value of a custom frame

[Ron Ruff]

Zix wrote:
> I don't think my body is especially oddly dimensioned
> per se, but I do somewhat feel that if I'm going to
> invest in a good bike, costing over US$1000,
> I might as well pay something extra for the custom job
> in part because I'm done growing (long ago) and
> whatever I buy will most likely fit me like a glove for life.

If bike frames were like gloves then "fitting like a glove" might make
some sense... but we aren't stuck with the seat and bars in a
particular position. The seat can easily be raised and lowered a few
inches, and moved fore/aft an inch at least before it looks goofy.
Similarly, handlebar stems come in a wide range of lengths and rises.

"Fitting for life" is also not likely to be true, since your "optimum"
position on the bike will probably evolve as you get more experienced.
If I'd bought a custom frame when I first started riding, I wouldn't
like it so well now.

It is easy to get obsessive about frame size and geometry, but I think
it best to wait until you've been riding awhile... then maybe you'll
know what you want. I somewhat picky about bike fit because I've been
riding a long time... and developed a preference. I used to ride a 58cm
frame... now I have a 56... and I think my next will be a 54. I like to
have the front wheel tucked in as far as possible, with a long stem,
and I've gradually moved my seat back... which means I prefer smaller
frames than what I'd normally be sized for. But the wide range of
adjustibility in the seat and bars makes it easy to get the same body
position on any of these frames... and the small differences in
handling or feel, I'd definitely put in the "esoteric" realm.

So... unless you want something pretty strange, or your body has *very*
odd proportions (and even then most can fit fine on a compact), you
should have no trouble finding a standard frame that fits very well.

 

[Donald Gillies]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:

>> I think that the main reason to get a custom bicycle is that you can
>> get something of much higher quality and durability. Your desire
>> might be aesthetic, e.g. if you have an eye for artistry, or a sense
>> of mojo developed in your brain by marketing when you were very young.
>>
>> A lot of people feel left out in the cold by the recent trend towards
>> fast-food / mcdonalds bicycle frames (e.g. eat them up, then pitch
>> them out, gotta get a new one every 5-10 years, we are under the spell
>> of the greedy marketeers from bicycle companies! ! !)

>I'm not sure why you feel this is the case. Yes, you can get something new
>every few years if you wish, but that's a choice, not a requirement. Road
>bikes have the advantage of being relatively-durable goods, vs mountain
>bikes, where it's obsolete when it first hits the trail because it doesn't
>have the latest fork or rear suspension.

Mike, be careful where you aim your "soft sell beam." The frame I
bought from YOU PERSONALLY (yes, you wrote up the bill of sale) lasted
less than 2 years before it failed. Yes, I was replaced under
warranty, but quite frankly, I was charged $45 shipping for a very
different frame I didn't want, never selected, and told to go packing
by TREK.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[Donald Gillies]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:

>> I think that the main reason to get a custom bicycle is that you can
>> get something of much higher quality and durability. Your desire
>> might be aesthetic, e.g. if you have an eye for artistry, or a sense
>> of mojo developed in your brain by marketing when you were very young.
>>
>> A lot of people feel left out in the cold by the recent trend towards
>> fast-food / mcdonalds bicycle frames (e.g. eat them up, then pitch
>> them out, gotta get a new one every 5-10 years, we are under the spell
>> of the greedy marketeers from bicycle companies! ! !)

>I'm not sure why you feel this is the case. Yes, you can get something new
>every few years if you wish, but that's a choice, not a requirement. Road
>bikes have the advantage of being relatively-durable goods, vs mountain
>bikes, where it's obsolete when it first hits the trail because it doesn't
>have the latest fork or rear suspension.

Mike, be careful where you aim your "soft sell beam."

