Saracen any good?
Dennis
I'm just looking for a general bike for towpaths and commuting etc.
My LBS suggests a Giant GSR Comfort AluxX FS for £200
(+rack & mudguards)
Or, i've seen a - team saracen hyroad for £235 at
http://www.saracen.co.uk/hyroad.html
what do you guys think?
TIA
Den
Peter Clinch
> Picking a bike seems to be a minefield.
> I'm just looking for a general bike for towpaths and commuting etc.
>
> My LBS suggests a Giant GSR Comfort AluxX FS for £200
> (+rack & mudguards)
For a "general bike for towpaths and commuting etc." I'd personally say
forget front suspension at this price level. IMHO the money would be
better spent on better quality elsewhere. Suspension's nice for serious
off-road (*big* bumps and/or big velocities on rough) or if you're
throwing lots of money at the thing, but a rigid bike will be perfectly
capable of doing what you want, and you'll probably save weight (and
thus effort) and get a better frame and/or components that will last
longer and work better (less effort again).
Something like a Ridgeback Speed (plus rack and 'guards) is what I'd get
for a new bike at £200.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Richard Bates
in <Uylla.4525$6s6...@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Or, i've seen a - team saracen hyroad for £235 at
>http://www.saracen.co.uk/hyroad.html
>what do you guys think?
Ugh. Yuck. Bleargh. Views from 1997, when I worked in a "bike shop". I
sent back approx 1 in 4 bikes to Saracen due to them having
fundamental faults such as missing bolts, and awfully untrue wheels.
Their customer service was appalling, taking several weeks to send out
missing parts. Eventually I resorted to simply sending unsatisfactory
machines back to them.
They may have improved since, but I wouldn't touch them with a 10ft
anything.
Love and hugs from Rich x
--
Two fish suddenly swim into a brick wall.
Damn!
To reply put only the word "richard" before the @ sign
Smudger
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3E9674EA...@dundee.ac.uk...
Steer clear of Saracen. I suggest a Ridgeback too but if you can find an
extra £49 then the Ridgeback Switch Cyclone is a total bargain. It looks
the business too. You get good quality equipment but most importantly you
can upgrade when you want to. See Cycling Plus 141 for a review.
Andy
For £249 I'm very happy with my recently bought Specialized Hardrock rigid
Cr-Mo (now that I've put flat bars & bar ends on it). As far as smoothing
out bumps goes it's a lot better than my 10 yr old MTB offroad. I'm not
sure if this is more due to a better frame or slightly fatter tyres. It's
also faster on the road despite the knobblier fatter tyres. Great all round
cheap bike.
Andy
james g
"Dennis" <Den...@aufwiedersehen.pet> wrote in message
news:Uylla.4525$6s6...@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
Saracen bikes are junk. I worked on the Saracen assembly line for a short
while last summer when I was temping. Quantity over quality was the key. The
line manager got a bonus if he could push a certain number of bikes through
per day. If a thread got crossed for example, it was common to ram the screw
in with an air gun, even though that meant it couldnt be unscrewed again.
Bikes would occasionaly be dropped from quite a height as the dolleys they
were on were crap, they were touched up with paint if required and put back
on the line. The guy working next to me even lost his finger while spinning
a wheel to adjust the gears, we had to carry on working while someone was
found to drive him to hospital... it was shortly after that I walked out.
dreamlx10
"Dennis" <Den...@aufwiedersehen.pet> wrote in message
news:Uylla.4525$6s6...@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
Graham
The Technical Manager
So where is the factory based ? Why do they take so little interest in quality
assurance ? Would it be a good idea to report the factory conditions and
attitude of the quality assurance team to a cycling or industrial magazine ?
james g
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E996687...@yahoo.com...
The factory is in Leamington Spa. If someone suggested a suitable magazine
(ie one that doesnt rely on lots of Saracen sponsorship) I would be happy to
write them a letter.
RG
"james g" <neu...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:3e997844$0$45187$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
I'm not 100% certain but I believe that the "factory" in Leamington Spa no
longer does any assembly work - bikes are now brought in fully assembled
from China/Taiwan or wherever fully badged and ready to go to shops (mainly
Halfords????) - in the past I think that the frames were brought in ready
assembled and the components simply hung on to them. My info comes from a
local (to Leamington) frame builder/LBS who seems to have his finger on the
pulse.
