| |
Main
Date: 05 Oct 2007 05:54:59
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Here we go again-
|
'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:51:20
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
forgive me for undule longwindedness.
odd that tho' philosophically opposed to buying a whole new bike not
rebuild or frame then parts, GIANT lures most often in the mass
production field. Is YOWSER a GIANT dealer? $1900 is a bargain?
on gators on vixen. spending months in Big Cypress below Naples where
life is remote and the wether incroyable Jan-March, hiking the country
(was dry) we are notified by the Liason Ranger of one legged indians
on the streets in Okeechobee. Do not walk wily-nilly thru knee deep
water.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:02:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
datakoll wrote:
> forgive me for undule longwindedness.
> odd that tho' philosophically opposed to buying a whole new bike not
> rebuild or frame then parts, GIANT lures most often in the mass
> production field.
i like giant a lot. i own one of their mountain frames, and i think
it's the best made and best designed of any bike that was available at
the time. i plan on buying one of their aluminum road bikes as a
commuter in the not too distant future too. as for carbon, i think
they're one of the better practitioners of the art. i place trek and
look above them, but most everything else is below a giant in terms of
production quality and design competence.
> Is YOWSER a GIANT dealer? $1900 is a bargain?
> on gators on vixen. spending months in Big Cypress below Naples where
> life is remote and the wether incroyable Jan-March, hiking the country
> (was dry) we are notified by the Liason Ranger of one legged indians
> on the streets in Okeechobee. Do not walk wily-nilly thru knee deep
> water.
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:28:59
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
yeah i just read it. AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF COMMUNICATIVE CLARITY
TRANSLATING EXQUISITE ENGINNERING INTO STANDARD ENGLISH.
now we know why they dropped him
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:22:10
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 6, 9:50 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 9:55 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> >>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
> >>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
> >> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
> >> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
> >> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
> >> mode. seems simple enough to me.
>
> > jockeying for position determines reality
> > jockeying for position has no bearing on reality
> > reality defines jockeying for position
> > yeah it is. Agreed, until eternal carbon surfaces, all refinements are
> > minor. But my known unknown: do frame refinements exceed the contact
> > patch enginnearing department's contribution? Or worser, what
> > peercentage degrade thru useage at the suspension obviates frame
> > refienments?
> > A way of looking at "new and improved"
> > One big deal is finding a "new and improved" doesn't cost an arm and a
> > leg.
>
> how much "new and improved" can one get from a dumpster bike? it sure
> won't cost an arm and a leg. unless you have to wrestle an alligator
> for possession. and lose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OKOKOK! TAKE YOUR FIRST SCHWINN. I had a Columbia with chrome fenders,
everyone hated me and my Dad would not allow an English racer, NADA.
At my existence level, the difference between the Schwinn and the ten
speeds I've ridden including my "$2500" low cost asian import stem
from tires and wheels. Yes, I know the frames handle ( a great word
used here right? 'handle' ?) differently but this a geometery
specification not what tubing is cosmically oriented toward
technology's cutting edge.
Tech tubing is completely off my map (and Andres from the sound of it)
have no idea what it does down here at road one but I know what it
costs and mean in terms of reliabillity.
ENTER THE AD MAN
it is the ad man's job to position my head into a place where tech
tubing has meaning thus the BS. Even if the BS is reasonably
descriptive and honest, still BS as far as staying relatively
meaningless at road one. But the ad man gotta try to expand the buying
audience and convert meaningless finesse - for me - if not Andre -
into meaning.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 13:07:22
From: Tom Ace
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 6, 1:41 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs > wrote:
> What exactly have they patented? Oval stays or putting CF seat stays on
> an otherwise Al bike?
Oval seat stays. The 4,513,985 patent is from the 1980s,
when Cannondale first got into the frame business.
You can read it online at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
Tom Ace
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:03:13
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 2:23 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:13 am, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 7:54 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> > <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > > 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> > > big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
> > Which ad or bike are you referring to, Peter? Just curious.
>
> > Smokey
>
> http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/1237/29254/
maybe Gene Daniels wrote that. It made as much sense as some of his
other posts
Andres
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 13:01:45
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 9:55 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> > big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
> mode. seems simple enough to me.
jockeying for position determines reality
jockeying for position has no bearing on reality
reality defines jockeying for position
yeah it is. Agreed, until eternal carbon surfaces, all refinements are
minor. But my known unknown: do frame refinements exceed the contact
patch enginnearing department's contribution? Or worser, what
peercentage degrade thru useage at the suspension obviates frame
refienments?
A way of looking at "new and improved"
One big deal is finding a "new and improved" doesn't cost an arm and a
leg.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 09:22:53
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:55 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
>> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
>> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
>> mode. seems simple enough to me.
