|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
In article ,
Fred Clydesdale wrote: In article , "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" wrote: Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel provide any real advantage? What is the deal with single-speed anyway? ... Who exactly is the target market for this bike? personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. Fixed gears are just fun, but there is the "hipster effect" that extends the adoption of these things beyond fun and into "cool." Or is that "kool?" I can't keep up with what's hip. I used to fixed gear a lot but a martial arts knee injury and surgery has ended that- I suspect that the effects of descending would be damaging. I do have a single speed road bike that is- again- just plain fun. Eliminating gearing decisions from the ride lets me just pay attention to the ride and not to the bike. And, heck, on my bikes with derailleurs it's not uncommon for me to go on a ride of 50 miles and never shift gears. I think MTBs are generally useless, let alone single speed MTBs, so I'm not so much the right person to comment on that subset. A few years ago, Dirt Rag Magazine (or similar) published the "cheapest, easiest single speed conversion:" "Take your bike and put it in a medium gear. Never shift again." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally beevuh. bad news Better than some of the diseases one could catch from "beevuh"! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
On Aug 4, 8:50 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote: datakoll aka gene daniels wrote: once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally beevuh. bad news Better than some of the diseases one could catch from "beevuh"! Jerry Mathers is totally clean now, I asked him first. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
On Aug 4, 11:33 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
What is the deal with single-speed anyway? It's self-identification into a subset of a subset. AKA, it's different so it must be better. The only person who has explained his interest in single speeds to me in any rational terms is a friend (having recently moved back to the mountains of Colorado) who said "it's mostly a matter of having lived in Oklahoma City for seven years." I think the rationale also applies to a "69er." IMHO the 26/29 thing seems pretty silly. Either 29" tires have advantages or they don't (I think they do). I guess a "69er" is for someone who really can't decide. DR |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
JeffWills wrote:
DougC wrote: I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a 24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26. IIRC (becoming more of an issue as time goes by), the 26/24 Cannondale MTB was called the "Beast of the East", supposedly because the "eastern" riders demanded a more manuverable bike with a lighter rear end and higher bottom bracket, as opposed to "western" riders who were all about bombing down fire roads and could care less about hopping over roots. Cliques are nothing new. The "Beast of the East" term was coined after the introduction of level top tube, low BB California-style frames. At the same time, the sloping top tube frame had its chainstays bobbed to a fashionably short sub-17" length and its seat angle steepened a bit. Before there was a silly name for the Beast of the East frame, and before there was a me-too style Cannondale MTB, all the mountain bikes Cannondale made had 18" chainstays. So it's pretty clear that the small rear wheel was not intended to shorten up the rear end. 16" and 18" frames had 24" rear wheels, while 20" and 22" frames had 26" rear wheels. Why? No idea. Behold the acres of room between the seat tube and tire on this 1985 24" wheeled bike: http://www.firstflightbikes.com/85Cdale.htm In the mid-'80s when the mixed wheel diameter bikes were being manufactured, MTB tires were pretty lame all the way around, and the selection in 24" was not categorically worse than that in the 26" size. Chalo |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, Ozark Bicycle
wrote: On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD wrote: On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale wrote: personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses. i pass at least 5 fixies a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me up those hills. C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's loaded with punks and poseurs. JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. JD |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
JD wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote: JD wrote: C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's loaded with punks and poseurs. JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're kidding yourself. I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other bikes. Chalo |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
On Aug 5, 12:33 am, Fred Clydesdale wrote:
In article , "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" wrote: Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel provide any real advantage? What is the deal with single-speed anyway? ... Who exactly is the target market for this bike? personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me up those hills. i had somebody on one of those ultra hip surly fixies chase me DOWN a hill one time, but he disappeared at the halfway point when it threw its chain. i have no idea if he hurt himself but it made an extremely entertaining noise. sometimes technology marches on for no apparent reason, but the derailleur was invented to fix a very real problem. so the whole derailleur/shifter/cassette system adds a couple of pounds to the total: it gets you where you're going faster and with less effort. i'm sure there are a few very specialized areas of competition where these things are used. i, however, use my bike for recreation and transportation. I'm a Clydesdale as well and I use my fixed gear for recreation and transportation too. I pass people all the time up and down hills no matter what bike I'm on. I also get passed by people up and down hills. Performance isn't about the bike. The main reason they exist is they are fun. Lots of folks appreciate this, and I guess a lot more folks just (erroneously) think it makes them cool. The fact that some idiots use them by no means makes the bikes idiotic. I've never tried a single speed MTB, but some guys I know use them almost exclusively and I take they do it for fun and don't really care if they ultimately would be faster with a multi-speed bike. Joseph |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand - what is this for?
On Aug 5, 3:10 am, Chalo wrote:
JD wrote: Ozark Bicycle wrote: JD wrote: C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's loaded with punks and poseurs. JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak..... If you think it's unsubstantiated smack, keep kidding yourself. If you think you wouldn't go a lot faster with some damn gears, you're kidding yourself. I ride my SS all the time, but I carry a lot more speed on my other bikes. Simple experiment: If you have a manual transmission car, try driving around all day in third, including hills and 'standing starts'. All day, or as long as ya can stand it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I don't understand - what is this for? | Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman[_5_] | General | 181 | October 22nd 07 04:46 PM |
Anyone understand Hungarian? | GPW | Australia | 5 | August 4th 06 12:38 AM |
i dont understand... | cruisecontrol | Unicycling | 24 | November 5th 05 05:38 AM |
What you hosers don't seem to understand about LWS | x1134x | Mountain Biking | 67 | September 6th 05 03:40 PM |
?? I Don't Understand Scammers | CycleFit | Marketplace | 0 | January 9th 05 05:20 PM |