bar-end shifters

On 20 Jan 2006 08:52:44 -0800, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, wrote:

. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.

I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I walk
to work. On the road.

But you don't see them on Trek Madones, which is what this guy was
determined to buy. In general, you don't see them on road frames at
all. These days, 28 is the maximum tire width for most road frames,
and even that won't fit if you want decent fenders.

I don't understand why are you are using extreme examples in this
discussion. I thought we were talking about overall trends, what is
best for most people, what works best overall.

28 is pretty big and would suit a lot of riders, even the hugely fat
ones you mention, if they ride much distance on paved roads or easy
trails (like cinder paths). Not for touring with load in South Dakota
or course. Beyond that there are all sorts of hybrids, cross bikes
and "mountain bikes" in the shops they can choose from, despite the
influence of racing and Trek's marketing. I don't see where the
influce of racing or racing marketing is undermining bike choice for
most users.


It's not that hard, John. If a guy is 6' 4" tall and weighs 250
pounds, he can be fairly slim and athletic. If a guy is 5' 6" tall and
weighs 250 pounds, he's much more likely to be carrying a large belly.

This guy was carrying a _very_ large belly. Large enough that I can't
believe he'd ever be comfortable on that bike. People with that body
shape tend to do better with a frame that doesn't have their nose so
close to the front wheel.

So you're saying racing bikes can't even fit fat people, let alone
support their weight? Umm, OK. I don't think that's true, but
whatever...

I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

The Wogster wrote:

Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
bike total.

Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.

Bill "hardtail, fully, aluminum road and now a new carbon frame to build up"
S.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:54:59 -0500, The Wogster
wrote:



Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike for
off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE bike
total. Given enough training, I could ride a century on an MTB, I could
ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail, on an MTB. Trail riding
on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.


I don't think trying to cover the possiblity of trail riding is why
most people get mountain bikes. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of
the people I see on these "mountain bikes" ever ride off-road. They
just want fat tires for compfort or durability or feeling of security
on rough roads. And they get it -- racer marketing isn't working on
them.

I think a lot of it, is due to an appearance of durability, it's the
same reason why some people like to drive an SUV, it looks tougher then
a wussy looking car. A road bike looks like a guy at 225lbs would crush
those tiny rims, and flatten those tiny tires, where as an MTB looks
like it could take some serious abuse.

Some of it is also marketing driven, take the average person who walks
into Target (in Canada Zellers) or Walmart, the acne enhanced store
"clerk" is unlikely to know what kind of bike is sitting their for
$99.95, in case your wondering it's most likely a hybrid or MTB rather
then a road bike. I think because, it's hard to build a $100 road bike,
a MTB uses heavier looking components, which can be more cheaply built
out of the heavy steel they make $100 bikes out of.

Mind you, you can use light weight materials in an expensive MTB, that
makes for a bike that is much lighter then it looks.

W

Sorni wrote:
The Wogster wrote:


Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
bike total.


Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.

I am a cyclist, and I have one bike, at least for now, would like a road
bike, and would really think I would look good as the captain of a
Greenspeed tandem trike (wonder if I could convince my SO to the stokers
seat), but those things are the price of a car!!!!

W

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


I don't understand why are you are using extreme examples in this
discussion.

Just to illustrate the effects that exist.

- Frank Krygowski

Sorni wrote:
The Wogster wrote:

Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
bike total.

Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.

You're showing a lack of imagination. Specifically, you're imagining
cyclists are all people just like those posting here - or worse, that
they're all people just like you.

There's a good-sized contingent of people who are bike commuters
because that's the best way for them to get around. In some cases,
it's the only way; they can't afford a car, there's no mass transit,
and it's too far to walk.

You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons. That's
because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle. Yes,
even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum cans to
sell.

- Frank Krygowski

Sorni wrote:
Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.

I've been commuting by bike for years, and have always owned only one bike
(not counting our new tandem, and not counting the brief periods where I
had a new commute bike but hadn't gotten rid of the old one yet).

But I guess I'm not "hard core", since I don't own bike shorts, bike shoes,
bike jerseys, etc.
--
Darin McGrew, , http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, , http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Dans le message de
ups.com,
a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
cans to sell.

- Frank Krygowski

It's heartwarming to know you felt relaxed enough to write that.

"Sandy" wrote in message
...
Dans le message de
ups.com,
a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :

You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just
persons.
That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a
bicycle.
Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering
aluminum
cans to sell.

- Frank Krygowski

It's heartwarming to know you felt relaxed enough to write
that.

Sheesh! Plus, where I ride, the guy is white . . . and he has a
Burley trailer (unbelievably) stuffed with cans and crap, and he
is always parked in the bike lane on a stretch of a busy road on
my way into work. I practically crash into him about twice a
week. He sleeps under a nearby overpass. One day, I will stop
and talk with him about STI/ERGO versus finger-tips -- paired
spoke wheels, that kind of stuff. See what got him into cycling.
See where he got that Burley trailer, too. -- Jay Beattie.

wrote:
Sorni wrote:
The Wogster wrote:

Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
bike total.

Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by
bike, chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most
CYCLISTS have more than one bike -- especially if they're into
off-road at all.

You're showing a lack of imagination. Specifically, you're imagining
cyclists are all people just like those posting here - or worse, that
they're all people just like you.

There's a good-sized contingent of people who are bike commuters
because that's the best way for them to get around. In some cases,
it's the only way; they can't afford a car, there's no mass transit,
and it's too far to walk.

You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
cans to sell.

Apparently the word "most" got past you.

Twice.