Has anyone tried the Bigha?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Larry Varney
Lorenzo L. Love wrote: <snip>
> Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the question or
> we will know what a wife beater you are. So why do you
> think people should pay twice as much as the competitive
> price for a slow heavy comfort bike? What are your
> criteria that makes a Bigha worth $3000? The sterling
> reputation of the people who make it?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
Read carefully, Love. I have never defended this bike. I
have never said anyone should buy it. I have never said
it was worth $3000. You may use this pathetic "so why do
you think..." ploy, but everyone sees through it. You
and Dolan play the same, tired game, and it's just
incredible to think that neither of you realize that
everyone is on to you.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

Ah Larry, I see you have been pulled into the mud. No matter how much cold water you pour on it by trying to right the wrong, you won't get clean again until you get out of the mud hole.
But hey, a romp in the mud pit was fun as a kid, so here I go with you Larry.
I will limit myself to two points that always come up, weight and price.
Weight: Yes, for bikes, because you have to exert yourself at times to use them, weight is a factor, even if you are not into speed. Beach cruisers are nice. At the beach. Not so much so huffing it up a hill, riding long distances, starting and stopping.
Fifty pounds is alot of weight for any bike period. It seems to have been designed by a group of furniture makers instead of bike builders. It is as if they took handfuls of stuff they wanted on a bike and threw it on a frame, and THEN weighed it. Were the carbon fiber fenders a late attempt to reign in the design? Too little, too late. I agree that sometimes the weight issue is overblown when it comes to bikes. A few pounds up or down the scale means alot to an enthusiast, amateur or pro but the laymen probably wouldn't notice a small difference in weight. But fifty pounds is fifty pounds, there has to be a high point, a peak, and if fifty pounds isn't considered near the too darn heavy end of the scale, it is awfully close to it. Water, travel bag with food, tubes and some gear puts it over the top for the newbie that they are targeting. Try getting your bent legs with that thing.
Price: I agree that price can be extremely subjective. I would not look down on anyone who bought one, but for me personally it isn't worth the price. It is not alone in that catagory either. The dual suspension, SWB, dual 20" wheeled Altitude recumbent bike cost over four grand. Subjective, my opinion, the bike ain't worth it. So price by itself doesn't damn the bike. The price and the weight together make you look harder at the alternatives that are lighter, cheaper.
Another observation of the debate that remains constant is the cross arguments that go like this: Everybody who criticizes it hasn't rode it and everybody who defends it won't buy one with their own money. Some truth on both sides.
There, I'm done. Not directing this at anyone, just some thoughts, just sticking my food in the mud like you Larry. Well, I 'm off to the showers. Peace

 

[Lorenzo L. Love]

Larry Varney wrote:

> Lorenzo L. Love wrote: <snip>
>
>> Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the question
>> or we will know what a wife beater you are. So why do you
>> think people should pay twice as much as the competitive
>> price for a slow heavy comfort bike? What are your
>> criteria that makes a Bigha worth $3000? The sterling
>> reputation of the people who make it?
>>
>> Lorenzo L. Love
>
> Read carefully, Love. I have never defended this bike. I
> have never said anyone should buy it. I have never said
> it was worth $3000. You may use this pathetic "so why do
> you think..." ploy, but everyone sees through it. You
> and Dolan play the same, tired game, and it's just
> incredible to think that neither of you realize that
> everyone is on to you.
>
>

I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the Bigha'.
Just what are you doing? Do you think it is worth $3000?
Would you buy one for $3000? These aren't hard questions.

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the question or
> we will know what a wife beater you are.

Whelp Lorenzo is going skitzo I see

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I suspect it only appears we are being defensive because
> > you are so offensive about the company itself and not
> > the bike.
> >
> >
>
> So you are quite happy to buy something at an inflated
> price from a group of people who have previously walked
> away from contracts, warranties and product support?

If its a decent bike sure, there's more to it than the
price. I purchased the Vision and lost 50 pounds, lost
another 20 so far on the Baron and now blow away most
other bikers.

