Bike shop owners, wheel gurus: truing questions

Patrick Lamb wrote:
Chris BeHanna writes:
The trouble with this notion is that, unless you are already an
experienced bicyclist, you don't know what you don't know. That is,
you don't know what questions to ask, and you don't know what
practices are questionable. You don't know what to look for. You
don't know when you're being taken for a ride versus when you're
being treated like gold.

wrote:
The trouble with this is that it assumes the subject is naive and
can't tell when he is subjected to a snow job. I suppose that goes
hand in hand with the American public believing everything the
administration says about WMD, nation building, winning the war on
terror and the like.

Patrick Lamb wrote:
Looks like your examples support the thesis that most people are
naive. Is that the point you're trying to make?

Chris BeHanna writes:
And, believe it or not, not everyone who wanders into a bike shop
has internet access. Not everyone who has internet access knows
what USENET is.

wrote:
But they ought to know when the salesman starts fogging up their
goggles with hype and jargon and no explanation why these tenets are
to be taken on faith. The bicycle is not built on faith as some folks
who repeat myth an lore here believe. You don't have to take that
stuff without explanation or examples that you can test yourself.

Patrick Lamb wrote:
I agree with Chris' original point, and disagree with you on this. My
argument could be re-stated as, "The bicycle industry as a whole
should be subject to an implied warranty of merchantability." When I
buy a cell phone, it should just work; I shouldn't have to care about
the details of RF engineering. When I buy a car, I shouldn't have to
care about the microcode of the black box, and while there may be some
things the dealer has to straighten out later, it damn well should
have the wheels aligned when I take delivery, and I really expect the
engine comes with adequate oil. Why should a bike be any different?

I'm not really arguing about the nonsense that goes on about "X
material rides smoother, and Y is more responsive." That, to me, is
like the car salesman asking, "What color do you want?" But truing
and tensioning the bike wheels, and making sure the bearings are well
packed with grease, are more like making sure the lug nuts are tight
before I drive a car off the lot -- it's basic mechanical soundness of
the machine.

You'd think so.

We see wheels without any bearing lube at half tension every
day from other shops. It's unusual to see actual new bike
assembly nowadays.

Today a woman rode in with a brand new bike from a famous
factory outlet store complaining that her handlebars were
loose. There were no bolts in her stem . At all. Sadly in
our industry this is typical what with the trend to "ten
minute assembly" (sell bike, spin in pedals, air tires, say
thank you, hold door)

It takes a skilled mechanic a solid hour to build a bike
properly- which precludes making any profit at all on many
bikes. Sort of a lose-lose situation.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 06:36:35 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

Chris BeHanna writes:

The trouble with this notion is that, unless you are already an
experienced bicyclist, you don't know what you don't know. That is,
you don't know what questions to ask, and you don't know what
practices are questionable. You don't know what to look for. You
don't know when you're being taken for a ride versus when you're
being treated like gold.

[...political drivel deleted...]

And, in fact, it had no place at all in this discussion.

And, believe it or not, not everyone who wanders into a bike shop
has internet access. Not everyone who has internet access knows
what USENET is.

But they ought to know when the salesman starts fogging up their
goggles with hype and jargon and no explanation why these tenets are
to be taken on faith. The bicycle is not built on faith as some folks
who repeat myth an lore here believe. You don't have to take that
stuff without explanation or examples that you can test yourself.

Believe it or not, the average Joe or Jane does NOT know that
it's bad to buy a bike that has the steerer pre-cut so low that the bars
cannot be raised up with spacers. The average Joe or Jane does NOT know
spit about machine-built wheelsets. The average Joe or Jane does NOT know
to check that there's enough grease in the hubs before wheeling the bike
out of the store.

Elitist notions to the contrary notwithstanding, this does not
mean that Joe and Jane are stupid. It means that they have not yet had
time to learn a new subject. People are not born with subject matter
expertise in every field in which they embark.

--
Chris BeHanna
'03 Specialized Allez Elite 27
'04 Specialized Hardrock Pro Disc


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Chris BeHanna" wrote in message

Believe it or not, the average Joe or Jane does NOT know that
it's bad to buy a bike that has the steerer pre-cut so low that the bars
cannot be raised up with spacers. The average Joe or Jane does NOT know
spit about machine-built wheelsets. The average Joe or Jane does NOT know
to check that there's enough grease in the hubs before wheeling the bike
out of the store.

Elitist notions to the contrary notwithstanding, this does not
mean that Joe and Jane are stupid.

Agreed. It's much more sad than that.


It means that they have not yet had time to learn a new subject.

If you mean "the first time they step into a bike shop" then yes, I agree,
however (and this is partly in response to other posts suggesting some
people might not have access to r.b.m)...

The unfortunate truth is most people don't bother to learn, ever.
They take whatever's said on faith and make purchases without asking
questions.

Public libraries have internet access. People can read this newsgroup if
they choose to. Malls have public access computers to connect to the
internet for a few bucks an hour. Small price to pay compared to even a $100
bike.

Capitalism is a "pull" not a "push." If consumers educate themselves, the
producers (manufacturers, retailers) have no choice but to shape up or go
under.

This has nothing to do with access to information. The info is out there.
People can choose to find it or not.
It's not even about being "smart." It's about attitude.

Sadly, most *choose* to remain ignorant.

- Chris

Chris BeHanna wrote:

Believe it or not, the average Joe or Jane does NOT know that
it's bad to buy a bike that has the steerer pre-cut so low that the bars
cannot be raised up with spacers.

And when they do buy it, they may not ever come back to the bike store
to ask about a solution. They may decide that bicycling is not for them
because it's too uncomfortable, and park the bike in the garage for the
next 10 years.

dgk wrote:
I may not know much about spokes but I know about math. 2200/12 is 183
miles per month. Still not that much. I average around 300 per month.

The average golfer who bothers to keep track and get an
official handicap scores +25, or 97 strokes on a par-72.
(It stands to reason that most of the people who don't
get a handicap are worse, so the true average would be
worse as well.)

I.e., you can be a lot better than average and still
not impress yourself. In golf or cycling.

--Blair
"Or most things, for that matter."

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
dgk wrote:
I may not know much about spokes but I know about math. 2200/12 is 183
miles per month. Still not that much. I average around 300 per month.

The average golfer who bothers to keep track and get an
official handicap scores +25, or 97 strokes on a par-72.
(It stands to reason that most of the people who don't
get a handicap are worse, so the true average would be
worse as well.)

I.e., you can be a lot better than average and still
not impress yourself. In golf or cycling.


But the discussion was not about your run of the mill, occasional
cyclist. The Technical Editor of Adventure Cyclist, John Schubert, was
referring to the distances covered by 'high mileage cyclists', and the
discussion is whether or not 2200 miles a year is in the realm of 'high
mileage.' The point is that 2200 miles a year, the figure given by
John, does not fit what most of us would call a 'high mileage cyclist'.
2200 miles a year is beyond couch potato, but only fair to middling in
the context of this group. And probably only fair to middling in the
context of the readership of Adventure Cyclist.

- rick '8000+ per year, almost 900/month for the past 3 months'

On 10 Aug 2005 11:05:46 -0700, "Rick" wrote:


Blair P. Houghton wrote:
dgk wrote:
I may not know much about spokes but I know about math. 2200/12 is 183
miles per month. Still not that much. I average around 300 per month.

The average golfer who bothers to keep track and get an
official handicap scores +25, or 97 strokes on a par-72.
(It stands to reason that most of the people who don't
get a handicap are worse, so the true average would be
worse as well.)

I.e., you can be a lot better than average and still
not impress yourself. In golf or cycling.


But the discussion was not about your run of the mill, occasional
cyclist. The Technical Editor of Adventure Cyclist, John Schubert, was
referring to the distances covered by 'high mileage cyclists', and the
discussion is whether or not 2200 miles a year is in the realm of 'high
mileage.' The point is that 2200 miles a year, the figure given by
John, does not fit what most of us would call a 'high mileage cyclist'.
2200 miles a year is beyond couch potato, but only fair to middling in
the context of this group. And probably only fair to middling in the
context of the readership of Adventure Cyclist.

- rick '8000+ per year, almost 900/month for the past 3 months'

Dude, that rules! I get at most 300-400 per month, and only 3500+ per year
last year - this year I'm down considerably, because I've upped the
intensity. Are you riding everyday? Even more awesome if you're not, and
those aren't commuting miles.

