Autofaq now on faster server

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

You seem to have a perception that objections to bargain-basement
bikes are based on snobbery. If that is your view, then it is this:
********.

Maybe if you tried a little harder to not sound like a sneering snob
when you talk about depleted uranium frames, then perhaps people
wouldn't mistake for snobbery your deep-seated and genuine care for
their choice of bike. Maybe.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
I have seen the enemy, and he is quite short.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:32:55 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote:

in message , Martin Wilson
') wrote:

Again where is the evidence, I've never seen any broken frames in a
bike shop and it probably wouldn't be in their interest to display
them whatever the frame material.

Ask them.


So I go in to a cycle shop and say 'You know those cheap high tensile
framed bikes that you don't like selling as there is minimal profit in
them and you are easily undercut by supermarkets and mail order
companies, do these frames break?"

What possible motivation would they have to give a fair and unbiased
answer? Thats why real world users of such bikes are more important.
People generally say what they think about stuff they buy. If its good
its good and if its bad they are keen to say so.

The internet would be a logical
place to search for evidence and the evidence here seems to indicate
aluminium is more likely to fail and thats in a world where hi-ten
massively outsells aluminium bikes.

Except the _only_ comparative study I'm aware of on the Internet shows
that all the aluminium frames tested survived and many of the steel
ones broke.

Well its obviously not this one then;

http://www.efbe.de/etour109.htm

As only 50% of the aluminium frames survived. It would also be a
completely unfair reference as its about super lightweight frames
which steel is obviously going to be the wrong material for. As the
review states the steel tubes are 'breath-thin'.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:53:51 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message
:

Maybe if you tried a little harder to not sound like a sneering snob
when you talk about depleted uranium frames, then perhaps people
wouldn't mistake for snobbery your deep-seated and genuine care for
their choice of bike. Maybe.

Maybe if you acquired a sense of humour you would sound less chippy.
Maybe.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Martin Wilson wrote:

snip

I think that you're in danger on confusing a discussion of actual
materials with a discussion of warning signs.

There is more to a bike than what material is used to make the frame,
and the fact is that the lower quality bikes (Build quality inc frame
alignment, and componentry) are often synonymous with the use of
"Hi-Ten" steel. This means that a frame with "Hi-Ten" emblazoned on it,
often coupled with unnecessary oversize tubes and carbon effect
stickers, is a warning sign that you are not looking at a good bike.

And WRT to your experience, you may have had a lot of luck with your
"Hi-Ten" bike, and it may be the case that a stronger bike is better for
you, but in the general case, those shopping for a bike do not need that
level of over-building and those in the specific case (such as yourself)
may already be aware of this.

Buying a bike from a decent LBS eliminates the concern as they are more
likely to select a bike which is appropriate to you in the first place
which means you can rely on professional advice rather than the colour
of the frame as the deciding factor!

And if you still feel that the FAQ is way-off the mark, then edit it. A
rant here wont change anything, and is unlikely to result in its
removal. If you aren't prepared to put your point forward in the
appropriate place, then I'm surprised your prepared to waste the effort
revisiting it here. Now chill out! ;-)

Jon

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:36:25 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

OK, I wrote a long and detailed reply but decided that all it would do
was inflame things more because I think we are arguing from different
premises. Here's where I think the core problem lies:

5) They take heavier riders

Than what? Cr-Mo?

Actually I wasn't thinking of chromoly, I was comparing them against
aluminium.

But nobody is saying anyone must buy aluminium. The FAQ is addressing
the specific issue of how to tell, in a line of cheap bikes at
Halfrauds, which ones are likely to be decent. The bike with standard
gauge cromoly tubes is more likely to be a sound buy than the bike
which loudly proclaims "Hi-Ten Frame!" as if it were something other
than the lowest spec used.

I still maintain that if you want a good value cheap bike, you are
almost always better off buying second hand. The warranty on a new
bike is much shorter than the projected life of the bike, and most
shops will give you a warranty on a second hand bike anyway. What you
get for your money is almost always better components, especially
wheels, than on the low end bikes which are built down to a price.

Indian and Chinese bikes are as tough as old boots, but they are not
sold in high streets here any more than the Hindustan Ambassador is
sold in high streets here. Few British riders want a sit-up-and-beg
bike with cow-horn bars and either no gears or a 3-speed hub. More's
the pity, I think they are great. What we get is bikes styled to
appeal to the Western youth market, looking like the flashy high-end
aluminium jobs but executed in heavy oversize steel tubes and with
poverty-spec components. These are not good bikes, and these are what
the FAQ page is steering people away from.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Martin Wilson wrote:
Thats your opinion but there is no evidence to support it.

See below

Again where is the evidence, I've never seen any broken frames in a
bike shop and it probably wouldn't be in their interest to display
them whatever the frame material. The internet would be a logical
place to search for evidence and the evidence here seems to indicate
aluminium is more likely to fail and thats in a world where hi-ten
massively outsells aluminium bikes.

If you're ever in Edinburgh, drop in and visit the Bike Station in
Waverly station. You'll find a room of scrap in which Hi-Ten steel
frames are over-representative. You'll also find boxes and boxes of
Tourney (And SIS - from when Shimano couldn't bring themselves to name
them) rear derailleurs. These bikes are a over-represented as a
proportion of the bikes donated. We re-fit and fettle them where
possible, often scrapping three or more bikes to make one useful one.

And you're right that a bike shop wouldn't display broken frames... but
ask the techs and they'll show you the pile!

It probably does represent the view of the group generally so its
probably on the button as the urc faq but whether its useful to a
wider cycling audience who may own or be considering a low cost high
tensile bike I don't know.

Then add your voice. If you feel that it's wrong, edit it to better
reflect your views. If you can't actually be bothered to invest the
time, why waste it arguing the toss here.

Jon

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:53:51 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message
:

Maybe if you tried a little harder to not sound like a sneering snob
when you talk about depleted uranium frames, then perhaps people
wouldn't mistake for snobbery your deep-seated and genuine care for
their choice of bike. Maybe.

Maybe if you acquired a sense of humour you would sound less chippy.
Maybe.

Oh, I have one. The chippiness was the desired tone, on this occasion.

Given your posting record, I can only assume that you have a genuine
desire to see more cyclists. Insulting and belittling the bikes, and by
extension their owners, that are cheaper and heavier than bikes you
consider to be worth buying is not the way to go about that on this
newsgroup. Fact is, people buy them, and they ride them. You may be
doing people who are about to buy one a favour by suggesting a
second-hand bike might be better, but your condescending tone can only
put off people who already own a 'lead alloy' bike from posting. It
certainly does nothing to disabuse newbies of the 'lycra-lout' image
of cyclists.

You may think your sneering is humourous; I disagree, and it
seems Martin does, too. Feel free to continue, but it's not consistent
with the rest of the stuff you post.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Fair and Balanced -
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:00:07 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message
:

Given your posting record, I can only assume that you have a genuine
desire to see more cyclists. Insulting and belittling the bikes, and by
extension their owners, that are cheaper and heavier than bikes you
consider to be worth buying is not the way to go about that on this
newsgroup.

I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make. Here
is my position: if you are on a limited budget, you are generally
better off with a good quality second-hand bike than a cheap new one.
If you are buying a cheap new one, don't go by style, go by the bike
itself, look for a bog-standard Cr-Mo frame rather than a
fashion-victim oversize frame which is marketed as "Hi-Ten Frame!!!"
as if that is something other than the absolute base spec.

Fact is, people buy them, and they ride them.

And, in my experience, very often hate them, relegate them to the back
of the shed and write cycling off as uncomfortable and hard work.

I am not a weight weenie. I ride a 40lb recumbent, to pretend to be a
weight weenie would be ludicrous.

You may think your sneering is humourous

It's not sneering. I am just staggered by the weight of some cheap
bikes, especially kids' bikes. And by the abysmal quality of the
components.

Oh, and I didn't invent the phrase, I just used it because it makes me
laugh.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:00:07 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message
:

Given your posting record, I can only assume that you have a genuine
desire to see more cyclists. Insulting and belittling the bikes, and by
extension their owners, that are cheaper and heavier than bikes you
consider to be worth buying is not the way to go about that on this
newsgroup.

I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make.

Well, I was trying not to be too blunt, but obviously it's not working.

Your choice of phrases makes you come across to me like a supercilious
dick.

Here is my position: if you are on a limited budget, you are generally
better off with a good quality second-hand bike than a cheap new one.

[snip]

And I agree. So why not say that? Why put down those people who use
cheap bikes with the snide "depleted uranium" stuff, or the "cheese"
stuff, or just the "nasty bikes" stuff? Do you think that crap makes
people with supermarket bikes more, or less, likely to want to post?

[...]

You may think your sneering is humourous

It's not sneering.

That's the way it comes across to me. Take that on board, or not. Up to
you.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the
president or any other public official."
- Theodore Roosevelt

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:09:26 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message
:

Well, I was trying not to be too blunt, but obviously it's not working.
Your choice of phrases makes you come across to me like a supercilious
dick.

Because you are so hung up on something I didn't actually say that you
are apparently unable to accept me [not] saying it in a humorous
manner.

Here is my position: if you are on a limited budget, you are generally
better off with a good quality second-hand bike than a cheap new one.

And I agree. So why not say that? Why put down those people who use
cheap bikes with the snide "depleted uranium" stuff, or the "cheese"
stuff, or just the "nasty bikes" stuff? Do you think that crap makes
people with supermarket bikes more, or less, likely to want to post?

Because I'm not putting anybody down, I'm taking the **** out of those
bikes which manage to be, without looking any different from the bike
next door, vastly heavier.

I drive a Volvo. I have to get used to people taking the **** out of
Volvo drivers. Ditto recumbents, in fact I was pelted with stones by
some chavs the other day. I'm guessing you don't ride one of the
Sterling House horrors that the FAQ is mainly warning people against,
but if you did I'd suggest you, too, would need to learn to live with
a certain amount of ribbing.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken