Advice Wanted: Bike Buyer in NYC

"Rick Onanian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:28:19 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:
For $700 you're getting a much better bicycle than the Trek 1200.
Chromolloy
frame and threaded headset. Still has Tiagra component set.

Still peddling the logic-free prejudiced retrogrouchery, I see.

Hardly. In each case, I explain in detail the actual reasons than
manufacturers choose to make certain changes, as well as the
rationalizations they use to defend those changes. I explain why, despite
the cost savings, many people believe that these changes are undesirable.

Logic-free would be posts like yours, that don't even attempt to use the
standard rationalizations!

Rather than send out massive numbers of e-mails, and create long Usenet
posts with the same data over and over, I created a small web site with all
the information. BTW, many of the recommended models do have threadless
headsets and aluminum frames, simply because that's all that's available in
the segment (unless you go to the very high priced custom and semi-customs).

It's all IMVAIO, and open to debate of course. But not Navas-style debate.

Steve
Bicycle Recommendation Short List
http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec

It's all IMVAIO, and open to debate of course. But not Navas-style debate.

It's going to be tough to avoid that when your website make statements like
this-

"Avoid aluminum frames at all costs." or " All touring bicycles have
Chro-Moly steel frames for durability (aluminum frames won't stand up to the
rigors of fully loaded touring)."

And then later on you give all manner of anti-steel references (what a
surprise that most come from steel-frame specialists), as well one from
bikexchange.com that "No aluminum is going to hold up as well as steel."

Just exactly what is it about a bicycle that can't take advantage of many of
the useful aspects of aluminum, but an airplane can? Why aren't we worried
about planes falling out of the sky?

Opinions masquerading as fact are dangerous things. The fact that's missing
from your pages is that any of the commonly-used frame materials (steel,
aluminum, ti & carbon) can be used to make a great, long-lasting reliable
bike, or a dog. It's not the material, it's how it's used. It's especially
wrong to scare people about the fatigue issues with aluminum, since that's a
design issue that's easily dealt with (by simply building it in such a way
that its fatigue limit wouldn't be approached until the frame is ridden a
distance that would greatly exceed the point at which a high-quality steel
frame would suffer a failure; in general, my rule of thumb is 35-50,000
miles for the steel frames I've seen over the past 30 years).

But nothing I'm pointing out here is news. The relative durability and
desireability of the various frame materials has been hashed to death
repeatedly by knowledgeable engineers who know something about the
structural properties & issues... right here in this newsgroup.

In each case, I explain in detail the actual reasons than
manufacturers choose to make certain changes, as well as the
rationalizations they use to defend those changes. I explain why, despite
the cost savings, many people believe that these changes are undesirable.

This is not true; you're still claiming, despite evidence to the contrary,
that a threadless headset costs less to incorporate on a bicycle than
threaded. You also state (on your website) that "Unfortunately, except on
very high end bicycles, the steerer tube is cut to the minimum possible
length at the factory." This again is *easily* verified as being untrue.
You can drop into either of the nearby shops on Foothill Expressway and see
that at least one major manufacturer sends out all of their bikes
(inexpensive & high-end) with 4cm of steer tube between the headset and
stem.

And in your Compact geometry section, you state that they're done to reduce
the number of sizes to 3 or 4. This ignores the number of companies that
offer just as many sizes (6, 7 or 8) in "compact" frames as they do for
standard ones. The truth? If anybody can handle the truth, for most
companies, compact geometry is all about style. They look different, some
people (not me) think better. If a manufacturer incorporates compact
geometry but doesn't reduce the number of sizes, there is no cost savings.

You offer some good, solid information on your site, but it loses
credibility when it strays into opinions that aren't based on fact. A
sensible re-working of the threadless headset section would point out how
adjustability is offered in both threadless and threaded, and how to take
advantage of such options (and make sure they haven't been precluded by, for
example, cutting the steer tube on a threadless bike so short that there's
very little room between stem & headset. In the section on compact
geometry, you should point out the importance of sizing based upon not only
"height" but also top tube length, and how, if a brand offers only sm, med &
lg, you're not given too many choices!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Rick Onanian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:28:19 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:
For $700 you're getting a much better bicycle than the Trek 1200.
Chromolloy
frame and threaded headset. Still has Tiagra component set.

