Conclusions: Electra Townie 21 vs. Trek Pure Sport [Archive]

landotter

September 10th 07, 03:10 AM

On Sep 9, 9:06 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>
> > > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually identical
> > > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
> > > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
> > > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
> > > components and a suspension front.
>
> > Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> > bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> > new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
> > good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> > factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.

My bad, I was thinking of Dick Cheney's heated pool.

landotter

September 10th 07, 03:13 AM

On Sep 9, 5:12 pm, Steve Gravrock > wrote:
> On 2007-09-09, landotter > wrote:
>
> > Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> > bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> > new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
> > good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> > factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> Hey, at least it's a renewable resource. <g,d&r>

Here at Swift Fuel, we're as committed to the environment and family
planning as you are!

Mike Jacoubowsky

September 10th 07, 03:27 AM

>> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually identical
>> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
>> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
>> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
>> > components and a suspension front.
>>
>> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
>> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
>> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
>> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
>> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.

Nope. That was considered, but there's a shortage of fuel lately. Apparently
much of the world supply is being used on rbr.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Ozark Bicycle

September 10th 07, 04:02 AM

On Sep 9, 9:10 pm, landotter > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 9:06 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>
> > > > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually identical
> > > > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
> > > > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
> > > > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
> > > > components and a suspension front.
>
> > > Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> > > bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> > > new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
> > > good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> > > factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
> My bad, I was thinking of Dick Cheney's heated pool.

Dick Cheney on a Madone......a marriage made in {insert reality of
your choice}

Ozark Bicycle

September 10th 07, 04:04 AM

Ozark Bicycle

September 10th 07, 04:06 AM

On Sep 9, 9:27 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually identical
> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
> >> > components and a suspension front.
>
> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
> Nope. That was considered, but there's a shortage of fuel lately.

Cannondale, Specialized and Trek used up the world supply in the past
coupla years????

Mike Jacoubowsky

September 10th 07, 04:17 AM

>> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
>> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
>> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
>> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
>> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>>
>> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>>
>> Nope. That was considered, but there's a shortage of fuel lately.
>
> Cannondale, Specialized and Trek used up the world supply in the past
> coupla years???

Cute. I'm sure it was unintentional that you snipped out the relevant (to
rbr) part of my reply.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 9, 9:27 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
>> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually
>> >> > identical
>> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
>> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
>> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
>> >> > components and a suspension front.
>>
>> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
>> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
>> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
>> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
>> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>>
>> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>>
>> Nope. That was considered, but there's a shortage of fuel lately.
>
> Cannondale, Specialized and Trek used up the world supply in the past
> coupla years????
>
>
>
>

Ozark Bicycle

September 10th 07, 11:40 AM

On Sep 9, 10:17 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> >> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> >> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> >> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
> >> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> >> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> >> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
> >> Nope. That was considered, but there's a shortage of fuel lately.
>
> > Cannondale, Specialized and Trek used up the world supply in the past
> > coupla years???
>
> Cute. I'm sure it was unintentional that you snipped out the relevant (to
> rbr) part of my reply.
>

It might have been relevant to rbr, but you only posted it to rbm,
Mike, so it went into the void.

Frank Drackman

September 10th 07, 02:44 PM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>>
>> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually identical
>> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
>> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
>> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
>> > components and a suspension front.
>>
>> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
>> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
>> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
>> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
>> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
>
I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to bike
instead of organizations that promote biking?

Ozark Bicycle

September 11th 07, 02:27 AM

On Sep 10, 8:44 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
> >> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>
> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually identical
> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
> >> > components and a suspension front.
>
> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
> I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
> disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to bike
> instead of organizations that promote biking?

Which "organization that promotes biking" are you referring to?

Frank Drackman

September 11th 07, 04:58 AM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Sep 10, 8:44 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>>
>> ps.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
>> >> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>>
>> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually
>> >> > identical
>> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
>> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
>> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
>> >> > components and a suspension front.
>>
>> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
>> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
>> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
>> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
>> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>>
>> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>>
>> I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
>> disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to bike
>> instead of organizations that promote biking?
>
> Which "organization that promotes biking" are you referring to?
>
Trek

Aeek

September 11th 07, 10:29 AM

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:20:29 -0700, jim > wrote:

>After doing research on various forums...given the virtually identical
>price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
>clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that

You obviously missed the #1 piece of advice - test ride them!

Ozark Bicycle

September 11th 07, 11:49 AM

On Sep 10, 10:58 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 8:44 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>
> >> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually
> >> >> > identical
> >> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
> >> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider, that
> >> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon superior
> >> >> > components and a suspension front.
>
> >> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> >> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> >> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15, as
> >> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> >> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> >> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
> >> I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
> >> disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to bike
> >> instead of organizations that promote biking?
>
> > Which "organization that promotes biking" are you referring to?
>
> Trek-

This is a joke, isn't it?

Frank Drackman

September 11th 07, 02:46 PM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 10, 10:58 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>>
>> ps.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 10, 8:44 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
>> >> message
>>
>> ps.com...
>>
>> >> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
>> >> >> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually
>> >> >> > identical
>> >> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
>> >> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider,
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon
>> >> >> > superior
>> >> >> > components and a suspension front.
>>
>> >> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
>> >> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
>> >> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15,
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
>> >> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>>
>> >> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>>
>> >> I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
>> >> disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to
>> >> bike
>> >> instead of organizations that promote biking?
>>
>> > Which "organization that promotes biking" are you referring to?
>>
>> Trek-
>
> This is a joke, isn't it?
>
>

Not on my part.

Ozark Bicycle

September 11th 07, 04:18 PM

On Sep 11, 8:46 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 10:58 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 10, 8:44 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
> >> >> message
>
> >> ps.com...
>
> >> >> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually
> >> >> >> > identical
> >> >> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
> >> >> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider,
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon
> >> >> >> > superior
> >> >> >> > components and a suspension front.
>
> >> >> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> >> >> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> >> >> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15,
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> >> >> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> >> >> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
> >> >> I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
> >> >> disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to
> >> >> bike
> >> >> instead of organizations that promote biking?
>
> >> > Which "organization that promotes biking" are you referring to?
>
> >> Trek-
>
> > This is a joke, isn't it?
>
> Not on my part.

Trek "promotes biking" to serve their narrow, commercial interests in
the same way Anheuser-Busch promotes "safe drinking": cynically. Any
company that positions something like the Portland as a commuter has
zero credibility in the realm of bicycles-as-transportation.

Frank Drackman

September 11th 07, 05:02 PM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message oups.com...
> On Sep 11, 8:46 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 10, 10:58 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>>
>> ps.com...
>>
>> >> > On Sep 10, 8:44 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
>> >> >> message
>>
>> >> ps.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually
>> >> >> >> > identical
>> >> >> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
>> >> >> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider,
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon
>> >> >> >> > superior
>> >> >> >> > components and a suspension front.
>>
>> >> >> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
>> >> >> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
>> >> >> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15,
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
>> >> >> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>>
>> >> >> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>>
>> >> >> I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
>> >> >> disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to
>> >> >> bike
>> >> >> instead of organizations that promote biking?
>>
>> >> > Which "organization that promotes biking" are you referring to?
>>
>> >> Trek-
>>
>> > This is a joke, isn't it?
>>
>> Not on my part.
>
> Trek "promotes biking" to serve their narrow, commercial interests in
> the same way Anheuser-Busch promotes "safe drinking": cynically. Any
> company that positions something like the Portland as a commuter has
> zero credibility in the realm of bicycles-as-transportation.
>

I am sure that Trek can do things better but why the negative focus on the bike industry?
Aren't there other companies/organizations/industries that are bigger threats to biking?

