Bawdy pumpkin picture?

Carl Fogel said:

The photograph showed two rural figures created to entertain passers-by. Both wore baggy blue
clothes. The male was using a pumpkin for mooning and the female used two pumpkins for flashing.

00fun.com336.jpgOpen ↗

Art Harris

This might help a little.

bikeforums.netshowthread.phpOpen ↗

"Carl Fogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For purposes too terrible to mention, I'm trying to find a bawdy pumpkin picture that I saw after
clicking on some lost link in rec.bicycles.tech on Halloween, or a day or two before.

The photograph showed two rural figures created to entertain passers-by. Both wore baggy blue
clothes. The male was using a pumpkin for mooning and the female used two pumpkins for flashing.

(I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.)

It was on someone's bicycle web site, but my history list was erased at the start of the month and
I've lost the picture's address.

You'd think that this sort of thing would be easy to search for, but computers turn out to be
nearly useless.

Arthur Harris' may have said:

Carl Fogel said:

The photograph showed two rural figures created to entertain passers-by. Both wore baggy blue
clothes. The male was using a pumpkin for mooning and the female used two pumpkins for flashing.

00fun.com336.jpgOpen ↗

Figures it would be in Canada, where there are still enough sane people with a sense of humor to let
something like that exist. Imagine the uproar that would be heard if somebody built those in most
places in the US...

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
contains nuts.

"Carl Fogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For purposes too terrible to mention, I'm trying to find a bawdy pumpkin picture that I saw after
clicking on some lost link in rec.bicycles.tech on Halloween, or a day or two before.

The photograph showed two rural figures created to entertain passers-by. Both wore baggy blue
clothes. The male was using a pumpkin for mooning and the female used two pumpkins for flashing.

(I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.)

It was on someone's bicycle web site, but my history list was erased at the start of the month and
I've lost the picture's address.

You'd think that this sort of thing would be easy to search for, but computers turn out to be
nearly useless.

That one caught my eye too:

fixedgeargallery.comfixedgeargallery.comOpen ↗

--Josh

I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a new
crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on an old
crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the used parts bin.

"Arthur Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

The photograph showed two rural figures created to entertain passers-by. Both wore baggy blue
clothes. The male was using a pumpkin for mooning and the female used two pumpkins for flashing.

00fun.com336.jpgOpen ↗

Art Harris

Dear Art,

That's it--thanks!

Others who asked for anonymity also emailed me the address of the bike site where I saw it:

fixedgeargallery.comfixedgeargallery.comOpen ↗

It's even better to have two sources to prove that I wasn't making it up.

Carl Fogel

Steven Woo may have said:

I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a new
crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on an
old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the used
parts bin.

One word answer:

Profit.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

Steven Woo may have said:

I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a new
crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on an
old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the used
parts bin.

One word answer:

Profit.

The OP may be exaggerating. It is unusual to have to replace all three rings at the same time. If
you choose your cranks carefully
(e.g., 110/74 mm BCD) then you will have access to an abundant supply of replacement rings. This, in
turn, through the power of competition, brings the prices for replacement rings down out of the
stratosphere.

At the low end, frankly, the expectation is that the bike will be used rarely and that the rings
will probably never wear out. There's probably also an expectation that the owner will simply
replace the entire bike rather than replace parts- either upgrading to a better bicycle or buying a
newer cheap bike. Hence there are few to no low-end replacement rings (or derailleurs, cranks,
shifters, etc); if you want to replace them, you have to "buy up."

Quoted message said:

Steven Woo may have said:

I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a new
crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on an
old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the used
parts bin.

Werehatrack said:

One word answer: Profit.

Well, duh. You expected Mother Teresa? I should hope crank makers are profitable. That ensures I can
buy their cranks next year!

It is a bit more complex than that. It relates to volume and there are a magnitude more cranksets
sold than any given ring size. Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so very small at all
levels of distribution. One never knows whether to buy one or two of a size yet we buy cranks ten at
a time regularly.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"Oz Cyclist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

This might help a little.

bikeforums.netshowthread.phpOpen ↗

"Carl Fogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For purposes too terrible to mention, I'm trying to find a bawdy pumpkin picture that I saw
after clicking on some lost link in rec.bicycles.tech on Halloween, or a day or two before.

The photograph showed two rural figures created to entertain passers-by. Both wore baggy blue
clothes. The male was using a pumpkin for mooning and the female used two pumpkins for flashing.

(I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.)

It was on someone's bicycle web site, but my history list was erased at the start of the month
and I've lost the picture's address.

