How Do These Airborne Specs Look?

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gooserider wrote:


You want to be comfortable? Here you go:

http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/surly....html#complete

Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!

Since TOURING bikes which carry both a rider and up to 60 pounds of gear use
cantilevers, they must work pretty damn well, no? As for steel---there's a
big difference between the Cr-mo Surly's using and the gaspipe hi-tensile
steel you're thinking of. I'm wondering if you truly want to learn anything,
or if you just want to be contrary.

Steel frame, fat tires, relaxed geometry. Fender-able, rack-able. Heavier
than your 19 pound Chinese wonder machine, but comfortable enough for you
to
actually ride the thing. You ride the Surly enough and you'll easily drop
the 6 pounds of weight difference.

LOL -- but I don't see how you imagine this one more comfortable than
the Airborne models. Fat tires make for a naturally comfy ride, do
they? And how is the frame geometry more relaxed?

Yes, fat tires make for more comfort. They are your suspension. Common
knowledge. The surly has relaxed angles and an upright position, which make
for an easy handling and comfortable bike. Again, common knowledge.

Plus, the Surly is a better fit for NYC,
unless you think the gossamer wheels on the Airborne are going to handle
potholes and curbs well.

"Bontrager Select 700c Wheelset, 20/24, 835g/1020g" flimsy??

Yes. Those are race wheels, not designed for a beast like you. At your
weight you need 36 spokes AT LEAST, especially if you are riding in a place
like NYC. One good pothole and the flimsy wheels on the Airborne will taco.
You know, you've come to a place full of people who know a lot about bikes,
and you've learned absolutely nothing. Please, go ahead and buy your
Airborne. Let us know how it goes.

Gooserider wrote:


Since TOURING bikes which carry both a rider and up to 60 pounds of gear use
cantilevers, they must work pretty damn well, no?

Yeah, but if V-brakes are better, why not use V-brakes? There can
hardly be any "over-kill" for such a critical component, especially
since the costs are the same.

As for steel---there's a
big difference between the Cr-mo Surly's using and the gaspipe hi-tensile
steel you're thinking of. I'm wondering if you truly want to learn anything,
or if you just want to be contrary.

This matter of learning and, more generally, education is a matter
close and very dear to my heart, so forgive me for expounding at length
on it by way of responding to you and explaining myself.

In a society where an undergraduate degree is what a high school
diploma was sixty years ago, it's distressing that critical thinking
skills are not more widely and often recognized or appreciated.

If I simply take answers at face-value, I may as well stick to the
sales brochures. That I ask follow-up questions and question from
different angles demonstrate not only my ignorance on these matters but
also my desire to understand as thoroughly as possible, given the
limitations of the medium.

"Skepticism," in the true, healthy, philosophical sense, isn't mere
sport for me. It's a main tool of cognition. So please don't be
non-plussed by this coversation at length; though of course you retire
from it at your own convenience, I do not engage these NGs out of
boredom.

Yes, fat tires make for more comfort. They are your suspension. Common
knowledge. The surly has relaxed angles and an upright position, which make
for an easy handling and comfortable bike. Again, common knowledge.

I agree about the fat tires (wasn't snickering at you about them), and
had also assumed the same about the upright position, but someone had
mentioned that insofar as the upright posture translates into using the
back as suspension more than a hunched-over posture(??), it's actually
more "uncomfortable."

Yes. Those are race wheels, not designed for a beast like you. At your
weight you need 36 spokes AT LEAST, especially if you are riding in a place
like NYC. One good pothole and the flimsy wheels on the Airborne will taco.

HOLY SINK HOLES!! You know, I did think it most odd how few spokes
there were, but figured that maybe the wheels were that good or
something!!!

AAAAAAAGGGGRRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

You know, you've come to a place full of people who know a lot about bikes,
and you've learned absolutely nothing. Please, go ahead and buy your
Airborne. Let us know how it goes.

I was really tempted to...but if the wheels won't support my weight,
not to mention my handling...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've always thought of women as standard equipment!