The TREK 2300 frame I bought from YOU PERSONALLY (yes, you wrote up
the bill of sale, i still have it) lasted less than 2 years and 5k
miles before it failed, stupidly. Yes, it was replaced under
warranty, but quite frankly, I was charged $45 shipping for a very
different frame I didn't want, never selected, and told to go packing
by TREK. If that's "getting a new frame based upon choice" then i'll
be damned.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Donald Gillies wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> I think that the main reason to get a custom bicycle is that you can
> >> get something of much higher quality and durability. Your desire
> >> might be aesthetic, e.g. if you have an eye for artistry, or a sense
> >> of mojo developed in your brain by marketing when you were very young.
> >>
> >> A lot of people feel left out in the cold by the recent trend towards
> >> fast-food / mcdonalds bicycle frames (e.g. eat them up, then pitch
> >> them out, gotta get a new one every 5-10 years, we are under the spell
> >> of the greedy marketeers from bicycle companies! ! !)
>
> >I'm not sure why you feel this is the case. Yes, you can get something new
> >every few years if you wish, but that's a choice, not a requirement. Road
> >bikes have the advantage of being relatively-durable goods, vs mountain
> >bikes, where it's obsolete when it first hits the trail because it doesn't
> >have the latest fork or rear suspension.
>
> Mike, be careful where you aim your "soft sell beam."
>
> The TREK 2300 frame I bought from YOU PERSONALLY (yes, you wrote up
> the bill of sale, i still have it) lasted less than 2 years and 5k
> miles before it failed, stupidly. Yes, it was replaced under
> warranty, but quite frankly, I was charged $45 shipping for a very
> different frame I didn't want, never selected, and told to go packing
> by TREK. If that's "getting a new frame based upon choice" then i'll
> be damned.
>

I'm curious, what frame did Trek supply as a replacement? And, FWIW,
charging you for shipping in what seems to be a clear case of a
defective product, seems out of bounds. (Let's be clear: I'm not
suggesting that the dealer should "eat" the shipping charge, but Trek
clearly should.)

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Mike, be careful where you aim your "soft sell beam."
>
> The TREK 2300 frame I bought from YOU PERSONALLY (yes, you wrote up
> the bill of sale, i still have it) lasted less than 2 years and 5k
> miles before it failed, stupidly. Yes, it was replaced under
> warranty, but quite frankly, I was charged $45 shipping for a very
> different frame I didn't want, never selected, and told to go packing
> by TREK. If that's "getting a new frame based upon choice" then i'll
> be damned.
>
> - Don Gillies

No problem, I can take the heat! I cannot tell you why you were charged
shipping; we certainly wouldn't have done so unless we really screwed up.
Looking at your purchase history in our Redwood City store, looks like the
only transaction here took place in April of 2000. I don't have ready access
to the Los Altos store... well, actually, yes I do. Just logged on to see,
and don't find any more info there. My guess is that you moved to San Diego
and had it taken care of down there?

If anyone told you to "go packing" I sure wish you'd gotten in contact with
me (obviously, I'm opening up a big opportunity to look stupid here, in case
you did!). When a frame fails and it's deemed a warranty issue, the customer
*does* have choices, particularly with newer models. If a color is
unacceptable, a frame can be snagged from warranty stock and painted a
current color choice. If a frame of the same sort is no longer available,
there are options to be presented. In no instance is a frame automatically
dispatched without some contact with the shop. Beyond that, a credit can be
issued which can be applied to a new bike if desired.

Clearly (to me), things were handled neither in the normal way or
appropriately. Since I sold the bike, I still retain a sense of ownership in
it, and any problems it might have, regardless of where someone's moved. Was
this something I was involved in at all, or was it taken care of entirely
elsewhere?

This may seem like airing dirty laundry in public, but that's OK, I'm pretty
darned transparent.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Donald Gillies" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> I think that the main reason to get a custom bicycle is that you can
>>> get something of much higher quality and durability. Your desire
>>> might be aesthetic, e.g. if you have an eye for artistry, or a sense
>>> of mojo developed in your brain by marketing when you were very young.
>>>
>>> A lot of people feel left out in the cold by the recent trend towards
>>> fast-food / mcdonalds bicycle frames (e.g. eat them up, then pitch
>>> them out, gotta get a new one every 5-10 years, we are under the spell
>>> of the greedy marketeers from bicycle companies! ! !)
>
>>I'm not sure why you feel this is the case. Yes, you can get something new
>>every few years if you wish, but that's a choice, not a requirement. Road
>>bikes have the advantage of being relatively-durable goods, vs mountain
>>bikes, where it's obsolete when it first hits the trail because it doesn't
>>have the latest fork or rear suspension.
>
> Mike, be careful where you aim your "soft sell beam."
>
> The TREK 2300 frame I bought from YOU PERSONALLY (yes, you wrote up
> the bill of sale, i still have it) lasted less than 2 years and 5k
> miles before it failed, stupidly. Yes, it was replaced under
> warranty, but quite frankly, I was charged $45 shipping for a very
> different frame I didn't want, never selected, and told to go packing
> by TREK. If that's "getting a new frame based upon choice" then i'll
> be damned.
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA

 

[Ted Bennett]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I was perfectly happy with my bike when I got it in June.
>
> I sold it half price three months later and was perfectly happy with my
> bike when I got it in September.
>
> Then I changed the stem.
>
> Then I changed the handlebars.
>
> Then I changed the handlebars back.
>
> Then I changed the pedals.
>
> Now I'm thinking about lowering the handlebars, and maybe raising the
> seat a little.
>
> But I'm perfectly happy with my bike exactly the way it is.
>
> -M



Heh. You sly dog, Marian.

--
Ted Bennett

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 20 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0800, [email protected] (Donald Gillies)
wrote:

>I think that the main reason to get a custom bicycle is that you can
>get something of much higher quality and durability.

I believe that to be an axiomatic statemenet w/o merit. It is
difficult to beat computer designed frames and robot assembly.
Something like a Cannondale or Trek are each very high quality and
durable.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Paul Kopit wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0800, [email protected] (Donald Gillies)
> wrote:
>
> >I think that the main reason to get a custom bicycle is that you can
> >get something of much higher quality and durability.
>
> I believe that to be an axiomatic statemenet w/o merit. It is
> difficult to beat computer designed frames and robot assembly.
> Something like a Cannondale or Trek are each very high quality and
> durable.


Well, that depends on what the buyer/rider is seeking. For example, the
C'dale fast road frames (CAAD8?) are built with the lightest possible
weight, not durability, as the primary objective. Reading their
warranty statement and that "check for cracks before every ride"
sticker down near the BB will confirm this.

Now, let's say the buyer/rider has different priorities. Let's say he
wants a fast bike (i.e., so-called "racing geometry"), but is willing
to accept an extra pound (or two!) in the frame/fork *if* it will lead
to a longer service life. In today's "WhatsItWeigh" marketplace, that
type of bike is difficult to find "off the shelf".

 

[[email protected]]

Paul Kopit wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2006 15:16:20 -0800, [email protected] (Donald Gillies)
> wrote:
>
> >I think that the main reason to get a custom bicycle is that you can
> >get something of much higher quality and durability.
>
> I believe that to be an axiomatic statemenet w/o merit. It is
> difficult to beat computer designed frames and robot assembly.
> Something like a Cannondale or Trek are each very high quality and
> durable.

We've all heard stories of certain production frames that broke "there"
with some regularity. I owned one such, and yes, it did break where the
guy said it would <g>. I've also had one well-regarded production frame
that, like others I've seen from this maker, was certainly not made
cosmetically perfect before paint.

Suggesting this is one area where the small-run facility can top the
big guys. That's "can", of course. And it costs extra time/money.
Another possible "quality" marker: pretty welds on Ti bikes. I have a
Ti bike, known maker, works great, and with personal production welding
experience (if in steel only), I know there isn't any practical
difference, but the welds are not cosmetically comparable (country
mile) to a couple of Sevens and Serottas I've eyeballed. I'm guessing
the S's pay their welders more... PIO not affected here, and it's
painted anyhow.

One indicator that's easy for me to spot is "happiness with a new
custom frame, long top tube".
(new owner comment): "Whew, finally", etc. etc. It's like having a bad
back-- if you don't have a problem, those who do are goldbricking <g>.

What was that frame torture test where the first one that broke had a
valentine on the head tube, and the one that lasted until they turned
the machine off (on with life) was from Waterloo? --D-y

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 22 Mar 2006 05:33:43 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Now, let's say the buyer/rider has different priorities. Let's say he
>wants a fast bike (i.e., so-called "racing geometry"), but is willing
>to accept an extra pound (or two!) in the frame/fork *if* it will lead
>to a longer service life. In today's "WhatsItWeigh" marketplace, that
>type of bike is difficult to find "off the shelf".

www.trekbikes.com.

I guess Treks are hard to find though....

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Donald Gillies]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Mike, be careful where you aim your "soft sell beam."
>>
>> The TREK 2300 frame I bought from YOU PERSONALLY (yes, you wrote up
>> the bill of sale, i still have it) lasted less than 2 years and 5k
>> miles before it failed, stupidly. Yes, it was replaced under
>> warranty, but quite frankly, I was charged $45 shipping for a very
>> different frame I didn't want, never selected, and told to go packing
>> by TREK. If that's "getting a new frame based upon choice" then i'll
>> be damned.
>>
>> - Don Gillies

>No problem, I can take the heat! I cannot tell you why you were charged
>shipping; we certainly wouldn't have done so unless we really screwed up.
>Looking at your purchase history in our Redwood City store, looks like the
>only transaction here took place in April of 2000. I don't have ready access
>to the Los Altos store... well, actually, yes I do. Just logged on to see,
>and don't find any more info there. My guess is that you moved to San Diego
>and had it taken care of down there?

I should apologize because my message was not clear. I was not told
to "go packing" by Chain Reaction bicycles. I have the highest
respect for that shop and for Mike Jacoubowsky in particular. I was
treated this way by my local TREK dealer (UC Cyclery) here in San
Diego. Chain Reaction is a very high-quality operation.

I was trying to express how it feels to have a high-tech frame go
south on you for no apparent reason. Honestly, it feels like a crook
came and stole the frame from you. Yes, you can get another one from
the dealer, and if you're super lucky you might be able to get the
right color or even one that looks similar. In my case, TREK had gone
through 3 generations of frames and the replacement frame that I got
was arguably "even higher tech" ( Red Scandium with carbon rear stays
) than what I lost ( 3 tubes Gold carbon with cast aluminum rear
triangle ).

However, I take a long time ( > 1 month ) to purchase expensive items
and I don't think that I would have selected the scandium / carbon
stayed bike based upon ride quality or the integrated headset. So, in
general, it left a bad taste in my mouth to lose my old friend, the
1992-1998 2300 3-tubes carbon bike.

I honestly would have preferred a used frame - or any ugly welded seat
cluster - as a warranty replacement / remedy.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2006 05:33:43 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Now, let's say the buyer/rider has different priorities. Let's say he
> >wants a fast bike (i.e., so-called "racing geometry"), but is willing
> >to accept an extra pound (or two!) in the frame/fork *if* it will lead
> >to a longer service life. In today's "WhatsItWeigh" marketplace, that
> >type of bike is difficult to find "off the shelf".
>
> www.trekbikes.com.

Linking to a a manufacturer's site is oh-so-useful. They would never
tell a tall tale, right?


> I guess Treks are hard to find though....
>

The cheap Treks are run-of-the-mill Asian ****. The expensive ones are
souless, popped-out-of-a-mold, faceless product. You like 'em, enjoy!

