What you hosers don't seem to understand about LWS



it just occurred to me what is the difference between a walmart
purchaser and a LBS purchaser AND the best advice to give newbies on
this forum: if you think a bicycle is a TOY (as I do) then go to
walmart, the bikes are in the TOY section. If however leg power is is
your only means of transportation and you do not see a bike as a TOY
but as a means of survival, then you should give it your best to have a
REALLY nice bike and go ahead an help Gary Turner go 280 MPH.
 
No Cars are not toys. If you are going to use them as toys (in a
demolition derby), then Yeah a yugo is just as good as a mercedes.

I drive a chevrolet diesel pickup, because it is the cheapest thing
that meets my needs, 37,000 is alot of money to be the cheapest thing,
but it gets all 4 snowmobiles to the top of the mountain every winter.
By YOUR logic i should have shelled out 50,000 plus and got a HUMMER
because it's the "mercedes"

So if my duramax is a yugo. . . . what SHOULD i have bought?
 
"x1134x" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No Cars are not toys. If you are going to use them as toys (in a
> demolition derby), then Yeah a yugo is just as good as a mercedes.
>
> I drive a chevrolet diesel pickup, because it is the cheapest thing
> that meets my needs, 37,000 is alot of money to be the cheapest thing,
> but it gets all 4 snowmobiles to the top of the mountain every winter.
> By YOUR logic i should have shelled out 50,000 plus and got a HUMMER
> because it's the "mercedes"
>
> So if my duramax is a yugo. . . . what SHOULD i have bought?


You still don't understand, I'll try to explain it one more time, now pay
close attention.

If a "Walmart" bike is as good as a high end bicycle store bike, because
they both have wheels and pedals, then a Yugo is just as good as a Mercedes
because they both have doors and wheels. I could care less what you
drive, but how's the price of gasoline and diesel affecting all your
internal combustion toys?

BTW, ride your motorcycle on our local bike trail, it could be in the next
police auction.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> The Trailrunner wrote:

>>But if
>>not, I can't justify a $500+ investment in something I might use half
>>dozen times a year at most.
>
>
> Point taken ... now when your ankle is better ... you should come out
> for next years La Luz.

I've heard good things about it but it's a little short for my tastes.
I'm an ultra freak.

--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/
 
>If a "Walmart" bike is as good as a high end bicycle store bike, because
>they both have wheels and pedals, then a Yugo is just as good as a Mercedes
>because they both have doors and wheels. I could care less what you
>drive, but how's the price of gasoline and diesel affecting all your
>internal combustion toys?

I'm not trying to claim they are the same, just saying for many people
they are a better buy. because not everyone uses their bicycles like
you do.

So it costs $50 bucks to fill up now instead of 25 big deal. i spend
more going out to eat on a friday. and it costs a whopping 13 bucks to
fill up the five gallon gas tank and go out dirt biking all day. or
sometimes two days

>BTW, ride your motorcycle on our local bike trail, it could be in the next
>police auction.

I'm not a moron I ride where it is legal, however, I totally rail
against limiting dirtbike access anywhere, But I am NOT one of the
offenders.
 
x1134x wrote:
> People who CAN afford a car, and use it as their means of getting
> around. And that's a big no on the cigarrettes but yes on the dew and
> pot. a great cocktail for dirtbiking{:) and i know that you think I
> am tongue in cheek joking here, i assure you I am not.
>
> Funny how someone who smokes pot has a 40,000 dollar truck, 15,000
> dollar jeep, two motorbikes, a GT bike and a NEXT "walgoose" on top of

All paid off, I'm sure. You really are very impressive!

> my house, yet a sierra club member fresh - air legislating non-smoker
> uses a bicycle to get to work!
>

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado

"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."
Edward R. Murrow
 
>OK, then I think you're doing it (riding the bike) wrong.

Well, I don't "sit and steer" I like to ride a little more aggressivle
than that, and it's a workout.

>But you're not allowed to ride the Honda on the sidewalk!

Bending the handlebars hopping off a sidewalk curb, What do they weigh
350 lbs?

>Well, if the trail is where I get the flat my choices are fix it there
>or walk home. So yes, I do change them on the trail if that's where they
>go flat.

Where do you carry your spare tire/tube? doesn't that take away from
your "weight advantage" (i'm imagining someone ridiing their
mountainbike with an extra tire hanging from their neck)

>But then you've bought two sets of wheels to just use one. So much for
>the bike being a better deal! Why not just get one that you don't have
>to buy more stuff for to make it slightly less of a piece of ****?

But if it was still cheaper and brought the quality to comparable it
may be worth looking into. Anyone who plays guitars knows fenders are
ok, but as soon as you get them drop the tuners off an get good ones,
cuz fenders come with **** tuning pegs.


>That was Ride-A-Lot, not JD, but honestly I think most of not all of us
>would rather not have dirt bikes on the trails.

Why? because they spray you with gravel? the solution to that is get
them aressted for assault, and if you got hit, battery, not close the
trail to all dirt bikes. just pack your video camera along with you
once. . . .

>Then why didn't you buy a cheaper truck and just replace it more
>regularly? Safety? Convenience?

HORSEPOWER 510 lbs/ft torque i told you i got the cheapest thing that
FIT the desired need. there wasn't another cheaper option or I would
have THAT one. That's is just good economics.

>Chances are it wasn't to be less wasteful (in terms of
>resources), but that would also enter into my decision.

Even if we conserved EVERYTHING to a ridiculous degree (turning off the
shower while you soap or shampoo and then turn it back on- i always
laugh at that suggestion) the exponential growth of human population
will eventually consume the natural resources available eventually
anyway, so why should I voluntarily give up my fun / convenience /
leisure, to prolong the inevitable? I don't mind if more of the scar
is done by me. it's gonna get it anyway, unless we legislate
population control

>Even if by your definition I do consider my bikes toys, I'm still going
>to want a quality toy. I think of them more as tools for fitness, fun,
>transportation, and even survival. I don't want to trust my welfare to a
>cheap piece of ****.

And i don't want to trust my welfare to a bicycle! I can just imagine
you driving your wife to the hospital to deliver the baby riding on
your handlebars!
 
x1134x wrote:
>
> And i don't want to trust my welfare to a bicycle! I can just imagine
> you driving your wife to the hospital to deliver the baby riding on
> your handlebars!


huh, they do this in third world countries all the time.
 
x1134x wrote:
>>OK, then I think you're doing it (riding the bike) wrong.
>
>
> Well, I don't "sit and steer" I like to ride a little more aggressivle
> than that, and it's a workout.
>
>
>>But you're not allowed to ride the Honda on the sidewalk!
>
>
> Bending the handlebars hopping off a sidewalk curb, What do they weigh
> 350 lbs?
>
>
>>Well, if the trail is where I get the flat my choices are fix it there
>>or walk home. So yes, I do change them on the trail if that's where they
>>go flat.
>
>
> Where do you carry your spare tire/tube? doesn't that take away from
> your "weight advantage" (i'm imagining someone ridiing their
> mountainbike with an extra tire hanging from their neck)
>
>
>>But then you've bought two sets of wheels to just use one. So much for
>>the bike being a better deal! Why not just get one that you don't have
>>to buy more stuff for to make it slightly less of a piece of ****?
>
>
> But if it was still cheaper and brought the quality to comparable it
> may be worth looking into. Anyone who plays guitars knows fenders are
> ok, but as soon as you get them drop the tuners off an get good ones,
> cuz fenders come with **** tuning pegs.
>
>
>
>>That was Ride-A-Lot, not JD, but honestly I think most of not all of us
>>would rather not have dirt bikes on the trails.
>
>
> Why? because they spray you with gravel? the solution to that is get
> them aressted for assault, and if you got hit, battery, not close the
> trail to all dirt bikes. just pack your video camera along with you
> once. . . .
>

No. Because they consistently cut corners, create big ruts, and
generally screw up the trails for everyone else.

>
>>Then why didn't you buy a cheaper truck and just replace it more
>>regularly? Safety? Convenience?
>
<snip>
>
>>Even if by your definition I do consider my bikes toys, I'm still going
>>to want a quality toy. I think of them more as tools for fitness, fun,
>>transportation, and even survival. I don't want to trust my welfare to a
>>cheap piece of ****.
>
>
> And i don't want to trust my welfare to a bicycle! I can just imagine
> you driving your wife to the hospital to deliver the baby riding on
> your handlebars!
>

Because your understanding of what a bicycle really is or can be is
distorted. I wouldn't trust my life to a "bicycle" in your world either.
Of course if I had a car (or two, as the case may be) I would use it if
it was the tool for the job. Your "argument" is like me asking if you'd
make your pregnant wife ride in the back of your pickup.

Damn. I'm such a sucker for getting into this. If I wanted a stupid
argument like this I could have gone and trolled rec.motorcycles.dirt.
I'm out.

Matt
 
>No. Because they consistently cut corners, create big ruts, and
>generally screw up the trails for everyone else.

i noticed you stopped short of saying that mountain bikers don't cut
corners, create little ruts and generally screw up the trail, but they
do too.

I don't want to argue either, just stating an opinion.

I thought of a great example that puts me on YOUR side of the arguement
and makes my point clearer: I have a Gibson Les Paul guitar. There is
no way you will ever convice me that the guitars sold @ walmart are
even in the same stratosphere of caliber as the Les Paul. However,
when a Newbie comes to me and says their interested in getting started
in guitar, i would tell them NOT to go to Guitar Center and get ripped
for 800 bucks, go down to walmart buy the 60 dollar guitar, play it
until it's thrashed, and if you still into it then, THEN get a gibson
or PRS guitar, and you will definately appreciate the difference, and
if your not into playing guitar after trying it out, then you've saved
a crapload of cash.

Same principle applies here with Mountain bikes, if you are just
getting started, buy a walgoose, and ride it untill it's thrashed, then
if you are a hardcore mountain biker, get a GT, or comparable bike, but
if you found out pedaling is not for you, you now have a 400-600 dollar
down payment on your new honda dirtbike, and not a 1000 dollar
sculpture of a bike sitting in your garage.
 
Shaun Bell wrote:

> "x1134x" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I have read countless posts regarding the baffled feeling of watching
>>people walk out of wal-mart with a 99$ full suspension "mountain bike"
>>and wondering what goes on in their heads. . . .
>>
>>So this is a thread about people like me who read these (your) posts
>>and get the same baffled feeling. . .
>>
>>People go to walmart to buy a "mountain bike" for the following
>>reasons:
>>
>>1. Mountain bikes are so popular that bikes sold now are either
>>"mountain bike-style" or bmx, period. The only people that buy street
>>bikes are old ladies and do not significantly factor in. Nowadays when
>>you think you want a "bike", unless you want to feel like you are
>>riding a "mini-bike" (bmx), or an old lady's bike (street)
>
>
> What the flip are you yakking about? Old lady... Haven't seen any old
> ladies at the local crit races lately lol! Road biking is what you do when
> you really want to feel some pain. As for wallmart bikes, unless you weight
> 400lbs, you can't even make the suspension work. Trust me, I tried and was
> asked to leave the store haha.
>
> Shaun
>
>
Don't lie. You got ask to leave for launching the poor little' Wally
world bike down the escalator linking the kitchen utilities and women's
panties floor.
--
Slack
 
Another poster with no other posting history ever before he started trolling
here.

Could be MV just yanking your tool.
 
JD wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > So you feel that to have "more fun" that one must "keep saving" and
> > spend more money. Interesting that seems to be the same argument that
> > some ppl use when talking about why one shouldn't buy a Wal-goose.
>
>
> Some may use that argument, not all. Then again, if "more fun" by
> "keep saving" is defined as saving to purchase a bicycle that fits
> right and is dependabe so one doesn't have excessive and/or unwarranted
> downtime, then point the proverbial finger at me. More riding always
> equals more fun.

My point, if there was one, is that price is not or should not be the
deciding factor. The bikes produced by Pacific as a whole yah yah
everyone gets lucky once in a while), are produced of low end
materials, equipted with low end components, are poorly assembled ...
and covered with a nasty decal/paint job to cover up the problems.
Price is not the point. Persaonally, I have a 1962 Schwinn that was a
dumpster dive. With a bendix triple yellow band hub and a couple of BCX
rims,that bike carried me on most of the trails of Northern Arizona
(ask any Mutant). A total investment of ~36 bucks, and it is still
running today.

R
 
[email protected] wrote:
> JD wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > So you feel that to have "more fun" that one must "keep saving" and
> > > spend more money. Interesting that seems to be the same argument that
> > > some ppl use when talking about why one shouldn't buy a Wal-goose.
> >
> >
> > Some may use that argument, not all. Then again, if "more fun" by
> > "keep saving" is defined as saving to purchase a bicycle that fits
> > right and is dependabe so one doesn't have excessive and/or unwarranted
> > downtime, then point the proverbial finger at me. More riding always
> > equals more fun.
>
> My point, if there was one, is that price is not or should not be the
> deciding factor. The bikes produced by Pacific as a whole yah yah
> everyone gets lucky once in a while), are produced of low end
> materials, equipted with low end components, are poorly assembled ...
> and covered with a nasty decal/paint job to cover up the problems.
> Price is not the point. Persaonally, I have a 1962 Schwinn that was a
> dumpster dive. With a bendix triple yellow band hub and a couple of BCX
> rims,that bike carried me on most of the trails of Northern Arizona
> (ask any Mutant). A total investment of ~36 bucks, and it is still
> running today.
>
> R


The problem with your notion that price not being a point is that
bicycles built nowdays require spending a little more for
dependability. Sure, a good used bicycle is going to be a much better
deal, however most people don't even know what Yellow Band is without a
Google search, let alone what a good used mountain bike is. I have a
few old Schwinns myself and don't doubt their dependability, though
performance-wise for mountain biking they have their limitations,
mostly in the braking department. They didn't call it "Re-Pack" for
nothing.

JD
 
x1134x wrote:
> People who CAN afford a car, and use it as their means of getting
> around.


First, you need to learn to quote. Second, I can afford a vehicle and
do use it to get around from time to time, as do many bicycle
commuters.

> Funny how someone who smokes pot has a 40,000 dollar truck, 15,000
> dollar jeep, two motorbikes, a GT bike and a NEXT "walgoose" on top of
> my house, yet a sierra club member fresh - air legislating non-smoker
> uses a bicycle to get to work!


Well then, you can die now because you have the most "toys", can't you?
BTW, the Sierra Club has an anti-mountain biking agenda and just to
remind you, this is a mountain biking newsgroup you decided to void
upon.

JD
 
x1134x wrote:

<snip>

> I met gary turner at bandimere speedway in denver in '96 and had dinner
> with the guy, i also bought a 640 dollar GT bike from him. the "NEXT"
> brand bike we bought two years ago is everybit as good. They make them
> for relatively the same price, Gary just makes alot more profit by
> fooling you into thinking your bike is a mercedes. And he has a
> million dollar race outfit paid for by enthusiasts who enjoy their
> mountain biking, and by people who just wanted a bike, and got fooled
> into buying the brand name.

<snip>

So you are so well informed about GT ... Has it dawned on you yet that
neither Gary Turner or Richard Long have anything to do with the GT
brand anymore? You are right when you point out that your walmart sold
mongoose (or next)is every bit as good as a GT ... Both companies are
owned by Pacific. Sounds like you sucked alittle too much premix, no
one who has bought a GT in the last ~5 years, has been putting a dime
in Gary Turner's pocket.

R
 
x1134x wrote:
>
> I thought of a great example that puts me on YOUR side of the arguement
> and makes my point clearer: I have a Gibson Les Paul guitar. There is
> no way you will ever convice me that the guitars sold @ walmart are
> even in the same stratosphere of caliber as the Les Paul. However,
> when a Newbie comes to me and says their interested in getting started
> in guitar, i would tell them NOT to go to Guitar Center and get ripped
> for 800 bucks, go down to walmart buy the 60 dollar guitar, play it
> until it's thrashed, and if you still into it then, THEN get a gibson
> or PRS guitar, and you will definately appreciate the difference, and
> if your not into playing guitar after trying it out, then you've saved
> a crapload of cash.

Two things -

1.) If you like playing the **** guitar, then you've thrown away $60.

2.) If you *don't* like playing a **** guitar, was it because you
don't like playing guitar, or because the guitar was so crappy that it
just wasn't fun?


> Same principle applies here with Mountain bikes, if you are just
> getting started, buy a walgoose, and ride it untill it's thrashed

Actually, it's not the same. Not all bikes are alike. The difference
between a toy that looks like a bike, and a purpose-built mountain bike
is worlds apart. Sorta like the difference between an XR80 and a
CR250. They don't have the same capabilities, and if you try and do
some of the stuff you *could* do on one with the other, you could get
hurt. Or worse.

I've seen guys ride off curbs with those toy bikes and snap suspension
mounts. Bend rims. Bend forks.

Having ridden a POS bike before I was politely instructed on what the
difference was, I can tell you from experience that those toys shaped
like bikes aren't anything like the real thing. They don't pedal,
shift, steer, or ride like a real mountain bike. In fact, they are a
huge pain in the ass to ride on a real trail.

Now, for just riding around the neighborhood? Perfectly acceptable.
But a used MTB at the same price point could work just as well, AND be
capable of riding off-road. Win-win, right?

E.P.
 
I suppose I should point out that Richard Long died in a motorcyle
accident in 1996 on his way to Big Bear for a NORBA race ... which lead
to Michael Haynes taking charge before the Questor buy out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

zipp2001
Don't go near the woods !
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Corzhens
Corzhens
lennyz
MTB shimano deore front derrailour don't fit my new shimano deore triple crankset????
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
alfeng
alfeng
M
Mountain Bikers Don't Even Obey Their Own Rules!
Replies
9
Views
708
Mountain Bikes
Jason
J
M
Mountain Bikers Don't Use Public Transit!
Replies
2
Views
646
Mountain Bikes
[email protected]
M
A
Brakes don't work
Replies
4
Views
516
Mountain Bikes
atomthumb
A
Top Bottom Back