Ozark Bicycle

September 11th 07, 08:15 PM

On Sep 11, 11:02 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
> > On Sep 11, 8:46 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 10, 10:58 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> >> ps.com...
>
> >> >> > On Sep 10, 8:44 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
> >> >> >> message
>
> >> >> ps.com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, landotter > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sep 9, 1:20 pm, jim > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > After doing research on various forums...given the virtually
> >> >> >> >> > identical
> >> >> >> >> > price of the two units ($30 MSRP price difference), it has become
> >> >> >> >> > clear that if both units are equally comfortable for the rider,
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > the Trek Pure Sport has to be the better choice based upon
> >> >> >> >> > superior
> >> >> >> >> > components and a suspension front.
>
> >> >> >> >> Suspension front serves mainly to weight down the bike on a path
> >> >> >> >> bicycle. Don't like the name silkscreened onto the rear mech? Get a
> >> >> >> >> new one, they're dirt cheap. I just picked up a new Deore for $15,
> >> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> >> good as anybody pootlin' around could ever need. Besides, the Trek
> >> >> >> >> factory is powered with the flesh of babies.
>
> >> >> >> > Really? I thought it ran on bull**** and hype.
>
> >> >> >> I don't understand the attitude. As a bicycle devotee, wouldn't your
> >> >> >> disdain be better directed at organizations that make it harder to
> >> >> >> bike
> >> >> >> instead of organizations that promote biking?
>
> >> >> > Which "organization that promotes biking" are you referring to?
>
> >> >> Trek-
>
> >> > This is a joke, isn't it?
>
> >> Not on my part.
>
> > Trek "promotes biking" to serve their narrow, commercial interests in
> > the same way Anheuser-Busch promotes "safe drinking": cynically. Any
> > company that positions something like the Portland as a commuter has
> > zero credibility in the realm of bicycles-as-transportation.
>
> I am sure that Trek can do things better but why the negative focus on the bike industry?

So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.

> Aren't there other companies/organizations/industries that are bigger threats to biking?

Mike Jacoubowsky

September 11th 07, 11:52 PM

> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.

Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential cyclists
who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?

And why does it matter that it might be a "toy" anyway? What's so bad about
"toys?" Do you have a fit every time someone spends more than $250 for a
stereo receiver? Do you blow a gasket when a family member buys anything
other than the cheapest-possible car? Do you furnish your apartment or house
with cheap bean bags for chairs and milk cartons for corner tables, because
anything else is an un-needed extravagance meant to impress someone?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Ozark Bicycle

September 12th 07, 12:04 AM

On Sep 11, 5:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" >
wrote:
> > So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> > start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
> > practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
> > road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> > don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> > Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>
> Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential cyclists
> who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?

Nice try, Mike, but way, way off target. My "vision" is for cycling to
be a far more mainstream, everyday activity, *not* something done only
in special garb, with $3k+ plastic bikes and only on "special" bike
paths and lanes.

Mike Jacoubowsky

September 12th 07, 12:14 AM

>> > So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
>> > start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
>> > practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
>> > road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
>> > don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
>> > Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>>
>> Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
>> cyclists
>> who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> Nice try, Mike, but way, way off target. My "vision" is for cycling to
> be a far more mainstream, everyday activity, *not* something done only
> in special garb, with $3k+ plastic bikes and only on "special" bike
> paths and lanes.

No, I think I hit that one out of the park. :>)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 11, 5:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" >
> wrote:
>> > So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
>> > start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
>> > practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
>> > road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
>> > don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
>> > Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>>
>> Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
>> cyclists
>> who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> Nice try, Mike, but way, way off target. My "vision" is for cycling to
> be a far more mainstream, everyday activity, *not* something done only
> in special garb, with $3k+ plastic bikes and only on "special" bike
> paths and lanes.
>
>
>
>

jim[_4_]

September 12th 07, 02:32 AM

In defense of Trek...advertising can boost sales to the point that
costs of manufacture per unit can be significantly lower. The Trek
Pure Sport is fairly priced compared to the comparable Townie, Giant
and Specialized.
Has anyone purchased the Trek extended warranty?

Frank Drackman

September 12th 07, 02:45 PM

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
et...
>> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
>> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
>> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
>> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
>> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
>> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>
> Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential cyclists
> who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>

That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is a huge
umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of cycling.

It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular cycling
subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.

Ozark Bicycle

September 12th 07, 03:40 PM

On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>
> et...
>
> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>
> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential cyclists
> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is a huge
> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of cycling.

Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
"factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>
> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular cycling
> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.

You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.

jim[_4_]

September 12th 07, 04:11 PM

So much of this is totally OT and merely an excuse for soapbox
lecturing and cajoling.

landotter

September 12th 07, 05:57 PM

On Sep 12, 9:40 am, Ozark Bicycle
> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>
> et...
>
> > >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> > >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
> > >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
> > >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> > >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> > >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>
> > > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential cyclists
> > > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> > That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is a huge
> > umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of cycling.
>
> Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
> "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
> industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>
>
>
> > It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular cycling
> > subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
> > subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>
> You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
> pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.

Dude, after that advert with all the animated flowers and ****, I
like--sped over to BP to fill up. God bless those good people!

Ozark Bicycle

September 12th 07, 07:24 PM

On Sep 12, 11:57 am, landotter > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 9:40 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>
> > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>
> > et...
>
> > > >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> > > >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
> > > >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
> > > >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> > > >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> > > >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>
> > > > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential cyclists
> > > > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> > > That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is a huge
> > > umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of cycling.
>
> > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
> > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
> > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>
> > > It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular cycling
> > > subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
> > > subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>
> > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
> > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>
> Dude, after that advert with all the animated flowers and ****, I
> like--sped over to BP to fill up. God bless those good people!

Guess I missed the animated flowers, etc. Please fill in the blanks
(whose advert, etc.?)

landotter

September 12th 07, 07:40 PM

On Sep 12, 1:24 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:57 am, landotter > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 9:40 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>
> > > et...
>
> > > > >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> > > > >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
> > > > >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
> > > > >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> > > > >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> > > > >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>
> > > > > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential cyclists
> > > > > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> > > > That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is a huge
> > > > umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of cycling.
>
> > > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
> > > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
> > > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>
> > > > It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular cycling
> > > > subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
> > > > subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>
> > > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
> > > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>
> > Dude, after that advert with all the animated flowers and ****, I
> > like--sped over to BP to fill up. God bless those good people!
>
> Guess I missed the animated flowers, etc. Please fill in the blanks
> (whose advert, etc.?)

Maybe it was somebody else, but I swear I think it was BP did an
animated hippy dippy spot showcasing their environmental record. You
know, greenwashing. Could have been a mash up of two in my head--who
knows?!

Then there's VW's recent hipster treatment:
http://tinyurl.com/2ufmqv

Which probably has nothing to do with any of this except that I find
it amusing that a Swedish guy is doing a Swedish accent for a German
car company.Vat?!

Frank Drackman

September 14th 07, 04:09 PM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>>
>> et...
>>
>> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
>> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
>> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
>> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
>> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
>> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>>
>> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
>> > cyclists
>> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>>
>> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is a
>> huge
>> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of
>> cycling.
>
> Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
> "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
> industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>>
>> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular
>> cycling
>> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
>> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>
> You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
> pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>
>

I know nothing about Trek's corporate pandering. If it has wheels, and if I
pedal hard enough if it is able to get me where I want to go I am happy. I
don't get frustrated when I company makes bike that isn't a perfect fit for
my needs. I figure that the marketplace will figure out what is going to
stay and what is going to not get a second chance.

Ozark Bicycle

September 14th 07, 04:48 PM

On Sep 14, 10:09 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>
> et...
>
> >> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> >> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus on
> >> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to the
> >> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> >> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> >> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike paths.
>
> >> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
> >> > cyclists
> >> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> >> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is a
> >> huge
> >> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of
> >> cycling.
>
> > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
> > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
> > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>
> >> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular
> >> cycling
> >> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
> >> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>
> > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
> > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>
> I know nothing about Trek's corporate pandering.

On Sept. 10, you referred to Trek as "an organization which promotes
cycling".

Here's the post:

http://tinyurl.com/2a8tmn

That is what I am addressing as "corporate pandering".

> If it has wheels, and if I
> pedal hard enough if it is able to get me where I want to go I am happy. I
> don't get frustrated when I company makes bike that isn't a perfect fit for
> my needs. I figure that the marketplace will figure out what is going to
> stay and what is going to not get a second chance

Frank Drackman

September 14th 07, 07:33 PM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 14, 10:09 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>>
>> ps.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>>
>> et...
>>
>> >> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
>> >> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
>> >> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
>> >> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike
>> >> >> paths.
>>
>> >> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
>> >> > cyclists
>> >> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>>
>> >> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is
>> >> a
>> >> huge
>> >> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of
>> >> cycling.
>>
>> > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
>> > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
>> > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>>
>> >> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular
>> >> cycling
>> >> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
>> >> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>>
>> > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
>> > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>>
>> I know nothing about Trek's corporate pandering.
>
> On Sept. 10, you referred to Trek as "an organization which promotes
> cycling".
>
> Here's the post:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2a8tmn
>
> That is what I am addressing as "corporate pandering".

Sorry if it was confusing.

I view any company that makes/sells bikes as an organization that promotes
cycling, just as I would view any company that makes/sells autos as an
organization that promotes driving

>
>
>> If it has wheels, and if I
>> pedal hard enough if it is able to get me where I want to go I am happy.
>> I
>> don't get frustrated when I company makes bike that isn't a perfect fit
>> for
>> my needs. I figure that the marketplace will figure out what is going to
>> stay and what is going to not get a second chance
>

Ozark Bicycle

September 14th 07, 09:22 PM

On Sep 14, 1:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 10:09 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> >> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>
> >> et...
>
> >> >> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you can
> >> >> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a focus
> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights to
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What we
> >> >> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes and
> >> >> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike
> >> >> >> paths.
>
> >> >> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
> >> >> > cyclists
> >> >> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> >> >> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling is
> >> >> a
> >> >> huge
> >> >> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of
> >> >> cycling.
>
> >> > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
> >> > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
> >> > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>
> >> >> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a particular
> >> >> cycling
> >> >> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
> >> >> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>
> >> > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
> >> > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>
> >> I know nothing about Trek's corporate pandering.
>
> > On Sept. 10, you referred to Trek as "an organization which promotes
> > cycling".
>
> > Here's the post:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2a8tmn
>
> > That is what I am addressing as "corporate pandering".
>
> Sorry if it was confusing.
>
> I view any company that makes/sells bikes as an organization that promotes
> cycling,

I find that viewpoint rather incredible. Trek (for an example) is the
maker of an industrial product, bicycles. That they "promote cycling"
is purely a byproduct of the need to sell the product.

Frank Drackman

September 14th 07, 09:39 PM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 14, 1:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 14, 10:09 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
>> >> message
>>
>> ps.com...
>>
>> >> > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> et...
>>
>> >> >> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you
>> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a
>> >> >> >> focus
>> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike
>> >> >> >> paths.
>>
>> >> >> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
>> >> >> > cyclists
>> >> >> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>>
>> >> >> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> huge
>> >> >> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of
>> >> >> cycling.
>>
>> >> > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
>> >> > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
>> >> > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>>
>> >> >> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a
>> >> >> particular
>> >> >> cycling
>> >> >> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
>> >> >> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>>
>> >> > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
>> >> > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>>
>> >> I know nothing about Trek's corporate pandering.
>>
>> > On Sept. 10, you referred to Trek as "an organization which promotes
>> > cycling".
>>
>> > Here's the post:
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2a8tmn
>>
>> > That is what I am addressing as "corporate pandering".
>>
>> Sorry if it was confusing.
>>
>> I view any company that makes/sells bikes as an organization that
>> promotes
>> cycling,
>
> I find that viewpoint rather incredible. Trek (for an example) is the
> maker of an industrial product, bicycles. That they "promote cycling"
> is purely a byproduct of the need to sell the product.
>
>
> I figure the more people who ride bikes the better. If the big companies
> get more people riding I am happy! That said I am also fine with the sole
> producers who handmake a fe bikes a year.
>
>

Ozark Bicycle

September 14th 07, 11:30 PM

On Sep 14, 3:39 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 1:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 14, 10:09 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
> >> >> message
>
> >> ps.com...
>
> >> >> > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>
> >> >> et...
>
> >> >> >> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry, you
> >> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a
> >> >> >> >> focus
> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same rights
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists. What
> >> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek Limes
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to bike
> >> >> >> >> paths.
>
> >> >> >> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of potential
> >> >> >> > cyclists
> >> >> >> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>
> >> >> >> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO cycling
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> huge
> >> >> >> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions of
> >> >> >> cycling.
>
> >> >> > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
> >> >> > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
> >> >> > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>
> >> >> >> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a
> >> >> >> particular
> >> >> >> cycling
> >> >> >> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other cycling
> >> >> >> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>
> >> >> > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token corporate
> >> >> > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>
> >> >> I know nothing about Trek's corporate pandering.
>
> >> > On Sept. 10, you referred to Trek as "an organization which promotes
> >> > cycling".
>
> >> > Here's the post:
>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/2a8tmn
>
> >> > That is what I am addressing as "corporate pandering".
>
> >> Sorry if it was confusing.
>
> >> I view any company that makes/sells bikes as an organization that
> >> promotes
> >> cycling,
>
> > I find that viewpoint rather incredible. Trek (for an example) is the
> > maker of an industrial product, bicycles. That they "promote cycling"
> > is purely a byproduct of the need to sell the product.
>
> I figure the more people who ride bikes the better. If the big companies
> get more people riding I am happy! That said I am also fine with the sole
> producers who handmake a fe bikes a year.-

Perhaps we view the concept of "promoting cycling" differently. I
certainly do not see the act of producing bicycles as equating with
"promoting cycling".

Frank Drackman

September 15th 07, 12:43 AM

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 14, 3:39 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 14, 1:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
>> >> message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Sep 14, 10:09 am, "Frank Drackman" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in
>> >> >> message
>>
>> >> ps.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Sep 12, 8:45 am, "Frank Drackman" >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> et...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So we should stand on the curb and applaud instead? Sorry,
>> >> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> >> start without me. What cycling in the US needs is more of a
>> >> >> >> >> focus
>> >> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> >> practical, useful bikes and on cyclists having the same
>> >> >> >> >> rights
>> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> road and same responsibilities on the road as do motorists.
>> >> >> >> >> What
>> >> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> >> don't need are future garage-dust-gatherer toys like Trek
>> >> >> >> >> Limes
>> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> Portlands. Nor do we need efforts to relegate cyclists to
>> >> >> >> >> bike
>> >> >> >> >> paths.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Why do you try so hard to discourage the huge number of
>> >> >> >> > potential
>> >> >> >> > cyclists
>> >> >> >> > who don't share you own narrow vision of what cycling is?
>>
>> >> >> >> That is what I am trying to understand in this thread. IMO
>> >> >> >> cycling
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> huge
>> >> >> >> umbrella and it makes more sense to support the other factions
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> cycling.
>>
>> >> >> > Trek Corporation, and other large bicycle manufacturers, aren't
>> >> >> > "factions of cycling". They are the manufacturers/resellers of an
>> >> >> > industrial product, which, in this case, happens to be bicycles.
>>
>> >> >> >> It seems clear that OB views himself as an advocate for a
>> >> >> >> particular
>> >> >> >> cycling
>> >> >> >> subgroup but I feel that he is misguided by attacking other
>> >> >> >> cycling
>> >> >> >> subgroups instead of cycling's true foes.
>>
>> >> >> > You seem to be the perfect example of how a bit of token
>> >> >> > corporate
>> >> >> > pandering to a "cause" is money well spent.
>>
>> >> >> I know nothing about Trek's corporate pandering.
>>
>> >> > On Sept. 10, you referred to Trek as "an organization which promotes
>> >> > cycling".
>>
>> >> > Here's the post:
>>
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/2a8tmn
>>
>> >> > That is what I am addressing as "corporate pandering".
>>
>> >> Sorry if it was confusing.
>>
>> >> I view any company that makes/sells bikes as an organization that
>> >> promotes
>> >> cycling,
>>
>> > I find that viewpoint rather incredible. Trek (for an example) is the
>> > maker of an industrial product, bicycles. That they "promote cycling"
>> > is purely a byproduct of the need to sell the product.
>>
>> I figure the more people who ride bikes the better. If the big companies
>> get more people riding I am happy! That said I am also fine with the
>> sole
>> producers who handmake a fe bikes a year.-
>
> Perhaps we view the concept of "promoting cycling" differently. I
> certainly do not see the act of producing bicycles as equating with
> "promoting cycling".
>

I know that my view is extremely simplistic. I really believe that biking
is such a small segment of the transportation, or even
sporting/entertainment, industry that any company that wants to sell bikes
or bike accessories has to promote cycling to develop the market. You would
probably say that they only do it to support their selfish interests, and
you would probably be right, but I don't care about that.

I care that more people ride bikes. Pink Barbie bikes with tassels, great.
Fixies on the street without brakes, bring them on. Racer wantabees with
$9K carbon fiber speed machines, paceline away. Retro Lug Heads who must
only use the correct type of twine, come on in.

Hopefully at some point in the future bikes will mainstream transportation
in the U.S. and then we can have an intelligent discussion concerning how
the different factions are helping or hurting the cause.

catzz66

September 15th 07, 12:17 PM

Frank Drackman wrote:
>
> I know that my view is extremely simplistic. I really believe that biking
> is such a small segment of the transportation, or even
> sporting/entertainment, industry that any company that wants to sell bikes
> or bike accessories has to promote cycling to develop the market. You would
> probably say that they only do it to support their selfish interests, and
> you would probably be right, but I don't care about that.
>
> I care that more people ride bikes. Pink Barbie bikes with tassels, great.
> Fixies on the street without brakes, bring them on. Racer wantabees with
> $9K carbon fiber speed machines, paceline away. Retro Lug Heads who must
> only use the correct type of twine, come on in.
>
> Hopefully at some point in the future bikes will mainstream transportation
> in the U.S. and then we can have an intelligent discussion concerning how
> the different factions are helping or hurting the cause.
>
>

I'm with you on your sentiments. It still seems silly for someone to
pick out Trek or one of the other large bike companies as being somehow
villanous for selling bikes. It is not a monopoly, a charity or the
government. If someone thinks their prices are too high, there are
plenty of other sources to choose from, including always buying used or
building his own.

Ozark Bicycle

September 15th 07, 01:14 PM

On Sep 15, 6:17 am, catzz66 > wrote:
> Frank Drackman wrote:
>
> > I know that my view is extremely simplistic. I really believe that biking
> > is such a small segment of the transportation, or even
> > sporting/entertainment, industry that any company that wants to sell bikes
> > or bike accessories has to promote cycling to develop the market. You would
> > probably say that they only do it to support their selfish interests, and
> > you would probably be right, but I don't care about that.
>
> > I care that more people ride bikes. Pink Barbie bikes with tassels, great.
> > Fixies on the street without brakes, bring them on. Racer wantabees with
> > $9K carbon fiber speed machines, paceline away. Retro Lug Heads who must
> > only use the correct type of twine, come on in.
>
> > Hopefully at some point in the future bikes will mainstream transportation
> > in the U.S. and then we can have an intelligent discussion concerning how
> > the different factions are helping or hurting the cause.
>
> I'm with you on your sentiments. It still seems silly for someone to
> pick out Trek or one of the other large bike companies as being somehow
> villanous for selling bikes.

Geez, why don't you read through the entire thread and see what was
*actually said* and the context in which it was said? What seems silly
at this point are your completely off the mark comments.

Mike Jacoubowsky

September 16th 07, 12:24 AM

>> I'm with you on your sentiments. It still seems silly for someone to
>> pick out Trek or one of the other large bike companies as being somehow
>> villanous for selling bikes.
>
>
> Geez, why don't you read through the entire thread and see what was
> *actually said* and the context in which it was said? What seems silly
> at this point are your completely off the mark comments.

Perhaps you could clear this up by a summation of your feelings on the
matter?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 15, 6:17 am, catzz66 > wrote:
>> Frank Drackman wrote:
>>
>> > I know that my view is extremely simplistic. I really believe that
>> > biking
>> > is such a small segment of the transportation, or even
>> > sporting/entertainment, industry that any company that wants to sell
>> > bikes
>> > or bike accessories has to promote cycling to develop the market. You
>> > would
>> > probably say that they only do it to support their selfish interests,
>> > and
>> > you would probably be right, but I don't care about that.
>>
>> > I care that more people ride bikes. Pink Barbie bikes with tassels,
>> > great.
>> > Fixies on the street without brakes, bring them on. Racer wantabees
>> > with
>> > $9K carbon fiber speed machines, paceline away. Retro Lug Heads who
>> > must
>> > only use the correct type of twine, come on in.
>>
>> > Hopefully at some point in the future bikes will mainstream
>> > transportation
>> > in the U.S. and then we can have an intelligent discussion concerning
>> > how
>> > the different factions are helping or hurting the cause.
>>
>> I'm with you on your sentiments. It still seems silly for someone to
>> pick out Trek or one of the other large bike companies as being somehow
>> villanous for selling bikes.
>
>
> Geez, why don't you read through the entire thread and see what was
> *actually said* and the context in which it was said? What seems silly
> at this point are your completely off the mark comments.
>
>
>
>

Ozark Bicycle

September 16th 07, 03:40 AM

On Sep 15, 6:24 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" >
wrote:
> >> I'm with you on your sentiments. It still seems silly for someone to
> >> pick out Trek or one of the other large bike companies as being somehow
> >> villanous for selling bikes.
>
> > Geez, why don't you read through the entire thread and see what was
> > *actually said* and the context in which it was said? What seems silly
> > at this point are your completely off the mark comments.
>
> Perhaps you could clear this up by a summation of your feelings on the
> matter?
>

Sure. Trek, along with Cannondale, Giant , Specialized, etc., are
makers of an industrial product; in their case, that product happens
to be bicycles. IOW they are manufacturers and resellers, not
organizations that "support cycling" (as Mr. Drackman seemed to feel
they are). They are not evil nor villanous, but rather large
businesses doing "what is necessary" to sell their industrial product
and increase their market share.

jim[_4_]

September 17th 07, 10:21 AM

O.K. After much debate...research...and yes...actually trying out the
Electra Townie, Trek Lime and the Trek Pure Sport...it became clear
and obvious as to which bike I much preferred. Forgetting the
specs...just sitting and then riding...the Trek Pure Sport was the
definitive 'winner' in my personal contest. Comfort and capability
were the deciding factors. I made my purchase yesterday...and I spent
about an hour cruising around the area. That hour only confirmed the
correctness of my decision for me, personally. The Trek Pure Sport
handled extremely well, is very very comfortable and has the geometry
to make me feel very secure and happy. I'd like to thank everyone, on
this and other forums, that helped contribute to my decision through
their well considered and knowlegable input. Enjoy riding and keep a
happy (and safe) smile on your faces. Thank you all once again.