[ANNOUNCE] New bicycle shopping guide web site

On an email list, some people have asked opinions of bicycle shops.
Since the question seems to come up every few weeks, is there a web site
that could keep track of customer's opinions? Sort of like
http://www.imdb.com is for movies, same thing but for bicycle shops.

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.
--
================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User http://parnass.com

Mike Schwab wrote in
:

On an email list, some people have asked opinions of bicycle shops.
Since the question seems to come up every few weeks, is there a web
site that could keep track of customer's opinions? Sort of like
http://www.imdb.com is for movies, same thing but for bicycle shops.


I like this idea. I think I saw a few bikes web sites already that had sort
of what you refer to. The users could list their bike on the site and
comment on it, maybe even rank it.

I was thinking of seting up a discution forum on that site. Would you
people like that? Then we can figure out what sections we put in the forums
etc.

The email on my bicycle web site is not fully functional yet (we are still
setting a lot of things up). Maybe I rushed a bit to quicly to make the
site public, but I wanted this kind of peer reviewing that surely will help
fine tune it at start.

I am logging all yours and others comments on the site and will consider
every part of them.... as my limited time permits! ;-)

Thanks all!

MarcB

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles"
wrote in m:

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.

Thanks for your comprehension Mike, I appreciate.

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 know what you mean. Google is quite poor, as many computer-based
translators, to well translate the initial meaning twist of a text.

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.

There is actually an "About the author" section on the site. The text I
put there is very sort and does not say much. I will try to add some
more info to it.


#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.

Granted. I had the feeling this word was not appropriate seing your
comments. I will use "common" instead.

#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.

Yes. Actually, we kind of were saying similar things from a different
angle perhaps. The fact that carbon allows some flexing is probably what
makes it "absorb" some of the vibration. An infinitely strong material,
based on the little I know, would transfer all vibration without any
loss.

Here is my theory (which may be totally wrong). The key thing here is
"fiber". The carbon fibers will be indeed very strong if you try to
elongate it for example. However, if you apply pressure sideways of the
fibers, then it will probably allow quite some flexion before it breaks.
So the spring or shock absorber propriety it displays is indeed
dependent of the structure, i.e., it depends from where the vibration
shock comes from and how it is aligned with the carbon fibers.

Still, it remains a very strong and, most importantly, light material
for high-end bikes. When I say that it "flexes", I guess I refer to the
overall frame structure... not a small region of the frame that you
would zoom on. For instance, when I put my race bike (aluminum frame in
this case) on my Cateye 1000 platform, as I push on the pedals, I can
easily see the torsion of the lower part of the frame, the bottom
bracket I think it is called in English, where the cranks links on the
frame. This torsion is there because, even if the frame is strong, it
flexes under the force I apply to the pedal, which does a lever effect
on the bottom bracket and the frame. It is easier to see on such a setup
as the front fork of the bike is clamped firmly on the platform,
limiting global bike movements.

From my experience with a few bikes, I think that it is an unavoidable
compromise situation. The lighter you want to make the bike, the more
you will lose in overall stiffness of the frame and other parts.
However, in the end, weight probably brings way more benefits than the
little flexing you add to the bike. Going from steel tubing, to aluminum
and carbon, we can feel that performance progression with the weight
reduction it brings.

It is very probable that the flexing is more a question of the design
than the material indeed. Perhaps I should remove this point from my
text altogether, in lack of having sufficient data on the carbon vs
other materials proprieties. This is an interesting discussion thought.
If anyone else in this forum has expertise with these material
proprieties, please let us know.

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


Interesting. I will try to incorporate these comments into the related
sections. Thanks.


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

That is okay :-) I do appreciate your inputs.
Regards.

MarcB

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:01:14 -0700, ,
Bill Baka wrote:

This is a picky group, but interesting.

We all know that you can't bull**** a bike so it comes naturally to
challenge any BS in here.
--
zk

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:01:14 -0700, ,
Bill Baka wrote:

This is a picky group, but interesting.

We all know that you can't bull**** a bike so it comes naturally to
challenge any BS in here.
--
zk

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:47:10 -0700, Zoot Katz
wrote:

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:01:14 -0700, ,
Bill Baka wrote:

This is a picky group, but interesting.

We all know that you can't bull**** a bike so it comes naturally to
challenge any BS in here.

Yeah, it is interesting to **** into the wind in here.
Oh, did I mention I did a triple century today, all uphill
and into the wind, with no food or water?
Bill Baka
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:47:10 -0700, Zoot Katz
wrote:

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:01:14 -0700, ,
Bill Baka wrote:

This is a picky group, but interesting.

We all know that you can't bull**** a bike so it comes naturally to
challenge any BS in here.

Yeah, it is interesting to **** into the wind in here.
Oh, did I mention I did a triple century today, all uphill
and into the wind, with no food or water?
Bill Baka
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:26:12 -0700, ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Oh, did I mention I did a triple century today, all uphill
and into the wind, with no food or water?

Last night I was watching a video of a zoobombing century, 100 miles
downhill, while doing some carbo loading and rehydration with a couple
glasses of Storm Brewing's Highland Scotish Ale.
--
zk

Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:26:12 -0700, ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Oh, did I mention I did a triple century today, all uphill
and into the wind, with no food or water?

Last night I was watching a video of a zoobombing century, 100 miles
downhill, while doing some carbo loading and rehydration with a couple
glasses of Storm Brewing's Highland Scotish Ale.
--
zk

100 miles downhill,

That's MY cup o'Guinness.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________