[email hidden] (JD) wrote:
hall said:Quoted message said:I am a bit curios about SS:er and what it is that makes then so great (in the eyes of their
owners). I've never met an SS rider so I have not had the possability to ask in person, so I'll
ask you guys (and gals) here instead.
I'm not a single-speeder, but I know lots of people who like them, and here's the insight I've
gotten from them:
-mechanically simple, light, and robust. Chain never has to operate on a diagonal, it's always lined
up between chainring and cog (if the bike is set up right). Assuming that you're talking about an SS
with horizontal dropouts or an EBB, and thus no tensioner, there's a silence that comes from no
chain slap. Chains wear longer, not so much burden of replacing other more costly parts that wear
out (derailleurs, cog clusters, etc). -freedom from thinking about gears. An experienced geared bike
rider makes shifts without consciously thinking about it, but there's a certain amount of mental
energy that has to go into it. (There's a hill coming, will I need to shift the front? Better do it
now...) For a singlespeeder, there's no need to think about the mechanics of shifting. There's only
the terrain. Changes the focus.
I'm sure it's nice. I would probably have a singlespeed if I could afford to have multiple bikes
laying around. As it is, I can afford one nice bike, and I've chosen to stick with gears for the
time being. Not the difference between being a stupid sheep and an enlightened man. Simply a choice.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:<snip trash>If you like it, ride it.
Why did you ask any of your questions then?
Because he is curious? Because he seeks understanding? Because he has an open mind?
hall, you've been around this newsgroup long enough to see that there are some attitudes here. I'm
glad you are secure enough to know that it's still OK to ask question, even though certain prominent
list posters will try to put you down, make you feel foolish, and get you in line with their dogma.
Some of the folks I know around here (real life) who are strictly singlespeeders are incredibly
talented riders. I ride with them sometimes. They wait for me on uphills usually, sometimes I can
leave them behind a little on downhills that are pedally, where my bigger gears give advantage.
They'll tell you what they love about their SS, but they'll also listen cheerfully when you tell
them what you love about your bike. They don't really care what you ride. Really what difference
should it make to them? Doesn't really matter. They are comfortable with their place in the world.
As you say, quite wisely I think, "If you like it, ride it."
This newsgroup is like high school in lots of ways. There are the self-defined "popular" clique, who
often enforce some phony exclusiveness. They portray themselves as not only great riders, but
keepers of some elusive truth(s). Oddly, one would expect a person who's (supposedly) athletically
talented, intelligent, and well- liked to be happy and content.
When I was in high school, I was an OK swimmer, but ball sports were the real deal, and I suck at
ball sports. Being a decent swimmer was about as prestigious as being a decent bagger at the grocery
store. So I was just a middle of the pack goober, not popular, not un-popular.
Among the "popular", there were plenty of male jocks who were arrogant, exclusive, and nasty. And
there were the attractive, popular cheerleaders who were the same. I think this is pretty typical.
But I can think of two people: one, a guy, probably the best all-around male athelete I've ever
known, and one of the prettiest girls I ever knew, also cheerleader. They were not exclusive. They
were not snobbish. I remember the girl, Anne, stopping to help a retarded girl who had slipped on
the ice. Mick, the guy, was decent and friendly.
What was the difference? Why were these two outgoing, friendly? It was always pretty obvious to
me. They were happy, confident, well-adjusted people. They didn't have anything to prove, no
axe to grind.
I'm repeatedly amazed at these outbursts from certain contributors to this group. They seem bent on
enforcing their views, and be- littling people who don't step into line. They abuse folks who ask
simple questions about equipment, about where to ride, about how to post messages properly.
This is an online community, just as a high school is a real-life community. Communities can be
about the enlightenment of all, inclusion, the creation of shared values, and just a plain decent
place to socialize. Or they can be a bunch of clubs and cliques. Like high school. Some people have
a good time in high school. Some people are lonely and suidcidal.
If these a.m-b folks are so smart, and so talented athletically, and have so many other fine
qualities, why do they have to be so nasty and bullying? Why do they continually leap onto posters
who seem clueless and get nasty? To help? Heck no, they get some weird pleasure out of putting
somebody down. Why not ignore the "dummy"? Because they *need* to put somebody down, apparently.
Low self-esteem I guess. Or just people who have gotten used to being nasty. Sad, really.
--
Tom Purvis - arkansasvalley.nettpurvisOpen ↗
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."-Bertrand Russell
