bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:16:38 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: I don't understand - what is this for? See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html >. Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel provide any real advantage? What is the deal with single-speed anyway? Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite that causes brain dysfunction? Who exactly is the target market for this bike? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 16 Aug 2007 16:31:41 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >>>>>> JD wrote: > >>>>>>> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > >>>>> "Michael Warner" <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>>>> Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" > >>>> G.T. wrote: > >>>>> Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > >>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > >>>> OK, then how do we know who's fastest? > >>>> c'mon, 'racing' in all its forms is very human. Bikes, cash, SAT scores, > >>>> poker, whatever. > >> Doug Taylor wrote: > >>> Again, I think we have a "failure to communicate" and a values > >>> conflict between amb and rbt culture. > >>> Of course racing and competing is inherent in human nature. But the > >>> categories of faster, stronger, better, etc., have no inherent > >>> priority: the are merely value judgments. Either they make a > >>> difference to you, or they don't. > >>> Our mountain biking SS rider doesn't measure his worth by comparing > >>> himself to the abilities of others, regardless of which side of any > >>> equation he may be on in terms of strength or skill (and he might > >>> REALLY be "faster, stronger, better"). Riding for him is not a > >>> competition; it is an activity to be enjoyed in itself. > >>> "I ride my bike to ride my bike" - Zen proverb. > >>> Furthermore, when you add to the mix that virtually ALL professional > >>> and world class athletic competitions are tainted, if not thoroughly > >>> discredited, by doping in all its myriad forms, then the value > >>> judgments of faster, stronger, better, lose all legitimacy and even > >>> relevance. > >>> A rider who rides to enjoy the ride for itself could care less about > >>> which doped rider on which dope (or not) is faster, stronger, better > >>> than which other doped riders (or not). > >>> Hence, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > >> Well said. My reply was flippant, perhaps the humor didn't work well. > >> Yes some people find a challenge in every bit of human discourse. I'm > >> with you personally, I ride my bike to ride my bike. > >> p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? > JD wrote: > > I knew you got it all. Anyone who takes a nickel out of their pocket > > and welds it to a broken off u-lock key as a fix definitely gets it. > > Do you know her? That was a fun job! > I silver brazed 4 nickels on the air cleaner cover bolts of my MG in > 1975 (Brit air cleaners are on and off so often you can't reach for a > wrench every time) and just kinda got into the habit. I have met someone who does know her. There are a lot of cheesehead refugees in SoCal. JD     Date: 16 Aug 2007 20:50:28 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JD wrote: > ...There are a lot of cheesehead refugees in SoCal. Why? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 17 Aug 2007 10:21:55 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > JD wrote: >> ...There are a lot of cheesehead refugees in SoCal. > > Why? > Dunno, but two things: 1) In college at UC Irvine I did a survey of my friends and one level of their friends. 83.34% were from Wisconsin and the other 16.66% were from Minnesota. I believe they all stayed in California. 2) Back in the day when the LA Rams played Green Bay there were no Rams fans in Anaheim Stadium. It was 100% filled with Cheeseheads. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky       Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:22:43 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:50:28 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote: >JD wrote: >> ...There are a lot of cheesehead refugees in SoCal. > >Why? Good question. Why trade lakes and green scenery for smog, Hollywood, and freeways?   Date: 14 Aug 2007 13:23:21 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 8, 11:49 am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >>>> JD wrote: > >>>>> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > >>> "Michael Warner" <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>> Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" > >> G.T. wrote: > >>> Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > >> OK, then how do we know who's fastest? > >> c'mon, 'racing' in all its forms is very human. Bikes, cash, SAT scores, > >> poker, whatever. > Doug Taylor wrote: > > Again, I think we have a "failure to communicate" and a values > > conflict between amb and rbt culture. > > > Of course racing and competing is inherent in human nature. But the > > categories of faster, stronger, better, etc., have no inherent > > priority: the are merely value judgments. Either they make a > > difference to you, or they don't. > > > Our mountain biking SS rider doesn't measure his worth by comparing > > himself to the abilities of others, regardless of which side of any > > equation he may be on in terms of strength or skill (and he might > > REALLY be "faster, stronger, better"). Riding for him is not a > > competition; it is an activity to be enjoyed in itself. > > > "I ride my bike to ride my bike" - Zen proverb. > > > Furthermore, when you add to the mix that virtually ALL professional > > and world class athletic competitions are tainted, if not thoroughly > > discredited, by doping in all its myriad forms, then the value > > judgments of faster, stronger, better, lose all legitimacy and even > > relevance. > > A rider who rides to enjoy the ride for itself could care less about > > which doped rider on which dope (or not) is faster, stronger, better > > than which other doped riders (or not). > > Hence, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > > Well said. My reply was flippant, perhaps the humor didn't work well. > Yes some people find a challenge in every bit of human discourse. I'm > with you personally, I ride my bike to ride my bike. > > p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? > -- > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text - I knew you got it all. Anyone who takes a nickel out of their pocket and welds it to a broken off u-lock key as a fix definitely gets it. JD     Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:29:15 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? >>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. >>>>> "Michael Warner" <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" >>>> G.T. wrote: >>>>> Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. >>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>> OK, then how do we know who's fastest? >>>> c'mon, 'racing' in all its forms is very human. Bikes, cash, SAT scores, >>>> poker, whatever. >> Doug Taylor wrote: >>> Again, I think we have a "failure to communicate" and a values >>> conflict between amb and rbt culture. >>> Of course racing and competing is inherent in human nature. But the >>> categories of faster, stronger, better, etc., have no inherent >>> priority: the are merely value judgments. Either they make a >>> difference to you, or they don't. >>> Our mountain biking SS rider doesn't measure his worth by comparing >>> himself to the abilities of others, regardless of which side of any >>> equation he may be on in terms of strength or skill (and he might >>> REALLY be "faster, stronger, better"). Riding for him is not a >>> competition; it is an activity to be enjoyed in itself. >>> "I ride my bike to ride my bike" - Zen proverb. >>> Furthermore, when you add to the mix that virtually ALL professional >>> and world class athletic competitions are tainted, if not thoroughly >>> discredited, by doping in all its myriad forms, then the value >>> judgments of faster, stronger, better, lose all legitimacy and even >>> relevance. >>> A rider who rides to enjoy the ride for itself could care less about >>> which doped rider on which dope (or not) is faster, stronger, better >>> than which other doped riders (or not). >>> Hence, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> Well said. My reply was flippant, perhaps the humor didn't work well. >> Yes some people find a challenge in every bit of human discourse. I'm >> with you personally, I ride my bike to ride my bike. >> p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? JD wrote: > I knew you got it all. Anyone who takes a nickel out of their pocket > and welds it to a broken off u-lock key as a fix definitely gets it. Do you know her? That was a fun job! I silver brazed 4 nickels on the air cleaner cover bolts of my MG in 1975 (Brit air cleaners are on and off so often you can't reach for a wrench every time) and just kinda got into the habit. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971       Date: 14 Aug 2007 22:32:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Andrew Muzi wrote: > ... > I silver brazed 4 nickels on the air cleaner cover bolts of my MG in > 1975 (Brit air cleaners are on and off so often you can't reach for a > wrench every time) and just kinda got into the habit. My MG had a latch on the air cleaner. In addition to the filter, it also had soybeans (must have been mice climbing up the air intake hose and using the vacant space for food storage). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition" -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 14 Aug 2007 12:38:38 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 1:49 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara > > <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > >In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260...@free.teranews.com>, > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> > > wrote: > > >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it > >> just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear > >> wheel provide any real advantage? > > >Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear > >wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller > >rear wheel. I have no idea why. MaybeCarlFogel does, he used to ride > >trialsand the like. > > Dear Tim, > > Sorry, but we fooled you. > > Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10trialsriders will mistakenly insist > that their front tires are bigger. > > After all,trialsmachines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear > rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right? > > Nope. > > Look at this 2007 GasGas TXT 300cc, which has the standard 21 x 2.75 > front tire and 18 x 4.00 rear tire: > > http://i16.tinypic.com/4pl4yhk.jpg > > You can't tell the front tire from the rear with a yardstick on atrialsmachine, particularly if the rider's weight is squashing the > lightly inflated tires. > > For practical purposes, the front and rear tires are the same height. > In fact, the height of the tread blocks on a particular model of tire > has more effect on the tire height than whether it's a "21" front or > "18" rear tire. > > On the front, the narrow 21-inch rim mounts a skinny 2.75 tire. The > combination is tall enough to roll over obstacles easily, but still > light enough to steer, bounce, and pop up in tricky places. The rim is > strong enough because the leading tire takes less impact, carries less > weight, and has more suspension. > > On the rear, the wide 18-inch rim mounts a 4.00 tire, which is so > thick in cross-section that it ends up just as tall and willing to > roll over obstacles as the dainty front tire. > > The 4-inch width gives traction for the engine, the huge increase in > cross-section gives more pneumatic suspension at the same 4~6 psi > (think 700x38 versus 700x21), and the massive rim and tire withstand > ~400 pounds of rider and machine slamming into waist-high rock ledges. > > Since the rear tire steers a gentler curve than the front tire, the > enormous increase in weight doesn't hurt handling. > > That's why the original 19-inch front and rear rims were replaced. > They were fine for pavement and okay for fairly smooth off-road > riding, but too heavy and clumsy for the front and not heavy and > strong enough for the rear when riders began bouncing over fallen logs > and big rocks. > > Cheers, > > CarlFogel An email asked whether non-trials motorcycles also have tires with different size rims, but the same effective tire height. Non-trials motorcycles are a dark and bloody mystery to me, since I can't see what purpose they serve, but I grabbed the first picture of a motocrosser that I saw on the Honda site and popped it into my etch- a-sketch--er, sophisticated computer paint program: http://i11.tinypic.com/67sni44.jpg The rims turn out to be 19" and 21": http://powersports.honda.com/motorcycles/motocross/model.asp?ModelName=CRF450R&ModelYear=2007&ModelId=CRF450R7 You could argue that the front tire here is a tiny bit taller, but that may be due to the picture angle, tire inflation, or my etch-a- sketch skills. It's certainly not 2 inches taller. Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 10 Aug 2007 14:24:04 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 10, 11:01 am, "Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition =AE" <b...@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message > > news:1186352336.452197.169730@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 2:29 pm, "GeeDubb" <geed...@qwest.net> wrote: > >> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in mess= age > > >>news:1186332093.567732.76580@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Aug 5, 9:59 am, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle > > >> >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> >> > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try > >> >> > driving > >> >> > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. A= ll > >> >> > day, or as long as ya can stand it. > > >> >> Put the banjo down and go ride your bike. > > >> >> JD > > >> > Anything you say, asshole. > > >> Nice come back. You must have put a lot of thought into it. > > > Please do excuse my reluctance to cast pearls before swine. > > This is the perils of replying to a cross-possting. You just woke up one= of > the self-righteous kiddies of alt.mountain-biking soapbox. Yeah, "this is". What a dumbass. Go ride your bike, you pontificating dickhead. JD   Date: 09 Aug 2007 07:37:55 From: Scott Gordo Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 8, 4:25 pm, "Kerry Montgomery" <kamon...@teleport.com > wrote: > "Scott Gordo" <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1186603686.362300.74680@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Aug 6, 8:06 am, Corvus Corvax <corvuscor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > >> <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: > > >> > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > >> To think I missed this flamewar! > > >>http://www.dirtragmag.com/web/article.php?ID=437&category=web_only > > >> Ride what you want. Life is good. > > >> CC > > > It's like the yule log. Looks hot, no heat, and I've got my feel up on > > the ottoman. > > Scott, > And one should take a feel up wherever one can get it! > Kerry > > > > > "he got a gallon of > > gas in a can, drove home, doused > > everything in the house, torched it > > parked across the street laughing > > watching it burn, all Halloween > > orange and chimney red > > then Frank put on a top forty station > > got on the Hollywood Freeway > > headed north > > Never could stand that dog" > > > /s- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How Freudian of me! /s "Anatomy is density."   Date: 08 Aug 2007 13:08:06 From: Scott Gordo Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 8:06 am, Corvus Corvax <corvuscor...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: > > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > To think I missed this flamewar! > > http://www.dirtragmag.com/web/article.php?ID=437&category=web_only > > Ride what you want. Life is good. > > CC It's like the yule log. Looks hot, no heat, and I've got my feel up on the ottoman. "he got a gallon of gas in a can, drove home, doused everything in the house, torched it parked across the street laughing watching it burn, all Halloween orange and chimney red then Frank put on a top forty station got on the Hollywood Freeway headed north Never could stand that dog" /s     Date: 08 Aug 2007 13:25:23 From: Kerry Montgomery Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Scott Gordo" <blubberpuss@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1186603686.362300.74680@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 6, 8:06 am, Corvus Corvax <corvuscor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >> >> <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: >> >> > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? >> >> To think I missed this flamewar! >> >> http://www.dirtragmag.com/web/article.php?ID=437&category=web_only >> >> Ride what you want. Life is good. >> >> CC > > It's like the yule log. Looks hot, no heat, and I've got my feel up on > the ottoman. > Scott, And one should take a feel up wherever one can get it! Kerry > "he got a gallon of > gas in a can, drove home, doused > everything in the house, torched it > parked across the street laughing > watching it burn, all Halloween > orange and chimney red > then Frank put on a top forty station > got on the Hollywood Freeway > headed north > Never could stand that dog" > > /s >   Date: 08 Aug 2007 14:48:01 From: Marz Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 7, 8:25 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote: > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:26:19 -0000, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >I love this BS you get from people who claim riding a fully rigid > >single speed mtb and 'actually picking a line' somehow makes you a > >better rider over all. > > Are you responding to ME? HELLO! > Sort of, I may have extrapolated a 'better' from your phase 'actually picking a line' and I guess I was really ranting off at alot of general comments you see, all over the web and mags, about how riding a ss and/or rigid can make you a better rider. My shrink says I'm doing much better these days with my anger mangement. I'm looking forward to our next session once the miserable f&(k gets out of hospital. :)     Date: 08 Aug 2007 11:12:38 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:48:01 -0000, Marz <marzjennings@gmail.com > wrote: >My shrink says I'm doing much better these days with my anger >mangement. I'm looking forward to our next session once the miserable >f&(k gets out of hospital. :) While we're on the subject of competition, your anger management issues don't hold a candle to mine. I actually take medication to keep me flying off the handle. 2004: Dr. to me: "You're going to stroke out if you don't calm down. I know you're not depressed, but his lexapro will help your anger issues." 2007: Me to Dr.: "I've had no road rage in 3 years, but found out that my 20 pound weight gain over this period and gut hanging over my belt, despite all the riding, skiing and skating I do, is because of the friggin lexapro. And that PISSES ME OFF!" Ya can't win. Which is why the anonymity of usenet is a great release. Flame away and hope that some true whack job (and there are more than a few) doesn't track you down in real time and blow away your family...       Date: 08 Aug 2007 19:23:15 From: Clive George Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message news:gtmjb3luh2gnrbdjhnopovc7hohc78bnlc@4ax.com... > While we're on the subject of competition, your anger management > issues don't hold a candle to mine. I actually take medication to > keep me flying off the handle. And I always thought the SS scene was all laid back and relaxed n'all :-) cheers, clive   Date: 07 Aug 2007 14:17:16 From: Mamba Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote in message news:46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > provide any real advantage? Can't say, but they'd be a bitch on a steep climb...     Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:44:07 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Mamba ? wrote: > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote in > message news:46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >> >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a >> demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel >> provide any real advantage? > > Can't say, but they'd be a bitch on a steep climb... Why? It is not like shoving two different size wheels into a frame designed for same size wheels, which would likely result in bad weight distribution and weird handling. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 21 Aug 2007 18:48:30 From: G Wood Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message news:46b8f7ac$0$16334$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > Mamba ? wrote: > > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote in > > message news:46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > >> > >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > >> demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > >> provide any real advantage? > > > ><TongueInCheek> Can't say, but they'd be a bitch on a steep climb... </TongueInCheek > > > Why? It is not like shoving two different size wheels into a frame > designed for same size wheels, which would likely result in bad weight > distribution and weird handling. > Next time I'll be more explicit with my tags.   Date: 07 Aug 2007 13:36:19 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 7, 1:44 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com > wrote: > I think you're purposely ignoring the point that if you start with a > smoother line, unless it's way out of the way, you're going to go faster and > smoother when on your FS. The smoothest line isn't always the fastest line. But it's AALLLLWAAAAYYYYS the smoothest. Robert     Date: 10 Aug 2007 04:43:24 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 7, 1:44 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> I think you're purposely ignoring the point that if you start with a >> smoother line, unless it's way out of the way, you're going to go faster and >> smoother when on your FS. > > The smoothest line isn't always the fastest line. > > But it's AALLLLWAAAAYYYYS the smoothest. > > Robert > > > The trail is only as smooth as the rider makes it!     Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:32:28 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? r15757@aol.com aka Robert who? wrote: > On Aug 7, 1:44 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> I think you're purposely ignoring the point that if you start with a >> smoother line, unless it's way out of the way, you're going to go faster and >> smoother when on your FS. > > The smoothest line isn't always the fastest line. > > But it's AALLLLWAAAAYYYYS the smoothest. We have discovered the truism! ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 07 Aug 2007 19:12:29 From: Marz Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 7, 1:36 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com > wrote: > Marz wrote: > > On Aug 7, 11:39 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > >> So? That smoother and faster line at 12mph will still be smoother and > >> faster at 20 mph. Why beat your bike and body unnecessarily? > > > So you saying that for any given section of trail you can hit it as > > hard and fast riding rigid as FS, more BS. > > No, I'm not saying that at all. If one has learned to pick lines on a > rigid bike he will continue to pick those lines on the FS resulting in > more comfort and less beating of their bike at greater speeds where a > beginner on an FS will pick lines that are only as comfortable as necessary. Yes that's the point of riding FS (for me), to take lines that are as comfortable as necessary to allow a faster transition through a section of trail. I don't have to restrict how I ride a section of trail due to the limitations of a rigid bike. But then it's all back to how different folks get pleasure out of mtbing and what sort of bike they choose to compliment their style of riding. When I've been out on group rides I find it great to see how different riders take different lines through certain sections of the trail based on their own skill levels, type of bike, riding style and objectives. Even in racing you don't ever just follow the guy in front, you look for a line that'll get you past 'em. > > Ooooh, your dick is 19% bigger than mine! As an adult I've only been > riding off-road bicycles for 21 years. Unless you count the rigid > minibike I started on 41 years ago at 3 years old then in that case my > dick is way bigger than yours. That's not a bigger dick that's just saggier balls.     Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:44:03 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Marz" <marzjennings@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1186513949.727271.159170@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 7, 1:36 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> Marz wrote: >> > On Aug 7, 11:39 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> >> So? That smoother and faster line at 12mph will still be smoother and >> >> faster at 20 mph. Why beat your bike and body unnecessarily? >> >> > So you saying that for any given section of trail you can hit it as >> > hard and fast riding rigid as FS, more BS. >> >> No, I'm not saying that at all. If one has learned to pick lines on a >> rigid bike he will continue to pick those lines on the FS resulting in >> more comfort and less beating of their bike at greater speeds where a >> beginner on an FS will pick lines that are only as comfortable as >> necessary. > > Yes that's the point of riding FS (for me), to take lines that are as > comfortable as necessary to allow a faster transition through a > section of trail. I don't have to restrict how I ride a section of > trail due to the limitations of a rigid bike. I think you're purposely ignoring the point that if you start with a smoother line, unless it's way out of the way, you're going to go faster and smoother when on your FS. > But then it's all back > to how different folks get pleasure out of mtbing and what sort of > bike they choose to compliment their style of riding. When I've been > out on group rides I find it great to see how different riders take > different lines through certain sections of the trail based on their > own skill levels, type of bike, riding style and objectives. Yep, for me the most interesting is seeing the different lines by riding style given the same skill level and type of bike. It sometimes blows me away when someone on the same type of bike as me and at the same skill level takes a line I wouldn't have even noticed. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org "Ya gotta stop riding the brakes, ya gotta stop robbing the cradle" - Chris D   Date: 07 Aug 2007 17:14:07 From: Marz Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 7, 11:39 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com > wrote: > Marz wrote: > > On Aug 6, 10:34 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote: > >> For those who haven't tried flying around single track on a light, > >> stiff bike, climbing while standing, actually picking a line, then > >> what can I say? > > > I love this BS you get from people who claim riding a fully rigid > > single speed mtb and 'actually picking a line' somehow makes you a > > better rider over all. > > I love this BS you get from people who think they can learn to ride > properly on an FS without ever needing to learn how to pick a line. Please define 'to ride properly'. If someone starts out riding a FS and becomes quite skilled at riding a FS are they not riding that bike 'properly'. Why should they need to ride rigid if they're never going to ride a rigid bike. You don't think you need to pick lines while riding a FS? > > > F*(king crap, it makes you better rider on a > > fully rigid single speed mtb and that's it. The lines you take riding > > rigid could be completely different to the lines you can take riding a > > full sus and I'm not even saying faster just different. Ahh, but they > > say there's greater skill required to navigate a rigid bike through > > rough terrain as opposed to just riding over it with a full sus, more > > BS. It's just as hard to spot a take off and landing zone over a rock > > garden at 20mph as it is to pick the smoothest and faster line through > > the same rock garden at 12mph. > > So? That smoother and faster line at 12mph will still be smoother and > faster at 20 mph. Why beat your bike and body unnecessarily? > So you saying that for any given section of trail you can hit it as hard and fast riding rigid as FS, more BS. And it's riding a rigid bike that's going to beat your bike and body up, not riding a FS. > Frickin' cushy FS apologists crack me up. I was sayin' that different bikes suit different riding styles and for the way I like to ride, a rigid would be useless and a SS not as much fun. Maybe I'm negating my 25 years of off roading, going from fully rigid, to hardtail, to FS, but I can't put my finger on any attribute of my riding today that came from riding a rigid bike. In fact I can think of a couple of things I had to unlearn to ride FS, like standing while climbing over rough terrain. Riding a SS track bike did help in developing my sprinting and a high cadence which I now maximise through the use of gears. SS rigid bikes are niche not hardcore, better or faster than other mountain bikes.     Date: 07 Aug 2007 11:36:06 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Marz wrote: > On Aug 7, 11:39 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> So? That smoother and faster line at 12mph will still be smoother and >> faster at 20 mph. Why beat your bike and body unnecessarily? >> > > So you saying that for any given section of trail you can hit it as > hard and fast riding rigid as FS, more BS. No, I'm not saying that at all. If one has learned to pick lines on a rigid bike he will continue to pick those lines on the FS resulting in more comfort and less beating of their bike at greater speeds where a beginner on an FS will pick lines that are only as comfortable as necessary. > > And it's riding a rigid bike that's going to beat your bike and body > up, not riding a FS. No chit. > >> Frickin' cushy FS apologists crack me up. > > I was sayin' that different bikes suit different riding styles and for > the way I like to ride, a rigid would be useless and a SS not as much > fun. Maybe I'm negating my 25 years of off roading, Ooooh, your dick is 19% bigger than mine! As an adult I've only been riding off-road bicycles for 21 years. Unless you count the rigid minibike I started on 41 years ago at 3 years old then in that case my dick is way bigger than yours. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky   Date: 07 Aug 2007 10:12:07 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 7, 10:26 am, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com > wrote: > It's just as hard to spot a take off and landing zone over a rock > garden at 20mph as it is to pick the smoothest and faster line through > the same rock garden at 12mph. It's true that suspension allows for more extreme, faster riding. But I don't see very many FS riders launching over rock gardens, outside of downhill races. I see them banging through clumsily, hitting just about everything, and bailed out by their shocks. If you learn to ride that stuff on a rigid you'll be a lot faster and smoother than those who learned to ride with suspension. Robert   Date: 07 Aug 2007 16:26:19 From: Marz Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 10:34 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote: > For those who haven't tried flying around single track on a light, > stiff bike, climbing while standing, actually picking a line, then > what can I say? I love this BS you get from people who claim riding a fully rigid single speed mtb and 'actually picking a line' somehow makes you a better rider over all. F*(king crap, it makes you better rider on a fully rigid single speed mtb and that's it. The lines you take riding rigid could be completely different to the lines you can take riding a full sus and I'm not even saying faster just different. Ahh, but they say there's greater skill required to navigate a rigid bike through rough terrain as opposed to just riding over it with a full sus, more BS. It's just as hard to spot a take off and landing zone over a rock garden at 20mph as it is to pick the smoothest and faster line through the same rock garden at 12mph. Neither single speeds or 29ers are fads, they're niches. They're bikes that suit different folks, different riding styles. I test rode a rigid single speed a few months bike and thought, yep that's what I used to ride twenty years ago and it sucked then too. I also test rode a 29er hardtail with gears and was quite impressed, I might have to add one of those to the stable.     Date: 07 Aug 2007 21:25:13 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:26:19 -0000, Marz <marzjennings@gmail.com > wrote: > >I love this BS you get from people who claim riding a fully rigid >single speed mtb and 'actually picking a line' somehow makes you a >better rider over all. Are you responding to ME? HELLO! Find where I used the word "better." Do you suck so bad that you perceive slights and threats in everything you read? Talk to your shrink, but leave me out of it. I was contrasting riding my rigid SS to my Dualie, and I commented that the SS has the benefit of being 6 or 7 lbs. lighter than the lightest dualie (and at least 10 lbs lighter than the average trail bike), and requires that you pick a line and stand while you climb. "Better?" Maybe, or arguably. Different? Absolutely. And obviously. In that respect, your comment about niche is correct. SS is a niche. As is x-c / racing. And trail riding. And free riding. And downhill. And trials. And stunts. And cyclocross. Etc. Whatever floats your boat. Allow me to correct the Dylan quote: "... don't criticize what you can't understand." "Don't" implies the ability to overcome your deficiency. "Can't" means you're hopeless.     Date: 07 Aug 2007 09:39:19 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Marz wrote: > On Aug 6, 10:34 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote: >> For those who haven't tried flying around single track on a light, >> stiff bike, climbing while standing, actually picking a line, then >> what can I say? > > > I love this BS you get from people who claim riding a fully rigid > single speed mtb and 'actually picking a line' somehow makes you a > better rider over all. I love this BS you get from people who think they can learn to ride properly on an FS without ever needing to learn how to pick a line. > F*(king crap, it makes you better rider on a > fully rigid single speed mtb and that's it. The lines you take riding > rigid could be completely different to the lines you can take riding a > full sus and I'm not even saying faster just different. Ahh, but they > say there's greater skill required to navigate a rigid bike through > rough terrain as opposed to just riding over it with a full sus, more > BS. It's just as hard to spot a take off and landing zone over a rock > garden at 20mph as it is to pick the smoothest and faster line through > the same rock garden at 12mph. So? That smoother and faster line at 12mph will still be smoother and faster at 20 mph. Why beat your bike and body unnecessarily? Frickin' cushy FS apologists crack me up. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky   Date: 07 Aug 2007 07:51:55 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 7, 7:41 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:41:17 +0930, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> > wrote: > > >On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:07:06 -0700, JD wrote: > > >> Sounds like you ride with punks and poseurs. > > >No, I ride with A and B-grade vet racers on their training rides, which > >they say are often tougher than their races. > > >You sound like an idiot, and a fairly slow one. > > Actually, he's a SS riding mountain biker from amb caught in a > cross-posting cultural war with roadies from rbt and rbm. No, just decrying all of the assholes who think that racing and racers are the be all to end all in bicycling. Fuck them and the EPO drugged horses they rode in on. JD     Date: 07 Aug 2007 10:58:14 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <1186498315.267900.132280@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net > wrote: > On Aug 7, 7:41 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:41:17 +0930, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > >> wrote: >> >On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:07:06 -0700, JD wrote: >> >> Sounds like you ride with punks and poseurs. >> >> >No, I ride with A and B-grade vet racers on their training rides, which >> >they say are often tougher than their races. >> >> >You sound like an idiot, and a fairly slow one. >> >> Actually, he's a SS riding mountain biker from amb caught in a >> cross-posting cultural war with roadies from rbt and rbm. > > No, just decrying all of the assholes who think that racing and racers > are the be all to end all in bicycling. Fuck them and the EPO drugged > horses they rode in on. I think mountain bikers are ready for the big time. Ought to petition to create rec.bicycles.attitude. -- Michael Press The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter. -- Samuel Spade     Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:21:51 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:51:55 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net > wrote: >> Actually, he's a SS riding mountain biker from amb caught in a >> cross-posting cultural war with roadies from rbt and rbm. > > >No, just decrying all of the assholes who think that racing and racers >are the be all to end all in bicycling. Fuck them and the EPO drugged >horses they rode in on. Well, in that case definitely do NOT cross post to rbr. P.S. I'm buying for my SS on e-bay: used sus. fork with disc tabs, used Avid BB7 front disc brake, and used disc compatible front wheel. I'm too old for rigid anymore and am too used to disc brakes to risk hitting trees using v-brakes. Do I lose poseur points?   Date: 07 Aug 2007 07:50:10 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 7, 7:11 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:07:06 -0700, JD wrote: > > Sounds like you ride with punks and poseurs. > > No, I ride with A and B-grade vet racers on their training rides, which > they say are often tougher than their races. > > You sound like an idiot, and a fairly slow one. Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. Now go fuck yourself. JD     Date: 22 Oct 2007 00:33:51 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <0e71c3tvvsf0dlmgfhqktp9ii7pogf59s9@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net writes: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:57:54 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >>In article <bkrmb3lp3mubr8lmuhuvn2vbdt6jf7vsma@4ax.com>, >> carlfogel@comcast.net writes: >> >>> Koans are not quite the same as aphorisms . . . >> >>Actually, they are. >> >>Old saws 'n chestnuts are not the same as koans. >> >>Well, they are, too. After all, it's not about >>the nail -- it's about the hammer. Or the hand >>that swings the hammer. Or the mind that decides >>to swing the hammer. Or the superlative being that >>decides that an hammer should be swung. Or the >>Parvardegar that says: "Yeah, sure. Swing the hammer >>if ya wanna. I dreamt that it would happen, anyway. And >>what are dreams to me, are reality to you, and what you >>believe to be real is mere, ethereal daydreaming to me: >>I daydreamed you up. Knock yerselves out. Try not to >>hurt each other, but rather try to help each other, and >>co-exist in mutual love and respect. You're going to do >>that anyways, 'cuz that's how I invented you in my daydreams. >>So feel good, and don't hurt anybody. Love your fellows." >> >>The Almighty might even be able to put up with you on a >>personal level, if you don't bug him too much. Just remember, >>he's already got a lot on his plate, what with making the >>entire universe work, and we're not particularly special. >> >>Well, we all are special, but we're not allowed to wield >>it against each other. By helping each other, we're >>helping the Cosmic Him/Her/It. >> >>Screw koans. Screw aphorisms. Screw ego. Screw my ego. >>Screw your ego. Screw everybody's ego. >> >> >>cheers, >> Tom > > Dear Tom, > > A Zen student asked his master whether koans were aphorisms. > > The master told him to shoplift the second volume of the condensed > Oxford English Dictionary from WalMart. Everbody knows the /Cambridge/ Dictionary is the one, true lexicon. In fact, Cambridge is the one, true seat of learning. Well, that, and the place where the Teletubbies hang around in. And Pender Harbour (... mmm ... clam chowder & a puffy bannock.) And a certain spot northeast of Mission BC, up Sylvester Road, adjacent to Cascade (McConnell) Creek. The Parvardargar, like you & me, doesn't like stupid useless razmatazz. He/She/It especially doesn't like beings subjecting other beings to razmatazz. And that's what's fscking this whole world up -- people subjecting other people to razmatazz. And then responding with counter-razmatazz. The whole world is filled up and replete with razmatazz. What a bunch of idiots we are. "What fools these mortals be." Go steal a library book, indeed! A /reference/ book, at that. Y'know what? Imo Philips once discussed that very topic, and he handled it much more adroitly than any Zen Bhuddist. Of course the Parvardargar would be unhappy with his approach, too. Why are we so self-destructive? Why should we /be/ so self-destructive? Oh, well. It'll all come out in t' wash. It always does. That Zen master needs his handlebar-mounted mirror knocked out of adjustment. cheers, Tom -- I'm really at tkeats@vcn.bc.ca You're nice people. I'm glad you're here. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 22 Oct 2007 15:46:00 From: smn Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? That Zen master needs his handlebar-mounted mirror > knocked out of adjustment. cheers, Tom If that is so then this might be just right for us http://store.bicyclerevolution.com/zinartofmobi.html     Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:17:01 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:50:10 -0700, JD wrote: > Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" :-)       Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:10:48 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message news:vmmhgjooaxh1.agh67shurm5d.dlg@40tude.net... > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:50:10 -0700, JD wrote: > >> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > > Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" > Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. :-) Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org "Ya gotta stop riding the brakes, ya gotta stop robbing the cradle" - Chris D         Date: 07 Aug 2007 22:52:45 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? >> JD wrote: >>> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > "Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote: >> Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" G.T. wrote: > Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. OK, then how do we know who's fastest? c'mon, 'racing' in all its forms is very human. Bikes, cash, SAT scores, poker, whatever. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971           Date: 08 Aug 2007 09:31:44 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:52:45 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: >>> JD wrote: >>>> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > >> "Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" > >G.T. wrote: >> Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > >OK, then how do we know who's fastest? >c'mon, 'racing' in all its forms is very human. Bikes, cash, SAT scores, >poker, whatever. Again, I think we have a "failure to communicate" and a values conflict between amb and rbt culture. Of course racing and competing is inherent in human nature. But the categories of faster, stronger, better, etc., have no inherent priority: the are merely value judgments. Either they make a difference to you, or they don't. Our mountain biking SS rider doesn't measure his worth by comparing himself to the abilities of others, regardless of which side of any equation he may be on in terms of strength or skill (and he might REALLY be "faster, stronger, better"). Riding for him is not a competition; it is an activity to be enjoyed in itself. "I ride my bike to ride my bike" - Zen proverb. Furthermore, when you add to the mix that virtually ALL professional and world class athletic competitions are tainted, if not thoroughly discredited, by doping in all its myriad forms, then the value judgments of faster, stronger, better, lose all legitimacy and even relevance. A rider who rides to enjoy the ride for itself could care less about which doped rider on which dope (or not) is faster, stronger, better than which other doped riders (or not). Hence, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT.             Date: 08 Aug 2007 13:49:41 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? >>>> JD wrote: >>>>> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. >>> "Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" >> G.T. wrote: >>> Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> OK, then how do we know who's fastest? >> c'mon, 'racing' in all its forms is very human. Bikes, cash, SAT scores, >> poker, whatever. Doug Taylor wrote: > Again, I think we have a "failure to communicate" and a values > conflict between amb and rbt culture. > > Of course racing and competing is inherent in human nature. But the > categories of faster, stronger, better, etc., have no inherent > priority: the are merely value judgments. Either they make a > difference to you, or they don't. > > Our mountain biking SS rider doesn't measure his worth by comparing > himself to the abilities of others, regardless of which side of any > equation he may be on in terms of strength or skill (and he might > REALLY be "faster, stronger, better"). Riding for him is not a > competition; it is an activity to be enjoyed in itself. > > "I ride my bike to ride my bike" - Zen proverb. > > Furthermore, when you add to the mix that virtually ALL professional > and world class athletic competitions are tainted, if not thoroughly > discredited, by doping in all its myriad forms, then the value > judgments of faster, stronger, better, lose all legitimacy and even > relevance. > A rider who rides to enjoy the ride for itself could care less about > which doped rider on which dope (or not) is faster, stronger, better > than which other doped riders (or not). > Hence, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. Well said. My reply was flippant, perhaps the humor didn't work well. Yes some people find a challenge in every bit of human discourse. I'm with you personally, I ride my bike to ride my bike. p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971               Date: 09 Aug 2007 07:59:34 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:49:41 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: >p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? Who knows? :-) I like this version: [quote] And this one shows up on the internet as a "Zen Proverb." God knows where it really comes from, but even anonymous it's a good one: A Zen teacher saw five of his students returning from the market, riding their bicycles. When they arrived at the monastery and had dismounted, the teacher asked the students, "Why are you riding your bicycles?" The first student replied, "The bicycle is carrying the sack of potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry them on my back!" The teacher praised the first student, "You are a smart boy! When you grow old, you will not walk hunched over like I do." The second student replied, "I love to watch the trees and fields pass by as I roll down the path!" The teacher commended the second student, "Your eyes are open, and you see the world." The third student replied, "When I ride my bicycle, I am content to chant nam myoho renge kyo." The teacher gave praise to the third student, "Your mind will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel." The fourth student replied, "Riding my bicycle, I live in harmony with all sentient beings." The teacher was pleased, and said to the fourth student, "You are riding on the golden path of non-harming." The fifth student replied, "I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle." The teacher sat at the feet of the fifth student and said, "Ahh.... I am your student!" [/quote] http://tucorides.blogspot.com/2006/06/cycling-quotes.html                 Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:55:24 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <480mb39lcqfinmpm742srjtmo5tdlbnni2@4ax.com >, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote: > On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:49:41 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> > wrote: > > >p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? > > Who knows? :-) > > I like this version: > > [quote] And this one shows up on the internet as a "Zen Proverb." God > knows where it really comes from, but even anonymous it's a good one: > > A Zen teacher saw five of his students returning from the market, > riding their bicycles. When they arrived at the monastery and had > dismounted, the teacher asked the students, "Why are you riding your > bicycles?" > The first student replied, "The bicycle is carrying the sack of > potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry them on my back!" The > teacher praised the first student, "You are a smart boy! When you grow > old, you will not walk hunched over like I do." > The second student replied, "I love to watch the trees and fields pass > by as I roll down the path!" The teacher commended the second student, > "Your eyes are open, and you see the world." > The third student replied, "When I ride my bicycle, I am content to > chant nam myoho renge kyo." The teacher gave praise to the third > student, "Your mind will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel." > The fourth student replied, "Riding my bicycle, I live in harmony with > all sentient beings." The teacher was pleased, and said to the fourth > student, "You are riding on the golden path of non-harming." > The fifth student replied, "I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle." The > teacher sat at the feet of the fifth student and said, "Ahh.... I am > your student!" [/quote] > > http://tucorides.blogspot.com/2006/06/cycling-quotes.html In any respectable monastery that fifth `student' gets one upside the head. Po faced toad eater. -- Michael Press                 Date: 09 Aug 2007 10:51:11 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:59:34 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote: >On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:49:41 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> >wrote: > >>p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? > >Who knows? :-) > >I like this version: > >[quote] And this one shows up on the internet as a "Zen Proverb." God >knows where it really comes from, but even anonymous it's a good one: > >A Zen teacher saw five of his students returning from the market, >riding their bicycles. When they arrived at the monastery and had >dismounted, the teacher asked the students, "Why are you riding your >bicycles?" >The first student replied, "The bicycle is carrying the sack of >potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry them on my back!" The >teacher praised the first student, "You are a smart boy! When you grow >old, you will not walk hunched over like I do." >The second student replied, "I love to watch the trees and fields pass >by as I roll down the path!" The teacher commended the second student, >"Your eyes are open, and you see the world." >The third student replied, "When I ride my bicycle, I am content to >chant nam myoho renge kyo." The teacher gave praise to the third >student, "Your mind will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel." >The fourth student replied, "Riding my bicycle, I live in harmony with >all sentient beings." The teacher was pleased, and said to the fourth >student, "You are riding on the golden path of non-harming." >The fifth student replied, "I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle." The >teacher sat at the feet of the fifth student and said, "Ahh.... I am >your student!" [/quote] > >http://tucorides.blogspot.com/2006/06/cycling-quotes.html Dear Doug, A sixth student, often omitted from the parable because the Zen teacher plonked him, replied, "I ride my bike because it allows me to boast of my prowess, insist that racing means nothing, and call other posters punks and poseurs." Cheers, Carl Fogel                   Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:54:29 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:51:11 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >Dear Doug, > >A sixth student, often omitted from the parable because the Zen >teacher plonked him, replied, "I ride my bike because it allows me to >boast of my prowess, insist that racing means nothing, and call other >posters punks and poseurs." Dear Carl: As a (self appointed) Zen master and Guru, I have my own aphorisms: "The quality of the performance is inversely proportional to the quantity of its self-promotion." "A roadie who doesn't also ride off-road has no soul. An off-roadie who doesn't also ride on the road has no legs." I'm sure you must have a few of your own. I'm all ears.                     Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:45:03 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:54:29 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote: >On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:51:11 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >>Dear Doug, >> >>A sixth student, often omitted from the parable because the Zen >>teacher plonked him, replied, "I ride my bike because it allows me to >>boast of my prowess, insist that racing means nothing, and call other >>posters punks and poseurs." > >Dear Carl: > >As a (self appointed) Zen master and Guru, I have my own aphorisms: > >"The quality of the performance is inversely proportional to the >quantity of its self-promotion." > >"A roadie who doesn't also ride off-road has no soul. An off-roadie >who doesn't also ride on the road has no legs." > >I'm sure you must have a few of your own. I'm all ears. Dear Doug, Koans are not quite the same as aphorisms . . . http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/cgi-bin/koan-index.pl *** Here are a few from "The Clipless Pedal," the bicycle-oriented sequel to "The Gateless Gate." *** "Master," asked a particularly annoying student, "what sound do you make when you unclip from a clipless pedal?" "It's like a threadless headset creaking, only louder," the Zen master explained, giving the student a broken link to a YouTube video with no sound. *** A Zen student too poor to afford a bicycle pump complained to Joshu that he had found a goathead sticking out of the side of his still-inflated rear tire. "You have wasted the goathead's other thorn," said Joshu, who had either skipped his medication that morning or else needed to increase the dosage. The student sold his bicycle, used the money to buy a unicycle, and became famous on RBT for his posts about chain wear. *** A Zen student whose feet were a source of sorrow asked his master what could be done to alleviate his suffering. The master examined the student's cleats carefully. Then he glued them to the student's helmet and said, "This will help you up hills." The master had not been amused by comments about "fatty masters" and did not want to encourage the student to complain about numb hands, back pain, or uncomfortable seats. *** Two Zen masters were sitting next to their bicycles on opposite sides of a road in the rain. "Is that a broken spoke?" the first master asked the other. "You are welcome to use my spare spoke." Being unwary, the second master accepted the generous offer, but found that the spoke was of no value to him. "This is a straight-pull spoke that will not fit my wheel," the second master said, gritting his teeth. "I had forgotten that," lied the first Zen master. "I always carry a spare, even though they never fail." "Thank you anyway," the other master replied, handing the useless spoke back and muttering something about the other master's mother under his breath. "Would you care to borrow my needle to repair your tubular?" The first Zen master was so surprised by this kind response to his wicked behavior that he gladly accepted the needle. After he unsewed his tubular, he was even more surprised to find that there was no thread, no patches, and no glue to go with the needle. "What good is a needle without thread?" he asked the second Zen master. "You can poke more holes in your tubular with it," the second Zen master told him and began pushing his bike down the muddy road. *** Cheers, Carl Fogel                       Date: 09 Aug 2007 21:59:34 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: <Something in eply to someone else > But you're all wrong, anyway. There is only one reason to ride a bike, and that is to feel the wheels going round. It doesn't matter whether you are blasting down the road, rolling over rock gardens or playing in the backyard on a toy your kids want to sell at the next yard-sale - it is all about the wheels going round. Period.           Date: 07 Aug 2007 21:00:34 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? A Muzi wrote: >>> JD wrote: >>>> Get this dickhead, RACING DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > >> "Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Translation: "I WOULD GET DROPPED IN UNDER A MINUTE" > > G.T. wrote: >> Even if that were the case RACING STILL DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. > > OK, then how do we know who's fastest? > c'mon, 'racing' in all its forms is very human. Bikes, cash, SAT scores, > poker, whatever. I ride my bike to ride, I use cash to supply myself with things on which I survive, I play poker because gambling is fun and sometimes I make money at it, the only thing on your list that I view as necessarily competitive are SAT scores. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky   Date: 07 Aug 2007 07:47:03 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 7:35 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > >On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle > ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > > >> > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > > >> > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > >> > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > >> > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > > >> > > i pass at least 5 fixies > >> > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > >> > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > >> > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > >> > > up those hills. > > >> > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > >> > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > >> > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > >> > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > >> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > > >If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > > >JD > > Dear JD, > > Are the single-speed riders in these pictures punks or poseurs? Their > successors were much, much faster with derailleurs. > > They include Lapize, Albini, Thys, Cristophe, Scieur, Buysse, and > others, early giants of bicycling who couldn't even ride their > single-speeds all the way up the Tour de France passes, much less keep > up with contemporary riders who climbed the same passes with > derailleurs. > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-si-c... > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-lead... > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913--Des... > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-6%b0... > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-Thys... > > You can enjoy the details in context here: > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/tdfhistory1910.html > > *** > > "Before derailleurs, even the great ones would have to walk their > bikes. Here Scieur walks his bike up the Galibier in stage 11." > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1921-11th-... > > *** > > "Buysse in Hell. Here he pushes his bike up the Tourmalet." > > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1926-Buyss... > > After the Tour de France allowed derailleurs, single-speeds vanished, > and so did pictures of the peloton pushing on foot up the passes. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Get a life, fool. Racing doesn't mean SHIT. JD     Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:34:55 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JD wrote: > On Aug 6, 7:35 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >>>> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >>>>> On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >>>>>> personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >>>>>> a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >>>>> We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >>>>>> i pass at least 5 fixies >>>>>> a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >>>>>> happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >>>>>> sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >>>>>> up those hills. >>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>> JD >> Dear JD, >> >> Are the single-speed riders in these pictures punks or poseurs? Their >> successors were much, much faster with derailleurs. >> >> They include Lapize, Albini, Thys, Cristophe, Scieur, Buysse, and >> others, early giants of bicycling who couldn't even ride their >> single-speeds all the way up the Tour de France passes, much less keep >> up with contemporary riders who climbed the same passes with >> derailleurs. >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-si-c... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-lead... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913--Des... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-6%b0... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-Thys... >> >> You can enjoy the details in context here: >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/tdfhistory1910.html >> >> *** >> >> "Before derailleurs, even the great ones would have to walk their >> bikes. Here Scieur walks his bike up the Galibier in stage 11." >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1921-11th-... >> >> *** >> >> "Buysse in Hell. Here he pushes his bike up the Tourmalet." >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1926-Buyss... >> >> After the Tour de France allowed derailleurs, single-speeds vanished, >> and so did pictures of the peloton pushing on foot up the passes. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > > > Get a life, fool. Racing doesn't mean SHIT. Generally, the racers in the TdF only urinate during the race, so JD has a point. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:08:41 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:47:03 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net > wrote: >On Aug 6, 7:35 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >> >On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle >> ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> >> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >> >> >> > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >> >> > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >> >> >> > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >> >> >> > > i pass at least 5 fixies >> >> > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >> >> > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >> >> > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >> >> > > up those hills. >> >> >> > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >> >> > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >> >> > loaded with punks and poseurs. >> >> >> > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >> >> >> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >> >> >If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >> >> >JD >> >> Dear JD, >> >> Are the single-speed riders in these pictures punks or poseurs? Their >> successors were much, much faster with derailleurs. >> >> They include Lapize, Albini, Thys, Cristophe, Scieur, Buysse, and >> others, early giants of bicycling who couldn't even ride their >> single-speeds all the way up the Tour de France passes, much less keep >> up with contemporary riders who climbed the same passes with >> derailleurs. >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lap... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-si-c... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-lead... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913--Des... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-6%b0... >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-Thys... >> >> You can enjoy the details in context here: >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/tdfhistory1910.html >> >> *** >> >> "Before derailleurs, even the great ones would have to walk their >> bikes. Here Scieur walks his bike up the Galibier in stage 11." >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1921-11th-... >> >> *** >> >> "Buysse in Hell. Here he pushes his bike up the Tourmalet." >> >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1926-Buyss... >> >> After the Tour de France allowed derailleurs, single-speeds vanished, >> and so did pictures of the peloton pushing on foot up the passes. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > > >Get a life, fool. Racing doesn't mean SHIT. > >JD Dear JD, Are you claiming that you'd pedal your single speed up the passes that routinely defeated the single-speed racers in the early Tour de France, but not the tourists enjoying the outing? Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 07 Aug 2007 11:37:27 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > > Dear JD, > > Are you claiming that you'd pedal your single speed up the passes that > routinely defeated the single-speed racers in the early Tour de > France, but not the tourists enjoying the outing? > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Dear Carl, I thought walking steep passes was more efficient than riding them. Cheers, Greg who? -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky     Date: 07 Aug 2007 10:41:47 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <1186498023.554566.235520@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com > , [...] > Get a life, fool. Racing doesn't mean SHIT. What do you mean? "I went down to the demonstration, To get my fair share of abuse." -- Michael Press   Date: 07 Aug 2007 07:45:36 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 5:02 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote: > Steve Baker wrote: > > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote (in part): > > > I would rather ride my > >> bikes and argue on Usenet. ;) > > > Prove it - PLEASE! > > Like for, say, a month or so..... > > I have proved over and over that I like to argue on Usenet. ;) Ineffectively, at that! Go read some more bike racing magazines, it'll make you feel better about your lame opinions. JD     Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:22:31 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JD wrote: > On Aug 6, 5:02 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: >> Steve Baker wrote: >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote (in part): >>> I would rather ride my >>>> bikes and argue on Usenet. ;) >>> Prove it - PLEASE! >>> Like for, say, a month or so..... >> I have proved over and over that I like to argue on Usenet. ;) > > > Ineffectively, at that! > > Go read some more bike racing magazines, it'll make you feel better > about your lame opinions. Whooosh!!! What makes you think I have much interest in racing? P.S. Insults are not effective argument. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 07 Aug 2007 06:06:29 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 7:04 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote: > unforgive...@juno.com wrote: > > ... > > Silly wheel sizes aside, single speed actually makes a lot of sense > > for mountain and cross bikes. Geared bikes are only faster until the > > rear derailleur gets jammed with mud or bent in a crash. > > Unless you can afford a Rohloff hub. Have any professional level MTB races been won on bikes with Rohloff hubs? (Rhetorical, not actual, question) > > > You can only > > down shift so far before you're better off running anyway. > > I find there is a considerable range between my lowest practical gear > and what my "average" riding gear is. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:59:43 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 5:59 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote: > JD WHO? wrote: > > On Aug 6, 4:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: > >> JD wrote: > >>> On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > >>> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: > >>>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed > >>>> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) > >>> A typical douchebag question because racing doesn't have jack shit to > >>> do with anything. > >> Racing has nothing to do with which bike (within the rules) is fastest? > >> Thanks for the information! > > > No, racing doesn't have jack shit to do with anything. Yes, you are a > > douchebag. > > You have to try harder JD. I have been flamed much better many times on > Usenet. ;) > Yeah, but not by a 9-year-old!   Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:41:07 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 3:59 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote: > JD WHO? wrote: > > On Aug 6, 4:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: > >> JD wrote: > >>> On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > >>> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: > >>>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed > >>>> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) > >>> A typical douchebag question because racing doesn't have jack shit to > >>> do with anything. > >> Racing has nothing to do with which bike (within the rules) is fastest? > >> Thanks for the information! > > > No, racing doesn't have jack shit to do with anything. Yes, you are a > > douchebag. > > You have to try harder JD. I have been flamed much better many times on > Usenet. ;) With asinine comments and speculations like yours, it's no big surprise. Why don't you go race, count some calories, download your HRM data and then jerk off to it all now. JD     Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:51:50 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JD wrote: > On Aug 6, 3:59 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: >> JD WHO? wrote: >>> On Aug 6, 4:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: >>>> JD wrote: >>>>> On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>>> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: >>>>>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed >>>>>> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) >>>>> A typical douchebag question because racing doesn't have jack shit to >>>>> do with anything. >>>> Racing has nothing to do with which bike (within the rules) is fastest? >>>> Thanks for the information! >>> No, racing doesn't have jack shit to do with anything. Yes, you are a >>> douchebag. >> You have to try harder JD. I have been flamed much better many times on >> Usenet. ;) > > > With asinine comments and speculations like yours, it's no big > surprise. > > Why don't you go race, count some calories, download your HRM data and > then jerk off to it all now. Lack of interest in those activities, perhaps? I would rather ride my bikes and argue on Usenet. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 06 Aug 2007 23:59:18 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote (in part): I would rather ride my > bikes and argue on Usenet. ;) > Prove it - PLEASE! Like for, say, a month or so.....         Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:02:10 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Steve Baker wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote (in part): > > I would rather ride my >> bikes and argue on Usenet. ;) >> > > Prove it - PLEASE! > Like for, say, a month or so..... I have proved over and over that I like to argue on Usenet. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Aug 2007 12:20:19 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote: > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > provide any real advantage? > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > that causes brain dysfunction? > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com It's because Travis Brown seems to think that having a smaller wheel in the back allows much better acceleration, thus disproving the theory that professional athletes can provide useful input into product development. http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2005/news/08-29 Silly wheel sizes aside, single speed actually makes a lot of sense for mountain and cross bikes. Geared bikes are only faster until the rear derailleur gets jammed with mud or bent in a crash. You can only down shift so far before you're better off running anyway.     Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:04:20 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? unforgiven99@juno.com wrote: > ... > Silly wheel sizes aside, single speed actually makes a lot of sense > for mountain and cross bikes. Geared bikes are only faster until the > rear derailleur gets jammed with mud or bent in a crash. Unless you can afford a Rohloff hub. > You can only > down shift so far before you're better off running anyway. I find there is a considerable range between my lowest practical gear and what my "average" riding gear is. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 06 Aug 2007 12:31:24 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? <unforgiven99@juno.com > wrote in message news:1186428019.572905.252350@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >> >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a >> demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel >> provide any real advantage? >> >> What is the deal with single-speed anyway? >> >> Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike >> because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their >> customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys >> products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? >> >> Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite >> that causes brain dysfunction? >> >> Who exactly is the target market for this bike? >> > > It's because Travis Brown seems to think that having a smaller wheel > in the back allows much better acceleration, thus disproving the > theory that professional athletes can provide useful input into > product development. Touché. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org "Ya gotta stop riding the brakes, ya gotta stop robbing the cradle" - Chris D   Date: 06 Aug 2007 10:59:43 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 6, 4:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote: > JD wrote: > > On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: > >> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed > >> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) > > > A typical douchebag question because racing doesn't have jack shit to > > do with anything. > > Racing has nothing to do with which bike (within the rules) is fastest? > Thanks for the information! No, racing doesn't have jack shit to do with anything. Yes, you are a douchebag. JD     Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:59:34 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JD WHO? wrote: > On Aug 6, 4:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: >> JD wrote: >>> On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: >>>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed >>>> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) >>> A typical douchebag question because racing doesn't have jack shit to >>> do with anything. >> Racing has nothing to do with which bike (within the rules) is fastest? >> Thanks for the information! > > > No, racing doesn't have jack shit to do with anything. Yes, you are a > douchebag. You have to try harder JD. I have been flamed much better many times on Usenet. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Aug 2007 05:06:44 From: Corvus Corvax Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote: > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? To think I missed this flamewar! http://www.dirtragmag.com/web/article.php?ID=437&category=web_only Ride what you want. Life is good. CC     Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:00:32 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Corvus Corvax wrote: > On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: >> What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > To think I missed this flamewar! > > http://www.dirtragmag.com/web/article.php?ID=437&category=web_only > > Ride what you want. Life is good. Ride what you want. Flame everyone that rides something different on Usenet. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Aug 2007 02:10:04 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 4:38 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote: > The force applied to the pedals does need to be kept down to a point > where the rider is still using anaerobic power if the climb is of any > length. Tell us more, Bill Nye The Science Guy. JD they should call it rec(tum).bicycles   Date: 06 Aug 2007 02:08:34 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote: > Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed > bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) A typical douchebag question because racing doesn't have jack shit to do with anything. JD     Date: 06 Aug 2007 06:01:42 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JD wrote: > On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote: >> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed >> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) > > > A typical douchebag question because racing doesn't have jack shit to > do with anything. Racing has nothing to do with which bike (within the rules) is fastest? Thanks for the information! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Aug 2007 02:07:06 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 4:04 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote: > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:45:31 -0700, JD wrote: > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > I ride with a few people who have both geared and SS road bikes, and > may come out on either. They say that the spinning and grinding required > on a SS is good training, and they may well be right, but overall they're > much slower on the SS, and get tired more quickly. > > Unless you're riding with people weaker than yourself, it's inconsiderate > to slow down the group - IMHO they should save the SS for solo rides. Sounds like you ride with punks and poseurs. Maybe you should ride solo? JD     Date: 07 Aug 2007 23:41:17 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:07:06 -0700, JD wrote: > Sounds like you ride with punks and poseurs. No, I ride with A and B-grade vet racers on their training rides, which they say are often tougher than their races. You sound like an idiot, and a fairly slow one.       Date: 13 Aug 2007 01:57:54 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <bkrmb3lp3mubr8lmuhuvn2vbdt6jf7vsma@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net writes: > Koans are not quite the same as aphorisms . . . Actually, they are. Old saws 'n chestnuts are not the same as koans. Well, they are, too. After all, it's not about the nail -- it's about the hammer. Or the hand that swings the hammer. Or the mind that decides to swing the hammer. Or the superlative being that decides that an hammer should be swung. Or the Parvardegar that says: "Yeah, sure. Swing the hammer if ya wanna. I dreamt that it would happen, anyway. And what are dreams to me, are reality to you, and what you believe to be real is mere, ethereal daydreaming to me: I daydreamed you up. Knock yerselves out. Try not to hurt each other, but rather try to help each other, and co-exist in mutual love and respect. You're going to do that anyways, 'cuz that's how I invented you in my daydreams. So feel good, and don't hurt anybody. Love your fellows." The Almighty might even be able to put up with you on a personal level, if you don't bug him too much. Just remember, he's already got a lot on his plate, what with making the entire universe work, and we're not particularly special. Well, we all are special, but we're not allowed to wield it against each other. By helping each other, we're helping the Cosmic Him/Her/It. Screw koans. Screw aphorisms. Screw ego. Screw my ego. Screw your ego. Screw everybody's ego. cheers, Tom -- We're upping our standards. So up yours. -- Pat Paulsen "Have you heard the news -- there's good rockin' tonight"         Date: 13 Aug 2007 05:47:11 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom Keats wrote: > ... > Screw koans. Screw aphorisms. Screw ego. Screw my ego. > Screw your ego. Screw everybody's ego. Screw threaded fasteners. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!" -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 13 Aug 2007 12:31:21 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:57:54 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <bkrmb3lp3mubr8lmuhuvn2vbdt6jf7vsma@4ax.com>, > carlfogel@comcast.net writes: > >> Koans are not quite the same as aphorisms . . . > >Actually, they are. > >Old saws 'n chestnuts are not the same as koans. > >Well, they are, too. After all, it's not about >the nail -- it's about the hammer. Or the hand >that swings the hammer. Or the mind that decides >to swing the hammer. Or the superlative being that >decides that an hammer should be swung. Or the >Parvardegar that says: "Yeah, sure. Swing the hammer >if ya wanna. I dreamt that it would happen, anyway. And >what are dreams to me, are reality to you, and what you >believe to be real is mere, ethereal daydreaming to me: >I daydreamed you up. Knock yerselves out. Try not to >hurt each other, but rather try to help each other, and >co-exist in mutual love and respect. You're going to do >that anyways, 'cuz that's how I invented you in my daydreams. >So feel good, and don't hurt anybody. Love your fellows." > >The Almighty might even be able to put up with you on a >personal level, if you don't bug him too much. Just remember, >he's already got a lot on his plate, what with making the >entire universe work, and we're not particularly special. > >Well, we all are special, but we're not allowed to wield >it against each other. By helping each other, we're >helping the Cosmic Him/Her/It. > >Screw koans. Screw aphorisms. Screw ego. Screw my ego. >Screw your ego. Screw everybody's ego. > > >cheers, > Tom Dear Tom, A Zen student asked his master whether koans were aphorisms. The master told him to shoplift the second volume of the condensed Oxford English Dictionary from WalMart. The puzzled student protested that shoplifting seemed unethical, that neither "aphorism" nor "koan" would appear in P-Z, and that WalMart was unlikely to stock a two-volume dictionary meeting the UCI minimum weight requirement. The master told the student, "Never mind. Buy a Fury RoadMaster at WalMart and cook it for dinner." After pondering the annihilation of self and sense for a few seconds, the student left the monastery, stopped payment on his tuition check, used the money to buy an elegant new bicycle at the local bike shop, and enjoyed the fine spring weather. A few months later, the lapsed student was pleased to read in the newspaper (whose cartoons made more sense than his previous studies) that the master had left the monastery, too, after embezzling its meagre funds, but had been easily apprehended because he fled on foot. Three to five year later (with time off for good behavior), the master finished contemplating his sentence and placed an ad in the same newspaper, inviting all his former students to come on down to his new workplace, where he sold used automobiles that answered the question, "What is the sound of one piston knocking?" The student rode past the car lot every day, but waved only when he could not see his former master. Cheers, Carl Fogel           Date: 13 Aug 2007 21:43:07 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:57:54 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >> In article <bkrmb3lp3mubr8lmuhuvn2vbdt6jf7vsma@4ax.com>, >> carlfogel@comcast.net writes: >> >>> Koans are not quite the same as aphorisms . . . >> Actually, they are. <snip-de-dipshit > > > The student rode past the car lot every day, but waved only when he > could not see his former master. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Carl, FFS go ride your bike!       Date: 07 Aug 2007 10:41:57 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:41:17 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote: >On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:07:06 -0700, JD wrote: > >> Sounds like you ride with punks and poseurs. > >No, I ride with A and B-grade vet racers on their training rides, which >they say are often tougher than their races. > >You sound like an idiot, and a fairly slow one. Actually, he's a SS riding mountain biker from amb caught in a cross-posting cultural war with roadies from rbt and rbm.         Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:37:23 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Doug Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:41:17 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:07:06 -0700, JD wrote: >> >>> Sounds like you ride with punks and poseurs. >> No, I ride with A and B-grade vet racers on their training rides, which >> they say are often tougher than their races. >> >> You sound like an idiot, and a fairly slow one. > > Actually, he's a SS riding mountain biker from amb caught in a > cross-posting cultural war with roadies from rbt and rbm. Who was the moron that started this thread anyhow, oh wait... ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Aug 2007 02:05:58 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 3:29 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com > wrote: > In article <1186274731.294018.93...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > > > > i pass at least 5 fixies > > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > > > up those hills. > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > yah, okay. no more red bull for you, d00d. You must have me confused with someone else. > i'm sure that for some people the simplicity is an attraction. > me, not so much. maybe you're in that group. i'm also sure that > for some people riding a fixie is just a way of saying "i'm > OUT there". maybe you're in that group. here's a test question: > how do you feel about The Man trying to legislate the requirement > for at least one brake on your surly, or soma, or whatever it > is? I don't care what you think, but it is rather amusing. As far as the man's rules, I really don't care what they legislate. JD   Date: 06 Aug 2007 02:03:22 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 12:29 pm, "GeeDubb" <geed...@qwest.net > wrote: > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message > > news:1186332093.567732.76580@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 5, 9:59 am, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > >> On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle > > >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving > >> > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All > >> > day, or as long as ya can stand it. > > >> Put the banjo down and go ride your bike. > > >> JD > > > Anything you say, asshole. > > Nice come back. You must have put a lot of thought into it. That was just a confirmation is all, G. JD   Date: 05 Aug 2007 22:21:49 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <1186376134.210497.291630@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > writes: > It (both singlespeed and fixed gear) is fun. It's > different. I expect that I am faster on a geared > bike, but I'm faster in a car than on a bicycle, > and that doesn't mean I give up bicycles for cars. > I have had one and multi gear bikes in both > road and MTB and see no reason to give any of them > up as they serve marginally different purposes. Sure, bikes are bikes, 'n they're all good. > The ones without gear shifts are simpler and there > is one less thing to think about. Sometimes that > is what I want. In the case of MTBs, which have > gotten technologically more and more complicated > (like most other things I deal with on a daily > basis), simplicity has an appeal. It's different, > not necessarily better; that is all. May you continue to ride all your variously config'd bikes with joy, despite the tongue-clucking & head-shaking of some folks. "C'mon people now, smile on your brother, Everbody get together, try and love one another right now." cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 06 Aug 2007 04:55:34 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 4:21 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Aug 5, 12:33 am, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > > up those hills. i had somebody on one of those ultra hip surly > > fixies chase me DOWN a hill one time, but he disappeared > > at the halfway point when it threw its chain. i have no idea if > > he hurt himself but it made an extremely entertaining noise. > > > sometimes technology marches on for no apparent reason, but the > > derailleur was invented to fix a very real problem. so the whole > > derailleur/shifter/cassette system adds a couple of pounds to > > the total: it gets you where you're going faster and with less > > effort. > > > i'm sure there are a few very specialized areas of competition > > where these things are used. i, however, use my bike for > > recreation and transportation. > > I'm a Clydesdale as well and I use my fixed gear for recreation and > transportation too. I pass people all the time up and down hills no > matter what bike I'm on. I also get passed by people up and down > hills. Performance isn't about the bike. The main reason they exist is > they are fun. Lots of folks appreciate this, and I guess a lot more > folks just (erroneously) think it makes them cool. The fact that some > idiots use them by no means makes the bikes idiotic. I've never tried > a single speed MTB, but some guys I know use them almost exclusively > and I take they do it for fun and don't really care if they ultimately > would be faster with a multi-speed bike. It (both singlespeed and fixed gear) is fun. It's different. I expect that I am faster on a geared bike, but I'm faster in a car than on a bicycle, and that doesn't mean I give up bicycles for cars. I have had one and multi gear bikes in both road and MTB and see no reason to give any of them up as they serve marginally different purposes. The ones without gear shifts are simpler and there is one less thing to think about. Sometimes that is what I want. In the case of MTBs, which have gotten technologically more and more complicated (like most other things I deal with on a daily basis), simplicity has an appeal. It's different, not necessarily better; that is all. Ben   Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:18:56 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 2:29 pm, "GeeDubb" <geed...@qwest.net > wrote: > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message > > news:1186332093.567732.76580@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 5, 9:59 am, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > >> On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle > > >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving > >> > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All > >> > day, or as long as ya can stand it. > > >> Put the banjo down and go ride your bike. > > >> JD > > > Anything you say, asshole. > > Nice come back. You must have put a lot of thought into it. > > Please do excuse my reluctance to cast pearls before swine.     Date: 10 Aug 2007 14:01:56 From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1186352336.452197.169730@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 5, 2:29 pm, "GeeDubb" <geed...@qwest.net> wrote: >> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1186332093.567732.76580@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Aug 5, 9:59 am, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >> >> On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle >> >> >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> >> > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try >> >> > driving >> >> > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All >> >> > day, or as long as ya can stand it. >> >> >> Put the banjo down and go ride your bike. >> >> >> JD >> >> > Anything you say, asshole. >> >> Nice come back. You must have put a lot of thought into it. >> >> > > Please do excuse my reluctance to cast pearls before swine. > This is the perils of replying to a cross-possting. You just woke up one of the self-righteous kiddies of alt.mountain-biking soapbox.   Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:50:39 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 1:46 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > >On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle > ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > > >> > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > > >> > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > >> > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > >> > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > > >> > > i pass at least 5 fixies > >> > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > >> > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > >> > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > >> > > up those hills. > > >> > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > >> > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > >> > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > >> > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > >> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > > >If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > > >JD > > Dear JD, > > Why don't Tour de France riders use single speeds? > 'Cuz they're too wimpy to "kick some ass"? All the serious guys are stylin' at Starbucks, not riding the TdF.   Date: 05 Aug 2007 09:41:33 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 9:59 am, JD <CKA...@webtv.net > wrote: > On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving > > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All > > day, or as long as ya can stand it. > > Put the banjo down and go ride your bike. > > JD Anything you say, asshole.     Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:29:46 From: GeeDubb Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1186332093.567732.76580@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 5, 9:59 am, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >> On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle >> >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving >> > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All >> > day, or as long as ya can stand it. >> >> Put the banjo down and go ride your bike. >> >> JD > > Anything you say, asshole. > Nice come back. You must have put a lot of thought into it. Gary   Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:26:35 From: RonSonic Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:16:38 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote: >See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > >Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a >demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel >provide any real advantage? The bigger front wheel does go over obstacles better and the smaller rear wheel lets you fit someone who isn't over 6' to the bike. A full 29er does have a bit of a height requirement for the rider. The double crown fork suggests this thing is a bit of a basher. >What is the deal with single-speed anyway? It's fun and simple and quiet and light and efficient and elegant in a way that is what's nice about bikes in the first place. I live in Florida and for the 15 miles of singletrack I rode yesterday I used three gears. I would've used more if I were racing (perhaps 5 gears) but could've used fewer if I were willing to grunt on the slow parts and relax on the fast bits. >Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike >because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their >customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys >products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? The "69er" nomenclature is common for this sort of bike and not nearly as naughty as you might think. This bike is not nearly as unusual as you seem to think. >Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite >that causes brain dysfunction? > >Who exactly is the target market for this bike? People who want a simple bike for personal fun and enjoyment on rough terrain. Doesn't seem the least bit odd to me. Ron   Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:03:16 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. <snip > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? Tom, Basic rule is "If you have to ask, then it's not you." If you don't understand, then you won't enjoy it, so stop worrying, and especially stop denigrating just coz it's beyond you. That's how bigotry starts. Relax, enjoy what you DO ride, and get on with life. Steve     Date: 05 Aug 2007 10:31:25 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Steve Baker wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > <snip> > >> Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > > Tom, > Basic rule is "If you have to ask, then it's not you." > If you don't understand, then you won't enjoy it, so stop worrying, and > especially stop denigrating just coz it's beyond you. That's how > bigotry starts.... Geeeze, and I thought it was curiosity. However, the question remains, is the target market buying the Trek 69er, or will 2007 models be available at your local Trek dealer next year at a highly discounted price? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 05 Aug 2007 17:34:15 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Steve Baker wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: <snip > >> <snip> >> >>> Who exactly is the target market for this bike? >> >> >> Tom, >> Basic rule is "If you have to ask, then it's not you." >> If you don't understand, then you won't enjoy it, so stop worrying, >> and especially stop denigrating just coz it's beyond you. That's how >> bigotry starts.... > > Geeeze, and I thought it was curiosity. > > However, the question remains, is the target market buying the Trek > 69er, or will 2007 models be available at your local Trek dealer next > year at a highly discounted price? > Why don't you ask a Trek dealer if it is selling? They'll be able to tell much better than this raggedy bunch can.         Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:45:15 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <rSnti.348$mw4.286@trndny09 >, Steve Baker <saildesign@aohell.com > wrote: > Why don't you ask a Trek dealer if it is selling? They'll be able to > tell much better than this raggedy bunch can. From a plea for sanity and tolerance to mud-slinging in a single bound. -- Michael Press           Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:37:02 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Michael Press wrote: > In article <rSnti.348$mw4.286@trndny09>, > Steve Baker <saildesign@aohell.com> wrote: > >> Why don't you ask a Trek dealer if it is selling? They'll be able to >> tell much better than this raggedy bunch can. > > From a plea for sanity and tolerance > to mud-slinging in a single bound. > I don't think that was mud-slinging. More likely it was self-deprecating group humor on the a.m-b side. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky           Date: 05 Aug 2007 21:40:28 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Michael Press wrote: > In article <rSnti.348$mw4.286@trndny09>, > Steve Baker <saildesign@aohell.com> wrote: > >> Why don't you ask a Trek dealer if it is selling? They'll be able to >> tell much better than this raggedy bunch can. > > From a plea for sanity and tolerance > to mud-slinging in a single bound. > I was referring to the rec.bike.* crowd - I know AM-B are FAR less well-dressed than "raggedy" could possibly imply. ;-)             Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:37:42 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Steve Baker wrote: > Michael Press wrote: >> In article <rSnti.348$mw4.286@trndny09>, >> Steve Baker <saildesign@aohell.com> wrote: >> >>> Why don't you ask a Trek dealer if it is selling? They'll be able to >>> tell much better than this raggedy bunch can. >> >> From a plea for sanity and tolerance to mud-slinging in a single bound. >> > > I was referring to the rec.bike.* crowd - I know AM-B are FAR less > well-dressed than "raggedy" could possibly imply. ;-) Hahaha, I guess I was wrong. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky               Date: 06 Aug 2007 23:55:23 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? G.T. wrote: > Steve Baker wrote: >> Michael Press wrote: >>> In article <rSnti.348$mw4.286@trndny09>, >>> Steve Baker <saildesign@aohell.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Why don't you ask a Trek dealer if it is selling? They'll be able >>>> to tell much better than this raggedy bunch can. >>> >>> From a plea for sanity and tolerance to mud-slinging in a single bound. >>> >> >> I was referring to the rec.bike.* crowd - I know AM-B are FAR less >> well-dressed than "raggedy" could possibly imply. ;-) > > Hahaha, I guess I was wrong. > > Greg > You weren't wrong, Greg, he just couldn't see it from his perspective. Steve "inverse snobbery" Baker   Date: 05 Aug 2007 08:03:07 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 5:52 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com > wrote: > On Aug 4, 4:38 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: > > > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > > > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > > > provide any real advantage? > > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > > > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > > > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > > > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > > > that causes brain dysfunction? > > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > > Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time. > > Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied. > > > Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago. > > -- > > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org > > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > > Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!! > Like Vaugters just said, more important to 'look cool'. Utility and > sense be damned. Funny, it wasn't PT Barnum who coined that phrase, but was his business partner. BTW, riding bicycles for recreation is about fun, not "utility". Your idea of fun is not the same idea of fun as it may be for others. I'm sure that's hard for many to grasp though, so carry on because I'm sure you will. JD   Date: 05 Aug 2007 07:59:32 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All > day, or as long as ya can stand it. Put the banjo down and go ride your bike. JD   Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:27:31 From: landotter Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 6:24 am, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Aug 5, 3:10 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > JD wrote: > > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > JD wrote: > > > > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > > > > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > > > > > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > > > > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > > > > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > > > > If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > > > If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're > > kidding yourself. > > > I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other > > bikes. > > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All > day, or as long as ya can stand it. That's quite the facile comparison. Our legs aren't made of steel gears, but of meat, thin thread, and muesli. Legs do change gears, but in a different way. Look at a horse for example, how its muscles have different rhythms at different gaits. You'd see the same thing in my muscles when I'm out for a forty miler on a fixed gear or my single speed--I just wouldn't look nearly as handsome in slow motion. If you slowed down my 27mph spin, it would look nothing like my 10mph climb, which involves every muscle group down to clenching eyelids. Gears are fine and good, but in these parts, they wouldn't make me any faster, they'd just change my gait.I don't see the point. On my beer and dog chow bike, I've got three, and it's plenty enough to keep me from sweating on hills.and my cigarette ash from going willy nilly.   Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:52:36 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 4:38 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: > > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > > provide any real advantage? > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > > that causes brain dysfunction? > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time. > Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied. > > Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago. > -- > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!! Like Vaugters just said, more important to 'look cool'. Utility and sense be damned.   Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:26:38 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 7:33 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > just pass=E9. Big manufacturers are always behind the times and their > attempts to be hip are usually embarrassing. As evidence to support your claim I submit the Specialized Langster in the NYC version: http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=3D32826 Joseph   Date: 05 Aug 2007 04:24:08 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 3:10 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > JD wrote: > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > JD wrote: > > > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > > > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > > > > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > > > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > > > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > > > If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > > If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're > kidding yourself. > > I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other > bikes. > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All day, or as long as ya can stand it.     Date: 05 Aug 2007 10:23:02 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Aug 5, 3:10 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: >> JD wrote: >> >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> JD wrote: >>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >> kidding yourself. >> >> I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other >> bikes. >> > > Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving > around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All > day, or as long as ya can stand it. Since a clutch replacement is ~$900 US, I will pass on Ozark's suggestion. Similarly, since knee repair is even more expensive, I will climb using gears that allow me to maintain a reasonably fast cadence. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:21:08 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 5, 12:33 am, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com > wrote: > In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260...@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: > > > > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > > provide any real advantage? > > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > ... > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > up those hills. i had somebody on one of those ultra hip surly > fixies chase me DOWN a hill one time, but he disappeared > at the halfway point when it threw its chain. i have no idea if > he hurt himself but it made an extremely entertaining noise. > > sometimes technology marches on for no apparent reason, but the > derailleur was invented to fix a very real problem. so the whole > derailleur/shifter/cassette system adds a couple of pounds to > the total: it gets you where you're going faster and with less > effort. > > i'm sure there are a few very specialized areas of competition > where these things are used. i, however, use my bike for > recreation and transportation. I'm a Clydesdale as well and I use my fixed gear for recreation and transportation too. I pass people all the time up and down hills no matter what bike I'm on. I also get passed by people up and down hills. Performance isn't about the bike. The main reason they exist is they are fun. Lots of folks appreciate this, and I guess a lot more folks just (erroneously) think it makes them cool. The fact that some idiots use them by no means makes the bikes idiotic. I've never tried a single speed MTB, but some guys I know use them almost exclusively and I take they do it for fun and don't really care if they ultimately would be faster with a multi-speed bike. Joseph   Date: 05 Aug 2007 08:10:39 From: Chalo Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JD wrote: > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > JD wrote: > > > > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > > > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > > If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're kidding yourself. I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other bikes. Chalo     Date: 06 Aug 2007 23:34:25 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:10:39 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: > >I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other >bikes. I ride off road about 4 or 5 days a month, switching between a FS geared bike with disc brakes and a fully rigid SS with v-brakes (geared at 32:17). In descending order of ride feel, on the SS I notice: 1) poor brake performance and no modulation; 2) no front suspension; 3) no rear suspension; 4) no gears. For real. Any flamer who doubts that order: you don't ride off road enough, you've never used or you don't get disc brakes, and you've NEVER ridden a rigid SS off road. Why ride a SS? Rigid ti fork + no suspension + no gears + no derailleurs + one ring = 19 lb. bike. My dualie, a "race ready" $4000+ Santa Cruz Superlight, full XTR blah, blah, blah, is a tubby 26 lbs. And that's an x-c bike. No need to get into trail bikes, free-ride bikes, big travel ledge hoppers, and DH. For those who haven't tried flying around single track on a light, stiff bike, climbing while standing, actually picking a line, then what can I say? "Don't criticize what you don't understand "- Robert Zimmerman     Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:31:31 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Chalo wrote: > JD wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> JD wrote: >>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > > If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're > kidding yourself. > Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and on his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other than downhill on the fixed). Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky       Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: > Chalo wrote: >> JD wrote: >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> JD wrote: >>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >> >> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >> kidding yourself. >> > > Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and on > his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other than > downhill on the fixed). Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 07 Aug 2007 16:38:05 From: MattB Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >> Chalo wrote: >>> JD wrote: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like >>>>>> it's >>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>> >>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >>> kidding yourself. >>> >> >> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and >> on his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other >> than downhill on the fixed). > > Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed > bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) > My friend Jeff is getting top 5 or top 10 in semi pro on his SS pretty regularly. With that "training" under his belt, he got second in the Crested Butte Classic on his geared bike. My SS team got third overall in the 24 Hours in the Sage last summer against some pretty good competition. But that's not really the point. It's fun and changes a given ride to do it on a SS instead of a geared bike. If you don't like how it changes the ride then by all means don't ride one. I didn't really get it until I felt it and now I love that bike. It's strangely addictive. Now from what I hear, the 69er idea is to let the front wheel stay high and roll over obstacles more easily, and the rear be lighter, have less rotational inertia, and "dig" more for traction. Whether it's true or how noticeable it is is definitely up for debate. But I have two friends with Trek 69ers and another who built up his own FrankenBike 69er They all really like theirs. I've only ridden one on pavement, but it does feel good. I plan on borrowing one soon for a real ride to see what the hype is about for myself. Matt (just in from riding my SS - ahhh) Matt         Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:18:20 From: RonSonic Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote: >G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >> Chalo wrote: >>> JD wrote: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>> >>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >>> kidding yourself. >>> >> >> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and on >> his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other than >> downhill on the fixed). > >Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed >bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) Probably not. I have seen cyclocross races won on a single speed. That was a fairly local event (Fla State Championship Series). I don't know why the emphasis on racing, you don't see recumbents winning any mountain bike races, but some people still think they're somehow fun or useful Ron           Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:41:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? RonSonic WHO? wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote: > >> G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >>> Chalo wrote: >>>> JD wrote: >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >>>> kidding yourself. >>>> >>> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and on >>> his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other than >>> downhill on the fixed). >> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed >> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) > > Probably not. I have seen cyclocross races won on a single speed. That was a > fairly local event (Fla State Championship Series). > > I don't know why the emphasis on racing,... Er, the discussion was about the relative performance of single-speed and/or fixed gear MTB's verses geared MTB's. Since the goal of racing is to be the fastest, racing results would appear to provide some indication of relative performance. > you don't see recumbents winning any > mountain bike races, but some people still think they're somehow fun or useful[.] Class, can we say RED HERRING? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 06 Aug 2007 10:21:48 From: RonSonic Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:41:08 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote: >RonSonic WHO? wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote: >> >>> G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >>>> Chalo wrote: >>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>>>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >>>>> kidding yourself. >>>>> >>>> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and on >>>> his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other than >>>> downhill on the fixed). >>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed >>> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) >> >> Probably not. I have seen cyclocross races won on a single speed. That was a >> fairly local event (Fla State Championship Series). >> >> I don't know why the emphasis on racing,... > >Er, the discussion was about the relative performance of single-speed >and/or fixed gear MTB's verses geared MTB's. Since the goal of racing is >to be the fastest, racing results would appear to provide some >indication of relative performance. > >> you don't see recumbents winning any >> mountain bike races, but some people still think they're somehow fun or useful[.] > >Class, can we say RED HERRING? Well, yeah. That's what I was trying to point out. Mazda Miatas don't win any indy car races but are a hell of a lot more fun on the street than an indy car would be. So would you say it was silly to buy one for its performance. Of course geared bikes are faster, didn't we establish that almost a hundred years ago. Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. The irony of all of this is that we the Bike-God-Dorks of RBT see how silly it is that so many riders buy gear based on racing needs that have nothing whatever to do with the riding they actually do, yet when a bike shows up that is clearly intended for caroming through the woods and having fun one of the first questions asked is "can you win a race on it." As if this were the measure of a bike. Ron               Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:25:17 From: =?utf-8?B?4paAU2xhY2s=?= Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:21:48 -0700, RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote: > Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. > > Ron Put that bong down! -- Slack                 Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:33:47 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <op.twnx4ftgf3vmig@slacker >, ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it > wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:21:48 -0700, RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > > > Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. > > Put that bong down! Have you ever had even a little bit of sex? :-D                   Date: 07 Aug 2007 01:14:55 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? >> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. > ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it> wrote: >> Put that bong down! Tim McNamara wrote: > Have you ever had even a little bit of sex? :-D a pickup line? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                     Date: 07 Aug 2007 01:37:42 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Andrew Muzi wrote: >>> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>> Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. > > > ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it> wrote: >>> Put that bong down! > > Tim McNamara wrote: >> Have you ever had even a little bit of sex? :-D > > a pickup line? What do pick-up trucks have to do with single-speed versus geared MTBs? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                   Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:47:54 From: =?utf-8?B?4paAU2xhY2s=?= Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:33:47 -0700, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <op.twnx4ftgf3vmig@slacker>, > ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it> wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:21:48 -0700, RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. >> >> Put that bong down! > > Have you ever had even a little bit of sex? :-D Thanks for offer, but I don't swing that way. -- Slack                     Date: 07 Aug 2007 00:06:29 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <op.twn1x4a3f3vmig@slacker >, ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it > wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:33:47 -0700, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> > wrote: > > > In article <op.twnx4ftgf3vmig@slacker>, > > ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:21:48 -0700, RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. > >> > >> Put that bong down! > > > > Have you ever had even a little bit of sex? :-D > > > Thanks for offer, but I don't swing that way. The answer's "no," then, or you'd have realized that what RonSonic wrote is quite true. Just because it's faster doesn't mean it's more fun. Remember that the first time you get laid.                       Date: 09 Aug 2007 21:48:04 From: =?utf-8?B?4paAU2xhY2s=?= Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:06:29 -0700, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <op.twn1x4a3f3vmig@slacker>, > ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it> wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:33:47 -0700, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> >> wrote: >> >> > In article <op.twnx4ftgf3vmig@slacker>, >> > ?Slack <dont_even_think@bout.it> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:21:48 -0700, RonSonic >> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. >> >> >> >> Put that bong down! >> > >> > Have you ever had even a little bit of sex? :-D >> >> >> Thanks for offer, but I don't swing that way. > > The answer's "no," then, or you'd have realized that what RonSonic wrote > is quite true. Just because it's faster doesn't mean it's more fun. > Remember that the first time you get laid. Please don't publish your baby picture on the Net if you don't want to found out --- > http://wallstreetjackass.typepad.com/raptureready/images/signs_you_may_be_gay.jpg -- Slack               Date: 06 Aug 2007 17:58:24 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? RonSonic WHO? wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:41:08 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote: > >> RonSonic WHO? wrote: >>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >>>>> Chalo wrote: >>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>>>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>>>>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >>>>>> kidding yourself. >>>>>> >>>>> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and on >>>>> his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other than >>>>> downhill on the fixed). >>>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed >>>> bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) >>> Probably not. I have seen cyclocross races won on a single speed. That was a >>> fairly local event (Fla State Championship Series). >>> >>> I don't know why the emphasis on racing,... >> Er, the discussion was about the relative performance of single-speed >> and/or fixed gear MTB's verses geared MTB's. Since the goal of racing is >> to be the fastest, racing results would appear to provide some >> indication of relative performance. >> >>> you don't see recumbents winning any >>> mountain bike races, but some people still think they're somehow fun or useful[.] >> Class, can we say RED HERRING? > > Well, yeah. That's what I was trying to point out. Mazda Miatas don't win any > indy car races but are a hell of a lot more fun on the street than an indy car > would be. So would you say it was silly to buy one for its performance. > > Of course geared bikes are faster, didn't we establish that almost a hundred > years ago. Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's more fun. > > The irony of all of this is that we the Bike-God-Dorks of RBT see how silly it > is that so many riders buy gear based on racing needs that have nothing whatever > to do with the riding they actually do, yet when a bike shows up that is clearly > intended for caroming through the woods and having fun one of the first > questions asked is "can you win a race on it." As if this were the measure of a > bike. Well, Greg Thomas contended that JD ("the freak" in Greg's words) would be no faster on a geared bike than on a fixie (except possibly downhill). Greg's contention is the reason I asked about the racing results of fixed versus geared MTB's, as the relative overall success of each type would provide some indication of relative performance. Got that? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 05 Aug 2007 17:47:10 From: jim beam Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > RonSonic WHO? wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote: >> >>> G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >>>> Chalo wrote: >>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds >>>>>>>> like it's >>>>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>>>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >>>>> kidding yourself. >>>>> >>>> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and >>>> on his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster >>>> (other than downhill on the fixed). >>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or >>> single-speed bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) >> >> Probably not. I have seen cyclocross races won on a single speed. That >> was a >> fairly local event (Fla State Championship Series). >> I don't know why the emphasis on racing,... > > Er, the discussion was about the relative performance of single-speed > and/or fixed gear MTB's verses geared MTB's. Since the goal of racing is > to be the fastest, racing results would appear to provide some > indication of relative performance. > >> you don't see recumbents winning any >> mountain bike races, but some people still think they're somehow fun >> or useful[.] > > Class, can we say RED HERRING? > hypocrite!               Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:49:58 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "jim beam" wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> RonSonic WHO? wrote: >>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >>>>> Chalo wrote: >>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds >>>>>>>>> like it's >>>>>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>>>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>>>>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, >>>>>> you're >>>>>> kidding yourself. >>>>>> >>>>> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS >>>>> and on his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster >>>>> (other than downhill on the fixed). >>>> Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or >>>> single-speed bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) >>> >>> Probably not. I have seen cyclocross races won on a single speed. >>> That was a >>> fairly local event (Fla State Championship Series). >>> I don't know why the emphasis on racing,... >> >> Er, the discussion was about the relative performance of single-speed >> and/or fixed gear MTB's verses geared MTB's. Since the goal of racing >> is to be the fastest, racing results would appear to provide some >> indication of relative performance. >> >>> you don't see recumbents winning any >>> mountain bike races, but some people still think they're somehow fun >>> or useful[.] >> >> Class, can we say RED HERRING? >> > > hypocrite! Anonymous, sniping, capital letter deficient, TROLL! (Hey, this is fun!) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:00:53 From: =?utf-8?B?4paAU2xhY2s=?= Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:49:58 -0700, Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote: > "jim beam" wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> RonSonic WHO? wrote: >>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:34:46 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>>> you don't see recumbents winning any >>>> mountain bike races, but some people still think they're somehow fun >>>> or useful[.] >>> >>> Class, can we say RED HERRING? >>> >> hypocrite! > > Anonymous, sniping, capital letter deficient, TROLL! > > (Hey, this is fun!) > Now you know why we do it, Numb-nuts. -- Slack - hey, this *is* fun         Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:48:21 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: >> Chalo wrote: >>> JD wrote: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> JD wrote: >>>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like >>>>>> it's >>>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>> >>> If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're >>> kidding yourself. >>> >> >> Having ridden my multi-geared bikes with the freak on his MTB SS and >> on his road fixeds I'd say I doubt that he could go any faster (other >> than downhill on the fixed). > > Have any professional level MTB races been won on fixed or single-speed > bikes? (Actual, not rhetorical, question) > No, but some of the guys are finishing top 5. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky     Date: 05 Aug 2007 08:46:03 From: Marty Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1186301439.209997.47850@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > JD wrote: >> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> > >> > JD wrote: >> > > >> > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >> > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like >> > > it's >> > > loaded with punks and poseurs. >> >> > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >> >> > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >> >> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > > If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're > kidding yourself. > > I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other > bikes. > > Chalo > I couldn't really care less about carrying speed as you put it but I do care about climbing (without blowing out a lung gasket) and the occasional flat ride (like a short 13 miler yesterday on a rail trail with a bunch of Cub Scouts). Now I admittedly don't understand the fixie/ss thing either but I can tell you that I have a friend who rides one with me and that man can CRANK. I never catch him when we ride and he's not trying to be fast he just kicks my ass. I have no repeat no desire to give up my gears but I can certainly understand the attraction of the simplicity. Marty   Date: 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > > > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > > > > i pass at least 5 fixies > > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > > > up those hills. > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. JD     Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:35:30 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net > wrote: >On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >> >> > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >> >> > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >> > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >> >> > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >> >> > > i pass at least 5 fixies >> > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >> > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >> > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >> > > up those hills. >> >> > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >> > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >> > loaded with punks and poseurs. >> >> > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >> >> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > >If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > >JD Dear JD, Are the single-speed riders in these pictures punks or poseurs? Their successors were much, much faster with derailleurs. They include Lapize, Albini, Thys, Cristophe, Scieur, Buysse, and others, early giants of bicycling who couldn't even ride their single-speeds all the way up the Tour de France passes, much less keep up with contemporary riders who climbed the same passes with derailleurs. http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lapize-sui-Pirenei.jpg http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lapize-passa-1%b0-sul-T.jpg http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lapize-e-Albini-sull'.jpg http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-si-cambiano-i-rapporti.jpg http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-leaders-on-the-Aubisqu.jpg http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913--Desgrange-fuma-e-guar.jpg http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-6%b0-tappa-Lambot-in-vet.jpg http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-Thys-Cristophe-Buysse-.jpg You can enjoy the details in context here: http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/tdfhistory1910.html *** "Before derailleurs, even the great ones would have to walk their bikes. Here Scieur walks his bike up the Galibier in stage 11." http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1921-11th-tappa-Scieur-sale.jpg *** "Buysse in Hell. Here he pushes his bike up the Tourmalet." http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1926-Buysse-sul-Tourmalet.jpg After the Tour de France allowed derailleurs, single-speeds vanished, and so did pictures of the peloton pushing on foot up the passes. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 07 Aug 2007 10:34:51 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <kllfb3t19pcron63r8k647u7u1ldf6v7nt@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-Thys-Cristophe-Buysse-.jpg This photograph is reversed. -- Michael Press         Date: 07 Aug 2007 21:17:58 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Michael Press wrote: > In article > <kllfb3t19pcron63r8k647u7u1ldf6v7nt@4ax.com>, > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-Thys-Cristophe-Buysse-.jpg > > This photograph is reversed. > Probably, but it improves the composition no end....       Date: 06 Aug 2007 23:42:07 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:35:30 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net> wrote: > >>On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle >><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >>> >>> > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >>> >>> > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >>> > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >>> >>> > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >>> >>> > > i pass at least 5 fixies >>> > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >>> > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >>> > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >>> > > up those hills. >>> >>> > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>> > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>> > loaded with punks and poseurs. >>> >>> > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>> >>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >> >>If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >> >>JD > >Dear JD, > >Are the single-speed riders in these pictures punks or poseurs? Their >successors were much, much faster with derailleurs. > >They include Lapize, Albini, Thys, Cristophe, Scieur, Buysse, and >others, early giants of bicycling who couldn't even ride their >single-speeds all the way up the Tour de France passes, much less keep >up with contemporary riders who climbed the same passes with >derailleurs. > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lapize-sui-Pirenei.jpg > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lapize-passa-1%b0-sul-T.jpg > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1910L-Lapize-e-Albini-sull'.jpg > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-si-cambiano-i-rapporti.jpg > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1912-leaders-on-the-Aubisqu.jpg > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913--Desgrange-fuma-e-guar.jpg > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-6%b0-tappa-Lambot-in-vet.jpg > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist011/1913-Thys-Cristophe-Buysse-.jpg > >You can enjoy the details in context here: > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/tdfhistory1910.html > >*** > >"Before derailleurs, even the great ones would have to walk their >bikes. Here Scieur walks his bike up the Galibier in stage 11." > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1921-11th-tappa-Scieur-sale.jpg > >*** > >"Buysse in Hell. Here he pushes his bike up the Tourmalet." > >http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/imageshist02/1926-Buysse-sul-Tourmalet.jpg > >After the Tour de France allowed derailleurs, single-speeds vanished, >and so did pictures of the peloton pushing on foot up the passes. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Oops! Somehow I left this out: "Gear changers were forbidden. Félicien Vervaecke would receive a 10-minute time penalty for using a derailleur on the Aubisque in the sixteenth stage of the 1936 Tour even though the touriste-routiers were using them and routinely beating the national team members to the tops of climbs." http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf%20history/tdfhistory1930.html Cheers, Carl Fogel     Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:46:56 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net > wrote: >On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >> >> > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >> > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >> >> > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >> >> > > i pass at least 5 fixies >> > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >> > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >> > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >> > > up those hills. >> >> > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >> > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >> > loaded with punks and poseurs. >> >> > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >> >> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > > >If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > >JD Dear JD, Why don't Tour de France riders use single speeds? Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:35:27 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net> wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >>>>> personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >>>>> a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >>>> We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >>>>> i pass at least 5 fixies >>>>> a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >>>>> happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >>>>> sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >>>>> up those hills. >>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >> >> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >> >> JD > > Dear JD, > > Why don't Tour de France riders use single speeds? > > Cheers, > Why don't they use 11-34 cogs and triple cranksets? Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky         Date: 05 Aug 2007 22:21:34 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <13bcnlvm4qvi2ce@corp.supernews.com >, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com > wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle > >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >>> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > >>>>> personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > >>>>> a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > >>>> We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > >>>>> i pass at least 5 fixies > >>>>> a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > >>>>> happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > >>>>> sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > >>>>> up those hills. > >>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > >>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > >>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. > >>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > >>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > >> > >> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. > >> > >> JD > > > > Dear JD, > > > > Why don't Tour de France riders use single speeds? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Why don't they use 11-34 cogs and triple cranksets? Because they are not fully loaded tourers. A pro-cyclist gearing _plus_ a 24 cog granny gear is an excellent choice for some of us. -- Michael Press         Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:41:40 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote: > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:53:04 -0700, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >>>> On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >>>>>> personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >>>>>> a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >>>>> We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >>>>>> i pass at least 5 fixies >>>>>> a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >>>>>> happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >>>>>> sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >>>>>> up those hills. >>>>> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >>>>> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >>>>> loaded with punks and poseurs. >>>>> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass >>>> No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... >>> >>> If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. >>> >>> JD >> >> Dear JD, >> >> Why don't Tour de France riders use single speeds? >> >> Cheers, >> > > Why don't they use 11-34 cogs and triple cranksets? Hey, I resemble that remark! (At least on the 'bent - the ATB has an 11-32 cluster) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 05 Aug 2007 04:55:47 From: Chalo Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? JeffWills wrote: > > DougC wrote: > > > > I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was > > more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear > > because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a > > 24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26. > > IIRC (becoming more of an issue as time goes by), the 26/24 Cannondale > MTB was called the "Beast of the East", supposedly because the > "eastern" riders demanded a more manuverable bike with a lighter rear > end and higher bottom bracket, as opposed to "western" riders who were > all about bombing down fire roads and could care less about hopping > over roots. Cliques are nothing new. The "Beast of the East" term was coined after the introduction of level top tube, low BB California-style frames. At the same time, the sloping top tube frame had its chainstays bobbed to a fashionably short sub-17" length and its seat angle steepened a bit. Before there was a silly name for the Beast of the East frame, and before there was a me-too style Cannondale MTB, all the mountain bikes Cannondale made had 18" chainstays. So it's pretty clear that the small rear wheel was not intended to shorten up the rear end. 16" and 18" frames had 24" rear wheels, while 20" and 22" frames had 26" rear wheels. Why? No idea. Behold the acres of room between the seat tube and tire on this 1985 24" wheeled bike: http://www.firstflightbikes.com/85Cdale.htm In the mid-'80s when the mixed wheel diameter bikes were being manufactured, MTB tires were pretty lame all the way around, and the selection in 24" was not categorically worse than that in the 26" size. Chalo   Date: 04 Aug 2007 21:08:22 From: DirtRoadie Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 11:33 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > It's self-identification into a subset of a subset. AKA, it's different so it must be better. The only person who has explained his interest in single speeds to me in any rational terms is a friend (having recently moved back to the mountains of Colorado) who said "it's mostly a matter of having lived in Oklahoma City for seven years." I think the rationale also applies to a "69er." IMHO the 26/29 thing seems pretty silly. Either 29" tires have advantages or they don't (I think they do). I guess a "69er" is for someone who really can't decide. DR   Date: 05 Aug 2007 03:20:52 From: landotter Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 8:50 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote: > datakoll aka gene daniels wrote: > > > > > once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally > > beevuh. bad news > > Better than some of the diseases one could catch from "beevuh"! Jerry Mathers is totally clean now, I asked him first.   Date: 05 Aug 2007 01:05:15 From: datakoll Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally beevuh. bad news     Date: 04 Aug 2007 20:50:10 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? datakoll aka gene daniels wrote: > > once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally > beevuh. bad news Better than some of the diseases one could catch from "beevuh"! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 04 Aug 2007 18:02:51 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net > wrote: > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > > > i pass at least 5 fixies > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > > up those hills. > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....     Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:27:43 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD <CKA...@webtv.net> wrote: >> On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: >> >>> personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >>> a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. >> We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. >> >>> i pass at least 5 fixies >>> a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things >>> happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's >>> sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me >>> up those hills. >> C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how >> inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's >> loaded with punks and poseurs. >> >> JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass > > No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... > JD's a freak no matter what bike he's on. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky   Date: 04 Aug 2007 18:01:51 From: JeffWills Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 3:36 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > > (-It's a different matter I realize but-) The Cannondale MTB that was > 26/24 F/R did not use a fatter tire on the back, both were the usual 2.2 > inches. You could tell just by looking, that the front rim and tire was > visibly taller than the rear. > > I remember because I was shopping for a MTB when they were in shops, and > I remember looking at it and thinking "WTF?". It wouldn't automatically > turn me off now, but not wanting the hassle of buying 24" tires and > tubes back then--I disregarded it pretty quickly, without even a test-ride. > > I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was > more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear > because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a > 24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26. > IIRC (becoming more of an issue as time goes by), the 26/24 Cannondale MTB was called the "Beast of the East", supposedly because the "eastern" riders demanded a more manuverable bike with a lighter rear end and higher bottom bracket, as opposed to "western" riders who were all about bombing down fire roads and could care less about hopping over roots. Cliques are nothing new. Jeff   Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:45:31 From: JD Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com > wrote: > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > i pass at least 5 fixies > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > up those hills. C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's loaded with punks and poseurs. JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass     Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:48:13 From: Marz Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 9, 6:59 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote: > On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:49:41 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> > wrote: > > >p.s. Actually some Zen Master or just Grant's article in RR? > > Who knows? :-) > > I like this version: > > [quote] And this one shows up on the internet as a "Zen Proverb." God > knows where it really comes from, but even anonymous it's a good one: > > A Zen teacher saw five of his students returning from the market, > riding their bicycles. When they arrived at the monastery and had > dismounted, the teacher asked the students, "Why are you riding your > bicycles?" > The first student replied, "The bicycle is carrying the sack of > potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry them on my back!" The > teacher praised the first student, "You are a smart boy! When you grow > old, you will not walk hunched over like I do." > The second student replied, "I love to watch the trees and fields pass > by as I roll down the path!" The teacher commended the second student, > "Your eyes are open, and you see the world." > The third student replied, "When I ride my bicycle, I am content to > chant nam myoho renge kyo." The teacher gave praise to the third > student, "Your mind will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel." > The fourth student replied, "Riding my bicycle, I live in harmony with > all sentient beings." The teacher was pleased, and said to the fourth > student, "You are riding on the golden path of non-harming." > The fifth student replied, "I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle." The > teacher sat at the feet of the fifth student and said, "Ahh.... I am > your student!" [/quote] > > http://tucorides.blogspot.com/2006/06/cycling-quotes.html "I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle." Nice and so true. I don't commute to work by bike (though maybe I should), I don't go out and ride somewhere on the weekends, the somewhere doesn't matter, I don't ride for exercise as I actually exercise so I can ride (faster, further, longer, etc).     Date: 06 Aug 2007 08:34:35 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:45:31 -0700, JD wrote: > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > loaded with punks and poseurs. I ride with a few people who have both geared and SS road bikes, and may come out on either. They say that the spinning and grinding required on a SS is good training, and they may well be right, but overall they're much slower on the SS, and get tired more quickly. Unless you're riding with people weaker than yourself, it's inconsiderate to slow down the group - IMHO they should save the SS for solo rides.     Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:29:29 From: Fred Clydesdale Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <1186274731.294018.93830@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, JD <CKAGMD@webtv.net > wrote: > On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com> wrote: > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > > We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. > > > i pass at least 5 fixies > > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > > up those hills. > > > C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how > inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's > loaded with punks and poseurs. > > JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass yah, okay. no more red bull for you, d00d. i'm sure that for some people the simplicity is an attraction. me, not so much. maybe you're in that group. i'm also sure that for some people riding a fixie is just a way of saying "i'm OUT there". maybe you're in that group. here's a test question: how do you feel about The Man trying to legislate the requirement for at least one brake on your surly, or soma, or whatever it is? and yes, my weekday ride is loaded with punks and poseurs. it's washington dc, and pretty much every activity around here can be loaded with punks and poseurs.       Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:44:04 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Fred Clydesdale wrote: > > > i'm sure that for some people the simplicity is an attraction. > me, not so much. maybe you're in that group. i'm also sure that > for some people riding a fixie is just a way of saying "i'm > OUT there". No, for many it's a way of having fun. I'm not all that interested in SS freewheel bikes but my fixed gear is FUN AS HELL in my local terrain. If you want the opinion of a well-rounded and generally agnostic(*) cyclist check out Sheldon's articles: http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed/index.html > maybe you're in that group. here's a test question: > how do you feel about The Man trying to legislate the requirement > for at least one brake on your surly, or soma, or whatever it > is? I differ greatly with JD on this but I think everyone should run at least one brake with a fixed gear. I run both the original brakes on my 1980 Motobecane Jubilee Sport. Greg (*)Only regarding the religion of cycling. -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky   Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:38:06 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > provide any real advantage? > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > that causes brain dysfunction? > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time. Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied. Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971     Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:42:13 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <13b9vu6o0jv0h4f@corp.supernews.com >, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > > provide any real advantage? > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > > that causes brain dysfunction? > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time. > Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied. > > Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago. Target for small front wheels: riders at 5' 4" and shorter. -- Michael Press   Date: 04 Aug 2007 18:33:57 From: Fred Clydesdale Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote: > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > provide any real advantage? > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? ... > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me up those hills. i had somebody on one of those ultra hip surly fixies chase me DOWN a hill one time, but he disappeared at the halfway point when it threw its chain. i have no idea if he hurt himself but it made an extremely entertaining noise. sometimes technology marches on for no apparent reason, but the derailleur was invented to fix a very real problem. so the whole derailleur/shifter/cassette system adds a couple of pounds to the total: it gets you where you're going faster and with less effort. i'm sure there are a few very specialized areas of competition where these things are used. i, however, use my bike for recreation and transportation.     Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:20:38 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:33:57 -0400, Fred Clydesdale <fred@belldinger.com > wrote: >personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and >a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. You do get that single and fixie are not synonymous? A fixie mountain bike does sound fairly insane, sort of an ego trip for bored muscle heads. But that is not the subject of this thread, which is single speed, with freewheel. Different animal.       Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:48:01 From: Duncan Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message news:9o6hb39o78m8o1u4fsd7rlhl3m9g04siur@4ax.com... > > A fixie mountain bike does sound fairly insane, sort of an ego trip > for bored muscle heads. But that is not the subject of this thread, > which is single speed, with freewheel. Different animal. Harsh, but fair... Racing a fixie offroad can be pretty tough, but racing's not about taking it easy. Plus it gives the commentators something to talk about. I was pretty stoked a few weeks ago to win my first Dirt Crit in A-grade on my fixie but that was mainly due to most of the Elite riders taking it easy over winter. While I'm contributing to this bloated thread I thought I'd make a few points: Riding a single speed offroad makes a hell of a lot more sense than most people expect. Good mountain biking is either uphill where your lowish gear is tolerable, downhill where you're coasting or tight singletrack where your speed is determined by cornering more than pedalling. Fit legs have a far greater cadence range than you'd expect. An SS drivetrain without a tensioner is noticably more efficient than geared. SS does teach a lot of skills about maintaining speed through corners and undulating terrain. SS is good training as you get to grind and spin. SS can be faster in some races as it forces you to put effort into the climbs and recover on the downhills. It does wear you out a bit quicker though. Simplicity and durability are very important for people who want to spend more time riding and less time maintaining their bikes. Rigid forks (not SS related) do teach you a lot about the effects of terrain that carries over to variable length forks. Fixed gear MTBs are pretty stupid but you do get very good speed modulation in some singletrack... The list goes on...         Date: 08 Aug 2007 11:03:51 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Duncan wrote: > "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message > news:9o6hb39o78m8o1u4fsd7rlhl3m9g04siur@4ax.com... >> A fixie mountain bike does sound fairly insane, sort of an ego trip >> for bored muscle heads. But that is not the subject of this thread, >> which is single speed, with freewheel. Different animal. > > Harsh, but fair... > Racing a fixie offroad can be pretty tough, but racing's not about taking it > easy. Plus it gives the commentators something to talk about. I was pretty > stoked a few weeks ago to win my first Dirt Crit in A-grade on my fixie but > that was mainly due to most of the Elite riders taking it easy over winter. > Congrats. Vive la différence!!!!!!!!!! Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky         Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:06:33 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:48:01 +1000, "Duncan" <abc@def.com > wrote: >"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message >news:9o6hb39o78m8o1u4fsd7rlhl3m9g04siur@4ax.com... >> >> A fixie mountain bike does sound fairly insane, sort of an ego trip >> for bored muscle heads. But that is not the subject of this thread, >> which is single speed, with freewheel. Different animal. > >Harsh, but fair... >Racing a fixie offroad can be pretty tough, but racing's not about taking it >easy. Plus it gives the commentators something to talk about. I was pretty >stoked a few weeks ago to win my first Dirt Crit in A-grade on my fixie but >that was mainly due to most of the Elite riders taking it easy over winter. > >While I'm contributing to this bloated thread I thought I'd make a few >points: > >Riding a single speed offroad makes a hell of a lot more sense than most >people expect. > >Good mountain biking is either uphill where your lowish gear is tolerable, >downhill where you're coasting or tight singletrack where your speed is >determined by cornering more than pedalling. > >Fit legs have a far greater cadence range than you'd expect. > >An SS drivetrain without a tensioner is noticably more efficient than >geared. > >SS does teach a lot of skills about maintaining speed through corners and >undulating terrain. > >SS is good training as you get to grind and spin. > >SS can be faster in some races as it forces you to put effort into the >climbs and recover on the downhills. It does wear you out a bit quicker >though. > >Simplicity and durability are very important for people who want to spend >more time riding and less time maintaining their bikes. > >Rigid forks (not SS related) do teach you a lot about the effects of terrain >that carries over to variable length forks. > >Fixed gear MTBs are pretty stupid but you do get very good speed modulation >in some singletrack... > >The list goes on... Amen. The only thing I would add is the fact that a rigid SS (especially if you are rich enough to have a Sibex fork) weighs at least 5 and usually much more than any dual suspension bike on the market), which makes a huge difference going up if not down and sideways. It is refreshing when somebody who actually has experience on the subject matter of a thread posts his $0.02. P.S. Sorry about the fixie quip, but fixies off-road just have that ultra marathon, iron man sounding quality - somewhere way off the left side of the bell curve :-) P.S.S. No, I CAN'T ride a fixie off-road.       Date: 07 Aug 2007 13:58:32 From: Fred Clydesdale Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <9o6hb39o78m8o1u4fsd7rlhl3m9g04siur@4ax.com >, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote: > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:33:57 -0400, Fred Clydesdale > <fred@belldinger.com> wrote: > > >personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > >a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > You do get that single and fixie are not synonymous? sorry. i should have been more clear. i meant to say: personally, i've never gotten the rationale behind fixies, which are a subset of singlespeed bikes in which the driving gear does not freewheel but is locked to the hub in such a way as to require that the pedals are moving at any time the bike is moving. further, the idea of a singlespeed mtb seems exceedingly impractical, given the wide range of terrain one might encounter on a typical offroad ride. while a singlespeed with a freewheel may be slightly more practical (than a fixed-gear bicycle), it still seems considerably less useful than a modern, multi-gear bicycle. (application of emoticons as required.)         Date: 07 Aug 2007 21:23:40 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Fred Clydesdale wrote: > In article <9o6hb39o78m8o1u4fsd7rlhl3m9g04siur@4ax.com>, > Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote: <snip > while a singlespeed with a freewheel > may be slightly more practical (than a fixed-gear bicycle), it > still seems considerably less useful than a modern, multi-gear > bicycle. > > (application of emoticons as required.) You first have to define "useful". If your personal definition starts with the words "efficient" or "fast", then you are probably correct. But if it starts with "fun" then it is open to interpretation. I spend most of my working life either building or designing sailing boats - not as fast as powerboats, but waaaay more fun.     Date: 06 Aug 2007 00:14:11 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Fred Clydesdale wrote: > In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: > >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a >> demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel >> provide any real advantage? >> >> What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > ... >> Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > sake. Damn. Tonight I passed a 'bent trike on a flat bike path going into a headwind. 'bents must be slow and inefficient! Q.E.D. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky     Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:23:33 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Fred Clydesdale wrote: > In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: > >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a >> demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel >> provide any real advantage? >> >> What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > ... >> Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and > a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies > a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things > happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's > sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me > up those hills. Interesting, I'm out of shape but I pass more people going up hills on my fixed than on my geared bike. Either you're just plain old fitter than those guys or you're full of shit. Going downhill is another matter. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky       Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:32:11 From: Fred Clydesdale Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <13bcmvm8hkou569@corp.supernews.com >, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com > wrote: > Interesting, I'm out of shape but I pass more people going up hills on > my fixed than on my geared bike. Either you're just plain old fitter > than those guys or you're full of shit. a little from column A, a little from column B... i think the problem most people with geared bikes have is that they tend to think "hill: first gear". that doesn't make it HURT any less, it just makes it hurt LONGER. me? i like the suffering. but i'd rather suffer with my 39-21 than a 45-15 or whatever. anything higher and i'm just grinding. > Going downhill is another matter. i guess it either helps your spin or breaks your legs off at high speeds.         Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:38:54 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Fred Clydesdale who? wrote: > In article <13bcmvm8hkou569@corp.supernews.com>, > "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> Interesting, I'm out of shape but I pass more people going up hills on >> my fixed than on my geared bike. Either you're just plain old fitter >> than those guys or you're full of shit. > > a little from column A, a little from column B... > > i think the problem most people with geared bikes have is that they > tend to think "hill: first gear". that doesn't make it HURT any less, > it just makes it hurt LONGER.... The force applied to the pedals does need to be kept down to a point where the rider is still using anaerobic power if the climb is of any length. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 06 Aug 2007 23:53:31 From: Steve Baker Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Fred Clydesdale who? wrote: <snip-de-dip > > The force applied to the pedals does need to be kept down to a point > where the rider is still using anaerobic power if the climb is of any > length. > Dude, if the climb is that long and painful, get the feck off the bike and walk it. The flowers smell nicer that way. ;-)             Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:05:34 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Steve Baker wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Fred Clydesdale who? wrote: > > <snip-de-dip> > >> The force applied to the pedals does need to be kept down to a point >> where the rider is still using anaerobic power if the climb is of any >> length. >> > > Dude, if the climb is that long and painful, get the feck off the bike > and walk it. The flowers smell nicer that way. ;-) I usually walk uphill when I either break traction or can not keep the front wheel on the ground (this happens on slopes that somewhat skilled riders can climb), or when things start to get out of hand downhill (long before decent riders dismount). -- Tom "Sub-Barney" Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 04 Aug 2007 20:17:55 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <fred-105624.18335704082007@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >, Fred Clydesdale <fred@belldinger.com > wrote: > In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> > wrote: > > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it > > just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller > > rear wheel provide any real advantage? > > > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > ... > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and a > singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. Fixed gears are just fun, but there is the "hipster effect" that extends the adoption of these things beyond fun and into "cool." Or is that "kool?" I can't keep up with what's hip. I used to fixed gear a lot but a martial arts knee injury and surgery has ended that- I suspect that the effects of descending would be damaging. I do have a single speed road bike that is- again- just plain fun. Eliminating gearing decisions from the ride lets me just pay attention to the ride and not to the bike. And, heck, on my bikes with derailleurs it's not uncommon for me to go on a ride of 50 miles and never shift gears. I think MTBs are generally useless, let alone single speed MTBs, so I'm not so much the right person to comment on that subset. A few years ago, Dirt Rag Magazine (or similar) published the "cheapest, easiest single speed conversion:" "Take your bike and put it in a medium gear. Never shift again."       Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:40:12 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <timmcn-EE15DF.20175504082007@news.iphouse.com >, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <fred-105624.18335704082007@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > Fred Clydesdale <fred@belldinger.com> wrote: > > > In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> > > wrote: > > > > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it > > > just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller > > > rear wheel provide any real advantage? > > > > > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > ... > > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > > > personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and a > > singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. > > Fixed gears are just fun, but there is the "hipster effect" that extends > the adoption of these things beyond fun and into "cool." Or is that > "kool?" I can't keep up with what's hip. I used to fixed gear a lot > but a martial arts knee injury and surgery has ended that- I suspect > that the effects of descending would be damaging. I do have a single > speed road bike that is- again- just plain fun. Eliminating gearing > decisions from the ride lets me just pay attention to the ride and not > to the bike. And, heck, on my bikes with derailleurs it's not uncommon > for me to go on a ride of 50 miles and never shift gears. > > I think MTBs are generally useless, let alone single speed MTBs, so I'm > not so much the right person to comment on that subset. > > A few years ago, Dirt Rag Magazine (or similar) published the "cheapest, > easiest single speed conversion:" "Take your bike and put it in a > medium gear. Never shift again." Now _that_ is cool, saying it in a publication. I have done that exercise. Learned a lot, improved my cycling. -- Michael Press   Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:56:05 From: Sir Ridesalot Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote: > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > provide any real advantage? > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > that causes brain dysfunction? > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com Hi there. The smaller rear wheel gives a slightly lower gear than the bike would have with a 29 rear wheel. It looks like a trials bike not a mountain bike, Market? People who like to ride over obstacles. Cheers from Peter     Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:27:39 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Sir Ridesalot wrote: > On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> wrote: >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >> >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a >> demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel >> provide any real advantage? >> >> What is the deal with single-speed anyway? >> >> Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike >> because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their >> customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys >> products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? >> >> Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite >> that causes brain dysfunction? >> >> Who exactly is the target market for this bike? >> > > Hi there. > > The smaller rear wheel gives a slightly lower gear than the bike would > have with a 29 rear wheel. Why not accomplish the same thing with a smaller chainring or larger sprocket? > It looks like a trials bike not a mountain bike, I thought this was a trials bike: <http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/26ghz-trials.html > - not much like the 69er is it? Do US trials differ a lot from UK trials? > Market? People who like to ride over obstacles. I usually crash over obstacles [1] in a demonstration of my sub-Barney riding skills. ;) [1] No Sorni, this is on my ATB [2], not one of the 'bents! [2] ATB seems more appropriate than MTB, since there are no real mountains in most of the Upper Midwest. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:40:13 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 12:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote: > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > provide any real advantage? > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? It's a fad. It'll pass..... > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > that causes brain dysfunction? > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? People who already have a 'traditional' MTB and need an excuse to buy another bike. See: The Rivendell Guide to Marketing Bicycles by G. Petersen > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com     Date: 06 Aug 2007 23:36:03 From: Doug Taylor Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:40:13 -0700, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >> What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > >It's a fad. It'll pass..... More wit and wisdom from Mr. Six-Toe. Hey, Ozone, how many years have to pass before a "fad" turns into part of the scenery? My single speed mountain bike is close to 10 years old. About the same as my snowboard. Get it?   Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:05:52 From: Hank Wirtz Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Aug 4, 10:50 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com > wrote: > I don't know about Cunningham but a few builders, including Cannondale, > built bikes with 24" rear wheels and 26" fronts. In fact, I wouldn't > be surprised if someone still is. My mom used to have a Shogun Prairie Breaker Pro with a 24" front and 26" rear. She felt like she was going to go over the bars when she descended on it. She was not in the least bit heartbroken when it was stolen about 12 years ago. She replaced it with a Trek 990 which she rides to this day.   Date: 04 Aug 2007 10:44:22 From: jim beam Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman > wrote: > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a > demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel > provide any real advantage? > > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys > products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > that causes brain dysfunction? > > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > 1. larger wheels roll over obstacles better. geometry. 2. off-road motorcycles have had this configuration for decades. all your other comments are trolling. go ride your bike.   Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" > wrote: > See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > > Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it > just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear > wheel provide any real advantage? Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he used to ride trials and the like. > What is the deal with single-speed anyway? It's self-identification into a subset of a subset. > Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike > because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their > customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who > buys products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? It's the marketing technique of trying to be hip by naming your product with a vaguely prurient double entendre. Some marketing flack got a bonus for that. It was funny back when Scot Nicol did it at Ibis (the Toe Jam pump mounting peg, the Hand Job brake cable stop) but now it's just passé. Big manufacturers are always behind the times and their attempts to be hip are usually embarrassing. > Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite > that causes brain dysfunction? No, it's an infestation of marketing idiots. > Who exactly is the target market for this bike? People who want to look like they are riding an engineless motorcycle.     Date: 09 Aug 2007 09:56:13 From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message news:timmcn-82A306.12335104082007@news.iphouse.com... > In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> > wrote: > >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >> >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it >> just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear >> wheel provide any real advantage? > > Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear > wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller > rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he used to ride > trials and the like. > >> What is the deal with single-speed anyway? > > It's self-identification into a subset of a subset. > >> Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike >> because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their >> customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who >> buys products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires? > > It's the marketing technique of trying to be hip by naming your product > with a vaguely prurient double entendre. Some marketing flack got a > bonus for that. It was funny back when Scot Nicol did it at Ibis (the > Toe Jam pump mounting peg, the Hand Job brake cable stop) but now it's > just passé. Big manufacturers are always behind the times and their > attempts to be hip are usually embarrassing. > >> Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite >> that causes brain dysfunction? > > No, it's an infestation of marketing idiots. > >> Who exactly is the target market for this bike? > > People who want to look like they are riding an engineless motorcycle. Yep. I always found Cove mountain bikes' names ridiculously juvenile and will never buy one. Stiffee, Handjob, Hustler, Sanchez, G-Spot, Foreplay, Playmate... I'm not kidding. If a teenage boy had 2K to drop on a bike, that will probably be the bike. The same goes for Ellsworth and their gothic marketing lifted off the corpse of Spooky Cycles.     Date: 04 Aug 2007 13:49:37 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> > wrote: > >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >> >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it >> just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear >> wheel provide any real advantage? > >Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear >wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller >rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he used to ride >trials and the like. Dear Tim, Sorry, but we fooled you. Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly insist that their front tires are bigger. After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right? Nope. Look at this 2007 GasGas TXT 300cc, which has the standard 21 x 2.75 front tire and 18 x 4.00 rear tire: http://i16.tinypic.com/4pl4yhk.jpg You can't tell the front tire from the rear with a yardstick on a trials machine, particularly if the rider's weight is squashing the lightly inflated tires. For practical purposes, the front and rear tires are the same height. In fact, the height of the tread blocks on a particular model of tire has more effect on the tire height than whether it's a "21" front or "18" rear tire. On the front, the narrow 21-inch rim mounts a skinny 2.75 tire. The combination is tall enough to roll over obstacles easily, but still light enough to steer, bounce, and pop up in tricky places. The rim is strong enough because the leading tire takes less impact, carries less weight, and has more suspension. On the rear, the wide 18-inch rim mounts a 4.00 tire, which is so thick in cross-section that it ends up just as tall and willing to roll over obstacles as the dainty front tire. The 4-inch width gives traction for the engine, the huge increase in cross-section gives more pneumatic suspension at the same 4~6 psi (think 700x38 versus 700x21), and the massive rim and tire withstand ~400 pounds of rider and machine slamming into waist-high rock ledges. Since the rear tire steers a gentler curve than the front tire, the enormous increase in weight doesn't hurt handling. That's why the original 19-inch front and rear rims were replaced. They were fine for pavement and okay for fairly smooth off-road riding, but too heavy and clumsy for the front and not heavy and strong enough for the rear when riders began bouncing over fallen logs and big rocks. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:24:34 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <dvk9b3dajck2fd9t3btqsnsefnsjgon03j@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: [...] Thanks for the exposition on trials motorcycle wheels and tires. -- Michael Press       Date: 04 Aug 2007 18:36:01 From: DougC Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > > Dear Tim, > > Sorry, but we fooled you. > > Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly insist > that their front tires are bigger. > > After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear > rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right? > > Nope. > (-It's a different matter I realize but-) The Cannondale MTB that was 26/24 F/R did not use a fatter tire on the back, both were the usual 2.2 inches. You could tell just by looking, that the front rim and tire was visibly taller than the rear. I remember because I was shopping for a MTB when they were in shops, and I remember looking at it and thinking "WTF?". It wouldn't automatically turn me off now, but not wanting the hassle of buying 24" tires and tubes back then--I disregarded it pretty quickly, without even a test-ride. I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a 24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26. I dunno if I believe the long chainstays wasting energy business, but somebody important must have thought it made sense. ----- With motorcycles, the reason I was told was precisely because using a smaller rear tire allows the tire to be mounted closer under the rider+frame, contributing to level-ground traction. On-road motorcycles don't bother with it because for them it's not a significant advantage. ~         Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:43:28 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:36:01 -0500, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: [snip] >With motorcycles, the reason I was told was precisely because using a >smaller rear tire allows the tire to be mounted closer under the >rider+frame, contributing to level-ground traction. On-road motorcycles >don't bother with it because for them it's not a significant advantage. Dear Doug, Sorry, but they told you wrong. The thick rear 18 x 4.00 tire on a trials motorcycle isn't smaller. It's just as tall as the skinny 21 x 2.75 front tire: http://i16.tinypic.com/4pl4yhk.jpg And level-ground traction is not a problem on a trials machine. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 04 Aug 2007 16:27:49 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? In article <dvk9b3dajck2fd9t3btqsnsefnsjgon03j@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> > > wrote: > > > >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. > >> > >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it > >> just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller > >> rear wheel provide any real advantage? > > > >Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear > >wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a > >smaller rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he > >used to ride trials and the like. > > Dear Tim, > > Sorry, but we fooled you. > > Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly > insist that their front tires are bigger. > > After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear > rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right? > > Nope. Interesting! Never having and anything to do with motorcycles, I'd not thought much about this. The cycling parallel would be something like having a 650B X 37 rear and a 700C x 18 front. The overall diameter is just about the same, but the section width of the tire is very different.         Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:26:32 From: Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:27:49 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <dvk9b3dajck2fd9t3btqsnsefnsjgon03j@4ax.com>, > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, >> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >> >> >> >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it >> >> just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller >> >> rear wheel provide any real advantage? >> > >> >Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear >> >wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a >> >smaller rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he >> >used to ride trials and the like. >> >> Dear Tim, >> >> Sorry, but we fooled you. >> >> Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly >> insist that their front tires are bigger. >> >> After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear >> rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right? >> >> Nope. > >Interesting! Never having and anything to do with motorcycles, I'd not >thought much about this. The cycling parallel would be something like >having a 650B X 37 rear and a 700C x 18 front. The overall diameter is >just about the same, but the section width of the tire is very different. Dear Tim, Exactly--fat or thin, they end up awfully close to the same height. Incidentally, high-level bicycle trials riding rarely involves tires "rolling" over obstacles or even pedalling. It's mostly acrobatic hopping with locked wheels and motionless cranks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAUQrQVTTk&eurl= In contrast, motorcycle trials still rolls up and over wet rocks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwzykvxNeCY This is closer to bicycle trials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QJCXkYea8&NR=1 Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:14:26 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <dvk9b3dajck2fd9t3btqsnsefnsjgon03j@4ax.com>, > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >>> In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >>>> >>>> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it >>>> just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller >>>> rear wheel provide any real advantage? >>> Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear >>> wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a >>> smaller rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he >>> used to ride trials and the like. >> Dear Tim, >> >> Sorry, but we fooled you. >> >> Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly >> insist that their front tires are bigger. >> >> After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear >> rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right? >> >> Nope. > > Interesting! Never having and anything to do with motorcycles, I'd not > thought much about this. The cycling parallel would be something like > having a 650B X 37 rear and a 700C x 18 front. The overall diameter is > just about the same, but the section width of the tire is very different. Or more appropriately if we are talking "French" tire sizing system, 700A (ISO 642-mm) on the front and 700C (ISO 622-mm) on the rear, both with an approximate major diameter of 700-mm. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 04 Aug 2007 10:50:54 From: G.T. Subject: Re: I don't understand - what is this for? Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <46b4a85d$0$16326$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"> > wrote: > >> See <http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>. >> >> Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it >> just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear >> wheel provide any real advantage? > > Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear > wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller > rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he used to ride > trials and the like. I don't know about Cunningham but a few builders, including Cannondale, built bikes with 24" rear wheels and 26" fronts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone still is. The first purpose-built off-road motorcycles started out with 19" front and 19" rear tires. Over the years that evolved into 18" rears, and 21" fronts. Although I haven't kept up with off-road motos so they may be using different sizes now. I know 17", 18" and 19" rear tires and 21" and 23" front tires were tried at various times over the last 30 years. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky