Good quality bikes

On 5/30/2021 10:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly
different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in
the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast"
riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to
compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns
und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He
doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing
more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A
well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that
purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not
having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a
racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old
racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for
getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough
for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock.
A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving
different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long
fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much
more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to
do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or
the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point,
too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems
strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After
all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that
one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies",
deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I
knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and
had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people.
Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far
you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in
Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I
mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness,
perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of
ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to
deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our
fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager
collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme
News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and
many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike.
IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than
one bike. Who here as only one bike?

Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm
questioning multiple bikes that are near duplicates and
used for the same type of riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh
Super Course. In my view, that basic design is acceptable
for many purposes, although these days people would want
much fancier components. I used it for slow to fast
recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road
races, some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping
and commuting. Heck, even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of
riding we each do, what type of bike would be best for each,
and how much better each type would be compared to a general
purpose bike.


People like what they like for reasons you may not (and
indeed each man may not) fully understand. Which is fine by me.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/31/2021 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2021 10:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly
different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in
the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast"
riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to
compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns
und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He
doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing
more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A
well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that
purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not
having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a
racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old
racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for
getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough
for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock.
A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving
different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long
fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much
more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to
do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or
the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point,
too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems
strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After
all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that
one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies",
deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I
knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and
had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people.
Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far
you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in
Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I
mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness,
perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense.Â* We're not a bunch of
ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to
deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our
fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager
collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme
News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and
many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike.
IIRC, you have more than one bike.Â* Frank has more than
one bike.Â* Who here as only one bike?

Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm
questioning multiple bikes that are near duplicates and
used for the same type of riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh
Super Course. In my view, that basic design is acceptable
for many purposes, although these days people would want
much fancier components. I used it for slow to fast
recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road
races, some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping
and commuting. Heck, even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of
riding we each do, what type of bike would be best for each,
and how much better each type would be compared to a general
purpose bike.


People like what they like for reasons you may not (and indeed each man
may not) fully understand. Which is fine by me.

But discussion, at least sometimes, leads to better understanding.

So it's hard for me to understand "Let's not talk about it."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:23:35 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one bike.. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?
Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm questioning
multiple bikes that are near duplicates and used for the same type of
riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh Super Course.
In my view, that basic design is acceptable for many purposes, although
these days people would want much fancier components. I used it for slow
to fast recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road races,
some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping and commuting. Heck,
even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of riding we each
do, what type of bike would be best for each, and how much better each
type would be compared to a general purpose bike.

Time Trials? What exactly did you call a time trial? A one mile course over hill and dale?

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 7:15:28 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2021 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2021 10:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly
different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in
the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast"
riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to
compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns
und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He
doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing
more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A
well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that
purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not
having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a
racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old
racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for
getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough
for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock.
A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving
different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long
fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much
more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to
do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or
the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point,
too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems
strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After
all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that
one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies",
deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I
knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and
had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people.
Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far
you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in
Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I
mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness,
perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of
ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to
deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our
fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager
collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme
News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and
many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike.
IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than
one bike. Who here as only one bike?

Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm
questioning multiple bikes that are near duplicates and
used for the same type of riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh
Super Course. In my view, that basic design is acceptable
for many purposes, although these days people would want
much fancier components. I used it for slow to fast
recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road
races, some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping
and commuting. Heck, even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of
riding we each do, what type of bike would be best for each,
and how much better each type would be compared to a general
purpose bike.


People like what they like for reasons you may not (and indeed each man
may not) fully understand. Which is fine by me.
But discussion, at least sometimes, leads to better understanding.

So it's hard for me to understand "Let's not talk about it."

Nobody is trying to shut down the discussion, it's just that there is not much to discuss. People want what they want, particularly when it comes to bikes. There is no universal reason why people own what you would consider "duplicate" bikes (an arguable point). Sometimes it results from buying a better bike and not selling the last bike -- and relegating it to rain-bike status or loaner or back-up. Sometimes people just fall in love with a bike and buy it. I don't think justification is necessary -- or that an intervention is necessary until it turns into hoarding or causes financial or social strain.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 7:15:28 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2021 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2021 10:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly
different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in
the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast"
riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to
compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns
und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He
doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing
more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A
well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that
purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not
having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a
racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old
racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for
getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough
for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock.
A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving
different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long
fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much
more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to
do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or
the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point,
too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems
strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After
all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that
one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies",
deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I
knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and
had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people.
Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far
you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in
Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I
mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness,
perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of
ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to
deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our
fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager
collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme
News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and
many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike.
IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than
one bike. Who here as only one bike?

Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm
questioning multiple bikes that are near duplicates and
used for the same type of riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh
Super Course. In my view, that basic design is acceptable
for many purposes, although these days people would want
much fancier components. I used it for slow to fast
recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road
races, some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping
and commuting. Heck, even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of
riding we each do, what type of bike would be best for each,
and how much better each type would be compared to a general
purpose bike.


People like what they like for reasons you may not (and indeed each man
may not) fully understand. Which is fine by me.
But discussion, at least sometimes, leads to better understanding.

So it's hard for me to understand "Let's not talk about it."
Nobody is trying to shut down the discussion, it's just that there is not much to discuss. People want what they want, particularly when it comes to bikes. There is no universal reason why people own what you would consider "duplicate" bikes (an arguable point). Sometimes it results from buying a better bike and not selling the last bike -- and relegating it to rain-bike status or loaner or back-up. Sometimes people just fall in love with a bike and buy it. I don't think justification is necessary -- or that an intervention is necessary until it turns into hoarding or causes financial or social strain.

Well, quite plainly Frank believes there is no justifiable reasons for having more than one bike for a purpose. Because of the weight of that Douglas I have considered selling it and replacing it with a Waterford Racing. That and the Airborne would be for the same reason - to ride. Something that Frank doesn't quite understand.

On 5/31/2021 9:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2021 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2021 10:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank
Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly
different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in
the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast"
riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to
compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns
und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He
doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing
more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A
well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that
purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not
having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a
racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old
racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for
getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough
for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock.
A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving
different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long
fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much
more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to
do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or
the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point,
too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems
strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After
all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that
one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies",
deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I
knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and
had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people.
Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far
you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in
Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I
mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness,
perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of
ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to
deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our
fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager
collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme
News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and
many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike.
IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than
one bike. Who here as only one bike?

Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm
questioning multiple bikes that are near duplicates and
used for the same type of riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh
Super Course. In my view, that basic design is acceptable
for many purposes, although these days people would want
much fancier components. I used it for slow to fast
recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road
races, some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping
and commuting. Heck, even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of
riding we each do, what type of bike would be best for each,
and how much better each type would be compared to a general
purpose bike.


People like what they like for reasons you may not (and
indeed each man may not) fully understand. Which is fine
by me.

But discussion, at least sometimes, leads to better
understanding.

So it's hard for me to understand "Let's not talk about it."



I can't convince you that a red bike is different from a
black one so I didn't try.

But it is, which is important to someone even if the next
guy doesn't 'get it'. Ditto for subtle handling or weight
changes, status brands, Campagnolo vs SRAM etc etc.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 4:15:28 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But discussion, at least sometimes, leads to better understanding.

Really? What is the point in mentioning arguments if someone is already made up his mind and I quote:

"This one is 400 grams lighter, this one has 9% extra cogs in back (but
only one chainring in front), this one might be a little more aero, this
one's components are made in Uzbekistan..."

Is your
"climbing bike" really so much slower in a time trial that it will
prevent you from winning, um, whatever you might otherwise win? (Maybe a
Powerbar? Or for first place, maybe a cycling cap?)

"Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication."

There is nothing to discuss with you Frank regarding possession of multiple road bikes. I assume you have only one pair of dress shoes, jeans and all 40 years old.

Lou

On 5/25/21 10:38 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
The Airborne looks like it will be about a half lb less weight than the Trek Emonda in the same size. One might suppose that the Trek might be more Aero but like the Airborne, it has large diameter tubes that had no attempt at being aero in design. Also one would have to question whether small diameter round steel tubes are less aero than the much larger diameter of, say, the Pinarello frameset. I can't say that I ever noticed any difference between the late Basso Loto I had and the Trek Madone which was supposedly quite aero.

Of course I'm not a pro rider and I very seldom even approach the speeds that the pros commonly get in the peloton.

But isn't that the entire point of Aero? To give you that very small gain when you ride at those sorts of speeds all day long? You sure as hell aren't going to put out these sorts of power and my entire reason for posting this is to tell you that you sure as hell aren't going to gain enough to even consider spending large amounts of money on a fantasy bike to make it worth your while.

Another point - Components are now more expensive than good frames. But China is invading that space as well. You can get a Sensah 11 speed group complete for $200. They have been working their way up from not very reliable and seem to have now hit a high enough reliability standard that I will give them a test. The failure points seem to be the levers on the previous versions but that supposedly has been reengineered to be reliable. And if it weren't so you could always buy SRAM levers which have the same pull ratio and we know that those levers are reliable. And you would still save a pile of money. I'll see after I get rid of all of my extraneous bikes.


I wish bikes would achieve at least the quality of a cheap car. But they
don't and that includes expensive stuff. Every few hundred miles
something needs maintenance, wears out of needs service. Our cars go
tens of thousands of miles without a lick of trouble, all they needs is
an oil change every 4000-5000mi.

Yesterday the MicroShift derailer on the road bike began biting the
dust. The freehub is announcing its demise as well. Same for the bottom
bracket which began noise messaging, again. For both I bought the most
expensive ones from Shimano that I could find and that would fit. Not
going to do that again.

And don't get me started on tires. Hurumph, grumble.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 5/31/2021 12:30 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Because of the weight of that Douglas I have considered selling it and replacing it with a Waterford Racing. That and the Airborne would be for the same reason - to ride. Something that Frank doesn't quite understand.

Correct. What's your objective?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/31/2021 12:58 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

There is nothing to discuss with you Frank regarding possession of multiple road bikes. I assume you have only one pair of dress shoes, jeans and all 40 years old.

Since I'm retired I rarely buy clothes, and certainly not dress clothes
or dress shoes. The dress shoes I have will probably be here when I die.

My last purchases were a pair of "daily driver" casual shoes and a pair
of hiking shoes, both to replace others that had worn out.

I usually have 3 or 4 pairs of jeans: "Good" ones, "daily" ones and
"ratty" ones for dirty work. When a new "good" one is needed, others get
demoted and a previous "work" item gets pitched. (Our house is quite
small. Not much space for lots of extras.)

The "extra" clothes I have are almost all gifts. My wife and kids
persist in buying me shirts, in a futile effort to improve my
appearance. They should know better.

--
- Frank Krygowski