info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Whay are bicycle tires so damn expensive?
613 views
Skip to first unread message
Ronko
Sep 6, 2011, 8:33:58 PM9/6/11
to
Why are bicycle tires so expensive? If I buy a set of 4 Michelin tires
for my care, that's about $500-$600; let's call it $550 (I haven't
checked lately). I usually get about 40,000 miles. I use Michelin
ProRace3 on my bike, usually about $80 for 2 on sale. I may get
1,300 miles from them, they're sticky but not particularly long
wearing. So 40,000 / 1,300 is 30.8. Multiplying the $80 by 30.8
gives $2,464; or about 4 times the cost of the car tires. Of course I'm
getting 4 tires for the car instead of 2 for the bike so the real cost is
double, about 8 or 9 times. My analysis is generalized, hopefully the
crude analysis makes my point. For mileage the bicycle tires are
many times more expensive.
for my care, that's about $500-$600; let's call it $550 (I haven't
checked lately). I usually get about 40,000 miles. I use Michelin
ProRace3 on my bike, usually about $80 for 2 on sale. I may get
1,300 miles from them, they're sticky but not particularly long
wearing. So 40,000 / 1,300 is 30.8. Multiplying the $80 by 30.8
gives $2,464; or about 4 times the cost of the car tires. Of course I'm
getting 4 tires for the car instead of 2 for the bike so the real cost is
double, about 8 or 9 times. My analysis is generalized, hopefully the
crude analysis makes my point. For mileage the bicycle tires are
many times more expensive.
Comments?
Dan O
Sep 6, 2011, 8:48:13 PM9/6/11
to
It is really crazy. I guess maybe the problem is keeping the weight
down on bike tires. I just wish I could get the full 3,000 miles or
so out of a rear tire before it suffers catastrophic damage.
Frank Krygowski
Sep 6, 2011, 10:22:25 PM9/6/11
to
Well, it's not just tires, if you want to calculate things in those
ways. $25,000 will get you a roughly mid-range car that weighs maybe
3500 pounds. $800 or so will get you a roughly mid-range bike that
weighs maybe 23 pounds. The car buyer pays about $7 per pound. The
bike buyer pays about $35 per pound.
The economics isn't controlled by cost per mile, cost per pound, or any
other such metric. There's lots of influence exerted by the size of the
production run (stuff made in bulk is almost always cheaper per unit),
the degree of difficulty in the design (bike stuff has to have smaller
safety factors to be able to give competitive performance, so more
careful design and construction are needed), the amount of exotic
materials (e.g. kevlar beads), etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
benzzoy
Sep 6, 2011, 11:25:28 PM9/6/11
to
On Sep 6, 5:33 pm, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are comparing what are essentially bicycle racing tires to (at
best) 2nd-tier car tires. The equivalence of your hypothetical 40,000
miles tire is maybe a Vittoria Rubino Pro.
A better comparison to ProRace 3 tires might be something like
Yokohama Neovas that cost about $300 each and last no more than 20,000
miles on a lightweight sports car. Porsche GT3RS rear tires last
about 10,000 miles (if you're not too lead-footed) and cost about $700
each unmounted. Note that these aren't even dedicated track tires
that have useful lives measured in hundreds of miles; the equivalence
of those in bicycle terms would be something like the Clement Seta.
However, the biggest driver is probably the scale of production for
car tires, coupled with the fact that Michelin ProRace 3 tires (and
their brethren) are bought by affluent cyclists who can afford $50
tires.
thirty-six
Sep 7, 2011, 12:13:24 AM9/7/11
to
Anti-puncture belts have historically been known to introduce losses
which relate also to poor milage, but a pure racing tyre is going to
have a thinner tread anyway. Your best bet is to look for a simple 2-
ply or 2.1/2 ply carcass construction with a single tread compound.
The heightened traction at the sides of the Michelin will cause the
centre to slip more, so worsening the the problem of centre wear.
Michelin also fail to offer a larger size, which is important for a
back wheel. A rider over twelve stone is going to have much trouble
in preventing pinch punctures and as such will be using a small
contact length due to the the extreme high tyre pressure. The result
is increased centre wear. A 23mm wired-on tyre will never be the
match of a tubular. If you insist on using this size in wired-ons as
a back tyre you had better be less than 11 stone.
The Michelin Pro Race is for lightweight racing. Don't expect
anything more from it. If you can afford to use it as an everyday
tyre, that'll keep the Michelin shareholders happy.
bfd
Sep 7, 2011, 12:03:35 AM9/7/11
to
Secret, go to one of those UK bicycle dealers, they sell Michelin, Conti and other brands of tires CHEAP! No middleman, no markup!
Checkout:
Ribble Cycles.co.uk
Probikekit. om
Wiggle.co.uk
chainreactioncycles.com
totalcycling.com
Good Luck!
James
Sep 7, 2011, 12:43:30 AM9/7/11
to
Chalo
Sep 7, 2011, 2:41:00 AM9/7/11
to
If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
they do with good bikes.
If you compare the cost/size/mileage of radio control model tires to
bicycle tires, you'll find another price gradient.
Chalo
landotter
Sep 7, 2011, 12:07:04 PM9/7/11
to
Regular old getting around tires are $10 or so. Should last 3K.
Comparing race tires, where the economy of scale bites you in the ass,
is a little silly. My last two sets cost $0, being takeoffs from new
bikes where the owner could't leave well enough alone...
Ronko
Sep 7, 2011, 2:37:10 PM9/7/11
to
In article <7d814e9d-a0ef-46d6-98bb-
7a8e97...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
bfd...@gmail.com says...
Well my $40 was based on a somewhat average price for the ProRace3 but
I order from Probikekit often and they are a standup company and
occasionally have the PR3 even cheaper. I've noticed the Conti 4000S is
not discounted as much, I believe it wears better.
Rick
7a8e97...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
bfd...@gmail.com says...
I order from Probikekit often and they are a standup company and
occasionally have the PR3 even cheaper. I've noticed the Conti 4000S is
not discounted as much, I believe it wears better.
Rick
SMS
Sep 7, 2011, 3:44:55 PM9/7/11
to
On 9/6/2011 5:33 PM, Ronko wrote:
> Why are bicycle tires so expensive?
See the thread on this from earlier this year:
> Why are bicycle tires so expensive?
<http://tinyurl.com/bicycletiresexpensive>
especially in terms of mileage. Car tires are sold at mass
merchandisers, like Costco, in high volumes. Bicycle tires are a low
volume item at bicycle stores that need to be stocked in a large variety
of sizes and tread type. Most people buy tires very infrequently and are
not terribly price sensitive so there is little incentive for stores to
offer discounts.
I buy enough to last a while when they go on sale and I try to keep as
many bicycles in our fleet using the same tire size as possible.
I thought $16 for a Ritchey Tom Slick was on the high side, but those
Michelins are outrageous.
James
Sep 7, 2011, 5:53:19 PM9/7/11
to
and 10,000km on the front. Similar price. Maybe not quite as sticky.
--
JS.
AMuzi
Sep 7, 2011, 6:49:19 PM9/7/11
to
Apples and oranges.
The auto equivalent of a Michelin Pro is $600 each and used
for one race then maybe for one practice the next week.
Basic Michelin City are $24.95 and last through years of
daily use.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Ronko
Sep 7, 2011, 9:22:37 PM9/7/11
to
In article <j48p42$39l$1...@dont-email.me>, james.e...@gmail.com
says...
PR3s are smooooth, Krylions not so much but I agree, a much better
wearing tire.
says...
wearing tire.
kolldata
Sep 7, 2011, 9:55:08 PM9/7/11
to
often asked. Tires are not expensive. ACCURATE Hand labor-tires are
made by hand-is essential while material costs are fairly low.
Competition runs at an ahhcute level in tech/performance/costs from a
wide income spectrum world market.
Lookit Conti's website with a quality tire in every niche then
whattheirname ? Big Apple's manufacturer where labor costs are
bottomed with new capitalization....but suspect tech.
made by hand-is essential while material costs are fairly low.
Competition runs at an ahhcute level in tech/performance/costs from a
wide income spectrum world market.
Lookit Conti's website with a quality tire in every niche then
whattheirname ? Big Apple's manufacturer where labor costs are
bottomed with new capitalization....but suspect tech.
Chris M
Sep 8, 2011, 6:38:15 PM9/8/11
to
The asking price on products usually has quite a range. The full gamut
of market forces are in effect for tires as any other consumer
product. If the question is concerning perceived pricing, you may be
paying full prices that few others are willing to pay. In short, they
ask what they expect the very highest price some will pay, but without
knowing just how many pay that price, all I can say is that if you pay
that much for tires, you look to shop around and survey cyclists for
more ideas. I doubt very many pay more than even $30 per tire, never
mind paying full MSRP on top models.
Some industries and market-niches have lots of discounts compared to
others, the question and answers can seem near endless. There is no
easy answer, but I worry about the assumptions you make in asking.
Chris M
Sep 8, 2011, 6:39:11 PM9/8/11
to
Chris M
Sep 8, 2011, 6:41:39 PM9/8/11
to
On Sep 7, 11:37 am, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <7d814e9d-a0ef-46d6-98bb-
> 7a8e977e3...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
You're talking about the kind of tires people would use for the
Mercedes or Rolls of the cycling world. That is why your comparisons
don't quite translate from cars to bikes.
For $20 you can buy a tire that will easily carry any of the recent GT
winners without impeding that win.
> In article <7d814e9d-a0ef-46d6-98bb-
> 7a8e977e3...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
Mercedes or Rolls of the cycling world. That is why your comparisons
don't quite translate from cars to bikes.
For $20 you can buy a tire that will easily carry any of the recent GT
winners without impeding that win.
CF
Sep 9, 2011, 1:31:16 PM9/9/11
to
another 2 miles and stopped to check it out. Sidewall was giving
out. Tube was sticking out the sidewall. So i let some air out, rode
2 more miles. Stopped to buy a new tire and did another 2 miles on
the old tire to the car. Changed the tire, pumped it up and put the
bike in the station wagon. That new tire cost me 15 bucks and a
month later that same tire was 20 bucks. See I was looking at rear
tire sidewall. Its ready to fail on one of my other bikes .
And I'm watching the tread on the rear of my 3rd bike. Getting bald
like my shaved head. Maybe next month that same tire will be 25
or 30 bucks.
AMuzi
Sep 9, 2011, 1:57:19 PM9/9/11
to
Dollars are on sale, cheap.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 10, 2011, 1:15:22 AM9/10/11
to
On 9/7/2011 1:41 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> Ronko wrote:
>>
>> Why are bicycle tires so expensive? If I buy a set of 4 Michelin tires
>> for my care, that's about $500-$600; let's call it $550 (I haven't
>> checked lately). I usually get about 40,000 miles. I use Michelin
>> ProRace3 on my bike, usually about $80 for 2 on sale. I may get
>> 1,300 miles from them, they're sticky but not particularly long
>> wearing. So 40,000 / 1,300 is 30.8. Multiplying the $80 by 30.8
>> gives $2,464; or about 4 times the cost of the car tires. Of course I'm
>> getting 4 tires for the car instead of 2 for the bike so the real cost is
>> double, about 8 or 9 times. My analysis is generalized, hopefully the
>> crude analysis makes my point. For mileage the bicycle tires are
>> many times more expensive.
>
> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
> they do with good bikes.
The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
> Ronko wrote:
>>
>> Why are bicycle tires so expensive? If I buy a set of 4 Michelin tires
>> for my care, that's about $500-$600; let's call it $550 (I haven't
>> checked lately). I usually get about 40,000 miles. I use Michelin
>> ProRace3 on my bike, usually about $80 for 2 on sale. I may get
>> 1,300 miles from them, they're sticky but not particularly long
>> wearing. So 40,000 / 1,300 is 30.8. Multiplying the $80 by 30.8
>> gives $2,464; or about 4 times the cost of the car tires. Of course I'm
>> getting 4 tires for the car instead of 2 for the bike so the real cost is
>> double, about 8 or 9 times. My analysis is generalized, hopefully the
>> crude analysis makes my point. For mileage the bicycle tires are
>> many times more expensive.
>
> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
> they do with good bikes.
market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content". Maintenance
costs are more [3], but come at much greater mileage intervals than
those on a bicycle. Again, the BSO equivalents (e.g. AMF made
Harley-Davidson motorcycles) are long gone.
[1] E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
[2] MSRP of $3K, but typically available for $200 to $500 less.
[3] Motorcycle mechanics typically make a blue collar middle class
wage, or significantly more that most LBS wrenches.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Dan O
Sep 10, 2011, 2:25:21 PM9/10/11
to
and recently mounted them both at the same time. Ahhhhhhh..... brand
new tires front and rear - what a feeling! Replace bar tape and it'll
be like riding a new bike :-)
These are ~$40 tires, too. I know I'm a schmuck for brands and thread
counts and Italian mystique (made in Taiwan anyway), but there's
always hope that I'll change. If one or both of these tires is ruined
by hazard before the tread wears out, maybe I will finally get
sensible and try something like Paselas instead.
Chalo
Sep 11, 2011, 9:10:14 PM9/11/11
to
T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
bikes don't have.
What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
> As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
> bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content".
I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.
> [1] E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
> handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
> durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
Ugly? What do you mean?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
Chalo
>
> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> >
> > If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
> > become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
> > they do with good bikes.
>
> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> >
> > If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
> > become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
> > they do with good bikes.
>
> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
bikes don't have.
What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
> As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
> bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content".
and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.
> [1] E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
> handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
> durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
Chalo
AMuzi
Sep 11, 2011, 10:27:20 PM9/11/11
to
Chalo wrote:
> T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/REDTHX05.JPG
> T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
>> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
>>> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>>> become more like cars, Â Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
>>> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>>> they do with good bikes.
>> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
>> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
>> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
>> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
>
> Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
> Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
> dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
> bikes don't have.
>
> What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
> serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
> for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
> BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
> implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
> transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
>
>> As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
>> bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content". Â
>> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
>> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
>> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
>> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
>
> Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
> Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
> dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
> bikes don't have.
>
> What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
> serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
> for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
> BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
> implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
> transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
>
>> As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
>
> I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
> and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
> weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
> of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
> that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
> homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
> manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
> expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.
>
>> [1] Â E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
> I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
> and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
> weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
> of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
> that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
> homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
> manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
> expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.
>
>> handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
>> durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
>
> Ugly? What do you mean?
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
>
> Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
> such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
>
> Chalo
Plenty of examples both ways:
>> durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
>
> Ugly? What do you mean?
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
>
> Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
> such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
>
> Chalo
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/REDTHX05.JPG
Andy Heninger
Sep 12, 2011, 1:09:59 AM9/12/11
to
Chalo wrote:
>
> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
> they do with good bikes.
>
I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most
>
> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
> they do with good bikes.
>
bicycles seem more like cars from 100 years ago, with the working parts of
the drive train completely exposed to road dirt and weather, requiring
frequent cleaning and hand lubrication, and wearing out parts in hundreds or
thousands of miles, not hundreds of thousands of miles.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reikopm/1573842804/
-- Andy
David Scheidt
Sep 12, 2011, 9:21:49 AM9/12/11
to
Andy Heninger <an...@barbwired.com> wrote:
with a rock and a bigger rock, which seems to be what he thinks you
should need, but modern cars are amazingly reliable and durable. It's
not uncommon for cars to go 50,000 miles before they need any work
beyond oil changes and windshield wipers.
The most reliable bicycles are pitiful junk in comparison.
--
sig 116
:Chalo wrote:
:>
:> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
:> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
:> they do with good bikes.
:>
:I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most
Chalo's absolutely fucking nuts. Yeah, you can't work on a modern car
:>
:> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
:> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
:> they do with good bikes.
:>
:I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most
with a rock and a bigger rock, which seems to be what he thinks you
should need, but modern cars are amazingly reliable and durable. It's
not uncommon for cars to go 50,000 miles before they need any work
beyond oil changes and windshield wipers.
The most reliable bicycles are pitiful junk in comparison.
--
sig 116
Frank Krygowski
Sep 12, 2011, 1:12:02 PM9/12/11
to
Chalo wrote:
>
>
> Ugly? What do you mean?
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
>
> Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
> such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
Fashion is beyond human comprehension.
>
>
> Ugly? What do you mean?
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
>
> Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
> such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
That car did inspire a pretty good movie, though.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Chalo
Sep 12, 2011, 3:03:55 PM9/12/11
to
David Scheidt wrote:
Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
same criteria.
I have worked on air- and spacecraft. Those are much more like nice
bicycles, both in their build quality and in their price per pound.
They have good materials, good finishes, pleasing precision even in
noncritical areas, and where possible they have good service access.
By comparison, cars seem to be made out of garbage and designed to
stymie attempts to work on them, like department store "bikes". They
might work a lot better and last somewhat longer than BSOs, but they
are still junk. It's their nature.
Bikes and cars are not the only things that compare this way. Compare
a sewing machine to a washing machine. One is like a bike, and the
other is like a car. Nobody would have any difficulty identifying
which is which. Compare a gun and a lawnmower. Just as you don't
want a sewing machine that's built like a mashing machine, or a gun
built like a lawnmower, you don't want a bike built like a car. Is
this hard for you to understand?
Chalo
has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
same criteria.
I have worked on air- and spacecraft. Those are much more like nice
bicycles, both in their build quality and in their price per pound.
They have good materials, good finishes, pleasing precision even in
noncritical areas, and where possible they have good service access.
By comparison, cars seem to be made out of garbage and designed to
stymie attempts to work on them, like department store "bikes". They
might work a lot better and last somewhat longer than BSOs, but they
are still junk. It's their nature.
Bikes and cars are not the only things that compare this way. Compare
a sewing machine to a washing machine. One is like a bike, and the
other is like a car. Nobody would have any difficulty identifying
which is which. Compare a gun and a lawnmower. Just as you don't
want a sewing machine that's built like a mashing machine, or a gun
built like a lawnmower, you don't want a bike built like a car. Is
this hard for you to understand?
Chalo
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Sep 12, 2011, 7:49:25 PM9/12/11
to
80,000km (50,000 miles) "nicely broken in"
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 12, 2011, 7:53:19 PM9/12/11
to
AMuzi
Sep 12, 2011, 8:09:24 PM9/12/11
to
T°m Sherm@n > wrote:
> On 9/11/2011 9:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
> On 9/11/2011 9:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
>>>>> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>>>>> become more like cars, Â Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
>>>>> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>>>>> they do with good bikes.
>>>> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
>>>> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
>>>> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
>>>> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
>>>
>>> Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
>>> Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
>>> dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
>>> bikes don't have.
>>>
>>> What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
>>> serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
>>> for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
>>> BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
>>> implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
>>> transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
>>>
>>>> As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
>>>> bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content". Â
>>>> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
>>>> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
>>>> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
>>>> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
>>>
>>> Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
>>> Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
>>> dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
>>> bikes don't have.
>>>
>>> What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
>>> serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
>>> for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
>>> BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
>>> implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
>>> transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
>>>
>>>> As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
>>>
>>> I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
>>> and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
>>> weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
>>> of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
>>> that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
>>> homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
>>> manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
>>> expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.
>>>
>>>> [1] Â E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with
>>> I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
>>> and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
>>> weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
>>> of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
>>> that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
>>> homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
>>> manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
>>> expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.
>>>
>>>> inadequate
>>>> handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
>>>> durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
>>>
>>> Ugly? What do you mean?
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
>>> such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>>
>> Plenty of examples both ways:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/REDTHX05.JPG
>
> So you consider the Ford Explorer to have exemplary looks?
>
The owner of that vehicle died and rotted for weeks before
>>>> handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
>>>> durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
>>>
>>> Ugly? What do you mean?
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
>>> such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>>
>> Plenty of examples both ways:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/REDTHX05.JPG
>
> So you consider the Ford Explorer to have exemplary looks?
>
his body was found. Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.
Message has been deleted
(PeteCresswell)
Sep 12, 2011, 8:54:09 PM9/12/11
to
Per cl...@snyder.on.ca:
I'm replacing it is that the roof has rusted through in several
places where the roof rack rails attach and nobody wants to fix
it.
If it weren't for that, I'd be thinking in terms of 350,000+ if I
live that long.
--
PeteCresswell
>Around here we consider
>80,000km (50,000 miles) "nicely broken in"
My Suburban has a little over 190,000 on it and the only reason
>80,000km (50,000 miles) "nicely broken in"
I'm replacing it is that the roof has rusted through in several
places where the roof rack rails attach and nobody wants to fix
it.
If it weren't for that, I'd be thinking in terms of 350,000+ if I
live that long.
--
PeteCresswell
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 12, 2011, 9:20:57 PM9/12/11
to
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 12, 2011, 9:31:47 PM9/12/11
to
On 9/11/2011 8:10 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
>>
>> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
>>>
>>> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>>> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
>>> they do with good bikes.
>>
>> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
>> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
>> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
>> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
>
> Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
> Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
> dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
> bikes don't have.
>
> What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
> serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
> for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
> BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
> implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
> transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
>
My 1994 Civic Si had poor interior materials - that is why the fabric on
> T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
>>
>> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
>>>
>>> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>>> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
>>> they do with good bikes.
>>
>> The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
>> market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
>> Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
>> specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.
>
> Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
> Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
> dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
> bikes don't have.
>
> What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
> serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
> for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
> BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
> implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
> transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)
>
the driver's seat with 160,000+ miles of use looked almost as good as
the fabric on the rear seats with less than a couple of thousand miles
of use?
The engine was crappy also. After the same 160K+ miles of hard starts
and speed-shifts above redline, compression was still excellent and
never used a measurable amount of oil. Only engine maintenance besides
oil and filter changes was valve lash adjustment every 30K and new spark
plugs every 60K.
>> As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
>> bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content".
>
> I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
> and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
> weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
> of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
> that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
> homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
> manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
> expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.
>
still have).
>> [1] E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
>> handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
>> durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
>
> Ugly? What do you mean?
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/1976_Ford_Gran_Torino_Crop.jpg
>
> Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
> such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.
cars, I have a very unpleasant visceral reaction - sort of like finding
an adult Komodo Dragon in your bathtub in the morning feeling.
Of course, new car designs of the last 5 to 8 years have returned to
deliberate ugliness, especially Chrysler/Dodge. Ugh.
[1] There *is* an upside to road deicing salt corrosion.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 12, 2011, 9:33:37 PM9/12/11
to
On 9/11/2011 8:10 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> [...]
> I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
> and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
> weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
> of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
> that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
> homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
> manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
> expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.[...]
> and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
> weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
> of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
> that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
> homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
> manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
While not the most cosmetically beautiful, everything on my 1979 Honda
CB400T worked well, and the bike was a joy to ride. Wish I could have
it back.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 12, 2011, 9:48:55 PM9/12/11
to
On 9/12/2011 2:03 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> David Scheidt wrote:
>>
>> Andy Heninger wrote:
>> :
>> :Chalo wrote:
>> :>
>> :>
>> :> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>> :> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
>> :> they do with good bikes.
>> :
>> :I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most
>>
>> Chalo's absolutely fucking nuts. Yeah, you can't work on a modern car
>> with a rock and a bigger rock, which seems to be what he thinks you
>> should need, but modern cars are amazingly reliable and durable. It's
>> not uncommon for cars to go 50,000 miles before they need any work
>> beyond oil changes and windshield wipers.
>>
>> The most reliable bicycles are pitiful junk in comparison.
>
> Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
> has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
> own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
> same criteria.
Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
> David Scheidt wrote:
>>
>> Andy Heninger wrote:
>> :
>> :Chalo wrote:
>> :>
>> :>
>> :> If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
>> :> become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
>> :> they do with good bikes.
>> :
>> :I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most
>>
>> Chalo's absolutely fucking nuts. Yeah, you can't work on a modern car
>> with a rock and a bigger rock, which seems to be what he thinks you
>> should need, but modern cars are amazingly reliable and durable. It's
>> not uncommon for cars to go 50,000 miles before they need any work
>> beyond oil changes and windshield wipers.
>>
>> The most reliable bicycles are pitiful junk in comparison.
>
> Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
> has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
> own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
> same criteria.
Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
*and* poorer fuel economy, poor drivability (especially when
carburated), poorer handling and brakes, less comfortable seats, poorer
crash survivability, horrible ergonomics in instruments and control,
etc, etc, etc (in in particular "Detroit" products of that period).
> I have worked on air- and spacecraft. Those are much more like nice
> bicycles, both in their build quality and in their price per pound.
> They have good materials, good finishes, pleasing precision even in
> noncritical areas, and where possible they have good service access.
>
ultralight.
> By comparison, cars seem to be made out of garbage and designed to
> stymie attempts to work on them, like department store "bikes". They
> might work a lot better and last somewhat longer than BSOs, but they
> are still junk. It's their nature.
>
> Bikes and cars are not the only things that compare this way. Compare
> a sewing machine to a washing machine. One is like a bike, and the
> other is like a car. Nobody would have any difficulty identifying
> which is which. Compare a gun and a lawnmower. Just as you don't
> want a sewing machine that's built like a mashing machine, or a gun
> built like a lawnmower, you don't want a bike built like a car. Is
> this hard for you to understand?
quality compared to the ubiquitous AK-47, in the real world the AK-47
works as well at a much lower unit cost.
Then there is the Israeli Iron Dome system that costs well over
$1,000,000.00 per installation and is $50,000.00+ every time it is used.
So a Party of God (aka Hezbollah) member can shoot off a $250 rocket
built in a garage or basement and cost the US taxpayer [1] more than
200: 1. No wonder we are going broke.
[1] You do not think the Israelis pay for this, do you now?
Tom Ace
Sep 12, 2011, 10:00:49 PM9/12/11
to
On Sep 12, 6:31 pm, "T°m Sherm@n" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
standards, Honda offered that too. The NSX had an
aluminum body (chromate conversion before painting),
forged aluminum suspension, ... . But in 15 years of
production they sold about 20,000 worldwide. Cars
reflect what people are willing to pay for.
Tom Ace
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> My 1994 Civic Si had poor interior materials - that is why the fabric on
> the driver's seat with 160,000+ miles of use looked almost as good as
> the fabric on the rear seats with less than a couple of thousand miles
> of use?
>
> The engine was crappy also. After the same 160K+ miles of hard starts
> and speed-shifts above redline, compression was still excellent and
> never used a measurable amount of oil. Only engine maintenance besides
> oil and filter changes was valve lash adjustment every 30K and new spark
> plugs every 60K.
And if you wanted a car built more in line with Chalo's
> My 1994 Civic Si had poor interior materials - that is why the fabric on
> the driver's seat with 160,000+ miles of use looked almost as good as
> the fabric on the rear seats with less than a couple of thousand miles
> of use?
>
> The engine was crappy also. After the same 160K+ miles of hard starts
> and speed-shifts above redline, compression was still excellent and
> never used a measurable amount of oil. Only engine maintenance besides
> oil and filter changes was valve lash adjustment every 30K and new spark
> plugs every 60K.
standards, Honda offered that too. The NSX had an
aluminum body (chromate conversion before painting),
forged aluminum suspension, ... . But in 15 years of
production they sold about 20,000 worldwide. Cars
reflect what people are willing to pay for.
Tom Ace
Chalo
Sep 13, 2011, 6:21:43 AM9/13/11
to
T°m Sherm@n wrote:
perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.
> Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
> *and* poorer fuel economy,
Like the 55mpg VW Rabbit Diesel? Or the Honda Civic that got over
50mpg in the early eighties, but doesn't now even in its hybrid
form?
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/honda-civic-gas-mileage-1978-2007/
I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
fuel economy.
Chalo
>
> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> >
> > Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
> > has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
> > own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
> > same criteria.
>
> Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> >
> > Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
> > has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
> > own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
> > same criteria.
>
> Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.
> Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
> *and* poorer fuel economy,
50mpg in the early eighties, but doesn't now even in its hybrid
form?
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/honda-civic-gas-mileage-1978-2007/
I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
fuel economy.
Chalo
SMS
Sep 13, 2011, 10:52:39 AM9/13/11
to
On 9/13/2011 3:21 AM, Chalo wrote:
> T°m Sherm@n wrote:
>>
> T°m Sherm@n wrote:
>>
>> Çhâlő Çólîńă wrote:
>>>
>>> Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
>>> has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
>>> own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
>>> same criteria.
>>
>> Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
>
> Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
> perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
> purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
> want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.
Comparing my oldest bicycle (27 year $400 Specialized Expedition) to our
>>>
>>> Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
>>> has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
>>> own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
>>> same criteria.
>>
>> Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
>
> Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
> perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
> purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
> want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.
oldest car (15 year old $17,900 Toyota Camry), the maintenance cost
relative to the purchase price is about the same. The preventative
maintenance and changing of wear items on the Camry averages about $400
per year (oil changes, tires, brakes) with a very occasional repair
(knock on wood).
Since I did all the bicycle repairs (other than wheel truing which I
suck at) myself, the cost was pretty low, but if I had run to the bike
shop for every repair I would have spent way more than the cost of the
bike. The only car maintenance I did on the Camry was the oil changes at
$10-15 each.
> I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
> the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
> fuel economy.
larger engines in order to safely be able to accelerate.
<http://green.autoblog.com/2010/11/19/story-of-a-decade-compact-cars-gain-weight-become-more-fuel-ef/>
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 14, 2011, 1:05:47 AM9/14/11
to
Let us face it. The exact same car as the Honda NSX (Acura NSX in the
US) would have sold much better if it's price was 50% *higher* and it
had a Ferrari badge. Most exotic cars are bought for showing off, not
for any inherent value.
Just like uncomfortable and inferior Harley-Davidson cruisers outsell
"metric" sport-touring bikes in the US, despite the latter costing less
and out-performing the H-D in all objective ways - it is all about image
and social status.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 14, 2011, 10:06:35 PM9/14/11
to
On 9/13/2011 5:21 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> T°m Sherm@n wrote:
>>
>> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
>>>
>>> Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
>>> has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
>>> own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
>>> same criteria.
>>
>> Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
>
> Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
> perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
> purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
> want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.
>
Well, in general I would not want to use a 30 year old car as a daily
> T°m Sherm@n wrote:
>>
>> Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
>>>
>>> Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
>>> has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
>>> own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
>>> same criteria.
>>
>> Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
>
> Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
> perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
> purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
> want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.
>
driver, no matter its condition.
>> Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
>> *and* poorer fuel economy,
>
> Like the 55mpg VW Rabbit Diesel?
while the current Golf TDI matches it in fuel economy (upper 40 mpg
range is more realistic for both cars), while having more cargo and
passenger space, much stronger acceleration, better brakes and handling,
much better rustproofing [1], much lower emissions and noise, etc, etc, etc.
> Or the Honda Civic that got over
> 50mpg in the early eighties, but doesn't now even in its hybrid
> form?
>
> http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/honda-civic-gas-mileage-1978-2007/
>
> I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
> the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
> fuel economy.
improved significantly, along with much better drivability. Good
riddance to the carburetor, not to mention the "tune-up" that has been
made obsolete by electronic engine management, which performs a
"tune-up" several times per second.
No one really wants an obsolete vehicle, although H-D riders think they do.
[1] In my experience the Golf I would rust out in less than 15 years in
the upper Midwest.
thirty-six
Sep 15, 2011, 3:40:02 AM9/15/11
to
enforcement, lean-out is typically 16:1 Dual charge and direct inject
systems can partly overcpome the problem. Catalysts also steal power
during their heat-up period.
thirty-six
Sep 15, 2011, 3:52:12 AM9/15/11
to
On Sep 15, 3:06 am, "T°m Sherm@n" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
And you have cup holders?
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 15, 2011, 7:48:58 PM9/15/11
to
On 9/15/2011 2:52 AM, thirty-six wrote:
> On Sep 15, 3:06 am, "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> [...]
> On Sep 15, 3:06 am, "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> Specific fuel economy (normalized to either power or vehicle weight) has
>> improved significantly, along with much better drivability. Good
>> riddance to the carburetor, not to mention the "tune-up" that has been
>> made obsolete by electronic engine management, which performs a
>> "tune-up" several times per second.
>
> And you have cup holders?
My Honda NHX110 has a cup holder in the glove box. None on the Honda
>> improved significantly, along with much better drivability. Good
>> riddance to the carburetor, not to mention the "tune-up" that has been
>> made obsolete by electronic engine management, which performs a
>> "tune-up" several times per second.
>
> And you have cup holders?
Deauville, however.
The instantaneous fuel economy on the Deauville reads between 65 and 75
mpg at an indicated 55-60 mph (on a "tight" engine with break-in oil).
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sep 15, 2011, 7:51:00 PM9/15/11
to
thirty-six
Sep 15, 2011, 10:01:36 PM9/15/11
to
On Sep 16, 12:48 am, "T°m Sherm@n" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
How long do you think it is gonna take you to break it in? Remember
that all you are doing is bedding the rings to get good running
compression. All you need is a dry day, little traffic, and a healthy
disrespect for speed limits. After about two hours of snapping from
WOT to closed and back, that cupholder should become worthless. Upper
cylinder lubricant as well. Just don't forget the leathers.
that all you are doing is bedding the rings to get good running
compression. All you need is a dry day, little traffic, and a healthy
disrespect for speed limits. After about two hours of snapping from
WOT to closed and back, that cupholder should become worthless. Upper
cylinder lubricant as well. Just don't forget the leathers.
thirty-six
Sep 15, 2011, 10:10:19 PM9/15/11
to
On Sep 16, 12:51 am, "T°m Sherm@n" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
The smog forming gases can be excluded through careful temperature and
pressure control of the combustion chamber and exhaust ports. It's
complicated stuff which is the concern of engine development
engineers, but it's certainly possible to have a clean exhaust without
the go-po sucker. No cat also reduces CO2 emmisons.
pressure control of the combustion chamber and exhaust ports. It's
complicated stuff which is the concern of engine development
engineers, but it's certainly possible to have a clean exhaust without
the go-po sucker. No cat also reduces CO2 emmisons.
andre...@aol.com
Sep 15, 2011, 11:01:03 PM9/15/11
to
they are not expensive. i currenlty have michelin speedium folding
tires that I spent $7 a piece for. No doubt that they are crap, at
30tpi and 290 grms. However, i ride just as fast with them as with
michelin pros. I'll get about 2000 miles out of my speediums until I
decide that they are too crappy for a member of the oligarchy such as
myself. Then I'll buy michelin krylons or lythiums, or vittoria
rubinos from pro bike kit, or chain reaction cycles for less than $30
each. Of course, i will not be able to tell any difference, but I'll
tell myself that I ride faster, because on previous year those tires
sold for $30 to $50 a piece.
You can get durable tires for less than $20 bucks if you look around.
I weigh about 200lbs and get plenty of service from them and keep up
with carbon fiber, campy record and hand made silk tires made by
Versailles nymphs.
so, tires are not expensive unless you get the ones marketed as hand
made young, castrated, Vulcans, with saliva from virgin Siberian
sables, fed w a diet of blue label johnny walker marinated lobster and
truffles grown in tyrannosaurus dung.
Even those tires can go for a lot less when you get them as previous
year products from probikekit.
Unless you can prove that you go at least 2 mph faster and that is
important in your life, get the cheapest tires and stop whinning.
On Sep 6, 6:33 pm, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are bicycle tires so expensive? If I buy a set of 4 Michelin tires
> for my care, that's about $500-$600; let's call it $550 (I haven't
> checked lately). I usually get about 40,000 miles. I use Michelion
> ProRace3 on my bike, usually about $80 for 2 on sale. I may get
> 1,300 miles from them, they're sticky but not particularly long
> wearing. So 40,000 / 1,300 is 30.8. Multiplying the $80 by 30.8
> gives $2,464; or about 4 times the cost of the car tires. Of course I'm
> getting 4 tires f$
tires that I spent $7 a piece for. No doubt that they are crap, at
30tpi and 290 grms. However, i ride just as fast with them as with
michelin pros. I'll get about 2000 miles out of my speediums until I
decide that they are too crappy for a member of the oligarchy such as
myself. Then I'll buy michelin krylons or lythiums, or vittoria
rubinos from pro bike kit, or chain reaction cycles for less than $30
each. Of course, i will not be able to tell any difference, but I'll
tell myself that I ride faster, because on previous year those tires
sold for $30 to $50 a piece.
You can get durable tires for less than $20 bucks if you look around.
I weigh about 200lbs and get plenty of service from them and keep up
with carbon fiber, campy record and hand made silk tires made by
Versailles nymphs.
so, tires are not expensive unless you get the ones marketed as hand
made young, castrated, Vulcans, with saliva from virgin Siberian
sables, fed w a diet of blue label johnny walker marinated lobster and
truffles grown in tyrannosaurus dung.
Even those tires can go for a lot less when you get them as previous
year products from probikekit.
Unless you can prove that you go at least 2 mph faster and that is
important in your life, get the cheapest tires and stop whinning.
On Sep 6, 6:33 pm, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are bicycle tires so expensive? If I buy a set of 4 Michelin tires
> for my care, that's about $500-$600; let's call it $550 (I haven't
> checked lately). I usually get about 40,000 miles. I use Michelion
> ProRace3 on my bike, usually about $80 for 2 on sale. I may get
> 1,300 miles from them, they're sticky but not particularly long
> wearing. So 40,000 / 1,300 is 30.8. Multiplying the $80 by 30.8
> gives $2,464; or about 4 times the cost of the car tires. Of course I'm
> getting 4 tires f$
Dan O
Sep 16, 2011, 11:54:13 AM9/16/11
to
On Sep 15, 4:48 pm, "T°m Sherm@n" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
as a beverage dispenser.
<snip>
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 2:52 AM, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > On Sep 15, 3:06 am, "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> > $southslope.net"> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Specific fuel economy (normalized to either power or vehicle weight) has
> >> improved significantly, along with much better drivability. Good
> >> riddance to the carburetor, not to mention the "tune-up" that has been
> >> made obsolete by electronic engine management, which performs a
> >> "tune-up" several times per second.
>
> > And you have cup holders?
>
> My Honda NHX110 has a cup holder in the glove box. None on the Honda
> Deauville, however.
>
I knew a guy who routed his windshield washer line into the glove box
> On 9/15/2011 2:52 AM, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > On Sep 15, 3:06 am, "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> > $southslope.net"> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Specific fuel economy (normalized to either power or vehicle weight) has
> >> improved significantly, along with much better drivability. Good
> >> riddance to the carburetor, not to mention the "tune-up" that has been
> >> made obsolete by electronic engine management, which performs a
> >> "tune-up" several times per second.
>
> > And you have cup holders?
>
> My Honda NHX110 has a cup holder in the glove box. None on the Honda
> Deauville, however.
>
as a beverage dispenser.
<snip>
0 new messages