You'd think that this sort of thing would be easy to search for, but computers turn out to be
nearly useless.

Dear Oz,

The last picture in the gallery is close, but it's not quite the one that the others found.

I liked the moose-and-mashed-potatoes sign and the bi-species human-dog notice.

Thanks,

Carl Fogel

A Muzi:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Steven Woo may have said:

I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a new
crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on an
old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the used
parts bin.

It is a bit more complex than that. It relates to volume and there are a magnitude more cranksets
sold than any given ring size. Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so very small at all
levels of distribution. One never knows whether to buy one or two of a size yet we buy cranks ten
at a time regularly.

This isn't an answer, just a reinforcement of the OP's observation. Why is it that you don't sell as
many chainrings as cranks? Are the latter related to the number of frames you sell and if so, do
people prefer to change cranks than replace chainrings. If _this_ is so, why is it so?

In article <[email hidden]>, _@_._ says...

Quoted message said:

A Muzi:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:50:33 -0800, Steven Woo <[email hidden]> may have said:
>I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a
>new crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on
>an old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the
>used parts bin.

It is a bit more complex than that. It relates to volume and there are a magnitude more
cranksets sold than any given ring size. Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so very
small at all levels of distribution. One never knows whether to buy one or two of a size yet we
buy cranks ten at a time regularly.

This isn't an answer, just a reinforcement of the OP's observation. Why is it that you don't sell
as many chainrings as cranks? Are the latter related to the number of frames you sell and if so,
do people prefer to change cranks than replace chainrings. If _this_ is so, why is it so?

I think he's saying that the problem is all the different sizes of chain rings; he can't tell which
sizes to stock, and it is too expensive to keep stock in all the versions he *might* need.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

David Kerber:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, _@_._ says...

Quoted message said:

A Muzi:

Quoted message said:

> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:50:33 -0800, Steven Woo <[email hidden]> may have said:
>>I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a
>>new crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings
>>on an old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in
>>the used parts bin.

It is a bit more complex than that. It relates to volume and there are a magnitude more
cranksets sold than any given ring size. Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so
very small at all levels of distribution. One never knows whether to buy one or two of a size
yet we buy cranks ten at a time regularly.

This isn't an answer, just a reinforcement of the OP's observation. Why is it that you don't
sell as many chainrings as cranks? Are the latter related to the number of frames you sell and
if so, do people prefer to change cranks than replace chainrings. If _this_ is so, why is it so?

I think he's saying that the problem is all the different sizes of chain rings; he can't tell
which sizes to stock, and it is too expensive to keep stock in all the versions he *might* need.

It still doesn't address the original query: the issue being raised is why, if at all, manufacturers
have made it cheaper to replace cranksets than individual chainrings. What shops do to meet demand
(or lack of) is an altogether different issue.

Tim McNamara said:

Werehatrack said:

Steven Woo may have said:

I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a
new crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on
an old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the
used parts bin.

One word answer:

Profit.

The OP may be exaggerating. It is unusual to have to replace all three rings at the same time. If
you choose your cranks carefully
(e.g., 110/74 mm BCD) then you will have access to an abundant supply of replacement rings. This,
in turn, through the power of competition, brings the prices for replacement rings down out
of the stratosphere.

Related question, most road cranksets have over the past twenty years had five legged spiders.
Suddenly we're seeing a spate of cranksets (mostly aimed at the 'mountain' bike market) which
have four legged spiders. Is there any technical justification for this, apart from complicating
the stockholding situation for retailers and making spare parts more complex and thus expensive
to source?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit

Simon Brooke said:

Related question, most road cranksets have over the past twenty years had five legged spiders.
Suddenly we're seeing a spate of cranksets (mostly aimed at the 'mountain' bike market) which
have four legged spiders. Is there any technical justification for this, apart from complicating
the stockholding situation for retailers and making spare parts more complex and thus expensive
to source?

The idea is that when your chainrings wear out (this does happen, and more quickly with mountain
chainrings since they are smaller and get dirtier) you will _have_ to buy a whole new crankset.

Just wait, soon there will be a three-legged spider, then, who knows, 6? Each change will correspond
to a meaningless change in the bolt circle diameter. By meaningless I mean that it won't be
measurably stronger, nor allow a smaller chainring size, but it will be different.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The _`\(,_ | common welfare was my
business; charity, mercy, forbearance, (_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The
dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
--Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

Jose Rizal said:

Quoted message said:

It still doesn't address the original query: the issue being raised is why, if at all,
manufacturers have made it cheaper to replace cranksets than individual chainrings.