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 22 Mar 2006 18:42:12 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2006 05:33:43 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Now, let's say the buyer/rider has different priorities. Let's say he
>> >wants a fast bike (i.e., so-called "racing geometry"), but is willing
>> >to accept an extra pound (or two!) in the frame/fork *if* it will lead
>> >to a longer service life. In today's "WhatsItWeigh" marketplace, that
>> >type of bike is difficult to find "off the shelf".
>>
>> www.trekbikes.com.
>
>Linking to a a manufacturer's site is oh-so-useful. They would never
>tell a tall tale, right?

The point is that Trek sells all sorts of bikes, not just racing
bikes. They have hybrids and city bikes and dropped bar bikes that
take larger tires and are a little heavier than the racing bikes.
Those are facts. I know you have some bizarre tendency to disbelieve
"marketing" but to assume all marketing is a lie surely results in
your missing the existence of some decent products. For that reason,
you shoud not be trusted in saying what does and doesn't exist in the
bike marketplace.

>> I guess Treks are hard to find though....
>>
>
>The cheap Treks are run-of-the-mill Asian ****. The expensive ones are
>souless, popped-out-of-a-mold, faceless product.

I don't really undestand how a machine can have a soul. And even
vaguely accepting the concept, a bike probably gets it's soul (or
whatever you want to call it) from how it is used and the experiences
the rider has on it.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2006 18:42:12 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On 22 Mar 2006 05:33:43 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Now, let's say the buyer/rider has different priorities. Let's say he
> >> >wants a fast bike (i.e., so-called "racing geometry"), but is willing
> >> >to accept an extra pound (or two!) in the frame/fork *if* it will lead
> >> >to a longer service life. In today's "WhatsItWeigh" marketplace, that
> >> >type of bike is difficult to find "off the shelf".
> >>
> >> www.trekbikes.com.
> >
> >Linking to a a manufacturer's site is oh-so-useful. They would never
> >tell a tall tale, right?
>
> The point is that Trek sells all sorts of bikes, not just racing
> bikes.

That's beside the point and outside the discussion. Read the prior
text; the subject is durable bikes with "racing geometry".



They have hybrids and city bikes and dropped bar bikes that
> take larger tires and are a little heavier than the racing bikes.
> Those are facts. I know you have some bizarre tendency to disbelieve
> "marketing" but to assume all marketing is a lie surely results in
> your missing the existence of some decent products. For that reason,
> you shoud not be trusted in saying what does and doesn't exist in the
> bike marketplace.
>
> >> I guess Treks are hard to find though....
> >>
> >
> >The cheap Treks are run-of-the-mill Asian ****. The expensive ones are
> >souless, popped-out-of-a-mold, faceless product.
>
> I don't really undestand how a machine can have a soul.


And you probably can't understand the difference between an Alfa Giulia
Spider and a Mazda Miata. Or a film by Orson Welles and one by James
Cameron. Pity. Many others can. Perhaps you'll come around.



> And even
> vaguely accepting the concept, a bike probably gets it's soul (or
> whatever you want to call it) from how it is used and the experiences
> the rider has on it.
>

That's part of the equation, as well.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 22 Mar 2006 19:47:45 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2006 18:42:12 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On 22 Mar 2006 05:33:43 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Now, let's say the buyer/rider has different priorities. Let's say he
>> >> >wants a fast bike (i.e., so-called "racing geometry"), but is willing
>> >> >to accept an extra pound (or two!) in the frame/fork *if* it will lead
>> >> >to a longer service life. In today's "WhatsItWeigh" marketplace, that
>> >> >type of bike is difficult to find "off the shelf".
>> >>
>> >> www.trekbikes.com.
>> >
>> >Linking to a a manufacturer's site is oh-so-useful. They would never
>> >tell a tall tale, right?
>>
>> The point is that Trek sells all sorts of bikes, not just racing
>> bikes.
>
>That's beside the point and outside the discussion. Read the prior
>text; the subject is durable bikes with "racing geometry".

And heavier. But if you want durable, get a Trek Carbon frame and put
whatever parts you want on it. It'll last a very long time. The
frame, which is the key part of this disussion, will last for years or
decades, barring a major crash. Is that good enough for you?

