced a purification process for local tap water, so they don't
>> produce anythig tangible for Dasani. On top of that, Dasani costs more
>> money to produce than Coke, including the syrup.


SMS wrote:
> Maybe they should introduce a new high end variant of Coke, that is
> based on purified Dasani water, and that uses cane sugar instead of corn
> syrup.


That would be either Mexican CocaCola or the seasonal Kosher
CocaCola. Both cost more and are hard to find.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsky

Guest
> Be aware that Lemond uses a slightly longer top tube proprtional to
> size than other makers. I normally ride a 56cm road bike but I
> required a 55cm Lemond.


Well, sort of. Much of the longer top tube is illusory, as it's accompanied
by a slacker seat tube angle. If you choose to put your saddle in the same
place (with respect to fore/aft position over the bottom bracket) on a bike
with a slacker seat angle, it will be further forward in its rails (than it
would be on a bike with a steeper seat tube angle). That effectively
shortens the length of the top tube.

I'm sure I made that more confusing than it needed to be!

One other note on sizing. LeMond measures center of bottom bracket to center
of top tube/seat tube junction. Many other measure from the center of the
bottom bracket to the stop of the seat collar.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > And people are not proportioned the same. Ask a tailor. A
> > bicycle must be constructed as painstakingly as a good
> > suit.

>
> I don't agree. The human body has a high capacity for adapting to
> various positions. Even if it didn't, very few people ride far and long
> enough to require a carefully tailored bicycle fit.


Yes. It may not look like it, but I am really only
cataloging reasons why a custom frame is worth having.

As a matter of fact I do not have a custom frame. I found
a maker that specifies a frame with various dimensions
that I wanted, then had it built to order with my choice
of braze-ons. (Marinoni)

> If you need proof of this, stand near a bike rack on a campus near you
> and estimate the number of people with carefully fit cycles.


No, I do not.

--
Michael Press
 
D

dvt

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> Two experienced riders, 1.72 m, 70 kg, `normal
> proportions'. Give each of them identical 54 or 55 cm
> frames, identical saddle, stem, and bars. Let them fit
> themselves to the bicycles and compare the results. Call
> this pair A1 and A2. Now let them pick saddle, stem, and
> bars for themselves. Call this pair B1 and B2.
>
> What do you think will happen? I think that A1 and A2 will
> be significantly different. I think that B1 and B2 will
> be significantly different.


Most of the time, the riders will leave the bike just as it came. They
will adjust the postion of the saddle, and maybe even adjust the
rotation of the handlebars and brake levers to suit.

Now if you further narrow down the selection of riders to the types of
people that might read r.b.tech, or even people that regularly ride more
than 50 km in a given day, you might get the answer you've chosen. But
for the vast majority of riders, the bike will stay as it came from the
shop floor until something breaks.

Maybe I need to restate your original quote, in my own words, since
there seems to be a disconnect. This discussion has very little bearing
to the original point with which I disagreed. You said "A bicycle must
be constructed as painstakingly as a good suit." That sounds like an
absolute; I think it says that all bicycles must be custom, or at least
customized. That's a pretty extreme position, and that's what prompted
my response.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu