Potential dumb question.



B

Bill

Guest
Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
speed. They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one
is good enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
would hurt.
??????????????
Bill Baka
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsky

Guest
> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> and way out of cell phone range.
> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> would hurt.


Just taking a wild guess here, but...

Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
see everything by just using the scroll bars?

If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
answer your own question about bikes.

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

R Brickston

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:05:33 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
>to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
>speed. They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one
>is good enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
>My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
>don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
>more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
>I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
>it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
>wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
>Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
>would hurt.
>??????????????
>Bill Baka


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 +10dB
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TROLL-O-METER
 
M

Michael Warner

Guest
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:05:33 -0700, Bill wrote:

> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
> it


....you're a strange old recluse that little children run away from even in
street clothes?

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
 
B

Bill

Guest
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
>> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
>> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
>> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
>> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
>> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
>> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
>> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
>> and way out of cell phone range.
>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
>> would hurt.

>
> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>
> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>
> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> answer your own question about bikes.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>

1024x768 is too high?
Nobody uses 640x480 anymore and I got the monitor from a friend who
thought LCD would be nice.
Simple, cheap, works.
No problem. Same for bikes. Better to ride than work to pay for one.
Bill Baka
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Bill wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that
>>> costs under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an
>>> $85 Huffy to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn
>>> Super Sport 10 speed. They all ride good enough that I rotate
>>> between them and any one is good enough to put in a 100 mile day if
>>> I have the time for the ride. My main pack and trail bike weighs about
>>> 75 pounds fully loaded and
>>> I don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just
>>> means more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better
>>> workout. I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get
>>> down
>>> to it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with
>>> no SAG wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
>>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they
>>> fall apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a
>>> $3,000 Trek would hurt.

>>
>> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>>
>> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when
>> you could see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>>
>> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can
>> probably answer your own question about bikes.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>

> 1024x768 is too high?
> Nobody uses 640x480 anymore and I got the monitor from a friend who
> thought LCD would be nice.
> Simple, cheap, works.
> No problem. Same for bikes. Better to ride than work to pay for one.
> Bill Baka


Mensa Whoosh. Sheesh.

Bill "you tried, Mike" S.
 
On May 24, 4:56 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> >> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> >> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> >> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> >> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> >> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> >> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> >> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> >> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> >> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> >> and way out of cell phone range.
> >> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> >> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> >> would hurt.

>
> > Just taking a wild guess here, but...

>
> > Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> > see everything by just using the scroll bars?

>
> > If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> > answer your own question about bikes.

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

>
> 1024x768 is too high?
> Nobody uses 640x480 anymore and I got the monitor from a friend who
> thought LCD would be nice.
> Simple, cheap, works.
> No problem. Same for bikes.


> Better to ride than work to pay for one.



This says everything.





> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
B

Bill

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 24, 4:56 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Better to ride than work to pay for one.

>
>
> This says everything.

I work for myself these days.
Working is optional.
That says it.
Bill (no pointy haired Dilbert boss) Baka
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> > under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> > a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> > They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> > enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> > My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> > don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> > more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> > I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> > I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> > and way out of cell phone range.
> > Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> > apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> > would hurt.

>
> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>
> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>
> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> answer your own question about bikes.


480x640? Posh! In my day we could see only one line at a time
and were grateful.

--
Michael Press
 
C

Callistus Valerius

Guest
" I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
> to a $300+ Pacific

---------
durable, as long as you can still pedal you'll never be stranded.
---------
That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
---------
I have a couple of heavy crappy bikes too, but I have better line,
"Lance could win this race riding this bike." Or another one I use, "This
bike is like lifting weights, so when I ride my real bike it feels like it
weighs nothing." But since I've thankfully left the competative cycling
mode, I use your "workout" line too. Heavy is ok, if you only want to ride
30 miles for a workout, as opposed to having to ride 80 just to break a
sweat.
----------

> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> apart?

----------
There are no stupid questions in rbt, only controversial ones.
 
H

Hank Wirtz

Guest
On May 23, 8:05 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
> to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
> speed.


I think that because many of us have worked in shops, we know of
durability problems with low-end BSOs (bike-shaped-objects). Most
notably, the dangers of thin stamped & pinched dropouts. Of the bikes
you describe, I'd guess only the Huffy falls into that category.
Schwinns from the '70s are the Rasputin of Bikes. You might hate them,
but do what you will to them, and you just can't kill them.

> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
> it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
> wagon, and way out of cell phone range.


All the more reason to ride something reliable.

> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> apart?


Not at all. Just don't pretend that it's just as good as a more
expensive, more solidly built model.

And don't call me for a ride when your Huffy's dropout pulls out of
the seatstay.
 