"Unfortunately" those frames are not especially heavy and they are
heavily advertised, so I guess you'll assume they're bad. Your loss.
And the loss of people you advise.

>>
>> I don't really undestand how a machine can have a soul.
>
>
>And you probably can't understand the difference between an Alfa Giulia
>Spider and a Mazda Miata.

I don't know anything about cars. But what's your point? Do these
cars drive/perform the same but somehow have different "soul"? What
does that mean? Does it mean if you drive around in one you can brag
about it or feel special in some way that you choose one with some
intangible benefit?

If so, I'm getting a better understanding of your nonsensically
overbroard support for bar-end shifters. It's not about the actual
function of the machine, but about some intangible thing called "soul"
or something. Whatever floats you boat I guess, but it doesn't make
sense from a logical standpoint.

>Or a film by Orson Welles and one by James
>Cameron. Pity. Many others can. Perhaps you'll come around.

I don't know much about movies, but in any case to relate
understanding a simple machine with, say, art or literature is
bizarre. But I know you like to take potshots at me, so if that gives
you pleasure, great.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

<snipped>

-understanding the world-


> >> I don't really undestand how a machine can have a soul.
> >
> >
> >And you probably can't understand the difference between an Alfa Giulia
> >Spider and a Mazda Miata.
>
> I don't know anything about cars.


Why am I not surprised?


> But what's your point? Do these
> cars drive/perform the same but somehow have different "soul"? What
> does that mean? Does it mean if you drive around in one you can brag
> about it or feel special in some way that you choose one with some
> intangible benefit?


:::Sigh::::


<snipped>


> >Or a film by Orson Welles and one by James
> >Cameron. Pity. Many others can. Perhaps you'll come around.
>
> I don't know much about movies

Not surprising.....



> but in any case to relate
> understanding a simple machine with, say, art or literature is
> bizarre.


What's in your veins? Blood or hydraulic fluid?



But I know you like to take potshots at me, so if that gives
> you pleasure, great.
>

You're such an easy target that pleasure is absent.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 23 Mar 2006 05:22:32 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2006 20:29:07 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >
>> ><snipped>
>> >
>> >-understanding the world-
>> >> >> I don't really undestand how a machine can have a soul.
>> >> >And you probably can't understand the difference between an Alfa Giulia
>> >> >Spider and a Mazda Miata.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know anything about cars.
>> >Why am I not surprised?
>>
>> Nice dig at me. Good one. I have a reliable car that works well and
>> can drive it. That's the extent of my understanding. Rag on me some
>> more. It's not a manual transmisstion -- I can barely drive them and
>> haven't for many years. Please rag on me some more.
>>
>> >> But what's your point? Do these
>> >> cars drive/perform the same but somehow have different "soul"? What
>> >> does that mean? Does it mean if you drive around in one you can brag
>> >> about it or feel special in some way that you choose one with some
>> >> intangible benefit?
>> >:::Sigh::::
>>
>> That's it? You can't even explain your example?
>
>To you? Who has the time?
>
>
>> Is it too subtle to
>> put into words for someone like me to understand.
>

Well, explain it for the other readers of this thread then.
>
>It's possible to appreciate a thing on more than one level, but I guess
>that kind of thing eludes you.

No, it doesn't elude me. It's just not technical appreciation. It's
emotional.

>Believe me, Johnny, my tech understanding of bicycles far exceeds
>yours. I can and do build up bicycles from the frame, spoke and bearing
>ball level. And they work well for many years and many, many miles.
>
>Your tech understanding is limited to the buzz at the LBS, the drivel
>on the Trek (etc.) website and the crappola you slowly read in Velo
>news.

> Believe me, Johnny, my tech
> understanding of bicycles far exceeds
> yours. I can and do build up bicycles
> from the frame, spoke and bearing
> ball level. And they work well for
> many years and many, many miles.
> Your tech understanding is limited
> to the buzz at the LBS, the drivel
> on the Trek (etc.) website and the
> crappola you slowly read in Velo
> news.

