Frame Kit vs. Basic Model?

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> So there you are then. Only you might've said that in the first place.

Well I just thought it was pretty obvious that high margin low volume on
products with a very limited choice of outlets is rather different
business to low margin high volume on products you can pick up pretty
much anywhere. Sorry. Should I point out that the earth is round and
gravity pulls you down as well?

> No, I'm sure those happy customers would be even happier to have a
> decent chance at lower prices (haggling).

They're free to go elsewhere to try that. If the prices come down
something has to give somewhere. Maybe the shop goes out of business,
or the backup service isn't so good. You can't get something for
nothing. Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

> I want to know. How's that "I think I must know before x, y, and z"?

You said you needed to know so you wouldn't insult him with stupid
questions. It's all right to insult people you're /not/ paying money
too with them though, so that's all right! ;-/ Do you think a Catrike
dealer will give you a different answer because you're /not/ paying him
money than if you are? If you do think that, why are you taking Buck's
word for it, if you don't think that, why bother asking?

> Not mechanically-minded.

Then how are you going to make use of all these parts you'll have lying
around? I mean, come on here... *surely* you can see a bigger fork leg
is needed for a larger wheel? It's about as hard as realising that tall
guys need longer legs on their pants...

> 16" don't sound like a lot of travel, though I can imagine why they
> went with that for the front wheel. But I don't understand why the
> rear suspension seems compromised, compared to the SM line.

Small wheels lose most of what disadvantages they have if connected to
good suspension, as Dr. Moulton proved back in the 60s. They retain
various advantages, such as more flexibility for the frame design,
easier to turn and stronger.
The rear suspension isn't so good because there isn't a very rigid rear
triangle (which helps prevent suspension bob, AIUI), because other
design factors on the bike preclude it.

> And with that, I abandon you to your tautologies.

Though in the meantime, if you want to know what you'll get from your
dealer, he's the best person to ask.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Peter Clinch who is a Medical Physics IT Officer [1] wrote:
> ...I point out that the earth is round and gravity pulls you down as well?...

Really? I was under the impression that gravity was a mutual attraction
between different bodies of mass. Down is a concept based on an
arbitrary frame of reference [2]. I was also of the understanding that
the object known as Earth was geoid shaped, not round.

[1] Not really relevant, except it annoys The Grate One.
[2] But the hominids on the geoid shaped object have found it
convenient to use a convention where the direction towards the center
of mass of the geoid is "down".

--
Tom "Pedant" Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
> >> ...
> >> If anyone here is Johnny NoComm I think it is gotbent. He was always very
> >> sympathetic to that crew of human scum. They knew all about sock puppets,
> >> just like gotbent does.
> >
> > Now you are contradicting yourself, O Grate One.
> >
>
> No, when someone like gotbent posts to a newsgroup and references sock
> puppets, port scans and other esoterica, then I know we are dealing with
> human scum. You and I do not do those sorts of things. Why do you make
> excuses for those who do? The worst offender of all time in this regard was
> your good buddy Ed Gin....

If you think "gotbent" is Ed Gin, you have much to learn. Hence the
contradiction.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[gotbent]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> If anyone here is Johnny NoComm I think it is gotbent. He was always
>> >> very
>> >> sympathetic to that crew of human scum. They knew all about sock
>> >> puppets,
>> >> just like gotbent does.
>> >
>> > Now you are contradicting yourself, O Grate One.
>> >
>>
>> No, when someone like gotbent posts to a newsgroup and references sock
>> puppets, port scans and other esoterica, then I know we are dealing with
>> human scum. You and I do not do those sorts of things. Why do you make
>> excuses for those who do? The worst offender of all time in this regard
>> was
>> your good buddy Ed Gin....
>
> If you think "gotbent" is Ed Gin, you have much to learn. Hence the
> contradiction.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman
>
Wot? The Dolan thinks I'm Ed Gin? FOK NO! I'm way better looking than Ed
Gin, and lots slower too. We do share a taste for black stout though. Hey
Dolan, don't forget to wash those socks from time to time or else they start
to stink....hmmmmm, you do stink though so maybe soap isn't the answer.

Not Ed Gin



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter Clinch who is a Medical Physics IT Officer [1] wrote:
>> ...I point out that the earth is round and gravity pulls you down as
>> well?...
>
> Really? I was under the impression that gravity was a mutual attraction
> between different bodies of mass. Down is a concept based on an
> arbitrary frame of reference [2]. I was also of the understanding that
> the object known as Earth was geoid shaped, not round.
>
> [1] Not really relevant, except it annoys The Grate One.

I am totally fed up with Peter Clinch promoting himself as a Medical Physics
IT Officer (whatever the hell that is). He is even a greater ego maniac than
I am. This is intolerable to me. No one can possibly be Greater than the
Great Ed Dolan.

I hereby challenge Peter Clinch to a duel to the death. Pistols of course at
dawn down by the riverside. He will have to come to SW Minnesota as I am no
longer up for any travel.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan the Grate wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> If anyone here is Johnny NoComm I think it is gotbent. He was always
>> >> very
>> >> sympathetic to that crew of human scum. They knew all about sock
>> >> puppets,
>> >> just like gotbent does.
>> >
>> > Now you are contradicting yourself, O Grate One.
>> >
>>
>> No, when someone like gotbent posts to a newsgroup and references sock
>> puppets, port scans and other esoterica, then I know we are dealing with
>> human scum. You and I do not do those sorts of things. Why do you make
>> excuses for those who do? The worst offender of all time in this regard
>> was
>> your good buddy Ed Gin....
>
> If you think "gotbent" is Ed Gin, you have much to learn. Hence the
> contradiction.

No, I don't think gotbent is Ed Gin. He is not nearly repulsive enough for
that. However, there are similarities due to his newsreader and various
other associations.

You think I want to learn anything about this human scum? You have indeed
much to learn if that is the case. Anyone who forges names and addresses is
a criminal and beyond the pale. That is what Ed Gin did. I don't think
gotbent ever did that to his credit.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[NYC XYZ]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> Well I just thought it was pretty obvious

Dude, what's obvious is that I want to know what I want to know.
Answering my question by questioning why I should ever want to know
that is besides the point of the question and not an answer.

> that high margin low volume on
> products with a very limited choice of outlets is rather different
> business to low margin high volume on products you can pick up pretty
> much anywhere.

Ever heard of KISS?

I asked whether "x" was "industry practice."

KISS.

> Sorry. Should I point out that the earth is round and
> gravity pulls you down as well?

Yes, if we were discussing rocket science and I wanted to know what the
height is at which satellites orbit without propulsion on their part.

> They're free to go elsewhere to try that.

Pay attention. We're not talking about "elsewhere." Maybe you can try
another thread yourself?

> If the prices come down
> something has to give somewhere. Maybe the shop goes out of business,
> or the backup service isn't so good. You can't get something for
> nothing. Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

And the sky is blue. Except when it's not.

> You said you needed to know so you wouldn't insult him with stupid
> questions. It's all right to insult people you're /not/ paying money
> too with them though, so that's all right! ;-/ Do you think a Catrike
> dealer will give you a different answer because you're /not/ paying him
> money than if you are? If you do think that, why are you taking Buck's
> word for it, if you don't think that, why bother asking?

KISS.

Just want to know.

KISS.

> Then how are you going to make use of all these parts you'll have lying
> around? I mean, come on here... *surely* you can see a bigger fork leg
> is needed for a larger wheel? It's about as hard as realising that tall
> guys need longer legs on their pants...

Not if you're a bushman encountering trousers for the first time. I
never even knew bikes were fitted to the rider until just last year!
What can I say -- I always adapt, and accomodate so much sometimes I
miss out on the fact that maybe I don't have to work around something,
maybe something can work around me.

As for spare parts, I'll learn, as I have been. If you're tired of
teaching, I suggest you retire.

