Looking to buy new bike

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:13:20


Michael Press says...

Quote:

>>I've been on my current bike 12 years, although most of the
>>original components have worn out and been replaced
>>once or twice.  But that's just me.  
>Cool. Who made the frame? (or was that replace too :)

It's a Look KG176.  Same frame Lemond rode to his last Tour win, but it hasn't
helped me win anything.  Actually, it fits very good and is a comfortable ride.
One of these days I'd like to put together a stiffer climbing bike with parts so
light they shudder when I put on my shoes.  The funny thing about the 176 is
that my wife bought it for me as a present and when my buddies saw it, they all
made fun of me and told me how it would fall apart in a year.  Since then, they
have all been through 2 or 3 frames and my old Look just keeps rolling on down
the road.
 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:16:23

h squared says...

Quote:
>as an aside, since i don't race, i've been riding my $250 bike-of-shame
>http://home.comcast.net/~pomeroyq/bikeofshame.jpg

How come the picture is just of the back end?  Not that I'm biased against back
ends, mind you.

Quote:
>(but i'll admit i'm weird and am completely not into nice
>bikes at all.)

What do you dislike about nice bikes?

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Tim Line » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:07:44

Quote:

> Tim Lines says...

>>Not generally, no.  But I'm not claiming that $5000 and $500 bikes are
>>the same either.  I've seen one of these that looked superior to many
>>$5000 bikes:
>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?C4C42199B

>>Part of the reason these bikes are so cheap is because the marketing
>>costs are low.  If you pay TMobile to ride them, that will change.

> $2500 ain't cheap to me!

I'm not sure if it is to me or not.  Depends on what I'm comparing it to.

Quote:
>>BTW, I think the bike above is perfectly adequate.  It just lacks the
>>fredly drool factor.

> There are even decent ~$1500 bikes, but that's still triple $500.

> Don't get me wrong - I'm not aiming a newbie at a tricked-out Ottrott.  But
> someone that has the discipline to be a serious lifter might appreciate the
> performance advantage of a better bike.

This cuts 2 ways.

A lot of people buy a great bike when they start riding in the belief
that they'll grow into it.  Then they never ride the thing.  I did a
large group ride a few years back and was astounded to see how many
people with Trek OCLV bikes were WALKING them up hills.  These were not
huge hills, I finished the ride on the big chainring because I'd broken
the small one (and my chain) hitting the brakes on the downstroke when
someone directly in front of me just STOPPED in the middle of a hill.
So all the dorks on expensive bikes that they can't ride really bugged
me that day.  Not just Trek OCLVs, that just happened to be what stopped
in front of me.  It seems stupid to buy a $3-5000 bike so you can walk
it up the hills.  Save your money, buy one from the thrift store and
walk IT up the hill.

On the other hand, I spent most of the nineties riding a late 80's
Peugeot, which was a nice bike in it's day.  Then my wife decided she
wanted a bike too, so we went to a shop and they sent us both out for a
test ride on something aluminum with STI.  I was astounded, it was so
much lighter and more responsive than my old Peugeot.

I think your $1500 figure for where decent bikes start is about right,
incidently.

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by gds » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:37:36

Quote:


> > Tim Lines says...

> >>Not generally, no.  But I'm not claiming that $5000 and $500 bikes are
> >>the same either.  I've seen one of these that looked superior to many
> >>$5000 bikes:
> >>http://makeashorterlink.com/?C4C42199B

> >>Part of the reason these bikes are so cheap is because the marketing
> >>costs are low.  If you pay TMobile to ride them, that will change.

> > $2500 ain't cheap to me!

> I'm not sure if it is to me or not.  Depends on what I'm comparing it to.

> >>BTW, I think the bike above is perfectly adequate.  It just lacks the
> >>fredly drool factor.

> > There are even decent ~$1500 bikes, but that's still triple $500.

> > Don't get me wrong - I'm not aiming a newbie at a tricked-out Ottrott.  But
> > someone that has the discipline to be a serious lifter might appreciate the
> > performance advantage of a better bike.

> This cuts 2 ways.

> A lot of people buy a great bike when they start riding in the belief
> that they'll grow into it.  Then they never ride the thing.  I did a
> large group ride a few years back and was astounded to see how many
> people with Trek OCLV bikes were WALKING them up hills.  These were not
> huge hills, I finished the ride on the big chainring because I'd broken
> the small one (and my chain) hitting the brakes on the downstroke when
> someone directly in front of me just STOPPED in the middle of a hill.
> So all the dorks on expensive bikes that they can't ride really bugged
> me that day.  Not just Trek OCLVs, that just happened to be what stopped
> in front of me.  It seems stupid to buy a $3-5000 bike so you can walk
> it up the hills.  Save your money, buy one from the thrift store and
> walk IT up the hill.

> On the other hand, I spent most of the nineties riding a late 80's
> Peugeot, which was a nice bike in it's day.  Then my wife decided she
> wanted a bike too, so we went to a shop and they sent us both out for a
> test ride on something aluminum with STI.  I was astounded, it was so
> much lighter and more responsive than my old Peugeot.

> I think your $1500 figure for where decent bikes start is about right,
> incidently.

And yet buying a new bike can be really fun and what you spend for it
is, after all, a matter of what you can afford. I just purchased the
3rd "last bike of my life." Did I "need" it? At some level yes but
certainly my Chorus equipped Litespeed was good enough for my club
level riding. Did I "need" to spend about double what I paid for my
first new car in 1966? No! But I sure am happy with the bike.

Haapiness is not always rational :)

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:20:33

Tim Lines says...

Quote:
>This cuts 2 ways.

(snips)

Quote:
>It seems stupid to buy a $3-5000 bike so you can walk
>it up the hills.  

Sure.  Ya gotta start somewhere and some people bail out on what once looked to
be a cool new thang.  I've passed people riding their bikes up big hills when I
was jogging.  Thing is, the OP mentioned power lifting as his thing and because
of that, I assumed some level of dedication as an athelete.  I could be wrong,
but that was my starting assumption.

Quote:
>I was astounded, it was so
>much lighter and more responsive than my old Peugeot.

You've made my point, precisely.
 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Mad Do » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:29:07

gds says...

Quote:
>And yet buying a new bike can be really fun and what you spend for it
>is, after all, a matter of what you can afford.

Bingo.  I love the signs at Performance for loans on bikes over $500.

Quote:
>I just purchased the 3rd "last bike of my life." Did I "need" it? At
>some level yes but certainly my Chorus equipped Litespeed was good
>enough for my club level riding.

Mad Dog's First Law of Bicycle Component Purchases states that any part you buy
that you expect to make you faster, will make you faster.  That's because speed
and the suffering that supports it primarily resides in the head.  Sure, there
are limits to this Law, but those are covered in the Second and Third Laws.

Quote:
>Haapiness is not always rational :)

And I find that comfortingly chaotic.
 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by gds » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:52:57

Quote:

> Mad Dog's First Law of Bicycle Component Purchases states that any part you buy
> that you expect to make you faster, will make you faster.  That's because speed
> and the suffering that supports it primarily resides in the head.

I can always go faster in my head. It's the rest of me that has
problems.
 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by gwhit » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 04:01:35

Quote:



> > You'll get all sorts of definitions, depending upon whom you're talking
> > to.  It can be beneficial to get someone's definition first before
> > talking about it.

> > http://SportToday.org/

> Bait and switch. You implicitly promise a definition of
> capitalism and many paragraphs in he is still ranting
> about "wordsmith intellectuals" biting the hand that feeds
> them.

Dumbass,

The first link gave a lot of descriptive/definitional elements and
should have kept you busy by itself.  The remaining was google filler
("as one wishes"), although there was more on the definitional matter.
I didn't read them entirely myself.  

The last was known to be tangential, and was *after* my basic comment
that "it seems to mean different things to different people."  I wasn't
implying a definition existed in the last -- I was hoping the average
dumbass would have a definitional clue by that many links down,
especially with the caveat that directly preceded it.  It was only there
"if you're interested in that sort of thing."  In any case, the content
of the link was a freebe.  Hayek and Popper demolished the
pseudo-intellectuals better and earlier.

http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/

Quote:
> Eventually I began to doubt the author's probity and
> stopped reading.

The author's probity isn't what requires doubt.

Quote:
> He also gave short shrift to hard science
> intellectuals.

Not surprising since they aren't the "wordsmiths" that are the topic of
conversation.

Quote:
> Probably has no clue what it takes to bust
> your ass in mathematics; it's a humbling experience.

You're assuming the study of economics requires the heavy use of
mathematics.  Maybe it does.  Maybe it doesn't.  In any case it doesn't
matter.  Math is simply a tool that may come in handy, and if so, it is
good to be greased in it.  Applied mathematics can make no claim to
being harder than anything else.  Any topic is as hard as you want to
make it -- sort of like a bike race.  In my engineering studies, I did
not find the mathematics to be uniquely difficult, although I wouldn't
call it easy.  While quite rusty, I do not have a "math phobia."
Assertion that Nozick doesn't appreciate "mathematical economics" is
notwithstanding.

http://SportToday.org/
"1.   Introduction
Mathematics enjoyed in the post-war period a virtual monopoly as the
privileged method of economic enquiry. Such a position generates
negative consequences, like monopoly rents and abuse of ***
positions. Ths is basically the analysis of Joaquim Ramos Silva in his
paper 'Mathematics in Economics: the Competition Point of View'...

2.   Mathematics is not a unifying force
Let us know [sic] turn to Neo-Austrians and Post-Keynesians. Both
traditions are nonmathematical. Why? In the Neo-Austrian analysis the
creative entrepreneur plays the central role, see Kirzner (1973,1990).
He discovers profitable opportunities from utter ignorance. The
entrepreneur may be wrong but is able to learn from experiences in the
market. Interactions of these creative agents leads to a groping of the
market process towards better co-ordination. But equilibrium will never
be reached because preferences and technical opportunities may change.
Most government policies would hinder this market process. Antitrust
policy would diminish the entrepreneurial incentives and hence weakens
the co-ordinating power of the market process. Macro-stabilisation
policies would generate wrong signals to the entrepreneur in his
learning from market transactions.

The emphasis on creative entrepreneurial action starting from utter
ignorance is a concept that is very difficult if not impossible to
translate in mathematical language. Moreover, the interaction of agents
in a system with false trading converging towards equilibrium is still a
bridge too far for mathematical modelling in whatever tradition. The
groping problem towards equilibrium, seminally formulated by Walras
(1926), is still not adequately mathematically described and solvable...

3.   Conclusion
So, the market shares of the various schools determine the use and role
of mathematics. What can we expect of the distribution of these shares
in the coming decades? ...

In Neo-classical industrial economics, Chicago will also lose its
influence at the expense of more evolutionary (Schumpeterian or Nelson
and Winter like) economic tendencies based on subjective, bounded
rationality, asymmetric information or routine rules of thumb...

The role of the fringe schools may increase in significance. The fringe
schools have the rejection of perfect rationality or rational
expectations in common with the *** developments sketched above and
they pose the right questions. Only as far as answers are concerned they
remain too ambiguous to the taste of those who don't share the
preference for the more literary traditions...

The conclusion of our analysis is that the influence of Chicago will
diminish and the impact of the fringe schools will increase. The Chicago
tradition has produced its major insights and will not bear substantial
new insights. However, this does not mean that the role of mathematics
will decrease. We see two tendencies: the development of a lot of
advanced but specific models based upon subjective rationality or more
simple simulation models if necessary. Moreover, the impact of the
fringe schools will increase because they have the rejection of perfect
rationality in common with Neo-classical mainstream schools."

I am not an economist, so therefore I don't (and maybe cannot) "belong
to a school of economic thought."  However, as a layperson I do find
portions of "Austrian economics" appealing.  As you should have noted
from Hans Maks' paper, it is a rather non-mathematical school.  Since I
don't have a math phobia, nor an over-appreciation, the appeal of a
school of thought (for me) has nothing to do with its mathematical
content.  Nor should that necessarily be true for Nozick's position.
Social scientists are famous for producing "funny numbers."  Question
the numbers and the crank will typically pull rank.  It happens all the
time.  

Some "statistical numbers" and mathematical models may be substantially
correct for what they are intended to handle.  However, I would caution
against faux-credibility, simply on the basis of fancy looking
mathematics.  Math is like TNT, it can be used to open up and
illuminate, or destroy and obfuscate.  Sometimes it is just the wrong
tool.  There is never a pass on critical evaluation.

"Nobody can be a great economist who is only an economist." -- F. Hayek,
who also had degrees in Law and Political Science.  He wasn't talking
about math.

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by Michael Thoma » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 04:15:36

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:21:00 -0700, h squared

Quote:


>> If you'd rather buy cheap shit now and
>> replace it with something better later, go for it.  I figure you lose with that
>> plan but it's a free country and you're free to waste your money as you see fit.

>as an aside, since i don't race, i've been riding my $250 bike-of-shame
>http://home.comcast.net/~pomeroyq/bikeofshame.jpg
>for several years now. the only parts i've replaced are the tires and
>the saddle and the brake pads. (knock on wood). i feel i've gotten my
>money's worth out of the bike and don't regret not buying something more
>expensive. (but i'll admit i'm weird and am completely not into nice
>bikes at all.)

>heather

I just got back from a trip to Arnold, Ca for vacation, and I brought
my old Salsa (circa '84) rigid with conti slicks.  It's pretty beat up
now, but man that bike is so sweet to ride.  It's rusting under the
top tube because of sweat and heavy as hell, but I don't seem to care
once I get on it.  Being a rigid it climbs so well out of the saddle.
It's still got the original Salsa bar ends (steel) with some cloth
tape.  Extremely comfortable.  I rode it all over BLM fire roads,
single track, and paved roads.  A total blast.

MT

 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by m.. » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:53:18

Quote:

> Hi,

> I'm wondering if I can get some opinions on a road bike. I've deided to
> return to biking after a 19 year layoff. I'm now 36 and have decided to
> trade my weightlifting belt for a bike. Can anyone recommend a good
> manufacture/model and price range?

> My goals would be distance ridinging, probabaly about a good 15-20
> miles per ride. I'm 5'6" 180lbs powerlifter. The last time I was on a
> bike it was a redline BMX and things have changed a lot since then.

> Thanks,

> Javier

you are just getting started - get a used bike until you know you are
going to stick with it (it's not for everyone)
I started with a hand me down from my brother, it was a specialized
allez I think, with shimano 105 compnenets, and you can get a similar
entry level road bike used for about $200. It got me hooked on fast
riding on a light bike.
Don't walk into a shop and drop that $1200+ until you've ridden for 6
months or a year. Then go to a cool bike shop and buy an ultegra of
dura-ace based high end bike that fits you perfectly and you can grow
with - some local crits might suit a former powerlifter so get
something you can race with, stiff and light. aluminum is fine, unless
you have extra money - then you have more choices like carbon or ti.
Sell the used $200 bike for a little less than you paid, say $150 and
nothing lost.
You buy a new 1500$ bike, ride it for a month decide cycling sucks, and
sell if for maybe $800, depreciation on the new stuff is pretty harsh.
 
 
 

Looking to buy new bike

Post by h square » Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:59:47

Quote:

> How come the picture is just of the back end?  Not that I'm biased against back
> ends, mind you.

that picture's pretty old. i think i was taking a picture of how dirty
the frame and the drive train were.  somehow that tied into the "bike of
shame" name, maybe there was a "clean your bike" thread going on at the
time on rbr or something, don't remember exactly

Quote:
>>(but i'll admit i'm weird and am completely not into nice
>>bikes at all.)

> What do you dislike about nice bikes?

i don't dislike them, i'm just not one of those people who gets
satisfaction and fulfillment from having a really nice bike. you know
who i mean- there are some people who are willing to spend 50% more for
the top of the line/latest and greatest thing because they enjoy having
it and knowing they have the best. if i was one of those people i would
not feel like the $250 my bike cost was well spent :) plus, i would be
afraid to ride and ruin a nice bike and that would take the fun out it
for me.

h