Oh, I'm not complaining here....

[Neil Brooks]

So there was that fateful Moots crash on "Good" Friday, right?

All through with the medical. All through with the insurance. They
bought me a brand spanking new Vamoots, identically spec'd. I've got
it.

What about the old bike, then? They *are* going to take it for its
salvage value. The salvage company called me. They'd like to arrange
pickup. But, but, but . . . how much are you asking for the wrecked
bike? $410.00, plus California Sales Tax.

Sold.

Take it to the shop down the street. He's a Moots dealer. I tell the
tale. I'm 99% sure that *I* hit the car door; not the bike. Based on
that, and a visual inspection, he's pretty comfortable with the frame,
the bars, and the fork being relatively intact, +/- some cosmetic
stuff.

Rear wheel needs truing. Front is bent on the seam and should be
replaced. Fine: about $350 there. Then the bike is just a scuffed
up, 400 miles on it, well-nigh perfect Moots that I own.

So what do you do with it (just in case: "Send it to me" won't fly)?

Sure, I could sell it, but I'm trying to think about possibles that
involve *keeping* it. They do make those freestanding oak bike racks
in a 2-bike version. Living room could stand "sprucing" up (spruce .
.. . oak . . . get it?), and a pair of Mootses (Mootsi?) goes a long
way.

It doesn't have the geometry, or fork clearance, for a good cyclocross
bike, nor the geometry+braze-ons for a tourer. It comes close enough
to fitting a few friends that it really *could* be an "extra," but
those are kind of weak routes. There's the whole "rainy day bike" vs.
"weekend bike" concept.

Another thought was test bed. The new one stays as the control while
component/adjustment changes are made on the variable bike....

Any others I'm missing?

BTW: I'm happily aware that there are worse problems to have. Rest
assured, I have those, too. This is a pretty pi$$-poor way to come up
with a 2nd high-end bike, but . . . I'm not complaining here ;-)

TIA,
Neil

[Roger Zoul]

Hmmm....why didn't you just let them keep it? Better to spend your time
riding than to fool with figuring out how to use a busted bike. JIMO,
though. For $410, it would have to be a fully functioning bike for me....

Neil Brooks > wrote:


[snip]

:> It doesn't have the geometry, or fork clearance, for a good
:> cyclocross bike, nor the geometry+braze-ons for a tourer. It comes
:> close enough to fitting a few friends that it really *could* be an
:> "extra," but those are kind of weak routes. There's the whole
:> "rainy day bike" vs. "weekend bike" concept.
:>
:> Another thought was test bed. The new one stays as the control while
:> component/adjustment changes are made on the variable bike....
:>
:> Any others I'm missing?
:>
:> BTW: I'm happily aware that there are worse problems to have. Rest
:> assured, I have those, too. This is a pretty pi$$-poor way to come
:> up with a 2nd high-end bike, but . . . I'm not complaining here ;-)

[Neil Brooks]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

>Hmmm....why didn't you just let them keep it? Better to spend your time
>riding than to fool with figuring out how to use a busted bike. JIMO,
>though. For $410, it would have to be a fully functioning bike for me....

Even if . . .

- the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
- it only had about 400 miles on it
- it sold for about $6k new
- it would be "good as new" for only about $850
- it would then sell for several times the $ I had into it

??

It's easy to check the frame's alignment once the wheels are
trued/replaced -- just ride no hands, pedaling hard ;-)

If it's off alignment, it would be *minor* and easily/cheaply fixed by
sending it back to Moots.

Sounds like a pretty good investment either way, especially if I sold
it!

[Bob Dole]

Assuming that $410 isn't the type of expenditure that keeps food of the
table -- and if it is, you shouldn't have bought the first Moots -- I'd
jump at it.

I like the "rainy day" bike concept. There are also limestone trails
and other rougher territory for a road bike -- check out where Jobst
rides on a road bike. These will probably work better with different
tires, and swapping tires is not fun. Plus you can put a rack and
panniers on this bike, while keeping the other bike as light as
possible, and have a nice "day tour" bike.

Your possible regret is very low. Your possible pleasure is very high.

[David L. Johnson]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:58:27 +0000, Neil Brooks wrote:

> So there was that fateful Moots crash on "Good" Friday, right?
> ...
> Rear wheel needs truing. Front is bent on the seam and should be
> replaced. Fine: about $350 there.

Zounds. Truing one wheel and replacing one rim is $350?

> So what do you do with it (just in case: "Send it to me" won't fly)?

Well, then, send it to _me_ instead...

You could spend $20 on Jobst's book, another $20-$40 on a rim, and learn
how to true and build your own wheels.

You know, it's really an odd statement about the insurance industry that
will total a $3000+(?) bike with just cosmetic damage and a bent rim.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

[Roger Zoul]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>
>
>>Hmmm....why didn't you just let them keep it? Better to spend your time
>>riding than to fool with figuring out how to use a busted bike. JIMO,
>>though. For $410, it would have to be a fully functioning bike for me....
>
>
> Even if . . .
>
> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
> - it only had about 400 miles on it
> - it sold for about $6k new
> - it would be "good as new" for only about $850
> - it would then sell for several times the $ I had into it
>
> ??

??

If they can repair it to "good as new" for $850, why'd they spend $6K on
a new one? It sounds like some kind of fraud to me...

Personally, I'd buy it and sell it for profit if I really believed it
could be done for $850. I don't see the advantage is putting money into
exactly the same bike....whereas I would see having a second different
bike. But that's me...different strokes...


>
> It's easy to check the frame's alignment once the wheels are
> trued/replaced -- just ride no hands, pedaling hard ;-)
>
> If it's off alignment, it would be *minor* and easily/cheaply fixed by
> sending it back to Moots.
>
> Sounds like a pretty good investment either way, especially if I sold
> it!

There ya go...

[gds]

David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>
> You know, it's really an odd statement about the insurance industry
that
> will total a $3000+(?) bike with just cosmetic damage and a bent rim.
>
> --
>
About 10 years ago I was nicked by a car while on my (then) new
Litespeed. Small scratch to the frame, a nick on the saddle and needed
to replace the rear rim. His insurance company was very happy to learn
I was not claiming any injury (only got a small scrape) and surprised
when my claim came in under $200. They got that check ( and release
form)out very fast.
I too am surprised at the idea of them paying more than they have to.
Especially as most insurance companies have large staffs to work on
paying less than they might.

[Jeff Starr]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:15:47 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>Hmmm....why didn't you just let them keep it? Better to spend your time
>riding than to fool with figuring out how to use a busted bike. JIMO,
>though. For $410, it would have to be a fully functioning bike for me....
>
Roger, the parts alone, make it a wise investment. He could parts it
out and make a tidy sum. If the money isn't a concern, then an extra
bike is always nice.

In my opinion, every enthusiast should have a minimum of two bikes.
When I only had one, there was a time it was stuck in the shop, for
more than a week. It drove me nuts and it won't happen again. I now
own two bikes and I now do most of my own work. I also have a decent
selection of spare parts, including wheels, cassettes, cables, bars,
stems, chains, and more.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Neil Brooks]

"David L. Johnson" > wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:58:27 +0000, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> So there was that fateful Moots crash on "Good" Friday, right?
>> ...
>> Rear wheel needs truing. Front is bent on the seam and should be
>> replaced. Fine: about $350 there.
>
>Zounds. Truing one wheel and replacing one rim is $350?

The truing, as usual, is probably under $20. The front rim is a Campy
Eurus: http://snipurl.com/etg1
>
>> So what do you do with it (just in case: "Send it to me" won't fly)?
>
>Well, then, send it to _me_ instead...

.. . . just let me jot down your address....

>You could spend $20 on Jobst's book, another $20-$40 on a rim, and learn
>how to true and build your own wheels.

