No Fat Trucks

Outlaw power steering.

Badger_South wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:57:29 -0500, Dave wrote:


Luigi de Guzman wrote:


A valid point, Chalo, but it doesn't explain why it seems that a vast
number of SUV drivers (especially 'luxury' SUV drivers) seem to be
diminuitive white women. They certainly don't need all the extra
space, and sometimes I wonder if they can see properly.

Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher
and provide better visibility than cars.


-=Dave=-


You tryin' to be unintentionally funny?

tha-thump "What was that?"

"I don' tknow, I didn't see anything (continues babblling on cellphone
while applying mascara in the mirror) Anyway, Marge, you should have
seen..."

=B



--
Outlaw power steering

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html


Class and Helicopter

http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/

Reply to

Matt O'Toole wrote:
: has anyone done a good comparison between s&s and the
: ritchey break-away dealie?
:
: Not for a tandem -- which Ritchey doesn't make, AFAIK. I've seen the Breakaway
: frame for $1100. It would be hard to find a suitable frame, and have the
: couplers installed for much less. The Ritchey design is lighter and better
: looking, and doesn't require special tools. If you already have a suitable
: frame, the couplers might be the way to go.

i was thinking for a single .. i've owned an S&S coupled bike for several
years and i'm pretty comfortable, happy with the design. it gives me warm
fuzzies. i've never even seen the ritchey design soo, basically just
wondering if anyone has any actual experience with it. actually i'd like
to see it, damnit.

egads, i don't think the couplers are anywhere near as ugly as the two-
colour paint job ritchey uses to emphasize the break-down aspect of the
bike.

: I really like this Breakaway design. I hope it will find its way into other
: bikes -- tandems, mountain bikes, and touring bikes, and sensible racing bikes
: with clearance for 23mm tires/fenders. There's no downside to it except
: cost -- and for what it costs it's a better value than just about anything else,
: equipment wise. I'm sure the cost will come down, too. It's inherently much
: cheaper to manufacture than the S&S couplers. This could be the "next big
: thing" in cycling.

it makes a helluva lot of sense on a touring bike (like my bike).

the biggest downside to either design are the f'ing TSA goons. before 9/11
it was less of a problem. now you're potentially screwd if they open up your
bike when you're not around and try and stuff it all back together. at
least with the S&S couplers it is anything but intuitive (actually it
changes with each bike) and a pretty tight fit.
--
david reuteler

David Reuteler wrote:

i was thinking for a single .. i've owned an S&S coupled bike for
several years and i'm pretty comfortable, happy with the design. it
gives me warm fuzzies.

Yup, they're great.

i've never even seen the ritchey design soo,
basically just wondering if anyone has any actual experience with it.
actually i'd like
to see it, damnit.

I saw one at a cafe in town here. The owner came for a VA Tech game, and bought
the bike just before the trip because of all the great riding in the area. We
talked about it a bit, and I got to see it up close. It's just like it looks on
the web. You wouldn't notice the extra hardware at first glance.

Another cool thing is that it's not custom -- it's an off the rack product,
complete with everything you need, ready to go. You know what the bottom line
is from the outset. You're not going to have to buy some ridiculously
overpriced accessory afterward to get the thing to work.

egads, i don't think the couplers are anywhere near as ugly as the
two- colour paint job ritchey uses to emphasize the break-down aspect
of the bike.

Well, you could always go for the Dahon version, in monotone gray or silver (I
can't tell from the picture):

http://www.dahon.com/allegro.htm

Also, I saw a Ritchey one on eBay which was all orange. Perhaps there are
several color choices.

it makes a helluva lot of sense on a touring bike (like my bike).

Yup, especially if you travel to tour.

the biggest downside to either design are the f'ing TSA goons.
before 9/11 it was less of a problem. now you're potentially screwd
if they open up your bike when you're not around and try and stuff it
all back together. at least with the S&S couplers it is anything but
intuitive (actually it changes with each bike) and a pretty tight fit.

Here's an idea -- place the manual for the bike, or an ad, or something that
illustrates what it is, on top of the bike in the case. Maybe that will help
them recognize it, and leave it alone.

Matt O.

Isn't the case slightly larger than the airline "legal" size?
B

(remove clothes to reply)

B wrote:
: Isn't the case slightly larger than the airline "legal" size?

ritchey explicitly says no, but the airlines say it is.

ritchey 9 + 26 + 29 = 64
s&s case 10 + 26 + 26 = 62

http://www.delta.com/travel/trav_ser...dex.jsp#limits
http://www.nwa.com/travel/tips/baggage.html

their limits are 62" .. sooo, looks like it. huh, that's weird. in practice
you're probably ok, however.
--
david reuteler

The Ritchey bike uses two completely different styles of conjunctions
as opposed to the S&S which uses a neat threaded spline for both. The
top conjunction of the Ritchey uses two seat-post pinch-bolts and uses
the seatpost to stabilize the connection - very clever and elegant.
The bottom conjunction is a wrap-around clamp fastened ether by a
bolt. I'm sure Ritchey tested this out thoroughly, but it doesn't
impress me in principle or appearance. And there is already a warning
on the Ritchey website to owners of the bike about overtightening it.

By the way the Ritchey bag may be oversize because they include a
plastic half-round "bubble" on 1 side where the cassette fits.
Personally, I think this is a great idea because the cassette is nasty
sitting in the middle of the S&S case, threatening everything around
it. I hated the S&S hard case - it wobbles and the hardware is crappy
- so I bought a Ritchey case and I love it. If it only had wheels it
would be perfect!

Fred Roses

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:20:05 -0500, Badger_South
wrote:

Actually, a lot of women prefer SUVs because they are higher
and provide better visibility than cars.


-=Dave=-

You tryin' to be unintentionally funny?

tha-thump "What was that?"

Actually, he was inadvertently correct. "Visibility" means "Capable
of being seen". SUVs are that, for sure.

Vision? I don't know.

David Reuteler wrote:
B wrote:
: Isn't the case slightly larger than the airline "legal" size?

ritchey explicitly says no, but the airlines say it is.

ritchey 9 + 26 + 29 = 64
s&s case 10 + 26 + 26 = 62

http://www.delta.com/travel/trav_ser...dex.jsp#limits
http://www.nwa.com/travel/tips/baggage.html

The Ritchey claim is weasel-worded. The airlines will accept
check-in luggage up to 80 linear inches in size, but may charge an
oversized luggage fee for pieces larger than 62 inches. If you
dissemble the wording of the Ritchey claim, i.e.

The travel bag is currently within airline regulations for
standard, checked luggage and may eliminate some of the
customary charges associated with the privilege of travelling
with your bike.

what it says is that the airlines certainly will let you check the travel
bag in as luggage (true; it is less than 80 linear inches), but whether
you'll get away without paying the oversized luggage charge is less than
certain. You are still better off than with a full-sized bike box.

You can see why the case came out like it did. The large dimensions of
either case are dictated by the size of the bike's front triangle and
fork. The Ritchey case needs to accomodate the entire length of the
top and down tubes, while the S&S couplers split the longest tubes in
two.

I liked the Ritchey bike a lot, but in the end decided I wanted something
more suitable for light touring, with fender and rack braze-ons. Also,
since getting the bike into China (it is slightly illegal to do this) was
a goal, I wanted something which looked as much like standard luggage as
possible. The S&S hard case is somewhat less attention-attracting.

Dennis Ferguson

On 29 Feb 2004 05:49:23 GMT, David Reuteler
wrote:
the biggest downside to either design are the f'ing TSA goons. before 9/11
it was less of a problem. now you're potentially screwd if they open up your
bike when you're not around and try and stuff it all back together. at
least with the S&S couplers it is anything but intuitive (actually it
changes with each bike) and a pretty tight fit.

It behooves you to put in the case large, easy to read and easy to
understand, step-by-step instructions with photographs.
--
Rick Onanian

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

David Reuteler wrote:

B wrote:
Isn't the case slightly larger than the airline "legal" size?

ritchey explicitly says no, but the airlines say it is.

ritchey 9 + 26 + 29 = 64
s&s case 10 + 26 + 26 = 62

http://www.delta.com/travel/trav_ser...dex.jsp#limits
http://www.nwa.com/travel/tips/baggage.html

The Ritchey claim is weasel-worded. The airlines will accept
check-in luggage up to 80 linear inches in size, but may charge an
oversized luggage fee for pieces larger than 62 inches. If you
dissemble the wording of the Ritchey claim, i.e.

The travel bag is currently within airline regulations for
standard, checked luggage and may eliminate some of the
customary charges associated with the privilege of travelling
with your bike.

what it says is that the airlines certainly will let you check the
travel bag in as luggage (true; it is less than 80 linear inches),
but whether you'll get away without paying the oversized luggage
charge is less than certain. You are still better off than with a
full-sized bike box.

You can see why the case came out like it did. The large dimensions
of either case are dictated by the size of the bike's front triangle
and fork. The Ritchey case needs to accomodate the entire length of
the
top and down tubes, while the S&S couplers split the longest tubes in
two.

I liked the Ritchey bike a lot, but in the end decided I wanted
something more suitable for light touring, with fender and rack
braze-ons. Also, since getting the bike into China (it is slightly
illegal to do this) was a goal, I wanted something which looked as
much like standard luggage as possible. The S&S hard case is
somewhat less attention-attracting.

All good points! I didn't realize the case size was due to the frame. I
assumed it was the wheels.

Matt O.