Still peddling the logic-free prejudiced retrogrouchery, I see.

Hardly. In each case, I explain in detail the actual reasons than
manufacturers choose to make certain changes, as well as the
rationalizations they use to defend those changes. I explain why, despite
the cost savings, many people believe that these changes are undesirable.

Logic-free would be posts like yours, that don't even attempt to use the
standard rationalizations!

Rather than send out massive numbers of e-mails, and create long Usenet
posts with the same data over and over, I created a small web site with
all
the information. BTW, many of the recommended models do have threadless
headsets and aluminum frames, simply because that's all that's available
in
the segment (unless you go to the very high priced custom and
semi-customs).

It's all IMVAIO, and open to debate of course. But not Navas-style debate.

Steve
Bicycle Recommendation Short List
http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec

In article ,
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
And in your Compact geometry section, you state that they're done to reduce
the number of sizes to 3 or 4. This ignores the number of companies that
offer just as many sizes (6, 7 or 8) in "compact" frames as they do for
standard ones. The truth? If anybody can handle the truth, for most
companies, compact geometry is all about style. They look different, some
people (not me) think better. If a manufacturer incorporates compact
geometry but doesn't reduce the number of sizes, there is no cost savings.


Assuming the company was making bikes with level top tubes before
switching to compact, they probably coughed up a substantial new
investment in the compact designs, testing, tooling, training,
marketing, etc. making the "savings" actually a loss (or investment
depending on your perspective).

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:12:29 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Thanks for making the point better than I could, Mike. Anyway...

The fact that's missing
from your pages is that any of the commonly-used frame materials (steel,
aluminum, ti & carbon) can be used to make a great, long-lasting reliable
bike, or a dog.

I agree about the bikes, but I think an aluminum dog, while long
lasting, wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a flesh dog. Flesh
dogs are livelier, more responsive, less stiff, much more compliant,
and faster.
--
Rick Onanian

The fact that's missing
from your pages is that any of the commonly-used frame materials (steel,
aluminum, ti & carbon) can be used to make a great, long-lasting reliable
bike, or a dog.

I agree about the bikes, but I think an aluminum dog, while long
lasting, wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a flesh dog. Flesh
dogs are livelier, more responsive, less stiff, much more compliant,
and faster.

See, for example, the arguments in
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/bytesdog.html
from 1984.
--
mac the naïf

from your pages is that any of the commonly-used frame materials (steel,
aluminum, ti & carbon) can be used to make a great, long-lasting reliable
bike, or a dog.

I agree about the bikes, but I think an aluminum dog, while long
lasting, wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a flesh dog. Flesh
dogs are livelier, more responsive, less stiff, much more compliant,
and faster.

Rick: Could be, but I'd think that aluminum dogs have come a ways since
"Boxxer" from Cattlecar Galactica and whatever the dog's name was in
Sleeper.

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

Rick Onanian wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:12:29 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Thanks for making the point better than I could, Mike. Anyway...

The fact that's missing
from your pages is that any of the commonly-used frame materials (steel,
aluminum, ti & carbon) can be used to make a great, long-lasting reliable
bike, or a dog.

I agree about the bikes, but I think an aluminum dog, while long
lasting, wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a flesh dog. Flesh
dogs are livelier, more responsive, less stiff, much more compliant,
and faster.
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:12:29 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
The fact that's missing
from your pages is that any of the commonly-used frame materials (steel,
aluminum, ti & carbon) can be used to make a great, long-lasting reliable
bike, or a dog.

I agree about the bikes, but I think an aluminum dog, while long
lasting, wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a flesh dog. Flesh
dogs are livelier, more responsive, less stiff, much more compliant,
and faster.