Actually, I have a truing stand and could have trued the back one just
fine. I'm trying to establish/re-establish a business relationship
with *the other* Moots dealer in town . . . who happens to be 0.2
miles from my house. Letting him have the $20 -- since he didn't get
either of the two big checks for Moots I or Moots II -- seemed fair.

>You know, it's really an odd statement about the insurance industry that
>will total a $3000+(?) bike with just cosmetic damage and a bent rim.

When I brought the wrecked bike into the first LBS for damage
assessment, I told them that I wanted to be made whole -- no more, no
less. That meant if the frame wasn't perfectly straight, if the
carbon fiber pieces were not perfectly trustworthy, and if any pieces
were cosmetically damaged, they should be replaced, up to and
including a total, if indicated. The bike was--as I said--two weeks
old and had about 400 miles on it. It was in absolutely perfect
condition.

The Look carbon fiber fork has a quarter-sized contusion, the right
brifter obviously skated across the pavement along with the seat and
the rear QR. The bars and fork are an unknown . . . but I'm not
replacing them at this point. The wheels were tacoed. Obviously, one
needs replacement. The other needed truing and dishing.

I don't think it's a surprise that the insurance company totaled it at
all. In fact, in the context of the trip I took in the ambulance and
the months over which my right clavicle will heal, I think they feel
they got off cheaply. This was a *tasty* case for an attorney. I
just didn't want to go that route.

I also got $1k in "Pain and Suffering" money, which I donated to San
Diego County Bicycle Coalition--an organization to which I belong.

Best,
Neil

[Neil Brooks]

"Bob Dole" > wrote:

>Assuming that $410 isn't the type of expenditure that keeps food of the
>table -- and if it is, you shouldn't have bought the first Moots -- I'd
>jump at it.
>
>I like the "rainy day" bike concept. There are also limestone trails
>and other rougher territory for a road bike -- check out where Jobst
>rides on a road bike. These will probably work better with different
>tires, and swapping tires is not fun. Plus you can put a rack and
>panniers on this bike, while keeping the other bike as light as
>possible, and have a nice "day tour" bike.
>
>Your possible regret is very low. Your possible pleasure is very high.

Yeah, fortunately we live simply and blow our dough on toys, so dinner
-- such as it is -- is not in jeopardy.

You know, that "super-tourer" concept is really intriguing. I have a
30 pound Cannondale T2000 tourer. I love the bike, but now that I've
ridden Ti, I can't muster the same love for aluminum.

Dropping a few el-bees and still carrying the usual crap make some
sense. I'll have to see what kind of tire width I can get on there.

Hm. From looking at Campy's specs, max width is 25c. So, maybe some
Specialized Armadillos or Panaracer Paselas. No braze-ons for a rack,
but clamping can't be too bad, huh?

A bad-a$$ grocery-getter. Neat concept. Thanks, Bob!

[Neil Brooks]

Neil Brooks > wrote:

>Take it to the shop down the street. He's a Moots dealer. I tell the
>tale. I'm 99% sure that *I* hit the car door; not the bike. Based on
>that, and a visual inspection, he's pretty comfortable with the frame,
>the bars, and the fork being relatively intact, +/- some cosmetic
>stuff.
>
>Rear wheel needs truing. Front is bent on the seam and should be
>replaced. Fine: about $350 there. Then the bike is just a scuffed
>up, 400 miles on it, well-nigh perfect Moots that I own.

Correction: the LBS is looking to replace the *rim,* not the whole
wheel.

My fault for misinterpreting his words. Looks like $180 + the
rebuild.

That's nice....

[Bob]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> So there was that fateful Moots crash on "Good" Friday, right?
>
> All through with the medical. All through with the insurance. They
> bought me a brand spanking new Vamoots, identically spec'd. I've got
> it.
>
> What about the old bike, then? They *are* going to take it for its
> salvage value. The salvage company called me. They'd like to
arrange
> pickup. But, but, but . . . how much are you asking for the wrecked
> bike? $410.00, plus California Sales Tax.
>
> Sold.
>
> Take it to the shop down the street. He's a Moots dealer. I tell
the
> tale. I'm 99% sure that *I* hit the car door; not the bike. Based
on
> that, and a visual inspection, he's pretty comfortable with the
frame,
> the bars, and the fork being relatively intact, +/- some cosmetic
> stuff.
>
> Rear wheel needs truing. Front is bent on the seam and should be
> replaced. Fine: about $350 there. Then the bike is just a scuffed
> up, 400 miles on it, well-nigh perfect Moots that I own.
>
> So what do you do with it (just in case: "Send it to me" won't fly)?
>
> Sure, I could sell it, but I'm trying to think about possibles that
> involve *keeping* it. They do make those freestanding oak bike racks
> in a 2-bike version. Living room could stand "sprucing" up (spruce .
> . . oak . . . get it?), and a pair of Mootses (Mootsi?) goes a long
> way.
>
> It doesn't have the geometry, or fork clearance, for a good
cyclocross
> bike, nor the geometry+braze-ons for a tourer. It comes close enough
> to fitting a few friends that it really *could* be an "extra," but
> those are kind of weak routes. There's the whole "rainy day bike"
vs.
> "weekend bike" concept.
>
> Another thought was test bed. The new one stays as the control while
> component/adjustment changes are made on the variable bike....
>
> Any others I'm missing?
>
> BTW: I'm happily aware that there are worse problems to have. Rest
> assured, I have those, too. This is a pretty pi$$-poor way to come
up
> with a 2nd high-end bike, but . . . I'm not complaining here ;-)
>
> TIA,
> Neil

I'm glad to hear you're recovered and things are working out for you,
Neil.
A few ideas-
1- First prize in the soon to be inaugurated Annual Rec.Bicycles.Misc
Charity Raffle? As the first prize donor you will of course get to pick
the charity. ("Me" doesn't qualify)
2- Do the necessary repairs, put a pair of platform pedals on it, and
use it as an ego deflator for those that are continually bragging about
their wonder bikes. Imagine the looks you'll get when you say, "Oh,
that? That's my beater bike. I never ride my *nice* bike around town."
3- If you mounted it on an indoor trainer there'd be no need to spend
any money at all outside of the buy back price.
4- Mount it on a trainer. Add a PowerTap hub and a HRM. Bingo, instant
pro level training aid.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Maggie]

Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
> - it only had about 400 miles on it
> - it sold for about $6k new


YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????

Amazed Maggie

[1oki]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
>> - it only had about 400 miles on it
>> - it sold for about $6k new
>
>
> YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????
>
> Amazed Maggie
>


The most expensive I've heard of: $15,000 USD.

[Neil Brooks]

"Maggie" > wrote:

>
>Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
>> - it only had about 400 miles on it
>> - it sold for about $6k new
>
>
>YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????
>
>Amazed Maggie

Yeah. Didn't we talk about this? My wife and I live like Cambodian
refugees, have no debt, eat Ramen noodles about 15 times a week . . .
but we have some nice bikes (and other toys)!

Life's better that way....

What about that overpriced handbag you once bought? Huh??

And where's my donut and latte anyway? ;-)

[Neil Brooks]

"Bob" > wrote:

>
>Neil Brooks wrote:
>> So there was that fateful Moots crash on "Good" Friday, right?
>>
>> All through with the medical. All through with the insurance. They
>> bought me a brand spanking new Vamoots, identically spec'd. I've got
>> it.
>>
>> What about the old bike, then? They *are* going to take it for its
>> salvage value. The salvage company called me. They'd like to
>arrange
>> pickup. But, but, but . . . how much are you asking for the wrecked
>> bike? $410.00, plus California Sales Tax.
>>
>> Sold.
>>
>> Take it to the shop down the street. He's a Moots dealer. I tell
>the
>> tale. I'm 99% sure that *I* hit the car door; not the bike. Based
>on
>> that, and a visual inspection, he's pretty comfortable with the
>frame,
>> the bars, and the fork being relatively intact, +/- some cosmetic
>> stuff.
>>
>> Rear wheel needs truing. Front is bent on the seam and should be
>> replaced. Fine: about $350 there. Then the bike is just a scuffed
>> up, 400 miles on it, well-nigh perfect Moots that I own.
>>
>> So what do you do with it (just in case: "Send it to me" won't fly)?
>>
>> Sure, I could sell it, but I'm trying to think about possibles that
>> involve *keeping* it. They do make those freestanding oak bike racks
>> in a 2-bike version. Living room could stand "sprucing" up (spruce .
>> . . oak . . . get it?), and a pair of Mootses (Mootsi?) goes a long
>> way.
>>
>> It doesn't have the geometry, or fork clearance, for a good
>cyclocross
>> bike, nor the geometry+braze-ons for a tourer. It comes close enough
>> to fitting a few friends that it really *could* be an "extra," but
>> those are kind of weak routes. There's the whole "rainy day bike"
>vs.
>> "weekend bike" concept.
>>
>> Another thought was test bed. The new one stays as the control while
>> component/adjustment changes are made on the variable bike....
>>
>> Any others I'm missing?
>>
>> BTW: I'm happily aware that there are worse problems to have. Rest
>> assured, I have those, too. This is a pretty pi$$-poor way to come
>up
>> with a 2nd high-end bike, but . . . I'm not complaining here ;-)
>>
>> TIA,
>> Neil
>
>I'm glad to hear you're recovered and things are working out for you,
>Neil.
>A few ideas-
>1- First prize in the soon to be inaugurated Annual Rec.Bicycles.Misc
>Charity Raffle? As the first prize donor you will of course get to pick
>the charity. ("Me" doesn't qualify)
>2- Do the necessary repairs, put a pair of platform pedals on it, and
>use it as an ego deflator for those that are continually bragging about
>their wonder bikes. Imagine the looks you'll get when you say, "Oh,
>that? That's my beater bike. I never ride my *nice* bike around town."
>3- If you mounted it on an indoor trainer there'd be no need to spend
>any money at all outside of the buy back price.
>4- Mount it on a trainer. Add a PowerTap hub and a HRM. Bingo, instant
>pro level training aid.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

I'm sorry, Bob. Idea #1 got scrambled on Forte Agent. I'll look into
that ;-)

I love #2, but most kids on 20" bikes can still kick my @ss. Working
on that....

As to #'s 3 and 4: (think Gomez Adams here) Capital idea. Probably
the cheaper route would be the way to go, but a trainer is a perfect
idea. Actually, making the sport tourer (with 28c tires and a
light-duty rack) doesn't negate the trainer.

Much appreciated!

Neil

[Bob]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> So there was that fateful Moots crash on "Good" Friday, right?
> >>
> >> All through with the medical. All through with the insurance.
They
> >> bought me a brand spanking new Vamoots, identically spec'd. I've
got
> >> it.
> >>
> >> What about the old bike, then? They *are* going to take it for
its
> >> salvage value. The salvage company called me. They'd like to
> >arrange
> >> pickup. But, but, but . . . how much are you asking for the
wrecked
> >> bike? $410.00, plus California Sales Tax.
> >>
> >> Sold.
> >>
> >> Take it to the shop down the street. He's a Moots dealer. I tell
> >the
> >> tale. I'm 99% sure that *I* hit the car door; not the bike.
Based
> >on
> >> that, and a visual inspection, he's pretty comfortable with the
> >frame,
> >> the bars, and the fork being relatively intact, +/- some cosmetic
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> Rear wheel needs truing. Front is bent on the seam and should be
> >> replaced. Fine: about $350 there. Then the bike is just a
scuffed
> >> up, 400 miles on it, well-nigh perfect Moots that I own.
> >>
> >> So what do you do with it (just in case: "Send it to me" won't
fly)?
> >>
> >> Sure, I could sell it, but I'm trying to think about possibles
that
> >> involve *keeping* it. They do make those freestanding oak bike
racks
> >> in a 2-bike version. Living room could stand "sprucing" up
(spruce .
> >> . . oak . . . get it?), and a pair of Mootses (Mootsi?) goes a
long
> >> way.
> >>
> >> It doesn't have the geometry, or fork clearance, for a good
> >cyclocross
> >> bike, nor the geometry+braze-ons for a tourer. It comes close
enough
> >> to fitting a few friends that it really *could* be an "extra," but
> >> those are kind of weak routes. There's the whole "rainy day bike"
> >vs.
> >> "weekend bike" concept.
> >>
> >> Another thought was test bed. The new one stays as the control
while
> >> component/adjustment changes are made on the variable bike....
> >>
> >> Any others I'm missing?
> >>
> >> BTW: I'm happily aware that there are worse problems to have.
Rest
> >> assured, I have those, too. This is a pretty pi$$-poor way to
come
> >up
> >> with a 2nd high-end bike, but . . . I'm not complaining here ;-)
> >>
> >> TIA,
> >> Neil
> >
> >I'm glad to hear you're recovered and things are working out for
you,
> >Neil.
> >A few ideas-
> >1- First prize in the soon to be inaugurated Annual
Rec.Bicycles.Misc
> >Charity Raffle? As the first prize donor you will of course get to
pick
> >the charity. ("Me" doesn't qualify)
> >2- Do the necessary repairs, put a pair of platform pedals on it,
and
> >use it as an ego deflator for those that are continually bragging
about
> >their wonder bikes. Imagine the looks you'll get when you say, "Oh,
> >that? That's my beater bike. I never ride my *nice* bike around
town."
> >3- If you mounted it on an indoor trainer there'd be no need to
spend
> >any money at all outside of the buy back price.
> >4- Mount it on a trainer. Add a PowerTap hub and a HRM. Bingo,
instant
> >pro level training aid.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bob Hunt
>
> I'm sorry, Bob. Idea #1 got scrambled on Forte Agent. I'll look
into
> that ;-)
>
> I love #2, but most kids on 20" bikes can still kick my @ss. Working
> on that....
>
> As to #'s 3 and 4: (think Gomez Adams here) Capital idea. Probably
> the cheaper route would be the way to go, but a trainer is a perfect
> idea. Actually, making the sport tourer (with 28c tires and a
> light-duty rack) doesn't negate the trainer.
>
> Much appreciated!
>
> Neil

Riding at a sedate pace could actually increase the satisfaction of #2.
Just tell people you aren't riding seriously because you're still
recovering from that nasty spill in Paris-Nice hence the beater bike.
It would be rather like explaining why you use the Silver Shadow when
you need to do a little light hauling...
"The last time I hauled anything in the passenger seat of my Ferrari
Enzo Angelina Jolie got all bent out of shape because she had to sit on
top of 100 lbs of peat moss."
Of course, the hardest part of either of these is keeping a straight
face when you use them. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Roger Zoul]

Bob > wrote:
:> 4- Mount it on a trainer. Add a PowerTap hub and a HRM. Bingo,
:> instant pro level training aid.

Nice idea...

[bbaka]

Maggie wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
>> - it only had about 400 miles on it
>> - it sold for about $6k new
>
>
>
> YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????
>
> Amazed Maggie
>
And you wonder why I get ragged on for my $60 Huffy and $80 Mongoose?
These guys have way too much money on their hands.
I wonder if they have On-Star to track the bike if it gets stolen?
Bill Baka

[Roger Zoul]

bbaka > wrote:
:> Maggie wrote:
:> > Neil Brooks wrote:
:> >
:> >> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
:> >> - it only had about 400 miles on it
:> >> - it sold for about $6k new
:> >
:> >
:> >
:> > YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????
:> >
:> > Amazed Maggie
:> >
:> And you wonder why I get ragged on for my $60 Huffy and $80 Mongoose?

? Because you deserve to be? You can do better than a $60 Huffy....