I x-posted here since my questions concerned components and specs of a
bike offered for sale. Most a propos, I thoguht.


Sorry!



steve elliott wrote:
Isn't this a forum for selling bicycle gear? Please take your
conversation to a more appropriate forum

THanks

Hank Wirtz wrote:
"NYC XYZ" wrote in
oups.com:



Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!

I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."

ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?

Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.

The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
one on the bike.

This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.

Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....

It has
clearance for fenders and wide tires.

Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
the comfort of fat tires for some speed.

Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
(http://www.airborne.net/eready/janet...LB-special.asp)?

And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
tires and fenders.

I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.

Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
too.

It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.

Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
pick-up-and-go affair.

Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
seemingly "simple" things are!

20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
them after every ride.

OMG...this is bad news....

Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
24-spoke wheelset?

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
and more trollish to me.

Trollish schmollish.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
"attractive" to you for whatever reason.

Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
won't be supporting my weight!

What else have y'all been holding back from me? INSERT SMILELY

On 22 Jul 2005 19:16:15 -0700, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:

Vis-a-vis the price, anyway -- $1,300 for 19-lb. bikes!!

http://www.airborne.net/eready/janet...TI-special.asp

Deore gruppo; okay, they work...but SRAM gripshifts are not my fave
for a number of reasons. (This is a massive understatement.) The
low-count paired-spoke wheels also fail to impress; pop one spoke and
you may have to carry it home. And then there's the internal headset,
a feature that I personally don't consider an advantage at all. I'd
walk past this in a bike shop without a second glance.

http://www.airborne.net/eready/janet...TB-special.asp

Well, that's an apples-and-oranges pair. Ultegra group, which is
nothing to grouse about, but it still has those fashionable and chic
paired-spoke wheels I detest for reasons already stated, and an
internal headset whose repair parts may be hard to find in years to
come due to lack of standardization. At least it has the whole
Ultegra kit.

If you're the kind of rider who puts 2500 miles on a bike before
selling it three years later, either of these is okay. For the long
haul in both senses, I'd go with something with less exotic and more
serviceable wheels, and a frame with a *standard* headset for which
service parts will be more likely to be available.

Which one would you get, if these were the choices?

Neither, assuming I was shopping to replace a bike that was still in
service. And these would not be high on my list in any event in a
real shopping situation; there are *always* more choices.

How do they compare to your current bike -- etc.?

I have nothing that cost me as much as half the ticket of either of
those, but I don't buy new bikes...and I wouldn't take either of them
in trade for my current roadie.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 22 Jul 2005 20:08:25 -0700, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:


Actually, they're $1,200 -- hot deal?

And how's this seat?

http://pedalpusherbikeshop.com/site/...3rdcharacte r

Heavy, and slow to dry out if it gets wet, as my daughter has recently
discovered. We're shopping for a replacement for hers. Fabric-topped
saddles are out of the running. Sweaty-damp is one thing; sodden is
quite another, and it rains here entirely too much.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gooserider wrote:


Since TOURING bikes which carry both a rider and up to 60 pounds of gear
use
cantilevers, they must work pretty damn well, no?

Yeah, but if V-brakes are better, why not use V-brakes? There can
hardly be any "over-kill" for such a critical component, especially
since the costs are the same.

Because regular V-brakes don't work with road levers. Tektro Mini-Vs do, but
they're kind of an oddball selection. I have them on my Ibex, but they don't
allow for easy fender mounting. Cantilevers do. Some touring bikes are
coming with discs, now. Cantis work fine.

As for steel---there's a
big difference between the Cr-mo Surly's using and the gaspipe hi-tensile
steel you're thinking of. I'm wondering if you truly want to learn
anything,
or if you just want to be contrary.

This matter of learning and, more generally, education is a matter
close and very dear to my heart, so forgive me for expounding at length
on it by way of responding to you and explaining myself.

No, you're not responding. You're coming with pre-conceived notions, and
mockingly responding when given information. It's kind of annoying.

In a society where an undergraduate degree is what a high school
diploma was sixty years ago, it's distressing that critical thinking
skills are not more widely and often recognized or appreciated.

I suppose it's the medium in which we are communicating.

If I simply take answers at face-value, I may as well stick to the
sales brochures. That I ask follow-up questions and question from
different angles demonstrate not only my ignorance on these matters but
also my desire to understand as thoroughly as possible, given the
limitations of the medium.

Yet you doubt the word of dozens of experienced cyclists, and continue to
cling to your original ideas? Whatever. There comes a point when one must
accept the word of those who know better. I don't know if maybe you just are
"taking the ****" as our British friends would say.

"Skepticism," in the true, healthy, philosophical sense, isn't mere
sport for me. It's a main tool of cognition. So please don't be
non-plussed by this coversation at length; though of course you retire
from it at your own convenience, I do not engage these NGs out of
boredom.

I think a few hours of Googling and visiting bike shops would do you good.

Yes, fat tires make for more comfort. They are your suspension. Common
knowledge. The surly has relaxed angles and an upright position, which
make
for an easy handling and comfortable bike. Again, common knowledge.

I agree about the fat tires (wasn't snickering at you about them), and
had also assumed the same about the upright position, but someone had
mentioned that insofar as the upright posture translates into using the
back as suspension more than a hunched-over posture(??), it's actually
more "uncomfortable."

There's a difference between upright and "upright". A properly set up road
bike with drop bars approximately the same height as the saddle will place
weight evenly on the three contact points (bars, pedals, seat). That makes
for comfort. Having the bars set 3-4 inches lower than the saddle places
more weight on the hands, and causes one to strain one's neck. For someone
who weighs what you do, can you not imagine the potential for discomfort?


Yes. Those are race wheels, not designed for a beast like you. At your
weight you need 36 spokes AT LEAST, especially if you are riding in a
place
like NYC. One good pothole and the flimsy wheels on the Airborne will
taco.

HOLY SINK HOLES!! You know, I did think it most odd how few spokes
there were, but figured that maybe the wheels were that good or
something!!!

Those are a case of the racer aesthetic taking over. Racers who weigh 140
pounds and have their bikes taken apart every night don't need durable
equipment. Those of us in the real world do. I hate truing wheels, and the
thought of having to do it on a regular basis does not fill me with joy. I
use 36 spoke wheels on my Gunnar, and I have no fear. I hop curbs with glee.

AAAAAAAGGGGRRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

You know, you've come to a place full of people who know a lot about
bikes,
and you've learned absolutely nothing. Please, go ahead and buy your
Airborne. Let us know how it goes.

I was really tempted to...but if the wheels won't support my weight,
not to mention my handling...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will they support your weight? Sure. They won't collapse as you pedal off
into the sunset. I wouldn't trust them to handle too many potholes or curbs.
That's OK, because NYC has fantastic road conditions, right? Nice and smooth
like the Autobahh, I've heard. :-)

Gooserider wrote:


It depends on what your qualifications for "better" are.I don't think that
frame weight matters for 99% of the population. If you think that a bike
that's five pouds lighter makes a difference, you should lose the five
pounds off your ass and really fly!

Ah, there's the rub...I'm also weight-lifting, and trying to
hypertrophy the muscles apparently also means consuming excess calories
(easy enough, of course! Fine dining is another hobby)...no way to
have one's cake and eat it too; wow! If this isn't an argument for
evolution I don't know what is (natural selection of specific
attributes to specific tasks and environments).

Higher end components work better,
especially rear deraillerurs. Fenders and a rack are just accessories to
make the bike more useful---racks carry stuff and fenders keep grime off
your back and face. And of course, clipless pedals are self-explanatory.

Yes. I think derailleurs are wha't most critical to me in terms of how
I ride -- always shifting gears to match the situation at hand (or,
under feet, rather!).

Hmm...it looks like the Airborne deals are off...don't fancy spending
$1,200 only to have to buy myself a good set of wheels...too much
bother trying to resell the Bontragers....

