|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
In article ,
A Muzi writes: -snip- Tom Keats wrote: -snip- What's up with that? At least Willie Dixon wrote stuff we knew what the heck he was singing about.) As for your pedantry, I hereby invoke "common usage." Sometimes there's nothing wrong with being wrong. Especially when one makes the right mistake. Or John Lee Hooker. How how how how. I take it you're referring to his tune: "Boom Boom" (a charming hymn.) That "how how how how" stuff is readily recognizable as the Primal Grunt of love. The following line: "Gonna shoot you right down" is disturbing; it overlays loving nookie with violence. But I guess "melt you like butter in a microwave" didn't rhyme. Hey everyone errs. I give you Willie Dixon's 'Big Three Trio'. Yeah, signing with Columbia at the time probably cramped his style, but I figure he had no other option. I hope for him the Allstars and the subsequent Chess label signing made up for it. I figure Dixon would have been a good voice in Siegel/Schwall. Corky's an excellent harp player, but he sings through his nose. Dixon would have supplied weight and substance to their tunes. And, hey -- you can't go wrong with a John Henry's fiddle in there, even if there's already an electric bass guitar (as expertly played by Rollo Radford.) I bet Rollo Radford and Chris Squire could get along with each other, and trade licks. That would be cool. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
On Jan 13, 5:34*pm, !Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
Actually, I kinda *like* men in tight, black panties... but, my question has always been: How do you wear that stuff in public and keep a straight face? I recall when a decent bicycle cost a day's wages and you could ride the damn thing in cut-offs, a T-shirt, and sneakers. *If you were *really* high-tech, you had a Bendix two-speed kick-back. *It was heavy, noisy, and difficult to ride; however, real *men* rode bicycles in those days... and no self-respecting faggot would have been caught in Spandex! Nowadays, bicycles cost more than an African wage-earner can hope to make in his or her lifetime! *There's something wrong here! Why can't I buy a decent friction shifter anymore? *Indexed shifters are OK until they wear a little bit, then they're useless. *I can't adjust my front cage with an indexed shifter... ... but, mostly, how come I gotta wear these goofy-looking panties? *I simply cannot be seen in public wearing these things! *I'd sooner ride nekkid! Eat yer heart out, Nitla! Jones I love wearing spandex people respect me,drivers are more attentive to me, and it's lot more comfortable than cotton underpants. Spandex was the savior of cyclists because previous shorts aka wool itch like hell. I ride like the cowboys in the west (They always had their riding clothes on) ready to ride at any moment(I wear my spandex 24/7). Spandex sure looks weird to people in pubic but people read my jersey I wear with it they know what I am and know that he a hard core bicyclist not to messed with. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
!Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
In '70, one could buy a decent bicycle for $20 - $30 at a hardware store. I paid $48.33 in '68 for my '66 Schwinn equipped with a Bendix kickback and that was considered extravagant. In '70, I was in Vietnam, so I didn't have a bicycle; however, in '72, I was driving a cab and considered 40 bucks to be a decent night's book... I probably averaged $30 to $35. I was in Georgetown, DC in October doing a little urban hiking... granted, that's a pricey neighborhood. We walked by a bike shop and their window display bike had a $22K price tag!!! Sheeze! That's more than I paid for my first *house*! But your house wasn't made from carbon fiber. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
!Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:00:42 -0800 (PST), in alt.war.vietnam " wrote: On Jan 15, 7:06 am, !Jones' Sock Puppet wrote: In '70, one could buy a decent bicycle for $20 - $30 at a hardware store. I paid $48.33 in '68 for my '66 Schwinn equipped with a Bendix kickback and that was considered extravagant. In '70, I was in Vietnam, so I didn't have a bicycle; however, in '72, I was driving a cab and considered 40 bucks to be a decent night's book... I probably averaged $30 to $35. I was in Georgetown, DC in October doing a little urban hiking... granted, that's a pricey neighborhood. We walked by a bike shop and their window display bike had a $22K price tag!!! Sheeze! That's more than I paid for my first *house*! It's even a fairly large part of it when adjusted for inflation. When you put multiple thousands of dollars into a bicycle, what you have is a fetish, not transportation. Jones You can buy a $70 bike at walmart, target, kmart. they'll ride fine and can be used to commute. Oh, in today's market, methinks I'd budget about $500 or so for a decent commuter. Then about half again for the racks, fenders, and panniers... those accesories ain't cheap! True, by the time they are marked up from the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer, they aren't cheap. In reality, they are all extremely inexpensive when included as part of the bicycle. A rack costs the manufacturer under $2. As do fenders. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:06:14 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam SMS
wrote: I was in Georgetown, DC in October doing a little urban hiking... granted, that's a pricey neighborhood. We walked by a bike shop and their window display bike had a $22K price tag!!! Sheeze! That's more than I paid for my first *house*! But your house wasn't made from carbon fiber. Seems like that bicycle used fertile whooping crane eggs in its production. Jones |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:10:08 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam SMS
wrote: True, by the time they are marked up from the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer, they aren't cheap. In reality, they are all extremely inexpensive when included as part of the bicycle. A rack costs the manufacturer under $2. As do fenders. Well, that's true of almost any consumer product. The actual fabrication cost averages around 5% of the retail cost. The high-end stuff has a much greater profit margin; however, that's driven by fad and carrys the risk pf being stuck with lots of product that's no longer in fashion. As I recall, there are several LBS owners herein... ask them about the huge profits they make. Jones |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
On Jan 24, 3:34 pm, !Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
Well, that's true of almost any consumer product. The actual fabrication cost averages around 5% of the retail cost. The high-end stuff has a much greater profit margin; however, that's driven by fad and carrys the risk pf being stuck with lots of product that's no longer in fashion. As I recall, there are several LBS owners herein... ask them about the huge profits they make. Jones I'm a custom builder, and depending on how I look at the balance sheet I'm making 20-25% or losing 10-15%. Since I do all my own fabricating I'm paying myself for the labor, and if I were to charge the local rate of $50-75 per hour for fabrication then I would be losing money on each bike, but since part of what I do involves building something, looking at it and seeing if it works from an esthetic point of view, and re-doing it if it doesn't look right, I couldn't charge like that. So most bikes I make money, some I lose money. Unfortunately mostly I don't make bikes at all. The ones that seem to sell the best are the "rat bike" or "trash bike" that I make from recycled kids' bike frames. I consider those to be UGLY with a capital UGH, but they work well and ride nice and people seem to like them. I guess there's no accounting for taste? Opus |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
!Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:10:08 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam SMS wrote: True, by the time they are marked up from the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer, they aren't cheap. In reality, they are all extremely inexpensive when included as part of the bicycle. A rack costs the manufacturer under $2. As do fenders. Well, that's true of almost any consumer product. The actual fabrication cost averages around 5% of the retail cost. It's really annoying have so few bicycles come standard with basic accessories, especially on commute and touring bicycles where it's pretty well accepted that the buyer will be adding things like racks, fenders, bells, bottle cages, etc. $100 worth of retail accessories would cost the bicycle manufacturer about $8, which would end up adding maybe $22-25 to the retail cost. I was kind of impressed that the Raleigh Sojourn comes with most of that stuff. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
SMS wrote:
It's really annoying have so few bicycles come standard with basic accessories, especially on commute and touring bicycles where it's pretty well accepted that the buyer will be adding things like racks, fenders, bells, bottle cages, etc. $100 worth of retail accessories would cost the bicycle manufacturer about $8, which would end up adding maybe $22-25 to the retail cost. I was kind of impressed that the Raleigh Sojourn comes with most of that stuff. Bike manufacturers have a symbiotic relationship with bike retailers, which are usually service shops as well. Retailers depend heavily upon accessory sales. When I was in the bike shop business, markups on complete bikes ran in the 35% range, while markups on accessories were usually 100%. The margin on bikes might cover the cost of keeping bikes on the floor, but it was the margin on everything else that made it plausible to do business. If bikes in the US market begin to come well equipped with accessories, then the markup will have to increase as well. That might prove to be more economical for those riders who were going to buy all that stuff anyway, but it would surely cost more for the folks who would have bought only a small subset of the accessories, or none at all. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea, but it's something to consider. On the other hand, there is the possibility that more comprehensively spec'ed bikes would sell to more people, and economy of scale would make it a net win for everyone. I'm not at all sure what it would take in terms of accessories to get non-cyclists to buy in, though. Maybe something that pedals for you. :^) Chalo |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:45:36 -0800, SMS wrote:
It's really annoying have so few bicycles come standard with basic accessories, especially on commute and touring bicycles where it's pretty well accepted that the buyer will be adding things like racks, fenders, bells, bottle cages, etc. $100 worth of retail accessories would cost the bicycle manufacturer about $8, which would end up adding maybe $22-25 to the retail cost. I was kind of impressed that the Raleigh Sojourn comes with most of that stuff. This is all fine if you like what is already on the RS, but if you do not, then it is just wasted money. When I look for accessories, then I have very specific requirements about their construction as well. So different folks, different accessories. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How come bicycle clothing looks so silly? | !Jones' Sock Puppet | Techniques | 164 | February 3rd 09 10:19 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | May 14th 08 09:54 PM |