> Small wheels lose most of what disadvantages they have if connected to
> good suspension, as Dr. Moulton proved back in the 60s. They retain
> various advantages, such as more flexibility for the frame design,
> easier to turn and stronger.
> The rear suspension isn't so good because there isn't a very rigid rear
> triangle (which helps prevent suspension bob, AIUI), because other
> design factors on the bike preclude it.

I see the small wheel so rider position isn't forced to be too
reclined. I see OSS 'cause it's supposed to be an "easy" 'bent. I
don't see how you deduce the rear triangle as being not very rigid due
to other design factors.

It's a cute enough bike. I'll test ride one when I go pay the balance
on the SMGTe and upgrade even more; think I saw one in the showroom,
though red, and I'll for sure want a lemo yellow one (that red makes it
look "old").

> Though in the meantime, if you want to know what you'll get from your
> dealer, he's the best person to ask.

I've never asked about what I'll get from my dealer. I'm asking
whether what I think is reasonable as per how the bike business works.

KISS, KISS.

> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> I am totally fed up with Peter Clinch promoting himself as a Medical Physics
> IT Officer (whatever the hell that is).

That was what Spock or Bones did on the old Enterprise.

> He is even a greater ego maniac than
> I am. This is intolerable to me. No one can possibly be Greater than the
> Great Ed Dolan.

Well, I'm a superegomaniac so I can tolerate the bifurcation in
consciousness which allows for different egos to manifest at different
times.

> I hereby challenge Peter Clinch to a duel to the death. Pistols of course at
> dawn down by the riverside.

I'd've thought you'd've done it with 'bents. It could be the Great
ARBR Rally of the Decade! Maybe you can distract him with a Rohloff
hub or a question about your local 'bent dealer.

> He will have to come to SW Minnesota as I am no
> longer up for any travel.

I'd take out the woman first. Hell hath no fury like a woman left all
alone. Flowers usually work.

> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> What exactly is wrong with Mike's bike?
>
> *No* bike, upright, recumbent, anything, can possibly be "100%
> comfortable" because there is never a situation where the requirements
> of being a bike don't compromise comfort to some degree. Thinking that
> a bike's comfort can never be improved under any circumsatnces is
> kidding yourself.

My own bike is a joy to ride, when I do so within its
limitations (I don't ride over loose egg gravel or
underwater.) It doesn't hurt me at all. No sore feet,
no sore bum, no sore back, no sore hands/wrists. If I
didn't ride, I'd be all gimped up with sciatica. I
wouldn't be surprised if riding was good therapy for
hip dysplasia too. You speak of comfort in a relative
sense. I've found a bicycle can be 100% comfortable
relative to a simple standing state. A bicycle can also
be 100% comfortable relative to a cracked toilet seat.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> Dude, what's obvious is that I want to know what I want to know.
> Ever heard of KISS?

No.

> I asked whether "x" was "industry practice."

And I told you what I'll tell you again in some more detail: the
recumbent sales industry is such a small and finely spread
industry, relying on rather maverick enthusiasts, that what the
"industry standard" happens to be is not necessarily going to be
what you encounter at your dealer. If you go into a typical bike
shop and ask for an SMGT the "industry standard practice" is to
tell you "we don't do those", so that snippet of info isn't a big
help, even if you want to know it.
If you want to know what his business practices are and why then
he's the one to ask.

> I see the small wheel so rider position isn't forced to be too
> reclined.

Like I said, "flexibility of frame design". You can just use bent
tubes to prevent the rider recling too far, but that introduces
other penalties like higher step over height and weaker frame spar.

> I see OSS 'cause it's supposed to be an "easy" 'bent. I
> don't see how you deduce the rear triangle as being not very rigid due
> to other design factors.

If you read HPVel's blurb on their original rear suspension design
they highlight a very rigid rear triangle as a key point. The
Spirit doesn't *have* a rear triangle, so it follows it's not a
rigid one... Why is it the only cycle they do without one?
Because it won't fit with the rest of the design is the obvious answer.

