bar-end shifters

On 21 Jan 2006 14:27:54 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 08:59:00 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
...
I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

Are the majority of cyclists racers? If not, they would be better off
with less expensive, more reliable bar-end shifters than more
expensive, less reliable brifters.

Its' so funny that you feel the urge to say this, when the evidence
(in terms of what people ride) is so strongly the opposite.

Take any cross section of cyclists to a bike shop. Tell them they can
spend a little more to get STI or Ergo (perhaps cutting corners on
some other aspect of the bike to keep costs the same), and it'll be
less reliable than the alternative -- bar ends -- like it'll last five
years instead of 10+. See what they choose.

Or take a loot at what people buy after-market for their bikes.

The majority of cyclists who do club and other medium distance rides
but never race buy bicycles that have inadequate clearances for fenders
and reasonably wide tires. Is this the best choice for them? No.

Do they want fenders and wider tires? If they don't, who are you to
tell them they need them and should get them? The arrogance of such a
viewpoint is remarkable.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 14:47:30 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


Johnny Sunset wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
...
I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

Are the majority of cyclists racers?


No, but many "wannabe".


I've had people ask me about getting a new bikes, tell me they "are
not interested in racing" and ask about the combined break
lever/shifters they've seen. These are new cyclists looking to ride
for fun or fitness or errands. Those integrated shifters are
attractive to them. Sure, they don't know that bar-ends will last
however zillion years but I don't think they care either.

Less expensive, more flexible, more reliable - sure. But they're not
what Lance rides.

What's the deal -- did you try racing and suck? Or do you actually
want a high-zoot Trek and can't get one for some reason? What's the
*real* story?


My, you try to be an insulting, puffed up lil' pisant, doncha? Couldn't
get it up last night? Caught her in bed with someone who could this
morning? What's the *real* story?

On 21 Jan 2006 14:47:30 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


Johnny Sunset wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
...
I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

Are the majority of cyclists racers?


No, but many "wannabe".


I've had people ask me about getting a new bikes, tell me they "are
not interested in racing" and ask about the combined break
lever/shifters they've seen. These are new cyclists looking to ride
for fun or fitness or errands. Those integrated shifters are
attractive to them. Sure, they don't know that bar-ends will last
however zillion years but I don't think they care either.

Less expensive, more flexible, more reliable - sure. But they're not
what Lance rides.

What's the deal -- did you try racing and suck? Or do you actually
want a high-zoot Trek and can't get one for some reason? What's the
*real* story?

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 15:07:35 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


My, you try to be an insulting, puffed up lil' pisant, doncha? Couldn't
get it up last night? Caught her in bed with someone who could this
morning? What's the *real* story?

No, reading too much nonsense from chumps in RBR -- it's tiresome and
not healthy.


And that's why you can't get a woody for the missus?

On 21 Jan 2006 15:07:35 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


My, you try to be an insulting, puffed up lil' pisant, doncha? Couldn't
get it up last night? Caught her in bed with someone who could this
morning? What's the *real* story?

No, reading too much nonsense from chumps in RBR -- it's tiresome and
not healthy.

Seriously, are you very slow on the bike or something and not happy
about it? Is that where the anti-racer thing comes from? Nothing
wrong with riding slow, but if it's bothering you either do something
about it or let it go, don't rag on other people because of it.
What's the story?

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 14:27:54 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On 21 Jan 2006 08:59:00 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

...
I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

Are the majority of cyclists racers? If not, they would be better off
with less expensive, more reliable bar-end shifters than more
expensive, less reliable brifters.

Its' so funny that you feel the urge to say this, when the evidence
(in terms of what people ride) is so strongly the opposite.

Take any cross section of cyclists to a bike shop. Tell them they can
spend a little more to get STI or Ergo (perhaps cutting corners on
some other aspect of the bike to keep costs the same), and it'll be
less reliable than the alternative -- bar ends -- like it'll last five
years instead of 10+. See what they choose.

Or take a loot at what people buy after-market for their bikes.

The majority of cyclists who do club and other medium distance rides
but never race buy bicycles that have inadequate clearances for fenders
and reasonably wide tires. Is this the best choice for them? No.


Do they want fenders and wider tires? If they don't, who are you to
tell them they need them and should get them? The arrogance of such a
viewpoint is remarkable.


There are two kinds of bikes where fenders are an issue, race style
bicycles, because a racer who pays $500 for a seat post that is 5g
lighter then a $5 seat post, isn't going to "waste" a whole 200g on a
set of fenders.

Mountain bikes are also an issue, because mud and crap can get caught
between the tire and fender, but this can be resolved with higher
clearence, for example a frame designed so that there is say 10cm
clearance wouldn't have an issue, it works on dirt bikes....

W

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:30:39 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On 21 Jan 2006 15:07:35 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


My, you try to be an insulting, puffed up lil' pisant, doncha? Couldn't
get it up last night? Caught her in bed with someone who could this
morning? What's the *real* story?

No, reading too much nonsense from chumps in RBR -- it's tiresome and
not healthy.

And also, other than that a nice day. Four and half hours on the
bike, a really nice lunch, shopping with the wife. Quite good.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

snipped

Four and half hours on the
bike,


Maybe you'd be less hostile, aggressive and insulting if you were able
to mount something other than the bike, eh?

Perhaps a Minkow Wedge and a 'scrip for the ED treatment of your choice
(check around and see what's "popular" ;-).



shopping with the wife. Quite good.


Shopping is no substitute, just ask her.

In article , Peter Cole
wrote:


With reasonable width tires and properly built regular wheels, normal
hiking trails and fire roads can be ridden with no problem on a
drop-bar road bike.


Only nowadays it's called a cyclo-cross bike.


I have a 700c fixed gear (80's Fuji tourer frame) with a "flip-flop"
hub. I have ridden it to trail heads, flipped the wheel to get the
freewheel side, and ridden the "mountain bike loop". The tires are 28mm.
MTB-ers have expressed surprise at seeing a "road bike" on the trails,
but it's no big deal.

snip

Dumpster diving veterans can attest that a resurrected vintage road
bike (circa 80s) often equals in versatility a typical CX bike of today
- both can accommodate a variety of tire sizes and peripheral equipment
(racks and fenders).

I'd be surprised if road riders of previous generations considered
riding on unpaved or rough surfaces to be an extraordinary affair, or
beyond the scope of the bike.

Recently, after riding my road bike (57mm reach calipers, 28c tires)
along dirt backroads for better part of a day, I emerged onto a smooth
asphalt strip, falling in with a fellow on a Trek OCLV. Glancing at my
mud splattered frame, the Trekker remarked, "Looks like you've really
been cyclo-crossing!". That struck me as an odd, in my mind was just
some dirt roads.

Luke

In article .com,
Johnny Sunset wrote:

RANT: I wish someone made high quality 9-speed thumb-shifters with a
friction option.

Option$: Barcons with Paul's Thumbies.

Luke