Mike Vandeman

Fish said:

I will probably get into trouble for "feeding the troll" but I find him
quite a nice little hobby to while away the lonly hours.

This is a challenge to Mike

*yawn*
And what exactly is this going to accomplish?

You're going to have to be more clever than that.
--
Westie

Sorry Fish but yes *yawn*

It won't happen and will surely end up with Mike screaming BS and Liar
at people 🙂

http://www.geocities.com/mike_vandeman_the_extremist/

Do a GOOGLE for his post for the last 8 years and the info you seek
will be there.

MTBMAN

oops, my mistake, he used moron this time.

Come on Mike, be a bit more 'extremist'-

http://www.geocities.com/mike_vandeman_the_extremist/

sorry Mikey boy but your paper or report or whatever you want to call it
fails on some big points:-

Firstly it was written to prove a point (that mountain biking is "bad" to
nature" This is not good scientific method

because many mountain bikers are after thrills and speed,

This is specualtion and rumour you cant prove this ...no one can

Slamming on the brakes after zooming downhill

Once again untrue ask a mountain biker this would cause a skid which would
mean we have lost control of the bike WE DO NOT DO THIS unless absolutly
nessercary

I haven't found any published
statistics, but I have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride
announcements, which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of
27
miles, and a maximum of 112 miles.

This is pure bollox unless you were collecting them specifically to prove a
point an average of 27 miles!!! I would say that off road I do a maximum of
20 miles in a day and even if you include riding there and back it only
reaches a maximum of 30 ish miles. Just think of it this way a ride of 127
miles would take roughly 11 hours offroad!! depending on terrain, rider
skill etc.

Also I notice the word informally in there which is also non scientific and
breaks one of the rules in the original challenge. We cant trace reults that
were collected informally.

I dont even need to read it all to see that this is an attemp IN YOUR OWN
WORDS to prove a different paper wrong and you have supplied no proof that
you have the relevent position or scientific background to prove or disprove
that paper.

I asked for proof that moutain biking was "bad" to nature you supplied me
with various extracts from a paper saying that moutain biking is no worse
than hiking with your own unscientific personalised comments which prove it
wrong.

You use rumours, 2nd hand accounts, speculation and a non scientific method.
Using the same technique I have no doubt I could "proove" that grass is
actually blue.

I thus keep my opionion that Mountain bikers are innocent until proven
guilty.

QUOTE=Fish I will probably get into trouble for "feeding the troll" but I find him
quite a nice little hobby to while away the lonly hours.

If you are that bored you should just pile up some real evidence supporting MTB, you will get the same result...

...Vandeman will disagree! Suprise!

You will have more fun that way, and you will actually be counterproductive to his cause.

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

Quoted message said:

QUOTE=Fish I will probably get into trouble for "feeding the troll" but
I find him
quite a nice little hobby to while away the lonly hours.

If you are that bored you should just pile up some real evidence
supporting MTB, you will get the same result...

..Vandeman will disagree! Suprise!

You will have more fun that way, and you will actually be
counterproductive to his cause.

Fish likely live in an area like me, snow covered for several months.

I beat the winter by xc skiing, and snowmobiling..... i love breaking a
trail where no trail is....

More fuel for th troll, but true.

Micheal

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

Quoted message said:

QUOTE=Fish I will probably get into trouble for "feeding the troll" but
I find him
quite a nice little hobby to while away the lonly hours.

If you are that bored you should just pile up some real evidence
supporting MTB, you will get the same result...

..Vandeman will disagree! Suprise!

You will have more fun that way, and you will actually be
counterproductive to his cause.

Its a good idea but I feel it would be agaist the rules that I set out

...... Mike has clearly read all the existing documentation out there and
chosent o ignore it so simply re-cycling other peoples reasearch into my own
paper would be pointless, annoying and it would be exactly what mike is
doing and I have absolutly no scientific bacground except at GCSE level
although I did do well this does not qualify me to perform scientific
reaserch. TAKE NOTE OF THIS MIKEY BOY!!!!

Although It would be fun to read all the argument's counter arguments and
counter counter arguments put forward by professionals and try to come to my
own unbiased decision although Unbiased would be difficult as I am already
biased!! Im sticking with the argument

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The best I could hope to do is go out and take some photo's of well known
and well used mountain biker haunts and show the lack of soil damage. but
mike would argue some way anyway so its kinda pointless.

In fact a good plan would be to take a trail that has been off limits to
bikes for the last 5 years at least and compare it to a trail which is still
fully acessable to bikes.

Man your right I am bored .....Mayby I should appoint myself as a full time
Mike fighter. At least until I find a job. Save the rest of you the bother

Although It would be fun to read all the argument's counter arguments and
counter counter arguments put forward by professionals and try to come to my
own unbiased decision although Unbiased would be difficult as I am already
biased!! Im sticking with the argument

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The best I could hope to do is go out and take some photo's of well known
and well used mountain biker haunts and show the lack of soil damage. but
mike would argue some way anyway so its kinda pointless.

That is more of what I was hinting at, Mike doesn't care about texts by MTB'ers. It would have to be hard even for him to argue with photo evidence. It is definately pointless unless you are having fun knowing he is actually at home squirming, behind his "Internet tough guy" thing he's always doing.

Same ole....same ole.

Sloppy citations, personal anecdotal impressions served up as fact,
and intellectually dishonest. As is his whole website.

Personally I think the whole hypothesis is flawed.
Every study I've come across has shown that life
reacts to stress by adaptation and thereby creates
what we call diversity.

Michael would have us believe that the clicking of the bike chain will
upset the elk that manage to survive thunderstorms, earthquakes and forest
fires.
That the salamander that survives the passing of deer and moose will succumb
to
the knobby tire.

This statement: (the hypothesis) .........

"Every recreationist -- whether hiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey
sniffer --
should not begin by asking, 'What's best for ME?' but rather 'What's best
for
the bears?'" Tom Butler

.......................................is [censored].

Mike hasnt reply posted is to too early to hope that he has given up?

mountain bikers are never innocent!! by the way -- are trek bikes still
pretty good at the under 500 dollar range? I have an old trek I just
rebuilt and its been working really well but being it's pretty old I was
thinking of replacing it. Don't really know whetehr I want another
off-the-shelf bike like a trek. really want a custom frame. I'd just swap
all the
components off the trek since they are in great shape. however having a
hard time finding custom under 500.

<none>

Fish said:

sorry Mikey boy but your paper or report or whatever you want to call it
fails on some big points:-

Firstly it was written to prove a point (that mountain biking is "bad" to
nature" This is not good scientific method

because many mountain bikers are after thrills and speed,

This is specualtion and rumour you cant prove this ...no one can

Slamming on the brakes after zooming downhill

Once again untrue ask a mountain biker this would cause a skid which would
mean we have lost control of the bike WE DO NOT DO THIS unless absolutly
nessercary

I haven't found any published
statistics, but I have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride
announcements, which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of
27
miles, and a maximum of 112 miles.

This is pure bollox unless you were collecting them specifically to prove a
point an average of 27 miles!!! I would say that off road I do a maximum of
20 miles in a day and even if you include riding there and back it only
reaches a maximum of 30 ish miles. Just think of it this way a ride of 127
miles would take roughly 11 hours offroad!! depending on terrain, rider
skill etc.

Also I notice the word informally in there which is also non scientific and
breaks one of the rules in the original challenge. We cant trace reults that
were collected informally.

I dont even need to read it all to see that this is an attemp IN YOUR OWN
WORDS to prove a different paper wrong and you have supplied no proof that
you have the relevent position or scientific background to prove or disprove
that paper.

I asked for proof that moutain biking was "bad" to nature you supplied me
with various extracts from a paper saying that moutain biking is no worse
than hiking with your own unscientific personalised comments which prove it
wrong.

You use rumours, 2nd hand accounts, speculation and a non scientific method.
Using the same technique I have no doubt I could "proove" that grass is
actually blue.

I thus keep my opionion that Mountain bikers are innocent until proven
guilty.

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

Quoted message said:

mountain bikers are never innocent!! by the way -- are trek bikes still
pretty good at the under 500 dollar range? I have an old trek I just
rebuilt and its been working really well but being it's pretty old I was
thinking of replacing it. Don't really know whetehr I want another
off-the-shelf bike like a trek. really want a custom frame. I'd just swap
all the
components off the trek since they are in great shape. however having a
hard time finding custom under 500.

Im pretty innocent

I have no idea you will probably be best to start a new post for this .

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:59:54 -0000, "Fish"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

..sorry Mikey boy but your paper or report or whatever you want to call it
..fails on some big points:-
..
..Firstly it was written to prove a point (that mountain biking is "bad" to
..nature" This is not good scientific method

BS. That doesn't need to be proven. Mountain bikers admit that up front.

..because many mountain bikers are after thrills and speed,

It's obvious, & admitted often by mountain bikers.

..This is specualtion and rumour you cant prove this ...no one can
..
.. Slamming on the brakes after zooming downhill
..
..Once again untrue ask a mountain biker this would cause a skid which would
..mean we have lost control of the bike WE DO NOT DO THIS unless absolutly
..nessercary

I didn't say that. Learn how to read.

..I haven't found any published
..statistics, but I have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride
..announcements, which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of
..27
..miles, and a maximum of 112 miles.
..
..This is pure bollox unless you were collecting them specifically to prove a
..point an average of 27 miles!!! I would say that off road I do a maximum of
..20 miles in a day and even if you include riding there and back it only
..reaches a maximum of 30 ish miles. Just think of it this way a ride of 127
..miles would take roughly 11 hours offroad!! depending on terrain, rider
..skill etc.

I didn't say "127". DUH!

..Also I notice the word informally in there which is also non scientific and
..breaks one of the rules in the original challenge. We cant trace reults that
..were collected informally.

So do your own stats. It would still prove my point: mountain bikers ride at
least twice as far as hikers hike, usually MORE.

..I dont even need to read it all to see that this is an attemp IN YOUR OWN
..WORDS to prove a different paper wrong and you have supplied no proof that
..you have the relevent position or scientific background to prove or disprove
..that paper.

"position or scientific background" is irrelevant. The paper speaks for itself.

..I asked for proof that moutain biking was "bad" to nature you supplied me
..with various extracts from a paper saying that moutain biking is no worse
..than hiking with your own unscientific personalised comments which prove it
..wrong.

ALL those papers admit that mountain biking is bad for nature.

..You use rumours, 2nd hand accounts, speculation and a non scientific method.
..Using the same technique I have no doubt I could "proove" that grass is
..actually blue.
..
..I thus keep my opionion that Mountain bikers are innocent until proven
..guilty.

Read the papers I reviewed. Until you do, you can't say anything.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

<none>

Gary S. said:

Fish said:

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

Quoted message said:

mountain bikers are never innocent!! by the way -- are trek bikes still

<snip> t a custom frame. I'd just swap

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all the
components off the trek since they are in great shape. however having a
hard time finding custom under 500.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

With custom frames, there is no way they are going to cost below a
certain price for a frame; it is not cost effective to do custom
one-off work at a mass-produced price point.

why's that? even if it takes a day to cut and weld the tubes that is still
over 100 an hour being charged for labor. why would it not be cost
effective to charge less for labor?

demonmaster said:

Gary S. said:

With custom frames, there is no way they are going to cost below a
certain price for a frame; it is not cost effective to do custom
one-off work at a mass-produced price point.

why's that? even if it takes a day to cut and weld the tubes that is still
over 100 an hour being charged for labor. why would it not be cost
effective to charge less for labor?

There are many, many hours of hand filing, sanding etc, especially
with a brazed frame.

For a really custom frame, allow time for measuring, interacting with
customer, and design.

Materials, usually high end for something like this, are costly.

There are also many hours that go into the prep for painting, and the
various layers of paint.

From manufacturer to retailer there is some sort of mark-up, minimal
in the case where you go direct to a frame maker.

Highly skilled labor, with normal benefits and overhead, is at least
$50 per hour. What does an auto mechanic charge in your area? I would
think that a custom frame builder would bill at least as much.

When they do a whole bike, they can make a little bit on the gruppo
(wholesale vs retail) and installation labor, but you said you were
handling that.

Even so, most custom frame builders drive a car that costs less than
the retail on the bicycle they usually ride. They build frames because
they are artists and craftsmen who love cycling, not because they are
looking to make lots of money.

Totally different than a mass-produced frame, made in large quantity
by less skilled labor, in a country with an entirely different cost of
living.

But if you can find a good framebuilder who charges the same for
custom as a what a mass-produced frame would cost, go for it.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

"Chris Phillipo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With custom frames, there is no way they are going to cost below a
certain price for a frame; it is not cost effective to do custom
one-off work at a mass-produced price point.

why's that? even if it takes a day to cut and weld the tubes that is

still

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

over 100 an hour being charged for labor. why would it not be cost
effective to charge less for labor?

The point you seem to be missing is that they are custom frame builders as
with all custom work they can charge pretty much what they like because if
somebody wants or even needs a custom frame they will be prepared to pay
allot more for it. Yes mayby they are overcharging but thats up to them
halford's overcharge for there labour everyday but your not complaining.

You want something made custom you have to expect to pay allot more for it
its as simple as that and there is something else noone seems to have taken
into consideration ... Insurance .... the cost of insurance for a making
things custom is extreme because if a frame breaks ....and you lose a leg
bacuse of it ... you might sue the frame builder how much is your leg worth
to you? ok this is an extreme case but it has happened. if you produce
thousends exactly the same you can test one of them to destruction and be
100% confident it will not break unless it is put past the stresses which
you tell the consumer not to do. anyone who has bought a frame even a
specialised dirt jump frame will know they have annoying little stickers
telling you not to do jumps on them.