> I've never asked about what I'll get from my dealer. I'm asking
> whether what I think is reasonable as per how the bike business works.

So discuss it with someone really close to you who owes you service
and a proper hearing and happens to be in the bike business.
That'll be your dealer. And not only will you get answers, you'll
get to know the guy you're dealing with better and enjoy a better
business relationship. He will operate according to how his
business works, and no other. It may well be that he'll agree with
you where "the industry standard" doesn't. You'll never know if
you don't ask him, and you still seem to be looking for excuses not to.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> Dude, what's obvious is that I want to know what I want to know.
> Ever heard of KISS?

No.

> I asked whether "x" was "industry practice."

And I told you what I'll tell you again in some more detail: the
recumbent sales industry is such a small and finely spread
industry, relying on rather maverick enthusiasts, that what the
"industry standard" happens to be is not necessarily going to be
what you encounter at your dealer. If you go into a typical bike
shop and ask for an SMGT the "industry standard practice" is to
tell you "we don't do those", so that snippet of info isn't a big
help, even if you want to know it.
If you want to know what his business practices are and why then
he's the one to ask.

> I see the small wheel so rider position isn't forced to be too
> reclined.

Like I said, "flexibility of frame design". You can just use bent
tubes to prevent the rider recling too far, but that introduces
other penalties like higher step over height and weaker frame spar.

> I see OSS 'cause it's supposed to be an "easy" 'bent. I
> don't see how you deduce the rear triangle as being not very rigid due
> to other design factors.

If you read HPVel's blurb on their original rear suspension design
they highlight a very rigid rear triangle as a key point. The
Spirit doesn't *have* a rear triangle, so it follows it's not a
rigid one... Why is it the only cycle they do without one?
Because it won't fit with the rest of the design is the obvious answer.

> I've never asked about what I'll get from my dealer. I'm asking
> whether what I think is reasonable as per how the bike business works.

So discuss it with someone really close to you who owes you service
and a proper hearing and happens to be in the bike business.
That'll be your dealer. And not only will you get answers, you'll
get to know the guy you're dealing with better and enjoy a better
business relationship. He will operate according to how his
business works, and no other. It may well be that he'll agree with
you where "the industry standard" doesn't. You'll never know if
you don't ask him, and you still seem to be looking for excuses not to.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Bob]

NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> Ah, but, for example, this bike's already got the V-brakes and standard
> front and rear suspension on it...if I upgrade to discs, etc., can I
> therefore expect to receive the V-brakes and suspension systems as
> well?
>

In a word, no, and if you really don't already know that you had better
have a long talk with the seller.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[NYC XYZ]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> No.

Keep It Simple, Silly.

> And I told you what I'll tell you again in some more detail: the
> recumbent sales industry is such a small and finely spread
> industry, relying on rather maverick enthusiasts, that what the
> "industry standard" happens to be is not necessarily going to be
> what you encounter at your dealer.

Straw Man Argument.

Not what I was asking about.

KISS.

> If you go into a typical bike
> shop and ask for an SMGT the "industry standard practice" is to
> tell you "we don't do those", so that snippet of info isn't a big
> help, even if you want to know it.
> If you want to know what his business practices are and why then
> he's the one to ask.

Straw Man Argument.

KISS.

You're either being deceptive, or you've managed to confuse and deceive
yourself.

KISS, and you avoid Straw Man Arguments.

> Like I said, "flexibility of frame design". You can just use bent
> tubes to prevent the rider recling too far, but that introduces
> other penalties like higher step over height and weaker frame spar.

Specifically, I'm wondering why they didn't carry over the, um,
whachamacallit, that bit in the back of the frame which swings, that
thingamajig they have on the SMGT line, instead of a straightforward
design anyone else could have done. It'd be great to have designer
notes. I think one bike maker had just such notes on their website
once. Little things, nothing you could really study, but interesting
as promotional material.

> If you read HPVel's blurb on their original rear suspension design
> they highlight a very rigid rear triangle as a key point. The
> Spirit doesn't *have* a rear triangle, so it follows it's not a
> rigid one... Why is it the only cycle they do without one?
> Because it won't fit with the rest of the design is the obvious answer.

Um...what is a rear triangle?? Looking at the SMGTe and the Spirit
side-by-side, I suppose I can imagine what you mean, but I don't
understand why it wouldn't fit with the Spirit. I guess it's really a
matter of cost. The Spirit seems intended as a casual bike, which is
certainly the spirit in which I'll purchase it! No upgrades at all,
'cept mud-guards.

> So discuss it with someone really close to you who owes you service
> and a proper hearing and happens to be in the bike business.
> That'll be your dealer.

Goodness, this is so inane I've got to use that impolite word, "inane."
Why would I as the customer only listen to the salesman and no one
else?

> And not only will you get answers, you'll
> get to know the guy you're dealing with better and enjoy a better
> business relationship.

Goodness, this is so inane I've got to use that impolite word, "inane,"
again and repeat myself: why would I as the customer only listen to the
salesman and no one else?

> He will operate according to how his
> business works, and no other. It may well be that he'll agree with
> you where "the industry standard" doesn't. You'll never know if
> you don't ask him, and you still seem to be looking for excuses not to.

For Pete's sake, why would I as the customer only listen to the
salesman and not ask around? Does it hurt? Is it hurting you? You
seem to be looking for excuses to answer with non-answers.

> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Jim]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Peter Clinch who is a Medical Physics IT Officer [1] wrote:
>>> ...I point out that the earth is round and gravity pulls you down as
>>> well?...
>>
>> Really? I was under the impression that gravity was a mutual attraction
>> between different bodies of mass. Down is a concept based on an
>> arbitrary frame of reference [2]. I was also of the understanding that
>> the object known as Earth was geoid shaped, not round.
>>
>> [1] Not really relevant, except it annoys The Grate One.
>
> I am totally fed up with Peter Clinch promoting himself as a Medical
> Physics IT Officer (whatever the hell that is). He is even a greater ego
> maniac than I am. This is intolerable to me. No one can possibly be
> Greater than the Great Ed Dolan.
>
> I hereby challenge Peter Clinch to a duel to the death. Pistols of course
> at dawn down by the riverside. He will have to come to SW Minnesota as I
> am no longer up for any travel.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>


Ah, Ed was it only yesterday you were pining to go to Timbuktu?

Too the main point, will you need a second?

Jim C

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lfuMf.187812$oG.126100@dukeread02...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Peter Clinch who is a Medical Physics IT Officer [1] wrote:
>>>> ...I point out that the earth is round and gravity pulls you down as
>>>> well?...
>>>
>>> Really? I was under the impression that gravity was a mutual attraction
>>> between different bodies of mass. Down is a concept based on an
>>> arbitrary frame of reference [2]. I was also of the understanding that
>>> the object known as Earth was geoid shaped, not round.
>>>
>>> [1] Not really relevant, except it annoys The Grate One.
>>
>> I am totally fed up with Peter Clinch promoting himself as a Medical
>> Physics IT Officer (whatever the hell that is). He is even a greater ego
>> maniac than I am. This is intolerable to me. No one can possibly be
>> Greater than the Great Ed Dolan.
>>
>> I hereby challenge Peter Clinch to a duel to the death. Pistols of course
>> at dawn down by the riverside. He will have to come to SW Minnesota as I
>> am no longer up for any travel.
>
> Ah, Ed was it only yesterday you were pining to go to Timbuktu?
>
> Too the main point, will you need a second?

I will get a yahoo out of the local saloon to be my second if I can sober
him up. In the event I am shot dead, I have decided to come back as a Great
Sequoia Tree where I will lord it over all creation.

I would urge anyone who has any idea of adventure in their life to get it
over with before they turn 40. After that, it is too late. As much as I
would like to cross the Sahara by camel caravan to Timbuktu, I fully realize
it is never going to happen. I should have done it when I was about 30 or
so, but I was too busy at the time hiking in and out of the Grand Canyon -
and communing with the mighty Sequoia Tree in that National Park of the same
name there in the Sierra Mountains of California.

Regards,

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> Keep It Simple, Silly.

That's what I was trying to do. Think about it...

My idea: spend 10 minutes talking to one person who can give you a
detailed answer of direct relevance to your personal situation, which is
then a springboard for any further issues you wish to investigate.

Your idea: spend a week or more in multiple conversations across 3
Usenet groups to get answers that may mean nothing in your particular
situation and have no context of what will actually happen with your
own bike as a basis.

Which of those is simpler? So if you want to KISS, take my advice,
because it keeps it simpler.

> Specifically, I'm wondering why they didn't carry over the, um,
> whachamacallit, that bit in the back of the frame which swings, that
> thingamajig they have on the SMGT line

If you have the overall immediately user-friendly configuration of the
Spirit then you can't put in a separate rear triangle without a fair bit
of extra work. The Cannondale recumbent went to those lengths, but as a
result it cost a *lot* more and weighed more than it needed to, and for
the sort of riding the bike is pitched at it's questionable about
whether that degree of engineering is really a desirable option.

> instead of a straightforward design anyone else could have done.

If "anyone" could have done it then "anyone" would. The Spirit has
consistently been reviewed towards the top of the compact pack. Bike
designs are a whole package, not isolated bits of design bolted together.

> It'd be great to have designer notes.

So ask the people who can give you a direct answer, HP Velotechnik, or
ask via one of their dealers, rather than wonder aloud on Usenet if you
/really/ want to know. KISS.

> Um...what is a rear triangle??

It's a triangular frame component at the rear of the bike. This is the
sort of thing where a guess will be right, like front forks being the
fork shaped things at the front...

> Looking at the SMGTe and the Spirit
> side-by-side, I suppose I can imagine what you mean, but I don't
> understand why it wouldn't fit with the Spirit. I guess it's really a
> matter of cost.

More cost, more weight, and, as you suggest something that could well be
over-engineering in the context of the whole bike.

> Goodness, this is so inane I've got to use that impolite word, "inane."
> Why would I as the customer only listen to the salesman and no one
> else?

Not what I'm getting at. Why should you listen to everyone else, but
not the salesman? He's a simple, single point of contact and if he's
worth a damn as a dealer then your satisfaction as a customer is of
paramount importance to him. He should be on your side, and he knows
more about his business and how he runs it and why than anyone else, and
he probably knows more about the bike than anyone answering you on
Usenet because he puts them together and sells them for a living. He is
an obvious *first* point of contact. So KISS should tell you that he's
where you start in this case, not where you end.

> For Pete's sake, why would I as the customer only listen to the
> salesman and not ask around? Does it hurt? Is it hurting you? You
> seem to be looking for excuses to answer with non-answers.

I'm trying to make it easy for you by directing you to the best place to
*start* when it comes to specific questions regarding your bike and how
it will be dealt with. If it really bothered me that you choose not to
do so I would just killfile you and move on, but I am trying to help you
by persuading you to /start/ your dialogue with the person who can give
you the most and most relevant information in the course of a single 10
minute 'phone call. And once you've had that conversation then you'll
be in a much better position to have a useful debate on Usenet. And
it's what KISS says you should be doing, if you really believe in it as
a good thing.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Edward Dolan]

"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
[...]
>> He will operate according to how his
>> business works, and no other. It may well be that he'll agree with
>> you where "the industry standard" doesn't. You'll never know if
>> you don't ask him, and you still seem to be looking for excuses not to.
>
> For Pete's sake, why would I as the customer only listen to the
> salesman and not ask around? Does it hurt? Is it hurting you? You
> seem to be looking for excuses to answer with non-answers.

You need to retire from this fray and leave Peter Clinch to the likes of me.
I truly understand him and how to deal with him. In short, we both know how
to go round and round the mulberry bush until one or the other of us gets
dizzy and falls. I will drive him mad before he can drive me mad. It is what
we old men are expert at.