If I can do even a fraction of that on a BigHa then the
price of the bike is dirt cheap.

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Leuck wrote:
> > "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>>Would you spend more than $3000 for a Segway? No but
> >>>many have
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>He's not a reviwer, just a guy who hasn't rode a bike
> >>since he was in collage and never a recumbent, just the
> >>type Bigha is targeting.
> >
> >
> > Exactly so whats the problem?
>
> No problem for Bigha, people who know nothing about
> recumbents are their target market. But would anyone who
> is experienced with recumbents buy
one?

We haven't seen that here yet but that doesn't mean someone
experienced with recumbents hasn't. Even if they don't why
is that a big deal? BigHa doesn't have to cater to the
recumbent crowd any more than Giant does with the Revive. If
they choose to target another market they can do that. Any
recumbent manufacturer would do the same thing if they could
sell more bikes.

> > Why would you think I'd order one?
> >
> >
>
> So when you say you could, you could if you would but you
> won't because you won't.

No I never said I would, what I won't do is cut down a
bike without riding it first, something neither of us
have done yet

>I could pay twice what something is worth too, but I'm not
> quite dumb enough to do so. I guess you're not either.

I bet you've bought a lot of things for twice the money

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Leuck wrote:
> > "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >
> >>Haven't you been paying attention? The question to all
> >>reviewers: Has any one of them liked the Bigha so much
> >>that they paid $3000 for one of their own? So far, zero.
> >>Positive reviews but not a single one thought it was
> >>worth their own money. That tells me a lot.
> >>
> >>Lorenzo L. Love
> >
> >
> > I see that with almost every review of every brand
> >
> >
>
> Yes. They need to be very careful to not be too critical
> or they lose their source of free review products. How
> many reviews have you seen that says this bike is not
> worth it's price, don't buy one? Reviewers who depend on
> free products can't afford to do that.

I doubt any reviewer would say not to buy a bike unless it
has a critical flaw in the manufacturing or design and since
you aren't a reviewer I doubt you know what they go through
with the review process

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Because if you didn't give a fair and impartial review,
> you wouldn't be working for Consumer Reports for long.
> Consumer Reports, because they buy the product and are not
> dependent on the manufacturers for free products, can
> insist on fair reviews. Who does that for recumbents?

So what you are saying is anything a reviewer who receives
free bikes is meaningless?

 

[Larry Varney]

Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo L. Love wrote: <snip>
>>
>>> Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the question
>>> or we will know what a wife beater you are. So why do
>>> you think people should pay twice as much as the
>>> competitive price for a slow heavy comfort bike? What
>>> are your criteria that makes a Bigha worth $3000? The
>>> sterling reputation of the people who make it?
>>>
>>> Lorenzo L. Love
>>
>>
>> Read carefully, Love. I have never defended this bike.
>> I have never said anyone should buy it. I have never
>> said it was worth $3000. You may use this pathetic "so
>> why do you think..." ploy, but everyone sees through
>> it. You and Dolan play the same, tired game, and it's
>> just incredible to think that neither of you realize
>> that everyone is on to you.
>>
>>
>
> I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the
> Bigha'. Just what are you doing? Do you think it is worth
> $3000? Would you buy one for $3000? These aren't hard
> questions.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>

Lorenzo, read my posts. What good things have I said
about the BiGHA? In what post did I say it was worth
$3000? In what post did I ever advise anyone to buy one?
These aren't hard questions, either, Lorenzo. I didn't
think I would need to tell you this again, but
apparently I
do. What I have been doing, over and over and over again, is
pointing out that there are more criteria when it comes
to buying a bike - and many other things, too - remember
the food comments? No? - than just price and weight. But
I am glad to see that you finally admit that I haven't
been defending the BiGHA. I hadn't counted the posts,
but it probably is more effective at convincing you when
you did it yourself.
--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > The RANS Tailwind is the most underrated recumbent out
> > there. My only
caveat
> > is that if you are near 6 feet tall you might want to
> > avoid it as it is
not
> > really designed for someone of that height. It will put
> > too much weight
on
> > the rear of the bike. RANS should really make a larger
> > size for us 6 footers. I have an early version of the
> > Tailwind however and it almost
fits
> > me although there is still a bit too much weight on the
> > rear of the
bike.
>
> History in the making - Ed Dolan writes a post where I
> find nothing to disagree with.

