On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:32:27 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>Have you got a Brompton, Guy? And if so, why didn't you tell us? ;-)
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
Doki <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Doki wrote:
> >
snip cars
>
> >> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> >> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> >> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> >> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> >> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> >> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> >> comfy shape has to be heavy.
> >
> > So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> > getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> > be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> > come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> > performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> > on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> > shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> > then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> > a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> > things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> > enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> > racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> > by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> > people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> > some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".
> >
> > I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> > all of us want it, or would benefit from it.
>
> I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
> shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
> suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
> that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town than my
> racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
> what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.
um the whole point is that is a 50 year old design.
Even the slackest mtb is not going to be as sit up and beg, and is quite
likely to weight close to the same by time, hubgears, brooks saddle,
chainguard, skirt guard on the rear wheel, basket etc, where added.
On 26 Apr, 15:56, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Doki <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > > Doki wrote:
>
> snip cars
>
> > >> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> > >> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> > >> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> > >> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> > >> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> > >> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> > >> comfy shape has to be heavy.
>
> > > So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> > > getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> > > be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> > > come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> > > performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> > > on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> > > shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> > > then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> > > a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> > > things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> > > enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> > > racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> > > by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> > > people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> > > some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".
>
> > > I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> > > all of us want it, or would benefit from it.
>
> > I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
> > shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
> > suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
> > that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town thanmy
> > racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
> > what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.
>
> um the whole point is that is a 50 year old design.
>
> Even the slackest mtb is not going to be as sit up and beg, and is quite
> likely to weight close to the same by time, hubgears, brooks saddle,
> chainguard, skirt guard on the rear wheel, basket etc, where added.
>
> roger
> --www.rogermerriman.com
