Dazed and Confused

Arthur Clune wrote:
It's a courier bike. Why would you want them?

Because it ****es it down here and Edinburgh has its own special form of
cutting paste^h road grime which can destroy any substance known to man.
Courier's spend all day, in all conditions riding on the road. I find it
hard to imagine a group of people with greater need of guards.
Interestingly enough, the majority of them ride hybrids (Of the
home-bodged variety) fitted with mudguards.

Jon

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:48:59 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:

That's my prejudice, yes. I could be wrong. I mean, compare it to a
Cannondale Adventure 400 which you should be able to pick up for about
the same price (05 models a bit more expensive, 04 models a bit cheaper
if you can still find them).
URL:http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/ce/model-4AS4.html
You'll find the frame on the Cannondale is much nicer, and the kit
generally not quite as good.

This just gets worse and worse.

Why do you think the cannodale is 'nicer' than the Ridgeback?

Prefer the colour?
Done a metalurgical analysis?
Spent time riding them?
Done calculatations on the geometry?

If the Canondale is so 'nice', why don't Ridgeback make theirs more like it?

What superiority would I notice, as a rider, about the 'nicer' canondale frame.
What inferiority would I notice about the generally less good 'kit' ?

What about the Ridgeback frame would dissapoint me?

All this talk about spending hundreds of pounds and still having to
make a choice between either a cheap frame or inferior components just
brings on the "stressed and depressed" feelings again.

And to think that someone actually had the cheek to say that this
nightmare of trying to choose a bike was in some way 'fun'!

It _is_ fun, or should be. Wander around bike shops looking at nice toys
until you see the one that you absolutely have to have, and then buy
it.

Several problems he

Firstly, time.

I don't really want to spend days and days travelling round the country trying
to find a bike shop that happens to have the model I want to try, in my size,
and is prepared to adjust it so that it fits me, and then let me go for a ride
on it.

There are three LBS's that I can get to very easily. They're all stuffed full of
bikes.

Each of the must have a couple of hundred bikes in stock.

Of course, half of them are chidrens bikes, so that's only 100 to choose from.

And half the rest are women's bikes, so that leaves 50.

And half of those are mountain bikes, leaving 25.

And half of them are racers, leaving 12.

Half the rest are tourers, leaving 6.

So thats 6 bikes ranging in price from about £100 to £1000, and with frame sizes
s, m, l, xl.

And, guess what. Not one of the three shops had a bike of the basic type I
wanted, in my price range, with the correct frame size.

All they could do was show me a bike and tell me they could get it in my size.

And how the hell am I supposed to be able to make a decision on that basis?

Three different shops, each one points me at a bike that thay happen to deal in
and have in stock. I know next to nothing about how good the components are. I
certainly can't tell how 'nice' a frame is by looking at it (not sure I could
tell by riding it either).

And people make out this should be some kind of pleasure?

There's a certain prejudice at large in the land that adults who go around
riding bikes are some sort of nutters.

I'm begining to believe that this prejudice may be correct!

Paul D wrote:

Why do you think the cannodale is 'nicer' than the Ridgeback?

To put it in simple terms, Cannondale is nicer than Ridgeback in the
same way that BMWs are nicer than Fords. However, that does not mean
that Ford make poor cars, and they certainly make /cheaper/ cars, and
they certainly make cars that are perfectly adequate for the majority of
things people want to use cars for.

If the Cannondale is so 'nice', why don't Ridgeback make theirs more like it?

Cannondale's reputation lies primarily on their very high quality
frames. They pioneered mass market use of thin wall high diameter
tubing and have a reputation for innovation at the cutting edge. People
win world class races on Cannondales. Things like serious R&D and very
high quality mechanical engineering cost Real Money, which is why 'Dales
have considerably higher price tags than Ridgebacks on average.

What superiority would I notice, as a rider, about the 'nicer' canondale frame.
What inferiority would I notice about the generally less good 'kit' ?

Nicer stuff just does what you want it to with less effort from you.

What about the Ridgeback frame would dissapoint me?

It isn't as good as a Cannondale frame. However, this does not mean it
is intrinsically bad, just that it isn't the best. I certainly wouldn't
have a problem riding a Ridgeback.

I don't really want to spend days and days travelling round the country trying
to find a bike shop that happens to have the model I want to try, in my size,
and is prepared to adjust it so that it fits me, and then let me go for a ride
on it.

We now have an amazing invention which some people call a "telephone".

snip
And people make out this should be some kind of pleasure?

Your problem isn't actually finding the right bike, ISTM, it's finding
the right bike *shop*. They are not all created equal. The good ones
are very good and will get you on a bike for what you want.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk wrote:
: Arthur Clune wrote:
: It's a courier bike. Why would you want them?

: Because it ****es it down here and Edinburgh has its own special form of

It was a retoricial question really. I used to live in Edinburgh (and used
'guards). But those bikes aren't just sold in Edinburgh and there are good
reasons to not have mudguards when you are throwing the bike around all
the time.

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:57:44 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Fistly, although parts of this and previous posts might seem sarcastic in
places, please don't think I don't appreciate people attempts to help.

My somewhat tetchy responses are caused by my genuine and rather extended period
of frustration at not being able to get a handle on the information I need in
order to make a decision about buying a piece of equipment on which I'll
probably spent several thousand hours over the course of the next few years.

What about the Ridgeback frame would dissapoint me?

It isn't as good as a Cannondale frame.

Yes, but what would I notice?

Would it rattle?
Would it flex?
Would it fail to flex?
Is it a matter of there being a few hundred grammes difference in weight?
Would it break?

What should I be looking out for.

Unless there is some way of perceiving this elusive 'niceness' I can't see the
advantage in sacrificing the quality of the other components (which I can at
least judge from my own senses - how smoothly do gears change, how well do the
brakes work, how loud is the bell )

To be quite honest, I cannot think of a single attribute that a frame has that I
could isolate as I *_rode_* a bike.

Weight? I can't isolate that from the weight of the other components.
Rigidity? I don't know if that's good or bad, and types/rims/spokes all flex.
Size? Within reason, saddles are adjustable, as are handlebars.

I don't really want to spend days and days travelling round the country trying
to find a bike shop that happens to have the model I want to try, in my size,
and is prepared to adjust it so that it fits me, and then let me go for a ride
on it.

We now have an amazing invention which some people call a "telephone".

That rather contradicts the advice of another poster who said I should just go
round bike shops until I see a bike I just 'must have', and buy it!

Your problem isn't actually finding the right bike, ISTM, it's finding
the right bike *shop*. They are not all created equal. The good ones
are very good and will get you on a bike for what you want.

I'm making a seperate post about bike shops.

In article , Peter Clinch wrote:
Paul D wrote:

Why do you think the cannodale is 'nicer' than the Ridgeback?

To put it in simple terms, Cannondale is nicer than Ridgeback in the
same way that BMWs are nicer than Fords. However, that does not mean
that Ford make poor cars, and they certainly make /cheaper/ cars, and
they certainly make cars that are perfectly adequate for the majority of
things people want to use cars for.

And the 100 pound bikes are the Ladas and Yugos, usable if you have to,
but you'ld be better off with a second hand Ford.

Paul D wrote:
Yes, but what would I notice?

Only you can answer that. There comes a point where information on
paper reaches its limit, and it's at this point that you should
consider test-riding a few bikes and finding out for yourself.

If you don't perceive a difference, at least you will then be in a
better position to decide whether you want to spend the extra money for
the "nicer" bike.

What should I be looking out for.

Whether or not you enjoy riding one bike more than the other bike,
which one feels more comfortable, which one you like the look of
best...

You say you don't want to spend lots of time trailing round bike shops,
but you've already spent lots of time posting to the newsgroup that
might perhaps have been spent more productively.

d.

Paul D wrote:

Fistly, although parts of this and previous posts might seem sarcastic =
in
places, please don't think I don't appreciate people attempts to help.

Similarly, please don't take my telephone comment /too/ harshly! ;-)

Yes, but what would I notice?
=20
Would it rattle?
Would it flex?
Would it fail to flex?
Is it a matter of there being a few hundred grammes difference in weigh=
t?
Would it break?

no, not appreciably, not appreciably, yes, no.

What should I be looking out for.

In frames I frankly wouldn't worry too much. Yes, there are=20
differences, but they're not the sort of differences where if you look=20
at Brand X's =A3350 hybrid and Brand Z's =A3350 similar hybrid then there=
=20
will be clearly a no-brainer purchase of one over the other based on=20
specification alone (if one just fits you better, that's different).

Part of the problem is that you not only have Brands X and Z but A-W and =

Y too and there's not a lot of obvious clear air between them. Part of=20
the reason for no obvious clear air is very little *actual* clear air:=20
Diamond frames are reasonably standard items, as are the wheels, gears,=20
brakes etc. Which is better out of a Focus, Megane, P307, Astra etc.?=20
Same sort of thing goes, but the effective bottom line is if you can get =

away with one of them then you can, in practice, almost certainly get=20
away with any of the others. People don't listen to every single hi-fi=20
in their price range, they listen to a few, select one they're happy=20
with even though one of the 47 different similar ones available /might/=20
have been a shade better, go home and enjoy their CD collection.

What I'm saying is don't get hung up on minutiae. If you're really into =

bikes and have a *very* specific requirement then it can be worth=20
obsessing over small details, but we're looking at family hatchbacks=20
here and once you're past supermarket specials and obvious style over=20
substance gimmick-laden fashion items nobody is really making dogs=20
because it's too competitive a market to put out dogs and the=20
manufacturers have been making them for a long time and have a fair idea =

how to do it.

Unless there is some way of perceiving this elusive 'niceness'=20

Get on it and ride it. If you can't feel a difference then there is no=20
difference worth your while.

advantage in sacrificing the quality of the other components (which I c=
an at
least judge from my own senses - how smoothly do gears change

You can make any derailleur gears change better or worse by adjusting=20
them. Unridden bikes frequently have gears that aren't perfectly=20
adjusted, so do beware thinking that a clunky change on a test of a new=20
machine must indicate poor quality or a smooth change indicates very good=
=2E

That rather contradicts the advice of another poster who said I should =
just go
round bike shops until I see a bike I just 'must have', and buy it!

We all have our own methods and axes to grind. Though we're trying to=20
give good advice it can't be totally objective and it will include our=20
prejudices. However, if lots of people home in on a single thing then=20
that's a good indication of it being worth a look.

In your case you're interested in Ridgebacks and they have a solid, if=20
unexciting reputation (but you're after a solid, rather than exciting,=20
bike, so that's a moot point). So track down some Ridgeback dealers,=20
visit and compare the RBs to what ever else in a similar vein they have=20
and see if anything is calling your name. EBC is too far away, I'd also =

have a look at Dawes and Kona for sensible, capable bikes that can be=20
had for a reasonable sum. There are plenty of others, but as I've=20
pointed out they're not actually /that/ different in practice so you=20
don't need to try *everything* in this sector of the market to get a=20
good bike.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 28 Apr 2005 03:18:52 -0700, "davek" wrote:

Paul D wrote:
Yes, but what would I notice?

Only you can answer that. There comes a point where information on
paper reaches its limit, and it's at this point that you should
consider test-riding a few bikes and finding out for yourself.

If you don't perceive a difference, at least you will then be in a
better position to decide whether you want to spend the extra money for
the "nicer" bike.

What should I be looking out for.

Whether or not you enjoy riding one bike more than the other bike,
which one feels more comfortable, which one you like the look of
best...

Unfortunately, you've completely failed to understand my problem with that. A
problem that I clearly outlined two posts up.

How can I tell whether my preference for one bike over another is down to the
frame, or other componenents?

People keep talking about 'nicer' frames.

A frame is a piece of engineering, not a painting by Monet. If one frame is
'nicer' in an absolute sense, as I've been informed the canondale is, (as
opposed to just one that one person might prefer over another), then there must
be a solid engineering reason for that.

You say you don't want to spend lots of time trailing round bike shops,
but you've already spent lots of time posting to the newsgroup that
might perhaps have been spent more productively.

There is a considerable difference between spending a few minutes here and there
typing, and spending the more than half a day it would take to get to a London
bike shop.

In any case, I want to do plenty of research *before* I venture into a bike
shop, since I find the people working in them to be thoroughly untrustworthy (by
which I don't necessarily mean dishonest).

I need to develop a cycling bull**** detector.

Knowing the bad experiences I've had with bike shops, and the complete rubbish
I've been told in Camera, Computer and Hi-Fi shops on occasion, I don't intend
to shell out the best part of £500 unless *I* know what's going on.

On 28 Apr 2005 11:02:19 +0100 (BST), (Alan Braggins)
wrote:

To put it in simple terms, Cannondale is nicer than Ridgeback in the
same way that BMWs are nicer than Fords.

That isn't really a good analogy, though, is it?

In the case of a BMW v Ford comparison, virtually everything about the BMW is
better than the Ford.

In the case of the Ridgeback v Canondale, what people are saying is that the
Canondale has a 'nicer' frame, but with lesser components for the same price.

Rather more akin to saying that for the same price, a BMW will have a better
body, but the engine, gearbox and breaks will not be as nice.

This isn't a trivial point, and it's one I want to get a handle on.

But no one will tell me what the hell makes a frame 'nicer', and how I can
distinguish features of a ride that are down to the frame from those down to
other components.