titanium recommendation?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:02:35 -0500, "Matt O'Toole"
wrote:

Check out this one:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/habanero.html

For anyone looking to spend this kind of money on a new road bike, this is what
I'd point them to. I like Ti because of its elegant and indestructible finish.
The light weight is nice too. With this package you also get "real" wheels and
hill friendly gearing, a big plus IMO. Personally I'd toss the Brooks but some
people really love them.

Matt O.



Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:43:14 GMT, David
wrote:



I didn't realized that Trek made an aluminium 1000 20 years ago?!?
Wow!!



I guess I goofed on my math.. Lets se..I got the bike in 1991..
2005-1991= 14... hrmm guess I was way off..sorry for the confusion.

Its 14 yrs old.

And I do thank all the people who have posted and offered wonderful
advice.

Bob Terrwilliger wrote:

Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike. These are
almost impossible to find nowadays. Plus there's a custom cassette for more
hill-friendly gearing. There's also a Brooks saddle, if you like that.

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" wrote:

Bob Terrwilliger wrote:

Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.

I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:

"Matt O'Toole" wrote:


Bob Terrwilliger wrote:


Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.


I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

--
Tom Sherman – Earth (Illinois)

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mark Hickey wrote:

"Matt O'Toole" wrote:


Bob Terrwilliger wrote:


Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.


I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
Dick Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:10:29 GMT, "Gooserider" wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mark Hickey wrote:

"Matt O'Toole" wrote:


Bob Terrwilliger wrote:


Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.


I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
Dick Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.

I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Ron

RonSonic wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:10:29 GMT, "Gooserider" wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Mark Hickey wrote:


"Matt O'Toole" wrote:



Bob Terrwilliger wrote:



Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.


I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
Dick Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.


I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Hillary Rodham was a Republican. Hillary Rodham Clinton became a
Democrat. By no stretch of the imagination should she be considered a
liberal (not should any DLC Democrat).

Bill Clinton stabbed his constituency in the back - other than his
positions on the agenda of the "Christian right", his policies were
barely distinguishable from those of G H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

It is no wonder that Democrats lose elections when they abandon their
base to feed from the same hog trough of legalized bribery (corporate
campaign contributions [1]) as the Republicans do.

Of course, we all know what the word for the merger of corporate and
state power is.

[1] Strictly speaking, not from corporations, but when the top
executives of a corporation bundle their individual contributions
together, it sends a blatantly obvious message to the candidate that
this is the corporation speaking.

--
Tom Sherman – Earth (Illinois)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:10:21 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:

RonSonic wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:10:29 GMT, "Gooserider" wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Mark Hickey wrote:


"Matt O'Toole" wrote:



Bob Terrwilliger wrote:



Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.


I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
Dick Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.


I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Hillary Rodham was a Republican. Hillary Rodham Clinton became a
Democrat. By no stretch of the imagination should she be considered a
liberal (not should any DLC Democrat).

That health care plan will forever convince us otherwise.

Bill Clinton stabbed his constituency in the back - other than his
positions on the agenda of the "Christian right", his policies were
barely distinguishable from those of G H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

It is no wonder that Democrats lose elections when they abandon their
base to feed from the same hog trough of legalized bribery (corporate
campaign contributions [1]) as the Republicans do.

Ya know, I have a hard time reading that "the dems abandon their base" without
thinking of that entire class of workaday Americans who attend a church, have
kids in Scouting, believe unreservedly that the first duty of government is the
common defense and that their country and culture deserves defense, that
abortion is at best regrettable. People like that used to vote Democrat. They
elected every Democrat between Roosevelt and Johnson. They filled state and
federal legislatures with Dems. They voted for Clinton, hoping, expecting that
he was something like them. He was far wimpier on national defense policy than
they (perhaps a nod to what _you_ think is the Dem base) but they also
recognized him as having come from where they did.

When the Dems sold out the workers for the union bosses, trial lawyers,
envirowhacks and euroweenies that's when they started losing elections.

Of course, we all know what the word for the merger of corporate and
state power is.

[1] Strictly speaking, not from corporations, but when the top
executives of a corporation bundle their individual contributions
together, it sends a blatantly obvious message to the candidate that
this is the corporation speaking.

Ya know, in the big picture corporate donations are fairly small relative to the
impact on those industries that government has. Example: Tobacco; a vote in
congress or the state house is worth billions, yet the companies muster at most
a few million, peanuts by comparison. See, if they thought they could buy
something they'd ante up hundreds of millions and consider it a wise investment.
That's why I'm not all that worried. These guys know what a paid politician is
worth, not much.

Ron

RonSonic wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:10:21 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:


RonSonic wrote:


On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:10:29 GMT, "Gooserider" wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Mark Hickey wrote:



"Matt O'Toole" wrote:




Bob Terrwilliger wrote:




Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.


I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
Dick Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.


I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Hillary Rodham was a Republican. Hillary Rodham Clinton became a
Democrat. By no stretch of the imagination should she be considered a
liberal (not should any DLC Democrat).


That health care plan will forever convince us otherwise.

Instead of a simple, single-payer plan ("Medicare for all"), Hillary et
at came up with one that combined the worst features of the current
system and government bureaucracy. One almost has to believe that the
plan was designed to discredit any attempt at changing the current
system, since it did not please anyone.

Bill Clinton stabbed his constituency in the back - other than his
positions on the agenda of the "Christian right", his policies were
barely distinguishable from those of G H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

It is no wonder that Democrats lose elections when they abandon their
base to feed from the same hog trough of legalized bribery (corporate
campaign contributions [1]) as the Republicans do.


Ya know, I have a hard time reading that "the dems abandon their base" without
thinking of that entire class of workaday Americans who attend a church, have
kids in Scouting, believe unreservedly that the first duty of government is the
common defense and that their country and culture deserves defense, that
abortion is at best regrettable. People like that used to vote Democrat. They
elected every Democrat between Roosevelt and Johnson. They filled state and
federal legislatures with Dems. They voted for Clinton, hoping, expecting that
he was something like them. He was far wimpier on national defense policy than
they (perhaps a nod to what _you_ think is the Dem base) but they also
recognized him as having come from where they did.

When the Dems sold out the workers for the union bosses, trial lawyers,
envirowhacks and euroweenies that's when they started losing elections.

NAFTA, GATT/WTO, tax credits for exporting jobs, favorable trade status
for countries that compete by eliminating worker rights and
environmental protections, decreased regulation of securities and
banking industry, etc. - yes many of the Democrats sold out those who
income consists primarily of earned wages and not unearned investment
income.

Of course, we all know what the word for the merger of corporate and
state power is.

[1] Strictly speaking, not from corporations, but when the top
executives of a corporation bundle their individual contributions
together, it sends a blatantly obvious message to the candidate that
this is the corporation speaking.


Ya know, in the big picture corporate donations are fairly small relative to the
impact on those industries that government has. Example: Tobacco; a vote in
congress or the state house is worth billions, yet the companies muster at most
a few million, peanuts by comparison. See, if they thought they could buy
something they'd ante up hundreds of millions and consider it a wise investment.
That's why I'm not all that worried. These guys know what a paid politician is
worth, not much.

Yes, by investing millions in campaign contributions, billions in
corporate welfare are received. Sounds like an excellent return on
investment.

--
Tom Sherman – Earth (Illinois)