Bike Geeks
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Tsk, tsk. Why use such ugly, negatively connotated words when you could say - without liying - "Built only from the finest hand-selected parts, carefully engineered to meet our demanding clientele's highest standards, custom-fitted for ultimate individual comfort and unsurpassed riding experience."Gandalfe said:Is it a Frankenstein bike with parts cannibalized from many, many bikes?
Ever checked a vehicle/instrument catalog?
Uhm, sorry, occasionally I fall back into my old marketing job's language.
Gandalfe said:Is it a Frankenstein bike with parts cannibalized from many, many bikes?Merlin said:
You bet it is!
It's got some nice Reynolds tubing from an old Raleigh, the Campy headset from the same bike, wheels that I built myself (20" front with radial spokes; 27" rear), 4130 chromoly tubing that I got from an aircraft supply company, and the widest range gearing of any of my bikes, thanks to the 54/42/24 front and 12-30 rear cogs.
recumbents are interesting
i recall riding last year near AnnArbor a recumbent was keeping up with me .. making it look fairly easy too
but luckily, when we got to the hills that was about it. I could climb like the dickens and he couldn't
but he kept trying to catch up in the flats
i recall in college an engineering group putting a full egg shape type shell on a bicycle. Boy could that go fast but very top heavy
i recall riding last year near AnnArbor a recumbent was keeping up with me .. making it look fairly easy too
but luckily, when we got to the hills that was about it. I could climb like the dickens and he couldn't
but he kept trying to catch up in the flats
i recall in college an engineering group putting a full egg shape type shell on a bicycle. Boy could that go fast but very top heavy
SteveSklar said:
I'm more of a masher than a spinner. For those of you who haven't followed that debate in the cycling world for the last ten years it goes something like this: Lance Armstrong is a spinner. He pedals at a high cadence which some testing says is actually more efficient. Prior to Armstrong coming on the scene a lot of the great riders were mashers. They used the biggest baddest gear they could and pushed the pedals with all that they had. I tended towards frog legs (massive thighs) as a young person and found it easier to stick in the top gear and ride everywhere.
Age is a terrible thing though and now I use all 20 gears on the bike (or so it seems).
I've never used more than 4 gears on my ten speed, having never ridden a bike with more gears than that. Somehow having more gears never made sense to me as an intermediate rider. Maybe it makes a difference to a pro? But I am not even convinced about that. A lot of the gears are close to duplicates of others to my legs.Ed Svoboda said:
What I have found is that there is a more much narrow band of comfort for me in terms of how fast I spin the pedals. It's about avoiding knee pain more than being "efficient". Having a bunch of gears to choose from is nice from that stand point. I can normally find something comfortable.
My wife has been asking me when I'm going to get on my bike. I think there's a not so subtle hint about my weight from her. The other night I was snacking on some chips after I thought she had went to bed and she appeared to magically put the chips back in the kitchen.
I told her I would get on my bike as soon as I had all of the various large piles of stuff moved around the yard. Moving 5 cubic yards of wood chips counts as cardio in my book.
I told her I would get on my bike as soon as I had all of the various large piles of stuff moved around the yard. Moving 5 cubic yards of wood chips counts as cardio in my book.
This made me laugh. Those wives.My wife has been asking me when I'm going to get on my bike. I think there's a not so subtle hint about my weight from her. The other night I was snacking on some chips after I thought she had went to bed and she appeared to magically put the chips back in the kitchen.