A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I don't understand - what is this for?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 5th 07, 02:08 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,790
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

Per :
acrobatic
hopping with locked wheels and motionless cranks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAUQrQVTTk&eurl=

Every time I watch something like that, I come back to the
commonly-made assertion that the difference between human and
chimpanzee genomes is less than two percent.

Even allowing for a lot of "noise/dead" genes.... I have to
wonder how few genes would need patching to make the diff between
being able to do that stuff and stumbling around like the rest of
us.
--
PeteCresswell
Ads
  #22  
Old August 5th 07, 02:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 02:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman[_50_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 04:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
landotter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,336
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 05:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
DirtRoadie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,915
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 05:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 08:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 530
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 09:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 12:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,611
Default 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  
Old August 5th 07, 12:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Ozark Bicycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,591
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.