Recommended bike for tall person in urban area

"Pat" wrote

my touring bike (an 84 Schwinn) handles like a plow horse; my road bike
(2001 Bianchi Veloce) is like riding a mosquito.
the frame geometry is more relaxed on the touring bike and i can feel it
in
the stable ride, resistance to turning, no ability to accelerate, and
climbing difficulty.

I think you have either a tendency to over-imagination or hyperbole (or
both!).

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:39:00 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:

Congratulations, every frame myth in one paragraph.

Wow, Peter, feeling smug? Thanks for the counter argument.

BTW, the couple dozen bikes that I've personally owned over the years and
every general statement that I made of frames has held true. I've owned
thin walled steel where you could rub the tire against the frame if you
muscled it in an inappropriate gear, but rode rather well. I've had
compact geometry aluminum city bikes with steep angles. Wow, they handled
great, and were spine bruisers even with 37c tires.

But I guess I'm wrong because you said so.

[rolls eyes]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:42:19 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:

I think you have either a tendency to over-imagination or hyperbole (or
both!).

Your responses show a willingness to belittle others without adding a gram
of substance to the thread.

You might enjoy it, but trust me, many of us don't enjoy your digital "na
na boo boos".

"maxo" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:42:19 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:

I think you have either a tendency to over-imagination or hyperbole (or
both!).

Your responses show a willingness to belittle others without adding a
gram
of substance to the thread.

You might enjoy it, but trust me, many of us don't enjoy your digital "na
na boo boos".

Hey, don't take it so personally. It's not "belittling" others just to say
their claims are wrong. In case you missed it, my "contribution" is that
frame material/geometry/tubing gauge, etc. doesn't make any difference.
It's your opinion that it does, but material science/physics doesn't
support that opinion. What else have you got?

: : Hey, don't take it so personally. It's not "belittling" others just to
say
: their claims are wrong. In case you missed it, my "contribution" is that
: frame material/geometry/tubing gauge, etc. doesn't make any difference.
: It's your opinion that it does, but material science/physics doesn't
: support that opinion. What else have you got?

The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
"science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to accept
that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just that---and it's
not factual and it's not the final answer.

Pat in TX
:
:

"Pat" wrote in message
...

: : Hey, don't take it so personally. It's not "belittling" others just
to
say
: their claims are wrong. In case you missed it, my "contribution" is
that
: frame material/geometry/tubing gauge, etc. doesn't make any difference.
: It's your opinion that it does, but material science/physics doesn't
: support that opinion. What else have you got?

The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
"science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to
accept
that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just that---and
it's
not factual and it's not the final answer.

This has been beaten to death so many times in this NG it hardly bears yet
another argument.

: The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
: "science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to
: accept
: that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just that---and
: it's
: not factual and it's not the final answer.
:
: This has been beaten to death so many times in this NG it hardly bears yet
: another argument.

that's what people have been trying to tell you. nobody looks at you as an
expert. all you do is post something and expect people to think of it as
gospel. we don't.

Pat in TX
:
:

"Pat" wrote in message
...

: The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
: "science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to
: accept
: that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just
that---and
: it's
: not factual and it's not the final answer.
:
: This has been beaten to death so many times in this NG it hardly bears
yet
: another argument.

that's what people have been trying to tell you. nobody looks at you as
an
expert. all you do is post something and expect people to think of it as
gospel. we don't.

It's all been said before. It's harmless enough to believe such bike
magazine science, except that it produces some really dumb frames. If you
want to believe that one frame can "out accelerate" another, fine, just
don't try to present it as a fact without something to back it up. It's
also less than helpful for a newbie looking for advice. Hey, most Americans
believe in creationism too (according to this AM's paper). That doesn't
make it science.

:
: It's all been said before. It's harmless enough to believe such bike
: magazine science, except that it produces some really dumb frames. If you
: want to believe that one frame can "out accelerate" another, fine, just
: don't try to present it as a fact without something to back it up. It's
: also less than helpful for a newbie looking for advice. Hey, most
Americans
: believe in creationism too (according to this AM's paper). That doesn't
: make it science.
:

All I did was post personal experience. I named the bikes, even. Personal
experience--not anything else. I'm not the one pretending to be an expert,
here. That would be you.
Pat in TX

Peter Cole says...

Congratulations, every frame myth in one paragraph.

Did you see his post where he said that bikes with larger diameter
wheels were more stable because of gyroscopic forces? That one was a
riot.