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hank Wirtz wrote:
"NYC XYZ" wrote in
oups.com:



Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!

I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."

ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?

Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.

The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
one on the bike.

This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.

Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....

It has
clearance for fenders and wide tires.

Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
the comfort of fat tires for some speed.

Fenders are nice on a commuter, because they keep both you and your
drivetrain cleaner. Fat tires(and by that I mean 700x28 or 700x32) aren't
necessarily slower. I average over 20mph on my Gunnar with 700x28 Panaracer
Ruffy Tuffys, not a race tire. Just pedal.

Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
(http://www.airborne.net/eready/janet...LB-special.asp)?

Fine. Hardtail MTBs are great, and can make good commuters with a tire
change. Discs are good and stop well in poor conditions. You'll pay a weight
penalty, and we know you're a weight weenie.

And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
tires and fenders.

I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.

Depends on the cantilever. Again, tourist use them on bikes carrying 60
pounds of gear, so there must be something to them.

Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
too.

It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.

Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
pick-up-and-go affair.

Fat saddles don't make for comfortable rides because they chafe. Pad your
shorts, not your saddle. The tires, of course, are the only suspension you
have on a road bike.

Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
seemingly "simple" things are!

Not complicated, really.

20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
them after every ride.

OMG...this is bad news....

Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
24-spoke wheelset?

Either a lightweight, or someone who uses them on race day only. Not the
wisest choice for a city bike.

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
and more trollish to me.

Trollish schmollish.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
"attractive" to you for whatever reason.

It would have been nice, I suppose, if it seemed like any of the advice
folks gave you sank in.

Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
won't be supporting my weight!

What else have y'all been holding back from me? INSERT SMILELY

From the start you were advised that your choices were less than ideal.
Specs scmecs. I've pointed out 10 or so bikes which fit your criteria to a
T.

Werehatrack wrote:


Deore gruppo; okay, they work...but SRAM gripshifts are not my fave
for a number of reasons. (This is a massive understatement.)

Damn, I so love 'em! I know it's possible to accidently shift them,
but I've become very well-practiced in this regard.

The
low-count paired-spoke wheels also fail to impress; pop one spoke and
you may have to carry it home.

This seems critical. I'd hate to spend $1,200 and then looking for new
wheels.

Why would they ever do this -- do they expect folks to ride this on
velodromes only, or do they figure all cyclists are skinny?

And then there's the internal headset,
a feature that I personally don't consider an advantage at all.

What would be the point of an "internal" headset?

I'd
walk past this in a bike shop without a second glance.

Wow. Doesn't seem to impress anyone here, these bikes! I was
wondering how come they were on sale.

Well, that's an apples-and-oranges pair.

Yes...I had thought I could use either one as a general all-around
workhorse, though my inclinations are towards the upright hybrid.

What about the caliper brakes? Seems like V-brakes would have been
more powerful.

Ultegra group, which is
nothing to grouse about, but it still has those fashionable and chic
paired-spoke wheels I detest for reasons already stated, and an
internal headset whose repair parts may be hard to find in years to
come due to lack of standardization. At least it has the whole
Ultegra kit.

That means something, then?

If you're the kind of rider who puts 2500 miles on a bike before
selling it three years later, either of these is okay. For the long
haul in both senses, I'd go with something with less exotic and more
serviceable wheels, and a frame with a *standard* headset for which
service parts will be more likely to be available.

Oh, Christ...I HATE SHOPPING!!!!

Neither, assuming I was shopping to replace a bike that was still in
service. And these would not be high on my list in any event in a
real shopping situation; there are *always* more choices.

Damn, this sport used to be fun! =p

You know, I'm just crazy enough to risk $1,200 to see for myself....

I have nothing that cost me as much as half the ticket of either of
those, but I don't buy new bikes...and I wouldn't take either of them
in trade for my current roadie.

My old Trek 7500 was good enough. Just wondering if these would be
"better."

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.