Ugly Dura Ace Chainset

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Rik O'Shea, Oct 17, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ant

    Ant Guest

    Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > (I'm wondering how long it will be before I see one of them shoehorned on to an mtb...)

    you mean, like, current XTR? just about the same difference.

    i, too, think the new DA is seriously ugly. if i had the money for that kinda stuff, id be running
    an 03 for sure. looks like silly putty.
     


  2. Doug

    Doug Guest

    Still the first time ever that the Tour was won on a shimano-equipped bicycle -- irrespective of
    the rider.

    "Scott Mann" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > No it didn't. US Postal dragged Lance's carcass to victory, not
    Shimano.
    > >
    > > Seriously people, stop buying all the hype.
    > >
    > > Jon
    > >
    > > "RUMSPEC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > It won the Tour this year............!!
    > >
    > Word.
     
  3. Doug

    Doug Guest

    Ugly as it may be (and it is), it's got to be great for bigger riders, given the new integrated
    bottom bracket. I'll take the functionality over the aesthetic if I have to.

    "ant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    > > (I'm wondering how long it will be before I see one of them shoehorned on to an mtb...)
    >
    > you mean, like, current XTR? just about the same difference.
    >
    > i, too, think the new DA is seriously ugly. if i had the money for that kinda stuff, id be running
    > an 03 for sure. looks like silly putty.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Still the first time ever that the Tour was won on a shimano-equipped bicycle -- irrespective of
    > the rider.

    I don't think so. Lance used Shimano components during all of his TDF victories.
     
  5. Nopo

    Nopo Guest

    Not only ugly but,It is not a new idea either, it's a copy of the Bullseye crankset of the 80's. I
    wonder if Rodger Durham had a patent?
     
  6. Doug

    Doug Guest

    Your right -- Sorry. before Lance no Tour was ever won on Dura Ace. Not that the gruppo
    mattered one bit.

    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Still the first time ever that the Tour was won on a shimano-equipped bicycle -- irrespective of
    > > the rider.
    >
    > I don't think so. Lance used Shimano components during all of his TDF victories.
     
  7. Would you care to buy a nice XTR rubber chicken or maybe a Campy Record fish scaler???

    "Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:07:54 GMT, "Bruce Gilbert" <[email protected]> may have said:
    >
    > >...Also check into the under seat mounted horn. It runs on a CO2 cartridge, the same as a tire
    > >inflator. I just thought it was awkward squeezing under the seat to toot the horn. On the other
    > >hand, USCF is probably going to adopt it as mandatory safety
    equipment
    > >for 45+ and above Masters races...
    >
    > Oh, yeah, right, I'm really going to abandon one of the brakes and over half the control in a
    > critical situation, to tootle the $%^&*@! horn. Sure. Uh-huh. Bloody useless. If you're going to
    > have a horn, it needs actuation capability *at* the point where your hands need to be at the time,
    > *not* in a location that might as well be on some other bike. In my opinion, a horn under the seat
    > is probably more of a safety hazard than the thing you might be about to run into.
    >
    > --
    > My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
    > don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.
     
  8. Bruce Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote:
    : Would you care to buy a nice XTR rubber chicken or maybe a Campy Record fish scaler???

    or a campy cork screw or a park pizza cutter?
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  9. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On 18 Oct 2003 01:19:48 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]> may have said:

    >Bruce Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote:
    >: Would you care to buy a nice XTR rubber chicken or maybe a Campy Record fish scaler???
    >
    >or a campy cork screw or a park pizza cutter?

    A campy pie crust crimper, there's the ticket...

    BTW, in the garage yesterday, I discovered that a Campy freewheel makes a decent bottle opener.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
    don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.
     
  10. Tim McTeague

    Tim McTeague Guest

    basjan wrote:

    > To a regular pleb like myself, Bose is great, Emerson is Huffy.

    Go to a real audio store and listen. Prepare to have your mind blown. Bose in 3rd rate stuff at
    best. Big, bloated sound designed to appeal to those who don't know better. Seems to work though as
    they sell tons of stuff. Just like there are more Wal-Mart bikes around than Seven/Serotta/Moots.
    Get the point?

    >
    > Don't read it, don't buy it, no one is holding a gun to your head. Serious cyclists usually prefer
    > other cycling reading matter anyways, even if only for additional reading. "Bicycling" is for
    > everyday cyclists, and does a great job at getting "everyday" people interested and hooked on
    > cycling, a very noble cause.

