| |
Main
Date: 23 May 2007 20:05:33
From: Bill
Subject: Potential dumb question.
|
Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
speed. They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one
is good enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
would hurt.
??????????????
Bill Baka
|
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 15:14:27
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On May 25, 2:34 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:13:51 -0500, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Bill" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:SbH5i.9344$2v1.5095@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> >> Callistus Valerius wrote:
> >>>>> ----------
> >>>> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
> >>>> totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
> >>>> we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
> >>>> lot of that food and water weight.
> >>>> Bill Baka
> >>> ------------
> >>> Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC, much
> >>> easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the bucket over the
> >>> front handlebars.
>
> >> I should have said I load up a 50 pound bike to about 80 pounds with all
> >> the food and water I take along. Nearest KFC to my rides is about 35
> >> miles. Sounds good, but I ride way back in the boondocks.
> >> Bill Baka
>
> >30 pounds of food and water just for a bike ride? That's enough for an
> >entire tour, come on Bill get real.
>
> He is real... on Planet Baka.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It takes heaps of fuel to get up to 50mph on a tricycle.
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2007 15:26:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On May 25, 2:34 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:13:51 -0500, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:SbH5i.9344$2v1.5095@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I
>>>>>> am totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water
>>>>>> (pre-housing) but we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me
>>>>>> to 3,000 feet burns off a lot of that food and water weight.
>>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC,
>>>>> much easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the
>>>>> bucket over the front handlebars.
>>
>>>> I should have said I load up a 50 pound bike to about 80 pounds
>>>> with all the food and water I take along. Nearest KFC to my rides
>>>> is about 35 miles. Sounds good, but I ride way back in the
>>>> boondocks.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>
>>> 30 pounds of food and water just for a bike ride? That's enough
>>> for an entire tour, come on Bill get real.
>>
>> He is real... on Planet Baka.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It takes heaps of fuel to get up to 50mph on a tricycle.
Not to mention doing "off-road centuries" wearing blue jeans. (Oh, and with
a morbidly obese riding partner.)
Bill "tired from today's moderate 40...all paved" S.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 23:30:15
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Not to mention doing "off-road centuries" wearing blue jeans.
I gave up riding more than 5 miles with blue jeans for some obvious
chaffing reasons. I keep a pair in the back rack to slip on if I am
going to hike it and carry the bike through some pointy weeds.
(Oh, and with
> a morbidly obese riding partner.)
No partner, so far. When I tell people what I have in mind they
'remember' some yard work they forgot.
>
> Bill "tired from today's moderate 40...all paved" S.
40? On pavement? Damn, that sure is impressive, and boring.
Bill Baka
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 17:59:01
From: DI
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:4657628a$0$1413$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>> On May 25, 2:34 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:13:51 -0500, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> It takes heaps of fuel to get up to 50mph on a tricycle.
>
> Not to mention doing "off-road centuries" wearing blue jeans. (Oh, and
> with a morbidly obese riding partner.)
>
On a 50lb Huffy
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 02:34:17
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:59:01 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>news:4657628a$0$1413$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>> On May 25, 2:34 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:13:51 -0500, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> It takes heaps of fuel to get up to 50mph on a tricycle.
>>
>> Not to mention doing "off-road centuries" wearing blue jeans. (Oh, and
>> with a morbidly obese riding partner.)
>>
>
>On a 50lb Huffy
>
The gravity must be lower on Planet Baka.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 16:35:20
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
DI wrote:
> On a 50lb Huffy
48 pounds plus lots of junk I carry. If I break the bike 30 miles from
traffic or cell phone service I want some spare food and water to be
able to walk or carry the bike that distance. If I break me the vultures
get lucky. That's just the way I ride and hike.
Nobody lives forever, and a rest home is not for me, so if I go having
fun, then that's that.
Simple.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 18:22:54
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On May 23, 8:05 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
> to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
> speed.
I think that because many of us have worked in shops, we know of
durability problems with low-end BSOs (bike-shaped-objects). Most
notably, the dangers of thin stamped & pinched dropouts. Of the bikes
you describe, I'd guess only the Huffy falls into that category.
Schwinns from the '70s are the Rasputin of Bikes. You might hate them,
but do what you will to them, and you just can't kill them.
> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
> it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
> wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
All the more reason to ride something reliable.
> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> apart?
Not at all. Just don't pretend that it's just as good as a more
expensive, more solidly built model.
And don't call me for a ride when your Huffy's dropout pulls out of
the seatstay.
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 22:30:10
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On May 23, 8:05 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
>> to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
>> speed.
>
> I think that because many of us have worked in shops, we know of
> durability problems with low-end BSOs (bike-shaped-objects). Most
> notably, the dangers of thin stamped & pinched dropouts. Of the bikes
> you describe, I'd guess only the Huffy falls into that category.
The Huffy was actually a high end Target bike in 1994 when I bought it
for my daughter. It even has removable square BB cranks.
> Schwinns from the '70s are the Rasputin of Bikes. You might hate them,
> but do what you will to them, and you just can't kill them.
Not yet, at least.
>
>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
>> it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
>> wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
>
> All the more reason to ride something reliable.
>
>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>> apart?
>
> Not at all. Just don't pretend that it's just as good as a more
> expensive, more solidly built model.
That's why I carry enough food and water to pack the bike out until I
can get a cell phone signal and SAG (pissed) wife ride home.
>
> And don't call me for a ride when your Huffy's dropout pulls out of
> the seatstay.
I've already replaced the BB, rear wheel (bearing races were gone),
front wheel bearing set, seat, crank set, and more, but it still rides.
Bill Baka
>
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 00:51:46
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
" I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
> to a $300+ Pacific
---------
durable, as long as you can still pedal you'll never be stranded.
---------
That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
---------
I have a couple of heavy crappy bikes too, but I have better line,
"Lance could win this race riding this bike." Or another one I use, "This
bike is like lifting weights, so when I ride my real bike it feels like it
weighs nothing." But since I've thankfully left the competative cycling
mode, I use your "workout" line too. Heavy is ok, if you only want to ride
30 miles for a workout, as opposed to having to ride 80 just to break a
sweat.
----------
> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> apart?
----------
There are no stupid questions in rbt, only controversial ones.
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 22:25:46
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Callistus Valerius wrote:
> " I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
>> to a $300+ Pacific
> ---------
> durable, as long as you can still pedal you'll never be stranded.
> ---------
> That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> ---------
> I have a couple of heavy crappy bikes too, but I have better line,
> "Lance could win this race riding this bike." Or another one I use, "This
> bike is like lifting weights, so when I ride my real bike it feels like it
> weighs nothing." But since I've thankfully left the competative cycling
> mode, I use your "workout" line too. Heavy is ok, if you only want to ride
> 30 miles for a workout, as opposed to having to ride 80 just to break a
> sweat.
> ----------
I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
lot of that food and water weight.
Bill Baka
>
>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>> apart?
> ----------
> There are no stupid questions in rbt, only controversial ones.
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 10:02:19
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
> > ----------
> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
> totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
> we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
> lot of that food and water weight.
> Bill Baka
------------
Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC, much
easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the bucket over the
front handlebars.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 19:56:34
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>> ----------
>> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
>> totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
>> we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
>> lot of that food and water weight.
>> Bill Baka
> ------------
> Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC, much
> easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the bucket over the
> front handlebars.
>
>
I should have said I load up a 50 pound bike to about 80 pounds with all
the food and water I take along. Nearest KFC to my rides is about 35
miles. Sounds good, but I ride way back in the boondocks.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 16:13:51
From: DI
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:SbH5i.9344$2v1.5095@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>>> ----------
>>> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
>>> totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
>>> we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
>>> lot of that food and water weight.
>>> Bill Baka
>> ------------
>> Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC, much
>> easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the bucket over the
>> front handlebars.
>>
>>
> I should have said I load up a 50 pound bike to about 80 pounds with all
> the food and water I take along. Nearest KFC to my rides is about 35
> miles. Sounds good, but I ride way back in the boondocks.
> Bill Baka
30 pounds of food and water just for a bike ride? That's enough for an
entire tour, come on Bill get real.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 23:24:42
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
DI wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:SbH5i.9344$2v1.5095@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>>>> ----------
>>>> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
>>>> totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
>>>> we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
>>>> lot of that food and water weight.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> ------------
>>> Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC, much
>>> easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the bucket over the
>>> front handlebars.
>>>
>>>
>> I should have said I load up a 50 pound bike to about 80 pounds with all
>> the food and water I take along. Nearest KFC to my rides is about 35
>> miles. Sounds good, but I ride way back in the boondocks.
>> Bill Baka
>
> 30 pounds of food and water just for a bike ride? That's enough for an
> entire tour, come on Bill get real.
>
>
Picky.
I mean the food, water, Ice Chest in the left rear, 1 gallon water
thermos in the right rear, tools, 3 water bottles (1 one the front fork)
and other things like maybe my camera. On a 95-110 degree F day in
California it is easy to sweat and drink that much in the mountains, and
food to keep the energy up is consumed at every 10-15 miles. Think 40
miles of paved road, half flat, half hills, then the rest is either
really bad gravel road, trail (barely bikeable), or trail carrying bike.
15-20 miles east of Beale AFB is no pavement, no traffic, no people and
no services and a lot of carrying the bike. It isn't just a ride.
Google California's northern section, find Beale then just try to find a
paved road or even a building. There aren't any. No cell service or
anything where I go. Find the gravel road (Waldo) and use the
satellite/map composite and you will see there is nothing there.
I like to explore the remains of the gold rush country and have found
machinery from the 1850's to 1890's time period, rusted, but still
identifiable. Almost all the buildings have collapsed or burned so the
iron and steel tools are all that I find now.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 21:34:26
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:13:51 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:SbH5i.9344$2v1.5095@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>>>> ----------
>>>> I ride 80 pounds of water and food for the 80+ mile trips that I am
>>>> totally on my own. I do have a fresh creek for water (pre-housing) but
>>>> we all have to eat. Pedaling the bike and me to 3,000 feet burns off a
>>>> lot of that food and water weight.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> ------------
>>> Forget eating In&Out burgers while riding, I usually eat KFC, much
>>> easier. Just tie the bucket to your stem and drape the bucket over the
>>> front handlebars.
>>>
>>>
>> I should have said I load up a 50 pound bike to about 80 pounds with all
>> the food and water I take along. Nearest KFC to my rides is about 35
>> miles. Sounds good, but I ride way back in the boondocks.
>> Bill Baka
>
>30 pounds of food and water just for a bike ride? That's enough for an
>entire tour, come on Bill get real.
>
He is real... on Planet Baka.
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 15:16:57
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On May 24, 4:56 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> >> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> >> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> >> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> >> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> >> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> >> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> >> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> >> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> >> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> >> and way out of cell phone range.
> >> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> >> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> >> would hurt.
>
> > Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>
> > Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> > see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>
> > If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> > answer your own question about bikes.
>
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> 1024x768 is too high?
> Nobody uses 640x480 anymore and I got the monitor from a friend who
> thought LCD would be nice.
> Simple, cheap, works.
> No problem. Same for bikes.
> Better to ride than work to pay for one.
This says everything.
> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 15:22:47
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 24, 4:56 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Better to ride than work to pay for one.
>
>
> This says everything.
I work for myself these days.
Working is optional.
That says it.
Bill (no pointy haired Dilbert boss) Baka
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 21:58:48
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:05:33 -0700, Bill wrote:
> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
> it
...you're a strange old recluse that little children run away from even in
street clothes?
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 23:09:31
From: PiledHIgher
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
I think th eonion says it all:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2007 05:05:41
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:05:33 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy
>to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10
>speed. They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one
>is good enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
>My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
>don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
>more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
>I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to
>it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG
>wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
>Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
>would hurt.
>??????????????
>Bill Baka
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 +10dB
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 20:55:57
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> and way out of cell phone range.
> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> would hurt.
Just taking a wild guess here, but...
Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
see everything by just using the scroll bars?
If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
answer your own question about bikes.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 23:49:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
In article <i185i.6383$4Y.176@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> > under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> > a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> > They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> > enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> > My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> > don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> > more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> > I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> > I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> > and way out of cell phone range.
> > Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> > apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> > would hurt.
>
> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>
> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>
> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> answer your own question about bikes.
480x640? Posh! In my day we could see only one line at a time
and were grateful.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 22:22:57
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <i185i.6383$4Y.176@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
>>> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
>>> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
>>> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
>>> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
>>> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
>>> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
>>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
>>> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
>>> and way out of cell phone range.
>>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>>> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
>>> would hurt.
>> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>>
>> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
>> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>>
>> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
>> answer your own question about bikes.
>
> 480x640? Posh! In my day we could see only one line at a time
> and were grateful.
>
Did you work with nixie tube displays in the very early '70s?
Bill
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 06:12:55
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
In article <Dou5i.6716$4Y.86@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <i185i.6383$4Y.176@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
> >>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
> >>> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
> >>> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
> >>> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
> >>> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
> >>> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
> >>> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
> >>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
> >>> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
> >>> and way out of cell phone range.
> >>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
> >>> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
> >>> would hurt.
> >> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
> >>
> >> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> >> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
> >>
> >> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> >> answer your own question about bikes.
> >
> > 480x640? Posh! In my day we could see only one line at a time
> > and were grateful.
> >
> Did you work with nixie tube displays in the very early '70s?
Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
We had to key in the programs on the
face of the computer with our noses, because our
fingers had already been rubbed raw.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 02:49:54
From: Greg Evans
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Michael Press wrote:
> Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
> We had to key in the programs on the
> face of the computer with our noses, because our
> fingers had already been rubbed raw.