I'm not going to try to "out-experience you" in cycling tech work,
because I believe that you make your living on bikes, but have to
point out that you're talking out your ass in about my own tech
experience.

I've never built a frame and haven't done hard-core frame prep like
tapping threads or facing a headtube. But apart from that stuff
(which requires expensive tools) I've done pretty much everything
else. All the bikes I ride I've built up myself from parts. Ditto for
my wife's bike. I've also built most of the wheels I ride. It has been
this way for at least 15 years (but it may change soon -- I'm probably
buying a stock bike built up this year).

The last time I took a bike to a shop for service was probably the
early 1990s when I needed the threads in a bottom bracket chased (I
don't own those tools) and then six years ago when I needed a
seat-tube cleaned out with a flex-hone (I don't own one either).

I don't get any tech advice from local shops -- I don't use them much
at all except to buy things quickly. The stuff on the Trek website I
have pointed you to is not tech info, it was marketing information and
product specs. The point in one case was to show that the
characterization of Trek's marketing (supposedly emphasizing
lightness) was wrong -- that their marketing efforts have a more
complex and naunced message than that. And also to point out that
they market things other than racing bikes.

I read about every other issue of VeloNews and there is sometimes
useful info in that magazine. But it's not the main source of
knowledge for me. I guess the main sources of knowledge for me are
experience with bikes, looking at what other people use and seeing
what happens, and a bunch of online sources.

I expect you to attack some of my statements above, perhaps trying to
characterize it as bragging or something, but will point out that I
have written this soley in response to false or flawed statements
you've just made about me.

> you slowly read in

Funny.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

<much snippage>


> I expect you to attack some of my statements above, perhaps trying to
> characterize it as bragging or something, but will point out that I
> have written this soley in response to false or flawed statements
> you've just made about me.
>

John, our adversial position began when, whilst disagreeing about
bicycle components (specifically, bar end shifters), you made personal
attacks on myself and others, including calling me a liar without any
evidence of such.

I think it possible to politely disagree and engage in constructive
debate. I'm holding an olive branch, want some?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 23 Mar 2006 05:52:39 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
><much snippage>
>
>
>> I expect you to attack some of my statements above, perhaps trying to
>> characterize it as bragging or something, but will point out that I
>> have written this soley in response to false or flawed statements
>> you've just made about me.
>>
>
>John, our adversial position began when, whilst disagreeing about
>bicycle components (specifically, bar end shifters), you made personal
>attacks on myself and others, including calling me a liar without any
>evidence of such.
>
>I think it possible to politely disagree and engage in constructive
>debate. I'm holding an olive branch, want some?

I'm not in some strategic effort to "score points" against your or
make friends with you. I'm simply stating facts as facts and my own
opinions as opinions. If some of those offend you, so be it. If the
things you say in public are stupid or push people in the wrong
directly, I'll continute to point that out.

I stand by all my comments, apart from the one where I called you a
liar -- you truly believed what you were saying, despite it being
nonsense. In some cases I have speculated about the origins of some
of the flawed things you have said -- attributing them to anger or
other emotional issues. I have tried to label this clearly as
speculation (logical speculation, but speculation nonetheless). If
that was not clear, sorry.

You have simply made up stuff about me in an attempt to bolster the
often-flawed logic of your position. Your recent comments about my
sources of info about bike tech are an example -- stuff pulled out of
thin air. If that's how you like to argue, go ahead. Or if you want
to apologize for that, retract those statements. They stand or fall
on their own merits.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]>:
>I think it possible to politely disagree and engage in constructive
>debate.

By saying how bicycles have souls and exclaiming "you just don't GET IT"
whenever you're asked to quantify that?

Hell, I don't think _people_ have souls, so I'm a little mystified about
this one myself.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Brieday, March.