Mr. Sherman and I are both long time readers of RCN (I have
every issue going back to the beginning, except for the
very first issue which I somehow seemed to have missed)
and so are more knowledgeable than those who are not
long time readers of RCN. The very best articles that
the editor of that publication (Bob Bryant) ever writes
are those where he reviews on a regular basis aspects of
the different kinds of recumbents. That kind of
information is priceless and is easily worth the
subscription price to RCN alone.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Mr. Varney has lost all perspective if he does not think
> > price and
weight
> > are by far and away the most important considerations
> > when it comes to buying a bike....
>
> There is much more to it than those two criteria. For
> example, at the time the Blackbent III was in
> production, it cost about $300 less than the RANS Rocket
> and weighed approximately the same. However, the frame
> quality and durability, component quality, seat comfort,
> weight distribution, handling, and manufacturer warranty
> support were much better for the Rocket than the
> Blackbent III. In my opinion, it was obvious that the
> Rocket was a much better bike, both price independent
> and price dependent. [1]
>
> [1] For the record, I purchased (and still own) a RANS
> Rocket at the time Recumbant (sic) Barn was still in
> business selling Blackbents.

I am the sort of person though who would have bought the
Blackbent if I had been in the market for a SWB at the
time. I would have taken my chances with it and trusted
that I could fix anything that went wrong with it. But I
would have lost as apparently there were problems with the
frame itself. However, I have many recumbents that I paid
bottom dollar for and they have worked out just fine for
me. The differences between a bottom dollar recumbent and a
top dollar recumbent (yes, I have a few of those too) do
not seem all that great to me, most especially if I am not
into speed. Weight is not critical unless you are into
speed, but still there can only be a few pounds difference,
not 20 pounds as in the case of the Bigha. Unfortunately
for me, price is always critical and I will admit I have
been burned every now and then by mostly going for the
least cost product.

I have noted over the years that when it comes to quality
bikes there is a point at which you get maximum value for
your money. If you pay less, you get cheated, and if you pay
more you also get cheated. That is why at any given time
there is a price point or range which is popular. The Bigha
is off the scale of value for price. It is a real no brainer
not to buy it.

If I were still into uprights and I just wanted a bike for
running around town I would go to Wal-Mart and get their
special for $55. and I would be perfectly happy with it. I
would only want a better bike if I am into performance -
which mostly I am not anymore. Most cyclists are not into
performance and just about any old bike will do what they
want a bike to do. It is really only those who are into
performance or who have more money than brains who need to
spend an extravagant amount of money on a bike.

All recumbents are outrageously expensive compared to
uprights in my opinion but we all know the reason for that.
If recumbents were a mass market item like uprights, they
could be equally as cheap. However, that is never going to
happen because of other inherent problems connected with
recumbents. It may be that the semi-recumbent could become a
mass market bike but that remains to be seen.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lorenzo L. Love wrote: <snip>
> > Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the question
> > or we will know what a wife beater you are. So why do
> > you think people should pay twice as much as the
> > competitive price for a slow heavy comfort bike? What
> > are your criteria that makes a Bigha worth $3000? The
> > sterling reputation of the people who make it?
> >
> > Lorenzo L. Love
> Read carefully, Love. I have never defended this bike.
> I have never said anyone should buy it. I have never
> said it was worth $3000. You may use this pathetic "so
> why do you think..." ploy, but everyone sees through
> it. You and Dolan play the same, tired game, and it's
> just incredible to think that neither of you realize
> that everyone is on to
you.

I don't believe Mr. Varney and I will ever connect on any
issue in this lifetime. He is a literalist. I do not get
hung up on any particular words or even particular
statements. I go for the overall sense of what is being said
and I infer intention. I can do this because I read like a
general reader and not like some kind of confounded
specialist who looks at every word or statement separately.
But Mr. Varney could be a more careful writer. He is always
saying conflicting things and not making it clear exactly
where he stands. Thus, the misunderstandings are all over
the place. What he needs to do is focus sharper on exactly
what he is saying and not ramble so much. He also needs to
make it clear what his intentions are. Intentions are at the
core of what most writing is about after all.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Larry Varney]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:2isei4Fqd73rU1@uni-
> berlin.de...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The RANS Tailwind is the most underrated recumbent out
>>>there. My only
>
> caveat
>
>>>is that if you are near 6 feet tall you might want to
>>>avoid it as it is
>
> not
>
>>>really designed for someone of that height. It will put
>>>too much weight
>
> on
>
>>>the rear of the bike. RANS should really make a larger
>>>size for us 6 footers. I have an early version of the
>>>Tailwind however and it almost
>
> fits
>
>>>me although there is still a bit too much weight on the
>>>rear of the
>
> bike.
>
>>History in the making - Ed Dolan writes a post where I
>>find nothing to disagree with.
>
>
> Mr. Sherman and I are both long time readers of RCN (I
> have every issue going back to the beginning, except
> for the very first issue which I somehow seemed to
> have missed) and so are more knowledgeable than those
> who are not long time readers of RCN. The very best
> articles that the editor of that publication (Bob
> Bryant) ever writes are those where he reviews on a
> regular basis aspects of the different kinds of
> recumbents. That kind of information is priceless and
> is easily worth the subscription price to RCN alone.
>

I've been reading RCN for years now, too, and I agree -
lots of great information in that magazine. And, not to
denigrate Bob Bryant's expertise and range of
experiences, but you do have to be wary of one thing:
sometimes what you might interpret as being an objective,
factual analysis of "basic aspects of the different kinds
of recumbents" might be tainted with some subjective,
maybe even subconscious, bias. Some of us feel more
comfortable on swb, some on lwb. Some prefer ASS, some
prefer USS. So when you start talking about those "basic
aspects", our own preferences will have a way of coloring
the "facts". It's always preferable, whenever possible -
and it sometimes isn't - to check things out for
yourself. I still remember (it was a long time ago) how
it was common knowledge that swb bikes were twitchy and
hard to handle, and that lwb was definitely the way to
go. I accepted that fact for several years, riding my
Infinity. And then I had a chance to take a brief ride on
a Vision. It took all of about 15 minutes to realize that
the "facts" were wrong, that swb were not "twitchy". At
least, not this one. So, maybe others weren't either.
Shortly after that ride, I bought an Haluzak Horizon,
followed by a string of several other swb recumbents. And
guess what? They weren't twitchy at all. Just a long-
winded way of saying that generalizations can deliver a
lot of valuable information, but they can also mask some
misconceptions and biases as well. Read the reviews,
listen to the "experts", but when at all possible, check
it out for yourself.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Larry Varney]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Lorenzo L. Love wrote: <snip>
>>
>>>Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the question
>>>or we will know what a wife beater you are. So why do you
>>>think people should pay twice as much as the competitive
>>>price for a slow heavy comfort bike? What are your
>>>criteria that makes a Bigha worth $3000? The sterling
>>>reputation of the people who make it?
>>>
>>>Lorenzo L. Love
>>
>> Read carefully, Love. I have never defended this bike.
>> I have never said anyone should buy it. I have never
>> said it was worth $3000. You may use this pathetic "so
>> why do you think..." ploy, but everyone sees through
>> it. You and Dolan play the same, tired game, and it's
>> just incredible to think that neither of you realize
>> that everyone is on to
>
> you.
>
> I don't believe Mr. Varney and I will ever connect on any
> issue in this lifetime. He is a literalist. I do not get
> hung up on any particular words or even particular
> statements. I go for the overall sense of what is being
> said and I infer intention. I can do this because I read
> like a general reader and not like some kind of confounded
> specialist who looks at every word or statement
> separately. But Mr. Varney could be a more careful writer.
> He is always saying conflicting things and not making it
> clear exactly where he stands. Thus, the misunderstandings
> are all over the place. What he needs to do is focus
> sharper on exactly what he is saying and not ramble so
> much. He also needs to make it clear what his intentions
> are. Intentions are at the core of what most writing is
> about after all.
>