Psshaw! You kids with your "computers"! In my day we had
abacuses. Made from solid stone. And we had to gnaw them
from stone with our teeth, because we didn't have any tools.
And we liked it!
Greg
--
=========================================================
"I don't know, I don't care,
and it doesn't make any difference."
(Jack Kerouac)
---------------------------------------------------------
My Photos-
http://www.gsevans.com/photography/
My Blog-
http://www.gsevans.com/blog/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 09:58:58
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:49:54 -0400, Greg Evans
<not.skinny-aero@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>Michael Press wrote:
>
>> Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
>> We had to key in the programs on the
>> face of the computer with our noses, because our
>> fingers had already been rubbed raw.
>
>Psshaw! You kids with your "computers"! In my day we had
>abacuses. Made from solid stone. And we had to gnaw them
>from stone with our teeth, because we didn't have any tools.
>
>And we liked it!
>Greg
You had teeth?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2007 11:22:53
From: Greg Evans
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
R Brickton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 02:49:54 -0400, Greg Evans
> <not.skinny-aero@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >Michael Press wrote:
>> >
>>> >> Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
>>> >> We had to key in the programs on the
>>> >> face of the computer with our noses, because our
>>> >> fingers had already been rubbed raw.
>> >
>> >Psshaw! You kids with your "computers"! In my day we had
>> >abacuses. Made from solid stone. And we had to gnaw them
>>from stone with our teeth, because we didn't have any tools.
>> >
>> >And we liked it!
>> >Greg
>
> You had teeth?
That's right. I had 3 brothers and 3 sisters and we shared
a set of teeth. Thursday was my day.
Ahh... good times.
Greg
--
=========================================================
"Giving money and power to government is like
giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
(P.J. O'Rourke)
---------------------------------------------------------
My Photos-
http://www.gsevans.com/photography/
My Blog-
http://www.gsevans.com/blog/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 23:27:49
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <Dou5i.6716$4Y.86@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Did you work with nixie tube displays in the very early '70s?
>
> Nixie tubes! What we would have given for nixie tubes.
> We had to key in the programs on the
> face of the computer with our noses, because our
> fingers had already been rubbed raw.
>
I hate to admit using those bit by bit entry switches.
Ow, I think I'm feeling my Arthritis now.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2007 21:56:37
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that costs
>> under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an $85 Huffy to
>> a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn Super Sport 10 speed.
>> They all ride good enough that I rotate between them and any one is good
>> enough to put in a 100 mile day if I have the time for the ride.
>> My main pack and trail bike weighs about 75 pounds fully loaded and I
>> don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just means
>> more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better workout.
>> I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get down to it,
>> I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with no SAG wagon,
>> and way out of cell phone range.
>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they fall
>> apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a $3,000 Trek
>> would hurt.
>
> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>
> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when you could
> see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>
> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can probably
> answer your own question about bikes.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
1024x768 is too high?
Nobody uses 640x480 anymore and I got the monitor from a friend who
thought LCD would be nice.
Simple, cheap, works.
No problem. Same for bikes. Better to ride than work to pay for one.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 15:12:22
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Potential dumb question.
|
Bill wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Why is it that everyone on these bicycle groups rates a bike that
>>> costs under about $500 as a junker? I have 3 mountain bikes from an
>>> $85 Huffy to a $300+ Pacific, one old Motobecane, and one Schwinn
>>> Super Sport 10 speed. They all ride good enough that I rotate
>>> between them and any one is good enough to put in a 100 mile day if
>>> I have the time for the ride. My main pack and trail bike weighs about
>>> 75 pounds fully loaded and
>>> I don't care except maybe on a long mountain uphill, but that just
>>> means more exercise for me. That's a good thing for me, a better
>>> workout. I don't try to look like a TdF contender because when you get
>>> down
>>> to it, I have to pack along all my food and water for the day with
>>> no SAG wagon, and way out of cell phone range.
>>> Am I in the wrong for buying cheap bikes and riding them until they
>>> fall apart? A hundred dollar bike is no big loss, but killing a
>>> $3,000 Trek would hurt.
>>
>> Just taking a wild guess here, but...
>>
>> Why are you using a monitor larger than 480 x 640 resolution, when
>> you could see everything by just using the scroll bars?
>>
>> If you can come up with a reasonable answer to that one, you can
>> probably answer your own question about bikes.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
> 1024x768 is too high?
> Nobody uses 640x480 anymore and I got the monitor from a friend who
> thought LCD would be nice.
> Simple, cheap, works.
> No problem. Same for bikes. Better to ride than work to pay for one.
> Bill Baka
Mensa Whoosh. Sheesh.
Bill "you tried, Mike" S.
|
|