Ah, but wasn't Doctor Who's "K-9" a titanium dog that was very responsive?

"Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote in message . com...
It's all IMVAIO, and open to debate of course. But not Navas-style
debate.

It's going to be tough to avoid that when your website make statements
like
this-

"Avoid aluminum frames at all costs." or " All touring bicycles have
Chro-Moly steel frames for durability (aluminum frames won't stand up to
the
rigors of fully loaded touring)."

Don't you wonder why all of the true touring bikes (admittedly there are few
left) are still chro-moly, i.e. Trek, Fuji, Koga-Miyata, Bruce Gordon, etc.
If even Trek sticks with steel, there is obviously a very good reason for
it! And of course you are well aware of the reasons. The Trek web site sates
(of the 520): "FRAME: Welded Cro-Moly built to endure the demands of fully
loaded touring."

And then later on you give all manner of anti-steel references (what a
surprise that most come from steel-frame specialists), as well one from
bikexchange.com that "No aluminum is going to hold up as well as steel."

I do not give any anti-steel references. I could not find any such
references. And of course there is no reason why a steel-frame specialist
would make anti-steel comments.

Just exactly what is it about a bicycle that can't take advantage of many
of
the useful aspects of aluminum, but an airplane can? Why aren't we worried
about planes falling out of the sky?

Oh no, we're back to the airplane analogy, and planes falling out of the
sky! I think that the airplane analogy must be in the sales training
materials of some bicycle manufacturers (come on, admit it, you wouldn't
come up with this analogy on your own). It's a poor analogy, as most
analogies usually are.

See: http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3

"When discussing aluminum, someone always brings up airplanes. Airplane
design showcases what aluminum does best: acceptable strength and a low
relative weight. But, aluminum's lack of a fatigue limit is one very good
reason why there is stringent monitoring of dynamically or cyclically
stressed aluminum structures."

And you do recall the incident in Hawaii where an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737
suffered a structural failure. This was an inter-island plane, which had an
abnormally high number of compression/decompressions, which fatigued the
aluminum skin, causing stress cracks that propagated from rivet locations.
Of course the solution here was not to make the airplane out of steel, it
was to increase inspections, and limit the number of stress cycles.

In short, we _are_ worried about airplanes falling out of the sky due to
metal fatigue, and we monitor it closely now.

You inspired me to add a section about the airplane analogy to my site.

Opinions masquerading as fact are dangerous things.

They certainly are. Almost as dangerous as marketing implicature
masquerading as facts.

This is not true; you're still claiming, despite evidence to the contrary,
that a threadless headset costs less to incorporate on a bicycle than
threaded.

What evidence? Everything I've read on this subject indicates that the
threadless headsets were adopted because they lower overall costs, because
besides eliminating the manufacturing cost of threading, they allow one fork
to be used on many different frame sizes, just as compact frames reduce the
number of frame sizes that need to be manufactured.

I know you're in a difficult position as a Trek-only shop, and that you feel
obligated to defend the market direction taken by Trek. References to
aluminum and titanium dogs were no doubt intended to be amusing, but are
not.

Steve


Bicycle Recommendation Short List
http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

Don't you wonder why all of the true touring bikes (admittedly there are few
left) are still chro-moly, i.e. Trek, Fuji, Koga-Miyata, Bruce Gordon, etc.
If even Trek sticks with steel, there is obviously a very good reason for
it!

The only valid reason I can think of for choosing steel for touring
is that the frame can be repaired by just about anyone with a
welding torch.

The Trek web site sates
(of the 520): "FRAME: Welded Cro-Moly built to endure the demands of fully
loaded touring."

A steel frame that's stiff enough to withstand loaded touring is
going to be heavy, certainly heavier than a equally stiff aluminum
frame. I suppose the manufacturers have learned that some extra
weight is no big deal to the loaded touring customer. I have an
aluminum Klein Navigator (a "true" touring bike) that weighs in at
23 lbs, and it handles the rigors of loaded touring just fine.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/