[ANNOUNCE] New bicycle shopping guide web site

My apology if this is off topic.

I just launched a new bicycle web site that has the following goals:

- Help people shopping for a new bicycle
- Give basic mechanic skills that will be helpful to keep your bicycles in
good shape over time

Here are the current sections I cover:

-The basics
-Major types of bicycles
-Choosing the right bicycle
-After you buy

I hope you like it. Your feedback will be appreciated.

http://bikes.jump-gate.com/

Regards.

My apology if this is off topic.

I just launched a new bicycle web site that has the following goals:

- Help people shopping for a new bicycle
- Give basic mechanic skills that will be helpful to keep your bicycles in
good shape over time

Here are the current sections I cover:

-The basics
-Major types of bicycles
-Choosing the right bicycle
-After you buy

I hope you like it. Your feedback will be appreciated.

http://bikes.jump-gate.com/

from http://bikes.jump-gate.com/basics.shtml-

"The frame of a bicycle is one of the most important component we will look
at. It defines the comportment of the bicycle on the road. The frame being a
great amount of the overall material making the bicycle, it also affects its
weight quite noticeably. Some lower-cost bicycles still use steel tubing.
You should avoid this type of frame as much as possible. Nowadays, most
frames are made of various alloys. The most current one is aluminum. When
the first aluminum bicycles were put on market, many exhibited soldering
problem and were subject to break under heavy usage. This is not a concern
anymore . You can safely buy an aluminum frame in all confidence. Aluminum
as become the common frame material for mid to high end bicycles. At the end
of the spectrum, we are seeing carbon frames. Carbon frames have many
advantages. They are very strong (resistant), and at the same time, more
flexible than aluminum tubes. What does it implies? While they are more
robust, the small flexion they allow creates a frame that is more
comfortable to ride. That is because the high energy found in small
vibrations coming from the road imperfections is dissipated by these
flexion, instead of being fully transmitted to the cyclist. What is good for
the comfort of the cyclist is unfortunately bad for the energy efficiency of
the bicycle. As the cyclist pushes on the pedals, the frame absorbs a
percentage of the cyclist energy. That energy will never get transmitted in
the transmission system of the bicycle. Many high-end race bicycles uses
carbon forks to provide some sort of high-frequency shocks absorption, to
the detriment of some performance. This is a far lighter way to provide
shock absorption than using real shock absorbers, which would be unpractical
on race bicycles. "

#1: Aluminum is not the "most current" frame material. It's been around
for ages.

#2: You cannot "safely" by a frame made of aluminum, any more than you can
any other material. It's not the material, it's how it's used that makes
the difference. There are aluminum frames that will outlive the owner, and
there are aluminum frames whose lack of a warranty is for very good reason.

#3: Carbon frame are "...unfortunately bad for the energy efficeincy of the
bicycle" and carbon forks "..provide some sort of high-frequency shocks
absorption, to the detriment of some performance." ??? Somebody better
have a conversation with the Grand Tour racers about this one; apparently,
they could all ride a lot faster if they ditched their carbon frames &
forks?

#4: Reading through the site, the type of grammatical errors make it seem
that it's not original, but has been translated from a different language
(and not always very well).

Next, check out http://bikes.jump-gate.com/types_bikes.shtml, where you
discover, I think, that a "road bike" is different from a "racing bike"
because it has a taller head tube and, most likely, a sloping top tube.

I could swear I've seen this all before, but don't remember where. Whatever
the case, it's very unfortunate that people might read some of the
information and believe it. As is often the case, there's some practical
info that makes sense, and perhaps just enough of it to make someone believe
the rest of it.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:06:59 +0000, Marc B wrote:


Your feedback will be appreciated.

http://bikes.jump-gate.com/

Your new web site overlooks recumbent bicycles and
really should include them to be comprehensive.
--
================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User http://parnass.com

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:58:48 GMT, Bob Parnass
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:06:59 +0000, Marc B wrote:


Your feedback will be appreciated.

http://bikes.jump-gate.com/

Your new web site overlooks recumbent bicycles and
really should include them to be comprehensive.

I haven't gone through it all yet, but the first impression is
"Get a spell/grammar checker.". It is painful to see so many errors
in so few paragraphs. This should be a good site once it is edited,
corrected, and grown.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Mike Jacoubowsky quoted from a spammer:

"The frame of a bicycle is one of the most important component we will look
at. It defines the comportment of the bicycle on the road. The frame being a
great amount of the overall material making the bicycle, it also affects its
weight quite noticeably. Some lower-cost bicycles still use steel tubing.
You should avoid this type of frame as much as possible.

Yeah, and no-one could ever have won the TdF on a 531 frame, could they?
And that 853 stuff must be even heavier cos it's a bigger number.

"When the first aluminum bicycles were put on market, many exhibited
soldering problem and were subject to break under heavy usage."

If they were soldered instead of TIG welded I can believe this ;-)

Mike, thanks for your critical feedback. I am taking your remarks seriously
and will look into these issues. First off, let me just precise that this
site is targeting people with little experience in bikes that want some
help to make better decisions as they shop. This of course is not an excuse
for inaccuracies found on the site, which I should of course correct. This
site will probably look very pale for experts, and it is not my intention
to target these people as such... They know as good as me (or better) how
to pick a good bike! That being said, read my comments below...

Regards.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in
om:


#1: Aluminum is not the "most current" frame material. It's been
around for ages.

To my point of view, aluminum is the most currently sold frame material for
the general public type of bikes. Carbon is close-by, but still a notch on
the high-end market.

#2: You cannot "safely" by a frame made of aluminum, any more than
you can any other material. It's not the material, it's how it's used
that makes the difference. There are aluminum frames that will
outlive the owner, and there are aluminum frames whose lack of a
warranty is for very good reason.

I was referring to older generations, back in time, when aluminum was the
new big thing, but even then, you may have a point.


#3: Carbon frame are "...unfortunately bad for the energy efficeincy
of the bicycle" and carbon forks "..provide some sort of
high-frequency shocks absorption, to the detriment of some
performance." ??? Somebody better have a conversation with the Grand
Tour racers about this one; apparently, they could all ride a lot
faster if they ditched their carbon frames & forks?

Carbon does flex a bit more than an equivalent-made aluminum frame or fork
I believe (I use a racer bike that has a carbon fork). It does not make
carbon a bad material for bikes. If I said that, please let me know so I
can rectify. I may have forgot to emphasizes that structural flexion is not
the only factor. Weight is also playing big for the Grand Tour racers like
you said. Any other important factor I should add? Let me know.

#4: Reading through the site, the type of grammatical errors make it
seem that it's not original, but has been translated from a different
language (and not always very well).

Unfortunately, yes, there are still a lot of grammatical errors. I am
working on it. English is not my native language. That may explain it. I
will do my best to better polish the text.

Next, check out http://bikes.jump-gate.com/types_bikes.shtml, where
you discover, I think, that a "road bike" is different from a "racing
bike" because it has a taller head tube and, most likely, a sloping
top tube.

This site is for casual cyclist at first. I did not go in detail on that
section I agree. I can add more details you may provide on what
differentiate race bikes from road bikes.

I could swear I've seen this all before, but don't remember where.
Whatever the case, it's very unfortunate that people might read some
of the information and believe it. As is often the case, there's some
practical info that makes sense, and perhaps just enough of it to make
someone believe the rest of it.

Contrary to what you assumed, the totality of the content found on this
site was written by me. Nothing was taken from somewhere else. It is all
based on my own experience only.


--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



Thanks for your valuable inputs mike. If you would like to suggest text
corrections, I will gladly consider your suggestions.

Regards.
Marc B.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote in message ...
My apology if this is off topic.

I just launched a new bicycle web site that has the following goals:

- Help people shopping for a new bicycle
- Give basic mechanic skills that will be helpful to keep your bicycles
in
good shape over time

Here are the current sections I cover:

-The basics
-Major types of bicycles
-Choosing the right bicycle
-After you buy

I hope you like it. Your feedback will be appreciated.

http://bikes.jump-gate.com/

from http://bikes.jump-gate.com/basics.shtml-

"The frame of a bicycle is one of the most important component we will look
at. It defines the comportment of the bicycle on the road. The frame being
a
great amount of the overall material making the bicycle, it also affects
its
weight quite noticeably. Some lower-cost bicycles still use steel tubing.
You should avoid this type of frame as much as possible. Nowadays, most
frames are made of various alloys. The most current one is aluminum. When
the first aluminum bicycles were put on market, many exhibited soldering
problem and were subject to break under heavy usage. This is not a concern
anymore . You can safely buy an aluminum frame in all confidence. Aluminum
as become the common frame material for mid to high end bicycles. At the
end
of the spectrum, we are seeing carbon frames. Carbon frames have many
advantages. They are very strong (resistant), and at the same time, more
flexible than aluminum tubes. What does it implies? While they are more
robust, the small flexion they allow creates a frame that is more
comfortable to ride. That is because the high energy found in small
vibrations coming from the road imperfections is dissipated by these
flexion, instead of being fully transmitted to the cyclist. What is good
for
the comfort of the cyclist is unfortunately bad for the energy efficiency
of
the bicycle. As the cyclist pushes on the pedals, the frame absorbs a
percentage of the cyclist energy. That energy will never get transmitted in
the transmission system of the bicycle. Many high-end race bicycles uses
carbon forks to provide some sort of high-frequency shocks absorption, to
the detriment of some performance. This is a far lighter way to provide
shock absorption than using real shock absorbers, which would be
unpractical
on race bicycles. "

#1: Aluminum is not the "most current" frame material. It's been around
for ages.

#2: You cannot "safely" by a frame made of aluminum, any more than you can
any other material. It's not the material, it's how it's used that makes
the difference. There are aluminum frames that will outlive the owner, and
there are aluminum frames whose lack of a warranty is for very good reason.

#3: Carbon frame are "...unfortunately bad for the energy efficeincy of
the
bicycle" and carbon forks "..provide some sort of high-frequency shocks
absorption, to the detriment of some performance." ??? Somebody better
have a conversation with the Grand Tour racers about this one; apparently,
they could all ride a lot faster if they ditched their carbon frames &
forks?

#4: Reading through the site, the type of grammatical errors make it seem
that it's not original, but has been translated from a different language
(and not always very well).

Next, check out http://bikes.jump-gate.com/types_bikes.shtml, where you
discover, I think, that a "road bike" is different from a "racing bike"
because it has a taller head tube and, most likely, a sloping top tube.

I could swear I've seen this all before, but don't remember where.
Whatever
the case, it's very unfortunate that people might read some of the
information and believe it. As is often the case, there's some practical
info that makes sense, and perhaps just enough of it to make someone
believe
the rest of it.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


I've heard three water bottles are required on fleecy frames to dampen
oscillatory motion about the gravitational exception tubulerosity which
exists in all traditional frame design. A good reason for using recumbents.
You can die of thirst.

Trevor

Bill Baka wrote:

I haven't gone through it all yet, but the first impression is
"Get a spell/grammar checker.". It is painful to see so many errors
in so few paragraphs.

Agreed. A spell checker will find some errors. Unfortunately, it's
unlikely to squawk at errors like spelling "breaks" when what's meant is
"brakes" and there are plenty of those errors.

A grammar checker might catch errors like subsituting "its" for "it's",
but it might not. There are plenty of those, too.

And after that, the site's going to need some sort of "fact checker" to
clear up all the factual errors. Unfortunately, software isn't going to
do that - and there are plenty of those errors, too.


This should be a good site once it is edited,
corrected, and grown.

I don't have high hopes. Sorry.



--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Contrary to what you assumed, the totality of the content found on this
site was written by me. Nothing was taken from somewhere else. It is all
based on my own experience only.

Marc: I was probably a bit too strident in my comments, and apologize that
I came across a bit too strongly.

Unfortunately, yes, there are still a lot of grammatical errors. I am
working on it. English is not my native language. That may explain it. I
will do my best to better polish the text.

Which explains the sense of familiarity I had when reading it. It reads a
bit like a translation from French, but much cleaner than what Google would
have done (which can sometimes be quite amusing).

I think one red flag that went up was the lack of personaliztion; instead,
the first thing you see are the Google ads on the side of the page, and get
the idea that somebody might have thrown up a page with the sole intent of
generating advertising revenue. I think a brief "about me" section when
somebody comes to the page would be a good thing.

#1: Aluminum is not the "most current" frame material. It's been
around for ages.

To my point of view, aluminum is the most currently sold frame material
for
the general public type of bikes. Carbon is close-by, but still a notch on
the high-end market.

Here the language thing is causing a bit of trouble. "Most current" would
typically mean that it's the most-recent type of material used. "Most
common" would be the choice to describe something that's used on most bikes.

#3: Carbon frame are "...unfortunately bad for the energy efficeincy
of the bicycle" and carbon forks "..provide some sort of
high-frequency shocks absorption, to the detriment of some
performance." ??? Somebody better have a conversation with the Grand
Tour racers about this one; apparently, they could all ride a lot
faster if they ditched their carbon frames & forks?

Carbon does flex a bit more than an equivalent-made aluminum frame or fork
I believe (I use a racer bike that has a carbon fork). It does not make
carbon a bad material for bikes. If I said that, please let me know so I
can rectify. I may have forgot to emphasizes that structural flexion is
not
the only factor. Weight is also playing big for the Grand Tour racers like
you said. Any other important factor I should add? Let me know.

That was probably the section that caused the most trouble for me. Carbon
fiber works so well in bicycles because it's incredibly light, very strong
and doesn't carry vibration the way metals do. That gives it a different
"feel" but it has nothing to do with efficiency. In fact, no material
presently used in bicycle frames flexes in a way that it actually absorbs
energy, at least not on a scale that's meaningful. What does happen is that
a particular design might flex in a manner that's annoying or might cause
handling difficulties. But even that is more a function of design than it
is the material used.

Next, check out http://bikes.jump-gate.com/types_bikes.shtml, where
you discover, I think, that a "road bike" is different from a "racing
bike" because it has a taller head tube and, most likely, a sloping
top tube.

This site is for casual cyclist at first. I did not go in detail on that
section I agree. I can add more details you may provide on what
differentiate race bikes from road bikes.

The issue is at least partly definitional. "Road bike" is an
all-encompassing term that generally includes any bike with downturned (or
"drop") handlebars. Within the "Road bike" category are various
sub-categories, such as-

Criterium bike (very steep angles, twitchy handling, feels really fast but
often delivers a rather punishing ride, probably a result of the very short
wheelbase and position over the rear wheel)

Classic road bike (more moderate angles & wheelbase, and suitable for
day-after-day racing and often the best choice for high-performance sport
riding, such as doing centuries. This category represents the largest
number of road bikes sold, and for good reason. The same things that a
racer wants are what many others do- high-performance, light weight, and
reasonable comfort).

"Comfort" road bike (a relatively new category, designed to allow for a
higher handlebar relative to the saddle, and often a shorter distance from
seat to handlebars. Sometimes these bikes will even have extra brake levers
across the top of the handlebars, to allow braking when you're in a more
upright position).

Touring bike (longer wheelbase to distribute the load over the wheels better
and enhance stability & comfort, plus components & frame chosen for
durability over light weight).

CycloCross (something between a touring and road bike)

etc etc

Again, sorry that I came across a bit too strongly.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

"Marc B" wrote in message
...
Mike, thanks for your critical feedback. I am taking your remarks
seriously
and will look into these issues. First off, let me just precise that this
site is targeting people with little experience in bikes that want some
help to make better decisions as they shop. This of course is not an
excuse
for inaccuracies found on the site, which I should of course correct. This
site will probably look very pale for experts, and it is not my intention
to target these people as such... They know as good as me (or better) how
to pick a good bike! That being said, read my comments below...

Regards.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in
om:


#1: Aluminum is not the "most current" frame material. It's been
around for ages.

To my point of view, aluminum is the most currently sold frame material
for
the general public type of bikes. Carbon is close-by, but still a notch on
the high-end market.

#2: You cannot "safely" by a frame made of aluminum, any more than
you can any other material. It's not the material, it's how it's used
that makes the difference. There are aluminum frames that will
outlive the owner, and there are aluminum frames whose lack of a
warranty is for very good reason.

I was referring to older generations, back in time, when aluminum was the
new big thing, but even then, you may have a point.


#3: Carbon frame are "...unfortunately bad for the energy efficeincy
of the bicycle" and carbon forks "..provide some sort of
high-frequency shocks absorption, to the detriment of some
performance." ??? Somebody better have a conversation with the Grand
Tour racers about this one; apparently, they could all ride a lot
faster if they ditched their carbon frames & forks?

Carbon does flex a bit more than an equivalent-made aluminum frame or fork
I believe (I use a racer bike that has a carbon fork). It does not make
carbon a bad material for bikes. If I said that, please let me know so I
can rectify. I may have forgot to emphasizes that structural flexion is
not
the only factor. Weight is also playing big for the Grand Tour racers like
you said. Any other important factor I should add? Let me know.

#4: Reading through the site, the type of grammatical errors make it
seem that it's not original, but has been translated from a different
language (and not always very well).

Unfortunately, yes, there are still a lot of grammatical errors. I am
working on it. English is not my native language. That may explain it. I
will do my best to better polish the text.

Next, check out http://bikes.jump-gate.com/types_bikes.shtml, where
you discover, I think, that a "road bike" is different from a "racing
bike" because it has a taller head tube and, most likely, a sloping
top tube.

This site is for casual cyclist at first. I did not go in detail on that
section I agree. I can add more details you may provide on what
differentiate race bikes from road bikes.

I could swear I've seen this all before, but don't remember where.
Whatever the case, it's very unfortunate that people might read some
of the information and believe it. As is often the case, there's some
practical info that makes sense, and perhaps just enough of it to make
someone believe the rest of it.

Contrary to what you assumed, the totality of the content found on this
site was written by me. Nothing was taken from somewhere else. It is all
based on my own experience only.


--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



Thanks for your valuable inputs mike. If you would like to suggest text
corrections, I will gladly consider your suggestions.

Regards.
Marc B.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:59:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Bill Baka wrote:

I haven't gone through it all yet, but the first impression is
"Get a spell/grammar checker.". It is painful to see so many errors
in so few paragraphs.

Agreed. A spell checker will find some errors. Unfortunately, it's
unlikely to squawk at errors like spelling "breaks" when what's meant is
"brakes" and there are plenty of those errors.

A grammar checker might catch errors like subsituting "its" for "it's",
but it might not. There are plenty of those, too.

And after that, the site's going to need some sort of "fact checker" to
clear up all the factual errors. Unfortunately, software isn't going to
do that - and there are plenty of those errors, too.


This should be a good site once it is edited,
corrected, and grown.

I don't have high hopes. Sorry.



At least someone is trying. I won't jump somebody for that.
Some of us need somewhere else to go once we get done
sniping at each other on here. This is a picky group,
but interesting.
Bill Baka



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/