titanium recommendation?

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

Quoted message said:

Comfort should be addressed by fit and frame material. If you specify
that you want to avoid aluminum frames, you should be able to find
something comfy. Some road riders are happy with an aluminum frame but
add a carbon fork for dampening the bumps, so that might be an option,
too.

Bill---

Lots and lots of people have logged millions of miles on Cannondale
touring bikes, and they have big ol' aluminum tubes and aluminum forks. The
material is not the issue, I think. It's a matter of geometry and fit. :-)

Quoted message said:

No..the cheaper the better! thanks for the recommendation and will
look into it.

I do feel bad about going to a LBS just to get a proper size bike if I
plan on finding the cheapest place to buy it. ( does that even make
any sense?)

It often doesn't work that way; fit isn't always something that gets nailed
in one session. A good LBS might be worth a lot more than whatever savings
might be had elsewhere, because they're going to go out of their way to make
sure your bike doesn't live its life in the garage. Fit is often dynamic;
what seems OK on a trainer or brief test ride might prove otherwise as you
add on the miles. It's not about frame size per se; the trick is how to set
up a given bike for the particular rider. Seat setback & height; handlebar
reach, width & tilt; seat-to-handlebar drop and saddle choice all come into
play when fitting somebody to a bike. I'm sure I left something out, but it
was a pretty long day today at the shop, with the stunning weather bringing
in a lot of people for bikes.

But my point was that all those adjustments I spoke of go far beyond frame
"size" and often require fine tuning down the road. That can make the
difference between a garage decoration and something that you can stand to
walk past without wanting to get out and ride.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am in the market for a new bike. My current bike is almost 20

years

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

old . I am interested in carbon or ti. and there seems to be a lot

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

info on carbon bikes. But I am having a difficult time finding
recommendations of Ti bikes. Itc ould be because of my price range,

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dont know. I want to spend 1500 to 2300 or so. the less the better.

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dont need the best out there, I only ride for pleasure, about

100-200

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

miles a week, and I do a century or two each year.

Quoted message said:

Ron

After riding a GT steel bike for 7 years I just bought a Litespeed
Siena--compact frame/ carbon seatstays. I do lots of centuries,
double metrics and double doubles--all real hilly, and I was getting
envious of the 16.5 lb bikes while I was on something pushing 22 lbs.

I tricked out the Litespeed, replacing most of the parts (for example
RealDesign fork is supposedly harsh, so I upgraded to a Reynolds Ouzo
Pro), and bought from a LBS--but I've seen a stock Litespeed Siena at
REI with year old wheels for @$2700

Was the new bike it worth it, and is ti a magical material? The Siena
is not the lightest ti out there as it has oversized tubes, and I
didn't want something whippy. It came in slightly over 18 lbs, so I
still lost 3-3 1/2 lbs from my old bike. On long climbs it feels
better, but hard to tell. On short sprints/ climbs that I can power
over rollers the acceleration is better than on my old bike.

On the flats acceleration also seems a little better, but I would be
hard pressed to prove that I am going any faster. I haven't taken the
Litespeed out for 100 mile syet so don't know if more comfortable than
my GT 853 steel bike--but so far I haven't noticed any great "legendary
ti feel;" in fact the steel bike may be a bit more comfortable. (but
I'm still moving the seat around on each ride--now pushed way back on
the tight frame.)

The biggest bang for the buck I've gotten has been on the
downhills--the Litespeed tracks sooooo much better than the GT, I'm not
scrubbing speed/ riding the brakes like I did on the GT. I feel like
I am in total control. However this goes back to fit/ size/
geometry--not the bike's material itself.

Of course ti doesn't rust or scratch--but I negated the latter by
having the bike painted orange--logically dysfunctional but
asthetically necessary for me.

Best of luck...

A Cannondale T-2000. It is by far the most comfortable bike I own.

When this bike is loaded down it is _sooooo_ comfy

For Ti, I enjoy my Manhatten Project...

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Comfort should be addressed by fit and frame material. If you specify
that you want to avoid aluminum frames, you should be able to find
something comfy. Some road riders are happy with an aluminum frame but
add a carbon fork for dampening the bumps, so that might be an option,
too.

Bill---

Lots and lots of people have logged millions of miles on Cannondale
touring bikes, and they have big ol' aluminum tubes and aluminum forks.
The
material is not the issue, I think. It's a matter of geometry and fit. :-)

Gooserider said:

Lots and lots of people have logged millions of miles on

Cannondale

Quoted message said:

touring bikes, and they have big ol' aluminum tubes and aluminum

forks. The

Quoted message said:

material is not the issue, I think. It's a matter of geometry and

fit. :-)

I agree, but point out that most, if not all, Cannondale touring bikes
(I have one) use steel forks. I don't tour, but do "ultra-cycling"
rides on my Cannondale. If the bike "beat me up" I certainly wouldn't.

Bartow W. Riggs said:

A Cannondale T-2000. It is by far the most comfortable bike I own.

When this bike is loaded down it is _sooooo_ comfy

Does it have to be loaded to be comfy? That doesn't make any sense.

If Ti crown jewel XS. The nicest bnike I have ever ridden. And I've
ridden a lot of them.

If Ti crown jewel XS. The nicest bnike I have ever ridden. And I've
ridden a lot of them.

Quoted message said:

Well. I guess I didnt give enough detail. My current bike is a trek
1000 aluminum. It is a 56cm. I am 6'2" and 205 lbs. I guess at the
time I got it, I liked it. I dont know if I grew

I am in the market for a new bike. My current bike is almost 20 years
old .

Hi there,

I didn't realized that Trek made an aluminium 1000 20 years ago?!?
Wow!!

As others had noted, fit and geometry is very important to comfort and
you don't need special materials to make a bike ride more comfortable.

I went the same route as you did, buying a ultra-cheap Norco touring
bike which was made with 7005 aluminium material. Since I was after
the price, I didn't realize later that the finesse of fitting was more
important. The ride, at first, was horrible and very uncomfortable to
say the least. One day, upon a suggestion made from a randonneur, I
went to see a professional bike fitter. After 6 sessions with him (I
had to come back again 5 times to fine tune my fit), my Norco bike now
rides like a dream. Very comfortable and very smooth. The only saving
grace for going cheap was that, I lucked out choosing the right frame
size -- at least I read a bit about inseam.

Recently, I went shopping for a new road bike. This time, however, I
went to a shop that offers fitting as part of the bike purchase. It's
pricier, but I learned my lesson on the Norco not to skimp on this very
important measurement.
I tested out the Trek 5000, Giant OCR 3 Carbon, Cannondale R700 and the
Devinci Silverstone 105. With the same fitting, saddle and pedals (my
preference), they all feel the same in the 4 mile test ride I've
conducted. The carbon bikes did dampen road vibration better than the
Optimo CAAD7 or Optimum 61 AL frames, but then it's a personal
preference. The newer AL frames have a very nice ride to it, very
comfy too. Don't discount the AL frames too fast. I did that first
because I read so much of the bull on the net. But the test rides
proved me wrong.

David.

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

Quoted message said:

Gooserider said:

Lots and lots of people have logged millions of miles on

Cannondale

Quoted message said:

touring bikes, and they have big ol' aluminum tubes and aluminum

forks. The

Quoted message said:

material is not the issue, I think. It's a matter of geometry and

fit. :-)

I agree, but point out that most, if not all, Cannondale touring bikes
(I have one) use steel forks. I don't tour, but do "ultra-cycling"
rides on my Cannondale. If the bike "beat me up" I certainly wouldn't.

Thanks for the correction, Peter.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:02:35 -0500, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Check out this one:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/habanero.html

For anyone looking to spend this kind of money on a new road bike, this is what
I'd point them to. I like Ti because of its elegant and indestructible finish.
The light weight is nice too. With this package you also get "real" wheels and
hill friendly gearing, a big plus IMO. Personally I'd toss the Brooks but some
people really love them.

Matt O.

Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

David said:

I didn't realized that Trek made an aluminium 1000 20 years ago?!?
Wow!!

I guess I goofed on my math.. Lets se..I got the bike in 1991..
2005-1991= 14... hrmm guess I was way off..sorry for the confusion.

Its 14 yrs old.

And I do thank all the people who have posted and offered wonderful
advice.

Bob Terrwilliger said:

Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike. These are
almost impossible to find nowadays. Plus there's a custom cassette for more
hill-friendly gearing. There's also a Brooks saddle, if you like that.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Bob Terrwilliger said:

Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.

I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Bob Terrwilliger said:

Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.

I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

--
Tom Sherman – Earth (Illinois)

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

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Bob Terrwilliger wrote:

>Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
>habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
>the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
>this thru volume!)

Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.

I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
[censored] Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.

Gooserider said:

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

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Bob Terrwilliger wrote:
>
>
>>Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
>>habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
>>the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
>>this thru volume!)
>
>Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.

I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
[censored] Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.

I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Gooserider said:

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

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

>"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bob Terrwilliger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
>>>habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
>>>the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
>>>this thru volume!)
>>
>>Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.
>
>
>I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
>irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)

Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
regressive/reactionary, not conservative.

The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
[censored] Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.

I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Hillary Rodham was a Republican. Hillary Rodham Clinton became a
Democrat. By no stretch of the imagination should she be considered a
liberal (not should any DLC Democrat).

Bill Clinton stabbed his constituency in the back - other than his
positions on the agenda of the "Christian right", his policies were
barely distinguishable from those of G H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

It is no wonder that Democrats lose elections when they abandon their
base to feed from the same hog trough of legalized bribery (corporate
campaign contributions [1]) as the Republicans do.

Of course, we all know what the word for the merger of corporate and
state power is.

[1] Strictly speaking, not from corporations, but when the top
executives of a corporation bundle their individual contributions
together, it sends a blatantly obvious message to the candidate that
this is the corporation speaking.

--
Tom Sherman – Earth (Illinois)

Tom Sherman said:

RonSonic said:

Gooserider said:

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

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bob Terrwilliger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
>>>>habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
>>>>the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
>>>>this thru volume!)
>>>
>>>Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.
>>
>>
>>I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
>>irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)
>
>Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
>administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
>regressive/reactionary, not conservative.
>
>The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
>displayed much hatred for him.

Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
[censored] Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
which isn't exactly conservative of him.

I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Hillary Rodham was a Republican. Hillary Rodham Clinton became a
Democrat. By no stretch of the imagination should she be considered a
liberal (not should any DLC Democrat).

That health care plan will forever convince us otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Bill Clinton stabbed his constituency in the back - other than his
positions on the agenda of the "Christian right", his policies were
barely distinguishable from those of G H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

It is no wonder that Democrats lose elections when they abandon their
base to feed from the same hog trough of legalized bribery (corporate
campaign contributions [1]) as the Republicans do.

Ya know, I have a hard time reading that "the dems abandon their base" without
thinking of that entire class of workaday Americans who attend a church, have
kids in Scouting, believe unreservedly that the first duty of government is the
common defense and that their country and culture deserves defense, that
abortion is at best regrettable. People like that used to vote Democrat. They
elected every Democrat between Roosevelt and Johnson. They filled state and
federal legislatures with Dems. They voted for Clinton, hoping, expecting that
he was something like them. He was far wimpier on national defense policy than
they (perhaps a nod to what _you_ think is the Dem base) but they also
recognized him as having come from where they did.

When the Dems sold out the workers for the union bosses, trial lawyers,
envirowhacks and euroweenies that's when they started losing elections.

Quoted message said:

Of course, we all know what the word for the merger of corporate and
state power is.

[1] Strictly speaking, not from corporations, but when the top
executives of a corporation bundle their individual contributions
together, it sends a blatantly obvious message to the candidate that
this is the corporation speaking.

Ya know, in the big picture corporate donations are fairly small relative to the
impact on those industries that government has. Example: Tobacco; a vote in
congress or the state house is worth billions, yet the companies muster at most
a few million, peanuts by comparison. See, if they thought they could buy
something they'd ante up hundreds of millions and consider it a wise investment.
That's why I'm not all that worried. These guys know what a paid politician is
worth, not much.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Tom Sherman said:

RonSonic said:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:10:29 GMT, "Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bob Terrwilliger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Just wondering. whats the difference between the sheldon brown
>>>>>habanero and one from the company direct? I mean besides sheldon sells
>>>>>the ultegra equiped one cheaper than the company. ( I assume he does
>>>>>this thru volume!)
>>>>
>>>>Sheldon puts conservative, durable, 36 spoke wheels on the bike.
>>>
>>>
>>>I normally stay out of these threads, but can't help but point out the
>>>irony of Sheldon being more conservative than me... ;-)
>>
>>Based on his past off-topic posts and his support of the Cheney/Rove
>>administration, I would call Mr. Hickey's politics
>>regressive/reactionary, not conservative.
>>
>>The US had a conservative president from 1993-2001, and the Republicans
>>displayed much hatred for him.
>
>Clinton was a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. George Bush and
>[censored] Cheney are not conservatives, they're right leaning moderates. Pat
>Buchanan is a conservative, both fiscally and foreign policy wise. Let's not
>forget that Clinton sent troops to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti,
>which isn't exactly conservative of him.

I would call Clinton middle of the road. To call him a moderate would suggest
that he had personally taken a position in the middle of that road rather than
having found himself there after having dodged the traffic. It's pretty clear he
would've been much further to the left if not for the 1994 election. There is
something to be said for a malleable fellow like that in office. If nothing else
it makes him hard to beat in an election.

Hillary took notes.

Hillary Rodham was a Republican. Hillary Rodham Clinton became a
Democrat. By no stretch of the imagination should she be considered a
liberal (not should any DLC Democrat).

That health care plan will forever convince us otherwise.

Instead of a simple, single-payer plan ("Medicare for all"😉, Hillary et
at came up with one that combined the worst features of the current
system and government bureaucracy. One almost has to believe that the
plan was designed to discredit any attempt at changing the current
system, since it did not please anyone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Clinton stabbed his constituency in the back - other than his
positions on the agenda of the "Christian right", his policies were
barely distinguishable from those of G H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.

It is no wonder that Democrats lose elections when they abandon their
base to feed from the same hog trough of legalized bribery (corporate
campaign contributions [1]) as the Republicans do.

Ya know, I have a hard time reading that "the dems abandon their base" without
thinking of that entire class of workaday Americans who attend a church, have
kids in Scouting, believe unreservedly that the first duty of government is the
common defense and that their country and culture deserves defense, that
abortion is at best regrettable. People like that used to vote Democrat. They
elected every Democrat between Roosevelt and Johnson. They filled state and
federal legislatures with Dems. They voted for Clinton, hoping, expecting that
he was something like them. He was far wimpier on national defense policy than
they (perhaps a nod to what _you_ think is the Dem base) but they also
recognized him as having come from where they did.

When the Dems sold out the workers for the union bosses, trial lawyers,
envirowhacks and euroweenies that's when they started losing elections.

NAFTA, GATT/WTO, tax credits for exporting jobs, favorable trade status
for countries that compete by eliminating worker rights and
environmental protections, decreased regulation of securities and
banking industry, etc. - yes many of the Democrats sold out those who
income consists primarily of earned wages and not unearned investment
income.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, we all know what the word for the merger of corporate and
state power is.

[1] Strictly speaking, not from corporations, but when the top
executives of a corporation bundle their individual contributions
together, it sends a blatantly obvious message to the candidate that
this is the corporation speaking.

Ya know, in the big picture corporate donations are fairly small relative to the
impact on those industries that government has. Example: Tobacco; a vote in
congress or the state house is worth billions, yet the companies muster at most
a few million, peanuts by comparison. See, if they thought they could buy
something they'd ante up hundreds of millions and consider it a wise investment.
That's why I'm not all that worried. These guys know what a paid politician is
worth, not much.

Yes, by investing millions in campaign contributions, billions in
corporate welfare are received. Sounds like an excellent return on
investment.

--
Tom Sherman – Earth (Illinois)