I know if I had more flats I'd be a lot higher mileage. Though it's nice
around here (Piedmont area of Virginia) for hill riders, there are
literally no flats anywhere.

jj

jj wrote:
On 10 Aug 2005 11:05:46 -0700, "Rick" wrote:


Blair P. Houghton wrote:
dgk wrote:
I may not know much about spokes but I know about math. 2200/12 is 183
miles per month. Still not that much. I average around 300 per month.

The average golfer who bothers to keep track and get an
official handicap scores +25, or 97 strokes on a par-72.
(It stands to reason that most of the people who don't
get a handicap are worse, so the true average would be
worse as well.)

I.e., you can be a lot better than average and still
not impress yourself. In golf or cycling.


But the discussion was not about your run of the mill, occasional
cyclist. The Technical Editor of Adventure Cyclist, John Schubert, was
referring to the distances covered by 'high mileage cyclists', and the
discussion is whether or not 2200 miles a year is in the realm of 'high
mileage.' The point is that 2200 miles a year, the figure given by
John, does not fit what most of us would call a 'high mileage cyclist'.
2200 miles a year is beyond couch potato, but only fair to middling in
the context of this group. And probably only fair to middling in the
context of the readership of Adventure Cyclist.

- rick '8000+ per year, almost 900/month for the past 3 months'

Dude, that rules! I get at most 300-400 per month, and only 3500+ per year
last year - this year I'm down considerably, because I've upped the
intensity. Are you riding everyday? Even more awesome if you're not, and
those aren't commuting miles.

I am not riding every day; I try to take 1-2 days off a week. Recovery
is good. It is a mix of different riding - recreational, training,
transportation, touring, etc. This year there are many more commute
miles; last year there were almost none as my office was about a mile
from home. My office moved, now it is 15 miles each way so commute
miles are up. So my recreational jaunts through the hills are down,
but commute is up. Last year's biggest chunk was a (loaded) tour
through the Dolomites and the Italian/Swiss Alps (including Stelvio,
highlight of this year's Giro, in snow flurries). This year it was a
(loaded) tour of southwestern France/northern Spain with the highlight
being the Pyrenees. Who knows what next year will bring :-)

I know if I had more flats I'd be a lot higher mileage. Though it's nice
around here (Piedmont area of Virginia) for hill riders, there are
literally no flats anywhere.

Flats/smats. Hills are good. Last year I did just a bit over 600,000
ft of elevation gain, but was a piker compared to another local guy who
did about 1,100,000 ft over something like 10,000 miles. We like hills
:-)

- rick

: Flats/smats. Hills are good. Last year I did just a bit over 600,000
: ft of elevation gain, but was a piker compared to another local guy who
: did about 1,100,000 ft over something like 10,000 miles. We like hills
: :-)
:
: - rick

Yeah, hills are our friends. No, wait! that's supposed to be "The wind is
our friend."

Pat in TX
:

Rick wrote:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
dgk wrote:
I may not know much about spokes but I know about math. 2200/12 is 183
miles per month. Still not that much. I average around 300 per month.

The average golfer who bothers to keep track and get an
official handicap scores +25, or 97 strokes on a par-72.
(It stands to reason that most of the people who don't
get a handicap are worse, so the true average would be
worse as well.)

I.e., you can be a lot better than average and still
not impress yourself. In golf or cycling.


But the discussion was not about your run of the mill, occasional
cyclist. The Technical Editor of Adventure Cyclist, John Schubert, was
referring to the distances covered by 'high mileage cyclists', and the
discussion is whether or not 2200 miles a year is in the realm of 'high
mileage.' The point is that 2200 miles a year, the figure given by
John, does not fit what most of us would call a 'high mileage cyclist'.
2200 miles a year is beyond couch potato, but only fair to middling in
the context of this group. And probably only fair to middling in the
context of the readership of Adventure Cyclist.

- rick '8000+ per year, almost 900/month for the past 3 months'

What I was saying was that "high mileage" may be the
same as "low handicapper". I.e., "better than average"
and not quite as impressive as you think.

--Blair
"I'll have to explain this again,
I know it."