A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

landrider



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 10th 04, 06:17 PM
Marlene Blanshay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider


wrote in message
...
wrote:
Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons


I think that most people who say that a bicycle is too difficult or

confusing
to shift either....

A. Have only ridden a bike from many years ago with friction shifting.
B. Ridden a bike with poorly adjusted indexed shifting.

Before I bought a good bicycle with indexed shifting, my only experiences

were
with a Huffy w/friction shifting, a Murray with a double chainring only,

an
old bike with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed, and finally single speeds with

coaster
brakes.

An infomercial company could probably make money selling bikes with

*indexed*
shifting as the main selling point since many people don't realize the
technology has changed over the years!

I think the landrider is definelty aimed at those who have outmoded or
outdated or just wrong ideas about bikes, that they're 'complicated' or
'fancy'. JUst this weekend there was an article about 'funny bikes' in our
local paper, ie bents, electrics, cruisers, and other odd looking bikes, and
why people like them. One woman said she liked her cruiser because she
didn't want a 'fancy' mountain bike. Well, whatever suits her, she probably
just rides the bike a few blocks here and there, but I'd hardly call my
mountain bike fancy. And truthfully,with the shape some of our roads in the
city,you're better off with a mountain bike. I'd be nervous going over a
pothole or bump with one of those cruisers!


Ads
  #13  
Old May 18th 04, 05:02 AM
Filmboard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider

There seems to be an incredible amount of knee-jerk animosity for th
Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, i
doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'l
agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or les
money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike sho
in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here i
pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, i
holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from abou
35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. For the terrain in my valley where we hav
very mildly rolling country, but at a tilt (about 200 feet difference i
a mile of travel), the bike doesn't shift much and I'm pleased to rid
at the level it puts me at. I'm not brain-dead, I don't find i
difficult to use another method of adjusting a derailleur, I just happe
to prefer riding the Landrider when I'm out looking for a photo

I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and i
you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders o
digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult t
imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here i
this and other bicycle enthusiast forums

By the way, when I was twelve I travelled from Colorado to St Louis on
3-speed Raleigh that cost me $12 at the local hardware store. Th
following year, I two-wheeled from Central Kansas to New York and back
The bike shouldn't have lasted the trip, but every night I heated a cu
of oil and used it to clean and soak the chain. But I have no interes
in doing that kind of ride now at age 60. Did I research my purchas
thoroughly? Probably not. But I could afford the bike, it arrived almos
immediately at my doorstep in the boonies, it went together easily an
it's proving itself daily. That from someone who's touched one

Peace


-


  #14  
Old May 18th 04, 04:39 PM
BanditManDan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider

Filmboard wrote:
There seems to be an incredible amount of knee-jerk animosity for the
Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, it
doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'll
agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or less
money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike shop
in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here is
pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, it
holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from about
35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. .............
I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and if
you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders or
digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult to
imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here in
this and other bicycle enthusiast forums...........


First let me say that I'm glad that your happy with your landrider an
arent just using it for garage decorations. But let me explain th
reason for the negative comments. The comments come from experience
perhaps not first hand experience but experience just the same. I hav
ridden enough bikes over the years to know what features are importan
and which are just pure marketing hype. Shifting is not a big problem o
todays average bike and adding a auto-shifting derailer is just anothe
thing that will eventually need adjusting/fixing

You also mentioned that your cadence ranges from 35 to 70 rpm's, bu
what about people with bad knee's? I personally will get pain in m
knees if I pedal slower than 70 rpm's for extended periods of time. I
my case the auto-shifting bike would make biking painful an thus preven
me from riding for more that about 30 minutes a day

Since your a video professional I would hope that you would give a
honest opinion when someone asks for it. For example, I'm planning o
buying an expensive digital camera ($1000). Perhaps you could tell me i
it's worth the money. It has 640 x 480 resolution (low I know) but
really like this new "auto" zoom feature. I would like to take picture
mainly for my family albumn and perhaps my bike clubs news letter
Should I buy it

Enjoy your riding :

Dan


-


  #15  
Old May 18th 04, 09:42 PM
Filmboard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider

Dan

You're absolutely right; I would give you an honest opinion when asked
even on your hypothetical camera. Something on the order of. .

"So from what I understand as the primary specifications of you
hypothetical camera. . . If you have intentions of mainly producin
photos for email and the web, a 640x480 camera with a large acquisitio
chipset (which I expect you'll find in a camera of that resolution wit
a $1000 price tag) will actually give you better color quality image
than a 4-megapixel with a tiny acquisition chip. On the other hand i
your bike club newsletter is printed by a commercial printer, you'l
find that the printer will likely require an image of a minimum of 20
dpi (dots per inch) at whatever image size you want to use in th
newsletter and will probably even request a 300 dpi image. Now if you
640x480 pixel camera has a large chip, it will probably store thes
images at about 144 dpi, so you will be able to have 6"x4.5" uncroppe
images in your newsletter that look fairly nice (proportionally smalle
at 300dpi). If it uses a tiny chip and stores images at 72 dpi, you
uncropped images will only be able to be a little over 3"x2" in you
newsletter without looking pixelated; that's something you'd want t
keep in mind, as it may be a reason to look for a camera that has
larger pixel resolution. As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you though
they don't exist, Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you
and you can afford it, go for it. The two that I've used allow you t
have the camera memorize a face or other feature in the veiwfinder, b
drawing a box around it, and then the auto-zoom feature keeps th
framing fairly accurate as the memorized subject moves closer an
farther from the camera. The framing will not always be as aesthetic a
framed by a good professional photographer, but some do a decent job
Because of the nature of the beast, an auto-zoom lens will b
considerably more expensive than a manual or standard power zoom
Hopefully if enough people who have interest in this feature demonstrat
their interest through purchases and information requests, the cost wil
eventually come down as the quality improves, and more people ca
benefit from this technology

I get asked for a lot of advice on cameras and that's about the way m
responses really come out. But I doubt that I would respond by saying

"What you're looking at is an overpriced, low-quality, ill-conceive
solution to a problem that doesn't exist; the last time I thought abou
how to use a manual zoom must have been with my first 35mm camera som
45 years ago. Come on, auto zoom is way exagerated and a false claim
Zooming isn't really a big issue, This is more of a gimick than anythin
else. Stick with a manual or power zoom camera, they are much mor
reliable and better quality. I can't believe how much they charge fo
those automated cameras, based solely on the gimmick that it make
things 'easier' for the gullible! It's because I love photography that
can't let you use this Piece O' S---. Any decent camera shop could sel
you a better camera for less money.

Dan, I feel I've made my point. If you don't agree, then I won't labo
over this issue. Thanks for your response


-


  #16  
Old May 19th 04, 03:19 PM
BanditManDan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider

Filmboard wrote:
As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought they don't exist,
Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you, and you can
afford it, go for it. .......... ........ Dan, I feel I've made my
point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor over this issue.
Thanks for your response.



Good response, and you've made your point. After going back and readin
my original post I guess it was somewhat condesending, I'm not trying t
put anyone's choices down. But it still doesnt change my opinion on th
benifits of the bike itself. Bottom line, as I've stated before, havin
a mechanism that auto selects my cadance is not desirable for mos
cyclists. In my case it actually would cause great discomfort to m
knees and therefore would limit my riding time. Not to mention th
possible problems in getting it serviced if need be

And BTW, no I didn't know that camera's had auto-zoom. But that'
very cool. :

Dan


-


  #17  
Old May 19th 04, 03:57 PM
Filmboard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider

Dan, I can tell you're a decent guy. I just felt that there's a kind o
anger in the bicycling forums; perhaps it comes from cyclists being
target on the road every day. Perhaps the group as a whole doesn't lik
people who bike in their chinos as opposed to Spandex. And it's not jus
this forum

I was the producer of a 13-week PBS series that ran in 95-96 about th
Internet. On the program we solicited email comments about the show. O
the whole we got a lot of positive comments but there seemed to be
rather large contingent of negative email from people claiming we wer
misrepresenting the Internet experience, among other things. I requeste
a statistical analysis of the email responses, and a pattern screame
out at us; I'll never forget these numbers, because I use them i
marketing talks all the time. The negative email responses were abou
35% of all email received. Of the negative responses 93% were fro
people with AOL in their email address. Of the positive responses, onl
about 7% were from people with AOL ISP accounts. I'm convinced to thi
day, that something about the AOL Internet experience during that tim
period had something to do with those extreme ratios. I've had a bit o
the same concern about all the cycling forums I've haunted lately

The unfortunate thing is that, having seen the vitriolic feedback abou
Landrider bikes, I'm afraid to pose the question I started searchin
forums for advice on. I guess I need to start a cycling forum for th
casual rider as opposed to the serious hobbyist or professional

Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts


-


  #18  
Old May 19th 04, 04:14 PM
Doug Huffman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider


"Filmboard" wrote in message
.. .
||
| Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
|
|


"Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.


  #19  
Old May 19th 04, 05:59 PM
Dane Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider

Filmboard wrote:

The unfortunate thing is that, having seen the vitriolic feedback about
Landrider bikes, I'm afraid to pose the question I started searching
forums for advice on. I guess I need to start a cycling forum for the
casual rider as opposed to the serious hobbyist or professional.


Bah. Ask already. I doubt your question can be much sillier than many
I've seen asked. Heck, I doubt it's sillier than many I've asked. This
is a fairly civilized group. Why, we haven't roasted and eaten anyone
for weeks.

Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.


Have you considered getting a newsgroup reader?

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think
little of robbing; and from robbing he next comes to drinking and
Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination."
- Thomas De Quincey (1785 - 1859)
  #20  
Old May 19th 04, 06:10 PM
David Reuteler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default landrider

Doug Huffman wrote:
"Filmboard" wrote in message
.. .
||
| Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.

"Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.


no, no. that would be me. the man behind the curtain.

now be nice or i'll pull your access.
--
david reuteler

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.