Litespeed Tuscany/Classic
sheldon cooperman
style, I'm giving serious consideration to either the Litespeed Tuscany
or the Litespeed Classic. I am 5'6", 145lbs. and would be using the bike
primarily for club rides, anything from fast-paced "fitness" rides to
more leisurely paced centuries. I'de appreciate any feedback on
Litespeed in general and either of these two models in particular, for
example, what is the difference between them? Thanks in advance....
sheldon cooperman
Litespeed's. Really enjoy their website and they are very convincing,
but do they make a great bike? Again thanks in advance for any input....
Hoodfam
stiffer. The classic geometry is also a little more european style.
Jim Flom
Classic is more European style. Otherwise, if you go to their website,
www.litespeed.com/bikes/road.html, and check out their actual geometry
specs, you'll see the geometry is otherwise identical. You'll also notice
frame size is in 2 cm increments. That's fine is you happen to fall onto
one of those sizes, but sizing in 1 cm increments and fitted by someone who
knows what they're doing will make a surprising difference in your comfort.
For my money, I want to be right on the money. I turned out to be a 56.
I was a hairsbreadth away from buying the Tuscany when the dealer suggested
I think about a Serotta steel bike (Serotta also sells ti). I was open to
steel anyway, which you may not be. (Contrary to what the Serotta site
www.serotta.com tells you, their bike sizing is available in 1 cm
increments.)
To be honest, part of what motivated me away from the Litespeed is that
they're just so "fashionable" right now. "Oooh, a Litespeed." Someone
observed that Litespeed is becoming the "Trek" of ti frames. Of course, the
"Ooohs" and "Aaahs" are a little louder with my Serotta, but I didn't expect
that or have that in mind when I got it (not that I mind, of course).
Jim "No regrets" Flom
Brian Nystrom
Hoodfam wrote:
> The classic has more cold worked titanium I believe and is a little bit
> stiffer. The classic geometry is also a little more european style.
Actually, the Tuscany has more tapered/butted/flared tubes (it's
essentially a 3/2.5 Ti Vortex). I would expect that the Classic is a bit
softer ride than the Tuscany. The major difference between the frames
(other than cosmetic touches like the curved seat stays) is that the
Classic has longer chainstays and thus a longer wheelbase. For the type of
riding that Sheldon is describing, either one would be suitable. Frankly,
I'd go with the Tuscany, simply because it's cheaper. If you don't like the
styling (curved seat stays), go with the Classic.
--
Regards
Brian
hydr...@wake-012.c-u.net
I belive the Classic also has tapered and flared tubes with greater
diameter than the Tuscany. The top tube and seat tube are about the
same as the Ultimate, diameter-wise.
P.S. I went with the Liege.
Jim Flom
chainstay length.
Jim
Wayne T
dejanews power search on this group on the subject of habanero.
I've had a Habanero road for 1.5 years. Its a superb frame.
Wayne T
sheldon cooperman wrote in message
<28878-37...@newsd-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Rick Denney
> Oh yeah, what about the Habaneros ti road frame as compared to
>Litespeed's. Really enjoy their website and they are very convincing,
>but do they make a great bike? Again thanks in advance for any input....
Yes, they make a great bike. The workmanship is as good as the
Litespeed, and better in some of the detailing. The approach is for a
stiff bike with a classic road geometry. I found nothing in my
experience with Habanero to challenge what they say in their web page.
If Mark Hickey followed my advice, his bikes would be as expensive as
Litespeeds, and he'd spend the difference in advertising and
distribution costs.
Rick "As a customer, though, I'm glad he ignored me" Denney
Brian Nystrom
Jim Flom wrote:
> If "European style" means a slightly shorter chainstay, then yes, the
> Classic is more European style. Otherwise, if you go to their website,
> www.litespeed.com/bikes/road.html, and check out their actual geometry
> specs, you'll see the geometry is otherwise identical. You'll also notice
> frame size is in 2 cm increments. That's fine is you happen to fall onto
> one of those sizes, but sizing in 1 cm increments and fitted by someone who
> knows what they're doing will make a surprising difference in your comfort.
> For my money, I want to be right on the money. I turned out to be a 56.
The top tube length is more critical than the seat tube length. You can easily
adjust the saddle and/or handlebar height, but if the TT length is incorrect, it
will adversely affect the weight distribution and handling of the bike. Shop for
the proper TT length first, then see if the frame is a size that will
accommodate you readily.
> To be honest, part of what motivated me away from the Litespeed is that
> they're just so "fashionable" right now. "Oooh, a Litespeed." Someone
> observed that Litespeed is becoming the "Trek" of ti frames.
Oh, brother! This is as silly as everyone dissing The North Face because yuppies
love the stuff. It makes no sense to me to reject a superb product just because
it's popular, especially if it means settling for something less. However, I
certainly would not consider a Serotta to be "something less."
> Of course, the "Ooohs" and "Aaahs" are a little louder with my Serotta, but I
> didn't expect
> that or have that in mind when I got it (not that I mind, of course).
They're getting pretty common around here. Actually, I probably see more
Serottas than Litespeeds locally.
--
Regards
Brian
Ken Colburn
> Jim Flom wrote:
> > To be honest, part of what motivated me away from the Litespeed is that
> > they're just so "fashionable" right now. "Oooh, a Litespeed." Someone
> > observed that Litespeed is becoming the "Trek" of ti frames.
>
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Oh, brother! This is as silly as everyone dissing The North Face because yuppies
> love the stuff. It makes no sense to me to reject a superb product just because
> it's popular, especially if it means settling for something less. However, I
> certainly would not consider a Serotta to be "something less."
Not so silly Brian, most serious backpackers,climbers and guides no longer consider
North Face a quality, durable product. North Face used to found in specialty hiking
and mountaineering shops. Here in Seattle they have a large fashion retail store
selling color coordinated clothing to college students, businessmen etc. Marmot and
Mountain Hardware is the choice of discerning climbers and hikers. Marmot and
Mountain Hardware, unlike North Face is not produced or marketed for the masses or
the outdoor/climbing wanabees or lookalikes.
I think Jim Flom made a valid point in that Litespeed is so "fashionable" now. The
high volume of production and lower prices, continuing model changes and last year's
model closeout discounts are geared to marketing to the masses.
I am not dissing Litespeed, just making an observation and comparison.
Ken "observant of retail trends" Colburn
Mark Atanowicz
Brian Nystrom <bnys...@bit-net.com> writes:
> The top tube length is more critical than the seat tube length.
Agreed.
> You can easily
> adjust the saddle and/or handlebar height, but if the TT length is incorrect, it
> will adversely affect the weight distribution and handling of the bike.
Too short a TT will adversely affect handling because a long stem,
which is needed to compensate, moves the bars a long way from the
steering axis. The effect of stem length on weight distribution,
though, is insignificant; changing stem length even 5cm affects weight
distribution less than 2%.
> Shop for
> the proper TT length first, then see if the frame is a size that will
> accommodate you readily.
Yup
Mark Atanowicz
"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad
judgement."
Jim Flom
Jim "Mutual Admiration" Flom
Joseph Jankovsky
>
> Jim Flom wrote:
>
> > If "European style" means a slightly shorter chainstay, then yes, the
> > Classic is more European style. Otherwise, if you go to their website,
> > www.litespeed.com/bikes/road.html, and check out their actual geometry
> > specs, you'll see the geometry is otherwise identical. You'll also notice
> > frame size is in 2 cm increments. That's fine is you happen to fall onto
> > one of those sizes, but sizing in 1 cm increments and fitted by someone who
> > knows what they're doing will make a surprising difference in your comfort.
> > For my money, I want to be right on the money. I turned out to be a 56.
>
> adjust the saddle and/or handlebar height, but if the TT length is incorrect, it
> the proper TT length first, then see if the frame is a size that will
> accommodate you readily.
>
...and seat tube angle is critical as well, determining the setback of
the saddle from the BB. The tuscany and classic have the same seat tube
angles, which vary by size. All Habaneros are 73.5 degrees, which is
standard for other manufacturers small frames (55cm and under), but
quite steep for large frames.
Another difference in geometry between the two litespeeds and a Habanero
is the BB height. Litespeed, as well as most manufacturers, lower the
BB height for larger bikes. This increases stability, but increases the
chances of hitting a pedal while cornering (larger bike=longer cranks).
Habanero has one standard BB height for all sizes, 26.7mm.
"Classic" geometry typically refers to three things: a laid back seat
tube angle, long top tube, and low bottom bracket. All three enhance
stability and comfort in long road races. Both the Litespeed classic
and tuscany fall into this category. Crit bike geometry has steeper
angles and a higher BB height. The Habanero falls into both categories
based on SIZE: for small bikes(<54cm), the geometry is "classic",
similar to the Litespeed Classic and Tuscany. But in the large sizes
(>55cm), the Habanero is steeper with a higher BB, similar in geometry
to the Litespeed Ultimate making it a good crit bike.
I'd really love to get a Habanero, particularly because I prefer a stiff
bike and can't afford a Litespeed. But I ride a 62cm, and the Habanero
is quite steep.
A question to Mark: why the standard seat angle and BB height for all
sizes? I would guess setup cost must play a big factor. Any chance you
will be revising the geometry for stock bikes in the near future?
Joe Jankovsky
Glenn Dowdy
>I'd really love to get a Habanero, particularly because I prefer a stiff
>bike and can't afford a Litespeed. But I ride a 62cm, and the Habanero
>is quite steep.
>
>A question to Mark: why the standard seat angle and BB height for all
>sizes? I would guess setup cost must play a big factor. Any chance you
>will be revising the geometry for stock bikes in the near future?
>
Habanero does offer custom bikes for $995. That's a pretty nice price.
--
Glenn Dowdy
Mark Atanowicz
Joseph Jankovsky <joseph.j...@yale.edu> writes:
> ...and seat tube angle is critical as well, determining the setback of
> the saddle from the BB. The tuscany and classic have the same seat tube
> angles, which vary by size. All Habaneros are 73.5 degrees, which is
> standard for other manufacturers small frames (55cm and under), but
> quite steep for large frames.
Yes, 73.5 degrees is somewhat steep for a large frame. But do the math
and you'll find out that this is about 1.5cm less setback, something
that can be compensated for by the seat rails (I have a Flite on my
60cm Habby). Yes, it's all the way back, but I was able to achieve 9cm
of setback (saddle tip to BB), the same as I have on my commuter bike.
This does increase the effective top tube length, but I chose a
slightly shorter stem to compensate.
> Another difference in geometry between the two litespeeds and a Habanero
> is the BB height. Litespeed, as well as most manufacturers, lower the
> BB height for larger bikes. This increases stability, but increases the
> chances of hitting a pedal while cornering (larger bike=longer cranks).
> Habanero has one standard BB height for all sizes, 26.7mm.
Not all builders lower BB height on larger frame sizes. Merlin, as one
example, increases BB height, IIRC, on 60cm+ frames. I find this to be
logical, as these frames will likely be equipped with longer cranks and
a higher BB will maintain cornering clearance. Although I enjoyed the
stability of my old frame which had 26cm BB height, I found the lack of
cornering clearance with 175mm cranks annoying, something I only really
appreciated until I got the Habby. Yes, the Habby initially felt a bit
squirrely, but this soon disappeared as my body adapted.
For under a grand, Mark will build you a custom frame, and I'm assuming
the BB height and angles are among the parameters you can specify...
merl...@my-deja.com
TI bikes a few degrees less steep than a comparable steel bike as
TI "feels" steeper already.
In article <7ihd9l$s50$1...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Rick Denney
>Not so silly Brian, most serious backpackers,climbers and guides no longer consider
>North Face a quality, durable product. North Face used to found in specialty hiking
>and mountaineering shops. Here in Seattle they have a large fashion retail store
>selling color coordinated clothing to college students, businessmen etc. Marmot and
>Mountain Hardware is the choice of discerning climbers and hikers. Marmot and
>Mountain Hardware, unlike North Face is not produced or marketed for the masses or
>the outdoor/climbing wanabees or lookalikes.
So, how does its appearance in a fashionable store reduce its utility?
I have a North Face shell, and I have a Mountain Hardware shell. I
like them both. They both cost about the same. They're both Gore Tex,
and so on for a reasonable comparison of features. They seem to be
equally durable. The North Face jacket has pockets in more useful
places, and it has an eyelet in the right place for a lift ticket
(required in the East even for snowshoers in ski areas). So what makes
them have lesser quality or durability?
I don't like buying things for their cachet value alone, but I think
it's equally wrong to avoid worthy items *just* because of their
cachet value. Not all products admired by yuppies are unworthy.
Of course, I would choose a Habanero over a Litespeed just to save
money (in fact, I did). But I wouldn't avoid a Litespeed if it was
otherwise right if Habaneros weren't available.
Rick "Even if Brian is silly" Denney
Rick Denney
>Tom Kellogg (on his Spectrum site) claims that he makes the angles on
>TI bikes a few degrees less steep than a comparable steel bike as
>TI "feels" steeper already.
>
This doesn't improve his credibility with me.
Rick "Owns bikes of all materials" Denney
Jim Flom
Rick Denney wrote in message ...
>So, how does its appearance in a fashionable store reduce its utility?
The "soft," urban fashion sense of the color coordinated casual wear
selections leaches through the air onto the outdoor gear, reducing their
usable life by as much as 8-10%.
>I have a North Face shell, and I have a Mountain Hardware shell.
Stop boasting.
>They seem to be
>equally durable.
That's right, they "seem" to be equally durable. In fact, your Mountain
Hardware shell is providing sleeve to sleeve resusitation to your North Face
shell. The shell material (not the Gore Tex, of course) on the Northface
shell is in fact wasting away even as we speak, while still retaining its
original shine.
>The North Face jacket has pockets in more useful
>places, and it has an eyelet in the right place for a lift ticket
Trendy, trendy.
>(required in the East even for snowshoers in ski areas).
Who would snowshoe at a ski area?
>So what makes
>them have lesser quality or durability?
Keebler Elves. On a full moon you can see them.
>I don't like buying things for their cachet value alone,
That's why you're not on the cover of GQ, Rick.
>but I think
>it's equally wrong to avoid worthy items *just* because of their
>cachet value. Not all products admired by yuppies are unworthy.
No, but the same percentage is unworthy that is the percent that is the
engine's contribution to bike speed.
>Of course, I would choose a Habanero over a Litespeed just to save
>money (in fact, I did).
Oh, c'mon. Don't you ever just want to do something crazy now and then?
Live a little! Go out for ice cream or something!
>But I wouldn't avoid a Litespeed if it was
>otherwise right if Habaneros weren't available.
I always try to avoid Litespeeds, especially coming at me in the same lane
on the wrong side of the street.
Let's settle this once and for all!
Jim "94%" Flom
Mark Hickey
Mark Antonowicz probably said it all as well as I ever could...
>...and seat tube angle is critical as well, determining the setback of
>the saddle from the BB. The tuscany and classic have the same seat tube
>angles, which vary by size. All Habaneros are 73.5 degrees, which is
>standard for other manufacturers small frames (55cm and under), but
>quite steep for large frames.
As Mark A mentioned, the end result is minimal in actual movement of
the center of the seat post clamp. I expect many larger riders to use
a more rearward saddle position, relative to the center of the clamp.
Sure, there are some riders who NEED a 72 degree seat tube, but not
many.
>Another difference in geometry between the two litespeeds and a Habanero
>is the BB height. Litespeed, as well as most manufacturers, lower the
>BB height for larger bikes. This increases stability, but increases the
>chances of hitting a pedal while cornering (larger bike=longer cranks).
>Habanero has one standard BB height for all sizes, 26.7mm.
I prefer a slightly higher BB, because I like to pedal through
corners. They're still not really in the "crit bike" range, but high
enough to keep the guys running longer cranks out of trouble.
>"Classic" geometry typically refers to three things: a laid back seat
>tube angle, long top tube, and low bottom bracket. All three enhance
>stability and comfort in long road races.
To a point - but remember the seat tube angle has nothing to do with
the actual position on the bike (other than as an absolute limit).
More on that later... The extra height of the BB isn't a huge issue
in stability, and does nothing to "comfort" unless you're riding down
a 45 degree hill..... ;-).
> Both the Litespeed classic
>and tuscany fall into this category. Crit bike geometry has steeper
>angles and a higher BB height. The Habanero falls into both categories
>based on SIZE: for small bikes(<54cm), the geometry is "classic",
>similar to the Litespeed Classic and Tuscany. But in the large sizes
>(>55cm), the Habanero is steeper with a higher BB, similar in geometry
>to the Litespeed Ultimate making it a good crit bike.
Keep in mind that the seat tube angle is fairly arbitrary in terms of
actual positioning on the bike. As I mentioned earlier, I expect most
of the taller riders will use a bit more seat post extention
(vertically), and slightly more rearward saddle positioning. This has
the effect of "lengthening the top tube" (since the saddle is further
back). End result is the larger frames keep their "classic" status,
though more of a neo-classic (i.e. shorter chainstays and steeper
angles all around), the same category I put the rest of the sizes in.
The head tube angles are varied in proportion to the frame size, of
course.
The BB height does make them better crit bikes than the "classic
Yurrupean road bike" of course. I like a road bike to be quick
(quicker than a "classic road bike from 10 years ago"), but not
twitchy (more stable than a crit bike).
>I'd really love to get a Habanero, particularly because I prefer a stiff
>bike and can't afford a Litespeed. But I ride a 62cm, and the Habanero
>is quite steep.
If you'd like to do a comparison to your existing bike, send me the
measurements and I'll plot them on a CAD file and send them to you for
comparison. You might be surprised how "laid back" the end result is.
;-)
>A question to Mark: why the standard seat angle and BB height for all
>sizes? I would guess setup cost must play a big factor. Any chance you
>will be revising the geometry for stock bikes in the near future?
Setup does have something to do with it, of course, but mainly I
believe that I'm pretty close to the middle of the "curve" with the
exsiting geometry (when you factor in the fore/aft positioning range
of the saddle). OTOH, I won't be likely to be dropping my BB's any
time soon (I've seen too many ugly things happen when pedals hit
asphalt).
For those who absolutely can't get away with a 73.5 degree seat tube,
I can always do a custom (and can usually throw in a couple extras
like an oval or oversize downtube and/or S-stays for the $300 custom
fee).
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.cynetfl.com/habanero/
Home of the $695 ti frame
Jim Flom
>>on the wrong side of the street.
>
Indeed. Mine is the town in which John DuPont resided before he blew away
Olympic wrestler Dave Schultz.
>>Let's settle this once and for all!
>
>Flintlock pistols at dawn? Whoopie cushions from 15 yards?
We prefer tanks in Newtown Square.
>>Jim "94%" Flom
>
>Rick "Huh?" Denney
94% -- "it's 94% engine"
Jim "Touché" Flom ;-)
Rick Denney
wrote:
>
>Rick Denney wrote in message ...
>>So, how does its appearance in a fashionable store reduce its utility?
>
>The "soft," urban fashion sense of the color coordinated casual wear
>selections leaches through the air onto the outdoor gear, reducing their
>usable life by as much as 8-10%.
I thought it was the sandblasting (ala Old Navy jeans--guaranteed to
make you look like you've worn them for ten years, until they show
underwear three weeks later.)
>
>>I have a North Face shell, and I have a Mountain Hardware shell.
>
>Stop boasting.
It's not boasting. It's a fact. The MH shell was in storage after my
move to Virginia, along with all my furniture, waiting on the
completion of my new house. The house was finished three months
late--after it got cold. I needed another jacket, and REI had the NF
jackets on sale...Wait a minute, why am I justifying this to *you* or
anyone else? I bought the jacket same way I buy bikes. I liked the
jacket, I had the money. Na-na-na-na-na.
By the way, I bought the MH jacket in Salt Lake City in a store where
I was tripping over yuppie outdoorsman wannabes, because we decided to
go skiing and hadn't brought the right stuff on the trip.
>
>>They seem to be
>>equally durable.
>
>That's right, they "seem" to be equally durable. In fact, your Mountain
>Hardware shell is providing sleeve to sleeve resusitation to your North Face
>shell. The shell material (not the Gore Tex, of course) on the Northface
>shell is in fact wasting away even as we speak, while still retaining its
>original shine.
Yes, I see it leaking all over the floor. It's an ion transfer
degradation process between the Gore-Tex of the North Face jacket and
the Gore-Tex of the Mountain Hardware jacket. Much like the ants from
one anthill will annihilate the residents of another, the jackets are
silently eating each other alive. I'll report on the results of this
clash when a victor emerges.
>
>>The North Face jacket has pockets in more useful
>>places, and it has an eyelet in the right place for a lift ticket
>
>Trendy, trendy.
I agree that it's a mere trendiness to want to have a place to put
one's hands when standing around attracting ski babes. But that pocket
for the pen, which I obviously need for noting my perceptions as I
fall^H^H^H^Hski down the mountain is critically important. And the MH
jacket (snicker) doesn't have one.
>
>>(required in the East even for snowshoers in ski areas).
>
>Who would snowshoe at a ski area?
I ski until I get tired of falling, and then I strap on showshoes and
get a good workout. Out west, it's the only way I'll see the top of
the mountain. I change jackets, too, because only rugged outdoorsmen
who snowshoe to the tops of mountains can justify wearing a Mountain
Hardware jacket. But I would not want to sully the reputation of that
fine marque by subjecting it to the semi-controlled bedlam that I call
skiing.
>
>>So what makes
>>them have lesser quality or durability?
>
>Keebler Elves. On a full moon you can see them.
So, *that's* what's leaking all over the floor. Bad elves, Bad!
>
>>I don't like buying things for their cachet value alone,
>
>That's why you're not on the cover of GQ, Rick.
How do you know I'm not?
>
>>but I think
>>it's equally wrong to avoid worthy items *just* because of their
>>cachet value. Not all products admired by yuppies are unworthy.
>
>No, but the same percentage is unworthy that is the percent that is the
>engine's contribution to bike speed.
Well, wearing that Europro jersey didn't make me go any slower. (I'll
give you the punch line for free: *Nothing* could make me go any
slower.)
>
>>Of course, I would choose a Habanero over a Litespeed just to save
>>money (in fact, I did).
>
>Oh, c'mon. Don't you ever just want to do something crazy now and then?
>Live a little! Go out for ice cream or something!
External evidence would indicate that I do, and quite regularly.
*That's* why I'm not on the cover of GQ.
>
>>But I wouldn't avoid a Litespeed if it was
>>otherwise right if Habaneros weren't available.
>
>I always try to avoid Litespeeds, especially coming at me in the same lane
>on the wrong side of the street.
The morons in your town must be awfully well-heeled.
>
>Let's settle this once and for all!
Flintlock pistols at dawn? Whoopie cushions from 15 yards?
>
Brian Nystrom
Ken Colburn wrote:
> > Jim Flom wrote:
> > > To be honest, part of what motivated me away from the Litespeed is that
> > > they're just so "fashionable" right now. "Oooh, a Litespeed." Someone
> > > observed that Litespeed is becoming the "Trek" of ti frames.
> >
>
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
> > Oh, brother! This is as silly as everyone dissing The North Face because yuppies
> > love the stuff. It makes no sense to me to reject a superb product just because
> > it's popular, especially if it means settling for something less. However, I
> > certainly would not consider a Serotta to be "something less."
>
> Not so silly Brian, most serious backpackers,climbers and guides no longer consider
> North Face a quality, durable product. North Face used to found in specialty hiking
> and mountaineering shops. Here in Seattle they have a large fashion retail store
> selling color coordinated clothing to college students, businessmen etc. Marmot and
> Mountain Hardware is the choice of discerning climbers and hikers. Marmot and
> Mountain Hardware, unlike North Face is not produced or marketed for the masses or
> the outdoor/climbing wanabees or lookalikes.
