I don't understand - what is this for?

On Aug 4, 7:33 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:

just passé. Big manufacturers are always behind the times and their
attempts to be hip are usually embarrassing.

As evidence to support your claim I submit the Specialized Langster in
the NYC version:

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=32826

Joseph

"Chalo" wrote in message
ups.com...
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


I couldn't really care less about carrying speed as you put it but I do care
about climbing (without blowing out a lung gasket) and the occasional flat
ride (like a short 13 miler yesterday on a rail trail with a bunch of Cub
Scouts). Now I admittedly don't understand the fixie/ss thing either but I
can tell you that I have a friend who rides one with me and that man can
CRANK. I never catch him when we ride and he's not trying to be fast he
just kicks my ass. I have no repeat no desire to give up my gears but I can
certainly understand the attraction of the simplicity.

Marty

On Aug 4, 4:38 pm, A Muzi wrote:
See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman 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?
Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?
Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?
Who exactly is the target market for this bike?

Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time.
Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied.

Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago.
--
Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!
Like Vaugters just said, more important to 'look cool'. Utility and
sense be damned.

On Aug 5, 6:24 am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
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.

That's quite the facile comparison. Our legs aren't made of steel
gears, but of meat, thin thread, and muesli. Legs do change gears, but
in a different way. Look at a horse for example, how its muscles have
different rhythms at different gaits. You'd see the same thing in my
muscles when I'm out for a forty miler on a fixed gear or my single
speed--I just wouldn't look nearly as handsome in slow motion. If you
slowed down my 27mph spin, it would look nothing like my 10mph climb,
which involves every muscle group down to clenching eyelids.

Gears are fine and good, but in these parts, they wouldn't make me any
faster, they'd just change my gait.I don't see the point. On my beer
and dog chow bike, I've got three, and it's plenty enough to keep me
from sweating on hills.and my cigarette ash from going willy nilly.

On Aug 5, 4:24 am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
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.


Put the banjo down and go ride your bike.

JD

On Aug 5, 5:52 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
wrote:
On Aug 4, 4:38 pm, A Muzi wrote:





See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman 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?
Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?
Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?
Who exactly is the target market for this bike?

Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time.
Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied.

Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago.
--
Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!
Like Vaugters just said, more important to 'look cool'. Utility and
sense be damned.


Funny, it wasn't PT Barnum who coined that phrase, but was his
business partner.

BTW, riding bicycles for recreation is about fun, not "utility". Your
idea of fun is not the same idea of fun as it may be for others. I'm
sure that's hard for many to grasp though, so carry on because I'm
sure you will.

JD

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

snip

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


Tom,
Basic rule is "If you have to ask, then it's not you."
If you don't understand, then you won't enjoy it, so stop worrying, and
especially stop denigrating just coz it's beyond you. That's how
bigotry starts.
Relax, enjoy what you DO ride, and get on with life.
Steve

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
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.

Since a clutch replacement is ~$900 US, I will pass on Ozark's suggestion.

Similarly, since knee repair is even more expensive, I will climb using
gears that allow me to maintain a reasonably fast cadence.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Steve Baker wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

snip

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


Tom,
Basic rule is "If you have to ask, then it's not you."
If you don't understand, then you won't enjoy it, so stop worrying, and
especially stop denigrating just coz it's beyond you. That's how
bigotry starts....

Geeeze, and I thought it was curiosity.

However, the question remains, is the target market buying the Trek
69er, or will 2007 models be available at your local Trek dealer next
year at a highly discounted price?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:16:38 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" wrote:

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

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?

The bigger front wheel does go over obstacles better and the smaller rear wheel
lets you fit someone who isn't over 6' to the bike. A full 29er does have a bit
of a height requirement for the rider.

The double crown fork suggests this thing is a bit of a basher.

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?

It's fun and simple and quiet and light and efficient and elegant in a way that
is what's nice about bikes in the first place. I live in Florida and for the 15
miles of singletrack I rode yesterday I used three gears. I would've used more
if I were racing (perhaps 5 gears) but could've used fewer if I were willing to
grunt on the slow parts and relax on the fast bits.

Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?

The "69er" nomenclature is common for this sort of bike and not nearly as
naughty as you might think. This bike is not nearly as unusual as you seem to
think.

Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?

People who want a simple bike for personal fun and enjoyment on rough terrain.
Doesn't seem the least bit odd to me.

Ron