How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?

terryc wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:45:36 -0800, SMS wrote:

It's really annoying have so few bicycles come standard with basic
accessories, especially on commute and touring bicycles where it's
pretty well accepted that the buyer will be adding things like racks,
fenders, bells, bottle cages, etc. $100 worth of retail accessories
would cost the bicycle manufacturer about $8, which would end up adding
maybe $22-25 to the retail cost. I was kind of impressed that the
Raleigh Sojourn comes with most of that stuff.

This is all fine if you like what is already on the RS, but if you do not,
then it is just wasted money.

When I look for accessories, then I have very specific requirements about
their construction as well.

So different folks, different accessories.

True, but it would be nice to have an "out of the box" fully functional
transportation bike, then you could always customize it later if you wished.

which reminds me... new year's resolution, I WILL gear out my bike so
that I can actually use it to go shopping. Gotta get on that. Right
after I fix the oil leaks and battery tray in the truck, and clean up
the house. Yes, my resolutions are boring.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jan 24, 8:25*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

True, but it would be nice to have an "out of the box" fully functional
transportation bike, then you could always customize it later if you wished.

In his magazine Bicycle Quarterly, Jan Heine sings the praises of
"constructeur" French touring and randonneur bikes of the 1930s -
1960s. As he says, if bike and accessories are well designed to work
as a unit when the bike is built, quality and reliability should be
higher, and weight a bit lower.

But I agree that riders may want different choices. Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:53:04 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But I agree that riders may want different choices. Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.

Different people, = different touring = different bicycles.

The Q is "Is there enough people who want a particular combo to justify it
being prebuilt"?

I'd suggest that if it was, then it would have been already done.

"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:53:04 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But I agree that riders may want different choices. Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.

Different people, = different touring = different bicycles.

The Q is "Is there enough people who want a particular combo to justify it
being prebuilt"?

I'd suggest that if it was, then it would have been already done.

And it has - just in places where cyling for transport is the norm, not the
exception.

Clive George schreef:
"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:53:04 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But I agree that riders may want different choices. Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.
Different people, = different touring = different bicycles.

The Q is "Is there enough people who want a particular combo to justify it
being prebuilt"?

I'd suggest that if it was, then it would have been already done.

And it has - just in places where cyling for transport is the norm, not the
exception.




Indeed. As a Dutchman I scratch my head everytime when I see what is
considered a commuter bike in the US.

Lou

On Jan 25, 7:32*am, Lou Holtman wrote:
Clive George schreef:



"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:53:04 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But I agree that riders may want different choices. *Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.
Different people, = different touring = different bicycles.

The Q is "Is there enough people who want a particular combo to justify it
being prebuilt"?

I'd suggest that if it was, then it would have been already done.

And it has - just in places where cyling for transport is the norm, not the
exception.

Indeed. As a Dutchman I scratch my head everytime when I see what is
considered a commuter bike in the US.

But aren't some of the differences explained by the Netherlands' dead
flat terrain and much shorter commuting distances?

My commuter, modified and used for 30+ years, works very well for my 7
mile (each way) ride with the long climb out of the valley. I
wouldn't want to haul a standard Dutch bike up that hill, nor ride at
the slow speed such a bike promotes.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski schreef:
Frank Krygowski schreef:
On Jan 25, 7:32 am, Lou Holtman wrote:
Clive George schreef:



"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:53:04 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But I agree that riders may want different choices. Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.
Different people, = different touring = different bicycles.
The Q is "Is there enough people who want a particular combo to justify it
being prebuilt"?
I'd suggest that if it was, then it would have been already done.
And it has - just in places where cyling for transport is the norm, not the
exception.
Indeed. As a Dutchman I scratch my head everytime when I see what is
considered a commuter bike in the US.

But aren't some of the differences explained by the Netherlands' dead
flat terrain and much shorter commuting distances?

My commuter, modified and used for 30+ years, works very well for my 7
mile (each way) ride with the long climb out of the valley. I
wouldn't want to haul a standard Dutch bike up that hill, nor ride at
the slow speed such a bike promotes.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank, I'm not talking about a city bike. A 7 mile commute is even in
the Netherlands very common. I live close to my work and I have to ride
10 km one way. Yes it's dead flat out here but most commuter bikes have
3x9 gears (I don't know why but still) or a 8 speed gearhub, but they
also have standard fenders, full light system, luggage rack, chaincase,
kickstand, pump, saddlebag etc. People would not accept a bike with less.

Lou

"Lou Holtman" wrote in message
...
Frank Krygowski schreef:
Frank Krygowski schreef:
On Jan 25, 7:32 am, Lou Holtman wrote:
Clive George schreef:



"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:53:04 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But I agree that riders may want different choices. Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.
Different people, = different touring = different bicycles.
The Q is "Is there enough people who want a particular combo to
justify it
being prebuilt"?
I'd suggest that if it was, then it would have been already done.
And it has - just in places where cyling for transport is the norm, not
the
exception.
Indeed. As a Dutchman I scratch my head everytime when I see what is
considered a commuter bike in the US.

But aren't some of the differences explained by the Netherlands' dead
flat terrain and much shorter commuting distances?

My commuter, modified and used for 30+ years, works very well for my 7
mile (each way) ride with the long climb out of the valley. I
wouldn't want to haul a standard Dutch bike up that hill, nor ride at
the slow speed such a bike promotes.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank, I'm not talking about a city bike. A 7 mile commute is even in the
Netherlands very common. I live close to my work and I have to ride 10 km
one way. Yes it's dead flat out here but most commuter bikes have 3x9
gears (I don't know why but still) or a 8 speed gearhub, but they also
have standard fenders, full light system, luggage rack, chaincase,
kickstand, pump, saddlebag etc. People would not accept a bike with less.


It's just vanity here in the US. How much does a kickstand really slow you
down? Fenders are also practical but most riders want to get as far away as
possible from anything that looks like an old fuddy-duddy bike.

ATP* schreef:
"Lou Holtman" wrote in message
...
Frank Krygowski schreef:
Frank Krygowski schreef:
On Jan 25, 7:32 am, Lou Holtman wrote:
Clive George schreef:



"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:53:04 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But I agree that riders may want different choices. Maybe the
ultimate is a custom bike with all accessories you want designed and
built as a system... for those who can afford such a thing.
Different people, = different touring = different bicycles.
The Q is "Is there enough people who want a particular combo to
justify it
being prebuilt"?
I'd suggest that if it was, then it would have been already done.
And it has - just in places where cyling for transport is the norm, not
the
exception.
Indeed. As a Dutchman I scratch my head everytime when I see what is
considered a commuter bike in the US.
But aren't some of the differences explained by the Netherlands' dead
flat terrain and much shorter commuting distances?

My commuter, modified and used for 30+ years, works very well for my 7
mile (each way) ride with the long climb out of the valley. I
wouldn't want to haul a standard Dutch bike up that hill, nor ride at
the slow speed such a bike promotes.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I'm not talking about a city bike. A 7 mile commute is even in the
Netherlands very common. I live close to my work and I have to ride 10 km
one way. Yes it's dead flat out here but most commuter bikes have 3x9
gears (I don't know why but still) or a 8 speed gearhub, but they also
have standard fenders, full light system, luggage rack, chaincase,
kickstand, pump, saddlebag etc. People would not accept a bike with less.


It's just vanity here in the US. How much does a kickstand really slow you
down? Fenders are also practical but most riders want to get as far away as
possible from anything that looks like an old fuddy-duddy bike.




That's strange as bike commuters in the US are ´weird´ anyway ;-)
I visited several bikeshops when I were in the US last september and the
choice of commuter bikes is pathetic.
Here is a link to one of the bikeshops where I live. In a city of 40000
people we have more than a dozen of shops like that.

http://www.vanhoogstraten.nl/FIETSEN.HTM


Lou

On Jan 24, 5:45*pm, SMS wrote:
!Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:10:08 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam SMS
wrote:

True, by the time they are marked up from the manufacturer, distributor,
and retailer, they aren't cheap. In reality, they are all extremely
inexpensive when included as part of the bicycle. A rack costs the
manufacturer under $2. As do fenders.

Well, that's true of almost any consumer product. *The actual
fabrication cost averages around 5% of the retail cost.

It's really annoying have so few bicycles come standard with basic
accessories, especially on commute and touring bicycles where it's
pretty well accepted that the buyer will be adding things like racks,
fenders, bells, bottle cages, etc. $100 worth of retail accessories
would cost the bicycle manufacturer about $8, which would end up adding
maybe $22-25 to the retail cost. I was kind of impressed that the
Raleigh Sojourn comes with most of that stuff.

When I bought my "Sunday bike" I brought it back from the test ride
(which lasted quite a while on a hot summer day). When he asked what
I thought my first comment was that it lacked hydration, joking with
the mechanic (who I already knew) as a way to excuse my walking away
from him to get a drink from my water bottle. Once rehydrated and
cooled down a touch we got to talking turkey, with me telling him up
front that I liked it (I had already told him I had cash in pocket
(may as well let them know they won't be paying cc fees before
negotiating)). He told me he thought he could get me an even better
price than the already-discounted price I was given before the test
ride, and after chatting with the owner came back with a substantially
lower cash-today-ride-away price. It was all quite pleasant, without
any haggling or uncomfortable trying to hassle them out of their
profit. I probably could have gotten it for less than I did had I
really tried to haggle them, but that shop is always good to me and I
wanted all parties to be happy. At the end of the transaction, after
the bike was paid for they solved the "hydration problem" for me for
free, threw in a bottle and cage that probably only cost them a couple
bucks but would have cost me $20 off the shelf. Granted the bike was
a leftover they really wanted to move, and the shop knew me, but the
whole thing left it clear to me there is some wiggle room in the
sticker price on new bikes. I was told at the start I could have
gotten a percentage off anything already on the floor (I'm sure I
would have paid MSRP if I had them order me something, we never got
into that because I really wanted to ride a bike before buying it and
they preferred to sell a bike they already had on the floor).

Along those same lines one could probably mention that the commuter
they were looking at was missing fenders and a rack as part of the
initial negotiation. The shop will be looking at their cost on the
stuff to throw it in, so you might get $70 in add-ons that cost them
$35 where you could have negotiated that 35 off the price and still
had to shell out the other $35 to get that stuff. Maybe you get
something thrown in, maybe you get a percentage off the accessories,
but I'd think there'd be some way to meet in the middle.

(I have no idea what fenders and a rack would actually cost, retail or
for the shop, or what type of negotiation is standard for a commuter -
I assume its relative to the cost of the bike. My above $35 & 70 are
arbitrary to make a point, not to be confused with what stuff actually
costs).

I do agree commuters should come with this stuff, but since they don't
why not try to meet in the middle somewhere?