B

Bill

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
>>> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
>>> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
>>> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
>>> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
>>> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
>>> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
>>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
>>> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
>>> and way out of cell phone range.
>>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>>> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
>>> would hurt.

>> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>>
>> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
>> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>>
>> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
>> answer your own question about bikes.

>
> 480x640? Posh! In my day we could see only one line at a time
> and were grateful.
>

Did you work with nixie tube displays in the very early '70s?
Bill
 
B

Bill

Guest
Callistus Valerius wrote:
> " I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
>> to a $300+ Pacific

> ---------
> durable, as long as you can still pedal you'll never be stranded.
> ---------
> That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> ---------
> I have a couple of heavy crappy bikes too, but I have better line,
> "Lance could win this race riding this bike." Or another one I use, "This
> bike is like lifting weights, so when I ride my real bike it feels like it
> weighs nothing." But since I've thankfully left the competative cycling
> mode, I use your "workout" line too. Heavy is ok, if you only want to ride
> 30 miles for a workout, as opposed to having to ride 80 just to break a
> sweat.
> ----------

I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
lot of that food and water weight.
Bill Baka
>
>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>> apart?

> ----------
> There are no stupid questions in rbt, only controversial ones.
>
>
 
B

Bill

Guest
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On May 23, 8:05 pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
>> to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
>> speed.

>
> I think that because many of us have worked in shops, we know of
> durability problems with low-end BSOs (bike-shaped-objects). Most
> notably, the dangers of thin stamped & pinched dropouts. Of the bikes
> you describe, I'd guess only the Huffy falls into that category.

The Huffy was actually a high end Target bike in 1994 when I bought it
for my daughter. It even has removable square BB cranks.
> Schwinns from the '70s are the Rasputin of Bikes. You might hate them,
> but do what you will to them, and you just can't kill them.

Not yet, at least.
>
>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
>> it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
>> wagon, and way out of cell phone range.

>
> All the more reason to ride something reliable.
>
>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>> apart?

>
> Not at all. Just don't pretend that it's just as good as a more
> expensive, more solidly built model.

That's why I carry enough food and water to pack the bike out until I
can get a cell phone signal and SAG (******) wife ride home.
>
> And don't call me for a ride when your Huffy's dropout pulls out of
> the seatstay.

I've already replaced the BB, rear wheel (bearing races were gone),
front wheel bearing set, seat, crank set, and more, but it still rides.
Bill Baka
>
 
M

Michael Press

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

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> >>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> >>> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> >>> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> >>> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> >>> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> >>> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> >>> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> >>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> >>> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> >>> and way out of cell phone range.
> >>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> >>> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> >>> would hurt.
> >> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
> >>
> >> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> >> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
> >>
> >> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> >> answer your own question about bikes.

> >
> > 480x640? Posh! In my day we could see only one line at a time
> > and were grateful.
> >

> Did you work with nixie tube displays in the very early '70s?


Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
We had to key in the programs on the
face of the computer with our noses, because our
fingers had already been rubbed raw.

--
Michael Press
 
B

Bill

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Did you work with nixie tube displays in the very early '70s?

>
> Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
> We had to key in the programs on the
> face of the computer with our noses, because our
> fingers had already been rubbed raw.
>

I hate to admit using those bit by bit entry switches.
Ow, I think I'm feeling my Arthritis now.
Bill Baka
 
G

Greg Evans

Guest
Michael Press wrote:

> Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
> We had to key in the programs on the
> face of the computer with our noses, because our
> fingers had already been rubbed raw.


Psshaw! You kids with your "computers"! In my day we had
abacuses. Made from solid stone. And we had to gnaw them
from stone with our teeth, because we didn't have any tools.

And we liked it!
Greg

--
=========================================================
"I don't know, I don't care,
and it doesn't make any difference."

(Jack Kerouac)
---------------------------------------------------------
My Photos-
http://www.gsevans.com/photography/

My Blog-
http://www.gsevans.com/blog/
 
R

R Brickston

Guest
On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:49:54 -0400, Greg Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Michael Press wrote:
>
>> Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
>> We had to key in the programs on the
>> face of the computer with our noses, because our
>> fingers had already been rubbed raw.

>
>Psshaw! You kids with your "computers"! In my day we had
>abacuses. Made from solid stone. And we had to gnaw them
>from stone with our teeth, because we didn't have any tools.
>
>And we liked it!
>Greg


You had teeth?
 
C

Callistus Valerius

Guest
> > ----------
> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
> totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
> we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
> lot of that food and water weight.
> Bill Baka

------------
Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC, much
easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the bucket over the
front handlebars.