> I think Jim Flom made a valid point in that Litespeed is so "fashionable" now. The
> high volume of production and lower prices, continuing model changes and last year's
> model closeout discounts are geared to marketing to the masses.
> I am not dissing Litespeed, just making an observation and comparison.
>
> Ken "observant of retail trends" Colburn
Sorry, Ken, but that's a bunch of baloney. I've got quite a bit of North Face gear, some
of which is ten years old and still going strong. I've bought several pieces within the
last two years (on sale, of course) and there's no difference in quality. If anything,
the materials and designs have improved (as one would expect). None of it has failed me
through lots of nasty winter weather and rough use on ice climbs. I bought a Mountain
Hardware suit this past winter. It's nice, but the quality is no better, the design has
a few minor flaws and the materials are the same.
The simple fact is that there is no reason why TNF, Litespeed or any other company
cannot produce high quality products in large volume, as long as they have the
infrastructure and quality controls in place to do so. How many cars does Toyota produce
in a year?
The real problems is that some people have a burning need to feel different, special, to
set themselves apart from the crowds; and they get pissed when the "great unwashed
masses" discover the clothing or bikes or whatever they have used to try to distinguish
themselves. So what do they do? They dump on the manufacturer and deride the products.
Brilliant! It's nothing but a bunch of self-agrandisement. There's also a certain level
of "contempt of success" that makes no sense either. Just because a company becomes
large and successful, people assume that it must be evil, uncaring and corrupt. It's all
BS.
--
Regards
Brian
Brian Nystrom
merl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Tom Kellogg (on his Spectrum site) claims that he makes the angles on
> TI bikes a few degrees less steep than a comparable steel bike as
> TI "feels" steeper already.
Uh...OK...sure, that makes sense? TK has a tendency to say things that make
me shake my head. This is one of them. What makes a bike "feel" steep? What
is it about Ti that makes it "feel steeper?" Is this an exact quote? It's
sounds a bit unlikely, since road bike angles don't generally vary more than
a degree or two.
--
Regards
Brian
Ken Colburn
Brian Nystrom wrote:
Brian, give the new product a little more time before you compare it to the old North Face
quality that built the company -- Too bad -- then you will be saying I wished I would
have.... sorry Brian we can all learn by our mistakes.
Further, as an example, I have several down coats I bought from Eddie Bauer back in the
mid-70's when there were an expedition outfitting store. These coats are still in great
shape. Now Eddie Bauer is in most large shopping malls -- the quality is not there.
You won't find Marmot clothing in any big stores, but the specialty climbing and backpacking
stores carry it. Check it out.
> The simple fact is that there is no reason why TNF, Litespeed or any other company
> cannot produce high quality products in large volume, as long as they have the
> infrastructure and quality controls in place to do so. How many cars does Toyota produce
> in a year?
Brian, you use a poor example to support your theory. A comparison of GM to Litespeed is
more apporpriate. Since they are both American based companies. Now are you seriously going
to tell us GM is a high quality, high volume product -- now there is your baloney.
> The real problems is that some people have a burning need to feel different, special, to
> set themselves apart from the crowds; and they get pissed when the "great unwashed
> masses" discover the clothing or bikes or whatever they have used to try to distinguish
> themselves. So what do they do? They dump on the manufacturer and deride the products.
> Brilliant! It's nothing but a bunch of self-agrandisement. There's also a certain level
> of "contempt of success" that makes no sense either. Just because a company becomes
> large and successful, people assume that it must be evil, uncaring and corrupt. It's all
> BS.
Brian is this your great conspiracy theory. The only thing scary about this dribble of yours
is that you actually seem to believe your own delusions. Get a grip, get some help, get some
rest, it will all work out.
sheldon cooperman
convinced me to buy a parka instead of a bike...
Mark D. Leitch
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
> > Ken Colburn wrote:
> >
> > The simple fact is that there is no reason why TNF, Litespeed or any other company
> > cannot produce high quality products in large volume, as long as they have the
> > infrastructure and quality controls in place to do so. How many cars does Toyota produce
> > in a year?
>
> Brian, you use a poor example to support your theory. A comparison of GM to Litespeed is
> more apporpriate. Since they are both American based companies. Now are you seriously going
> to tell us GM is a high quality, high volume product -- now there is your baloney.
Why not compare Litespeed to one of a number of small Americain based
companies that have produced an exceptional, differentiated product for
years and have served their customer base well. I would nominate, say,
Magnepan.
As soon as GM gives me a lifetime warranty on one of their products,
I will buy the GM comparison.
mark.
Eric Anderson
corporate offices are in Japan, but their best selling car in the US
market (the Camry) is made in Kentucky...not too far from the Litespeed
folks as a matter of fact.
Eric
In article <uso8hj...@ca.ibm.com>, mle...@ca.ibm.com (Mark D. Leitch)
wrote:
--
Eric Anderson
M.D./Ph.D Student
su...@erols.com
Brooklyn, NY
Ken Colburn
> companies that have produced an exceptional, differentiated product for
> years and have served their customer base well. I would nominate, say,
> Magnepan.
>
> As soon as GM gives me a lifetime warranty on one of their products,
> I will buy the GM comparison.
Mark -- becareful of buying based on lifetime warranties. They are for the liftetime that the
original company is in business NOT your lifetime. We live in a current climate of business
mergers, takeovers and bankruptcies. Buy a quality product to begin with and your won't have to
depend on a piece of worthless/warranty paper.
Though, you missed the point that Brian was making -- He was suggesting a company could expand
and become large with many employees and still beable to maintain quality production output.
I feel differently, there is a point of growth (in American production) where the increasing
pressures of higher production and a larger labor force will cause a decrease in the quality of
the product. And hence warranties are wriitten on paper to make the consumer feel good.
Rick Denney
>You won't find Marmot clothing in any big stores, but the specialty climbing and backpacking
>stores carry it. Check it out.
The only places I've ever seen North Face in a store that did *not*
also carry either Marmot or Mountain Hardware was in the North Face
factory stores in Denver and Seattle.
>
>
>> The simple fact is that there is no reason why TNF, Litespeed or any other company
>> cannot produce high quality products in large volume, as long as they have the
>> infrastructure and quality controls in place to do so. How many cars does Toyota produce
>> in a year?
>
>Brian, you use a poor example to support your theory. A comparison of GM to Litespeed is
>more apporpriate. Since they are both American based companies. Now are you seriously going
>to tell us GM is a high quality, high volume product -- now there is your baloney.
>
So, your objective is to bash American companies just because they are
American. Now I see.
>
>
>> The real problems is that some people have a burning need to feel different, special, to
>> set themselves apart from the crowds; and they get pissed when the "great unwashed
>> masses" discover the clothing or bikes or whatever they have used to try to distinguish
>> themselves. So what do they do? They dump on the manufacturer and deride the products.
>> Brilliant! It's nothing but a bunch of self-agrandisement. There's also a certain level
>> of "contempt of success" that makes no sense either. Just because a company becomes
>> large and successful, people assume that it must be evil, uncaring and corrupt. It's all
>> BS.
>
>Brian is this your great conspiracy theory. The only thing scary about this dribble of yours
>is that you actually seem to believe your own delusions. Get a grip, get some help, get some
>rest, it will all work out.
>
I didn't see Brian mentioning a conspiracy. In fact, he was
complaining about those who ascribe commercial success to evil
conspiracy.
Rick "And that ain't *drivel*" Denney
Rick Denney
> Appreciate all the feedback on North Face apparel guys, you've
>convinced me to buy a parka instead of a bike...
We aims to please.
Rick "At least you'll be warm while you walk" Denney
Mark Hickey
Mark D. Leitch
> > As soon as GM gives me a lifetime warranty on one of their products,
> > I will buy the GM comparison.
>
> Mark -- becareful of buying based on lifetime warranties. They are for the liftetime that the
> original company is in business NOT your lifetime. We live in a current climate of business
> mergers, takeovers and bankruptcies. Buy a quality product to begin with and your won't have to
> depend on a piece of worthless/warranty paper.
Buying quality and getting a lifetime warranty aren't mutually exclusive.
If I have a choice between two products that are comparable in price,
quality, etc and one has a better warranty, it will be a factor in my
decision. However, the ability of Litespeed to offer such a warranty
where GM cannot reflects a basic difference in the products they offer
that relegates your comparison of the two companies as being worthless.
There are enough small, quality outfits in the US worthy of comparison
to litespeed. Picking one of the most hulking behemoths in existence
is misplaced IMHO.
> Though, you missed the point that Brian was making -- He was suggesting a company could expand
> and become large with many employees and still beable to maintain quality production output.
> I feel differently, there is a point of growth (in American production) where the increasing
> pressures of higher production and a larger labor force will cause a decrease in the quality of
> the product. And hence warranties are wriitten on paper to make the consumer feel good.
Well, there are economies of scale that exist that give advantages to being
larger. Given litespeed is on the order of hundreds of employees (do they
even have 100 in manufacturing?) , I consider that a very manageable size.
Also, take a look at the GM warranty. There is nothing there on paper
that "makes me feel good" (e.g. they install a new AC compressor and will
only warrantee it for a year).
mark.
Jim Flom
Jim "I've created a monster" Flom
Brian Nystrom
Ken Colburn wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
> > Ken Colburn wrote:
> >
No need. There's no problem with any of it. No mistake about it.
> Further, as an example, I have several down coats I bought from Eddie Bauer back in the
> mid-70's when there were an expedition outfitting store. These coats are still in great
> shape. Now Eddie Bauer is in most large shopping malls -- the quality is not there.
Eddie Bauer stopped making serious outdoor gear a long time ago. They made a conscious to change
their product line and abandon the technical gear market. TNF has not done that. They have
expanded their line to include more non-technical products, but they still produce hard-core
gear.
> You won't find Marmot clothing in any big stores, but the specialty climbing and backpacking
> stores carry it. Check it out.
What's your point? There are a lot of products that you won't find in any big stores. That
doesn't mean they're better, just less available. Marmot makes nice gear, but it doesn't fit me
(they cut their arms and legs too short). I have gear from other small manufacturers (like
Solstice) and it's good stuff. My point is that TNF gear is just as good.
> > The simple fact is that there is no reason why TNF, Litespeed or any other company
> > cannot produce high quality products in large volume, as long as they have the
> > infrastructure and quality controls in place to do so. How many cars does Toyota produce
> > in a year?
>
> Brian, you use a poor example to support your theory. A comparison of GM to Litespeed is
> more apporpriate. Since they are both American based companies. Now are you seriously going
> to tell us GM is a high quality, high volume product -- now there is your baloney.
GM's problem is one of philosophy. As Alfred P. Sloan, a former chairman once said "General
Motors is not in the business of making cars, it's in the business of making money." The country
of origin of a product has nothing to do with quality. BTW, many Toyota cars are built here in
the states and the quality is just as good as those models that are produced in Japan. It's
because they have the right infrastructure and the right philosophy. The same has proven true
for other foreign auto companies with domestic plants.
> > The real problems is that some people have a burning need to feel different, special, to
> > set themselves apart from the crowds; and they get pissed when the "great unwashed
> > masses" discover the clothing or bikes or whatever they have used to try to distinguish
> > themselves. So what do they do? They dump on the manufacturer and deride the products.
> > Brilliant! It's nothing but a bunch of self-agrandisement. There's also a certain level
> > of "contempt of success" that makes no sense either. Just because a company becomes
> > large and successful, people assume that it must be evil, uncaring and corrupt. It's all
> > BS.
>
> Brian is this your great conspiracy theory. The only thing scary about this dribble of yours
> is that you actually seem to believe your own delusions. Get a grip, get some help, get some
> rest, it will all work out.
What conspiracy? Who's deluded? For better or for worse, this is human nature, at least here in
the US. Open your eyes. The people who believe that large corporations are automatically evil
are the ones who have "conspiracy theories", not me. I recall a previous debate we had where you
made a big deal about how "exclusive" your Seven Axiom was compared to Litespeeds. Perhaps the
problem is that you see some of yourself in my previous paragraph?
--
Regards
Brian
Brian Nystrom
Ken Colburn wrote:
> > Why not compare Litespeed to one of a number of small Americain based
> > companies that have produced an exceptional, differentiated product for
> > years and have served their customer base well. I would nominate, say,
> > Magnepan.
> >
> > As soon as GM gives me a lifetime warranty on one of their products,
> > I will buy the GM comparison.
>
> Mark -- becareful of buying based on lifetime warranties. They are for the liftetime that the
> original company is in business NOT your lifetime. We live in a current climate of business
> mergers, takeovers and bankruptcies. Buy a quality product to begin with and your won't have to
> depend on a piece of worthless/warranty paper.
>
> Though, you missed the point that Brian was making -- He was suggesting a company could expand
> and become large with many employees and still beable to maintain quality production output.
> I feel differently, there is a point of growth (in American production) where the increasing
> pressures of higher production and a larger labor force will cause a decrease in the quality of
> the product. And hence warranties are wriitten on paper to make the consumer feel good.
The fact that TNF replaced the zippers on a ten year old jacket under their Lifetime Warranty made
me feel good. The zippers had worn out from use; they weren't defective. Yet TNF replaced them
anyway and got the jacket back to me pronto. In that ten years, a lot of smaller companies have
come and gone. Chalk one up for the big boys.
--
Regards
Brian
Brian Nystrom
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Brian Nystrom <bnys...@bit-net.com> wrote:
>
> >merl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Kellogg (on his Spectrum site) claims that he makes the angles on
> >> TI bikes a few degrees less steep than a comparable steel bike as
> >> TI "feels" steeper already.
> >
> >Uh...OK...sure, that makes sense? TK has a tendency to say things that make
> >me shake my head. This is one of them. What makes a bike "feel" steep? What
> >is it about Ti that makes it "feel steeper?" Is this an exact quote? It's
> >sounds a bit unlikely, since road bike angles don't generally vary more than
> >a degree or two.
>
> Maybe he was talking about the price? ;-)
Good point, Mark!
--
Regards
Brian