Scored me a Repair Stand

[Andrew Reddaway]

flyingdutch wrote:

> Grip Wrote:
> > And finally, thank you for the suggestion re the hinged/swinging
> > wall mount. To be honest though I don't think there's a market for
> > it. Also.. even though you said I doubt that anything that has to
> > hinge out of the way AND still lock in place firmly would be quite
> > as simple (and producible in small numbers) as you may think.
> > Still, I do appreciate the thought.
>
> i mentioned that Bcos I have personally seen 4 LBS's within 5k of me
> make up their own version of what I suggested. 2 of them swung
> horizontally.
> Who knows how many others have done the same thing???. Might pay to
> 'fish' the idea around. might be a market after all.
>

A while ago I was tossing up making my own crude horizontal-swinging
wall-attached bike workstand. If there was a nice cheap one available,
here's one more for its market

 

[Grip]

Okeedokey then. Far be it from me to want to get up the noses of obvious forum regulars such as Dutch and Mfhor, and now that the tone has actually become a little more (well a lot more) reasonable and "constructive" I'll turn my boil-o-meter down to a mere simmer. Sorry guys, but GripSport is my baby entirely and when it seems that people are tossing about unfounded comments re same I tend to fire up.

Is it, or is it not true, that you use readily available sections of rod, tube and plate to construct your stands?

Yes we do... along with specifically machined and laser-cut parts. But to be honest even if the market was big enough here in OZ to make castings an option I'd still shy away from it in favour of a fabricated product.

I can say that I've had a fair aquaintance with your product, having worked with them in one shop and in the field supporting events. Your welding is not able to be faulted, and your finish and manufacturing standards are well up to scratch. I'm just saying that the portability and performance need a bit more of a look at if you want to compete with the likes of Park, Topeak, Minoura, Ultimate et al.

Appreciate the comments. To be honest though, according to figures I've been able to gather from importers, our stands sell more than the others combined in this country.

The rotating head clamp (after several hundred adjustments) needs a lot of torque to stop it slipping (scared of snapping the weld off the rod/nut). The rubber clamp gasket (?) deforms, and doesn't do much to stop the selected angle sagging to something more acute. Yes, I greased the threads and the underside of the nut, but had to resort to an extension bar on the rod.

I agree. This was actually addressed in our very first re-design about 12 months after the first release of the product. There is now no need to tighten the rear bar anything past finger tight because the "slip" washer system has been replaced with a hardened pin that locks into 6 positions around the 360 degrees of rotation.

Compared to, for instance, the Park forged alloy head, the selection of the tube clamp diameter is imprecise and unwieldy.

While I appreciate that obviously you don't like this, in our own defence I have to say that many people DO like the simple way it adjusts. But... I agree that EVERYTHING out there can be improved.

The cam action is way too sharp, and not progressive enough to feel if you are going to overtighten the clamp on the tube.

Also adjusted in the first re-design, but I think you'd probably find the "over-centre" lock is still too linear for your liking. Don't forget though that with this design you actually DON'T have to set the clamping pressure completely before you actuate the clamp. It's designed to clamp down on the approx tube size and then fine adjust the pressure by rotating the handle on top.

The little wheels need better bearings.

Why?

The clamp tension adjustment screw needs a finer thread (more precise adjustment).

We tried quite a few, mfhor, and stuck to what's there now precisely BECAUSE it actually allows for adjustment WITHOUT too much handle rotation. I suppose this comes down to something that was in fact my design... being interpretted by another as a mistake. I can't do much about that, sorry.

The legs (on the floorstanding models) are vulnerable to having the whole assembly bumped/upset, having no positive locking mechanism. The tab screws are too small to get enough torque on the upright to keep the leg/head assembly where you put it. The legs flap around when you're carrying the telescoped stand, sometimes painfully.

In my experience (for whatever that's worth) I've always found that tripods, such as our are actually the most stable of any stand. I never for a moment imagined (and not one person has EVER mentioned) the need for the legs to lock open (because of the stand holding itself open) but I'll certainly have a think about it now you've mentioned it. The Thumb-Screws (you called them TABs) were chosen so people COULDN'T apply more torque than necessary and crush the main mast/tube. And finally we're talking about a "Workshop/Race" stand here... it was never envisiged that they would be carried any distance at all really. A velcro tape glued to one leg and wrapped around ALL legs would fix that for you.

It's heavy, if you have to carry it for any distance. Workshop stands are heavy, portable/consumer stands need to be light.

It weighs EIGHT kilos! And sorry, but just because you say it should be lighter doesn't make it so. Like I said in an earlier post I like things over engineered and solid. The bottom line is it is .5 of a kilo heavier than the Park PRS-5 Professional Race Stand!

I didn't want to hurt your pride,

Mate, my ego is well intact, but thanks for the concern.

I've tried to be a bit less flippant and more constructive here.

I appreciate that.

Aussie bike bits that work well and get a rep for it have my vote and my dollar. Make a stand that's better than either a Park PRS, or a Minoura R3000, and I'll buy it.

Cheers, but we already think we have! Now... can I interest you in the new model?


And flyingdutch... I too have no desire to argue. Especially now I know you intended brevity... and also because I went back and had a look at some of your (and mfhor's) older posts and can see that neither of you are fools.

As for the "fluffy" product description... my mistake. I thought you were referring to the description of the Workshop/Race Stand. I agree the description for the Pro-Bench model is lacking detail, but I guess we were going for variety... and with all the detail being included in the pages for the Workshop/Race and the Pro-Floor stands... and with the bench model being just a cut down Pro-Floor I figured it would have been repetitive and unnecessary.

But I suppose this is one of the problems with a small business like this. And it really is a very small business. Still. In the beginning I was the bloke who did everything from design the logo, the invoices, the adds and the first web site. I designed every product, cut every piece of steel, welded every piece, took them for powder coating and zinc plating, took orders, packaged and despatched and hawked everything I could round in the back of the ute and pestered every shop I could find. The bottom line is it was totally a one-man show for the first few years. So it would be easy for me to lose a bit of perspective which is why I value contact with cyclist/consumers (like you guys) so much but also why I fire up a tad when it seems more slagging than constructive.

Anyway, dutch... yes we do sell direct, but we can't be seen to under cut shops, especially when so many of them use us for their frame repairs etc even if they're not buying much product. But having said that... you've really got me thinking if it's possible... I kid you not!

Have you seen the new web site? Very different to the old... totally dynamic... and most importantly NOT DESIGNED BY ME!!!!!

I'm enjoying this forum already. Hope to be a regular. Cheers

 

[cfsmtb]

Okeedokey then. Far be it from me to want to get up the noses of obvious forum regulars such as Dutch and Mfhor, and now that the tone has actually become a little more (well a lot more) reasonable and "constructive" I'll turn my boil-o-meter down to a mere simmer. Sorry guys, but GripSport is my baby entirely and when it seems that people are tossing about unfounded comments re same I tend to fire up.

LOL! A word to the aus.bicycle/cf "regulars", Grip also moderates on http;//www.farkin.net, so just a general hint: you're in the presence of a forum master.

Repair stands aside, GS also does a fine job of horizontal SS dropouts*, bike repairs & bike stands*. Probably should be a seperate thread, but how 'bout the repair job on the Avanti road bike headtube awhile back?

Anyway, look forward to GS becoming a aus.bike regular, should make a welcome change from dealing with grommits!

(*used & recommended in our happy household)

 

[cfsmtb]

errata!

try this link: http://www.farkin.net/

BTW, whats with the subliminal santa?

 

[flyingdutch]

...I like things over engineered and solid.

