Autofaq now on faster server

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:04:20 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message
:

I think you have fallen victim to exactly the kind of stereotyping you
are falsely accusing me of,

I'm not accusing you of stereotyping. I'm saying you come across as
sneering.

And I'm suggesting that a substantial proportion of that mistaken
impression you have appears to originate in the large chip you appear
to be carrying on your shoulder.

And if she had a supermarket bike, you'd tell her it was crappy, made of
cheese and depleted uranium, and that she was, by extension, stupid for
buying it?

Correct. Just as I told a friend that she was a fool for buying a
Packard Bell PC. And when it failed just after the warranty ran out,
she told me that not only did she agree, but that I wasn't the only
one who had called her that.

It's not about affluence or
poverty, it's about getting best value for whatever money you are
going to spend.

And making jokes about the people with crap ones, of course.

Once again you are reading things I never wrote. I have nothing but
contempt for nasty, over-heavy, cheap, unpleasant, poorly-specified
bikes. Unlike you, it appears, I am able to draw a distinction
between the bike and the rider. As a result I have helped several
such unfortunates to choose much better bikes second time around.

This is not about validating someone's poor choice to avoid damaging
their self-esteem, it's about helping people to avoid making a poor
choice next time.

Interestingly the majority of car advertising /is/ about validation.
According to industry insiders it's not about selling you the latest,
shiniest Nobshrinka 2000, it's about patching up your ego when you
realise that car ownership haemorrhages money and gets you nothing
better than a more comfortable seat in the traffic jam.

I don't see urc as a support group for Magna victims^wowners - maybe
you do.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

in message , Martin Wilson
') wrote:

I've never seen a cheap bike with terrible alignment or substandard
components.

Then you haven't seen many cheap bikes. I've seen (and tried to adjust
to some semblance of roadworthiness) several. I've seen at least one
brand new 'Universal' brand bike in the past fortnight where the front
dropouts were so far out of line that the front brake could not be made
to work at all.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.

In article ,
Martin Wilson wrote:

Your not really getting the hang of this are you? I'm 20 stone approx,
bare this in mind. The bike certainly seems more comfortable to me and
Its my belief that it surely must be the seat and chain stays as the
frame has that massive oversized main tube (not much flexing there I
would have thought). Maybe theres another explanation but it seems the
logical one to me.

Then you've not really thought it through. The rear triangle isn't
triangular shaped for nothing you know - it's built to be rigid so your
brakes work and the gears don't shift every time you go over a bump.

Something is absorbing shocks and it feels like the
seat/chain stays, what else can it be?

Try the seatpost, which is usually aluminium. The narrower the seatpost,
the more flex and shock absorption given similar tube thicknesses.
Aluminium bikes usually have larger diameter posts which is where most
people get the myth that aluminium is stiffer than steel - it's not,
it's half as stiff.

Oddly, these same people whinge on about fatigue life too. Perhaps they
should tell aeroplane designers that those big flexy wings need
replacing with some nice heavy hi-ten steel ones?




Shaun

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Shaun Murray wrote:

Aluminium bikes usually have larger diameter posts which is where most
people get the myth that aluminium is stiffer than steel - it's not,
it's half as stiff.

Or twice as stiff, depending on how you're choosing to express it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:34:07 +0000, Shaun Murray
wrote:

In article ,
Martin Wilson wrote:

Your not really getting the hang of this are you? I'm 20 stone approx,
bare this in mind. The bike certainly seems more comfortable to me and
Its my belief that it surely must be the seat and chain stays as the
frame has that massive oversized main tube (not much flexing there I
would have thought). Maybe theres another explanation but it seems the
logical one to me.

Then you've not really thought it through. The rear triangle isn't
triangular shaped for nothing you know - it's built to be rigid so your
brakes work and the gears don't shift every time you go over a bump.


Yeah right like I was suggesting there was about 3 inches of movement
or something. You must surely realise that even a tiny amount of
movement like 2mm or 3mm would still have a shock reducing effect and
would be instantanously corrected. I don't know what your imagination
is up to but I can assure you my seat and chain stays do not operate
like some sort of elastic bands. Its well documented that the GT
triple triangle frame design is more rigid because it supports the
seat stays at both the seat tube and top tube with welds. As a heavier
rider I'm obviously going to get more movement there. What is your
problem? Are you saying high tensile steel is not capable of flexing
slightly under loads? Surely its aluminium frames which can be damaged
by excessive constant flexing and they would have thicker seat/chain
stays. As I'm riding the bike its very difficult for me to judge
technically why a frame is more comfortable all I know is it is and
admittedly my guess is the seat and chain stays because when I've read
about older bikes generally being often more comfortable using steel
frames it seems to be flexing of the seat/chain stays which is the
reason. Many older bikes use earlier possibly less advanced high
tensile steel like my Raleigh Royal.

Something is absorbing shocks and it feels like the
seat/chain stays, what else can it be?

Try the seatpost, which is usually aluminium. The narrower the seatpost,
the more flex and shock absorption given similar tube thicknesses.
Aluminium bikes usually have larger diameter posts which is where most
people get the myth that aluminium is stiffer than steel - it's not,
it's half as stiff.


I can't deny the possibility that its the seat post. It doesn't feel
like the seatpost but its the only bike with a steel seatpost as far
as I can tell. I don't see how it would absorb shocks though.

Oddly, these same people whinge on about fatigue life too. Perhaps they
should tell aeroplane designers that those big flexy wings need
replacing with some nice heavy hi-ten steel ones?


Yeah right like aeroplane wings flex about like the wings of bird, in
fact you wonder why they have to fit jet engines or props at all. I'm
pretty sure they design planes to minimise flexing/bending of the
wings. Its a known fact that as a general rule steel can flex a lot
more than aluminium without long term damage or structural problems.
Its not that aluminium can't flex/bend its just you don't want it to
because it would weaken it and shorten its lifespan.


Shaun

Martin Wilson wrote:

So lets get this straight. They have a large collection of high
tensile steel frames that have broken in use either the welds or
tubeing. What is their motivation to keep these frames?

Because we recycle stuff. Those bikes that can be made usable are, and
those that can't are collected, sorted by material and sold as scrap.

It doesn't surprise me about tourney gears. They are ok and workable
but the shimano models higher up in the range have a crisper and
faster gear change. While tourney gears are widely used on sub £100
bikes they also feature on higher end models upto £400.

I find that disturbing. They are somewhat shaky and when I was budgeting
around £400 for a new bike (Ended up revising upwards somewhat!) I was
looking at Sora or Sora / Tiagra mix.

snip

I think I've already answered that elsewhere.

Sorry. I'll read through the rest of the posts and find out your
justification.

Jon

Martin Wilson wrote:
I've never seen a cheap bike with terrible alignment or substandard
components.

Without wishing to sound as if I'm trying to "pull rank", I've probably
serviced a great many more bikes than you. I've seen adult frames fitted
with pressed steel side-pull brakes that aren't even capable of safely
stopping a child's bike. I've squeezed a resin brake lever and seen it
bend without providing enough force on the rim to slow the bike.

You yourself have described Tourney rear mechs as substandard, so even
in your experience of such cheap bikes, you can easily identify a major
failing.

You probably see resin covered steel V brakes as
substandard but they have worked well for me.

No. I see resin arms as possibly sub-standard, but I judge as I see. For
a while I ran a pair of cheap Tektro V-brakes on the front of my
recumbent. I've since upgraded to Deore because the Tektros are pretty
poor. They stopped the bike, but were a faff to setup, were noisy and
didn't centre very well. I would still recommend Tektro dual pivots as a
budget alternative to Shimano road brakes. I don't care about shininess
(Well... maybe a little bit of bling can be good!), but I do care about
functionality. While there are probably some Hi-ten based bikes which
are not a complete write-off before they've reached the customer, they
are (IME) outnumbered by those that are.

Plastic brake levers
have also been ok. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer both to be made
from finely crafted alloys etc but they work. Where are all the posts
from people who are buying such bikes and finding these components
unsatisfactory? I don't see them anywhere. Can you name exact models
that suffer these problems, point them out who sells them etc. There
is nothing wrong with an oversize tube if your manufacturing a
stronger frame. I like the fact the frame has an over the top main
tube its re-assuring. Your basically saying my cheap ebay bike is not
a good bike. Maybe if I got on your bike and found that the wheels
buckled almost instantly under my weight and created a life
threatening situation for me that your bike is actually complete
rubbish as its too weak for heavier riders.

I doubt it very much. I've seen some quite heavy riders on a bike
identical to mine and there were no ominous creaking noises. If you
really believe that the wheels on an £80 will be strong because they're
cheap then you might want to go away and learn about wheel building.

Have I been lucky? I don't think so because if I have there would be a
load of internet postings of people moaning about similar bikes
failing. Obesity is a big problem in this country and many people who
have allowed themselves to be obese are turning to cycling to aid
weight loss and improved fitness. I'm not sure exactly what people are
buying cycle nowadays but overweight people surely make a good
percentage of them.

And a proportion of them are buying "ordinary" bikes from bike shops and
not suffering cracked frames. Over-engineering is all very well, but I'm
not sure how much of it is necessary and how much is in your head.

This idea that LBS's always try to sell you what you actually
need/whats best for you is very naive.

You did miss the keyword "decent" from my post. My mum just bought a
bike from such a bike shop in Cambridge and received exactly that level
of service. It may not be universal to LBS, but they do exist.

Its like saying supermarkets
only sell food that is good for you.

Only if you ignore the obvious differences in service requirements. Bike
shop staff are generally cyclists and presumably have some enthusiasm
for cycling. The staff of Tescos are not by-and-large nutritionists!

Most LBS's are motivated by
profit and if they are not they are incompetent. If they could sell an
obese 25 stone man a super light weight titanium racing bike they
would if it wasn't for the fact he would be returning it.

So they wouldn't?

Maybe where
you are LBS's are different but I don't see the level of customer
service you speak of in any cycle shops local to me. I remember such
service in the past but I don't see it locally nowadays. I'm not
saying it doesn't exist but I wonder how many people have LBSs like
that.

EBC are generally pretty good. And Biketrax comes pretty highly
recommended. Richardson's cycles in St. Ives is also pretty good, but
I'd personally avoid the Huntingdon branch as I've had some bad
experiences with them in the past that I'm not prepared to forgive them
for! I can't recommend any anywhere else, but I didn't really ride much
in Sheffield and thus had little call for bike shops.

I didn't realise I'd said anything offensive to you to make you think
I'm not chilled out.

Your post was a full-on "rant". The point boiled down to: "I don't like
what you've said about Hi-ten steel frames so the whole AutoFAQ is a
waste of time".

Jon

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:37:27 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message
:
snip
Such a delightful term, 'chav'. A wonderful addition to the vocabulary
of class warfare.

You want salt and vinegar with those chips?

The only class warfare I've ever been involved in, I was on the
receiving end. I was attacked more than once for going to the "posh"
school - the irony was that I was on a direct grant place, my parents
were, if not quite as poor as church mice, certainly not a lot better
off. My dad was a teacher and my mum stayed home.
snip

Always interesting to watch Trolls hunting in packs :-)

Now far further down this thread than I originally intended, and so far we
have one issue which could be resolved by adding 'frame choice parameters
can be different if you are over 20 stone' and another which could be
fruitfully avoided by ignoring a 'class warfare' Troll.

Oh, alright then.

Years since I first chose a bike as an adult, but then I went out with an
idea of spending £100 to £150 and rode a number of bikes at the LBS.
The difference in general feel, ease of riding, etc. was amazing when you
got over £200 and I ended up buying a bike priced at £300 but reduced to
£250.

Given the enormous sales of these 'budget' bikes I don't see very many of
them being ridden.
Not round the streets, and especially not in the countryside on longer
rides.

Most bikes around here are the 'comfortable' sit up and beg or the strange
low down seatless bikes which the kids ride with their knees hunched out
across the frame. Amazing to watch them jumping them around the sea defence
rock pile, though.

One bad decision was to buy my son a 'budget' bike - decent frame etc. but
no indexed gears.
I grew up with non-indexed gears and thought it would have been no problem.
I now think that a few more quid on indexed gears, preferably a twist grip
change, could have made a great diference to his enjoyment of cycling (which
is zero).

Where are the hordes of people who buy these cheap bikes?
Shouldn't we be seeing a massive increase of cyclists on the roads?

Ah well, shouldn't feed the Trolls.

Cheers
Dave R

Martin Wilson wrote:

Its well documented that the GT triple triangle frame design is
more rigid because it supports the seat stays at both the seat
tube and top tube with welds. As a heavier rider I'm obviously
going to get more movement there.

Really? Where is it so documented? This is the design that Sheldon
Brown has described in the following terms.

: This is not sturdier, it is a bogus design used for cosmetic
: purposes, to build brand differentiaton. It is based on
: marketing, not engineering. It makes the bike heavier, but has
: no functional value.

And from Sheldon's glossary (under Hellenic):

: It is of no practical value, and often causes un-necessary
: complication to brake cable routing, luggage rack attachment
: and installation of frame pumps. It is also slightly heavier
: than normal frame construction.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 wrote:

[GT Nonse]

IIRC it was referred to as the "Bermuda Triangle"...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)