On Apr 25, 4:35*am, jim beam wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 25, 4:05 am, jim beam wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I have two aliminium bikes which are both eminently satisfactory
except for one detail: the welding on one is ugly
that's an ignorant jobstian bull**** excuse. if the mechanicals are
good and the microstructure good, that's all that matters to your
ability to ride the damned thing.

How it it "ignorant" to demand aesthetic satisfaction from the
artifacts one owns. Stop blustering, Jimbo; it makes you sound like a
troll. A Ford gets you there. A Bentley gets you there with a smile on
your face.

it's attributing more value to the aesthetics than the tech, that's why.
* tech news group, remember?

What, you can only post here if you use exclusive ugly gear? Wakey,
wakey, Jumbo, half or more the bikes in America are sold for people to
look cool on, not for an functional or technical superiority.

Original text, in case you want to know, dealt with value for money
and pedigree in steel bikes:

snip more steel blathering

andre, examine the facts associated with the following:

corrosion
price
stiffness
weight

Yes, but since my steel bike is vastly overspecified for any demand I
will ever place on it in service, the parameters are quite irrelevant.
My technical interest is in the gearboxes and the tyres, and it is
notable that my steel bike is lighter than two ali bikes I have with
roughly the same spec (hub gearboxes, hub dynamoes, full touring/city
gear). I find both ali and steel frames satisfactory, but steel more
so for inexpressible reasons as well as those inherent in the design
differences between the bikes.

now quitcher bitchin.

Eh, you're changing side are you? You now reckon that complaining
about excessive Waterford pricing is "bitching". Make up your mind,
Jumbo. (Nah,, don't bother. I'm just trolling you. I know you wouldn't
waste Waterford money on a mere bike, even a carbon one.)

Andre Jute
Carpals of iron. IRON! I tell you. -- Ron Bales on Andre Jute