| |
Main
Date: 28 Nov 2006 01:02:43
From:
Subject: where are wombats?
|
Can someone tell me whether Wombats live only in Australia,
or also on other continents?
Apart from zoos, of course.
We all know that Wombats are to be found in Zoos.
81
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 03:40:23
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1164679726.954436.64690@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> SMS wrote:
>> landotter wrote:
>>
>> > It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
>> > also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
>> > folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
>> > even tour, by gosh.
>>
>> I guess not a lot of people are spending $2200 for a bicycle, no matter
>> how good it is.
>>
>> On Saturday, I was going on a ride with the spousal unit and the kids,
>> and a couple rides up to us at the start point, and he's on a new BG
>> BLT. She's on an old Miyata 610. The woman was someone who used to come
>> on my very frequent weekend tours about 20 years ago, on the same Miyata
>> 610. She's about to get a BG BLT as well. I didn't like her husband's
>> BLT, he had Bruce paint the racks and the stem the same color as the
>> bike.
>>
>> If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
>> Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
>> model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
>> Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
>> off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."
>
> Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
Why would you do all that? Nothing wrong with an 18 speed bike. Nothing
wrong with friction shifting, or barcons even. The only reason to replace
the BB or headset is if they're shot. Now, if the bike has 27 inch wheels
that could be a bit of a problem on a tour, but most bikes of that era are
convertible to 700c. Now, there's nothing wrong with the Windsor Tourist.
It's a heck of a deal, but I think too many people are convinced they must
have the "latest and greatest". Bah.
>
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 20:24:42
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>Not with something new like the
>Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
Well.... here's the deal
The bikes I'm looking at cost abt $2k...... Bike
Friday, BLT, etc
My conundrum is that for $600 I can get a Windsor and
have almost $1400 for gear such as tent, clothing, etc.
That's a big chunk of money there and I have to
consider my "opportunity costs" as such.
So..... its tempting to get the cheaper bike for now.
But I haven't made a decision yet.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 03:49:18
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
<me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:oa7nm256pbp52fma9b5c45s30b20idaf01@4ax.com...
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
>>Not with something new like the
>>Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
>
> Well.... here's the deal
>
> The bikes I'm looking at cost abt $2k...... Bike
> Friday, BLT, etc
>
> My conundrum is that for $600 I can get a Windsor and
> have almost $1400 for gear such as tent, clothing, etc.
>
> That's a big chunk of money there and I have to
> consider my "opportunity costs" as such.
>
> So..... its tempting to get the cheaper bike for now.
> But I haven't made a decision yet.
If you can wait a while, Surly is going to offer a complete Long Haul
Trucker for $1000. They say it will be available spring 2007. I don't know
what the parts spec will be, but the spec on the Windsor isn't bad at all.
I'm sure Surly will spec it with barcons, which make more sense on a touring
bike, if for no other reason than it makes mounting a handlebar bag easier.
I looked at the specs for the Surly Cross Check, which is their only current
complete bike, and it looks like the Windsor is very well specced. If Surly
uses the same spec on the LHT, then the Surly will have better hubs, bottom
bracket, handlebar, and headset than the Windsor. Handlebar isn't a biggie,
but the other parts aren't places you want to skimp. If you can stand the
extra expense the Surly looks like the way to go. If you want to go cheap
then upgrade parts later, the Windsor isn't bad at all.
Now if you want something really cool----look at the Kogswell
Porteur/Randonneur. You could likely build it for not much more than a
complete LHT.
http://www.kogswell.com/products.html
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 15:21:44
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> I don't know
>what the parts spec will be, but the spec on the Windsor isn't bad at all.
>I'm sure Surly will spec it with barcons, which make more sense on a touring
>bike, if for no other reason than it makes mounting a handlebar bag easier.
Is this why tourists like bar end shifters?
I always wondered why
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 20:10:57
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
Gooserider wrote:
> If you can wait a while, Surly is going to offer a complete Long Haul
> Trucker for $1000.
I expect that that'll quickly become the most popular touring bicycle.
$1000 is very reasonable. Maybe it'll force Trek and Specialized to
introduce a real touring bicycle again. Do they even still know how to
build a touring frame?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 05:30:04
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:456fab5f$0$82542$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Gooserider wrote:
>
>> If you can wait a while, Surly is going to offer a complete Long Haul
>> Trucker for $1000.
>
> I expect that that'll quickly become the most popular touring bicycle.
> $1000 is very reasonable. Maybe it'll force Trek and Specialized to
> introduce a real touring bicycle again. Do they even still know how to
> build a touring frame?
Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on them
is doubtful. I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
bikes/century bikes. I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities.
It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt
them now.
Mike
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:06:48
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
Gooserider wrote:
> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on them
> is doubtful.
Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before
the term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually
wen touring.
IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard
with triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction
for riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't
able to do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500
with lower gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake),
then I changed it to a triple at considerable expense.
> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> bikes/century bikes.
That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and
actually selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the
manufacturer's web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a
better direction to take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to
expand nationwide?
> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities.
> It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
> shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt
> them now.
That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 18:29:24
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:45704517$0$82567$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Gooserider wrote:
>
>> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
>> hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
>> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
>> them is doubtful.
>
> Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before the
> term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
> touring.
>
> IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
> bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard with
> triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
> riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able to
> do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with lower
> gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I changed
> it to a triple at considerable expense.
>
>> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
>> bikes/century bikes.
>
> That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and actually
> selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the manufacturer's
> web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction to
> take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
>
>> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
>> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot of
>> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't matter
>> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on shmallows. Could
>> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
>
> That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 05:52:05
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities.
>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt
>them now.
A couple random thoughts on the above...
First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
spec easily.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:03:45
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message
news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
>>qualities.
>>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
>>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
>>hurt
>>them now.
>
> A couple random thoughts on the above...
>
> First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
> Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> spec easily.
>
Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little bumps. ,
etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
sell.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:38:21
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>>"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote
>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>>>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>>>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
>>>qualities.
>>>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
>>>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
>>>hurt them now.
>>
>> First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
>> been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
>> ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
>The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
>predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
>expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
>
>> Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
>> better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
>> do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
>> inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
>> spec easily.
>>
>Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
>thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little bumps. ,
>etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
>frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
>sell.
In both instances, the "differences" (aka "improvements") have no
basis in any physical sense, but can be perfectly explained by the
placebo theory. Another way to put it - if no one can explain a
physical reason why a claimed difference exists, it probably doesn't.
In the case of the frame material, any difference that exists is
going to be vanishingly small.
In the case of the wheel/tire size, all the physical evidence and
physics in general make it clear that the larger 700c wheels/tires
will ride better... that's not even debatable. All it means is that
those who claim the 650B wheels/tires ride better are either comparing
the ride to something that's not comparable (such as skinnier, higher
pressure 700c tires), or they're just flat deluding themselves. That
happens to a lot of people who shell out lots of $$$ to gain a claimed
advantage - who wants to admit (even to themselves) that they just
wasted the money? It's true with stereo equipment, cameras and
probably every other thing you can buy.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:11:06
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
In article <RKVbh.1013$yj1.672@tornado.tampabay.rr.com >,
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
> >>qualities.
> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
> >>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
> >>hurt
> >>them now.
> >
> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
> >
> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
> expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
Except, of course, when they feel flexier. ALAN. Vitus 979.
> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> > spec easily.
> >
> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
> thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little bumps. ,
> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
> sell.
"Sure, you could buy a bike with 26-inch or 650C wheels, two standards
for which rims, tires, and tubes are widely available, or you could go
with some other size which is sporadically supported at best!"
I suppose 650B riders have their reasons, but from a practical point of
view, 26" and 650C seem like much better solutions, and either will do a
better job of fixing toe overlap, too.
I certainly don't want to prevent anyone from riding a 650B if that's
their dream. But between the sensuous qualities of frame materials and
650B as a solution for any non-aesthetic problems, I think you have
transcended the discernable.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:43:35
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring
|
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
>... I think you have transcended the discernable.
I believe you've just come up with a great (and legally defensible)
slogan for many bike companies...
"Our bikes transcend the discernable"....
Gotta love it!
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
|
