Paramount

In article . com,
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

On Jul 4, 7:17 am, Bruce Gilbert wrote:
...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.

WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Statistics are never definitive proof. Statistics are a form of
ritualized argumentation about what might be proved.

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:17:15 GMT, "Bruce Gilbert"
wrote:

Perhaps the old steel stuff does fatigue. But to me, the new frames
are a lot snappier.

I think it's at least partially the weight of heavier bikes that make
them feel less "snappy."

The new stuff may or may not feel "snappy," but IME it doesn't make me
any faster in terms of how long it takes me to ride by favorite routes.
I'm not significantly faster on my 19 lb bike than on my 25 lb bike over
the rolling terrain we have here- maybe .1 mph. In my racing days that
would have counted for something, but no longer.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:17 am, Bruce Gilbert wrote:

...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.

WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Yawn.

I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The
helmet argument stops the first time you have to change an adult
diaper...

Male bovine..., there is no proof that these persons would have been
any better off if they had been wearing a CPSC or even Snell rated
foam hat, unless of course their identical twins had EXACTLY similar
head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Where did Bruce say his friends' crashes weren't low-speed falls? Lose
balance due to uneven surface and smash melon into curb edge -- you want
properly fitted plastic & foam protection or not?

Get a clue, Tommy. (Today's catch-phrase...for a WIDE range of topics,
apparently.)

On Jul 4, 8:03 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.



That's why they need warning sticks in dayglo text that say, "this
laceration reducer does not replace good judgment."

They do hurt...my sense of style. Jaunty caps for the win. If I crash,
I'll just get a Depends with a team logo!

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:03:11 -0000, Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:


Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

If they never hurt, why do you not wear one all the time?

If you truly believe there is no downside to wearing a helmet,
shouldn't you wear it all the time. At least when awake and moving,
or when outside? Seems to me that's the logical conclusion to your
belief.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Jul 4, 7:23 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:35:10 -0400, (wishful

thinker) wrote:
When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be one
of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike compare to
a top of the line bike of today?

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Sorta. It probably rides fine. You can get bikes that shift better,
brake better, are far easier to maintain, are more reliable and
lighter for much less money in real dollars.

Compared to a modern bike of comparable cost in real dollars, it's
worse.

Use the frame(particularly if it's a Waterfrod produced steel frame)
and put some modern stuff on it so it shifts better, brakes better,
maybe a pound or so lighter but as for ride quality, besides being
Subjective with a capital 'S', it'll look great, ride wonderfully and
last forever. The new 'wunderbikes' are mostly so much mass produced
eyewash that doesn't really make riding any easier or better.Not since
the late 80s/early 90s has anything come to market that really makes
cycling 'better'.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Dans le message de ,
John Forrest Tomlinson a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:03:11 -0000, Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:


Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not
a panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

If they never hurt, why do you not wear one all the time?

If you truly believe there is no downside to wearing a helmet,
shouldn't you wear it all the time. At least when awake and moving,
or when outside? Seems to me that's the logical conclusion to your
belief.

Yeah, you're not wrong. Yesterday's news reported that there are more
pedestrian deaths in Paris than moto or bicycle deaths. Why not. Casques
for everyone, all the time. No risk. Never. Such a repeat subject, I'm
surprised there isn't a K-bot to converse with itself already.

I choose, consciously, when to use one. A- racing as it is required. B- in
group rides, because there's always someone who rides like a mosquito. C- in
rain. D- when I don't know the roads ahead.

I also choose when to wear a tie. Seldom when cycling, but analogies to my
A B C and D come to mind, instantly.

Have we settled whether you ride faster with a red hat or a blue one? Mine
is a tricolor, so I never know if I'm coming or going.
--
Les faits relatés ici ne sont que pure fiction, et ne sauraient être
utilisés ou rapprochés d'une situation réelle existant ou ayant
existée

Bruce Gilbert wrote:

In the mid to late '60's I had 3 road bikes. I rode a Paramount, a Cinelli
and a Carlton. The Cinelli was a top of the line model, as were the others.
The Paramount and Carlton were made of 531 tubing. The Cinelli was probably
Columbus. At the time, the Paramount was considered the best thing made over
here. There were also a number of good domestic frame makers available, all
working in steel.

Certainly the paramount was considered to be the best thing made over
here. It may not have been in actuality, but the others that could
claim that were small shops making very few bikes.

Some of my friends had Raleigh Professionals. They were so close to the
Paramount, in every way, it was amazing.

The rep on the Raleigh was that is was a "whippy" frame (not stiff
enough), and I think the Paramount was supposed to be stiffer.

The big thing back then was an all
chrome finish. Italian chrome was miserable.

Not only the chrome, but the paint was not so great, and the frame prep
prior to painting was shoddy.


I forget what my bikes weighed. I would guess 23 pounds or so. I have a 2000
Colnago Master Light with 8 speed stuff on it that I use as my lunch time
ride. It weighs about 22.

I think that if you look at a common bike from 2000 on, compared to one
from the late 60s, you will lose about 3 lbs total. Wheels and tires
are typically heavier than back then, since they are typically clincher
now, and because rims have to be stronger for a highly-dished rear
wheel. Stell forks make good anchors, but weigh about a pound more than
a steel-steerer carbon-bladed fork. Components are a wash, taken in
toto. My old Frejus frame was about 5.5 lbs (that is frame alone,
without the fork).


--

David L. Johnson

The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a Mack
truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".


--

David L. Johnson

The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.

Dans le message de
oups.com,
Qui si parla Campagnolo a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
On Jul 4, 7:23 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:35:10 -0400,
(wishful

thinker) wrote:
When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be
one of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike
compare to a top of the line bike of today?

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Sorta. It probably rides fine. You can get bikes that shift better,
brake better, are far easier to maintain, are more reliable and
lighter for much less money in real dollars.

Compared to a modern bike of comparable cost in real dollars, it's
worse.

Use the frame(particularly if it's a Waterfrod produced steel frame)
and put some modern stuff on it so it shifts better, brakes better,
maybe a pound or so lighter but as for ride quality, besides being
Subjective with a capital 'S', it'll look great, ride wonderfully and
last forever. The new 'wunderbikes' are mostly so much mass produced
eyewash that doesn't really make riding any easier or better.Not since
the late 80s/early 90s has anything come to market that really makes
cycling 'better'.

It doesn't have to be revolutionary to be better. I changed my Chorus Ergos
from the pointy ones to the rounded ones because the earlier ones were
uncomfortable and the new shape is really nice. I think the expectation
that a calendar year brings a new model year is a modern hoax that needs to
die. The early Record Ergos are now found in last year's Veloce model, save
the cut out and the internal ball bearings. Price went way down, especially
following inflation. That's better, no? Lots of people who buy new carbon
frames are happier on them just because, and as a result, they ride more,
and that's better, also. Even home trainers got better, quieter, and they
work perfectly with a 6-speed bike, which is, at not more than 100$ also
better.

If there's one thing that's clearly worse, it's that retrogrouches can make
people feel small and stupid for getting on a bike they like. My practical
sense tells me that I should be happy _inside_ my car when I drive, less
important that the exterior look perfect. But aesthetics is a good enough
reason for choosing your clothes or car or two-wheeled transport. It's
progress that not every carbon bike has to show black and filaments.

Not everyone is stupid, and not all modern production is inferior. But it's
a safe bet that the curious cachet of riding steel on tubulars wearing wool
is the silliest "improvement" of all. Some folks ride that way because they
don't spend all their money on bikes. Some spend it on exorbitant modern
American health care.
--
Les faits relatés ici ne sont que pure fiction, et ne sauraient être
utilisés ou rapprochés d'une situation réelle existant ou ayant
existée