|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote:
Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... All sorts of reasons. But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the former, and quite reasonably so. Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very important to try before you buy, because the difference between two notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try, that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that... Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function. Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are /functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at "tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular functions that happen to have different seating arrangements. So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in the foreseeable market conditions. (I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a 'bent). Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Ads |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
Per Jay Beattie:
I haven't seen a case from any of my bicycle manufacturer clients in ages Last year, I testified in a suit against Cane Creek that I'm pretty sure the plaintiff won. Guy was riding home on a ThudBuster SUS post. Bolt sheared, he crashed catastrophically as a result. Years of disability, lost his job, multiple back operations and on-and-on. I was sympathetic bc the same thing happened to me - although I didn't crash... just got to know the top tube on much more intimate terms than I wanted to. "Sympathetic" bc when I called Cane Creek (not knowing that the suite was already in progress) the response was un-helpful to say the least.... and contained the standard "Well, this is the first time we've heard anything like this, so you must have been doing something wrong...." -- PeteCresswell |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/20/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Clinch wrote:
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote: Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... All sorts of reasons. But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the former, and quite reasonably so. Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very important to try before you buy, because the difference between two notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try, that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that... Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function. Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are /functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at "tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular functions that happen to have different seating arrangements. So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in the foreseeable market conditions. (I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a 'bent). Some good points. I have no interest in bents so far but I don't really have anything against them. Was just chirping at Tom. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/20/2011 7:34 AM, Peter Clinch wrote:
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote: Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... All sorts of reasons. But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the former, and quite reasonably so. Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very important to try before you buy, because the difference between two notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try, that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that... Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function. Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are /functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at "tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular functions that happen to have different seating arrangements. So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in the foreseeable market conditions. (I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a 'bent). Well at least in the U.S. you frequently see recumbents on popular touring routes so tourers do consider them and occasionally buy them. For commuting recumbents are very rare yet other specialty bikes like Bike Fridays and Bromptons, while not prevalent, are at least not uncommon. I'm sure there must be some people commuting on recumbents around here, but it's extremely rare. Besides the issues that have already been discussed here, that make recumbents less than ideal for commuting, another issue is storage. I can put the Brompton under a desk, or park a cumbersome inside the office, but a recumbent is too big and would have to be left outside. The Brompton already is a curiosity that people are interested in, and the folding/unfolding demonstrations are a distraction. Fun to ride around the halls late at night though! |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
john B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 17:57:44 -0700, jcdill wrote: On 19/05/11 4:50 PM, john B. wrote: While I do sympathize with the woman involved she did buy a cup of hot coffee; she then did spill it on herself; She was sold a defective product - it wasn't just a "hot cup of coffee" it was a "scalding hot cup of coffee". It's like buying a bike with a defective fork design and the fork collapses while you are riding it. It's *defective*. That was the crux of the issue here - it was sold at a temperature TOO HOT TO SAFELY DRINK, and thus was a defective product. Yes, coffee should be hot, to a certain degree (e.g. 165 degrees), but it should not be kept or sold hotter than that, at a temperature that is too hot to drink and which can (and has) caused serious 3rd degree burns. Yes, bicycle accidents happen but they shouldn't happen because of structural failure due to poor design or manufacturing of the frame, causing serious injury to the rider. If you don't care if someone makes and sells a defective frame where someone could be seriously hurt as a result, then I suppose you also wouldn't care that someone made and sold a defective cup of coffee and someone was seriously hurt as a result. jc A defective cup of coffee? How so. Do you have a legal or industry recognized specification that states coffee should be served at 165 degrees? As far as "TOO HOT TO DRINK" no place I eat serves coffee so cold that you can grab the cup as soon as it is on the table and gulp it down. you always need to saucer and blow it. But you ordered hot coffee and you got hot coffee. Hot is a relative term and what is hot for one is warm for another. I think Frank posted some figures that several millions of cups of coffee were sold and they got what? 300 complaints it was too hot? By the way your logic is faulty. A hot cup of coffee isn't a structural failure or a poor design it is simply a hot cup of coffee. Which I might also point out the woman had purchased since M.D. won't give you the coffee until you pay for it. So if it was too hot why didn't she return it? But returning to your bicycle analogy, Muzi sells you a brand new plastic bicycle and you head out. Wow, this is fast!! Then you misjudge a corner or run a red light and Bang! You and your bike are spread all over the pavement. Muzi is at fault. Right? Or was it the manufacturer? Either or both. Depends on the insurance coverage and assets of each party. Nothing more. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On May 20, 7:39*am, john B. wrote:
The Piper J-3 Cub was built between 1937 and 1947 so one could be 70 years old and they are still flying. I was up in a mid-1940s one several years ago. It seemed like a real rattletrap. I couldn't get the door to latch. Then the pilot reached back and wound a piece of coat hanger wire around the door handle, and we took off. No warning labels on that one, either. - Frank Krygowski |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
Peter Clinch wrote:
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote: Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... All sorts of reasons. But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the former, and quite reasonably so. Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very important to try before you buy, because the difference between two notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try, that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that... Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function. Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are /functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at "tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular functions that happen to have different seating arrangements. So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in the foreseeable market conditions. (I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a 'bent). Pete. http://www.incrediblethings.com.php5...eel-table1.jpg or http://preview.tinyurl.com/449m23q -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
WTF is Bike to work day? Here people get to work by bike
every day. =v= For those of us who already bike to work daily, it's a free cup of coffee, banana, and bagel. Ditto for those who have a bike and are unemployed. For those who don't bike to work, it's an opportunity to try it out. =v= Today (May 20th) is National Bike to Work Day. The Bay Area event comes a little early. _Jym_ |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On May 20, 10:03*am, jcdill wrote:
On 20/05/11 4:28 AM, john B. wrote: A defective cup of coffee? How so. Do you have a legal or industry recognized specification that states coffee should be served at 165 degrees? It was well documented and established at the trial. *If you bother to read up on the details of the case, you will find the answers to all your questions. We have read up on the details. That reading didn't answer the question of why someone less cautious than the next 24 million customers should be paid for their lack of care. But you ordered hot coffee and you got hot coffee. Hot is a relative term and what is hot for one is warm for another. I think Frank posted some figures that several millions of cups of coffee were sold and they got what? 300 complaints it was too hot? It was too hot to be immediately consumed for ALL of the millions of consumers. .... just like a standard cup of tea. Why no comment on tea temperatures? *It also caused burns in hundreds of consumers, and over 700 of them filed claims for compensation because of the burns. *Most people wouldn't file a claim if the burn was a minor burn, so we can assume that many (if not most) of the 700 prior claims were for serious burns. People won't file a claim for glass in the sandwich unless they put the glass there themselves - yet that claim has occurred. People won't file a claim for a human finger in the chili unless they put the finger there themselves. Obviously, there are many false claims against deep pocket companies, or companies with insurance. Why no comment on false claims? Why pretend that every claim must be legitimate, and count it against the company? - Frank Krygowski |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On May 20, 8:53 am, Jym Dyer wrote:
WTF is Bike to work day? Here people get to work by bike every day. =v= For those of us who already bike to work daily, it's a free cup of coffee, banana, and bagel. Ditto for those who have a bike and are unemployed. For those who don't bike to work, it's an opportunity to try it out. =v= Today (May 20th) is National Bike to Work Day. The Bay Area event comes a little early. _Jym_ Flying into town one morning, after an hour and a half pushing over the hill and back down, this guy standing by a parked bike walks to th eedge of the sidewalk waving a cup of coffee at me. I stopped. They had a pit stop there with hot coffee and food. Somebody gave me a patch kit. It was pretty cool deal :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
our work bike to work pic. | max | General | 3 | May 19th 08 11:31 AM |
Bike to work | ufatbastehd[_2_] | General | 31 | June 29th 07 12:53 PM |
Bike to work day | [email protected] | General | 0 | May 19th 06 09:30 PM |
New (to me) Road Bike First Impressions | Bill Henry | General | 11 | October 9th 05 02:57 PM |
Newbie impressions of a suspension bike. | Rural QLD CC | Mountain Biking | 10 | June 18th 04 01:25 AM |