Nonsense. Do not blame the writer for the inabilities of
the reader. You claim that you read for "intention", and
yet you admit that you do not "look at every word or
statement separately". How do you read, Dolan, without
looking at each "word or statement separately"? And how
do you find I am "always saying conflicting things", if
you don't read the words or statements separately? The
truth is, I have not being saying conflicting things. And
yes, I know you will not actually post what I have
written to support your claims - it's much easier to make
an accusation without support. Read what I write. If you
do that, you will cut down on your misunderstandings
dramatically. Don't try to guess what someone's
"intentions" are: read what is written. And, that
includes all the words and statements. If you disagree
with what has been written, fine. But don't mistake
inferences for facts - they can be wrong. If you have a
question about something I've written, if you "infer" my
"intentions" are one thing but my words and statements
say something else, then ask. Say you are unclear on what
I'm saying, that you don't understand my point. I will do
my best to make it clear to you.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... [...]
> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said
> anything about the BiGHA being of good value or not.
> Period. I have never defended it. Period. I have never
> argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you are
> reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I
> have written what I have not, then how are we to
> interpret that? Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your
> part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you going
> to own up to?

Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders and
open your ears. Here it is once again:

"I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the
Bigha'. Just what are you doing? Do you think it is worth
$3000? Would you buy one for $3000? These aren't hard
questions.

Lorenzo L. Love"

Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing?
Is the Bigha good value or is it not? That is what all these
posts on this thread are about. Try to cut to the quick of
something for just once in your life why don't you? Either
do that or confine your conversations on this newsgroup to
lost souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes to get to the
substance of anything either.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Larry Varney]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]... [...]
>
>> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said
>> anything about the BiGHA being of good value or not.
>> Period. I have never defended it. Period. I have never
>> argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you are
>> reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I
>> have written what I have not, then how are we to
>> interpret that? Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your
>> part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you going
>> to own up to?
>
>
> Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders
> and open your ears. Here it is once again:
>

The question was asked of you. Here it is again: If you
are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim
I have written what I have not, then how are we to
interpret that? Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your
part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you going to
own up to?

> "I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the
> Bigha'. Just what are you doing? Do you think it is worth
> $3000? Would you buy one for $3000? These aren't hard
> questions.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love"
>
> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing?
> Is the Bigha good value or is it not? That is what all
> these posts on this thread are about. Try to cut to the
> quick of something for just once in your life why don't
> you? Either do that or confine your conversations on this
> newsgroup to lost souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes
> to get to the substance of anything either.
>

The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what
criteria are used to judge the value of any bike - or
anything at all. I have pointed that out, countless
times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted them. And
yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK,
here it is again: I am pointing out that the value of a
bike is not just pounds per dollar - there are more
criteria used than that. As to the relative weights of
those criteria, that will vary among the individuals.
Racers will care more about the weight, for example,
than the color. Components used is also another
variable - some people would opt for cheaper stuff, as
they would just install some pedals and things they
already have. Some people value the ready-to-ride
aspects of a delivered product, rather than having to
assemble it themselves. These are all criteria that are
used in judging the value of a bike. This is what I
have been saying. Do you understand it now? If not, I
can cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them
in another post.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Lorenzo L. Love]

Mark Leuck wrote:
> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Because if you didn't give a fair and impartial review,
>>you wouldn't be working for Consumer Reports for long.
>>Consumer Reports, because they buy the product and are not
>>dependent on the manufacturers for free products, can
>>insist on fair reviews. Who does that for recumbents?
>
>
> So what you are saying is anything a reviewer who receives
> free bikes is meaningless?
>
>

Not completely meaningless but you have to take into account
that they can not be too critical or make a no buy
recommendation.

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

 

[Lorenzo L. Love]

Mark Leuck wrote:
> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>I suspect it only appears we are being defensive because
>>>you are so offensive about the company itself and not
>>>the bike.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So you are quite happy to buy something at an inflated
>>price from a group of people who have previously walked
>>away from contracts, warranties and product support?
>
>
> If its a decent bike sure, there's more to it than the
> price. I purchased the Vision and lost 50 pounds, lost
> another 20 so far on the Baron and now blow away most
> other bikers.
>
> If I can do even a fraction of that on a BigHa then the
> price of the bike is dirt cheap.
>
>

If your primary criteria is losing weight, you should
definitely buy a Bigha. Peddling a heavy bike like a Bigha
burns a lot more calories then a light one like your Baron
Optima. Put a few bricks in your $275 Bigha bags (you'll
probably want to use gold plated ones) to make it an even
better value.

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

 

[Lorenzo L. Love]

Larry Varney wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]... [...]
>>
>>> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said
>>> anything about the BiGHA being of good value or not.
>>> Period. I have never defended it. Period. I have never
>>> argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you are
>>> reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim
>>> I have written what I have not, then how are we to
>>> interpret that? Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your
>>> part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you going
>>> to own up to?
>>
>>
>>
>> Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders
>> and open your ears. Here it is once again:
>>
>
> The question was asked of you. Here it is again: If you
> are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you
> claim I have written what I have not, then how are we to
> interpret that? Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your
> part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you going to
> own up to?
>
>> "I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the
>> Bigha'. Just what are you doing? Do you think it is worth
>> $3000? Would you buy one for $3000? These aren't hard
>> questions.
>>
>> Lorenzo L. Love"
>>
>> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are
>> doing? Is the Bigha good value or is it not? That is what
>> all these posts on this thread are about. Try to cut to
>> the quick of something for just once in your life why
>> don't you? Either do that or confine your conversations
>> on this newsgroup to lost souls like Jon Meinecke. He
>> never likes to get to the substance of anything either.
>>
>
> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what
> criteria are used to judge the value of any bike - or
> anything at all. I have pointed that out, countless
> times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted them. And
> yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK,
> here it is again: I am pointing out that the value of a
> bike is not just pounds per dollar - there are more
> criteria used than that. As to the relative weights of
> those criteria, that will vary among the individuals.
> Racers will care more about the weight, for example,
> than the color. Components used is also another
> variable - some people would opt for cheaper stuff, as
> they would just install some pedals and things they
> already have. Some people value the ready-to-ride
> aspects of a delivered product, rather than having to
> assemble it themselves. These are all criteria that are
> used in judging the value of a bike. This is what I
> have been saying. Do you understand it now? If not, I
> can cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them
> in another post.
>

So what are these criteria? There is what we know about the
Bigha: Very heavy - negative criteria; very expensive -
negative criteria; poor reputation of the people making it -
negative criteria. What positive criteria do you know about
the Bigha that outweighs these negatives?

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand

 

[Larry Varney]

Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]... [...]
>>>
>>>> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said
>>>> anything about the BiGHA being of good value or not.
>>>> Period. I have never defended it. Period. I have
>>>> never argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you
>>>> are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you
>>>> claim I have written what I have not, then how are we
>>>> to interpret that? Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on
>>>> your part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you
>>>> going to own up to?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders
>>> and open your ears. Here it is once again:
>>>
>>
>> The question was asked of you. Here it is again: If you
>> are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you
>> claim I have written what I have not, then how are we
>> to interpret that? Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your
>> part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you going
>> to own up to?
>>
>>> "I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the
>>> Bigha'. Just what are you doing? Do you think it is
>>> worth $3000? Would you buy one for $3000? These aren't
>>> hard questions.
>>>
>>> Lorenzo L. Love"
>>>
>>> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are
>>> doing? Is the Bigha good value or is it not? That is
>>> what all these posts on this thread are about. Try to
>>> cut to the quick of something for just once in your life
>>> why don't you? Either do that or confine your
>>> conversations on this newsgroup to lost souls like Jon
>>> Meinecke. He never likes to get to the substance of
>>> anything either.
>>>
>>
>> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what
>> criteria are used to judge the value of any bike - or
>> anything at all. I have pointed that out, countless
>> times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted them. And
>> yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
>> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK,
>> here it is again: I am pointing out that the value of a
>> bike is not just pounds per dollar - there are more
>> criteria used than that. As to the relative weights of
>> those criteria, that will vary among the individuals.
>> Racers will care more about the weight, for example,
>> than the color. Components used is also another
>> variable - some people would opt for cheaper stuff, as
>> they would just install some pedals and things they
>> already have. Some people value the ready-to-ride
>> aspects of a delivered product, rather than having to
>> assemble it themselves. These are all criteria that are
>> used in judging the value of a bike. This is what I
>> have been saying. Do you understand it now? If not, I
>> can cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them
>> in another post.
>>
>
> So what are these criteria? There is what we know about
> the Bigha: Very heavy - negative criteria; very expensive
> - negative criteria; poor reputation of the people making
> it - negative criteria. What positive criteria do you know
> about the Bigha that outweighs these negatives?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

There are many criteria for bikes, and the weight given
to each varies depending on who is doing the judging. How
did you pick your bikes, for instance? Was it simply a
matter of dividing the price in dollars by the weight in
pounds? Not that this is a bad way of looking at things -
you're entitled to make your decisions based on the
criteria that you consider important. By the way, "very
heavy" is not a critiera, but a judgement. So is "very
expensive". Weight and price are criteria, and apparently
the only ones in existence to some people. I have
mentioned several others numerous times over the past 20
or so posts. Did you miss them? Dolan apparently has a
problem reading what is written, words and statements and
all, and instead concentrates on what he infers are
"intentions" instead. Perhaps you and he share that
problem. Anyway - you seem fixated on this BiGHA bike,
demanding that people come up with reasons why they would
or wouldn't buy one. Why is that? I know of one other
person who has taken on a vendetta against a
manufacturer, in this other case it was pedals, and it
all came down to his being miffed that he wasn't give a
free set. So now he trashes them constantly. And, of
course, he has never used them. Could this be the source
of your problem with the BiGHA? Isn't it enough just to
point out all of the bad things you noticed when you rode
it? Why do you demand that others provide you with their
evaluations of the bike?
--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Larry Varney]

Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> Mark Leuck wrote:
>
>> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message news:[email protected]
>> thlink.net...
>>
>>> Because if you didn't give a fair and impartial review,
>>> you wouldn't be working for Consumer Reports for long.
>>> Consumer Reports, because they buy the product and are
>>> not dependent on the manufacturers for free products,
>>> can insist on fair reviews. Who does that for
>>> recumbents?
>>
>>
>>
>> So what you are saying is anything a reviewer who
>> receives free bikes is meaningless?
>>
>>
>
> Not completely meaningless but you have to take into
> account that they can not be too critical or make a no buy
> recommendation.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
>
>

Yes, talk is cheap, especially when you don't have a
clue. Who has told you that reviewers cannot make a "no
buy recommendation"? No one? That's what I thought. And
who told you that they "can't be too critical"? No one?
Boy, I'm on a roll here! (This answering your own
questions really saves time, doesn't it?)

Here's the thing, Lorenzo, that might give your OPINION
some value. Find us a review, or make that several, of a
particular item that is incontrovertibly awful, that
should be taken off the market by the government, that
cannot be justified for sale to anyone of any age, and if
those reviews say nice things about it, advise you to not
only buy one but several as Christmas gifts, and that the
fatal flaws are nothing to even worry yourself about,
then your OPINION might be something other than a biased
bit of unsustantiated prejudice. I didn't think so.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney