I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least, this is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want to spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred types are the only ones chosen by those who have both the knowledge and money to get what they really want. Not proven!
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:13 PM, PATRICK MOORE <[email protected]> wrote: > That is very correct. It may well be that Jan's preferred bikes are best > for randonees -- I don't know that, and it may well be that some educated > randoneurs prefer the qualities of Rivendell style bikes or racing bikes or > whatever else for the same riding. But I do know that Rivendells -- to take > one example -- have very definite positive qualities that derive from their > design and construction (I am being deliberately general) because I have > experienced them. In particular, the elusive (from my experience of > different bikes) combination of stability at speed with -- metaphor -- > "unerring" turn-in quality. Now perhaps this would be a liability at mile > 400 of a long ride, but it is most definitely not a liability for the short > distance riding some of us prefer. > > Again: a frame that can take 622 wheels with 3" tires. Doubtless there are > compromises, but one on the "plus" side is the way tall and fat tires ride > over sand. This I've tested with tires of up to 65 mm actual width -- and > am saving pennies for Knards or like. > > Again: I've not ridden a porteur -- must ride Ryan's as well as his new > Boulder. But I know that some bikes exhibit a wonderful unladen ride and > yet handle 40 lb on a light rear rack with pleasurable -- pleasurable, > repeated -- aplomb. That is a combination that has its merits for some. > > I apologize for being tetchy, and, second admission, I know I have my own > preferences and even biases. But I do know enough to know that what I know > is limited and to draw only reserved conclusions therefrom. > > I really must ride Ryan's bikes..... > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Steve Palincsar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:48 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote: >> > Another false generalization from particular experience. >> >> Actually I think the problem is simply the omission of the phrase "and >> what you want is the sort of thing the constructeur bike offers" >> inserted between "want," and "and" in the first sentence. >> >> >> > "If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride >> > enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, >> > then the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without >> > equal." >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- > > http://resumespecialties.com/index.html > [email protected] > > Albuquerque, NM > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html [email protected] Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