"See, honey. Im just over engineered" LOL

i guess if your gonna sell direct/online its either all-or-nothin for you tho, aint it? Like you said, you cat undermine your retailer-base. Maybe jsut concentrating on the repair work for them and all other bits direct/online?Still, wouldnt be too hard a market to reach as the people in the market for a workstand arent your typical rec-rider so a few well-placed ads and publicity should do you

 

[DRS]

"Grip" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[...]

> lot of money to update a web site, and while I value your opinion that
> ours is "sooooo 2001 darling" I can't help but wonder if you're
> getting
> a little affected by the thin air way up there on your high horse! And
> for what it's worth we actually have an entire new site... it's been
> up
> a while... hopefully it's "sooooo 2005" and meets your standards. Let
> me
> know, eh?

What is your web site address? But, speaking as a web designer myself, be
aware that Flash adds nothing but gloss to most sites, at the cost of
violating many of Australia's accessibility laws. In short, it's most often
there because someone thinks it looks cool, not because it actually adds
anything of substance to the site. The KISS principle applies as much to
web sites as to anything else.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Terry Collins]

DRS wrote:
> In short, it's most often
> there because someone thinks it looks cool, not because it actually adds
> anything of substance to the site.

Agree there, but

> The KISS principle applies as much to
> web sites as to anything else.

I think you are pushing the proverbial uphill trying to get people to
see this.

 

[cfsmtb]

I think you are pushing the proverbial uphill trying to get people to see this.

Sigh. It started so sweetly with Gags's happy news....'tis a pity where it's floated off since.

BTW, what happened to the Kew Crits tonight? Where did everyone go?

 

[kim]

flyingdutch wrote:

> Grip Wrote:
>
>>you then tell me it's actually the flash intro to our site that "narks"
>>you and then very sarcastically had a go at it being dated. Well get
>>real, eh? It costs a lot of money to update a web site, and while I
>>value your opinion that ours is "sooooo 2001 darling" I can't help but
>>wonder if you're getting a little affected by the thin air way up there
>>on your high horse! And for what it's worth we actually have an entire
>>new site... it's been up a while... hopefully it's "sooooo 2005" and
>>meets your standards. Let me know, eh?
>
>
> any web useability literature will tell you that. Your designshop that
> did your site should be aware of such things. No thin air. Just facts.
> Deal, Grip.
> Just as your field of expertise is engineering, perhaps you might
> entertain the notion that others have expertise in their field.

that flash intro thing doesn't render properly in my standards compliant browser.
given that there is nothing else on the page, i just closed it and did something else.

kim

 

[flyingdutch]

BTW, what happened to the Kew Crits tonight? Where did everyone go?

for some stupid reason i decided to try and make up for 2 days
of no riding by riding down to Frankston (into a f!$@#n headwind!!!) and
then flew back into town on a less-than-expected tailwind
(aint it always the way )
and did 25 hard minutes around the Kew course.
Got home, fell into pool and almost drowned due to exhaustion!
vewy, vewy tired Dutch...

 

[DRS]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS wrote:
>> In short, it's most often
>> there because someone thinks it looks cool, not because it actually
>> adds anything of substance to the site.
>
> Agree there, but
>
>> The KISS principle applies as much to
>> web sites as to anything else.
>
> I think you are pushing the proverbial uphill trying to get people to
> see this.

It's a bit like top-posting. If you say nothing then you will certainly be
overrun by the great unwashed. Or you can speak out and hope to educate
people that there are better ways.

I've just found the gripsport site and it's horrible. If it were me I'd be
demanding my money back. It violates just about every rule of good design I
can think of, from Dutchy's valid criticism that one cannot bypass the Flash
intro to the fact that the content does not resize itself to the size of the
screen to the fact one cannot override Flash's font pitch settings etc.
What particularly ****** me off was that although I use a 1024x768 screen
size the Flash design is fixed at 800x600, with the consequence that even
while I had white space to spare I still could not view all the content at
once, particularly horizontally and I *hate* horizontal scrolling.

That site could be used as a textbook example of how not to design a web
site. Dutchy was too kind to it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[mfhor]

Okeedokey then. Far be it from me to want to get up the noses of obvious forum regulars such as Dutch and Mfhor, and now that the tone has actually become a little more (well a lot more) reasonable and "constructive" I'll turn my boil-o-meter down to a mere simmer. Sorry guys, but GripSport is my baby entirely and when it seems that people are tossing about unfounded comments re same I tend to fire up.

Yes we do... along with specifically machined and laser-cut parts. But to be honest even if the market was big enough here in OZ to make castings an option I'd still shy away from it in favour of a fabricated product.

Appreciate the comments. To be honest though, according to figures I've been able to gather from importers, our stands sell more than the others combined in this country.

I agree. This was actually addressed in our very first re-design about 12 months after the first release of the product. There is now no need to tighten the rear bar anything past finger tight because the "slip" washer system has been replaced with a hardened pin that locks into 6 positions around the 360 degrees of rotation.

While I appreciate that obviously you don't like this, in our own defence I have to say that many people DO like the simple way it adjusts. But... I agree that EVERYTHING out there can be improved.

Also adjusted in the first re-design, but I think you'd probably find the "over-centre" lock is still too linear for your liking. Don't forget though that with this design you actually DON'T have to set the clamping pressure completely before you actuate the clamp. It's designed to clamp down on the approx tube size and then fine adjust the pressure by rotating the handle on top.

Why?

We tried quite a few, mfhor, and stuck to what's there now precisely BECAUSE it actually allows for adjustment WITHOUT too much handle rotation. I suppose this comes down to something that was in fact my design... being interpretted by another as a mistake. I can't do much about that, sorry.

In my experience (for whatever that's worth) I've always found that tripods, such as our are actually the most stable of any stand. I never for a moment imagined (and not one person has EVER mentioned) the need for the legs to lock open (because of the stand holding itself open) but I'll certainly have a think about it now you've mentioned it. The Thumb-Screws (you called them TABs) were chosen so people COULDN'T apply more torque than necessary and crush the main mast/tube. And finally we're talking about a "Workshop/Race" stand here... it was never envisiged that they would be carried any distance at all really. A velcro tape glued to one leg and wrapped around ALL legs would fix that for you.

It weighs EIGHT kilos! And sorry, but just because you say it should be lighter doesn't make it so. Like I said in an earlier post I like things over engineered and solid. The bottom line is it is .5 of a kilo heavier than the Park PRS-5 Professional Race Stand!

Mate, my ego is well intact, but thanks for the concern.

I appreciate that.

Cheers, but we already think we have! Now... can I interest you in the new model?


And flyingdutch... I too have no desire to argue. Especially now I know you intended brevity... and also because I went back and had a look at some of your (and mfhor's) older posts and can see that neither of you are fools.

As for the "fluffy" product description... my mistake. I thought you were referring to the description of the Workshop/Race Stand. I agree the description for the Pro-Bench model is lacking detail, but I guess we were going for variety... and with all the detail being included in the pages for the Workshop/Race and the Pro-Floor stands... and with the bench model being just a cut down Pro-Floor I figured it would have been repetitive and unnecessary.

But I suppose this is one of the problems with a small business like this. And it really is a very small business. Still. In the beginning I was the bloke who did everything from design the logo, the invoices, the adds and the first web site. I designed every product, cut every piece of steel, welded every piece, took them for powder coating and zinc plating, took orders, packaged and despatched and hawked everything I could round in the back of the ute and pestered every shop I could find. The bottom line is it was totally a one-man show for the first few years. So it would be easy for me to lose a bit of perspective which is why I value contact with cyclist/consumers (like you guys) so much but also why I fire up a tad when it seems more slagging than constructive.

Anyway, dutch... yes we do sell direct, but we can't be seen to under cut shops, especially when so many of them use us for their frame repairs etc even if they're not buying much product. But having said that... you've really got me thinking if it's possible... I kid you not!

Have you seen the new web site? Very different to the old... totally dynamic... and most importantly NOT DESIGNED BY ME!!!!!

I'm enjoying this forum already. Hope to be a regular. Cheers

Well, it looks as tho' I was using an old version - no excuse for underperformance on my part - get the new one!

I never run anyone down who's having a go. Good on you for what is now IMO (with the improvements you have described - yet to try them) hopefully without sounding too high-handed, a good, and hopefully in future an excellent product. Design is always evolutionary. Some of the best abrasives for the rubbing off of the rough edges of an idea/product are places like this. Honing them to a fine point, as it were. One day you could polish it up to be a real winner, if it isn't already. (But then it's all in the eye of the beholder. Everyone thinks that their own newborn baby is beautiful . . . )

I saw a great show on Count Graf von Zeppelin last night on the ABC, and all the #$%& he had to go through to get his baby airship airborne. (Admittedly he just wanted to drop bombs on France). Pretty instructional.

M "curmudgeonly old greasemonkey" H

 

[Grip]

"I've just found the gripsport site and it's horrible. If it were me I'd be
demanding my money back. It violates just about every rule of good design I
can think of, from Dutchy's valid criticism that one cannot bypass the Flash
intro to the fact that the content does not resize itself to the size of the
screen to the fact one cannot override Flash's font pitch settings etc.
What particularly ****** me off was that although I use a 1024x768 screen
size the Flash design is fixed at 800x600, with the consequence that even
while I had white space to spare I still could not view all the content at
once, particularly horizontally and I *hate* horizontal scrolling.

That site could be used as a textbook example of how not to design a web
site. Dutchy was too kind to it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS... you obviously know your stuff. Thanks so much for the feedback. Not being a web "designer" myself I just wasn't aware of what was and wasn't pukka, but believe me I'll be onto the designer of our site ASAP and forward your much-appreciated comments.

I have to say though, it never occured to my addled and simplistic brain that the new flash intro was a problem. It's REALLY short and automatically jumps straight into the home page. Would you suggest it should just START at the home page?

As for the sizing and the horizontal scrolling, I agree completely... HORRIBLE! But it is a brand new site, sent live only a few days before Christmas and the day before our designer was leaving for a 6 month stint in Canada... so those things are due to be fixed as soon as he's settled.

Thanks again and please let me know of any other suggestions.

 

[DaveB]

Grip wrote:
> I have to say though, it never occured to my addled and simplistic
> brain that the new flash intro was a problem. It's REALLY short and
> automatically jumps straight into the home page. Would you suggest it
> should just START at the home page?
>
My problem with flash intros is that my home PC is an old clunker, so
even though a flash intro may come down quickly over cable, it still
takes forever to startup and run on the PC (and slows everthing else
down in the process).

DaveB "I could upgrade the PC or I could spend more on bike parts"

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:43:53 +1100
Grip <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I have to say though, it never occured to my addled and simplistic
> brain that the new flash intro was a problem. It's REALLY short and
> automatically jumps straight into the home page. Would you suggest it
> should just START at the home page?
>

A thought to ponder...

"People on slow connections with old computers buy things too"

What is your site for? Is it to look pretty or is it to make life as
easy as possible for your customer so they have no problem at all buying
things from you?

Will the fancy flash things be useful (not pretty, but *useful*) to the
person who has already seen them? If someone doesn't have flash,
because they hate animated ads, can they use your site? Is a few
seconds of instantly forgotten prettypretty worth losing one customer?
Will you lose a customer because you *don't* have a flash intro?

People going to your site want information, and they want it quickly and
with the minimum of fuss. They don't want a "viewing experience"....

If they are going to buy, they want to be able to find things easily,
they want as much info about what they are buying as they think they
need and not be forced to deal with info or animations or other fancy
stuff they don't want, and they don't want to faff about working out
how to pay, or shipping costs, or shop locations.

So make the site easy to navigate, make sure that it doesn't matter what
browser settings someone has. Which includes "no graphics", people on
slow country dialup links buy things too, as do blind people - can they
use your site with a text-to-speech reader? Test your site with one of
the pages that checks if it's usable by the disabled.

Remember... if you are selling things, then you want all the customers
you can get. You don't want to send the message "you aren't worth my
while" or worse "I know you exist and I don't care". For every "feature"
you have on that site you have to ask "who can't use this?" and if you
come up with any answer other than "anyone using any speed connection
with any browser including text ones can" then you have to decide if
the prettypretty is worth losing even one customer over.

Even if someone does have flash and broadband, the more "oh god not
that again" or "where on earth is the?" the more likely they'll go
somewhere else.

If you aren't selling things, then do what you want. If you are selling
things, then do what the people with the money want, which is a minimum
of fuss and a maximum of control. Don't force them to do anything unless
you have a very good reason.

Zebee
- declaring an interest: I work for a webdesign shop that prides itself
on producing good looking fast-loading sites that are usable on slow
connections and are fully webstandard compliant

 

[Terry Collins]

Grip wrote:

> I have to say though, it never occured to my addled and simplistic
> brain that the new flash intro was a problem. It's REALLY short and
> automatically jumps straight into the home page. Would you suggest it
> should just START at the home page?

How big is your flash intro?
And ask yourself why everyone should pay to download it?
And if you really want to ******** everyone (say 90%) with dialup links,
then leave it there. Do your web page logs show you what percentage of
contacts never get passed the flash intro?

>
> As for the sizing and the horizontal scrolling, I agree completely...
> HORRIBLE! But it is a brand new site, sent live only a few days before
> Christmas and the day before our designer was leaving for a 6 month
> stint in Canada... so those things are due to be fixed as soon as he's
> settled.

err, if it was designed for 800x600 and you have to do horizontal
scrolling, I would suggest replacing the designer. It doesn't sound like
you received fair value for money from your designer.

 

[kingsley]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:47:31 +1100, flyingdutch wrote:

> Actually the bit that narks me the most about your website is the intro
> flash screen which you are forced to wait for. Its good
> web-design-etiquette to at minimum offer at "skip intro" button to your
> viewers. Altho flash intro' are SOOO 2001, darling"

Un-install flash.

Seriously.
These days it's only used for evil.

-kt

 

[flyingdutch]

Un-install flash.

Seriously.
These days it's only used for evil.

-kt

hey. back off fella!

Flash is way too un-replaceable for doing software demo's or games.

Personally i think you would all be far better off un-installing Powerpoint!!!!
The single biggest killer of the English language!$@$###!!$!!!!!

Why use syntax when you can paraphrase in bullet points?
Or cram War-n-peace onto the one page
Or make everything move/transition??
Or use diagrams complex enough to make even Barry 'pik-a-box' whince
Or, Or, Or ... step away from the keyboard

 

[DRS]

"kingsley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]

[...]

> Un-install flash.
>
> Seriously.
> These days it's only used for evil.

Not true: http://www.yetisports.org/y/en/online.html

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Sasha]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Grip wrote:
>
> > I have to say though, it never occured to my addled and simplistic
> > brain that the new flash intro was a problem. It's REALLY short and
> > automatically jumps straight into the home page. Would you suggest it
> > should just START at the home page?
>
> How big is your flash intro?
> And ask yourself why everyone should pay to download it?
> And if you really want to ******** everyone (say 90%) with dialup links,
> then leave it there. Do your web page logs show you what percentage of
> contacts never get passed the flash intro?

Well I know that I certainly cannot get past the flash intro. Consequently,
I still know nothing about Gripsport or their products, apart from what is
written in this thread. I think this is a very valid criticism.

Sasha