What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 10:05 pm, "y_p_w" wrote:

Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old
road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel
frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed
myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo
Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset,
bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added
on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself.
It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I
don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value.
The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the
built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove
without scratching.

You call that old? crreeaakkk If it has a lot of
sentimental value, it's worth keeping, unless you don't
have the space. However, it's probably not worth _selling_.
Bikes retain a small fraction of their value except for
particular rare types or marques, or recent high-end stuff.

A different bike wouldn't make you faster but IMO, the
question is, if you had a different or newer or older
bike or upgraded some part of this one, would
you ride more? If yes, then do what is necessary.

Ben

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:51 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

My sole claim to authority was that I read an article in the WSJ.

Funny how it made you and instant expert on wind power.

Better than making it a basis for an entire retractive career - you
know, sort of how I designed wind turbines in my time between other
jobs that no one in the real industry ever heard. Sort of how in all
those technologies that you were in at the start, the WSj never
mentions your name. No wonder you don't trust their journalism.

You're an ass, Mr. Bull.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:40:03 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS
(Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
military roles.

That IS a small passenger jet - you wonder how they made money, one
passenger at a time.

I'm guessing it might be a typo, but with you, its haard to tell.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Feb 14, 12:21 am, "
wrote:


You call that old? crreeaakkk If it has a lot of
sentimental value, it's worth keeping, unless you don't
have the space. However, it's probably not worth _selling_.
Bikes retain a small fraction of their value except for
particular rare types or marques, or recent high-end stuff.

A different bike wouldn't make you faster but IMO, the
question is, if you had a different or newer or older
bike or upgraded some part of this one, would
you ride more? If yes, then do what is necessary.

Ben

For another perspective. I really enjoy riding my old stuff, when the
weather is nice, and where it's fairly flat. Don't want to hurt the
bike, and don't have enough wheels built up with different freewheel
blocs anymore, and am not even close to in the kind of shape where
that doesn't matter anymore.
**** at this point I'm afraid of snapping tubes due to my fat ass.
I love doing our club TT series on my Benotto tri bike with a vintage
set of aerobars. Clean brake levers, cables coming up and tied to the
bars to keep 'em out of the way.
Just looks really cool and still rides great. Time to take the bikes
up to our great local independent bike shop and have 'em rehabbed and
frame savered again. Maybe after the currently pending knee surgery,
again, I'll actually get to ride a lot this year.
Someday, I'm gonna buy a new classic from Richie and keep that
forever too.
Bill C

On Feb 13, 11:54 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
They were marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal
combustion engines was in the 1880s.

By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
ought to be REALLY good.

The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you want to
acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined dirty,
burned dirty.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Any history , especially of Victorian London, along with numerous
works of fiction describe the impenetrable "fogs" that reeked of
sulphur. These faded away as people switched from coal burning to
other sources.
Tons of anecdotal family stories about the same type of things around
Wilkes-Barre, Pa. early in the century when the mines were all going
full blast and everyone heated, and cooked with coal, and that was
almost all pretty clean anthracite.
Bill C

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:51 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

My sole claim to authority was that I read an article in the WSJ.

Funny how it made you and instant expert on wind power.

Better than making it a basis for an entire retractive career - you
know, sort of how I designed wind turbines in my time between other
jobs that no one in the real industry ever heard. Sort of how in all
those technologies that you were in at the start, the WSj never
mentions your name. No wonder you don't trust their journalism.

Yeah, the WSJ named a lot of names didn't they? Or maybe you didn't actually
read the article.

You're an ass, Mr. Bull.

What's the matter, can't take the fact that just about anyone knows more
than you? What was it you say you do for a living again? Bike mechanic? Hey,
that's an honorable profession but it isn't likely to give you any more
information on alternate energy schemes you know.

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that
she would
take commercial flights.

Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The
PREVIOUS
(Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
military roles.

And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order
to
fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because
she
wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles.

The problem with you is that you'll cry corruption at any questionable
thing
a Republican does and you won't notice far worse on the Liberal side.

But then we always knew that about you.

Tom, that story has been knocked down a metric buttload of times. Give
it up. She
isn't the one asking for the plane. Besides, as you well know, her
district is in
San Francisco, not Virginia. The flight she wanted to make was home for
Leo
McCarthy's funeral. By the way, Hastert used (mostly) a C-20, which is
essentially a
Gulfstream III. That has a cappacity of 26 people, not one as you stated
above. You
are the one crying corruption when there isn't any.

Sorry, you're full of crap as usual. But don't let that stop you from
telling everyone here how you wish it was.

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:40:03 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The
PREVIOUS
(Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
military roles.

That IS a small passenger jet - you wonder how they made money, one
passenger at a time.

typo - 12 passenger Gulfstream.

I'm guessing it might be a typo, but with you, its haard to tell.

Not nearly as hard to tell as looking for a pulse on you.

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jack Hollis wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
wrote:

The only difference is that she would
need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly
further.
It's really pretty simple.

Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?

The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to think
it isn't
worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of planning a
refueling
stop, in addition to the logistics of security.

I love watching you tell us what the DoD is thinking.

"y_p_w" wrote in message
ps.com...

Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old
road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel
frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed
myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo
Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset,
bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added
on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself.
It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I
don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value.
The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the
built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove
without scratching.

Not only worth keeping but almost irreplaceable any more. I suggest you
replace the group with a Centaur 10-speed group and Kyserium wheels and
you'll have a bike as good as anything you can buy today.

Sometime the SL frames in the larger sizes were too flexible for the very
stiff forks that were sometimes used. If you feel speed wobbles occurring
you can replace the fork with a carbon fiber fork and because they're
considerably more flexible than the steel forks all of the speed wobbles
will disappear. And strangely enough, it doesn't seem to effect the steering
at all.

My (SL) Colnago Super is lighter than all the rest of my bikes except for
the everything-carbon C40 I have. Hell, it's a half pound lighter than my
Look. And now that I replaced the fork it rides nearly perfect. I left
everything as a 7-speed because I have a lot of top end parts for 7-speeds.
I had to have a bike to mount my Tri-Spokes on. And my disk. And the great
set of Araya Super Aero wheels with Mavic hubs. It doesn't shift as cleanly
as a new bike because I've got this mix of parts but I can live with that.