>
> jockeying for position determines reality
> jockeying for position has no bearing on reality
> reality defines jockeying for position
> yeah it is. Agreed, until eternal carbon surfaces...
Tetrahedral carbon lattices? A well known advertising campaign claims it
is so.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:50:38
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
datakoll wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:55 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
>> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
>> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
>> mode. seems simple enough to me.
>
> jockeying for position determines reality
> jockeying for position has no bearing on reality
> reality defines jockeying for position
> yeah it is. Agreed, until eternal carbon surfaces, all refinements are
> minor. But my known unknown: do frame refinements exceed the contact
> patch enginnearing department's contribution? Or worser, what
> peercentage degrade thru useage at the suspension obviates frame
> refienments?
> A way of looking at "new and improved"
> One big deal is finding a "new and improved" doesn't cost an arm and a
> leg.
>
how much "new and improved" can one get from a dumpster bike? it sure
won't cost an arm and a leg. unless you have to wrestle an alligator
for possession. and lose.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 09:21:19
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 9:55 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
>>> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
>>> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
>>> mode. seems simple enough to me.
>>
>> jockeying for position determines reality
>> jockeying for position has no bearing on reality
>> reality defines jockeying for position
>> yeah it is. Agreed, until eternal carbon surfaces, all refinements are
>> minor. But my known unknown: do frame refinements exceed the contact
>> patch enginnearing department's contribution? Or worser, what
>> peercentage degrade thru useage at the suspension obviates frame
>> refienments?
>> A way of looking at "new and improved"
>> One big deal is finding a "new and improved" doesn't cost an arm and a
>> leg.
>>
>
> how much "new and improved" can one get from a dumpster bike? it sure
> won't cost an arm and a leg. unless you have to wrestle an alligator
> for possession. and lose.
Since gene lives in Florida, the alligator wrestling is not out of the
question.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 05:57:18
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 7:55 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> > big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
> mode. seems simple enough to me.
I guess that you are sensitive enough to be able to distinguish
between bikes that are stiff yet compliant and those that are not. can
you also tell the difference in ride between those that have seamless
integration of carbon, aluminum?
last weekend I cracked and got dropped in the weekend warriors
expedition. My bike did not advertise being stiff yet compliant.
Everybody else is riding the latest model madone, lightspeed, giant,
etc. they all have bikes that are stiff, yet compliant with seamless
integration of fartanium and shitnubium. I don't feel as bad now. It
is not my lack of shape. It is that my bike is not stiff yet compliant
with seamless integration.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:39:14
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 11:39 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > i am eteranlly conflused.
>
> the hell you say.
here's an example: "However,
lateral stiffness can be significantly different and is manifested in
handling qualities or lack thereof. "
so where's the I-beam tubing ?
at the contact patch?
that's not to say a noodle is not a noodle or is it?
is the ad lingo discussing noodlery or advanced frame technology?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:46:56
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
datakoll wrote:
> On Oct 5, 11:39 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> datakoll wrote:
>>> i am eteranlly conflused.
>> the hell you say.
>
> here's an example: "However,
> lateral stiffness can be significantly different and is manifested in
> handling qualities or lack thereof. "
>
> so where's the I-beam tubing ?
damned fine question!!!
>
> at the contact patch?
>
> that's not to say a noodle is not a noodle or is it?
> is the ad lingo discussing noodlery or advanced frame technology?
>
indeed.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 18:41:32
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:54:59 -0700, Qui si parla
Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
No need to brag here, thanks. Way TMI.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 04:20:50
From: Tom Ace
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 6:38 pm, Andrew Muzi wrote:
> Hmm. Seat stays are primarily in tension and compression on an
> unpatented non-Cannondale bicycle
The patent even says "The vertical loads are transmitted
primarily by tension and compression forces in the frame members".
Yet it goes on to say "the present invention provides relatively
greater flexibility in the vertical direction... the rear triangle
is less stiff in the vertical direction for better absorption of
shock loads coming from the road..."
I only mentioned the patent as a piece of bicycle history;
I wasn't saying I believed the oval stays really gave a plusher ride.
Tom Ace
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 03:41:33
From: Ben C
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On 2007-10-06, Tom Ace <tom239@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:38 pm, Andrew Muzi wrote:
>
>> Hmm. Seat stays are primarily in tension and compression on an
>> unpatented non-Cannondale bicycle
>
> The patent even says "The vertical loads are transmitted
> primarily by tension and compression forces in the frame members".
> Yet it goes on to say "the present invention provides relatively
> greater flexibility in the vertical direction... the rear triangle
> is less stiff in the vertical direction for better absorption of
> shock loads coming from the road..."
>
> I only mentioned the patent as a piece of bicycle history;
> I wasn't saying I believed the oval stays really gave a plusher ride.
What exactly have they patented? Oval stays or putting CF seat stays on
an otherwise Al bike?
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 19:00:19
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 2:23 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:13 am, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 7:54 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> > <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > > 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> > > big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
> > Which ad or bike are you referring to, Peter? Just curious.
>
> > Smokey
>
> http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/1237/29254/
In your endless battle against progress, you omitted an important
detail about the description. The seamless integration of aluminum and
carbon is the unique element that gives this bike the stiffness and
compliance.
Andres
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 21:16:30
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
>>>"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>> smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Which ad or bike are you referring to, Peter? Just curious.
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/1237/29254/
andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> In your endless battle against progress, you omitted an important
> detail about the description. The seamless integration of aluminum and
> carbon is the unique element that gives this bike the stiffness and
> compliance.
'Seamless integration' is indeed a leap forward.
Lesser alu/carb frames are glued.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:58:31
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
A Muzi wrote:
> andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
>> In your endless battle against progress, you omitted an important
>> detail about the description. The seamless integration of aluminum and
>> carbon is the unique element that gives this bike the stiffness and
>> compliance.
>
> 'Seamless integration' is indeed a leap forward.
> Lesser alu/carb frames are glued.
Well, some of the frames they integrate by parts, but others are done
only with partial fractions.
Mark J.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:42:50
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"Mark" <remove.mandmlj.this@remove.comcast.this.net > wrote in message
news:1NGdndnXT_h1dZranZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@comcast.com...
>A Muzi wrote:
>> andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
>>> In your endless battle against progress, you omitted an important
>>> detail about the description. The seamless integration of aluminum and
>>> carbon is the unique element that gives this bike the stiffness and
>>> compliance.
>>
>> 'Seamless integration' is indeed a leap forward.
>> Lesser alu/carb frames are glued.
>
> Well, some of the frames they integrate by parts, but others are done only
> with partial fractions.
>
> Mark J.
Excellent comment!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:55:12
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
mode. seems simple enough to me.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:30:29
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:gISdnatPb72ddpvanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>
>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>
>
> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
> mode.
HAHAHA! Show us the math, beamboy. Do some of those sketches and put them
on your little flickr site.
> seems simple enough to me.
You seem simple enough for us.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:16:57
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:gISdnatPb72ddpvanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>>
>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>>
>> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
>> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
>> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
>> mode.
>
> HAHAHA! Show us the math, beamboy. Do some of those sketches and put them
> on your little flickr site.
>
>> seems simple enough to me.
>
> You seem simple enough for us.
>
>
"us"? you need to take your meds, moron.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 23:03:57
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:W-ednWfUq6JXF5ranZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:gISdnatPb72ddpvanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>>>
>>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>>>
>>> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
>>> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
>>> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
>>> mode.
>>
>> HAHAHA! Show us the math, beamboy. Do some of those sketches and put
>> them on your little flickr site.
>>
>>> seems simple enough to me.
>>
>> You seem simple enough for us.
>
> "us"? you need to take your meds, moron.
Show us the math, beamboy. Do some of those sketches and put them on your
little flickr site.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:44:43
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:W-ednWfUq6JXF5ranZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gISdnatPb72ddpvanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>>>>
>>>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>>>>
>>>> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame. different
>>>> lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be comparatively
>>>> stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given position and loading
>>>> mode.
>>> HAHAHA! Show us the math, beamboy. Do some of those sketches and put
>>> them on your little flickr site.
>>>
>>>> seems simple enough to me.
>>> You seem simple enough for us.
>> "us"? you need to take your meds, moron.
>
> Show us the math, beamboy. Do some of those sketches and put them on your
> little flickr site.
>
>
i can't draw all of you jambo, you fucking moron!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:36:01
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:7_GdneCtCNQhKJTanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Show us the math, beamboy. Do some of those sketches and put them on
>> your little flickr site.
>>
>>
>
> i can't draw all of you jambo, you fucking moron!
Huh? That doesn't even make sense, idiot.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 19:12:27
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:gISdnatPb72ddpvanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>
>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>
>
> why the confusion? there are 8 tubes on a traditional frame.
> different lengths, thickness, diameter, shape, etc. one tube can be
> comparatively stiff, another comparatively elastic, for its given
> position and loading mode. seems simple enough to me.
For a rigid frame on its own, the difference in vertical compliance
between a comparatively stiff or elastic frame is miniscule. However,
lateral stiffness can be significantly different and is manifested in
handling qualities or lack thereof.
Phil H
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 01:44:48
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
i am eteranlly conflused. How can the whazzit be stiff yet unyeilding
and pleasantly mild when the contraption, my low cost asian import at
around $2500+ rides on spokes and squirmy tires?
I think urawl nuts and cuckoo.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 20:39:46
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
datakoll wrote:
> i am eteranlly conflused.
the hell you say.
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:53:05
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
Tom Ace wrote:
>
> Cannondale had US patent 4,513,985: seat stays with an oval
> cross section, to make them more stiff laterally than vertically.
I have some of those bikes. The frames are "stiff, yet rigid, while
at the same time surprisingly inflexible".
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 02:07:01
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"Chalo" wrote: (clip) The frames are "stiff, yet rigid, while at the same
time surprisingly inflexible".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above statement is mutually self-consistent.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:22:41
From: Dan Becker
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
In article
<95CNi.641482$p47.551431@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >, Leo
Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> "Chalo" wrote: (clip) The frames are "stiff, yet rigid, while at the same
> time surprisingly inflexible".
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The above statement is mutually self-consistent.
Birthed in the Department of Repetitive Redundancy Division.
D.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 17:09:18
From: Ted Bennett
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
Tom Ace wrote:
> Cannondale had US patent 4,513,985: seat stays with an oval
> cross section, to make them more stiff laterally than vertically.
If "them" refers to a tube, that's fine, but not if it refers to the
frame, which is essentially rigid vertically.
--
Ted Bennett
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 22:48:17
From: Tom Ace
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
Cannondale had US patent 4,513,985: seat stays with an oval
cross section, to make them more stiff laterally than vertically.
> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
"He was a cruel man, but fair" (Monty Python)
Tom Ace
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 20:38:14
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>> "He was a cruel man, but fair" (Monty Python)
Tom Ace wrote:
> Cannondale had US patent 4,513,985: seat stays with an oval
> cross section, to make them more stiff laterally than vertically.
Hmm. Seat stays are primarily in tension and compression on an
unpatented non-Cannondale bicycle
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 20:23:48
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 9:13 am, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:54 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> > big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
> Which ad or bike are you referring to, Peter? Just curious.
>
> Smokey
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/1237/29254/
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 17:25:37
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1191615828.383922.255510@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 9:13 am, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 7:54 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>>
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> > 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>
>> > big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>
>> Which ad or bike are you referring to, Peter? Just curious.
>>
>> Smokey
>
> http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/1237/29254/
>
The two bicycle characteristics can be separated. Lateral stiffness
makes for a bicycle that tracks well through bumpy corners. The
suspension seatpost makes for vertical compliance. You can even combine
them on just the frame (Softride). The forecast for tomorrow is
rain......another one hour eye balls out stationary trainer ride is in
the offing.
Phil H
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 12:26:55
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 10:29 am, John Everett
<jevere...@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:53:13 -0400, Just A User
>
> <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
> >Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
> >> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> >> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
> >and you forgot "lightweight but heavily built"
>
> and, "expensive but a bargain."
That one can be very true. For some things, not all, it pays to buy
the most expensive, highest quality, etc. because the cheaper
alternatives end up costing far more in the long run.
>
> --
> jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 20:09:09
From: vey
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>because the cheaper
> alternatives end up costing far more in the long run.
Please define the term "long" in regards to run.
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 09:13:15
From:
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Oct 5, 7:54 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
Which ad or bike are you referring to, Peter? Just curious.
Smokey
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 15:35:40
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:13:15 -0700, smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>On Oct 5, 7:54 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
><pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>
>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
>Which ad or bike are you referring to, Peter? Just curious.
All bikes with carbon fiber frames :-)
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:27:11
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
I fell on a tight turn that was loose.
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 09:53:13
From: Just A User
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>
> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>
and you forgot "lightweight but heavily built"
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 10:29:52
From: John Everett
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:53:13 -0400, Just A User
<ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote:
>Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>
>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>
>and you forgot "lightweight but heavily built"
and, "expensive but a bargain."
--
jeverett3<AT >sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 09:57:00
From: Colin Campbell
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
John Everett wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:53:13 -0400, Just A User
> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
>
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>> 'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>>
>>> big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>>
>> and you forgot "lightweight but heavily built"
>
> and, "expensive but a bargain."
>
I just was given a price on a Colnago - expensive, but expensive!
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 11:53:14
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Here we go again-
|
John Everett wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:53:13 -0400, Just A User
> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>
>>>'Ultra stiff yet vertically compliant'...
>>>
>>>big, yet small, tall yet short, black yet white,
>>>
>>
>>and you forgot "lightweight but heavily built"
>
>
> and, "expensive but a bargain."
>
Just gimme an order of jumbo shrimp.
|
|