    What, I can't read it and voice an opinion? I have been a serious rider a long time, most likely
    much longer than you, and the only reason I have not let my subscription lapse is the lack of
    alternatives. "Cycling Plus" is fairly good but also very expensive. I subscribe to "Velo News"
    as well but I would still like a general interest magazine that tests gear and has readable
    articles. Every time I decide to stop getting it they change editors and promise a "whole new
    Bicycling" but it only gets more vapid. FWIW, I have not re-upped this year. How I miss "Bicycle
    Guide" in it's prime.

    Tim McTeague
     
  11. Dirtroadie

    Dirtroadie Guest

  12. Carl Fogel

    Carl Fogel Guest

    [email protected] (DirtRoadie) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > nopo <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Not only ugly but,It is not a new idea either, it's a copy of the Bullseye crankset of the 80's.
    > > I wonder if Rodger Durham had a patent?
    >
    > He has had a few: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml-
    > %2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=IN%2Fdurham+AND+IN%2Froger+andnot+mercury&d=ptxt
    >
    > DR

    Dear DR,

    Thanks for a fascinating link. There goes another half-hour (minimum) of my far-from-valuable time,
    but it looks like fun.

    Carl Fogel
     
  13. Chris B .

    Chris B . Guest

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:15:43 -0400, "Tim McTeague" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >basjan wrote:
    >
    >> To a regular pleb like myself, Bose is great, Emerson is Huffy.
    >
    >Go to a real audio store and listen. Prepare to have your mind blown. Bose in 3rd rate stuff at
    >best. Big, bloated sound designed to appeal to those who don't know better. Seems to work though as
    >they sell tons of stuff. Just like there are more Wal-Mart bikes around than Seven/Serotta/Moots.
    >Get the point?

    Yes, they're primarily a marketing company who rely heavily on their brand name. I still think of
    Mavic as the Bose of the bicycle industry.
     
  14. Tim McTeague

    Tim McTeague Guest

    Chris B. wrote:
    >
    > Yes, they're primarily a marketing company who rely heavily on their brand name. I still think of
    > Mavic as the Bose of the bicycle industry.

    I disagree. While Mavic stuff is more expensive than it should be I think they make top notch stuff.
    All companies seem to get wrapped up in hype. My Seven Axiom has curved seat stays that the company
    claims adds comfort. Give me a break. Those tubes are not going to move any measurable amount except
    perhaps side to side if you stand on the frame. Tires and seats, yes. Rims and spokes, maybe a tiny
    amount. Ti seat stays...no way. Analogies are tricky at best and often just obfuscate. I use them
    all the time but still realize they can be the lazy man's form of logic.

    Tim McTeague
     
  15. Basjan

    Basjan Guest

    "Tim McTeague" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > Go to a real audio store and listen. Prepare to have your mind blown.
    Bose
    > in 3rd rate stuff at best. Big, bloated sound designed to appeal to those who don't know better.
    > Seems to work though as they sell tons of stuff. Just like there are more Wal-Mart bikes around
    > than Seven/Serotta/Moots. Get the point?

    Not really - the fact is, one man's "Seven/Serotta/Moots" is another man's Huffy... think
    Independent Fabrications, etc, etc. I totally agree that there are in fact items out there that
    appeal to the "true" connoiseur, but if I feel my Pinarello Galileo gives me 99% of the ride your
    Moots gives you, I will pay 50% less, without worrying about the fact that half of the group ride
    thinks their bikes are "superior". Get the point?
     
  16. Jobst Brandt

    Jobst Brandt Guest

    anonymous snipes:

    > It won the Tour this year...!!

    If you believe that, you are advertising gullible. Lance won the tour, in spite of mechanical
    failures such as not being able to shift out of low gear on a mountain stage and proceeding to spin
    to a standing victory.

    Jobst Brandt [email protected]
     
  17. Tim McTeague

    Tim McTeague Guest

    basjan wrote:
    >
    > Not really - the fact is, one man's "Seven/Serotta/Moots" is another man's Huffy... think
    > Independent Fabrications, etc, etc. I totally agree that there are in fact items out there that
    > appeal to the "true" connoiseur, but if I feel my Pinarello Galileo gives me 99% of the ride your
    > Moots gives you, I will pay 50% less, without worrying about the fact that half of the group ride
    > thinks their bikes are "superior". Get the point?

    Not really. Where did you get the idea I have a Moots? And if you equate Seven/Serotta/Moots with
    Huffy, well, you are clearly impaired. Pointless.

    Tim McTeague
     
  18. Basjan

    Basjan Guest

    "Tim McTeague" <[email protected]> wrote

    > basjan wrote:
    > > Not really - the fact is, one man's "Seven/Serotta/Moots" is another man's Huffy... think
    > > Independent Fabrications, etc, etc. I totally agree that there are in fact items out there that
    > > appeal to the "true" connoiseur, but if I feel my Pinarello Galileo gives me 99% of the ride
    > > your Moots gives you, I will pay 50% less, without worrying about the fact that half of the
    > > group ride thinks their bikes are "superior". Get the point?

    "Tim McTeague" <[email protected]> wrote

    > Not really. Where did you get the idea I have a Moots?

    Just an example, Tim, just an example...

    >And if you equate Seven/Serotta/Moots with Huffy, well, you are clearly
    impaired. Pointless.

    Come on Tim, be reasonable! My point, put very bluntly, is that it all depends on one's perspective.
    There is always something "better" out there. Exactly what brand/technology constitutes "better"
    depends on your perspective. Say I think IF bikes are the cat's whiskers, then maybe Moots will be
    "like Huffy" to me, while to someone else Moots is the cherry, while Trek is "like Huffy". I was
    simply trying to state that one should be careful of putting down something that is of value to
    someone else, just because it is of little/no value to you. One's value is based on one's
    perceptions.. In fact, my little Panansonic audio system might (don't take this literally, I just
    mean it "might") take me places your "Thiel, Vandersteen, Revel, etc." doesn't take you!! For me it
    is great, does not mean I am ignorant, just that I want to spend $300 on my little system, because
    $4000 only gives me marginally more...

    That is as simple as I can possible hope to explain myself.
     
  19. On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:01:08 -0400, "Tim McTeague" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Chris B. wrote:
    >>
    >> Yes, they're primarily a marketing company who rely heavily on their brand name. I still think of
    >> Mavic as the Bose of the bicycle industry.
    >
    >I disagree. While Mavic stuff is more expensive than it should be I think they make top
    >notch stuff.

    Bose owners are true believers, too.
     
  20. Tim McTeague

    Tim McTeague Guest

    basjan wrote:
    >
    > Come on Tim, be reasonable! My point, put very bluntly, is that it all depends on one's
    > perspective. There is always something "better" out there. Exactly what brand/technology
    > constitutes "better" depends on your perspective. Say I think IF bikes are the cat's whiskers,
    > then maybe Moots will be "like Huffy" to me, while to someone else Moots is the cherry, while Trek
    > is "like Huffy". I was simply trying to state that one should be careful of putting down something
    > that is of value to someone else, just because it is of little/no value to you. One's value is
    > based on one's perceptions.. In fact, my little Panansonic audio system might (don't take this
    > literally, I just mean it "might") take me places your "Thiel, Vandersteen, Revel, etc." doesn't
    > take you!! For me it is great, does not mean I am ignorant, just that I want to spend $300 on my
    > little system, because $4000 only gives me marginally more...
    >
    > That is as simple as I can possible hope to explain myself.

    I just happen to believe that there are some standards of quality. Now, once you get high up the
    ladder, one's opinion and perception may sway you one way or the other. I think most high end bikes
    are on a pretty even level. The Sevens, Serottas, etc., etc., are all very good. I never trash
    someone for picking one over the other as it is fairly hard to go wrong. I think most will agree a
    Moots is a better bike than a Huffy. That does not mean that someone, somewhere, does not revel in
    the ride quality of their Huffy. Just don't try to maintain it is equal to the best. You may reach
    Nirvana sliding down a grass hill on a piece of cardboard. I certainly did in my childhood. Now
    matter how much fun it was a piece of cardboard is not a "Flexible Flyer". Just as I am sure owners
    of Bose products think they sound great. Just compare them, along with say, Thiel, to the sound of
    the "real thing", run some tests, and you will see that the high-end speakers really ARE better.
    Again, once you get above a certain level of quality, which is "best" becomes more subjective. Sorry
    if this thread went a bit far afield. I didn't want to get in a pissing contest.

    Tim McTeague
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...