What makes you and Woo believe that "manufacturers have made it" that way? Some chainring makers
don't even make cranks.

Quoted message said:

What shops do to meet demand (or lack of) is an altogether different issue.

Yeah, so?

Muzi gave the answer: "Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so very small at all levels of
distribution." Unless you are a Marxist you'll recognize that part of the cost of any good is its
distribution cost -- the marketplace itself influences the comparative economies of scale. That
isn't something that manufacturers of cranks can automatically create out of their nefarious profit
making motivations. In any case, who gives a [censored] if you can buy a brand new crank -- with the
chainrings you do want -- for less than replacing old chainrings on your old crank? The aluminum can
go in the recycling bin (if you can't get a buyer), if that makes you feel any better.

gwhite gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com may have said:

Muzi gave the answer: "Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so very small at all levels
of distribution."

That's a big part of it.

Quoted message said:

Unless you are a Marxist you'll recognize that part of the cost of any good is its distribution
cost -- the marketplace itself influences the comparative economies of scale.

It takes just as much labor to put one chain ring on the warehouse shelf as a case of cranksets, and
that's probably an approximation of the relative sales levels.

Quoted message said:

That isn't something that manufacturers of cranks can automatically create out of their
nefarious profit making motivations. In any case, who gives a [censored] if you can buy a brand new
crank -- with the chainrings you do want -- for less than replacing old chainrings on your old
crank? The aluminum can go in the recycling bin (if you can't get a buyer), if that makes you
feel any better.

It still rankles people when they discover that two of the three chainrings on their crankset, if
they're going to buy the real replacements and not an imitation, will cost them more than half the
cost of the whole assembly.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
contains nuts.

gwhite:

Quoted message said:

Jose Rizal said:

It still doesn't address the original query: the issue being raised is why, if at all,
manufacturers have made it cheaper to replace cranksets than individual chainrings.

What makes you and Woo believe that "manufacturers have made it" that way? Some chainring makers
don't even make cranks.

What I believe is not the point, and your reply is even more of a sidestep; the question raised by
the OP is as above, and I pointed out that A. Muzi did not in fact answer the question but added
only to the observation of the OP.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What shops do to meet demand (or lack of) is an altogether different issue.

Yeah, so?

So if you think about it a little bit, that is what A. Muzi posted as a reply, which is an answer to
a totally different question.

Quoted message said:

Muzi gave the answer: "Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so very small at all levels
of distribution." Unless you are a Marxist you'll recognize that part of the cost of any good is
its distribution cost -- the marketplace itself influences the comparative economies of scale.

So? You put a lot of ghosts in your replies while completely missing the point of the original
query. No one even hinted at this being a socio-economic issue requiring "Marxist" beliefs or
otherwise. Read the OP again and think about it a little harder.

Quoted message said:

That isn't something that manufacturers of cranks can automatically create out of their
nefarious profit making motivations. In any case, who gives a [censored] if you can buy a brand new
crank -- with the chainrings you do want -- for less than replacing old chainrings on your old
crank? The aluminum can go in the recycling bin (if you can't get a buyer), if that makes you
feel any better.

Huh? If you have an axe to grind against shadowy Marxists, go start your own thread about it. You've
offered completely loony replies to questions not even asked, raising unrelated issues no one is
concerned about and managed to squeeze it all in on this thread. I'm baffled at your motivation and
cognitive skills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:50:33 -0800, Steven Woo <[email hidden]> may have said:

>I was looking at this and wondering why manufacturers have made it so it is cheaper to buy a new
>crank with three chainrings(albeit not a top end model) versus replacing the chainrings on an
>old crank ( or even last years crank). It seems like a waste to put the old crank in the used
>parts bin.

A Muzi:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is a bit more complex than that. It relates to volume and there are a magnitude more cranksets
sold than any given ring size. Rings are a total pain because the volumes are so very small at all
levels of distribution. One never knows whether to buy one or two of a size yet we buy cranks ten
at a time regularly.

Jose Rizal said:

This isn't an answer, just a reinforcement of the OP's observation. Why is it that you don't sell
as many chainrings as cranks? Are the latter related to the number of frames you sell and if so,
do people prefer to change cranks than replace chainrings. If _this_ is so, why is it so?

That's a good question. I do not know why. If anyone has an hypothesis I'm listening.

But it is true in every area ( OPC for 20", touring bikes, racing bikes, commuters) over the full
range of price and style and it's been that way as long as I have been in the business.

I do not see it as a conspiracy or even purposeful. Many more riders buy cranks than rings by a very
large ratio.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971