Any bike recommendations?

[James]

Comrades,

I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.

Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?

Thanks!

James.

[Roy Owen]

James wrote:
> Comrades,
>
> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>
> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> James.
I'm and old CroMo guy, I have a '92 Bianchi Alfana set up for road (not
crit) racing. When I was in peak condition my farthest ride was 85
miles in just less than 5 hrs. Find a good (reputable) local bike shop
and explain to the owner what you want to do. They should be able to
set you up with a good fit. BTW I ride exclusively on sew-ups
(tubulars) in the long run they are cheaper than clinchers. They can
run at less (some what) than the recommended pressure and they don't
pinch flat. If you can afford titanium then go for it, otherwise stick
with CroMo for comfort.

Roy Owen

[James]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:19:29 -0400, Roy Owen > wrote:

>James wrote:
>> Comrades,
>>
>> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
>> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
>> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
>> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>>
>> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
>> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
>> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
>> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> James.
>I'm and old CroMo guy, I have a '92 Bianchi Alfana set up for road (not
>crit) racing. When I was in peak condition my farthest ride was 85
>miles in just less than 5 hrs. Find a good (reputable) local bike shop
>and explain to the owner what you want to do. They should be able to
>set you up with a good fit. BTW I ride exclusively on sew-ups
>(tubulars) in the long run they are cheaper than clinchers. They can
>run at less (some what) than the recommended pressure and they don't
>pinch flat. If you can afford titanium then go for it, otherwise stick
>with CroMo for comfort.
>
>Roy Owen


Hey Roy,

Thanks for the advice. A few Bianchis certainly look nice... the
Italian bikes probably are the best looking around. This Specalized
Roubaix looks good:

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?sid=05Roubaix

.... but I haven't found a nice Italian bike with that sort of spec for
the price yet. The Bianchi site is pretty crap - I can't find a list
of bikes and specs there, nothing which springs out at you anyway.

The £1500 (GBP) which I'm thinking of spending would stretch to a
carbon Specialized as mentioned above, whether that's compromising the
rest of the gear - i.e. having low end bits around a more basic carbon
frame, which might be worse than having very high end bits on a very
good aluminium or steel frame, I really don't know.

Basically, I'm looking for a quick fix here because I'm keen to get on
the road, and don't want to spend a year or so learning about the
stuff. I'll learn all that when I'm on the road. I've cycled plenty,
but never had an opportunity to pay this much for a bike before (twice
as much as my car cost! Ha ha!). My mountain bike is a Gary Fisher,
but I'm tired of hauling it's heavy ass up all the hills around here.

All advice gratefully received!

James.

[Benjamin Lewis]

James wrote:

> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>
> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?

Why not a tourer? I think you may be overestimating the difference
lightness will make. Recent estimates in another thread here in r.b.t. put
the speed difference at approximately 0.1 mph up a 10% grade for a 3 pound
difference in weight.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

[James]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:44:38 -0700, Benjamin Lewis >
wrote:

>James wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
>> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
>> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
>> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>>
>> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
>> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
>> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
>> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>
>Why not a tourer? I think you may be overestimating the difference
>lightness will make. Recent estimates in another thread here in r.b.t. put
>the speed difference at approximately 0.1 mph up a 10% grade for a 3 pound
>difference in weight.


Hi Benjamin,

The main reason I don't want a tourer is because I had one before - a
Dawes Mirage - and it was nothing but a dissapointment. Replaced the
brakes, gears and wheels a fair few times, but nothing would make it
right. OK, maybe the problem was terrible mechanics which never kept
the chain on the spogs, later indexed gears which never worked
properly, and maybe the whole thing was the wrong size for me anyway
(I got it second hand).

But I love a good, hard blast periodically, and like a dabble every
now and then when I see another biker up for it. Even on the mountain
bike, it makes for a good race for short distances, but the racers
always leave me behind and those fun competitions and the personal
lift from seeing an impressive speedo/times does mean a lot to me, sad
though I may be to have to admit it.

This is why a bordering-on-racing bike is the sort of bike I'm
interested in, rather than something that will kill you after 80 miles
and/or will be considered a throwaway if you ride it over a sixpence.

James.

[Nobody]

I got a Cannondale Sport Road 1000 about a year ago, and I love it. It has
an aluminum frame, and Campy Centaur parts for cranks and gears. I got lucky
when I ordered it; they didn't have Centaur brake/shifters, so they gave me
Record.

I got this primarily for commuting and light touring, and I think it's
perfect for those. I was concerned that the frame would be too delicate, but
I asked Cannondale before I bought it, and they assured me that it was
rugged enough for those purposes. It's not quite a racing bike, but close
enough.

"James" > wrote in message
...
> Comrades,
>
> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>
> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> James.

[Peter Cole]

Roy Owen wrote:

>
> I'm and old CroMo guy, I have a '92 Bianchi Alfana set up for road (not
> crit) racing. When I was in peak condition my farthest ride was 85
> miles in just less than 5 hrs. Find a good (reputable) local bike shop
> and explain to the owner what you want to do. They should be able to
> set you up with a good fit. BTW I ride exclusively on sew-ups
> (tubulars) in the long run they are cheaper than clinchers. They can
> run at less (some what) than the recommended pressure and they don't
> pinch flat. If you can afford titanium then go for it, otherwise stick
> with CroMo for comfort.

Good news! In the last decade things have improved! You can now get
lighter bikes that will allow you to improve those times, and nobody has
to screw around with tubulars any more.

[Roy Owen]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Roy Owen wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm and old CroMo guy, I have a '92 Bianchi Alfana set up for road
>> (not crit) racing. When I was in peak condition my farthest ride was
>> 85 miles in just less than 5 hrs. Find a good (reputable) local bike
>> shop and explain to the owner what you want to do. They should be
>> able to set you up with a good fit. BTW I ride exclusively on sew-ups
>> (tubulars) in the long run they are cheaper than clinchers. They can
>> run at less (some what) than the recommended pressure and they don't
>> pinch flat. If you can afford titanium then go for it, otherwise
>> stick with CroMo for comfort.
>
>
> Good news! In the last decade things have improved! You can now get
> lighter bikes that will allow you to improve those times, and nobody has
> to screw around with tubulars any more.

I happen to like tubulars, I can change a flat in less than one minute,
and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.

--
Roy Owen

Keep the leather side up,
and the rubber side down.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

James wrote:
> Comrades,
>
> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It
shouldn't
> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>
> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
> racer, given I've got maybe =A31500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> James.

No real single answer but often you buy the bike shop rather than the
specific bicycle. many would work well for you.

Not sure if local bike shops can do anatomic fits there, but a start
there is essential. Then a frame or bicycle that fits you. The frame is
the heart of the bicycle, and in importance, probably the
wheels(reliable) and saddle, the brakes. the rest is not that
important. Spend the majority of the $ on the frame/fork.

For Nearly $3000, carbon is not out of ther question and high end steel
looks great, rides great, lasts forever.

I would avoid aluminum, as the price is in the stiff that's not all
that important, like whiz bang seatposts and hbars and the like.

I think a well fitting frame with Centaur components, nice set of
handbuilt wheels would be the ticket.

[Peter Cole]

Roy Owen wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Roy Owen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm and old CroMo guy, I have a '92 Bianchi Alfana set up for road
>>> (not crit) racing. When I was in peak condition my farthest ride was
>>> 85 miles in just less than 5 hrs. Find a good (reputable) local bike
>>> shop and explain to the owner what you want to do. They should be
>>> able to set you up with a good fit. BTW I ride exclusively on
>>> sew-ups (tubulars) in the long run they are cheaper than clinchers.
>>> They can run at less (some what) than the recommended pressure and
>>> they don't pinch flat. If you can afford titanium then go for it,
>>> otherwise stick with CroMo for comfort.
>>
>>
>>
>> Good news! In the last decade things have improved! You can now get
>> lighter bikes that will allow you to improve those times, and nobody
>> has to screw around with tubulars any more.
>
>
> I happen to like tubulars,

Better stock up while you can.

> I can change a flat in less than one minute,

Sure, but what about the second, third?

> and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.

Sure, but clinchers don't roll.

[William McHale]

In rec.bicycles.misc James > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:44:38 -0700, Benjamin Lewis >
> wrote:

>>James wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
>>> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
>>> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
>>> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>>>
>>> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
>>> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
>>> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
>>> racer, given I've got maybe 1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>>
>>Why not a tourer? I think you may be overestimating the difference
>>lightness will make. Recent estimates in another thread here in r.b.t. put
>>the speed difference at approximately 0.1 mph up a 10% grade for a 3 pound
>>difference in weight.


> Hi Benjamin,

> The main reason I don't want a tourer is because I had one before - a
> Dawes Mirage - and it was nothing but a dissapointment. Replaced the
> brakes, gears and wheels a fair few times, but nothing would make it
> right. OK, maybe the problem was terrible mechanics which never kept
> the chain on the spogs, later indexed gears which never worked
> properly, and maybe the whole thing was the wrong size for me anyway
> (I got it second hand).

> But I love a good, hard blast periodically, and like a dabble every
> now and then when I see another biker up for it. Even on the mountain
> bike, it makes for a good race for short distances, but the racers
> always leave me behind and those fun competitions and the personal
> lift from seeing an impressive speedo/times does mean a lot to me, sad
> though I may be to have to admit it.

> This is why a bordering-on-racing bike is the sort of bike I'm
> interested in, rather than something that will kill you after 80 miles
> and/or will be considered a throwaway if you ride it over a sixpence.

Just a thought, but it sounds like the bike you are describing is an
Audux Bike. Depending on how you look at it, it is either a lightweight
touring bike or a Road Bike with a relaxed geometry that also has the
capability of taking fenders and maybe even some light racks.

In any case, these bikes are are definitely higher performance than a
Touring Bike but are designed to allow the rider to put in a day's ride
with the minimum amount of discomfort.

--
Bill

[Roy Owen]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Roy Owen wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Owen wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm and old CroMo guy, I have a '92 Bianchi Alfana set up for road
>>>> (not crit) racing. When I was in peak condition my farthest ride
>>>> was 85 miles in just less than 5 hrs. Find a good (reputable) local
>>>> bike shop and explain to the owner what you want to do. They should
>>>> be able to set you up with a good fit. BTW I ride exclusively on
>>>> sew-ups (tubulars) in the long run they are cheaper than clinchers.
>>>> They can run at less (some what) than the recommended pressure and
>>>> they don't pinch flat. If you can afford titanium then go for it,
>>>> otherwise stick with CroMo for comfort.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good news! In the last decade things have improved! You can now get
>>> lighter bikes that will allow you to improve those times, and nobody
>>> has to screw around with tubulars any more.
>>
>>
>>
>> I happen to like tubulars,
>
>
> Better stock up while you can.
>
>> I can change a flat in less than one minute,
>
>
> Sure, but what about the second, third?
>
>> and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.
>
>
> Sure, but clinchers don't roll.
>
Properly glued Tubulars don't either.

--
Roy Owen

Keep the leather side up,
and the rubber side down.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Peter Cole wrote:
> > I happen to like tubulars,
>
> Better stock up while you can.
>
> > I can change a flat in less than one minute,
>
> Sure, but what about the second, third?
>
> > and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.
>
> Sure, but clinchers don't roll.

C'mon Peter, a little reality please, not hearsay or 4th hand info.

Tubulars, a lot because high end, carbon wheels are tubular only, are
at their highest production level and subsequent sales levels in
probably the last 10 years. More are sold today than ever in the last
decade and are a much bigger percentage than you imply.

Tubulars are NOT disappearing(better stock up while you can)..More
tubular makers than ever.

Most tubular riders with 1 spare tire will have the same experience as
I. I have had more than 1 flat on one ride twice since 1985, when I
started riding tubulars. I get VERY few flats, where my clincher riding
buddies get many.

All things being equal, when riding on any road, tubulars get fewer
flats since there are no pinch flats. A nail will puncture either, no
pinch flats means less flats.

Clinchers when flat roll off the rim frequently. Tubulars glued on
properly, do not. I have never had a tire I have glued on roll, again
on my own and on the hundreds of tubulars I have glued for others.

So, if ya got some 1st hand info about tubulars, please share it. If
you don't, share your misinformation with your clincher riding buddies
at the coffee shop.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roy Owen >:
>Peter Cole wrote:
>>Roy Owen wrote:
>>>and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.
>>Sure, but clinchers don't roll.
>Properly glued Tubulars don't either.

If we're allowed to specify proper installation, properly inflated
clinchers don't pinch flat.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, May.

[Roy Owen]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Roy Owen >:
>
>>Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>Roy Owen wrote:
>>>
>>>>and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.
>>>
>>>Sure, but clinchers don't roll.
>>
>>Properly glued Tubulars don't either.
>
>
> If we're allowed to specify proper installation, properly inflated
> clinchers don't pinch flat.

It's been my experience that they do. I've pinch flatted everything
from 700c x 28 85 psi touring tires to 700c x 20 150 psi racing tires.
Although the latter were more resistant.

--
Roy Owen

Keep the leather side up,
and the rubber side down.

[Benjamin Lewis]

James wrote:

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:44:38 -0700, Benjamin Lewis >
> wrote:
>>
>> Why not a tourer? I think you may be overestimating the difference
>> lightness will make. Recent estimates in another thread here in
>> r.b.t. put the speed difference at approximately 0.1 mph up a 10% grade
>> for a 3 pound difference in weight.
>
> The main reason I don't want a tourer is because I had one before - a
> Dawes Mirage - and it was nothing but a dissapointment. Replaced the
> brakes, gears and wheels a fair few times, but nothing would make it
> right. OK, maybe the problem was terrible mechanics which never kept
> the chain on the spogs, later indexed gears which never worked
> properly, and maybe the whole thing was the wrong size for me anyway
> (I got it second hand).

These don't sound like problems with touring bikes in general.

> But I love a good, hard blast periodically, and like a dabble every
> now and then when I see another biker up for it. Even on the mountain
> bike, it makes for a good race for short distances, but the racers
> always leave me behind and those fun competitions and the personal
> lift from seeing an impressive speedo/times does mean a lot to me, sad
> though I may be to have to admit it.

Unless you're going uphill, the extra weight should make no significant
difference, and even uphill the difference is small. Going downhill, the
heavier bike will have the advantage.

Not to impugn your cycling ability, but what makes you think that it is your
bike that is making the racers leave you behind?

I also enjoy the occasional "good hard blast"; my touring bike is great for
this.

> This is why a bordering-on-racing bike is the sort of bike I'm
> interested in, rather than something that will kill you after 80 miles
> and/or will be considered a throwaway if you ride it over a sixpence.

To me it sounds like your ideal bike would be an "audax" aka "sport
touring" bike.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

[Benjamin Lewis]

Roy Owen wrote:

> I happen to like tubulars, I can change a flat in less than one minute,
> and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.

I happen to like clinchers. I can change a flat in approximately one
minute, and I've never had a clincher pinch flat. If I run out of spare
tubes (I bring several on long randonneur rides; they're very light and
compact), I can always resort to the patch kit. As an added bonus,
clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars with road glue.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

[[email protected]]

Roy Owen writes:

>>> I'm and old CroMo guy, I have a '92 Bianchi Alfana set up for road
>>> (not crit) racing. When I was in peak condition my farthest ride
>>> was 85 miles in just less than 5 hrs. Find a good (reputable)
>>> local bike shop and explain to the owner what you want to do.
>>> They should be able to set you up with a good fit. BTW I ride
>>> exclusively on sew-ups (tubulars) in the long run they are cheaper
>>> than clinchers. They can run at less (some what) than the
>>> recommended pressure and they don't pinch flat. If you can afford
>>> titanium then go for it, otherwise stick with CroMo for comfort.

>> Good news! In the last decade things have improved! You can now get
>> lighter bikes that will allow you to improve those times, and
>> nobody has to screw around with tubulars any more.

> I happen to like tubulars, I can change a flat in less than one
> minute, and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.

You don't say. You might be surprised but the term "snake bite" flat
came about with tubulars using latex tubes mainly because we got so
many of them and riders who came to Wednesday night tire patch
sessions at my place learned to look for the (often smaller) second
hole in the tube. So we called them snake bites for the nice pin hole
pairs they made.

If you like tubulars so much, I suspect you don't ride much either. I
ride plenty of miles and with other riders. We all get flats and are
glad to not have to return home and find the hole, unstitch the
tubular, patch, sew, and latex glue the base tape back in place. Your
one minute tire change is on the short end of the operation.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tubular-repair.html

[Peter Cole]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>>I happen to like tubulars,
>>
>>Better stock up while you can.
>>
>>
>>>I can change a flat in less than one minute,
>>
>>Sure, but what about the second, third?
>>
>>
>>>and tubulars *don't pinch flat*.
>>
>>Sure, but clinchers don't roll.
>
>
> C'mon Peter, a little reality please, not hearsay or 4th hand info.
>
> Tubulars, a lot because high end, carbon wheels are tubular only, are
> at their highest production level and subsequent sales levels in
> probably the last 10 years. More are sold today than ever in the last
> decade and are a much bigger percentage than you imply.

Got any numbers to back that claim up? Boulder must be way ahead of
Boston, the trend hasn't shown up here yet. Tubular riders are easy to
spot because of their bulging pockets.

> Most tubular riders with 1 spare tire will have the same experience as
> I. I have had more than 1 flat on one ride twice since 1985, when I
> started riding tubulars. I get VERY few flats, where my clincher riding
> buddies get many.

Why would clinchers get more, barring pinch flats (I've never actually
had a pinch flat, so that's at least as much hearsay as rolling tubulars).

> Clinchers when flat roll off the rim frequently. Tubulars glued on
> properly, do not. I have never had a tire I have glued on roll, again
> on my own and on the hundreds of tubulars I have glued for others.

Never rolled a clincher off the rim, either.

> So, if ya got some 1st hand info about tubulars, please share it. If
> you don't, share your misinformation with your clincher riding buddies
> at the coffee shop.

Oh yeah -- what do you "share" with your tubular buddies? How to wash
wool shorts? <neener, neener>.

[Matt O'Toole]

James wrote:

> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>
> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?

Most novices spend way too much on the bike, and not enough on the clothing and
accessories that make a much bigger difference in their riding experience. This
is especially true where the local weather is changeable.

Don't forget the tools and spares you shouldn't be without when hitting the
road.

Though I have a light bike myself, I think the importance of weight is grossly
exaggerated. Fit and comfort are paramount. Suitable gearing would be next.
Finally, rolling resistance, ie good tires, can make a big difference. Weight
is far less important than any of these things.

Additionally, clearance for fatter tires and fenders is very useful.
Unfortunately it's hard to find among sporty bikes. Fatter tires are *the* cure
for rough roads. Fenders make riding in the rain a lot more comfortable. They
can be removed when not needed. The extra clearance can also make the
difference between riding home and walking, if you ever break a spoke.

While there's plenty of overlap, product lines are so different in the UK that
it would be silly for me to try to advise you on particular bikes. But I hope
my general advise is helpful. Actually there's a better selection of general
purpose road bikes in the UK than in the US, where it's hard to find anything
but minimalist, wannabe racer machines.

Matt O.

[Peter Cole]

James wrote:
> Comrades,
>
> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>
> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?

If roads aren't great, I'd stay away from fancy wheels. Think about
service a year or more down the road. I wouldn't obsess over frame
material/technology, it's mostly hype, and overpriced hype to boot. The
frame is pretty much the least important thing to worry about, just find
one that gives you the back angle you want. Beware of bikes with really
tight clearances on brakes/forks/chain-seat stays, if you want to ride
different tires in the future, you could be out of luck.

[James]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:40:17 -0700, Benjamin Lewis >
wrote:

>James wrote:
>
[...]
>These don't sound like problems with touring bikes in general.

In fairness, it's not even a problem with Dawes bikes in general. I
had a bad run of luck and mechanics, I think.

>> But I love a good, hard blast periodically, and like a dabble every
>> now and then when I see another biker up for it. Even on the mountain
>> bike, it makes for a good race for short distances, but the racers
>> always leave me behind and those fun competitions and the personal
>> lift from seeing an impressive speedo/times does mean a lot to me, sad
>> though I may be to have to admit it.
>
>Unless you're going uphill, the extra weight should make no significant
>difference, and even uphill the difference is small. Going downhill, the
>heavier bike will have the advantage.
>
>Not to impugn your cycling ability, but what makes you think that it is your
>bike that is making the racers leave you behind?

Impugn away! My cycling legs have attrophied badly in the past 6
years since I was going regularly. The mountain bike is taken out all
too occasionally. I think the MB is partially responsible for my
being left behind by racers, mainly because they've got 1/2" slicks on
(or whatever) compared with my 3" nobbly tires, and the mountain bike
does weigh a fair bit more. I don't think the riding position on MB's
are ideal for speed either.


>I also enjoy the occasional "good hard blast"; my touring bike is great for
>this.
>
>> This is why a bordering-on-racing bike is the sort of bike I'm
>> interested in, rather than something that will kill you after 80 miles
>> and/or will be considered a throwaway if you ride it over a sixpence.
>
>To me it sounds like your ideal bike would be an "audax" aka "sport
>touring" bike.

Audax, eh? Well, it sounds like you're right - I'm definitely
leaning in the direction of that Specialized.

Thanks for writing!

James.

[[email protected]]

Boulder Pete wrote:
> > Tubulars, a lot because high end, carbon wheels are
> > tubular only, are at their highest production level
> > and subsequent sales levels in probably the last 10
> > years. More are sold today than ever in the last
> > decade and are a much bigger percentage than you imply.

Boston Pete wrote:
> Got any numbers to back that claim up? Boulder must be
> way ahead of Boston, the trend hasn't shown up here yet.

Dear Peter & Peter,

Just as "Peter" is popular, but no match for "Dave" on this
newsgroup, tubulars are sold, but not in clincher quantities.

My Performance catalogue lists 6 sewups out of 46 road tires, 13%.

My Nashbar catalogue lists 7 sewups out of 33 road tires, 21%.

Neither company is known for listing anything that they can't sell.

Possibly Sheldon Brown's refusal to carry tubulars has proved his
regional muscle and influenced perceptions in the Boston area:

"We don't carry tubular tires . . ."
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/rims.html

Carl Fogel

[Benjamin Lewis]

James wrote:

> My cycling legs have attrophied badly in the past 6 years since I was
> going regularly. The mountain bike is taken out all too occasionally. I
> think the MB is partially responsible for my being left behind by racers,
> mainly because they've got 1/2" slicks on (or whatever) compared with my
> 3" nobbly tires, and the mountain bike does weigh a fair bit more. I
> don't think the riding position on MB's are ideal for speed either.

I think you'll find the knobby tires make a much larger difference than the
weight. Before I got my touring bike, I rode several brevets on a mountain
bike with high pressure slick tires, and bar ends that allowed me to
stretch out a little. In fact, it was on this bike that I got my best ever
200 km brevet time, although I confess I was drafting another cyclist who
promised me a ride home for the entire second half of the ride. The main
disadvantage to this bike was the lack of hand positions, and the
difficulty of getting an aerodynamic profile in head winds.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

[James]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:30:54 -0400, "Nobody" >
wrote:

>I got a Cannondale Sport Road 1000 about a year ago, and I love it. It has
>an aluminum frame, and Campy Centaur parts for cranks and gears. I got lucky
>when I ordered it; they didn't have Centaur brake/shifters, so they gave me
>Record.
>
>I got this primarily for commuting and light touring, and I think it's
>perfect for those. I was concerned that the frame would be too delicate, but
>I asked Cannondale before I bought it, and they assured me that it was
>rugged enough for those purposes. It's not quite a racing bike, but close
>enough.

Sounds just the sort of thing I'm after - thanks - I'll look into it.

[...]

[James]

On 17 May 2005 05:43:21 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> wrote:

>
>James wrote:
>> Comrades,
>>
>> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It
>shouldn't
>> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
>> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
>> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>>
>> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
>> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
>> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
>> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> James.
>
>No real single answer but often you buy the bike shop rather than the
>specific bicycle. many would work well for you.
>
>Not sure if local bike shops can do anatomic fits there, but a start
>there is essential. Then a frame or bicycle that fits you. The frame is
>the heart of the bicycle, and in importance, probably the
>wheels(reliable) and saddle, the brakes. the rest is not that
>important. Spend the majority of the $ on the frame/fork.

Did ask around about a fitting jig. I discounted those shops which
had never heard of them, but it turns out they're not readily
available in these parts. I found a Specialized Roubaix today which
felt absolutely wonderful, and seemed to be exactly right for my size.
There was a Trek 5000 for a bit more which also seemed to be part of
me as soon as I'd sat on it.

However, the Trek 5000 did seem - although precise - a bit more
twitchy. The ride was also harsher, and it seemed like the handlebars
were rather too narrow (which might account for the tightness in
directing it). Given this was indeed a pure racer, I'm leaning even
more towards the Specialized.

The Trek 5000 was a pound or so lighter, but as other posters have
pointed out, the odd pound doesn't really make very much difference.

>For Nearly $3000, carbon is not out of ther question and high end steel
>looks great, rides great, lasts forever.
>
>I would avoid aluminum, as the price is in the stiff that's not all
>that important, like whiz bang seatposts and hbars and the like.
>
>I think a well fitting frame with Centaur components, nice set of
>handbuilt wheels would be the ticket.

Handbuilt wheels eh? Maybe they could be used for special occasions.
For the moment, I want to put a couple of thousand miles on the bike
as standard... I've had a poor run of luck with wheels in the past,
and would rather get used to the bike before risking anything that
dear.

Thanks for the comments!

James.

[James]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:41:34 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote:

>James wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It shouldn't
>> be too delicate because roads are not exactly ideal track conditions,
>> and I'm planning to use it for middle-long distance rides rather than
>> quick blasts, so a harsh racer wouldn't be ideal.
>>
>> Given I'm about 5"5' and long in the leg for that height, plus it's
>> pretty hilly here in Wales so lightness is a neccessity, what might
>> this group reccommend as a reasonable hybrid between a tourer and a
>> racer, given I've got maybe £1500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it?
>
>Most novices spend way too much on the bike, and not enough on the clothing and
>accessories that make a much bigger difference in their riding experience. This
>is especially true where the local weather is changeable.
>
>Don't forget the tools and spares you shouldn't be without when hitting the
>road.

I'm learning about all this rapidly. Given it's something I've
wanted to take more seriously through my whole cycling life (which is
basically since I've been about 4), and no matter how many times I
tried fixing up older bikes they never worked properly or fitted me
right in the first place. This time, it's a priority to get a decent
machine which is well made, fits, and not going to kill me over a
stretch. I don't like throwing money around by a very long way -
anyone who knows me would splutter at the idea - but this is the sum
I've saved and set aside for the bike, saved over several years. So I
don't mind spending the extra cash on this item, just to make it that
bit more satisfactory.

Your point about clothing is very well taken. At the moment I'm going
around in shorts and T-shirt, which is probably not ideal. I did get
the cleats and shoes, though. It seemed silly not to.

As for tools... I have the most basic of kits right now. I'm sure
there's sites around providing plenty of minimum-need kit lists about,
and given your prompt, I shall set about them forthwith!

>Though I have a light bike myself, I think the importance of weight is grossly
>exaggerated. Fit and comfort are paramount. Suitable gearing would be next.
>Finally, rolling resistance, ie good tires, can make a big difference. Weight
>is far less important than any of these things.

>Additionally, clearance for fatter tires and fenders is very useful.
>Unfortunately it's hard to find among sporty bikes. Fatter tires are *the* cure
>for rough roads. Fenders make riding in the rain a lot more comfortable. They
>can be removed when not needed. The extra clearance can also make the
>difference between riding home and walking, if you ever break a spoke.

The way it feels and handles in about the most important thing to me.
Can I zig around on it, feeling perfectly comfortable, and not having
the impression it's going to do something unexpected at a tight moment
and throw me off? Being an old motorcycle enthusiast, I do enjoy
heavy banking and sharp response and excellent brakes.
Manoeuvrability and weight is more important than looks or any pose
value. In fact, I'd prefer a very good bike which looks rather
modest.

>While there's plenty of overlap, product lines are so different in the UK that
>it would be silly for me to try to advise you on particular bikes. But I hope
>my general advise is helpful. Actually there's a better selection of general
>purpose road bikes in the UK than in the US, where it's hard to find anything
>but minimalist, wannabe racer machines.
>
>Matt O.

Your general advice is most certainly helpful, thank you. I'm making
an adaquate toolkit a priority, and will certainly look into clothing
too. At present, I'm using an old skateboarding helmet which might
have to be improved upon,

James.

[Matt O'Toole]

James wrote:

> Your general advice is most certainly helpful, thank you.

Glad to hear it, thanks.

> I'm making
> an adaquate toolkit a priority, and will certainly look into clothing
> too.

Clothing is of course dictated by local climate. Toolkits are pretty simple
though -- a pump, spare tube, patch kit, multi-tool that fits all the bolts on
your bike, and a small chain tool. You don't need to go overboard, but what you
need -- you *really* need. Another thing -- it's a good idea to wrap your spare
tube in a piece of canvas, so it doesn't get chafed through by the other things
in your toolkit.

Happy riding!

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Peter Cole wrote:

> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

>> Tubulars, a lot because high end, carbon wheels are tubular only, are
>> at their highest production level and subsequent sales levels in
>> probably the last 10 years. More are sold today than ever in the last
>> decade and are a much bigger percentage than you imply.
>
> Got any numbers to back that claim up? Boulder must be way ahead of
> Boston, the trend hasn't shown up here yet. Tubular riders are easy to
> spot because of their bulging pockets.

I don't have any numbers either, but it does seem tubies have been making a
comeback, with the exotic wheel trend of late. The fussier it is, the more
special it seems... to some people.

Matt O.

[David]

James,

>
> The main reason I don't want a tourer is because I had one before - a
> Dawes Mirage - and it was nothing but a dissapointment. Replaced the
> brakes, gears and wheels a fair few times, but nothing would make it
> right. OK, maybe the problem was terrible mechanics which never kept
> the chain on the spogs, later indexed gears which never worked
> properly, and maybe the whole thing was the wrong size for me anyway
> (I got it second hand).

Dawes do make great touring bikes and I had seen quite of few people
touring with them, mainly on the Galaxy model.

Brakes, gears and wheels are consumable items and are subject to wear
and tear. You don't expect them to last forever do you? Unless
ofcourse, you don't ride your bike.

I usually go through a pair of Mavic T520 or A719 wheelset a year.
These are professionally built and are bloody expensive, but I ride in
all weather conditions.
I go through a cogset every 6 months, but I'm now using the 3 chain
system where I am hoping to prolong cog wear to a year. Cogs are the
LX/XT kind which is not cheap either.
I am now on my 3rd rear derailleur, because I had worn down the pivots
on the other 2.

If you are buying a second hand bike, especially a touring kind, be
extremely weary of the things I said above. Otherwise, you'll going to
inherit problems the previous owner do not want to address.

>
> But I love a good, hard blast periodically, and like a dabble every
> now and then when I see another biker up for it. Even on the mountain
> bike, it makes for a good race for short distances, but the racers
> always leave me behind and those fun competitions and the personal
> lift from seeing an impressive speedo/times does mean a lot to me, sad
> though I may be to have to admit it.
>

There are 4 main conditions that can slow you down.

Typically, the rider's body accounts for up 65% of the aero drag that
makes you feel slower, while the bike's aerodynamics accounts for 20%,
10% for wheels and 5% for rolling resistance all within your comfort
level ofcourse!
Weight is not a significant condition to any strong rider,unless you
are a 150 watts rider.

The more aerodynamic you are on the bike, the easier you will feel to
go fast. If you go out today and buy a road race bike, but adopt a
mountain riding style (upright riding) as so many road newbies do
(buying high rise stems or use the Zoom stem extender to get the handle
bar higher, you are going to be highly dissappointed. You will
probably go slightly faster than on your mountain bike, but you won't
pass these racers with impressive speedo times.

To beat them at their own game, a combination of group training and the
ability to go low on the bars, tucked in aerodynamically and be
punching in the bigger gears (52/14 or 12) are necessary. Being
upright isn't going to be any help to you going fast.

Incidentally, the lower you are on the bars, the more leverage you will
get pushing the bigger gears by using your arms on the drops or hoods
acting as a fulcrum. You will feel as though you're going to be
ejected out of your saddle and only your arms are holding you in.
That's what experienced cyclists are doing.

All is not lost though as you can actually convert your mountain bike
to go faster by riding low to your bars and stretched out -- longer
seatpost setback plus a longer stem and then running a pair of narrow
higher pressure tires. Tuck in low, real low and you might give the
poser racers a run for their money!!

> This is why a bordering-on-racing bike is the sort of bike I'm
> interested in, rather than something that will kill you after 80 miles
> and/or will be considered a throwaway if you ride it over a sixpence.
>
> James.

If you are planning to buy a fast bike with low handle bar and you're
coming from a mountain bike background, I would strongly suggest that
you go to a bike fitter that can fit you properly. Pay extra and get a
lesser bike if you have to. A well fitted bike will make you go faster
than an ill-fitted one.

David.

[Michael Press]

In article >,
"Matt O'Toole" > wrote:

> James wrote:
>
> > Your general advice is most certainly helpful, thank you.
>
> Glad to hear it, thanks.
>
> > I'm making
> > an adaquate toolkit a priority, and will certainly look into clothing
> > too.
>
> Clothing is of course dictated by local climate. Toolkits are pretty simple
> though -- a pump, spare tube, patch kit, multi-tool that fits all the bolts on
> your bike, and a small chain tool. You don't need to go overboard, but what you
> need -- you *really* need. Another thing -- it's a good idea to wrap your spare
> tube in a piece of canvas, so it doesn't get chafed through by the other things
> in your toolkit.
>
> Happy riding!
>
> Matt O.

Keep a spoke wrench in your tool kit. I carry two tubes.

--
Michael Press

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 17 May 2005 21:50:26 -0400, >,
"Matt O'Toole" > wrote:

> Another thing -- it's a good idea to wrap your spare
>tube in a piece of canvas, so it doesn't get chafed through by the other things
>in your toolkit.
>
Use old cotton tube socks.
Doubles as a glove for chain handling.

I read that somewhere on the internet.
It's true.
--
zk

[Peter Cole]

David wrote:
> I usually go through a pair of Mavic T520 or A719 wheelset a year.
> These are professionally built and are bloody expensive, but I ride in
> all weather conditions.

Try KoolStop salmon-colored pads. The hard compound extends rim life
significantly.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

wrote:
> Boulder Pete wrote:
> > > Tubulars, a lot because high end, carbon wheels are
> > > tubular only, are at their highest production level
> > > and subsequent sales levels in probably the last 10
> > > years. More are sold today than ever in the last
> > > decade and are a much bigger percentage than you imply.
>
> Boston Pete wrote:
> > Got any numbers to back that claim up? Boulder must be
> > way ahead of Boston, the trend hasn't shown up here yet.
>
> Dear Peter & Peter,
>
> Just as "Peter" is popular, but no match for "Dave" on this
> newsgroup, tubulars are sold, but not in clincher quantities.
>
> My Performance catalogue lists 6 sewups out of 46 road tires, 13%.
>
> My Nashbar catalogue lists 7 sewups out of 33 road tires, 21%.
>
> Neither company is known for listing anything that they can't sell.
>
> Possibly Sheldon Brown's refusal to carry tubulars has proved his
> regional muscle and influenced perceptions in the Boston area:
>
> "We don't carry tubular tires . . ."
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/rims.html
>
> Carl Fogel

Interesting but not the point of my repsonse to Peter. Tubulars are not
disappearing, do not roll, tubie riders are not stranded all over
Boulder county each Saturday becasue of multiple flats with onlky one
spre. in addition, most tubie users know how to fold one, under thew
saddle.

Tubies are a great alternative, but not everyone wants to use them. MY
point is discuss the REALITY of these tires, not the BS and blackmagic
of either type.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

wrote:

> If you like tubulars so much, I suspect you don't ride much either.
I
> ride plenty of miles and with other riders. We all get flats and are
> glad to not have to return home and find the hole, unstitch the
> tubular, patch, sew, and latex glue the base tape back in place.
Your
> one minute tire change is on the short end of the operation.
>

Define 'don't ride much'...I ride about 9000-11,000 miles per year. on
Tubies mostly, some on my fixie, wet weather bike.
Not mega-riding like you, but I gotta work some.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

James wrote:

>
> Handbuilt wheels eh? Maybe they could be used for special occasions.
> For the moment, I want to put a couple of thousand miles on the bike
> as standard... I've had a poor run of luck with wheels in the past,
> and would rather get used to the bike before risking anything that
> dear.
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> James.

'Handbuilt wheels', when compared to the 'wheels outta boxes', are
cheaper, more reliable, and really the 'standard', not the exception,
when it comes to having a well designed set that works everyday.

[Jeff Starr]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:44:53 GMT, Michael Press > wrote:


>>
>> Clothing is of course dictated by local climate. Toolkits are pretty simple
>> though -- a pump, spare tube, patch kit, multi-tool that fits all the bolts on
>> your bike, and a small chain tool. You don't need to go overboard, but what you
>> need -- you *really* need. Another thing -- it's a good idea to wrap your spare
>> tube in a piece of canvas, so it doesn't get chafed through by the other things
>> in your toolkit.
>>
>> Happy riding!
>>
>> Matt O.
>
>Keep a spoke wrench in your tool kit. I carry two tubes.

A good multi-tool may include a spoke wrench. I like the Crank Bros
Micra 17, which includes a chain tool and spoke wrenches. Here take a
look:
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=&subcategory=&brand=0350&sku=5971&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

Throw in a spare tube, a patch kit, a set of tire bars, an inflating
device*, a spare master link or pin, you're all set.

* I have a Topeak Road Morph pump on my older bike and I carry a CO2
inflator with my Lemond. I always carry at least 3 spare CO2
cartridges. I seldom get flats, with either bike, but if it was a more
regular occurence, then I would carry the Road Morph pump on both
bikes. All of the above, except the pump, fit in a medium sized seat
bag and adds 2lbs to the bike.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[[email protected]]

Peter Chisholm writes:

>> If you like tubulars so much, I suspect you don't ride much either.
>> I ride plenty of miles and with other riders. We all get flats and
>> are glad to not have to return home and find the hole, unstitch the
>> tubular, patch, sew, and latex glue the base tape back in place.
>> Your one minute tire change is on the short end of the operation.

> Define 'don't ride much'... I ride about 9000-11,000 miles per
> year. on Tubies mostly, some on my fixie, wet weather bike. Not
> mega-riding like you, but I gotta work some.

I don't know that I questioned whether you ride much but the
originator of this claim for his tubulars had all the earmarks of a
good bicycle owner who prefers esoteric stuff whether it has merit or
not. For most (aka overwhelming and vast majority of) riders, there
is neither performance, convenience, nor cost benefits to riding
tubular tires.

[Vee]

James wrote:

> I'm looking for advice of what sort of road bike to buy. It
shouldn't
> be too delicate <snip>

Most road bikes are not delicate, and they'll hold up fine.

> I've got maybe =A31500 ($2750, Eur 2180) to spend on it

That means you have many options. If I were looking for such a bike,
I'd think about the Rivendell Rambouillet, Comotion Nor'Wester, Giant
OCR Composite 1, and Cannondale T2000. If you don't know what frame
geometry you need, get fitted (at a good bike shop) and buy the bike
that fits you. If several bikes fit you, buy the one that's prettiest.
It's always worked for me.
Despite all the tire-talk on this thread, they don't matter so long as
you have two with air in them. A tire is a tire.

-Vee

[bfd]

According to many, there is a difference between *good* tubulars and
everything else. Many swear that Dugast tubular tires like these are
the "bee's knee" and nothing else even comes close. For more on Dugast
tubies;

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/tubulars.asp

http://www.jitensha.com/eng/dugast.html

[Jeff Starr]

On 18 May 2005 13:58:43 -0700, "Vee" > wrote:


>
>That means you have many options. If I were looking for such a bike,
>I'd think about the Rivendell Rambouillet, Comotion Nor'Wester, Giant
>OCR Composite 1, and Cannondale T2000. If you don't know what frame
>geometry you need, get fitted (at a good bike shop) and buy the bike
>that fits you. If several bikes fit you, buy the one that's prettiest.
> It's always worked for me.
>Despite all the tire-talk on this thread, they don't matter so long as
>you have two with air in them. A tire is a tire.
>
>-Vee

Hi, could you explain to us, what you mean when you say that a tire is
a tire? And that they don't matter?

Are you saying that size, type of materials, etc just don't matter?

I'm looking forward to your reasoning and practical experience, that
went into your conclusions.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[James]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 03:03:05 GMT, David
> wrote:

>
>James,
>
>>
>> The main reason I don't want a tourer is because I had one before - a
>> Dawes Mirage - and it was nothing but a dissapointment. Replaced the
>> brakes, gears and wheels a fair few times, but nothing would make it
>> right. OK, maybe the problem was terrible mechanics which never kept
>> the chain on the spogs, later indexed gears which never worked
>> properly, and maybe the whole thing was the wrong size for me anyway
>> (I got it second hand).
>
>Dawes do make great touring bikes and I had seen quite of few people
>touring with them, mainly on the Galaxy model.

In a later post to this thread, I did mention that in fairness, it's
not neccessarily to do with Dawes - and by "mechanics" I meant the
people I paid to work on the bike, mostly local. Dawes has an
excellent reputation, some people I know swear by them.

>Brakes, gears and wheels are consumable items and are subject to wear
>and tear. You don't expect them to last forever do you? Unless
>ofcourse, you don't ride your bike.

Naturally, I don't expect them to last forever. But I would have
liked them to at least work properly from startoff, and not require a
complete change every 18 months. I'd have been happier with wheels
that lasted more than a couple of weeks too - but, I was a much
younger and more furious rider back then.

>I usually go through a pair of Mavic T520 or A719 wheelset a year.
>These are professionally built and are bloody expensive, but I ride in
>all weather conditions.
>I go through a cogset every 6 months, but I'm now using the 3 chain
>system where I am hoping to prolong cog wear to a year. Cogs are the
>LX/XT kind which is not cheap either.
>I am now on my 3rd rear derailleur, because I had worn down the pivots
>on the other 2.
>
>If you are buying a second hand bike, especially a touring kind, be
>extremely weary of the things I said above. Otherwise, you'll going to
>inherit problems the previous owner do not want to address.

If you're wearing them out, you're using them up - and have got every
penny's worth of value out of them by the sound of it (assuming you
oil the chain once in a while!:)


>> But I love a good, hard blast periodically, and like a dabble every
>> now and then when I see another biker up for it. Even on the mountain
>> bike, it makes for a good race for short distances, but the racers
>> always leave me behind and those fun competitions and the personal
>> lift from seeing an impressive speedo/times does mean a lot to me, sad
>> though I may be to have to admit it.
>>
>
>There are 4 main conditions that can slow you down.
>
>Typically, the rider's body accounts for up 65% of the aero drag that
>makes you feel slower, while the bike's aerodynamics accounts for 20%,
>10% for wheels and 5% for rolling resistance all within your comfort
>level ofcourse!
>Weight is not a significant condition to any strong rider,unless you
>are a 150 watts rider.

Surely all this depends on the speed, wind and type of road surface
and tyre/road resistance? After all, steady wind resistance will be a
direct function of your velocity compared with it, friction will be a
function of the speed, and induced wind resistance (as a result of
your motion) is a function of the square of your speed.

All this means wind resistance is of course important, and more so as
you go faster, but accelaration is primarily a function of mass.
Certainly, one's own mass is considerable compared with the bike, but
if the bike's mass is 13% of my 140lbs bodyweight instead of 35%, that
will definitely show. The same way a fat man cannot whisk his bulk
around in quite the agile manner of a man 20-odd percent lighter.

A mate has just bought a fancy MB with disk brakes. Disk brakes! I
ask you! I'm suprised it doesn't have an engine too to haul that mass
about.

>The more aerodynamic you are on the bike, the easier you will feel to
>go fast. If you go out today and buy a road race bike, but adopt a
>mountain riding style (upright riding) as so many road newbies do
>(buying high rise stems or use the Zoom stem extender to get the handle
>bar higher, you are going to be highly dissappointed. You will
>probably go slightly faster than on your mountain bike, but you won't
>pass these racers with impressive speedo times.
>
>To beat them at their own game, a combination of group training and the
>ability to go low on the bars, tucked in aerodynamically and be
>punching in the bigger gears (52/14 or 12) are necessary. Being
>upright isn't going to be any help to you going fast.
>
>Incidentally, the lower you are on the bars, the more leverage you will
>get pushing the bigger gears by using your arms on the drops or hoods
>acting as a fulcrum. You will feel as though you're going to be
>ejected out of your saddle and only your arms are holding you in.
>That's what experienced cyclists are doing.

>All is not lost though as you can actually convert your mountain bike
>to go faster by riding low to your bars and stretched out -- longer
>seatpost setback plus a longer stem and then running a pair of narrow
>higher pressure tires. Tuck in low, real low and you might give the
>poser racers a run for their money!!

Heh - you paint a very vivid image, your descriptive writing is
impressive. Not wishing to sound unwelcoming of this quite correct
synopsis, I should point out that racers (usually 10-speed) have been
my mainstay up until I took quite a break from cycling, about 7 years
ago, since which I've been pottering around on a mountain bike and
frankly rather frustrated at the process.

My natural riding position is down low - I even had my old motorcycle
down in that racing style. Played hell with the back on long
distances, though. The mountain bike style isn't quite as bad as the
sit-up-and-beg bikes, but it does feel more like a chopper than
something you actually need to hug and steer with yourself, rather
than it. Having said that, it works - for very rocky surfaces. This
proposed road-bike is for speed mainly.


I'm noting what you've said, because my style has undoubtedly become
sloppy, and - as with all things - advice is always welcomed. Do you
agree with the adage that one should pedal at as constant a pace, and
at as constant a torque as they can reasonably manage, and use the
gears to adjust the speed for the conditions?

Back in the day, even that old Dawes gave anyone a run for their
money.


>> This is why a bordering-on-racing bike is the sort of bike I'm
>> interested in, rather than something that will kill you after 80 miles
>> and/or will be considered a throwaway if you ride it over a sixpence.
>>
>> James.
>
>If you are planning to buy a fast bike with low handle bar and you're
>coming from a mountain bike background, I would strongly suggest that
>you go to a bike fitter that can fit you properly. Pay extra and get a
>lesser bike if you have to. A well fitted bike will make you go faster
>than an ill-fitted one.
>
>David.

Sorry - slight misunderstanding about the MB background. But the MB
was an astounding thing for me - always having had a road bike, I was
used to studiously avoiding potholes or manhole covers, and putting a
foot down to ease my delicate wheels over even the lowest curb.
However, the Gary Fisher MB was happy over even sizeable stones,
careering down sharp rocks, bumping down stairs and - most
particularly suprising to me - applying the front brake in gravel or
suspect surface on a sharp decline didn't result in the front wheel
dissapearing to the rear almost immediately.

These experiences (which should have been obvious, duh!) made me
understand different ends of cycling, and how everything must be a
compromise no matter what you pay in any single bike. I'm still very
happy with the Hoo-Koo-Eee-Koo (don't ask why Gary Fisher calls them
that). But I think I've settled on the modest Specialized Roubaix -
it seems a very nice compromise between pure racing and and touring.

It's expensive, but - since I've saved a long while for it - I don't
mind paying.

James.

[James]

On 18 May 2005 05:47:13 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> wrote:

>
>James wrote:
>
>>
>> Handbuilt wheels eh? Maybe they could be used for special occasions.
>> For the moment, I want to put a couple of thousand miles on the bike
>> as standard... I've had a poor run of luck with wheels in the past,
>> and would rather get used to the bike before risking anything that
>> dear.
>>
>> Thanks for the comments!
>>
>> James.
>
>'Handbuilt wheels', when compared to the 'wheels outta boxes', are
>cheaper, more reliable, and really the 'standard', not the exception,
>when it comes to having a well designed set that works everyday.

Handbuilt wheels? Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you
meant something specifically designed for one's particular weight,
type of bike, anticipated riding conditions or something... what do
you mean by handbuilt?

[James]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 00:09:20 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Tue, 17 May 2005 21:50:26 -0400, >,
>"Matt O'Toole" > wrote:
>
>> Another thing -- it's a good idea to wrap your spare
>>tube in a piece of canvas, so it doesn't get chafed through by the other things
>>in your toolkit.
>>
>Use old cotton tube socks.
>Doubles as a glove for chain handling.
>
>I read that somewhere on the internet.
>It's true.

Another use for an old sock! I love it!

Thanks everyone :)

[Jeff Starr]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 02:40:27 GMT, James > wrote:


>>
>>'Handbuilt wheels', when compared to the 'wheels outta boxes', are
>>cheaper, more reliable, and really the 'standard', not the exception,
>>when it comes to having a well designed set that works everyday.
>
>Handbuilt wheels? Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you
>meant something specifically designed for one's particular weight,
>type of bike, anticipated riding conditions or something... what do
>you mean by handbuilt?

That is exactly what he meant. I think the cheaper part of it, is
compared to boutique wheels.

I have a set of wheels "handbuilt" by Peter. I supplied Shimano
DA-7700 hubs, Velocity Aerohead rims 28F 32R, and he built them up.
They now have 3300 problem free miles.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

James wrote:
> On 18 May 2005 05:47:13 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >James wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Handbuilt wheels eh? Maybe they could be used for special
occasions.
> >> For the moment, I want to put a couple of thousand miles on the
bike
> >> as standard... I've had a poor run of luck with wheels in the
past,
> >> and would rather get used to the bike before risking anything that
> >> dear.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the comments!
> >>
> >> James.
> >
> >'Handbuilt wheels', when compared to the 'wheels outta boxes', are
> >cheaper, more reliable, and really the 'standard', not the
exception,
> >when it comes to having a well designed set that works everyday.
>
> Handbuilt wheels? Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you
> meant something specifically designed for one's particular weight,
> type of bike, anticipated riding conditions or something... what do
> you mean by handbuilt?

I mean a set designed for one's particular weight, type of bike,
anticipated riding conditions..what hand buiilts are, custom wheels,
not more but less expensive than the multitude of crappy wheels outta
boxes that are $800++++

It's what we do, me and others.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

wrote:

>
> I don't know that I questioned whether you ride much but the
> originator of this claim for his tubulars had all the earmarks of a
> good bicycle owner who prefers esoteric stuff whether it has merit or
> not. For most (aka overwhelming and vast majority of) riders, there
> is neither performance, convenience, nor cost benefits to riding
> tubular tires.
>
>

I started on tubies, and now, see no compelling reason the change my
two sets of wheels to clinchers, is why I stay with them. For me, not
inconvenient, not messy, no big problem.

[Vee]

Jeff Starr wrote:

> Hi, could you explain to us, what you mean when you say that a tire
is
> a tire? And that they don't matter?

Okay, so not all tires are created equal, but you have to be at an
extreme fringe of cycling to benefit from the the differences between
most tires (for example, pro time trialists). Most road riders do fine
on something between 700x20 and 700x42, kevlar, glue, latex, tread,
etc. notwithstanding. There are hundreds of tires that are "right" for
most people. If your bike fits you, you'll have to go out of your way
to find a "wrong" tire.
I've sold lots of tires to people, gotten lots of feedback, and I have
a bunch of bikes and tires myself. I think tires are boring because
most are so much alike in practice. I think people who obsess over
them are tweakers. By "tweaker", I mean eccentric fuss-budget. Which
describes most cyclists/mechanics/frequent r.b.t posters. Which
includes me. I think too hard about tires myself sometimes. But a
tire is a tire. Try and see.

-Vee

[[email protected]]

bfd wrote:
> According to many, there is a difference between *good* tubulars and
> everything else. Many swear that Dugast tubular tires like these are
> the "bee's knee" and nothing else even comes close. For more on
Dugast
> tubies;
>
> http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/tubulars.asp
>
> http://www.jitensha.com/eng/dugast.html

Aren't Dugast tubulars ridden in cyclocross? Don't cyclocross riders
use something like 20 psi in their tires? All squishy and flat so they
grip the dirt, mud, rocks, tree roots, gravel, sand, grass, etc. that
cyclocross courses cover. Other than some tires being roughly smooth
and others having knobs on them for grip in loose soil, how exactly can
anyone tell what kind of tire they have in cyclocross races? As an
experiment, go deflate your tires on all your bikes to about 20 psi and
ride them. See if you can tell any difference in tires at 20 psi.

[Neil Brooks]

"Vee" > wrote:

>I think tires are boring because
>most are so much alike in practice. I think people who obsess over
>them are tweakers. By "tweaker", I mean eccentric fuss-budget.

I tire of people like that, though I tend to tread lightly on them....

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Jeff Starr:
>http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=&subcategory=&brand=0350&sku=5971&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

Got one.

Like it.

But can't figure out what the fat rubber band is for.

?
--
PeteCresswell

[Jeff Starr]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:46:44 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" >
wrote:

>Per Jeff Starr:
>>http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=&subcategory=&brand=0350&sku=5971&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=
>
>Got one.
>
>Like it.
>
>But can't figure out what the fat rubber band is for.
>
>?

Hi, I have always thought that it was there to keep everything in
place, when not in use. I wonder if it might be to better grip it,
when using?

If you find out definitively, let me know.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Jeff Starr]

On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:29:41 GMT, Neil Brooks >
wrote:

>"Vee" > wrote:
>
>>I think tires are boring because
>>most are so much alike in practice. I think people who obsess over
>>them are tweakers. By "tweaker", I mean eccentric fuss-budget.
>
>I tire of people like that, though I tend to tread lightly on them....

Tire humor? When overdone, it can be very deflating.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Mark Hickey]

Jeff Starr > wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:29:41 GMT, Neil Brooks >
>wrote:
>
>>"Vee" > wrote:
>>
>>>I think tires are boring because
>>>most are so much alike in practice. I think people who obsess over
>>>them are tweakers. By "tweaker", I mean eccentric fuss-budget.
>>
>>I tire of people like that, though I tend to tread lightly on them....
>
>Tire humor? When overdone, it can be very deflating.

This thread has left me as flat as any other, bar none.

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

[Bill Sornson]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Jeff Starr > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:29:41 GMT, Neil Brooks >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Vee" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think tires are boring because
>>>> most are so much alike in practice. I think people who obsess over
>>>> them are tweakers. By "tweaker", I mean eccentric fuss-budget.
>>>
>>> I tire of people like that, though I tend to tread lightly on
>>> them....
>>
>> Tire humor? When overdone, it can be very deflating.
>
> This thread has left me as flat as any other, bar none.

Ignoring all these /compound/ sentence structures,
pppppsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

(Best I could do in a...pinch.)

Pumping up the group, Nipples Galore

[James]

On 20 May 2005 05:41:54 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> wrote:

[...]
>I mean a set designed for one's particular weight, type of bike,
>anticipated riding conditions..what hand buiilts are, custom wheels,
>not more but less expensive than the multitude of crappy wheels outta
>boxes that are $800++++
>
>It's what we do, me and others.


Gotcha. And it's something I'll certainly be considering when these
wheels have ran their course. The wheels currently on there seem fine
to me, there's no point in replacing them - besides, I'm a bit skint
having just bought a bike!

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:42:30 GMT, Jeff Starr > wrote:
>On Thu, 19 May 2005 02:40:27 GMT, James > wrote:
>
>>>'Handbuilt wheels', when compared to the 'wheels outta boxes', are
>>>cheaper, more reliable, and really the 'standard', not the exception,
>>>when it comes to having a well designed set that works everyday.
>>
>>Handbuilt wheels? Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you
>>meant something specifically designed for one's particular weight,
>>type of bike, anticipated riding conditions or something... what do
>>you mean by handbuilt?
>
>That is exactly what he meant. I think the cheaper part of it, is
>compared to boutique wheels.

Well, that and that factory wheels almost universally suffer from bad
spoke breakage Right Quick, unless you do the second half of handbuilding
a wheel on them anyway. Factory wheels don't last, unless hand-trued and
tensioned by a good wheelbuilder.


Jasper

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:01:41 GMT, Jasper Janssen wrote:

> Well, that and that factory wheels almost universally suffer from bad
> spoke breakage Right Quick, unless you do the second half of handbuilding
> a wheel on them anyway. Factory wheels don't last, unless hand-trued and
> tensioned by a good wheelbuilder.

Then my Mavic Elites must be hand-built. I've abused them plenty over
the last year or so, and they're as true as the day I bought them.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

[Robert Perkins]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> I mean a set designed for one's particular weight, type of bike,
> anticipated riding conditions..what hand buiilts are, custom wheels,
> not more but less expensive than the multitude of crappy wheels outta
> boxes that are $800++++
>
> It's what we do, me and others.
>

But what about the marketing budget for the wheels? Don't you want to
pay for that? Oh, and for some really cool black spokes, too, and paint
or anodizing on the rim, except where you have to brake, 'cause that
adds value too. You guys are no fun and I can't get my buddies to say,
"hey, nicely built and well-engineered set of wheels you have there"
like I can get them to say, "wow, Kyrsiums, and cool overpriced Seven
frame too!".

Rob


Rob

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

James wrote:

>
> As for tools... I have the most basic of kits right now. I'm sure
> there's sites around providing plenty of minimum-need kit lists about,
> and given your prompt, I shall set about them forthwith!
>

On a road bike for your standard 3-5 hr ride, on a well assembled and
maintained bicycle. Ya need a pump, tire levers, patch kit and tube,
nothing else.

Ya can carry a spare tool kit, but in 20 years of riding I have needed
a 'tool', a phillips head screw driver, for a loose cleat, once.

For those who emphasize weight and then put a bag of water, plus a
wardrobe, tool kit, cell phone, etc on their back...well it's just
amazing to me.

Maybe in the wilds of a foreign country, like Texas, but for most
places, not required for the road.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article . com>,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote:

> James wrote:
>
> >
> > As for tools... I have the most basic of kits right now. I'm sure
> > there's sites around providing plenty of minimum-need kit lists about,
> > and given your prompt, I shall set about them forthwith!
> >
>
> On a road bike for your standard 3-5 hr ride, on a well assembled and
> maintained bicycle. Ya need a pump, tire levers, patch kit and tube,
> nothing else.

Perhaps, but if you have any riding companions, it's not a bad idea to
carry the basic tools. As I will demonstrate, the weight and space don't
amount to much.

> Ya can carry a spare tool kit, but in 20 years of riding I have needed
> a 'tool', a phillips head screw driver, for a loose cleat, once.

Aside from minor adjustments on my bike (often, admittedly, tweaks of
recent maintenance or installations), I once loaned my multi-tool to a
stranger so he could get his drivetrain back in working order (some
unremembered adjustment to the rder).

> For those who emphasize weight and then put a bag of water, plus a
> wardrobe, tool kit, cell phone, etc on their back...well it's just
> amazing to me.

Well, this seems a bit of a straw cyclist to me. Water is what it is:
you've got to carry what you need to drink, and there's no lightweight
version. I don't carry a change of wardrobe on every ride, but if the
weather forecast calls for one, I gladly take the rain cape, or arm
warmers, or whatever is appropriate. Tools? Crank Bros. multi-17. 168g,
and it includes every tool I could imagine needing for a roadside repair
(the two tools I might add on a really distant ride might be an
adjustable wrench and a small vise-grip). 168g, and it lives in the
bottom of my under-seat bag. It's not even worth concerning myself with.
Cel phone? C'mon: it's a training ride. Hardly necessary, but utterly
defensible.

I'm guessing that the gear you have mentioned, excluding the
non-optional water, probably weighs about 2 pounds. Since I don't see
anyone carrying that gear on their hillclimb TTs, I'll assume that the
racers carry it on their training rides to make the effort level higher.

> Maybe in the wilds of a foreign country, like Texas, but for most
> places, not required for the road.

This is such a small amount of equipment, and it won't save your life,
but it might let you or another rider ride home instead of abandoning.
It's pretty cheap insurance.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Sandy]

Dans le message de ,
Ryan Cousineau > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article . com>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote:

>> On a road bike for your standard 3-5 hr ride, on a well assembled and
>> maintained bicycle. Ya need a pump, tire levers, patch kit and tube,
>> nothing else.

>> Maybe in the wilds of a foreign country, like Texas, but for most
>> places, not required for the road.
>
> This is such a small amount of equipment, and it won't save your life,
> but it might let you or another rider ride home instead of abandoning.
> It's pretty cheap insurance.

Do try to remember that in THE REPUBLIC, bad things don't happen.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Jasper Janssen]

On 20 May 2005 05:45:12 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> wrote:

>I started on tubies, and now, see no compelling reason the change my
>two sets of wheels to clinchers, is why I stay with them. For me, not
>inconvenient, not messy, no big problem.

But if you'd started on clinchers, or somehow magically your existing
wheelsets, tyres, and other personal stock were transformed into clinchers
-- would you switch to tubies, or also just stick with what you'd have?

Jasper

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Sandy wrote:
>
>
> Do try to remember that in THE REPUBLIC, bad things don't happen.
> --
> Bonne route,
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Certainly not like in France, the last great socialist country in the
EU...no wait, they defeated the EU constitution. Something about
'French identity'??

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
oups.com,
Qui si parla Campagnolo > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do try to remember that in THE REPUBLIC, bad things don't happen.
>> --
>> Bonne route,
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> Certainly not like in France, the last great socialist country in the
> EU...no wait, they defeated the EU constitution. Something about
> 'French identity'??

First off, we have a *liberal* policy. However, that word means here the
opposite of what you may have in mind. Next, we have a right-wing
government throughout. Left of your center, but on the right in our world.

I imagine you have no idea what the constitution is/was about. Feel free to
comment out of ignorance. I dare not ask if you read it.

Holland's parliament felt compelled to accept the vox populi against.
Britain has dropped the advisory referendum, knowing it would have been
defeated even more strongly. Of course, they want to blame us. Silly
poofters.

Wait now for Luxembourg, Denmark, etc. The countries (except for Spain,
with popular voting at 31% participation) that ratified by parliamentary
action are believed (from polling) to be as out of touch with popular
sentiment as France was. Our parliament would have passed it at around 90%.
See how much politicians know ?

See how much _you_ know, then, either about the French or about Yurrup in
general. I suspect stealing the motto you post as though it were a name
makes you Italian. Or the pizza belly. Either will do, I guess.

I don't know who your minister of foreign affairs is, in the REPUBLIC, but
you could ask him for some actual information. You can be cured.

As has been suggested in other fora, we welcome your dollars in EU. Keep
spending on the trips to the three-week race. Our economy needs all the
help it can get. Buy Campy !
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> oups.com,
> Qui si parla Campagnolo > a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=
=E9clar=E9 :
> > Sandy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Do try to remember that in THE REPUBLIC, bad things don't happen.
> >> --
> >> Bonne route,
> >>
> >> Sandy
> >> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
> >
> > Certainly not like in France, the last great socialist country in the
> > EU...no wait, they defeated the EU constitution. Something about
> > 'French identity'??
>
> First off, we have a *liberal* policy. However, that word means here the
> opposite of what you may have in mind. Next, we have a right-wing
> government throughout. Left of your center, but on the right in our worl=
d=2E
>
> I imagine you have no idea what the constitution is/was about. Feel free=
to
> comment out of ignorance. I dare not ask if you read it.

Have you read our constitution or been to Boulder?
>
I suspect stealing the motto you post as though it were a name
> makes you Italian. Or the pizza belly. Either will do, I guess.

Italy, a very favorable place to visit, and the home of cycling, is
where I get the name. been to Italy and France. Won't go back to
France.
>
> I don't know who your minister of foreign affairs is, in the REPUBLIC, but
> you could ask him for some actual information. You can be cured.
>
> As has been suggested in other fora, we welcome your dollars in EU. Keep
> spending on the trips to the three-week race. Our economy needs all the
> help it can get. Buy Campy !


See above, No more trips to France for me.
> --=20
> Bonne route,
>=20
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Jasper Janssen]

On 7 Jun 2005 06:14:49 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> wrote:

>Certainly not like in France, the last great socialist country in the
>EU...no wait, they defeated the EU constitution. Something about
>'French identity'??

Dude. Try to figure out how much the proposed EU constitution and
socialism overlap (Answer: not), and then see how illogical your
conclusion is.

Jasper

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2005 06:14:49 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> > wrote:
>
> >Certainly not like in France, the last great socialist country in the
> >EU...no wait, they defeated the EU constitution. Something about
> >'French identity'??
>
> Dude. Try to figure out how much the proposed EU constitution and
> socialism overlap (Answer: not), and then see how illogical your
> conclusion is.
>
> Jasper

Dude??