:> These guys have way too much money on their hands.
:> I wonder if they have On-Star to track the bike if it gets stolen?
:> Bill Baka

[bbaka]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> bbaka > wrote:
> :> Maggie wrote:
> :> > Neil Brooks wrote:
> :> >
> :> >> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
> :> >> - it only had about 400 miles on it
> :> >> - it sold for about $6k new
> :> >
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????
> :> >
> :> > Amazed Maggie
> :> >
> :> And you wonder why I get ragged on for my $60 Huffy and $80 Mongoose?
>
> ? Because you deserve to be? You can do better than a $60 Huffy....
>
> :> These guys have way too much money on their hands.
> :> I wonder if they have On-Star to track the bike if it gets stolen?
> :> Bill Baka
>
>
I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if it
ain't broke? Besides I have this huge inventory of stuff from when I
went nuts on e-bay.
I am a pack rat is my main problem, just can't let go.
Bill Baka

[Roger Zoul]

bbaka > wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:> > bbaka > wrote:
:> > :> Maggie wrote:
:> > :> > Neil Brooks wrote:
:> > :> >
:> > :> >> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
:> > :> >> - it only had about 400 miles on it
:> > :> >> - it sold for about $6k new
:> > :> >
:> > :> >
:> > :> >
:> > :> > YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????
:> > :> >
:> > :> > Amazed Maggie
:> > :> >
:> > :> And you wonder why I get ragged on for my $60 Huffy and $80
:> > :> Mongoose?
:> >
:> > ? Because you deserve to be? You can do better than a $60
:> > Huffy....
:> >
:> > :> These guys have way too much money on their hands.
:> > :> I wonder if they have On-Star to track the bike if it gets
:> > :> stolen? Bill Baka
:> >
:> >
:> I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if it
:> ain't broke? Besides I have this huge inventory of stuff from when I
:> went nuts on e-bay.
:> I am a pack rat is my main problem, just can't let go.

Perhaps you could have a more enjoyable ride if you have a better
bike....carry more, be more confident, etc. But hey, if you're
happy...that's all that counts, really. Me, I'd have to spend more...not
necessarly $6k, though, as it would be wasted on me.

[Maggie]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> What about that overpriced handbag you once bought? Huh??
>
> And where's my donut and latte anyway? ;-)


Overpriced handbag I bought ONCE???? I have a collection of
overpriced handbags. And insanely overpriced shoes.

Whatever makes you happy sweetie. I am just amazed at the price of
bicycles. Just as people are amazed at what I will pay for a pair of
shoes. And if anyone knew what my purses cost, they would have me
committed.

All Good things Neil...ride on
The Latte is on its way. I've been trying to find you.
Maggie

[Neil Brooks]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

>Perhaps you could have a more enjoyable ride if you have a better
>bike....carry more, be more confident, etc. But hey, if you're
>happy...that's all that counts, really. Me, I'd have to spend more...not
>necessarly $6k, though, as it would be wasted on me.

I dunno, Roger. You seem to ride a decent amount, from the stories
you tell.

One of *my* biggest concerns before going to the World Bank for the
Moots was, "Will I be worthy? Am I *man* enough for this bike?"

What I found out in a couple of rides can be summarized like this: I'm
sure Lance (or Peter Chisholm, or any number of others) could *get*
more from my bike than I. I'm sure Sheldon Brown would understand
better than I the beauty of the welds.

Maybe others with broader experience with bikes, or simply more
pedaling miles behind them, than I would appreciate the frame's ride
quality more than I can.

But the bike's strengths are absolutely not lost on me. Coming from
an aluminum Cannondale tourer, I've been able to recognize the
following immediately (not an all-inclusive list):

- The aluminum frame telegraphed bumps sharply and crisply. The
titanium frame seems to "cut the sharp top" off of the bumps,
delivering more of a dull thud, while allowing better control of the
bike. Analogy: if you have to hit concrete with a hammer, the
Cannondale was a sledge; the Moots is a dead-blow hammer.

- The Record group performs flawlessly. The brakes inspire tremendous
confidence, even on 45+mph downhills. They have exceptional feel,
modulation, and sheer strength. The shifting is crisp, quick, and
flawless (though the LBS set the lower limit screw on the FD too low
causing a chain drop twice. I'll fix it....).

- The whole package weighs in (calculated) at somewhere in the 18#
range as a 59cm frame. At first, I thought I hadn't gained much in
climbing. I'd just stand on the pedals and go, but it didn't *feel*
any faster to me. That's before I rode with (apologies here) the
usual crew and just plain pulled away, where formerly I lagged
dramatically on *any* rise of *any* size. Sure, that's primarily a
light-bike issue, but a stiff, responsive frame helps there, too.

- The handling is laser-accurate. On tight, twisty roads, there's an
almost intuitive quality to the turns. On the Cannondale, you have to
frequently give minor steering inputs to hold that perfect line. With
the Moots, it's set it and forget it.

I definitely know what you mean. But I think bikes are more like cars
than they are like wine. A sublime $500 bottle of wine might easily
be under-appreciated by somebody not into wines, but most people who
try out a Porsche for the first time get *some* significant hint of
what they're driving, even if they can't wring out a tenth of the
car's capability. The upside there -- and it's dramatic -- is that,
as they improve their driving skills, the car just keeps on giving.

I think that's going to be the story of me and my Moots(es).

HAND.

[Roger Zoul]

Neil Brooks > wrote:
:> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
:>
:> >Perhaps you could have a more enjoyable ride if you have a better
:> >bike....carry more, be more confident, etc. But hey, if you're
:> >happy...that's all that counts, really. Me, I'd have to spend
:> >more...not necessarly $6k, though, as it would be wasted on me.
:>
:> I dunno, Roger. You seem to ride a decent amount, from the stories
:> you tell.

Hey, man...I didn't mean to make you feel bad about your purchase...please
don't. Though I do feel that a $6k bike would be wasted on me, that doesn't
mean I wouldn't buy one if I had the dough sitting around...it's just that I
have a lot of interests and I try to feed them all...and I date a lot, so I
have to get the maximum benefits from those dollars.

I'm sure if I added up all of the $$ I've spent on bike stuff since I
started riding back in October 2003, it would add up to a staggering amount
(heck, I dropped over $2k the day I got my bike and I've kept spending
since!!).

:>
:> One of *my* biggest concerns before going to the World Bank for the
:> Moots was, "Will I be worthy? Am I *man* enough for this bike?"

:)

:>
:> What I found out in a couple of rides can be summarized like this:
:> I'm sure Lance (or Peter Chisholm, or any number of others) could
:> *get*
:> more from my bike than I. I'm sure Sheldon Brown would understand
:> better than I the beauty of the welds.

Lance sure isn't has much "man" as I! :)

:>
:> Maybe others with broader experience with bikes, or simply more
:> pedaling miles behind them, than I would appreciate the frame's ride
:> quality more than I can.
:>

Perhaps...but you still enjoy it, right? It makes you happy, right? It was
your choice to make and you're living with the consequences of that
decision. That makes you plenty of "man" in my book.

:> But the bike's strengths are absolutely not lost on me. Coming from
:> an aluminum Cannondale tourer, I've been able to recognize the
:> following immediately (not an all-inclusive list):
:>
:> - The aluminum frame telegraphed bumps sharply and crisply. The
:> titanium frame seems to "cut the sharp top" off of the bumps,
:> delivering more of a dull thud, while allowing better control of the
:> bike. Analogy: if you have to hit concrete with a hammer, the
:> Cannondale was a sledge; the Moots is a dead-blow hammer.

Interesting...I could appreciate a smoother ride since a lot of country
roads I ride have bikers bane....

:>
:> - The Record group performs flawlessly. The brakes inspire
:> tremendous confidence, even on 45+mph downhills. They have
:> exceptional feel, modulation, and sheer strength. The shifting is
:> crisp, quick, and flawless (though the LBS set the lower limit screw
:> on the FD too low causing a chain drop twice. I'll fix it....).

Now you're making me feel envy...sometimes, while riding, my chain comes off
when shifting on the front....

:>
:> - The whole package weighs in (calculated) at somewhere in the 18#
:> range as a 59cm frame. At first, I thought I hadn't gained much in
:> climbing. I'd just stand on the pedals and go, but it didn't *feel*
:> any faster to me. That's before I rode with (apologies here) the
:> usual crew and just plain pulled away, where formerly I lagged
:> dramatically on *any* rise of *any* size. Sure, that's primarily a
:> light-bike issue, but a stiff, responsive frame helps there, too.

Interesting...that's a full 9 lbs lighter than my bike in stock
condition...I've assumed that the biggest impact on my climbing would be to
make ME lighter (truth be told, there is much more than a mere 9 lbs to be
gained there! :) ) I still use climbing as a reason to continue to drop
more pounds....perhaps if I ever get down to 210 (I'm hovering at 225 to 230
now), I consider a lighter bike - assuming one could hold up to that
weight...

:>
:> - The handling is laser-accurate. On tight, twisty roads, there's an
:> almost intuitive quality to the turns. On the Cannondale, you have
:> to frequently give minor steering inputs to hold that perfect line.
:> With the Moots, it's set it and forget it.

Interesting....that's something I just have no experience under my belt to
have an appreciation for. My 2003 Specialized Sequoia Expert is all I have
any real experience with...so it's my marker. One day, maybe...


:>
:> I definitely know what you mean. But I think bikes are more like
:> cars than they are like wine. A sublime $500 bottle of wine might
:> easily
:> be under-appreciated by somebody not into wines, but most people who
:> try out a Porsche for the first time get *some* significant hint of
:> what they're driving, even if they can't wring out a tenth of the
:> car's capability. The upside there -- and it's dramatic -- is that,
:> as they improve their driving skills, the car just keeps on giving.

So, getting a finer bike with help me improve my riding skills, huh? Sounds
like a good argument ...especially for WAF (assuming I had a one, that is).

:>
:> I think that's going to be the story of me and my Moots(es).
:>

It works for me, Neil!

[Maggie]

Roger Zoul wrote:

and I date a lot, so I have to get the maximum benefits from those
dollars.



This is funny....what benefits are we speaking of??? ;-)

Maggie

[Neil Brooks]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote (and I edited with the odd
snip here and there. No substance was harmed in the making of this
post):

>Neil Brooks > wrote:
>:> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>:>
>:> >Perhaps you could have a more enjoyable ride if you have a better
>:> >bike....carry more, be more confident, etc. But hey, if you're
>:> >happy...that's all that counts, really. Me, I'd have to spend
>:> >more...not necessarly $6k, though, as it would be wasted on me.
>:>
>:> I dunno, Roger. You seem to ride a decent amount, from the stories
>:> you tell.
>
>Hey, man...I didn't mean to make you feel bad about your purchase...please
>don't. Though I do feel that a $6k bike would be wasted on me, that doesn't
>mean I wouldn't buy one if I had the dough sitting around...it's just that I
>have a lot of interests and I try to feed them all...and I date a lot, so I
>have to get the maximum benefits from those dollars.

'zactly! I'm married now. In my single days, I dated an awful lot
(too much, in hindsight). The money I've saved.... Back then, I
could only afford running . . . barefoot ;-)

>I'm sure if I added up all of the $$ I've spent on bike stuff since I
>started riding back in October 2003, it would add up to a staggering amount
>(heck, I dropped over $2k the day I got my bike and I've kept spending
>since!!).

Also right. I've also heard from a couple of people (re: the cost of
my bike) who have bikes (or skis or motorcycles or cars or home or
kids!) that *total* up to much more than I paid. It's all where we
spend it. Maggie has shoes and purses. I wear flip-flops almost all
the time and *rarely* carry a purse (during the week).

>:> But the bike's strengths are absolutely not lost on me. Coming from
>:> an aluminum Cannondale tourer, I've been able to recognize the
>:> following immediately (not an all-inclusive list):
>:>
>:> - The aluminum frame telegraphed bumps sharply and crisply. The
>:> titanium frame seems to "cut the sharp top" off of the bumps,
>:> delivering more of a dull thud, while allowing better control of the
>:> bike. Analogy: if you have to hit concrete with a hammer, the
>:> Cannondale was a sledge; the Moots is a dead-blow hammer.
>
>Interesting...I could appreciate a smoother ride since a lot of country
>roads I ride have bikers bane....

The first full day that I owned the first Moots was the day of the
Solvang Century. The following day, online, lots of people were
griping about how awful the roads were. I thought, "Huh?"
Apparently, the Moots didn't realize it.

>:> - The Record group performs flawlessly. The brakes inspire
>:> tremendous confidence, even on 45+mph downhills. They have
>:> exceptional feel, modulation, and sheer strength. The shifting is
>:> crisp, quick, and flawless (though the LBS set the lower limit screw
>:> on the FD too low causing a chain drop twice. I'll fix it....).
>
>Now you're making me feel envy...sometimes, while riding, my chain comes off
>when shifting on the front....

That should *almost always* be fixable, btw. Has somebody adjusted
the lower limit screw?

http://www.parktool.com/repair_help/howfix_frontderailleur.shtml

Even if you can't fix it (which would have me thinking
chainline/bottom bracket issues?), you could install a
http://snipurl.com/ev4f and be done with it.

>:> - The whole package weighs in (calculated) at somewhere in the 18#
>:> range as a 59cm frame. At first, I thought I hadn't gained much in
>:> climbing. I'd just stand on the pedals and go, but it didn't *feel*
>:> any faster to me. That's before I rode with (apologies here) the
>:> usual crew and just plain pulled away, where formerly I lagged
>:> dramatically on *any* rise of *any* size. Sure, that's primarily a
>:> light-bike issue, but a stiff, responsive frame helps there, too.
>
>Interesting...that's a full 9 lbs lighter than my bike in stock

I get that. My Cannondale is about 30 lbs with the rack and blinkie
on.

>condition...I've assumed that the biggest impact on my climbing would be to
>make ME lighter (truth be told, there is much more than a mere 9 lbs to be
>gained there! :) ) I still use climbing as a reason to continue to drop
>more pounds....perhaps if I ever get down to 210 (I'm hovering at 225 to 230
>now), I consider a lighter bike - assuming one could hold up to that
>weight...

You're right about the weight thing: better -- for a hundred reasons
-- to rid *yourself* of the excess first. I love to climb, but I'm
big by cycling-climber standards, so my slimmer friends kick my @ss
pretty much every time. Was just over 190, but dropped to about 182.
Probably only another ten to go. Losing weight on the body is
dramatically cheaper than dropping it on the bike ;-)

>:> - The handling is laser-accurate. On tight, twisty roads, there's an
>:> almost intuitive quality to the turns. On the Cannondale, you have
>:> to frequently give minor steering inputs to hold that perfect line.
>:> With the Moots, it's set it and forget it.
>
>Interesting....that's something I just have no experience under my belt to
>have an appreciation for. My 2003 Specialized Sequoia Expert is all I have
>any real experience with...so it's my marker. One day, maybe...

That's a sweet bike. Specialized owners seem exceptionally happy with
their machines.

[Roger Zoul]

Maggie > wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>
:> and I date a lot, so I have to get the maximum benefits from those
:> dollars.
:>
:> This is funny....what benefits are we speaking of??? ;-)

:)

Being able to ask a lady out is a benefit of having dollars!

[Maggie]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> :)
>
> Being able to ask a lady out is a benefit of having dollars!

Nothing attracts a woman like a good looking man with money. Or even
an ugly man with money. ;-)

Maggie..old and jaded.

[Peter Cole]

Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> But the bike's strengths are absolutely not lost on me. Coming from
> an aluminum Cannondale tourer, I've been able to recognize the
> following immediately (not an all-inclusive list):
>
> - The aluminum frame telegraphed bumps sharply and crisply. The
> titanium frame seems to "cut the sharp top" off of the bumps,
> delivering more of a dull thud, while allowing better control of the
> bike. Analogy: if you have to hit concrete with a hammer, the
> Cannondale was a sledge; the Moots is a dead-blow hammer.

Oh, puh-leeze!

I have that Cannondale frame (and several other frames). The difference
is between your ears.

> - The Record group performs flawlessly. The brakes inspire tremendous
> confidence, even on 45+mph downhills. They have exceptional feel,
> modulation, and sheer strength. The shifting is crisp, quick, and
> flawless

So are the Shimano MTB brifters I paid $15/pr for, and the Tektro
v-brakes (same price). Low-end stuff may be a bit heavier and not last
as long, but it works pretty damn well. I ride in a pack of high-end
bikes at least once a week, I hear a lot of bad shifting.

> - The whole package weighs in (calculated) at somewhere in the 18#
> range as a 59cm frame. At first, I thought I hadn't gained much in
> climbing. I'd just stand on the pedals and go, but it didn't *feel*
> any faster to me. That's before I rode with (apologies here) the
> usual crew and just plain pulled away, where formerly I lagged
> dramatically on *any* rise of *any* size. Sure, that's primarily a
> light-bike issue, but a stiff, responsive frame helps there, too.

You dropped 12 lb off the bike. My Cannondale, in a 68cm size, weighs 24
lb, I think you're comparing apples to locomotives.

I ride with the same group over the same course at least weekly, and
have done so for over 8 years. People show up with new bikes, wheels and
other frou-frou all the time. The same guys ride their old bikes when
the new ones are in the shop. There's no difference. It's all
psychological, and that wears off.


> - The handling is laser-accurate. On tight, twisty roads, there's an
> almost intuitive quality to the turns. On the Cannondale, you have to
> frequently give minor steering inputs to hold that perfect line. With
> the Moots, it's set it and forget it.

For yucks I rode my Cannondale for 30 miles of rolling terrain no-hands.
To be honest, I haven't taken it over 55 mph, maybe it falls apart
there. I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.

> I definitely know what you mean. But I think bikes are more like cars
> than they are like wine. A sublime $500 bottle of wine might easily
> be under-appreciated by somebody not into wines, but most people who
> try out a Porsche for the first time get *some* significant hint of
> what they're driving, even if they can't wring out a tenth of the
> car's capability. The upside there -- and it's dramatic -- is that,
> as they improve their driving skills, the car just keeps on giving.
>
> I think that's going to be the story of me and my Moots(es).

I think the point of diminishing returns is reached way sooner with
bikes than cars. But it's moot (heh), as the power comes from the rider,
not the bike.

Around here, Ti bikes seem to be mid-life toys. Moots isn't real
popular, probably because we have Merlin (used to) and Seven near by,
and Litespeeds are cheaper. I have noticed that the amount of cycling
seems to shrink inversely with the price tags of the bikes, though.
Caveat emptor.

[Mike Latondresse]

bbaka > wrote in
:

> I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if
> it ain't broke?

Perhaps Bill you are just a Huffy kinda guy.

[Neil Brooks]

Peter Cole > wrote:

>Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>> But the bike's strengths are absolutely not lost on me. Coming from
>> an aluminum Cannondale tourer, I've been able to recognize the
>> following immediately (not an all-inclusive list):
>>
>> - The aluminum frame telegraphed bumps sharply and crisply. The
>> titanium frame seems to "cut the sharp top" off of the bumps,
>> delivering more of a dull thud, while allowing better control of the
>> bike. Analogy: if you have to hit concrete with a hammer, the
>> Cannondale was a sledge; the Moots is a dead-blow hammer.
>
>Oh, puh-leeze!
>
>I have that Cannondale frame (and several other frames). The difference
>is between your ears.

I'm sorry, Peter: whose Vamoots, and whose Cannondale tourer, did you
ride that day? If they were mine, then it slipped my mind entirely.

>> - The Record group performs flawlessly. The brakes inspire tremendous
>> confidence, even on 45+mph downhills. They have exceptional feel,
>> modulation, and sheer strength. The shifting is crisp, quick, and
>> flawless
>
>So are the Shimano MTB brifters I paid $15/pr for, and the Tektro
>v-brakes (same price). Low-end stuff may be a bit heavier and not last
>as long, but it works pretty damn well.

I'm sorry, Peter: where was I putting down lower-cost items again?

>I ride in a pack of high-end
>bikes at least once a week, I hear a lot of bad shifting.

Then blame the riders and or their wrenches, not the bikes.

>> - The whole package weighs in (calculated) at somewhere in the 18#
>> range as a 59cm frame. At first, I thought I hadn't gained much in
>> climbing. I'd just stand on the pedals and go, but it didn't *feel*
>> any faster to me. That's before I rode with (apologies here) the
>> usual crew and just plain pulled away, where formerly I lagged
>> dramatically on *any* rise of *any* size. Sure, that's primarily a
>> light-bike issue, but a stiff, responsive frame helps there, too.
>
>You dropped 12 lb off the bike. My Cannondale, in a 68cm size, weighs 24
>lb, I think you're comparing apples to locomotives.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If it's that
you're significantly taller than me, I must concede that you are.

>I ride with the same group over the same course at least weekly, and
>have done so for over 8 years. People show up with new bikes, wheels and
>other frou-frou all the time. The same guys ride their old bikes when
>the new ones are in the shop. There's no difference. It's all
>psychological, and that wears off.

Hmm. So you expect no difference in performance between a 30 lb.
Cannondale tourer and an 18 lb. Moots Vamoots? I'd say you've just
made a judgment absent the facts. If that makes you sleep better at
night, so be it.

>> - The handling is laser-accurate. On tight, twisty roads, there's an
>> almost intuitive quality to the turns. On the Cannondale, you have to
>> frequently give minor steering inputs to hold that perfect line. With
>> the Moots, it's set it and forget it.
>
>For yucks I rode my Cannondale for 30 miles of rolling terrain no-hands.
>To be honest, I haven't taken it over 55 mph, maybe it falls apart
>there. I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>
>> I definitely know what you mean. But I think bikes are more like cars
>> than they are like wine. A sublime $500 bottle of wine might easily
>> be under-appreciated by somebody not into wines, but most people who
>> try out a Porsche for the first time get *some* significant hint of
>> what they're driving, even if they can't wring out a tenth of the
>> car's capability. The upside there -- and it's dramatic -- is that,
>> as they improve their driving skills, the car just keeps on giving.
>>
>> I think that's going to be the story of me and my Moots(es).
>
>I think the point of diminishing returns is reached way sooner with
>bikes than cars. But it's moot (heh), as the power comes from the rider,
>not the bike.

And a fast runner may be a fast runner without regard to the shoes he
wears, but the ones who know a little bit about it choose their shoes
carefully . . . and they aren't always the lowest cost shoes, either.

>Around here, Ti bikes seem to be mid-life toys. Moots isn't real
>popular, probably because we have Merlin (used to) and Seven near by,
>and Litespeeds are cheaper. I have noticed that the amount of cycling
>seems to shrink inversely with the price tags of the bikes, though.
>Caveat emptor.

I'm riding over 250 miles a week and am very happy to have my new
bike. Why the rancor, Peter? Why not just be happy that I (or your
friends with their Melrins, Sevens, and Litespeeds) are happy with the
bikes that we've purchased?

[Mark Hickey]

Neil Brooks > wrote:

>"Roger Zoul" > wrote
>
>>Neil Brooks > wrote:

>>:> - The aluminum frame telegraphed bumps sharply and crisply. The
>>:> titanium frame seems to "cut the sharp top" off of the bumps,
>>:> delivering more of a dull thud, while allowing better control of the
>>:> bike. Analogy: if you have to hit concrete with a hammer, the
>>:> Cannondale was a sledge; the Moots is a dead-blow hammer.
>>
>>Interesting...I could appreciate a smoother ride since a lot of country
>>roads I ride have bikers bane....
>
>The first full day that I owned the first Moots was the day of the
>Solvang Century. The following day, online, lots of people were
>griping about how awful the roads were. I thought, "Huh?"
>Apparently, the Moots didn't realize it.

Perhaps I should mention the undeniable "I just paid $400 a pound for
this bicycle, so it had BETTER do something better than my $1200
Cannondale syndrome"...?

Naaaaaah.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[bbaka]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> bbaka > wrote:
> :> Roger Zoul wrote:
> :> > bbaka > wrote:
> :> > :> Maggie wrote:
> :> > :> > Neil Brooks wrote:
> :> > :> >
> :> > :> >> - the bike was only 2wks old when crashed
> :> > :> >> - it only had about 400 miles on it
> :> > :> >> - it sold for about $6k new
> :> > :> >
> :> > :> >
> :> > :> >
> :> > :> > YOUR BIKE COST 6,000 DOLLARS??????
> :> > :> >
> :> > :> > Amazed Maggie
> :> > :> >
> :> > :> And you wonder why I get ragged on for my $60 Huffy and $80
> :> > :> Mongoose?
> :> >
> :> > ? Because you deserve to be? You can do better than a $60
> :> > Huffy....
> :> >
> :> > :> These guys have way too much money on their hands.
> :> > :> I wonder if they have On-Star to track the bike if it gets
> :> > :> stolen? Bill Baka
> :> >
> :> >
> :> I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if it
> :> ain't broke? Besides I have this huge inventory of stuff from when I
> :> went nuts on e-bay.
> :> I am a pack rat is my main problem, just can't let go.
>
> Perhaps you could have a more enjoyable ride if you have a better
> bike....carry more, be more confident, etc. But hey, if you're
> happy...that's all that counts, really. Me, I'd have to spend more...not
> necessarly $6k, though, as it would be wasted on me.
>
>
>
Some body is going to have to snip this pretty soon, but in defense of
my habits I have broken everything possible on the cheap bikes for the
way I ride them. I am even starting to strap water bottle cages to the
front forks and thinking of trying it on the rear down tubes. That and a
seat back tool pack for those 2 little rings on the touring seats.
I would feel silly buying a kilobuck bike and then bolting things on my way.
Bill Baka

[bbaka]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> For yucks I rode my Cannondale for 30 miles of rolling terrain no-hands.

Uphill too?
> To be honest, I haven't taken it over 55 mph, maybe it falls apart
> there.
Where can you achieve 55+, I want to go there.

I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.

It is actually easier at high speed and does tend to limit the maximum
speed, but it is sure a nice cool down after a big uphill.
>
>
> Around here, Ti bikes seem to be mid-life toys. Moots isn't real
> popular, probably because we have Merlin (used to) and Seven near by,
> and Litespeeds are cheaper. I have noticed that the amount of cycling
> seems to shrink inversely with the price tags of the bikes, though.
> Caveat emptor.

Sounds right. I will ride a cheap bike into the ground but an expensive
bike would have me worrying about breaking a $300 part or something.
Bill Baka

[bbaka]

Mike Latondresse wrote:
> bbaka > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if
>>it ain't broke?
>
>
> Perhaps Bill you are just a Huffy kinda guy.

If I can ride it I will, but why spend that much money on something that
doesn't even have an engine? What's next, a 14 carat gold plated bike?
Bill Baka

[Roger Zoul]

bbaka > wrote:
:> Some body is going to have to snip this pretty soon, but in defense
:> of
:> my habits I have broken everything possible on the cheap bikes for
:> the
:> way I ride them. I am even starting to strap water bottle cages to
:> the front forks and thinking of trying it on the rear down tubes.
:> That and a seat back tool pack for those 2 little rings on the
:> touring seats.
:> I would feel silly buying a kilobuck bike and then bolting things on
:> my way. Bill Baka

Jpegs, please....

[bbaka]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> bbaka > wrote:
> :> Some body is going to have to snip this pretty soon, but in defense
> :> of
> :> my habits I have broken everything possible on the cheap bikes for
> :> the
> :> way I ride them. I am even starting to strap water bottle cages to
> :> the front forks and thinking of trying it on the rear down tubes.
> :> That and a seat back tool pack for those 2 little rings on the
> :> touring seats.
> :> I would feel silly buying a kilobuck bike and then bolting things on
> :> my way. Bill Baka
>
> Jpegs, please....
>
>
Coming soon, after I finish the water bottles everywhere project.
This will be the Mongoose as I think I have pretty much worn out the
Huffy and everything will start breaking.
Bill Baka

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
bbaka > writes:

> I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.

35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> bbaka > writes:
>
>> I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>
> 35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.

To be fair to Iron Bill, that quote actually belongs to Peter Cole. ("For
yucks I rode my Cannondale for 30 miles of rolling terrain no-hands. To be
honest, I haven't taken it over 55 mph, maybe it falls apart there. I don't
hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.")

IBB merely split up PC's quote, and neglected to add an '> ' to the
remainder. Thus it looked like he wrote it (and it's in keeping with his
"IBB" persona!)...

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Bill Sornson" > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article >,
>> bbaka > writes:
>>
>>> I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>>
>> 35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.
>
> To be fair to Iron Bill, that quote actually belongs to Peter Cole. ("For
> yucks I rode my Cannondale for 30 miles of rolling terrain no-hands. To be
> honest, I haven't taken it over 55 mph, maybe it falls apart there. I don't
> hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.")
>
> IBB merely split up PC's quote, and neglected to add an '> ' to the
> remainder. Thus it looked like he wrote it (and it's in keeping with his
> "IBB" persona!)...

I stand corrected.

But still I think it's quite an impressive feat :-)

And I don't doubt Peter's veracity.

50 km/h on my slightly undersized and high seatposted MTB
feels too much like hurtling, even with hands on the bar.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Neil Brooks]

Mark Hickey > wrote:

>Perhaps I should mention the undeniable "I just paid $400 a pound for
>this bicycle, so it had BETTER do something better than my $1200
>Cannondale syndrome"...?
>
>Naaaaaah.

If there's any truth to that (sort of like what they used to call "The
Crown Royal Effect") then you, Sir, need to raise your prices, pronto.

I mean . . . with a 58cm Habby road frame costing $695 and weighing
3.5 lbs, you're only halfway there. If you can't raise your prices
($1,400) then perhaps you can take some of the bloat out of there
(down to, say, 1.73 lbs).

Just think how much happier your customers would be ;-)

[[email protected]]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> bbaka > writes:
>
> > I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>
> 35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.

I've done it no trouble. Cannondale touring bike, equivalent to the
ST-2000. (Mine is the 1986 version, with a different number back then,
but it's largely the same bike.) FWIW, that's with a handlebar bag, in
case that matters to anyone.

BTW, I've had that bike up to 54 mph - with hands _on_ the handlebars,
naturally! I'd have done better if there weren't a car in front
slowing me down.

But that was about five years ago. I was about five years younger and
maybe ten years more foolish. ;-) I honestly don't know if I'd do
that today. At least, not on that particular road. Too curvy.

- Frank Krygowski

[H M Leary]

In article >,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article >,
> bbaka > writes:
>
> > I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>
> 35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

I did not know that Bill could get his Barca (baka???)lounger to go that
fast.

WOW!

[H M Leary]

In article om>,
"Maggie" > wrote:

> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > :)
> >
> > Being able to ask a lady out is a benefit of having dollars!
>
> Nothing attracts a woman like a good looking man with money. Or even
> an ugly man with money. ;-)
>
> Maggie..old and jaded.

Mags, Mags, Mags....

How can you even think that?

You are a rider!

HAND

[Peter Cole]

Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> I'm riding over 250 miles a week and am very happy to have my new
> bike. Why the rancor, Peter? Why not just be happy that I (or your
> friends with their Melrins, Sevens, and Litespeeds) are happy with the
> bikes that we've purchased?

What rancor? I'm happy that you're happy. I'm more than willing to cut
some slack for new bike fever, but you were delirious, you were making
outlandish claims. Besides, you know that talking about the ride quality
of different materials here is just plain trolling.

I don't know how you had your Cannondale touring frame built up, you got
to 30lb, I have the same frame in a (much) larger size and I net out at
24lb. Of course I expect a 18lb bike to feel very different than a 30lb
bike, and that difference is so large that it will affect rate of climb
proportionally (as % of total weight), but that's all.

You claim wounded innocence, but you were trash-mouthing a very nice
frame as you bragged about your new toy. Sensitive, you're not. That
aside, I don't give a whit what you ride, but factually, you're way out
past the marketing hype. Facts do matter.

From a strictly Darwinian POV, I'm glad so many people buy the chi-chi
stuff. Some hate it because they think it displaces practical stuff from
the market, and it does, so for them it makes it hard to buy the
unembellished products. Me, I feed on the discontinued fashions, things
that aren't so absurd as to be dysfunctional. I'm a little embarrassed
to admit that I was very pleased this AM to drop all the riders
(briefly) in a group of 7 at one point (like 2 Sevens, 1 Merlin, 1 IF, 1
Colnago, 1 Serotta, 1 Trek, or something). I was riding a new bike I
built from my parts bin, ~$450 total. I realize this sounds real
bbaka-ish, and I'm not claiming it's about me, it's just not about the
bike. Not everything in life has to be justified functionally. I don't
kid myself that my Rolex is a better watch than my Timex. Enjoy your
bike, drop the hype.

[Mike Latondresse]

bbaka > wrote in
:

> Mike Latondresse wrote:
>> bbaka > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if
>>>it ain't broke?
>>
>>
>> Perhaps Bill you are just a Huffy kinda guy.
>
> If I can ride it I will, but why spend that much money on
> something that doesn't even have an engine? What's next, a 14
> carat gold plated bike? Bill Baka

So you are suggesting that the only legitimate vehicle you should
invest in is one with an engine? Boo!

[bbaka]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>bbaka > writes:
>>
>>
>>>I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>>
>>35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.
>
>
> To be fair to Iron Bill, that quote actually belongs to Peter Cole. ("For
> yucks I rode my Cannondale for 30 miles of rolling terrain no-hands. To be
> honest, I haven't taken it over 55 mph, maybe it falls apart there. I don't
> hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.")
>
> IBB merely split up PC's quote, and neglected to add an '> ' to the
> remainder. Thus it looked like he wrote it (and it's in keeping with his
> "IBB" persona!)...
>
>
>
I did not claim that quote as my own. There are only a few places here
where I can get over 45 and as soon as I sit up to go no hands the blast
of air slows me down to about 30, max. I actually envy Peter Cole and
his more mountains than me location. These threads get so mixed up that
people get mis-quoted after 3 or 4 replies, if not less. I have only
seen over 45 on 2 roads and one was a highway that should have been
designated limited access as there was zero shoulder and was cut/blasted
through rocks. I was doing about 50 downhill and got a long blast from a
semi who thought I was impeding his progress.
Bill Baka (mostly under 20 MPH) Baka

[bbaka]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> "Bill Sornson" > writes:
>
>>Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>bbaka > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>>>
>>>35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.
>>
>>To be fair to Iron Bill, that quote actually belongs to Peter Cole. ("For
>>yucks I rode my Cannondale for 30 miles of rolling terrain no-hands. To be
>>honest, I haven't taken it over 55 mph, maybe it falls apart there. I don't
>>hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.")
>>
>>IBB merely split up PC's quote, and neglected to add an '> ' to the
>>remainder. Thus it looked like he wrote it (and it's in keeping with his
>>"IBB" persona!)...
>
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> But still I think it's quite an impressive feat :-)
>
> And I don't doubt Peter's veracity.
>
> 50 km/h on my slightly undersized and high seatposted MTB
> feels too much like hurtling, even with hands on the bar.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
It actually gets more stable at higher speeds and gives you a bit of a
break to get the blood going into the hands again. Alas, most of my
longer downhills on pavement have been limited to about 25-30 MPH.
Bill Baka

[bbaka]

H M Leary wrote:
> In article >,
> (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> bbaka > writes:
>>
>>
>>>I don't hesitate to ride no-hands at 35-40 mph.
>>
>>35-40 mph while sitting up is quite a feat.
>>
>>
>>cheers,
>> Tom
>
>
> I did not know that Bill could get his Barca (baka???)lounger to go that
> fast.
>
> WOW!

Mis-quoting again. But have you ever tried to ride no hands at 5 MPH?
The speed on a downhill actually helps.
Bill Baka

[bbaka]

Mike Latondresse wrote:
> bbaka > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Mike Latondresse wrote:
>>
>>>bbaka > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if
>>>>it ain't broke?
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps Bill you are just a Huffy kinda guy.
>>
>>If I can ride it I will, but why spend that much money on
>>something that doesn't even have an engine? What's next, a 14
>>carat gold plated bike? Bill Baka
>
>
> So you are suggesting that the only legitimate vehicle you should
> invest in is one with an engine? Boo!

No,
It is just the only thing I would put over a kilobuck into.
Bill Baka

[Neil Brooks]

Peter Cole > wrote:

>Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>> I'm riding over 250 miles a week and am very happy to have my new
>> bike. Why the rancor, Peter? Why not just be happy that I (or your
>> friends with their Melrins, Sevens, and Litespeeds) are happy with the
>> bikes that we've purchased?
>
>What rancor? I'm happy that you're happy. I'm more than willing to cut
>some slack for new bike fever

[snip]

I'd say you weren't, and I'll leave it at that. I did nothing to put
down *my* Cannondale tourer or yours. I just defined my perception of
the differences between the frames. If you felt it necessary to jump
out and call bull$hit (or troll), then you you have, and with great
efficacy.

I'm happy. You're happy. All is well.

Neil

[Mike Latondresse]

bbaka > wrote in news:1116103688.109340
@news01.syix.com:

> Mike Latondresse wrote:
>> bbaka > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Mike Latondresse wrote:
>>>
>>>>bbaka > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I know I can but it just keeps going. Why fix it (replace it) if
>>>>>it ain't broke?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps Bill you are just a Huffy kinda guy.
>>>
>>>If I can ride it I will, but why spend that much money on
>>>something that doesn't even have an engine? What's next, a 14
>>>carat gold plated bike? Bill Baka
>>
>>
>> So you are suggesting that the only legitimate vehicle you should
>> invest in is one with an engine? Boo!
>
> No,
> It is just the only thing I would put over a kilobuck into.
> Bill Baka
>
Typical bad choice Bill.

[Mark Hickey]

Neil Brooks > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>>Perhaps I should mention the undeniable "I just paid $400 a pound for
>>this bicycle, so it had BETTER do something better than my $1200
>>Cannondale syndrome"...?
>>
>>Naaaaaah.
>
>If there's any truth to that (sort of like what they used to call "The
>Crown Royal Effect") then you, Sir, need to raise your prices, pronto.
>
>I mean . . . with a 58cm Habby road frame costing $695 and weighing
>3.5 lbs, you're only halfway there. If you can't raise your prices
>($1,400) then perhaps you can take some of the bloat out of there
>(down to, say, 1.73 lbs).
>
>Just think how much happier your customers would be ;-)

You mean, until the frame snaps in half... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame