|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Also it has to be said I am one of the few persons in this forum actively using such a bike and speaking from experience. Actually, it has to be said that you are 9 parts clueless newbie and almost everyone else here has far more experience than you. Not that your views are unwelcome, but they would be better served without the side order of chips on the shoulder. How exactly does that work? I've got a chip on my shoulder because....? I'm a clueless newbie because I bought a cheap bike and its rather nice to ride and seems ok after using it for about 1200-1400 miles. Lets face it your saying I'm a clueless newbie and have a chip on my shoulder because I disagree with you. The reason I disagree is based on real evidence that is my own personal experience and also these forums don't appear to be full of other cheap bike purchasers complaining about their bikes. What you have replied with is simple abuse. If thats all you have then so be it but its obviously not going to convince me that cheap bikes are really bad. What would win your argument is some real test cases, some brand and model names that have been terrible. There surely has to be some data somewhere to make a convincing case against cheap bikes. I remember universal/sterling had some issues with bikes and they were featured on thats life. It was a few years ago. Has there been anything else like this since? Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't have to join it to make that point. The FAQ is not a party to join or not. It is a document you can change, just as easily as posting here. James It just seems to me that I don't share the general loathing of cheap bikes on this forum and so amending the autofaq just doesn't seem right somehow to amend it. It would be like me going to a wine collecting forum and putting an amendment to their faq saying 'actually I think all wine is horrible and a waste of good grapes'. It just doesn't seem fitting somehow. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:16:53 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote: in message , Martin Wilson ') wrote: Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't have to join it to make that point. As other people have said, the AutoFAQ is not a political party. It's a mutable public document which is the sum of the views of the members of this group who have contributed to it at any given point in time. There isn't any way I could make it more open or neutral. Neither I nor anyone else has special editorial privilege. If you don't want to take part, no-one's forcing you to. But you cannot accuse the AutoFAQ of having any agenda or position. It's a blank wall for anyone to write on, and if you refuse to add your views then you cannot rationally complain that they are unrepresented. If you think you can produce something better, please do so. As a reminder to everyone, the AutoFAQ is he URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/ As I've said before the autofaq does seem to represent the majority of views expressed in this forum so makes a good document in expressing the general views of forum members. I am not complaining about being unrepresented in it. I do accuse the autofaq and forum in general of being too extreme in its comments about cheap bikes. You only have to read the responses to this thread to see how agressively the forum joins together to disperse an invader with his positive cheap bike comments. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:19:10 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote: I do accuse the autofaq and forum in general of being too extreme in its comments about cheap bikes. You only have to read the responses to this thread to see how agressively the forum joins together to disperse an invader with his positive cheap bike comments. If you prefer not to have to read negative opinions on cheap bikes then why not visit uk.rec.xylophones? While you are there you may find that even xylophone players have opposing views about good/bad/expensive/cheap equipment. Such is life. There are two sides to every story. Both yourself and others have expressed opposing views, and that is the nature of discussion. Why not contribute to the FAQ by stating *your* viewpoint? -- Microsoft Sam speaks his mind: www.artybee.net/sam_speaks_his_mind.mp3 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:34:45 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote: Martin Wilson wrote: Surely you realise that you are also motivated and chippy enough to also argue your point in a similar fashion so I can only conclude that you are so egotistical and arrogent that you apply different rules to other people than yourself. But Guy /is/ willing to contribute to the FAQ as well as taking the time to argue the toss about things here, so I'm afraid your argument rather disappears up its own backside at this point... Yes but he's contributing to a faq on a forum that his anti cheap bikes. It seems to be part of the culture/ethos of this newsgroup to do so. So I can't debate in the main forum because I haven't contributed to the faq even though I don't like the faq in general and don't want to add to it? If you ask me your backside is residing between your two ears to make a comment like that. Also it has to be said I am one of the few persons in this forum actively using such a bike and speaking from experience. "Actively riding", possibly, but the only person *ever* to ride one? This is just /wrong/. But you will agree that I am speaking from direct experience of such a bike. ot only that but I have no bias. You are a person, therefore you have bias. If you don't think so then that bias is probably towards kidding yourself. Fine you go out of your way to say I have some secret bias etc and that I'm kidding myself that I don't have bias but when it comes to bikes I really don't think I have. I am not connected to the bicycle industry at all in anyway. I have bikes of various price ranges upto a maximum selling price of £600 (Giant). I don't see how I'm biased. I don't believe I'm misleading or putting bias on anything. Is there any statement I've said in my postings that you think is biased and why? bikes and so a so called cheap brand bike. I am also not motivated by any connections to the bicycle trade especially bicycle dealers. The number of postings arguing against cheap bikes in this forum certainly is greater than those for it so again the greater motivation/toss is on the other side. And how many of those who speak from experience about false economies are connected with the bike trade? Not me, for a start. Ok your viewpoint is that cheap bikes are a false econmony, presumably you bought one and had a lot of trouble with it. Which model was it and where was it bought? When was this and what actually failed? Information like this would be really useful. Was it fully assembled and tested like a halfords bike or a mail order bike needing final assembly and adjustment. Maybe your viewpoint is that the bike actually worked but was heavy and a poor cycle to use and again this information would be useful. Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq its pretty simple. Then why go to such trouble to moan about it when you add your points directly /to/ it? Thats the advice you give but its statistically easy to proof that few people are taking it as cheap bikes sell in huge numbers and if anything are taking more and more sales. Despite these numbers there doesn't seem to be a glut of people complaining about them. Sterling Hose sells /returns/ of cheap bikes. If there was "no complaint" about them they wouldn't be returned, and Sterling House wouldn't exist by selling unwanted returns. The subsequent buyers may not complain in the same volumes (100%, that is), but for /every/ buyer of one of their bikes there has been a fundamental "I do not want this" complaint. Do you still think all of them get regular use? Thats the interesting thing about sterlinghouse returns is that when sterlinghouse did their £29.99 offer with a free cycle computer recently I posted it to the bargain forum of the dvd forums and many people replied and many people bought these bikes including me as I bought one for myself out of sheer curiousity and also my brother wanted one for his partner. No one on the forum received an actual returned model. All were new in their boxes, unscratched etc. All the bikes received appeared to be older stock with 12 gears whether they were male or female frames. Whatever the return process was it didn't involve assembling and riding these bikes and then returning them. My guess would be universal supply these bikes to the catalogues on a sale or return basis. If they are sold thats it but if they are unsold they are returned to universal. Catalogues have a lot of buying power and I think they could muscle a deal like this. The outer boxes are dusty and therefore stored but not opened. I'm fairly sure this is the process going on based on the evidence that the bike boxes are unopened but dusty. pick up their £90 Raleigh bike from Halfords and simply drop if off at the tip on their way home and never mention it again. I think the usage model is more go out a few times in Summer round the local country park or whatever, fail to become a regular cyclist and off to the tip in a few years when the garage gets cleaned out. And never mention it again. Pete. That may be based on your experience at your locality but where I am I see cheap bikes on the road all the time. I obviously can not know what percentage of such bikes are locked up in garages and never used but I do see much more in the way of cheap brands on the road than well regarded brands. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
I think Sophos is destined for the bin (and not a moment too soon). Get yourself off to AVG and avail yourself of a proper AV. Tony |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:01:22 +0000, JLB wrote: [snip] Oh come on there is definitely an air of bike snobbery here. I'm not saying cheap bikes are great but people here seem to bend over backwards to say how life threatening and awful they are. You characterise yourself as wholly reasonable and balanced but you characterise anyone who does not agree with you as full of bias and exaggeration. Motes and beams. Many responses often lead to support your local bike dealer type replies and there are definitely a few people connected to bicycle retailing who are motivated to be against cheap bikes. You further assert that that some of those who oppose you have base motives and have not declared an interest. People keep saying I'm biased or I have a chip on my shoulder etc as a stock response but what exactly would be my motivation. If cheap bikes were terrible I would be the first to say so. Well, why would people think you are biased or have a chip on your shoulder? Could it be that you refuse to allow that anyone who does not agree with you might do so sincerely, drawing from knowledge and experience? I consider myself at the extreme of bicycle riders weight wise and surely if cheap bikes were as bad as people say I would surely be the person to be talking about it. I bought a second cheap bike out of sheer curiousity for sterlinghouse bikes practically expecting it to fall apart. It was £29.99 plus £8.95 postage but with a free cycle computer. Theres nothing cheaper out there as far as I know. However again it doesn't feature any suspension. The saddle isn't particularly impressive. The frame while described as a mountain bike has an obvious kick stand mount just behind the bottom bracket. So I go out on it after giving it a thorough checkover and it seems ok. It only has 12 gears but its quite a likeable bike. Nothing seems particularly terrible and I'm 20 stone just under so its a real test weight wise. Some of the bits are identical to my other bike like the pedals. There was a stiff link on the chain which instantly disappeared when a bit of oil was applied. The freewheel turned on its own for about 3 turns as it obviously wasn't fully screwed home at the factory. Its a fair bit lighter than my other bike, thinner frame and that but seems very well welded in vietnam. Your relevant personal experience is a useful contribution to the debate, but then so is the relevant personal experience of others who post on this subject. [snip] To compare the FAQ to the BNP suggests you are seriously unhinged. You definitely have no sense of proportion. Usenet is an open forum; anyone can post here. The FAQ is available to anyone who takes the trouble to contribute, a service provided entirely voluntarily by those who set it up and added to it. If you don't like the FAQ, the answer is to either have the dignity and good grace to ignore it or to change it, not to post paranoid whines about it. I'm obviously seriously unhinged then not that I was directly comparing the BNP to URC of course but merely stateing you don't have to be a BNP member to have an opinion of it. The same as not having a cheap bike doesn't stop you having opinions on them either it seems. Again, you assume you are only one posting from a valid position on the subject. Paranoid whines...hmmm. So you have to be paranoid to disagree with the autofaq. It makes no sense to complain about what it says when you can change what it says at will. If you don't like it, do something. If you cannot be arsed, don't moan. You seem to think I'm under the illusion that there is some sort of anticheap bike conspiracy going on. I actually see it more like someone buying a philips cd micro system and going to an audio forum which is mainly frequented by hifi enthusiasts. It wouldn't be a conspiracy merely people with higher expectations of audio equipment telling the philips owner how rubbish his system is. Would you also argue on that forum that those with experience of high-end hi-fi systems could not legitimately point out the real limitations of the micro-system? Would you allege that all those posting such views were snobs, that many had never heard let alone owned any lesser hi-fi systems, and several were dealers in top-end systems motivated solely by self interest? If not, why do you do that here? It just seems a shame to me that the urc is positioned in a way to discourage cycling and make it as exclusive as possible. The idea that urc is discouraging cycling and determined to make it exclusive is silly, although I think you could reasonably argue that some of the messages posted here could be off-putting to some people. (However, looking at other groups on usenet, this is an outpost of unbroken calm, good manners, sweet reason and sanity compared to various others.) However, it seems to me that whenever someone starts a thread asking about taking up cycling, the response, though sometimes diverse in details, is nothing but sincere encouragement. Just because you don't agree with some others' opinions is no excuse for what you allege against them or this mythical urc collective. -- Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Wilson wrote:
As I've said before the autofaq does seem to represent the majority of views expressed in this forum so makes a good document in expressing the general views of forum members. I am not complaining about being unrepresented in it. I do accuse the autofaq and forum in general of being too extreme in its comments about cheap bikes. Well, no-one can force you to do anything, but the autofaq is an inherently collaborative effort, and will only reflect the views of the few who contribute. It's rather different from usenet which is mostly confrontational in nature - ie replying to each others posts, usually focussing on the disgreement, rather than everyone changing a single document. Of course, wikis can also fail when deliberately vandalised by people who don't want the collaboration to succeed (eg the wikipedia pages on global warming and related topics, although currently I think they are just about ok). But I for one think that the autofaq would be stronger for having your opinion and experiences reflected in it. James |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:01:22 +0000, JLB wrote: Oh come on there is definitely an air of bike snobbery here. I'm not saying cheap bikes are great Ah, right. That's one thing to rule out. I've never quite got clear on what point you *are* trying to make, though. A |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
in message , Just zis Guy,
you know? ') wrote: Mister Brain is barely functioning, actually - I found a New! Improved!!! virus on Thursday, definitions released 22:00GMT Thursday, or thereabouts, and I spent all yesterday (apart from the Good Friday service), all last night and most of today killing the little weaselly ******* off on my network. Luckily the holiday means it hasn't made it into the customer environments. This is the third time it's happened despite use being patched to the hilt and having up-to-date definitions, I think Sophos is destined for the bin (and not a moment too soon). We've been seeing increased activity on our firewall, so I assumed there was a new virus out. Not that it worries me in the least. I first wrote in a report to a customer twelve years ago: I don't consider Windows in any of its guises to be a sufficiently robust or well engineered operating system for professional software development or for commercial use. It's still true. Any organisation that uses it deserves what it (inevitably) gets. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; lovely alternative to rice. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 03:50:57 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
wrote: Martin Wilson wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:01:22 +0000, JLB wrote: Oh come on there is definitely an air of bike snobbery here. I'm not saying cheap bikes are great Ah, right. That's one thing to rule out. I've never quite got clear on what point you *are* trying to make, though. A My point is simple cheap bikes are not as bad as this forum makes out. They have their place. To many people who buy them they are good bikes, likeable bikes and enjoyable bikes. They may not be super light or be high performance but they are usable bikes often better than past bike designs. The forum position is one of overwhelming criticism for such bikes. It seems all cheap bikes are lumped together as equally terrible even if low cost rigid bikes are quite competent and superior to low price dual suspension bikes as a general rule. Maybe my point isn't as focused as some others because I've tried to make fair and honest points and not go completely over the top in one direction or the other. However thats the way I want to play it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Go Faster New Bike Recommendations ? | Mike Beauchamp | General | 50 | December 16th 04 04:13 PM |
Go Faster New Bike Recommendations ? | Mike Beauchamp | Techniques | 0 | December 9th 04 12:57 AM |
How much faster and I supposed to go? | ChangingLINKS.com | Unicycling | 7 | May 31st 04 01:23 PM |
Scottish Cycling Fund | Smithy | UK | 148 | April 29th 04 12:56 AM |
this newsgroup's URL | Steve Fox | Recumbent Biking | 20 | August 21st 03 03:34 AM |