The trouble is Old Pete kill filed me long ago because I took extreme
exception to his signature. We will never get beyond that until he changes
it. Of such mole hills are mountains made.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[NYC XYZ]

Damn, you say that with such earnesty! I think you out-do the Grate
One himself.

I'll be picking up the bike as early as this weekend, or in another
month, mostly depending on whether and when this dealer decides to
return my phone calls and e-mail.

Thanks for all your help, and thanks to all the gang on these
newsgroups. The first training ride for the 145-miler in May is this
Saturday!!! I'll have to do that one on an upwrong. =(



Peter Clinch wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> > Keep It Simple, Silly.
>
> That's what I was trying to do. Think about it...
>
> My idea: spend 10 minutes talking to one person who can give you a
> detailed answer of direct relevance to your personal situation, which is
> then a springboard for any further issues you wish to investigate.
>
> Your idea: spend a week or more in multiple conversations across 3
> Usenet groups to get answers that may mean nothing in your particular
> situation and have no context of what will actually happen with your
> own bike as a basis.
>
> Which of those is simpler? So if you want to KISS, take my advice,
> because it keeps it simpler.
>
> > Specifically, I'm wondering why they didn't carry over the, um,
> > whachamacallit, that bit in the back of the frame which swings, that
> > thingamajig they have on the SMGT line
>
> If you have the overall immediately user-friendly configuration of the
> Spirit then you can't put in a separate rear triangle without a fair bit
> of extra work. The Cannondale recumbent went to those lengths, but as a
> result it cost a *lot* more and weighed more than it needed to, and for
> the sort of riding the bike is pitched at it's questionable about
> whether that degree of engineering is really a desirable option.
>
> > instead of a straightforward design anyone else could have done.
>
> If "anyone" could have done it then "anyone" would. The Spirit has
> consistently been reviewed towards the top of the compact pack. Bike
> designs are a whole package, not isolated bits of design bolted together.
>
> > It'd be great to have designer notes.
>
> So ask the people who can give you a direct answer, HP Velotechnik, or
> ask via one of their dealers, rather than wonder aloud on Usenet if you
> /really/ want to know. KISS.
>
> > Um...what is a rear triangle??
>
> It's a triangular frame component at the rear of the bike. This is the
> sort of thing where a guess will be right, like front forks being the
> fork shaped things at the front...
>
> > Looking at the SMGTe and the Spirit
> > side-by-side, I suppose I can imagine what you mean, but I don't
> > understand why it wouldn't fit with the Spirit. I guess it's really a
> > matter of cost.
>
> More cost, more weight, and, as you suggest something that could well be
> over-engineering in the context of the whole bike.
>
> > Goodness, this is so inane I've got to use that impolite word, "inane."
> > Why would I as the customer only listen to the salesman and no one
> > else?
>
> Not what I'm getting at. Why should you listen to everyone else, but
> not the salesman? He's a simple, single point of contact and if he's
> worth a damn as a dealer then your satisfaction as a customer is of
> paramount importance to him. He should be on your side, and he knows
> more about his business and how he runs it and why than anyone else, and
> he probably knows more about the bike than anyone answering you on
> Usenet because he puts them together and sells them for a living. He is
> an obvious *first* point of contact. So KISS should tell you that he's
> where you start in this case, not where you end.
>
> > For Pete's sake, why would I as the customer only listen to the
> > salesman and not ask around? Does it hurt? Is it hurting you? You
> > seem to be looking for excuses to answer with non-answers.
>
> I'm trying to make it easy for you by directing you to the best place to
> *start* when it comes to specific questions regarding your bike and how
> it will be dealt with. If it really bothered me that you choose not to
> do so I would just killfile you and move on, but I am trying to help you
> by persuading you to /start/ your dialogue with the person who can give
> you the most and most relevant information in the course of a single 10
> minute 'phone call. And once you've had that conversation then you'll
> be in a much better position to have a useful debate on Usenet. And
> it's what KISS says you should be doing, if you really believe in it as
> a good thing.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/