| |
Main
Date: 05 Jun 2007 15:25:08
From: michael
Subject: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
Hi there - I was planning on picking up a used bike off of Craig's
List, but so far, everything I've looked at has been over priced and/
or in terrible condition. I'm thinking I'll probably just get
something new from my LBS. I found the Newest 3.0 (http://
www.fujibikes.com/2007/bikes.asp?id=278&subcat=) for $600 nearby. Does
that seem like a good bike, and a good price? I rode it around and it
felt pretty good, but some people have told me that it is too entry
level. I know very little about what bikes are better than others, so
I really am lost here.
Any advice?
Thanks!
-Michael
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2007 19:33:58
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 10, 4:44 pm, Steve Gravrock wrote:
> ...
> You continue to insist that horrible things will happen to cyclists
> whose top tubes are at the wrong angle, despite all evidence to the
> contrary....
Acceptance of poor aesthetics leads to moral decay!!!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:35:28
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 10, 3:39 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> The compact frames are a good, and cheaper, alternative to bicycles
> designed explicitly for smaller people (i.e. Terry), but should be
> avoided at all costs by individuals that don't need the small frame.
You've yet to make a point that's really decent strike against these
frames, but you seem all lathered up anyway. 2nd bottle access on
small frames is easily solved. Hardly anybody carries a full sized
frame pump these days. "avoided at all costs". LMAO Spending hundreds
of dollars to get a frame so you can mount traditional cages and pumps
instead of spending $50 for a swivel cage and a mini pump seems pretty
silly.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 02:38:35
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 8, 8:53 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:04 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 5:17 pm, "landotter" wrote:
>
> > > To me a perfect example of sloping top tube geometry is the Gunnar
> > > Sport.
>
> > Gunnar's are real dogs: <http://www.gunnarbikes.com/about.php>. ;)
>
> > A picture of what the terrestrial Swedish otter is writing about:
> > <http://www.gunnarbikes.com/sport.php>.
>
> > This is actually a very mild drop compared to the worst offenders, and
> > therefore is acceptable looking.
>
> But....that straight blade fork....YUCK!
Why do you hate penny-farthings and bone shakers~?!
I've got a straight fork on one bike and I sort of like how stern it
looks. I think they look good on something modern and tig welded like
the Gunnar. I've got a crowned chrome curvy Tange on my trusty
aerospace Viscount, and it doesn't look right with the virtually
seamless fillet brazed frame. I should probably replace it with a
unicrown Tange for aesthetic purposes. The jokers are probably
sniggering, "he should replace that loser Viscount, instead." For them
I've performed an exotic hand gesture.
I like lugs just fine, and have thought many times about visiting
friends in the UK and having a King of Mercia brazed up with their
most obnoxious candy cane paint job. If you're gonna do it, go for the
syrup *and* the powdered sugar.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 01:53:52
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 8, 7:04 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:17 pm, "landotter" wrote:
>
>
>
> > To me a perfect example of sloping top tube geometry is the Gunnar
> > Sport.
>
> Gunnar's are real dogs: <http://www.gunnarbikes.com/about.php>. ;)
>
> A picture of what the terrestrial Swedish otter is writing about:
> <http://www.gunnarbikes.com/sport.php>.
>
> This is actually a very mild drop compared to the worst offenders, and
> therefore is acceptable looking.
But....that straight blade fork....YUCK!
> However, the paired spoke wheels need
> to go.
Just ride 'em a few thousand miles - they'll go...... ;-)
...and then you can build/buy proper wheels.
>
> > I have a bike with a very similar frame in my herd. Mine is a
> > 60cm, fits all doodads a guy could ever want to put on a frame and
> > looks proportionate. I have 130mm of post showing, so it's not like
> > it's sized like a mtb. I just fail to see any limitations in the
> > style, unless one is racing and *does* want the lower bars. Did I
> > mention that I want a Gunnar Sport? Badly? Please Santa, please! :-D
>
> If I were getting an upright, it would likely be this, since it is
> from the only manufacturer within easy riding distance: <http://www.gunnarbikes.com/crosshairs.php>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 17:04:32
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 8, 5:17 pm, "landotter" wrote:
>
> To me a perfect example of sloping top tube geometry is the Gunnar
> Sport.
Gunnar's are real dogs: <http://www.gunnarbikes.com/about.php >. ;)
A picture of what the terrestrial Swedish otter is writing about:
<http://www.gunnarbikes.com/sport.php >.
This is actually a very mild drop compared to the worst offenders, and
therefore is acceptable looking. However, the paired spoke wheels need
to go.
> I have a bike with a very similar frame in my herd. Mine is a
> 60cm, fits all doodads a guy could ever want to put on a frame and
> looks proportionate. I have 130mm of post showing, so it's not like
> it's sized like a mtb. I just fail to see any limitations in the
> style, unless one is racing and *does* want the lower bars. Did I
> mention that I want a Gunnar Sport? Badly? Please Santa, please! :-D
If I were getting an upright, it would likely be this, since it is
from the only manufacturer within easy riding distance: <http://
www.gunnarbikes.com/crosshairs.php >.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 22:17:12
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 8, 3:00 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >>> Bicycles were made to fit properly prior to "compact geometry". To
> >>> paraphrase Peter Chisholm, for most riders "compact geometry" answers
> >>> no questions, solves no problems.
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> Indeed, it creates problems for many, and solves problems for a few.
> >> It's not an issue of aesthetics, it's practicalities that many people
> >> don't ever think of, because they've never learned to look at the big
> >> picture. They are the legal prey of these companies that foist their
> >> cost saving design changes onto an unsuspecting public that has no
> >> ability to think critically.
> landotter wrote:
> > You're the one that's bought into the r.b.t. nonsense. Lengthening the
> > head tube while keeping the seat tube is becoming very popular. There
> > is no detriment to this whatsoever.
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> "Oh well, the clearance for water bottles isn't important to me, I'll
> >> use only small bottles, or I'll wear my water on my back."
> landotter wrote:
> > Lengthening the head tube doesn't interfere with bottle clearance.
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > " "Oh well, I'm
> >> never going to want to attach any kind or rack to my beautiful road
> >> bike, so the shorter chain stay that makes rack mounting with sufficient
> >> heal clearance a problem doesn't apply to me."
> landotter wrote:
> > The chain stays aren't any shorter. FUD on your part.
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> "Oh well, I'll never want
> >> a frame pump,
> landotter wrote:
> > Frame pumps fit fine on bikes with sloping frames and taller head
> > tubes.
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> I'll use CO2 or a mini-pump that I mount somewhere else."
> >> "Oh well, I'm only going to keep this bike for a few years, so metal
> >> fatigue of the frame isn't going to affect me."
> landotter wrote:
> > How does a sloping top tube and longer head tube make the bike weaker?
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> It just goes on and on.
> >> The bicycle manufacturers went to compact frames solely for their own
> >> benefit, then proceeded to train their dealers on the proper
> >> rationalizations to sell the product.
> landotter wrote:
> > You're really making yourself out to be an idiot now, repeating the
> > same BS that's so popular on r.b.t. A few path cruisers and more
> > casual bikes are certainly designed to take long posts, often with
> > suspension, and come in only three sizes, but the vast majority of
> > road style sloping tube bikes are a good thing. Now, there are the
> > knuckleheads out there that buy them a size too small and use a
> > ridiculously long post. Criticize them, not good, smart design.
> > Here's a good example of sloping tube geometry used to bring the front
> > end up for a fast recreational bike:
> >http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/venturasport.html
> > Specialized is one of the common brands that also uses this smart
> > design on bikes such as the Allez and Sequoia.
>
> I could think of both examples and counterexamples for each 'compact'
> feature/problem SMS listed. No fan of most modern 'compact' generally,
> but as Landotter notes, applications vary widely by brand and model so
> it's difficult or unfair to make a blanket endorsement or a blanket
> condemnation of 'compact'.
To me a perfect example of sloping top tube geometry is the Gunnar
Sport. I have a bike with a very similar frame in my herd. Mine is a
60cm, fits all doodads a guy could ever want to put on a frame and
looks proportionate. I have 130mm of post showing, so it's not like
it's sized like a mtb. I just fail to see any limitations in the
style, unless one is racing and *does* want the lower bars. Did I
mention that I want a Gunnar Sport? Badly? Please Santa, please! :-D
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 09:56:42
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 8, 2:28 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Bicycles were made to fit properly prior to "compact geometry". To
> > paraphrase Peter Chisholm, for most riders "compact geometry" answers
> > no questions, solves no problems.
>
> Indeed, it creates problems for many, and solves problems for a few.
> It's not an issue of aesthetics, it's practicalities that many people
> don't ever think of, because they've never learned to look at the big
> picture. They are the legal prey of these companies that foist their
> cost saving design changes onto an unsuspecting public that has no
> ability to think critically.
>
You're the one that's bought into the r.b.t. nonsense. Lengthening the
head tube while keeping the seat tube is becoming very popular. There
is no detriment to this whatsoever.
> "Oh well, the clearance for water bottles isn't important to me, I'll
> use only small bottles, or I'll wear my water on my back."
Lengthening the head tube doesn't interfere with bottle clearance.
" "Oh well, I'm
> never going to want to attach any kind or rack to my beautiful road
> bike, so the shorter chain stay that makes rack mounting with sufficient
> heal clearance a problem doesn't apply to me."
The chain stays aren't any shorter. FUD on your part.
> "Oh well, I'll never want
> a frame pump,
Frame pumps fit fine on bikes with sloping frames and taller head
tubes.
>I'll use CO2 or a mini-pump that I mount somewhere else."
> "Oh well, I'm only going to keep this bike for a few years, so metal
> fatigue of the frame isn't going to affect me."
How does a sloping top tube and longer head tube make the bike weaker?
> It just goes on and on.
>
> The bicycle manufacturers went to compact frames solely for their own
> benefit, then proceeded to train their dealers on the proper
> rationalizations to sell the product.
You're really making yourself out to be an idiot now, repeating the
same BS that's so popular on r.b.t. A few path cruisers and more
casual bikes are certainly designed to take long posts, often with
suspension, and come in only three sizes, but the vast majority of
road style sloping tube bikes are a good thing. Now, there are the
knuckleheads out there that buy them a size too small and use a
ridiculously long post. Criticize them, not good, smart design.
Here's a good example of sloping tube geometry used to bring the front
end up for a fast recreational bike:
http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/venturasport.html
Specialized is one of the common brands that also uses this smart
design on bikes such as the Allez and Sequoia.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 15:00:35
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
>> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>> Bicycles were made to fit properly prior to "compact geometry". To
>>> paraphrase Peter Chisholm, for most riders "compact geometry" answers
>>> no questions, solves no problems.
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Indeed, it creates problems for many, and solves problems for a few.
>> It's not an issue of aesthetics, it's practicalities that many people
>> don't ever think of, because they've never learned to look at the big
>> picture. They are the legal prey of these companies that foist their
>> cost saving design changes onto an unsuspecting public that has no
>> ability to think critically.
landotter wrote:
> You're the one that's bought into the r.b.t. nonsense. Lengthening the
> head tube while keeping the seat tube is becoming very popular. There
> is no detriment to this whatsoever.
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> "Oh well, the clearance for water bottles isn't important to me, I'll
>> use only small bottles, or I'll wear my water on my back."
landotter wrote:
> Lengthening the head tube doesn't interfere with bottle clearance.
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> " "Oh well, I'm
>> never going to want to attach any kind or rack to my beautiful road
>> bike, so the shorter chain stay that makes rack mounting with sufficient
>> heal clearance a problem doesn't apply to me."
landotter wrote:
> The chain stays aren't any shorter. FUD on your part.
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> "Oh well, I'll never want
>> a frame pump,
landotter wrote:
> Frame pumps fit fine on bikes with sloping frames and taller head
> tubes.
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> I'll use CO2 or a mini-pump that I mount somewhere else."
>> "Oh well, I'm only going to keep this bike for a few years, so metal
>> fatigue of the frame isn't going to affect me."
landotter wrote:
> How does a sloping top tube and longer head tube make the bike weaker?
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> It just goes on and on.
>> The bicycle manufacturers went to compact frames solely for their own
>> benefit, then proceeded to train their dealers on the proper
>> rationalizations to sell the product.
landotter wrote:
> You're really making yourself out to be an idiot now, repeating the
> same BS that's so popular on r.b.t. A few path cruisers and more
> casual bikes are certainly designed to take long posts, often with
> suspension, and come in only three sizes, but the vast majority of
> road style sloping tube bikes are a good thing. Now, there are the
> knuckleheads out there that buy them a size too small and use a
> ridiculously long post. Criticize them, not good, smart design.
> Here's a good example of sloping tube geometry used to bring the front
> end up for a fast recreational bike:
> http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/venturasport.html
> Specialized is one of the common brands that also uses this smart
> design on bikes such as the Allez and Sequoia.
I could think of both examples and counterexamples for each 'compact'
feature/problem SMS listed. No fan of most modern 'compact' generally,
but as Landotter notes, applications vary widely by brand and model so
it's difficult or unfair to make a blanket endorsement or a blanket
condemnation of 'compact'.
p.s. You could call Moser's hour bike 'compact';it seemed to work OK.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 11:15:33
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 11:51 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:44 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 8:02 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 10:51 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > > > racers.
>
> > > > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > > > Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
>
> > > There are a lot more offending "compact geometry" uprights than
> > > recumbents to be visually avoided.
>
> > But, many find recumbents are far uglier than a compact geometry DF.
> > Some would suggest an "ugly multiplier factor" of 10 or more.
>
> On most invitational and club rides, there will be more than 10
> "compact geometry" uprights for every recumbent.
Thank [insert supreme being/higher conciousness of your choice] for
that!
>
> The recumbent has an advantage from the viewpoint of the heterosexual
> male (since about 90% of the riders at typical organized events are
> male) - the rider's posterior is not displayed like a baboon in heat
> for all to see. This more than compensates for any ugliness inherent
> in the recumbent bicycle. This makes riding in a recumbent paceline
> much more enjoyable than being in an upright paceline.
>
>
Be responsible for your own repressed homo-erotic issues, Tom, don't
blame others!
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 11:03:42
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 11:25 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:34 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> > > tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> > > larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
>
> > I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
>
> I think the average bike nerd like you and I would assume that to be
> the case. Retape you glasses, mutherfucker. ;-P
Well, you don't want some confused reader thinking you are an advocate
of short top tubes, do ya?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 20:52:52
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:03:42 -0000, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>On Jun 6, 11:25 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 9:34 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>>
>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
>> > > tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
>> > > larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
>>
>> > I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
>>
>> I think the average bike nerd like you and I would assume that to be
>> the case. Retape you glasses, mutherfucker. ;-P
>
>Well, you don't want some confused reader thinking you are an advocate
>of short top tubes, do ya?
I am very much in favor of short tube tops and what red-blooded man isn't.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 03:58:19
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Steve Gravrock wrote:
> On 2007-06-07, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > Does this look goofy: <http://www.waterfordbikes.com/images/rst/
> > RST-22rcs.jpg>? The hoods are only about an inch or so below top of
> > saddle level.
>
> I don't see many cyclists who can ride such a large frame, so the
> proportions look off to my eye. That bike also has a head tube extension,
> which is no doubt helpful but hard to come by on bikes that us mere
> mortals can afford. Offhand, I can't think of anywhere I've seen it
> other than Waterford and Rivendell....
A head tube extension looks a lot less goofy than a too long seat
post.
> > Bicycles were made to fit properly prior to "compact geometry". To
> > paraphrase Peter Chisholm, for most riders "compact geometry" answers
> > no questions, solves no problems.
>
> The shorter one gets the less true that is, unless one is willing to
> ride smaller wheels. That's an option, but I'd rather have a sloping
> top tube than the reduced tire selection that comes with the 26" wheels
> many traditional framebuilders would put me on.
I would rather have smaller wheels in a properly proportioned frame,
than a bicycle I could barely stand to look at.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 21:51:25
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 9:44 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> On Jun 6, 8:02 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:51 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > > racers.
>
> > > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > > Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
>
> > There are a lot more offending "compact geometry" uprights than
> > recumbents to be visually avoided.
>
> But, many find recumbents are far uglier than a compact geometry DF.
> Some would suggest an "ugly multiplier factor" of 10 or more.
On most invitational and club rides, there will be more than 10
"compact geometry" uprights for every recumbent.
The recumbent has an advantage from the viewpoint of the heterosexual
male (since about 90% of the riders at typical organized events are
male) - the rider's posterior is not displayed like a baboon in heat
for all to see. This more than compensates for any ugliness inherent
in the recumbent bicycle. This makes riding in a recumbent paceline
much more enjoyable than being in an upright paceline.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 21:41:08
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, "landotter" wrote:
> On Jun 6, 8:02 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:51 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, "landotter" wrote:
>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > > racers.
>
> > > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > > Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
>
> > There are a lot more offending "compact geometry" uprights than
> > recumbents to be visually avoided.
>
> You've stated this over and over again ad nauseum--but never given an
> explanation. I'll tell you what looks good: form that follows
> function. A sloping tube bike that allows for the minimum of spacers,
> a non radical stem of around 15 degrees, and bars right where they
> should be....
And a saddle way, way, way up in the air. That does not look good!
> What looks stupid are flat tube bikes with the steerers cut
> too short and posers that are unable to effectively use their drops.
Cutting the steerer tube too short is a bad idea, but there is nothing
inherent in level top tube diamond frame bicycles that requires it.
Conversely, "compact geometry" requires a looooong seat post.
> What looks idiotic are fast recreational bikes that are set up like
> race bikes for aesthetic reasons only, and not to provide proper
> comfort for the rider. To get the average "sport" bike's bars up to
> near saddle height on bikes with flat top tubes usually requires a
> radical amount of spacers, a goofy looking stem, or a stem raiser--
> none of which are particularly good looking.
Does this look goofy: <http://www.waterfordbikes.com/images/rst/
RST-22rcs.jpg >? The hoods are only about an inch or so below top of
saddle level.
> So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.
"Compact geometry" reminds me of those horribly over bred German
Shepard's (aka Alsatians) with the sloping back and semi-crippled rear
legs. Traditional frame are like a proper working Shepard, with a
straight back and healthy legs.
Bicycles were made to fit properly prior to "compact geometry". To
paraphrase Peter Chisholm, for most riders "compact geometry" answers
no questions, solves no problems.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 00:28:48
From: SMS
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Bicycles were made to fit properly prior to "compact geometry". To
> paraphrase Peter Chisholm, for most riders "compact geometry" answers
> no questions, solves no problems.
Indeed, it creates problems for many, and solves problems for a few.
It's not an issue of aesthetics, it's practicalities that many people
don't ever think of, because they've never learned to look at the big
picture. They are the legal prey of these companies that foist their
cost saving design changes onto an unsuspecting public that has no
ability to think critically.
"Oh well, the clearance for water bottles isn't important to me, I'll
use only small bottles, or I'll wear my water on my back." "Oh well, I'm
never going to want to attach any kind or rack to my beautiful road
bike, so the shorter chain stay that makes rack mounting with sufficient
heal clearance a problem doesn't apply to me." "Oh well, I'll never want
a frame pump, I'll use CO2 or a mini-pump that I mount somewhere else."
"Oh well, I'm only going to keep this bike for a few years, so metal
fatigue of the frame isn't going to affect me." It just goes on and on.
The bicycle manufacturers went to compact frames solely for their own
benefit, then proceeded to train their dealers on the proper
rationalizations to sell the product.
It reminds me of car dealers, where the sales person has an answer to
every question the customer has about the decontenting. "Oh, Honda
dropped the folding feature on the side view mirrors on the Accord in
order to decrease wind noise, be careful because by the time you replace
a broken mirror, and get it painted to match, it'll be $1000." "Oh,
Toyota dropped the spring loaded hood supports on the Camry in order to
increase fuel economy because a single support rod weighs less." "Oh, we
dropped the full size spare tire in order to increase cargo space, don't
ride too far on it." "Oh, we dropped the structural steel rain gutters
to decrease the wind resistance, don't carry anything heavy on the roof
rack." "Oh we went from steel bumpers to plastic over styrofoam to
increase fuel economy, so be careful because that formerly $300 bumper
is now going to cost you $1500 by the time you get it painted to match."
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 02:09:16
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On 2007-06-08, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
[...]
> "Oh well, the clearance for water bottles isn't important to me, I'll
> use only small bottles, or I'll wear my water on my back." "Oh well, I'm
> never going to want to attach any kind or rack to my beautiful road
> bike, so the shorter chain stay that makes rack mounting with sufficient
> heal clearance a problem doesn't apply to me." "Oh well, I'll never want
> a frame pump, I'll use CO2 or a mini-pump that I mount somewhere else."
> "Oh well, I'm only going to keep this bike for a few years, so metal
> fatigue of the frame isn't going to affect me." It just goes on and on.
And yet here we are with a sloping top tube, normal size bottles, rack,
panniers, and a good pump:
<http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg >
That's a 54cm frame. That particular size won't accomodate a traditional
frame pump without sacrificing a bottle, but the next larger size wiil.
The Road Morph pump fits fine and works well. Heel clearance is not
generous, but it's enough. Compare to a 50 or 52cm size of most level
top tube designs.
It happens that bikes with "compact" frames sometimes end up being more
practical than the alternative, not because of the angle of the top tube
but because they are not designed and marketed as racing machines.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jun 2007 13:39:09
From: SMS
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
Steve Gravrock wrote:
> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg>
>
> That's a 54cm frame. That particular size won't accomodate a traditional
> frame pump without sacrificing a bottle, but the next larger size wiil.
> The Road Morph pump fits fine and works well. Heel clearance is not
> generous, but it's enough.
Yes, this is a good example of a bicycle to avoid. Look how hard it is
to remove the water bottle on the down tube. You can buy the special
cage, "http://www.primelineintl.com/swivel.html" or the one from
Specialized, but these are rather a pain.
With a full size frame pump, you can only use a small size water bottle,
and still need a special cage for best results.
The heel clearance may be okay for someone with smaller feet, and with
tall narrow panniers, but otherwise you'll need one of the longer racks,
and/or mount the panniers with part of the bag past the end of the rack.
The compact frames are a good, and cheaper, alternative to bicycles
designed explicitly for smaller people (i.e. Terry), but should be
avoided at all costs by individuals that don't need the small frame.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:44:27
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On 2007-06-10, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Steve Gravrock wrote:
>
>> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg>
>>
>> That's a 54cm frame. That particular size won't accomodate a traditional
>> frame pump without sacrificing a bottle, but the next larger size wiil.
>> The Road Morph pump fits fine and works well. Heel clearance is not
>> generous, but it's enough.
>
> Yes, this is a good example of a bicycle to avoid. Look how hard it is
> to remove the water bottle on the down tube. You can buy the special
> cage, "http://www.primelineintl.com/swivel.html" or the one from
> Specialized, but these are rather a pain.
I have never had any trouble removing either water bottle, despite not
using any special cages. If I did, a level top tube would not help the
situation. To demonstrate my point, I crudeely altered that photo to
show what that bike would look like with a level top tube by rotating
the top tube around the point that I stand over, give or take a few
pixels:
<http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-level-top-tube.jpg >
Note that there is now less clearance between the water bottle and the
pump, not more. I don't see how leveling the top tube improved anything.
Even aesthetically I prefer the sloping top tube version due to the
long head tube extension required by the level top tube version. A
traditional frame pump would still be a tight fit at best.
> The compact frames are a good, and cheaper, alternative to bicycles
> designed explicitly for smaller people (i.e. Terry), but should be
> avoided at all costs by individuals that don't need the small frame.
You continue to insist that horrible things will happen to cyclists
whose top tubes are at the wrong angle, despite all evidence to the
contrary. I suspect that you're really talking about the "standard" RBT
racing compact in which the sloping top tube is used to lower the seat
cluster while keeping the junction of head tube and top tube fixed.
Since the OP was not talking about that type of bike, your objections
are not relevant to his buying decision and serve only to muddy the
waters.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 20:36:57
From: Bill
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
SMS wrote:
> "Oh well, the clearance for water bottles isn't important to me, I'll
> use only small bottles, or I'll wear my water on my back." "Oh well, I'm
> never going to want to attach any kind or rack to my beautiful road
> bike, so the shorter chain stay that makes rack mounting with sufficient
> heal clearance a problem doesn't apply to me." "Oh well, I'll never want
> a frame pump, I'll use CO2 or a mini-pump that I mount somewhere else."
> "Oh well, I'm only going to keep this bike for a few years, so metal
> fatigue of the frame isn't going to affect me." It just goes on and on.
>
> The bicycle manufacturers went to compact frames solely for their own
> benefit, then proceeded to train their dealers on the proper
> rationalizations to sell the product.
>
> It reminds me of car dealers, where the sales person has an answer to
> every question the customer has about the decontenting. "Oh, Honda
> dropped the folding feature on the side view mirrors on the Accord in
> order to decrease wind noise, be careful because by the time you replace
> a broken mirror, and get it painted to match, it'll be $1000." "Oh,
> Toyota dropped the spring loaded hood supports on the Camry in order to
> increase fuel economy because a single support rod weighs less." "Oh, we
> dropped the full size spare tire in order to increase cargo space, don't
> ride too far on it." "Oh, we dropped the structural steel rain gutters
> to decrease the wind resistance, don't carry anything heavy on the roof
> rack." "Oh we went from steel bumpers to plastic over styrofoam to
> increase fuel economy, so be careful because that formerly $300 bumper
> is now going to cost you $1500 by the time you get it painted to match."
This paragraph hits home with me. My daughter had a new Kia and got rear
ended with minimal damage, yet it took over $5,000 to fix. The toy spare
tires hits home too, since I now have no Kia but a Mitsubishi, Mazda,
and my old Chrysler. Guess which 2 have toy spares?
Every time I go out for a ride I can't help but notice people driving
around, still using the toy tires, even on the freeway at 70 MPH, and
not realizing (or caring??) that the toy spare is meant for a limp to a
tire place.
The world seems to have no shortage of low wattage brains.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 05:48:02
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On 2007-06-07, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Does this look goofy: <http://www.waterfordbikes.com/images/rst/
> RST-22rcs.jpg>? The hoods are only about an inch or so below top of
> saddle level.
I don't see many cyclists who can ride such a large frame, so the
proportions look off to my eye. That bike also has a head tube extension,
which is no doubt helpful but hard to come by on bikes that us mere
mortals can afford. Offhand, I can't think of anywhere I've seen it
other than Waterford and Rivendell.
Here are some measurements of what I'm currently riding. It gives me a
comfortable position, with my elbows slightly bent and back at about a
45 degree angle when I'm on the hoods. This is similar to the position
that I see taller riders in with their bars somewhat below the saddle.
It's the largest frame I can straddle.
BB spindle to top of saddle about 27"
Reach about 25.5" from center of bar clamp to center of seat clamp
Bars at saddle height give or take an inch
Standover 30" at, well, the point that I stand over
I don't think it's impossible to design a bike that fits like that with
a level top tube, but I haven't seen it done. It would require putting
the bottom of the stem about 5.25" above the top tube using a head tube
extension, a stack of spacers, or some combination of the two. I'm not
at all convinced that such a setup would offer any advantages,
aesthetically or otherwise, over a sloping top tube.
> Bicycles were made to fit properly prior to "compact geometry". To
> paraphrase Peter Chisholm, for most riders "compact geometry" answers
> no questions, solves no problems.
The shorter one gets the less true that is, unless one is willing to
ride smaller wheels. That's an option, but I'd rather have a sloping
top tube than the reduced tire selection that comes with the 26" wheels
many traditional framebuilders would put me on.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 04:25:35
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 9:34 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> > tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> > larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
>
> I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
I think the average bike nerd like you and I would assume that to be
the case. Retape you glasses, mutherfucker. ;-P
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 02:44:18
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 8:02 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:51 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > > ...
> > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > racers.
>
> > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
>
> There are a lot more offending "compact geometry" uprights than
> recumbents to be visually avoided.
>
But, many find recumbents are far uglier than a compact geometry DF.
Some would suggest an "ugly multiplier factor" of 10 or more.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 02:34:56
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 8:02 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:51 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > > racers.
>
> > > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > > Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
>
> > There are a lot more offending "compact geometry" uprights than
> > recumbents to be visually avoided.
>
> You've stated this over and over again ad nauseum--but never given an
> explanation. I'll tell you what looks good: form that follows
> function. A sloping tube bike that allows for the minimum of spacers,
> a non radical stem of around 15 degrees, and bars right where they
> should be. What looks stupid are flat tube bikes with the steerers cut
> too short and posers that are unable to effectively use their drops.
> What looks idiotic are fast recreational bikes that are set up like
> race bikes for aesthetic reasons only, and not to provide proper
> comfort for the rider. To get the average "sport" bike's bars up to
> near saddle height on bikes with flat top tubes usually requires a
> radical amount of spacers, a goofy looking stem, or a stem raiser--
> none of which are particularly good looking.
Every time I see one of those Rivendell and Rivendell-clone photo
galleries, with all those bikes sporting Nitto Technomic stems and
1-2+ inches of spacers above the head tube, I just shake my head. Any
chance those bikes had of being pretty just got flushed down the tubes
with that setup. They just look silly.
>
> So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 01:21:09
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 8:02 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:51 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > > ...
> > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > racers.
>
> > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
>
> There are a lot more offending "compact geometry" uprights than
> recumbents to be visually avoided.
You've stated this over and over again ad nauseum--but never given an
explanation. I'll tell you what looks good: form that follows
function. A sloping tube bike that allows for the minimum of spacers,
a non radical stem of around 15 degrees, and bars right where they
should be. What looks stupid are flat tube bikes with the steerers cut
too short and posers that are unable to effectively use their drops.
What looks idiotic are fast recreational bikes that are set up like
race bikes for aesthetic reasons only, and not to provide proper
comfort for the rider. To get the average "sport" bike's bars up to
near saddle height on bikes with flat top tubes usually requires a
radical amount of spacers, a goofy looking stem, or a stem raiser--
none of which are particularly good looking.
So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 01:11:06
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 8:49 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > > ...
> > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > racers.
>
> > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > Care to link to a solid 600 buck bike that ain't compact?
>
> It is not my fault other people buy ugly road bicycles.
Desperate, aren't you?
>
> > The fact
> > that the bars are in a much more sensible position than the vast
> > majority of road bikes is far more important than a sloping tube's
> > aesthetics.
>
> > I own a sloping frame and a horizontal bar frame. Both are sized
> > properly and look nice.
>
> Some extra "stand over" clearance make sense on an ATB, where rapid
> and unplanned dismounts are a common occurrence (at least compared to
> road riding), but is nonsensical on a bike that will not be ridden on
> single-track (or equivalent).
Are you really this thick? It's NOT about crotch clearance, it's about
raising the front end. I think we've gone through that in three
different posts.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2007 04:40:06
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
In article
<1181178666.080498.307940@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >
,
landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 8:49 pm, landotter wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
> >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > > > racers.
> >
> > > > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
> >
> > > Care to link to a solid 600 buck bike that ain't compact?
> >
> > It is not my fault other people buy ugly road bicycles.
>
> Desperate, aren't you?
>
> >
> > > The fact
> > > that the bars are in a much more sensible position than the vast
> > > majority of road bikes is far more important than a sloping tube's
> > > aesthetics.
> >
> > > I own a sloping frame and a horizontal bar frame. Both are sized
> > > properly and look nice.
> >
> > Some extra "stand over" clearance make sense on an ATB, where rapid
> > and unplanned dismounts are a common occurrence (at least compared to
> > road riding), but is nonsensical on a bike that will not be ridden on
> > single-track (or equivalent).
>
> Are you really this thick? It's NOT about crotch clearance, it's about
> raising the front end. I think we've gone through that in three
> different posts.
The front end can be raised on a horizontal top tube bicycle.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 18:09:52
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 10:52 am, "landotter" wrote:
> ...
> Like a flat top tube? Ride one by all means, just don't start using
> the same 'tude as those dirty recumbentists.
Hey, I shower at least once per day, and after every ride that makes
me sweat significantly!
The only important reason I would want to see recumbents become more
common is so that I would attract LESS attention riding one.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 18:02:12
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 10:51 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > racers.
>
> > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
There are a lot more offending "compact geometry" uprights than
recumbents to be visually avoided.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 17:56:33
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 9:02 pm, "landotter" wrote:
> ...
> The Fuji comes in the same range of six sizes as the Bianchi. What
> again is so special about the Bianchi that makes it worth $200 more?
> The celeste paint? The more hunched over position?
Celeste verde paint offends the eye.
I think it is the same color used to paint swimming pools.
[Flame-retardant suit on for the Molotov cocktails from the Bianchi
faithful]
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 17:53:21
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 8:49 pm, landotter wrote:
> On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > > racers.
>
> > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> Care to link to a solid 600 buck bike that ain't compact?
It is not my fault other people buy ugly road bicycles.
> The fact
> that the bars are in a much more sensible position than the vast
> majority of road bikes is far more important than a sloping tube's
> aesthetics.
>
> I own a sloping frame and a horizontal bar frame. Both are sized
> properly and look nice.
Some extra "stand over" clearance make sense on an ATB, where rapid
and unplanned dismounts are a common occurrence (at least compared to
road riding), but is nonsensical on a bike that will not be ridden on
single-track (or equivalent).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 12:55:04
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 2:09 pm, Steve Gravrock <use...@sdg.users.panix.com > wrote:
> I hear that argument all the time on RBT, but what I see in the
> marketplace does not support it.
Well, if you look at "bike path" type bikes then you can take that
information and paint everything with the same broad brush. Such bikes
indeed do come in variations of S/M/L. So did the Raleigh Tourist for
that matter.
Trek Navigator, 3 sizes. Trek Pilot, 6 sizes--and a sloping top tube
as well. Shocking!
> Looking at the Fuji Newest, the Trek
> Pilot, and the Raleigh Cadent lines I see five or six sizes of each
> model versus typically six for the same manufacturers' traditional sport
> bikes. Looking at the photos on the manufacturers' websites and the way
> the bikes are marketed, it's clear that the goal is to raise the
> handlebars rather than to put the rider on a smaller frame.
Shhhh, you'll upset the fundamentalist velo-deacons with this
Christopher Hitchens-like rant. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 11:15:16
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 11:53 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.tech.Jun.
06...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
>
> You don't know if a saddle is really comfortable or not until you
> take it on a long ride. Cushy on a test ride is often terrible on
> a long ride.
It depends. I have one bike with a nearly rock hard "Unicanitor" type
saddle with perhaps a 2mm of padding under the leather--but it's great
for epic rides. It's perfect for a bike with drops where a lot of your
weight is on feet and hands. Then I have another ride with an equally
narrow, but pretty plush Speed-V type clone. With cycling shorts--the
doubling of padding is excruciating after five miles, as you get numb
bits. In regular unpadded shorts, thirty mile rides are no problem.
It's all relative. If the OP is planning on wearing some of those
adult diapers by Pearl Izumi, then there might be issues. :-P
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 08:52:24
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 6, 10:19 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Steve Gravrock wrote:
> > On 2007-06-06, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> > Agreed, but it also can mean the difference between a bike that's
> > comfortable and one that hurts to ride, especially for shorter people.
>
> It's true, the compact frames are good for shorter people.
>
> Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
> manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
> they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
> manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers.
There may be some benefit to the manufacturer for sure, but both
Bianchi and Fuji offer *6* sizes, not three or four. You're spouting
tired old r.b.t rhetoric.
>They simply
> use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
> steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
> rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
> lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
> benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.
>
> There was a very good article about compact geometry frames on the
> Cannondale web site (now removed): "there's a disturbing trend among
> some bike companies to re-tool their road frames by shortening the seat
> tube and slanting the top tube down from the head tube. This new design
> "breakthrough," they argue, saves frame weight. And if you take their
> claim literally, they're right - a shorter seat tube does make a bare
> frame a little lighter. What they don't tell you is that their complete
> bicycle actually weighs more than a bike with a conventional geometry.
> Why? You have to use longer (and therefore heavier) seatposts and stems
> on smaller frames to fit the rider properly, and their added weight more
> than off-sets the few grams saved by their sloping top tube frames.
Bunk. If you ride the proper sized compact frame, you don't need a
super long post. I even sawed one of mine off partially, after noting
the minimum insertion mark and making a new such mark with a file. Two
ounces gone, and nobody has to know. /snort
>
> For non-short people, a compact frame is very undesirable.
Bunk. A sloping top tube frame is fine. Indeed, it helps to get
handlebar height dialed in right. As long as you get the correct size.
People these days seem to ride a size compact/sloping frame smaller
than would be optimal. Long seatposts have become fashionable, no
doubt due to mtb styling being seen as the norm.
"Very undesirable?" Totally without merit.
>Whatever you
> do, avoid compact frames on road bikes.
Why? You haven't given a good reason yet.
> Get a properly sized,
> "traditional" geometry frame.
No reason to, unless you like the aesthetics. I've taken to sloping
frames. On my fixed gear, which has 130mm of post showing, it moves
the head tube up 7-8cm from where it would otherwise be. Excellent!
People have been hookwinked for years into adopting race style setups
with excruciatingly low bars when they didn't need them--because it
was a royal PITA to get them up. Yeah, you've got the Nitto tall
stems, but few shops around here carry them, just the short quills and
few of those these days. With the compact frame you've already got a
head start. I don't care if they also benefit manufacturers--I like
them, and they make sense.
It's sort of like moaning about threadless setups. Yeah, they save
manufacturers some dough, and certainly aren't as pretty as quills,
but being able to adjust your headset with a multi-tool is pretty
cool. Now if we could just stop them from cutting those dang steerers
too short.
Like a flat top tube? Ride one by all means, just don't start using
the same 'tude as those dirty recumbentists.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 03:51:53
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > racers.
>
> "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
Lotsa folks feel that way about recumbents.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 02:02:26
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 8:46 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> michael wrote:
> > I will call around (tomorrow when the stores open - too late now) to
> > see if I can find a bike shop with it. I visited one of the bike shops
> > that the Bianchi site lists and I don't remember seeing it - they
> > mostly had Treks.
>
> The Brava is extremely popular in terms of a sub-$800 road bike, so the
> Bianchi dealers have a hard time keeping them in stock, even though the
> street price of this model has shot up $150 in the last few years.
>
> It's got a cromoly steel frame, and it's a non-compact frame, two things
> that are highly sought after and in short supply as manufacturers are in
> a race to the bottom in terms of costs.
Uh, as much as I like my steel rides--paying $200 more for the Bianchi
to get similar spec, but with a slightly less inclined top tube and a
less upright position seems downright dumb. Cheap steel frames ride
pretty much like cheap aluminum frames.
The Fuji comes in the same range of six sizes as the Bianchi. What
again is so special about the Bianchi that makes it worth $200 more?
The celeste paint? The more hunched over position?
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 01:49:35
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 8:34 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> > position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> > fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> > affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> > expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> > racers.
>
> "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
Care to link to a solid 600 buck bike that ain't compact? The fact
that the bars are in a much more sensible position than the vast
majority of road bikes is far more important than a sloping tube's
aesthetics.
I own a sloping frame and a horizontal bar frame. Both are sized
properly and look nice.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 02:49:13
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
> > "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> Care to link to a solid 600 buck bike that ain't compact? The fact
> that the bars are in a much more sensible position than the vast
> majority of road bikes is far more important than a sloping tube's
> aesthetics.
>
> I own a sloping frame and a horizontal bar frame. Both are sized
> properly and look nice.
----------
Most people don't have a clue on what ultimately will feel comfortable, but
at least with a compact geometry you can make it bigger and smaller, without
changing how it handles. With a horizontal, you better get it right,
because there is less wiggle room. Even the horizontal's are different,
because in the late 90's they lowered it, before that it was in your crotch,
which really feels stupid, if you've ever ridden one.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 18:34:59
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 7:47 pm, landotter wrote:
> ...
> I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
> position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
> fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
> affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
> expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
> racers.
"Compact geometry" offends the eye.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 04:11:14
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On 2007-06-06, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
Agreed, but it also can mean the difference between a bike that's
comfortable and one that hurts to ride, especially for shorter people.
A sloping top tube can be used to lower the top of the seat tube or to
raise the top of the head tube. The latter is almost certainly what the
Fuji designers had in mind. Just look at the relative position of saddle
and handlebars in the photo:
<http://www.fujibikes.com/2007/bikes.asp?id=278&subcat= >
To the OP: Whether the bike's frame design has traditionalist appeal or
not should not be a major factor in your decision. If you find that the
Fuji fits your body and wallet, then it's probably a good choice. The
components *are* low-end, as is to be expected on a $600 road bike, but
I don't see anything worrisome in the spec.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 08:19:08
From: SMS
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
Steve Gravrock wrote:
> On 2007-06-06, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>
> Agreed, but it also can mean the difference between a bike that's
> comfortable and one that hurts to ride, especially for shorter people.
It's true, the compact frames are good for shorter people.
Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers. They simply
use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.
There was a very good article about compact geometry frames on the
Cannondale web site (now removed): "there's a disturbing trend among
some bike companies to re-tool their road frames by shortening the seat
tube and slanting the top tube down from the head tube. This new design
"breakthrough," they argue, saves frame weight. And if you take their
claim literally, they're right - a shorter seat tube does make a bare
frame a little lighter. What they don't tell you is that their complete
bicycle actually weighs more than a bike with a conventional geometry.
Why? You have to use longer (and therefore heavier) seatposts and stems
on smaller frames to fit the rider properly, and their added weight more
than off-sets the few grams saved by their sloping top tube frames.
For non-short people, a compact frame is very undesirable. Whatever you
do, avoid compact frames on road bikes. Get a properly sized,
"traditional" geometry frame.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 19:09:27
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On 2007-06-06, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Steve Gravrock wrote:
>> On 2007-06-06, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Compact geometry" offends the eye.
>>
>> Agreed, but it also can mean the difference between a bike that's
>> comfortable and one that hurts to ride, especially for shorter people.
>
> It's true, the compact frames are good for shorter people.
>
> Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
> manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
> they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
> manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers. They simply
> use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
> steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
> rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
> lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
> benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.
I hear that argument all the time on RBT, but what I see in the
marketplace does not support it. Looking at the Fuji Newest, the Trek
Pilot, and the Raleigh Cadent lines I see five or six sizes of each
model versus typically six for the same manufacturers' traditional sport
bikes. Looking at the photos on the manufacturers' websites and the way
the bikes are marketed, it's clear that the goal is to raise the
handlebars rather than to put the rider on a smaller frame.
I'd argue that for bikes like the Fuji Newest, "compact" is a misnomer
since the goal is not to put the rider on a smaller frame.
It may be that some makers of race bikes are doing as you say, but that
has nothing to do with the kind of bike the OP is looking at.
> For non-short people, a compact frame is very undesirable. Whatever you
> do, avoid compact frames on road bikes. Get a properly sized,
> "traditional" geometry frame.
Why? Assuming that the Fuji fits the OP properly, what harm will come to
him as a result of a sloping top tube? Will the bike fall apart? Will
legions of retrogrouches burn him in effigy? Sure, it might not have
that nice traditional look, but you can't see any difference when you're
riding it.
By the way, short is relative. At 5'6, I'm taller than a sizeable
minority of people but I'm at or near the lower limit of what most
makers who stick with level top tubes will deal with. Bikes that can
provide 30" or lower standover and have a level top tube tend to put
the handlebars excessively low, use 26" wheels, or both. Even my mid-
80s Sekai had a sloping top tube.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 18:07:00
From: Ben Pfaff
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
michael <nleahcim@gmail.com > writes:
> Hi there - I was planning on picking up a used bike off of Craig's
> List, but so far, everything I've looked at has been over priced and/
> or in terrible condition. [...]
Have you looked around at local bike shops? Some of them will
have used bikes too. Usually they're in better condition than
those from private sellers.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 00:47:47
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 5:25 pm, michael <nleah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi there - I was planning on picking up a used bike off of Craig's
> List, but so far, everything I've looked at has been over priced and/
> or in terrible condition. I'm thinking I'll probably just get
> something new from my LBS. I found the Newest 3.0 (http://www.fujibikes.com/2007/bikes.asp?id=278&subcat=) for $600 nearby. Does
> that seem like a good bike, and a good price? I rode it around and it
> felt pretty good, but some people have told me that it is too entry
> level. I know very little about what bikes are better than others, so
> I really am lost here.
>
> Any advice?
>
If it fits, get it. 8 speed rear is easy to dial in, very robust and
spares are dirt cheap. Sora is more than good enough for rec riding.
Wheels should prove to be robust, just make sure the spoke tension is
even. Brakes are bottom end Tektros--but stop just fine.
I like the fact that it's designed to get the bars up to real world
position. Nice. there are even provisions for mounting a rack and/or
fenders (might be a tight fit). It would make my short list for an
affordable entry level bike; it's actually nicer than some of the more
expensive models that have less sensible design and are more wannabe
racers.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 03:39:34
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 7, 8:45 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:38 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:13 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 7:52 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:03:42 -0000, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Jun 6, 11:25 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Jun 6, 9:34 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > > >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> > > > >> > > tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> > > > >> > > larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
>
> > > > >> > I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
>
> > > > >> I think the average bike nerd like you and I would assume that to be
> > > > >> the case. Retape you glasses, mutherfucker. ;-P
>
> > > > >Well, you don't want some confused reader thinking you are an advocate
> > > > >of short top tubes, do ya?
>
> > > > I am very much in favor of short tube tops and what red-blooded man isn't.
>
> > > Women in short tube tops riding bicycles with long top tubes. :-)
>
> > "Ma'am, may I interest you in this 200mm negative rise stem?"
>
> "It's very aero."
Aero, carbon, whatever, I'm really just in this for the tits. Step
aside and let me check the fit...
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 01:45:42
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 7, 8:38 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:13 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 7:52 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:03:42 -0000, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jun 6, 11:25 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 6, 9:34 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> > > >> > > tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> > > >> > > larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
>
> > > >> > I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
>
> > > >> I think the average bike nerd like you and I would assume that to be
> > > >> the case. Retape you glasses, mutherfucker. ;-P
>
> > > >Well, you don't want some confused reader thinking you are an advocate
> > > >of short top tubes, do ya?
>
> > > I am very much in favor of short tube tops and what red-blooded man isn't.
>
> > Women in short tube tops riding bicycles with long top tubes. :-)
>
> "Ma'am, may I interest you in this 200mm negative rise stem?"
"It's very aero."
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 01:38:51
From: landotter
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 7, 8:13 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 7:52 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:03:42 -0000, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 6, 11:25 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 6, 9:34 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> > >> > > tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> > >> > > larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
>
> > >> > I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
>
> > >> I think the average bike nerd like you and I would assume that to be
> > >> the case. Retape you glasses, mutherfucker. ;-P
>
> > >Well, you don't want some confused reader thinking you are an advocate
> > >of short top tubes, do ya?
>
> > I am very much in favor of short tube tops and what red-blooded man isn't.
>
> Women in short tube tops riding bicycles with long top tubes. :-)
"Ma'am, may I interest you in this 200mm negative rise stem?"
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2007 01:13:33
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 7, 7:52 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:03:42 -0000, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 6, 11:25 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 6, 9:34 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > So the solution is either to start building bikes with shorter top
> >> > > tubes, and we all go back to a "fist full of post" and ride frames 3cm
> >> > > larger than we do now, or we use sloping tube frames.-
>
> >> > I think you mean "shorter top tubes" *relative to the seat tubes* (?).
>
> >> I think the average bike nerd like you and I would assume that to be
> >> the case. Retape you glasses, mutherfucker. ;-P
>
> >Well, you don't want some confused reader thinking you are an advocate
> >of short top tubes, do ya?
>
> I am very much in favor of short tube tops and what red-blooded man isn't.
>
Women in short tube tops riding bicycles with long top tubes. :-)
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 17:18:42
From: Donald Gillies
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
FUJI bikes don't have a good frame warranty - its only 3 years or
something. I would not buy the bike if it has an exotic frame
(i.e. if there is any carbon in the frame.)
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 17:17:15
From: michael
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 7:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Craigslist is really hit and miss. A lot of people buy bikes on
> craigslist then are surprised how much it will cost them to get it into
> suitable condition, because they buy everything at retail, and pay a
> bike shop for the repairs and upgrades. Meanwhile, that new bike is
> assembled in China with components that probably cost about 10% of what
> a bike shop charges for the components.
I have been mostly missing - not so much on the hitting. Most
everything I've seen has been in a terrible state of disrepair.
> I would not buy the Fuji Newest 3.0. It has several problems with it.
> Also, this bike regularly goes on sale for about $550.
I won't cry too much over $50. But what problems are you referring to?
> For a road bike in that price range I'd get the Bianchi Brava. See
> "http://www.bianchiusa.com/07_brava.html". It has an MSRP of $800, but
> regularly sells for about $650.
I will call around (tomorrow when the stores open - too late now) to
see if I can find a bike shop with it. I visited one of the bike shops
that the Bianchi site lists and I don't remember seeing it - they
mostly had Treks.
-Michael
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 02:41:53
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
>
> > For a road bike in that price range I'd get the Bianchi Brava. See
> > "http://www.bianchiusa.com/07_brava.html". It has an MSRP of $800, but
> > regularly sells for about $650.
>
--------
ahhh, the bianchi. The brava is the one where the frames don't crack,
because they're heavier, is that correct?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 18:46:05
From: SMS
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
michael wrote:
> I will call around (tomorrow when the stores open - too late now) to
> see if I can find a bike shop with it. I visited one of the bike shops
> that the Bianchi site lists and I don't remember seeing it - they
> mostly had Treks.
The Brava is extremely popular in terms of a sub-$800 road bike, so the
Bianchi dealers have a hard time keeping them in stock, even though the
street price of this model has shot up $150 in the last few years.
It's got a cromoly steel frame, and it's a non-compact frame, two things
that are highly sought after and in short supply as manufacturers are in
a race to the bottom in terms of costs.
Try to find something with non-compact geometry at a minimum.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 17:13:28
From: michael
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
On Jun 5, 7:25 pm, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.tech.Jun.
05...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
> Both are reasonable, and certainly compareable to anything else
> in that price range. Fuji bikes have a reputation as a good value
> for the money. You could probably get the same bike for less
> on sale in a few months.
But by then the weather is going to be getting nasty again :( I'm
going crazy without a bike...
> Shimano components go Sora-Tiagra-105-Ultegra-DuraAce. Basically
> what you get as you go up the scale is lighter weight and some
> improvement in functionality. If you just want to get out and
> ride Sora is plenty functional in my experience. If you get to
> the point where it wears out, you'll then know enough to know
> what you really want in a bike. As far as I can tell on the web
> it seems to have the standard set of OEM components. ( i.e. sora
> shifters/derailler, Tektro brakes, no name crank, sugino most
> likely, and Alex wheels. )
>
> At that price range I would worry more about getting the shop to
> work with you on the fit. Will they swap stems for free? Do they
> have a saddle exchange policy?
>
> _ Booker C. Bense
Why would I want to swap stems? The stem is adjustable on the 3.0.
Similarly - when would one exchange their saddle? At the time of
purchase? I thought the stock saddle was quite comfortable.
-Michael
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2007 16:53:52
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
In article <1181088808.770071.250590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
michael <nleahcim@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Jun 5, 7:25 pm, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.tech.Jun.
>05...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> At that price range I would worry more about getting the shop to
>> work with you on the fit. Will they swap stems for free? Do they
>> have a saddle exchange policy?
>>
>> _ Booker C. Bense
>
>Why would I want to swap stems? The stem is adjustable on the 3.0.
I missed that, but in general you want to tweak both angle and
length for the best fit.
>Similarly - when would one exchange their saddle? At the time of
>purchase? I thought the stock saddle was quite comfortable.
>
You don't know if a saddle is really comfortable or not until you
take it on a long ride. Cushy on a test ride is often terrible on
a long ride.
_ Booker C. Bense
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 16:50:34
From: SMS
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
michael wrote:
> Hi there - I was planning on picking up a used bike off of Craig's
> List, but so far, everything I've looked at has been over priced and/
> or in terrible condition. I'm thinking I'll probably just get
> something new from my LBS. I found the Newest 3.0 (http://
> www.fujibikes.com/2007/bikes.asp?id=278&subcat=) for $600 nearby. Does
> that seem like a good bike, and a good price? I rode it around and it
> felt pretty good, but some people have told me that it is too entry
> level. I know very little about what bikes are better than others, so
> I really am lost here.
Craigslist is really hit and miss. A lot of people buy bikes on
craigslist then are surprised how much it will cost them to get it into
suitable condition, because they buy everything at retail, and pay a
bike shop for the repairs and upgrades. Meanwhile, that new bike is
assembled in China with components that probably cost about 10% of what
a bike shop charges for the components.
I would not buy the Fuji Newest 3.0. It has several problems with it.
Also, this bike regularly goes on sale for about $550.
For a road bike in that price range I'd get the Bianchi Brava. See
"http://www.bianchiusa.com/07_brava.html". It has an MSRP of $800, but
regularly sells for about $650.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 23:25:10
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: How is the Fuji 'newest' series?
|
In article <1181082308.146631.72470@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
michael <nleahcim@gmail.com > wrote:
>Hi there - I was planning on picking up a used bike off of Craig's
>List, but so far, everything I've looked at has been over priced and/
>or in terrible condition. I'm thinking I'll probably just get
>something new from my LBS. I found the Newest 3.0 (http://
>www.fujibikes.com/2007/bikes.asp?id=278&subcat=) for $600 nearby. Does
>that seem like a good bike, and a good price?
Both are reasonable, and certainly compareable to anything else
in that price range. Fuji bikes have a reputation as a good value
for the money. You could probably get the same bike for less
on sale in a few months.
> I rode it around and it
>felt pretty good, but some people have told me that it is too entry
>level. I know very little about what bikes are better than others, so
>I really am lost here.
>
>Any advice?
>
Shimano components go Sora-Tiagra-105-Ultegra-DuraAce. Basically
what you get as you go up the scale is lighter weight and some
improvement in functionality. If you just want to get out and
ride Sora is plenty functional in my experience. If you get to
the point where it wears out, you'll then know enough to know
what you really want in a bike. As far as I can tell on the web
it seems to have the standard set of OEM components. ( i.e. sora
shifters/derailler, Tektro brakes, no name crank, sugino most
likely, and Alex wheels. )
At that price range I would worry more about getting the shop to
work with you on the fit. Will they swap stems for free? Do they
have a saddle exchange policy?
_ Booker C. Bense
|
|
