ok, hands up

When I criticize something it's usually pertinent to it's use.

For example, Campagnolo makes great products for the competitive
cyclist. but most (if not all) Campy equipment is second rate for
touring purposes (IMHO).

I rarely pass judgement on something I haven't tried myself, though.

May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris

Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:24:51 +0000, jim beam wrote:

quick survey:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?

I'll bite.

further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the
author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting
phenomenon.

This should be balanced with the "other side". Arguments _for_ a
particular material -- especially something new -- tend to be based on
"reviews" in trade pubs like Bicycling. We should keep back issues, so we
could point out how glowing their reviews of Spinnergy Spox wheels or
Biopace chainrings were.

Sorry, but I reserve the right to question the claims of someone marketing
the latest multi-thousand dollar frame without having to go buy the thing
first. If the claims are clearly specious, then I have no compunction.
Such an example is the use of carbon seat stays.

why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any
thoughts?

Why do people waste thousands of dollars on unproven technology based only
on the manufacturer's claims? Bicycles are a very mature technology; any
change from the standard is as likely to be detrimental as it is to be an
improvement.

"New" does not necessarily mean "improved". Year after year of clear
examples of that in the marketplace, you think people would learn.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
_`\(,_ | common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
(_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my
trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

I have a recumbent and it works for me. Also have 3 old-style
bicycles. Each has its place.

My butt says the recumbent has the most comfy seat. Good ventilation,
too. Not sure how you can measure that, but it's true. Sit down on a
Rotator sometime and find out for yourself. It wiould be difficult to
do a double-blind test on that one...

I also know from experience that recumbents don't climb as well as
old-style bikes. They kick ass on level ground. Positively wild
going down hills. Perhaps you could find a rocket scientist to
verify.

Also, the speed issue is why the stinking frogs and Italians banned
them from mainstream racing. If recuments were slow they would been
eliminated for practical reasons instead of political reasons. Again,
there ought to be a rocket scientist somewhere who can comment.

Seriously now, was your post a troll, or what?

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 20:20:45 -0400, "swamprun"
wrote:

I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an
almost religious zeal for their machines, but few facts about riding them.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:03:43 +0000, Bill Bushnell wrote:
While there may be sound scientific reasoning behind the criticism of a
product (e.g. solid tires) or a concept (e.g. the current industry
standard disk brake fork-mount) discussed in these forums, I have yet to
see similar rigor applied to the discussion of why one should or should
not ride a recumbent. All such discussions I have read boil down to
personal preference.

In article ,
jim beam wrote:

quick survey:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?

further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience
of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly
interesting phenomenon.

It's Middle Aged Male Answer Syndrome. Some people enter middle age
earlier than others, and some stay longer. ;-)

why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this.
any thoughts?

One can criticize the design of a product one has not personally used,
for example, if that product has obvious design problems and one has
the necessary knowledge to understand the problems. That's a fairly
small percentage on rec.bikes.*

In article ,
Benjamin Lewis wrote:

In many cases I'm sure you could attribute it to what Jobst Brandt
calls MAS, or "Male Answer Syndrome".

I call it MAMAS (Middle Aged Male Answer Syndrome).

" Also, the speed issue is why the stinking frogs and Italians banned
them from mainstream racing.

no good argument ever ends with a racial or cultural slur.
alfred klek

"swamprun" wrote in message . ..
I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an
almost religious zeal for their machines, but few facts about riding them.


Well, yes... in many cases, switching to recumbent bike allows a
dedicated rider to continue riding a bicycle for many years after the
pain of upright riding precludes further cycling. Whether that pain
is caused by maladjustment of the bicycle or improper equipment
choices is a subject worthy of a college course, not a usenet posting.

In many cases, a recumbent is the equivalent of an upright bike. In
some areas, they're worse, in others, better.

Lately, I've been riding a single-speed upright to get me across
downtown from the cheap parking to my job. Next week, I'll be
spending 4 to 6 hours a day riding on Cycle Oregon. For that, I'm
taking my favorite recumbent because I want to admire the scenery.
Each bike has its place and its purpose.

I currently have 6 bikes- three uprights and three recumbents.
They're all used to some degree or another. Isn't that what cycling
is about?

Jeff Wills

Art Harris wrote:
jim beam wrote:
why do people do it?
I don't know. Why do you use different names in every ng you post to?

Oh, details, please! This way lies sock-puppetry.
--
David Damerell flcl?

jim beam wrote:
hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of
equipment they've never tried. anyone?

Sure. Anyone acting on logic considerations and basic (scientific)
knowledge will.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

I never drove a Pinto with an exploding gas tank.

I don't smoke.

I never used a Dalcon Shield IUD.

There is no asbestos insulation in my house.

If someone were to offer me some heroin, I probably wouldn't try it. But if
I did, I would want some assurance that it had not been cut with rat poison.

There's lots of stuff that I can criticize without having tried it
personally.

Duffy