|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
You seem to have a perception that objections to bargain-basement bikes are based on snobbery. If that is your view, then it is this: ********. Maybe if you tried a little harder to not sound like a sneering snob when you talk about depleted uranium frames, then perhaps people wouldn't mistake for snobbery your deep-seated and genuine care for their choice of bike. Maybe. -- Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/ I have seen the enemy, and he is quite short. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:32:55 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote: in message , Martin Wilson ') wrote: Again where is the evidence, I've never seen any broken frames in a bike shop and it probably wouldn't be in their interest to display them whatever the frame material. Ask them. So I go in to a cycle shop and say 'You know those cheap high tensile framed bikes that you don't like selling as there is minimal profit in them and you are easily undercut by supermarkets and mail order companies, do these frames break?" What possible motivation would they have to give a fair and unbiased answer? Thats why real world users of such bikes are more important. People generally say what they think about stuff they buy. If its good its good and if its bad they are keen to say so. The internet would be a logical place to search for evidence and the evidence here seems to indicate aluminium is more likely to fail and thats in a world where hi-ten massively outsells aluminium bikes. Except the _only_ comparative study I'm aware of on the Internet shows that all the aluminium frames tested survived and many of the steel ones broke. Well its obviously not this one then; http://www.efbe.de/etour109.htm As only 50% of the aluminium frames survived. It would also be a completely unfair reference as its about super lightweight frames which steel is obviously going to be the wrong material for. As the review states the steel tubes are 'breath-thin'. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:53:51 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message : Maybe if you tried a little harder to not sound like a sneering snob when you talk about depleted uranium frames, then perhaps people wouldn't mistake for snobbery your deep-seated and genuine care for their choice of bike. Maybe. Maybe if you acquired a sense of humour you would sound less chippy. Maybe. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Wilson wrote:
snip I think that you're in danger on confusing a discussion of actual materials with a discussion of warning signs. There is more to a bike than what material is used to make the frame, and the fact is that the lower quality bikes (Build quality inc frame alignment, and componentry) are often synonymous with the use of "Hi-Ten" steel. This means that a frame with "Hi-Ten" emblazoned on it, often coupled with unnecessary oversize tubes and carbon effect stickers, is a warning sign that you are not looking at a good bike. And WRT to your experience, you may have had a lot of luck with your "Hi-Ten" bike, and it may be the case that a stronger bike is better for you, but in the general case, those shopping for a bike do not need that level of over-building and those in the specific case (such as yourself) may already be aware of this. Buying a bike from a decent LBS eliminates the concern as they are more likely to select a bike which is appropriate to you in the first place which means you can rely on professional advice rather than the colour of the frame as the deciding factor! And if you still feel that the FAQ is way-off the mark, then edit it. A rant here wont change anything, and is unlikely to result in its removal. If you aren't prepared to put your point forward in the appropriate place, then I'm surprised your prepared to waste the effort revisiting it here. Now chill out! ;-) Jon |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:36:25 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message : OK, I wrote a long and detailed reply but decided that all it would do was inflame things more because I think we are arguing from different premises. Here's where I think the core problem lies: 5) They take heavier riders Than what? Cr-Mo? Actually I wasn't thinking of chromoly, I was comparing them against aluminium. But nobody is saying anyone must buy aluminium. The FAQ is addressing the specific issue of how to tell, in a line of cheap bikes at Halfrauds, which ones are likely to be decent. The bike with standard gauge cromoly tubes is more likely to be a sound buy than the bike which loudly proclaims "Hi-Ten Frame!" as if it were something other than the lowest spec used. I still maintain that if you want a good value cheap bike, you are almost always better off buying second hand. The warranty on a new bike is much shorter than the projected life of the bike, and most shops will give you a warranty on a second hand bike anyway. What you get for your money is almost always better components, especially wheels, than on the low end bikes which are built down to a price. Indian and Chinese bikes are as tough as old boots, but they are not sold in high streets here any more than the Hindustan Ambassador is sold in high streets here. Few British riders want a sit-up-and-beg bike with cow-horn bars and either no gears or a 3-speed hub. More's the pity, I think they are great. What we get is bikes styled to appeal to the Western youth market, looking like the flashy high-end aluminium jobs but executed in heavy oversize steel tubes and with poverty-spec components. These are not good bikes, and these are what the FAQ page is steering people away from. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Wilson wrote:
Thats your opinion but there is no evidence to support it. See below Again where is the evidence, I've never seen any broken frames in a bike shop and it probably wouldn't be in their interest to display them whatever the frame material. The internet would be a logical place to search for evidence and the evidence here seems to indicate aluminium is more likely to fail and thats in a world where hi-ten massively outsells aluminium bikes. If you're ever in Edinburgh, drop in and visit the Bike Station in Waverly station. You'll find a room of scrap in which Hi-Ten steel frames are over-representative. You'll also find boxes and boxes of Tourney (And SIS - from when Shimano couldn't bring themselves to name them) rear derailleurs. These bikes are a over-represented as a proportion of the bikes donated. We re-fit and fettle them where possible, often scrapping three or more bikes to make one useful one. And you're right that a bike shop wouldn't display broken frames... but ask the techs and they'll show you the pile! It probably does represent the view of the group generally so its probably on the button as the urc faq but whether its useful to a wider cycling audience who may own or be considering a low cost high tensile bike I don't know. Then add your voice. If you feel that it's wrong, edit it to better reflect your views. If you can't actually be bothered to invest the time, why waste it arguing the toss here. Jon |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:53:51 +0000, Keith Willoughby wrote in message : Maybe if you tried a little harder to not sound like a sneering snob when you talk about depleted uranium frames, then perhaps people wouldn't mistake for snobbery your deep-seated and genuine care for their choice of bike. Maybe. Maybe if you acquired a sense of humour you would sound less chippy. Maybe. Oh, I have one. The chippiness was the desired tone, on this occasion. Given your posting record, I can only assume that you have a genuine desire to see more cyclists. Insulting and belittling the bikes, and by extension their owners, that are cheaper and heavier than bikes you consider to be worth buying is not the way to go about that on this newsgroup. Fact is, people buy them, and they ride them. You may be doing people who are about to buy one a favour by suggesting a second-hand bike might be better, but your condescending tone can only put off people who already own a 'lead alloy' bike from posting. It certainly does nothing to disabuse newbies of the 'lycra-lout' image of cyclists. You may think your sneering is humourous; I disagree, and it seems Martin does, too. Feel free to continue, but it's not consistent with the rest of the stuff you post. -- Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/ Fair and Balanced - http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:00:07 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message : Given your posting record, I can only assume that you have a genuine desire to see more cyclists. Insulting and belittling the bikes, and by extension their owners, that are cheaper and heavier than bikes you consider to be worth buying is not the way to go about that on this newsgroup. I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make. Here is my position: if you are on a limited budget, you are generally better off with a good quality second-hand bike than a cheap new one. If you are buying a cheap new one, don't go by style, go by the bike itself, look for a bog-standard Cr-Mo frame rather than a fashion-victim oversize frame which is marketed as "Hi-Ten Frame!!!" as if that is something other than the absolute base spec. Fact is, people buy them, and they ride them. And, in my experience, very often hate them, relegate them to the back of the shed and write cycling off as uncomfortable and hard work. I am not a weight weenie. I ride a 40lb recumbent, to pretend to be a weight weenie would be ludicrous. You may think your sneering is humourous It's not sneering. I am just staggered by the weight of some cheap bikes, especially kids' bikes. And by the abysmal quality of the components. Oh, and I didn't invent the phrase, I just used it because it makes me laugh. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:00:07 +0000, Keith Willoughby wrote in message : Given your posting record, I can only assume that you have a genuine desire to see more cyclists. Insulting and belittling the bikes, and by extension their owners, that are cheaper and heavier than bikes you consider to be worth buying is not the way to go about that on this newsgroup. I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make. Well, I was trying not to be too blunt, but obviously it's not working. Your choice of phrases makes you come across to me like a supercilious dick. Here is my position: if you are on a limited budget, you are generally better off with a good quality second-hand bike than a cheap new one. [snip] And I agree. So why not say that? Why put down those people who use cheap bikes with the snide "depleted uranium" stuff, or the "cheese" stuff, or just the "nasty bikes" stuff? Do you think that crap makes people with supermarket bikes more, or less, likely to want to post? [...] You may think your sneering is humourous It's not sneering. That's the way it comes across to me. Take that on board, or not. Up to you. -- Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/ "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official." - Theodore Roosevelt |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:09:26 +0000, Keith Willoughby
wrote in message : Well, I was trying not to be too blunt, but obviously it's not working. Your choice of phrases makes you come across to me like a supercilious dick. Because you are so hung up on something I didn't actually say that you are apparently unable to accept me [not] saying it in a humorous manner. Here is my position: if you are on a limited budget, you are generally better off with a good quality second-hand bike than a cheap new one. And I agree. So why not say that? Why put down those people who use cheap bikes with the snide "depleted uranium" stuff, or the "cheese" stuff, or just the "nasty bikes" stuff? Do you think that crap makes people with supermarket bikes more, or less, likely to want to post? Because I'm not putting anybody down, I'm taking the **** out of those bikes which manage to be, without looking any different from the bike next door, vastly heavier. I drive a Volvo. I have to get used to people taking the **** out of Volvo drivers. Ditto recumbents, in fact I was pelted with stones by some chavs the other day. I'm guessing you don't ride one of the Sterling House horrors that the FAQ is mainly warning people against, but if you did I'd suggest you, too, would need to learn to live with a certain amount of ribbing. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken |
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 |