If I am wrong, then so be it - but it would appear that the guy who worked
there has some sort of axe to grind .........
Finally, I am no fan of Saracen and would not contemplate buying one BUT I
do have (amongst my collection of about 10 bikes) 2 Saracen machines (a
HyLander Hybrid and a Rufftrax cheapie MTB) that I acquired from my brother
when he "upgraded" to 2 folders for his caravan excursions - and for what
they are they do the job - cheap and functional! [I lend them to friends
while I ride my Specialized]
RG
albert fish
> For £249 I'm very happy with my recently bought Specialized Hardrock rigid Cr-Mo
sheesh, skanked !
that's one of the heaviest bikes I've ever picked up, heavier than a raleigh noname.
I paid £225cash for a £450 "rrp" bike, all ali, weighs just 28lb
as far as "there's no point in suspension forks at this pirce point" poppycock.
2" is better than nothing and the only reason (in my mind) to have rigid forks
is if you want to do trials stuff as endos and the like are tricky with front suspension :)
get out into those cycle shops, there's bargains to be had, except saracen.
Albert
The Technical Manager
It would be better if you informed them that you worked at the factory during a
certain time. Ensure that the letter is published anonymously.
james g
"RG" <newsz...@bntinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b7c56r$g02$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
that the bikes are crap. TBH I couldn't care less, and wouldnt have made the
appearance of grinding if no one had asked the question.
When I was there they bought in the sprayed frames from Taiwan and fitted
the forks, brackets etc.. If anyone is that interested in finding out the
details of what they do the assembly plant is at Saracen House, Heathcote
Industrial Estate, Warwick CV34 6TS 01926 338427
It wouldn't surprise me if they got strategically pruned from the supply
chain though, the management was obviously on a drive to make 'efficiency'
savings, and there wasnt much room left for further savings to be had..AFAIK
the transfer of assembly to Taiwan will probably yield increase in quality,
as far less has to be spent on wages.
Peter Clinch
> as far as "there's no point in suspension forks at this pirce point" poppycock.
> 2" is better than nothing and the only reason (in my mind) to have rigid forks
> is if you want to do trials stuff as endos and the like are tricky with front suspension :)
Or, if you bothered reading the OP's original question, if you don't
want be offroad to any greater extent than a towpath, which is the
context in which the assertion was made.
2" of travel where there's no need will just add weight and reduce
climbing efficiency from pogoing. The point of suspension should be to
make your life *easier*, and for roads and towpaths on a £200 bike
(i.e., one with a low-end commodity MTB fork rather than anything
specifically designed for tarmac use like Moulton's leading link
designs) it's very unlikely to do that. Or, put another way, 2" is
actually *worse* than nothing, especially as the money could go on
something that will make a bigger efficiency and/or comfort difference
like a better saddle or better gears.
albert fish
albert fish wrote:
> as far as "there's no point in suspension forks at this pirce point" poppycock.
> 2" is better than nothing and the only reason (in my mind) to have rigid forks
> is if you want to do trials stuff as endos and the like are tricky with front suspension :)
> Or, if you bothered reading the OP's original question, if you don't
> want be offroad to any greater extent than a towpath,
and commuting. please be accurate, Pete.
commuting = potholes, kerbs, drain holes etc.
> 2" of travel where there's no need
no need ? exqueeze me, we'll just un invent 'happy shopper' suspension because
pete says there's no 'need' ...... market forces and all that.....
> will just add weight and reduce climbing efficiency from pogoing.
it's a commuter, for going over bumps and putting up with the daily battering
uk roads tend to give, not some esoteric time trials machine. the 'extra' weight
is free, negligable and built in at this price point.
> The point of suspension should be to make your life *easier*,
the point of suspension is not to make life easier, what a silly suggestion, it's to
stop harsh shocks running up your arms / wrists, a job that even cheapo suspension
magages to do quite well.
> and for roads and towpaths on a £200 bike (i.e., one with a low-end commodity MTB
> fork rather than anything specifically designed for tarmac use like Moulton's leading
> link designs) it's very unlikely to do that.
the OP was after info on saracen bikes for £200, I advised that if the OP get's on their
proverbial they will find £400+ bikes avail for £200 in various sales. it's at this point your
argument falls flat on it's face because at £400+ front forks actually become quite plush
(compared to a novice on a rigid fork design)
> Or, put another way, 2" is actually *worse* than nothing, especially as the money could go on
> something that will make a bigger efficiency and/or comfort difference
> like a better saddle or better gears.
but on a £400+ bike the groupset / chainset will be more than adequate for a novice.
agin, you need to remind yourself that this is not a do all be all bike, it's a hack and my
advice is to get the cash out and get haggling for something with front suspension. the
OP will get a decent £450 bike for around £200 - £250 (which is what the OP wanted
to spend in the first place so no probs there)
your advice seems to be stick with the price point and forget about and fancy gubbins, you
don't need it as it wouldn't do you any good. which is poppycock.
Albert
Peter Clinch
> commuting = potholes, kerbs, drain holes etc.
Going up kerbs, if you approach them slowly you can hop the front wheel
up and it will make no practical difference whether or not you have
suspension. If you approach them fast and don't hop FS will help, but
not as much as growing a brain and doing it at a more sensible pace.
Going down kerbs, as long as you know how to momentarily take your
weight off the bars there won't be much shock. Same with potholes,
though in practice when I commuted by bike on my rigid upright tourer I
preferred to bunny-hop them.
The thing is, these are all occasional obstacles and you can see them
all coming in advance and be sure of being on the smooth either side of
them. Suspension is designed to improve matters in continual operation,
not occasional blips, and though it does work on occasional blips so
does a bit of active rider input like hopping the front wheel or
stopping leaning on the bars for a second.
> no need ? exqueeze me, we'll just un invent 'happy shopper' suspension because
> pete says there's no 'need' ...... market forces and all that.....
Just because the market sells things doesn't mean they're any use. The
cycle market has sold lots of people gaspipe clunker "MTB"s with knobbly
off-road tyres to people who never go offroad. That's a good thing, is it?
> it's a commuter, for going over bumps and putting up with the daily battering
> uk roads tend to give, not some esoteric time trials machine.
Ah, so the entire range of Dawes touring bikes, made to go hundreds of
miles in reliable comfort over all sorts of roads and tracks, are
"esoteric time trials machines" because nobody saw fit to give them
front suspension forks? Even odder is I see quite a few of them used as
commuters, despite being far more expensive than FS equipped bikes are
available for.
> the 'extra' weight
> is free, negligable and built in at this price point.
No and No. A basic telescopic FS fork will cost more than a basic
Cro-Mo or Al fork and weigh more as well.
> the point of suspension is not to make life easier, what a silly suggestion, it's to
> stop harsh shocks running up your arms / wrists, a job that even cheapo suspension
> magages to do quite well.
But that it has no *need* to do well if you can ride a bike to a
reasonable standard. If you come across a large pothole you can go
round it or hop the front wheel over it.
> the OP was after info on saracen bikes for £200, I advised that if the OP get's on their
> proverbial they will find £400+ bikes avail for £200 in various sales. it's at this point your
> argument falls flat on it's face because at £400+ front forks actually become quite plush
> (compared to a novice on a rigid fork design)
The argument doesn't fall flat on its face, because MTB suspension is
designed for MTB riding, not roads. It'll still weigh more, pogo more
when climbing (which is why more expensive MTB suspension can be locked
out on the fly, of course) and still not really be of that much benefit.
Oh, and it'll need more maintenance input and make the bike more
desirable for thieves at the same time. Great!
Touring bikes, which aren't all about weight saving to any real degree,
are *very* rarely sold with FS forks despite being expensive machines
(they *start* at £450) designed for the road conditions you say make 2"
of travel a Big Win. The same bikes are notoriously unencumbered by
fashion requirements, and just specced to do the job as well as
possible. They have rigid forks for the most part.
MTB and road suspensions are not designed the same way on serious bikes:
why do you think a NS Moulton doesn't use a typical MTB fork?
> your advice seems to be stick with the price point and forget about and fancy gubbins, you
> don't need it as it wouldn't do you any good. which is poppycock.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that MTBs are the
only bikes that are ever sold at reduced prices for being in last year's
colours etc. Not the case at all.
You also seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that all other
things being equal FS is a clear win, but it's heavier, requires more
maintenance, makes the bike more knickable, reduces front luggage
options and takes climbing energy from the drivetrain. None of which
are actively good. A telescopic fork on a bike like this is a tradeoff
of some things against others, not a clear win (or Super Galaxies and
the like would have them). For MTB riding the plusses generally
outweigh the minuses, but not for road riding.
And btw, I'm not just kneejerking against suspension on road bikes. If
I was, my main road bike wouldn't have full suspension, which it does.
But it was designed specifically and carefully for road riding, not the
assumption that sticking any suspension on *must* make things better.
Tony W
"albert fish" <alber...@spamworld.com> wrote in message
news:bkuma.1628$FA6....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
snipped lots of stuff of dubious value.
> your advice seems to be stick with the price point and forget about and
fancy gubbins, you
> don't need it as it wouldn't do you any good. which is poppycock.
For streets, paths and reasonable quality bridle paths I much prefer a
machine with rigid forks. OK, bouncy forks soften some blows but the
disadvantages far outweigh the benefits (I particularly hate the dip of the
forks as you start off).
IMO bouncy forks come into there own only once the stuff gets rough
enough -- with tehm you can go fast enough to maintain steering while on
rigid you would probably need to stop & walk).
Peter's advice to the OP was perfectly reasonable (certainly not poopycock).
You demonstrate that one size does not fit all. However, I do doubt that
your defence of bouncy bikes for the purpose described by the OP is
particularly valid.
T
albert fish
albert fish wrote:
> commuting = potholes, kerbs, drain holes etc.
> Going up kerbs, if you approach them slowly you can hop the front wheel
> up and it will make no practical difference whether or not you have
> suspension.
untrue. non suspension bikes are far easier to bunny hop. I can get my front susser about
2' off the ground from standstill... when I do the same on a rigid I gain an extra few inches.
but I digress, the OP is asking about saracens, Pete, so they are hardly likely to be hopping.
> If you approach them fast and don't hop FS will help,
if you approach a 4" kerb at speed having 6" of travel isn't going to save you
from taco'ing your front wheel.
> not as much as growing a brain and doing it at a more sensible pace.
tell me, Pete, as a denizen of the dept of medical physics, how does one 'grow' a brain ?
or was that just a petulant monday morning off the cuff remark ?
> Going down kerbs, as long as you know how to momentarily take your
> weight off the bars there won't be much shock.
yeah, right. and it's possible to do that every time ?
some research: bump down a kerb on a rigid fork bike, full weight on the bars.
then do the same on a bike with 2" travel in the forks, both time with a rucksac/
bag on your back at the end of a day in heavy traffic. see the difference ? feel it
when you get home ? no? repeat experiment until it sinks in or your wrists snap..
> The thing is, these are all occasional obstacles and you can see them
> all coming in advance and be sure of being on the smooth either side of
> them. Suspension is designed to improve matters in continual operation,
> not occasional blips,
eh ? it's designed to do both. it's overall design is based around increased comfort
and better handling, even the cheapo elastomer suspension tracks better over
pebble strewn bepotholed road margins than fat tyre rigids, especially if you put a bit of
weight on the bars to make the suspension work.
> and though it does work on occasional blips so does a bit of active rider input like
hopping the front wheel or stopping leaning on the bars for a second.
which any rider would do anyway.
> no need ? exqueeze me, we'll just un invent 'happy shopper' suspension because
> pete says there's no 'need' ...... market forces and all that.....
Just because the market sells things doesn't mean they're any use. The
cycle market has sold lots of people gaspipe clunker "MTB"s with knobbly
off-road tyres to people who never go offroad. That's a good thing, is it?
yes indeed; the bikes are so crap the trails are free of the people that buy such iron ;-)
>> it's a commuter, for going over bumps and putting up with the daily battering
>> uk roads tend to give, not some esoteric time trials machine.
> Ah, so the entire range of Dawes touring bikes, made to go hundreds of
> miles in reliable comfort over all sorts of roads and tracks, are
> "esoteric time trials machines" because nobody saw fit to give them
> front suspension forks? Even odder is I see quite a few of them used as
> commuters, despite being far more expensive than FS equipped bikes are
> available for.
lets just bring this thread back to reality, shall we ? the OP was asking if saracen
bikes were any good, they're not (but someone somewhere will have evidence to
disprove that, I'm sure) *your* suggestion : " I'd personally say forget front suspension
at this price level is flawed for 2 reasons:
1/ the pricepoint of £200 is just a rrp/ssp and many decent £400+ bikes have been
seen in the wild for up to 50% off, evans cycles just had a massive sale for expmple.
check out their ad in this months MTBR.
2/ for the £200 the OP has to spend you would have to be a blind man on a galloping
horse not to notice that such sales would be tha place to buy a bike.
so, I reiterate:
>> the OP was after info on saracen bikes for £200, I advised that if the OP get's on their
>> proverbial they will find £400+ bikes avail for £200 in various sales. it's at this point your
>> argument falls flat on it's face because at £400+ front forks actually become quite plush
>> (compared to a novice on a rigid fork design)
> The argument doesn't fall flat on its face, because MTB suspension is
> designed for MTB riding, not roads.
/cough/ it's desigened for bumps, they don't *have* to be up a mountain....
> It'll still weigh more,
Granted. but the difference will be the difference between a rucksack containing 4 sarnies
and a flask of tea versus four sarnies and a packet of biscuits. bugger all in real terms and
only pertinent when attempting a win on points.
> pogo more when climbing
and the OP is going to be doing how many uphill sprints ? sure, my forks dip when I get
a wiggel on up a hill, I burn more calories and get some upper body excercise at the same
time. I can weigh that off against the lack of jarring over the gazillions of lumps & bumps
> Oh, and it'll need more maintenance input
and someone buying at the saracen end of the market would view this how ?
<snip blah>
> MTB and road suspensions are not designed the same way on serious bikes:
no shit...
> why do you think a NS Moulton doesn't use a typical MTB fork?
geometry akin to the early 70's choppers ? (motorcycle) rake, etc ?
> You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that MTBs are the
> only bikes that are ever sold at reduced prices for being in last year's
> colours etc. Not the case at all.
no, you just assume that I'm labouring, I'm not. and it's not just MTBs that are sold
off cheap, apparently it's done with every stock item that's suffering oversupply,
especially in cramped cycle shops with low margins and low turnover.
> You also seem to be labouring under the misapprehension
again, I'm not labouring (you seem to like that phrase) I'm currently multitasking
quite nicely and not labouring in any department.
> that all other things being equal FS is a clear win,
all things being equal, it is. I see many people on city roads with front suspension
bikes of all shapes and sizes but, oddly enough, I never see rigid fork bikes out
on the trail. so it would be fair to say if you wanted to experience the full range
of terrain in your locale ( and, lets face it, who buys any kind of MTB without having
that dream lodged firmly in their heads) you'd be better off getting *some* kind of
suspension bike, if only to avoid having to buy another bike when the bug bites (as
it surely would) neatly avoiding the need to buy a more suitable, better equiped bike.
> but it's heavier, requires more
> maintenance, makes the bike more knickable, reduces front luggage
> options and takes climbing energy from the drivetrain.
are not good enough reasons *not* to buy into front suspension.
maintenance? forget about it at this price point, you'll get three years out of it no probs,
by which time some nice pace / manitou will be found at the back of your LBS for a few quid.
nickable ? roll back the application of good design and looks 'cos it *may* make
it more nickable ? I don't think so, it's not the way things are, either.
luggae options ? you're getting desperate now, it's a hack / commuter !
energy from the drivetrain ? it's hack/commuter bike. the losses will be negligable
5% ? and the OP would not notice, given that they will probably be too concerned
at the pain in their wrists/lungs/legs for the first few months...
for the £235 the OP is thinking of spending on a saracen I managed to get
a much better bike, in fact, I got 2 (almost £900's worth rrp) of bikes for £450 cash
a saving of 50% and this was not in a sale, per se, I just know when to strike :-)
I also refused to cement the deal until I got a free pump. lock and trouser clips, etc.
Cash talks. I *know* the shop didn't declare the cash to the revenue because the
I was told the "till was out of action" and I was given a stamped, handwritten receipt.
fairy snuff:
the LBS cleared some space, I got a great deal. A win win situation that I have managed
to hustle three other people through (different shops, different towns) with similar results
it's empirical evedence, bargains are out there and it's enough to convince me to at least try,
and there's no reason to think the OP will be any less sucessful, especially if they scout out a,
say, £400 bike at the back of the shop, covered in a thick layer of dust and start the haggle
at 4:30 pm on a friday (sunnier the better)
at the end of the day, you pays yer money and makes yer choice and my choice
would be to haggle like a demon for the best most feature laden cycle I could get
for my money (disregarding geegaws and fashion items, of course) because the OP
*will* want to get off road at some point and a rigid fork bike, over treestumps and
2" pebbles, is no fun beyond the age of 12
your assertation that I think 'one is better than the other' misses what I consider to be
the essential point to this thread: the OP now has your opinion and mine.
Albert
Peter Clinch
> untrue. non suspension bikes are far easier to bunny hop. I can get my front susser about
> 2' off the ground from standstill... when I do the same on a rigid I gain an extra few inches.
> but I digress, the OP is asking about saracens, Pete, so they are hardly likely to be hopping.
Why on earth not? I hop my upright tourer, my Brompton and my MTB. Any
upright bike is reasonably easy to hop, at least the front wheel.
And the OP was actually asking about "a general bike for towpaths and
commuting etc.", and the post certainly isn't restricted in scope to
Saracen bikes (like, how about the Giant specifically mentioned...).
> tell me, Pete, as a denizen of the dept of medical physics, how does one 'grow' a brain ?
> or was that just a petulant monday morning off the cuff remark ?
I actually meant if you actually bother to think you can avoid problems
crossing kerbs. (Though I can see why you'd be interested in the more
literal answer.)
> yeah, right. and it's possible to do that every time ?
Errr, yes. Why not? I've never experienced a problem in 25+ years of
doing it regularly day to day.
> some research: bump down a kerb on a rigid fork bike, full weight on the bars.
I won't do that research because I don't put my full weight on the bars
going over kerbs because it's stupid.
> then do the same on a bike with 2" travel in the forks, both time with a rucksac/
> bag on your back at the end of a day in heavy traffic. see the difference ? feel it
> when you get home ? no? repeat experiment until it sinks in or your wrists snap..
or until you learn not to lean on things taking impacts when you have no
need to do so. btw, "heavy traffic" doesn't go over kerbs, so you
wouldn't be in it. If you get into heavy traffic streams over pavement
kerbs then you're simply demonstrating a further lack of intelligence
than you'd managed up until now.
> hopping the front wheel or stopping leaning on the bars for a second.
either
> which any rider would do anyway.
Not according to the implications of your "research experiment" they don't.
> yes indeed; the bikes are so crap the trails are free of the people that buy such iron ;-)
So you are at least bright enough to agree that just because the market
has been able to sell things to people it doesn't mean it's a good thing.
> lets just bring this thread back to reality, shall we ? the OP was asking if saracen
> bikes were any good, they're not (but someone somewhere will have evidence to
> disprove that, I'm sure) *your* suggestion : " I'd personally say forget front suspension
> at this price level is flawed for 2 reasons:
To quote the OP:
"Picking a bike seems to be a minefield.
I'm just looking for a general bike for towpaths and commuting etc.
My LBS suggests a Giant GSR Comfort AluxX FS for £200
(+rack & mudguards)
Or, i've seen a - team saracen hyroad for £235 at
http://www.saracen.co.uk/hyroad.html
what do you guys think?"
He's had a FS Giant suggested by the LBS, and asks about a specific
Saracen bike also with FS as an alternative. This rather implies he's
looking actively at a FS bike as the thing to do what he wants best. I
don't think it is, which is why I said so.
> 1/ the pricepoint of £200 is just a rrp/ssp and many decent £400+ bikes have been
> seen in the wild for up to 50% off, evans cycles just had a massive sale for expmple.
> check out their ad in this months MTBR.
You're still failing to realise that an MTB with FS is designed to do a
different job than is being requested by the OP, so this is not
relevant. Pointing out that a rigid forked machine will probably do his
particular job better is relevant.
> 2/ for the £200 the OP has to spend you would have to be a blind man on a galloping
> horse not to notice that such sales would be tha place to buy a bike.
And as I pointed out, the sort of bike I suggested can also get into
sales. But it's also the point that sales only allow you to get what's
in the sales, and if there's a better machine for the job for the same
price new, because what's in the sales doesn't match up to the job in
hand, then you're better off there. For the job in hand FS makes very
little sense at all unless it's designed for relatively good surfaces.
MTB forks aren't.
> /cough/ it's desigened for bumps, they don't *have* to be up a mountain....
It's designed for large bumps in large quantities, so the design allows
for a great deal more impact absorption than is required on the road.
This in turn makes them heavier and more wasteful of energy, both of
which will very probably offset the comfort benefits of having them
there considerably. Have a look at Moulton suspension and notice how
very different approaches have been taken to take on the rather
different job in hand.
> Granted. but the difference will be the difference between a rucksack containing 4 sarnies
> and a flask of tea versus four sarnies and a packet of biscuits. bugger all in real terms and
> only pertinent when attempting a win on points.
But why have any difference at all, when having it confers no real
advantage? That's just stupid, especially where the money can go on
something more useful to the job in hand.
> and the OP is going to be doing how many uphill sprints ?
Quite possibly none, but if you think that you only lose power to
suspension if you're sprinting then it just goes to show you're ignorant
about it (why is that not a surprise?).
> sure, my forks dip when I get
> a wiggel on up a hill, I burn more calories and get some upper body excercise at the same
> time. I can weigh that off against the lack of jarring over the gazillions of lumps & bumps
Which are a figment of your imagination, judging from the way touring
cyclists ride a lot further than you without suspension (and harder,
narrower tyres as well) and don't feel the need for it.
> and someone buying at the saracen end of the market would view this how ?
As a result of this thread he probably *won't* be buying one, because
he's shown enough brains to do some research. And if he carries on in
that vein he'll probably be smart enough to realise that maintenance is
an important thing too.
> no shit...
that's right.
> geometry akin to the early 70's choppers ? (motorcycle) rake, etc ?
Errrr, no. The geometry of a NSM is nothing like a Chopper. What *are*
you talking about?
> all things being equal, it is.
Except in all those places it isn't, which I even helpfully pointed out.
> I see many people on city roads with front suspension
> bikes of all shapes and sizes but, oddly enough, I never see rigid fork bikes out
> on the trail.
Then (a) you don't look very carefully and (b) that is in no way
relevant to the roads. Roads and trails aren't the same, which is why
different designs have proven better at the different things they offer.
> so it would be fair to say if you wanted to experience the full range
> of terrain in your locale ( and, lets face it, who buys any kind of MTB without having
> that dream lodged firmly in their heads) you'd be better off getting *some* kind of
> suspension bike, if only to avoid having to buy another bike when the bug bites (as
> it surely would) neatly avoiding the need to buy a more suitable, better equiped bike.
But the OP didn't say he wanted to do that. In fact he very
specifically said otherwise. So the answer to your "if" is "no", so the
rest of that paragraph disappears up its own arse.
> are not good enough reasons *not* to buy into front suspension.
They are, actually. Which is why very few high end upright road bikes
have it, and when they do it's generally very different to what you find
on an MTB.
> maintenance? forget about it at this price point
It is exceptionally stupid to think you can forget maintenance at *any*
price point.
> nickable ? roll back the application of good design and looks 'cos it *may* make
> it more nickable ? I don't think so, it's not the way things are, either.
It isn't the application of good design though, it's the application of
"me too" engineering where it's assumed that because something is good
in one context it must be good in another. And it is the way things are.
> luggae options ? you're getting desperate now, it's a hack / commuter !
I'm not at all desperate. Some people carry things on commutes, and I
certainly carry shopping on hacks. Not having to carry a rucksak
improves cycling comfort and reduces the need for a shower and change at
the other end as you won't have a sweaty back. Which is more useful
than FS on a road, quite frankly.
> energy from the drivetrain ? it's hack/commuter bike.
So why arrive at the end of your commute having used more energy than
you need to? Doing so when you have an easy option not to is simply stupid.
> the losses will be negligable
> 5% ? and the OP would not notice, given that they will probably be too concerned
> at the pain in their wrists/lungs/legs for the first few months...
If the effect of riding a rigid bike was nearly as bad as you imply then
nobody would have bothered much with bikes for most of the last 150
years. As I pointed out, serious distance machines costing serious
money and with a priority applied to distance comfort are sold with
rigid forks, and they wouldn't be if that was a genuine problem.
> for the £235 the OP is thinking of spending on a saracen I managed to get
> a much better bike, in fact, I got 2 (almost £900's worth rrp) of bikes for £450 cash
> a saving of 50% and this was not in a sale, per se, I just know when to strike :-)
But if they're not fitted to the job in hand that's not actually value
for money.
> I also refused to cement the deal until I got a free pump. lock and trouser clips, etc.
>
> Cash talks. I *know* the shop didn't declare the cash to the revenue because the
> I was told the "till was out of action" and I was given a stamped, handwritten receipt.
Good for you. There's nothing about that that is limited to a
suspension bike though.
> at the end of the day, you pays yer money and makes yer choice and my choice
> would be to haggle like a demon for the best most feature laden cycle I could get
> for my money (disregarding geegaws and fashion items, of course)
Rather ironic that you think FS isn't a geegaw and fashion item when
applied to road riding, because for the most part (i.e., aside from
suspension setups designed specifically for road use) that's just what
they are.
> *will* want to get off road at some point
How do you know? Or have you just made a blind assumption apropos of
nothing in particular? Plenty of people have no particular desire to
get offroad on trails, and if you think otherwise you're just
demonstrating you only know a somewhat unrepresentative cross section of
cyclists.
albert fish
albert fish wrote:
<snip>
wow, I could dissect and rebutt all day but you're far more pedantic than I'm bothered
so, whatever, dude. I'm not here to fight with you, that's why I signed off with 'the OP
now has both our opinions' ... kinda missed that, didn't you ?
I will say one thing tho' 4 stupids (1 exceptionaly & 1 simply) 1 'bright enough', an 'ignorant'
...
you mention brains, being smart and accused me of making a blind assumption.
well here's another not so blind one:
you have a 'stupid' chip on your shoulder and wander about thinking things are stupid, either
in an exceptional, completely, or simple kind of way.
I popped along to your website and it all became clearer.
you need to LEAVE school and get a job, K ? then maybe you'll meet a nice woman and
get shag. It'll help you relax and calm down a bit and while you may lose a bit more energy
and /ahem/ "arrive" sweaty trust me, it's well worth it ;-)
Albert
Michael MacClancy
<Den...@aufwiedersehen.pet> writes
Hello Den,
I would have no qualms about buying a Giant bike. My wife and I have
owned Giant mountain bikes for about 9 years and they have been
extensively used on and off-road throughout Europe, including mountain
trails in the Alps. We have had no problems beyond normal wear and
tear. They have fixed forks which goes to show that these things do go
along trails! I think the situation now is that it's difficult to get a
'utility' bike without front suspension so the discussion about its pros
and cons is, perhaps, a bit theoretical.
We're so happy with our Giants that we've recently bought two Giant road
bikes. Giant is the biggest manufacturer in the world and appears to be
able to apply economy of scale to its pricing. I think you tend to get
more bike for your money from Giant.
Personally I don't like the look of the two bikes you mentioned. For me
they're too 'sit-up-and-beg'. I would buy more of a mountain bike from
the Giant Terrago or Boulder ranges. Apart from the styling I would
feel happier using it in a variety of different situations. I think the
'comfort' bikes look as if they're made for people who want to potter
about town.
It may now be too late but I think the best advice anyone could give you
is to look around for last year's models. If you can find one that fits
you should be able to get something pretty good for £200-£250.
Hope this helps.
--
Michael MacClancy
Michael MacClancy
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>Dennis wrote:
>> Picking a bike seems to be a minefield.
>> I'm just looking for a general bike for towpaths and commuting etc.
>> My LBS suggests a Giant GSR Comfort AluxX FS for £200
>> (+rack & mudguards)
>
>For a "general bike for towpaths and commuting etc." I'd personally say
>forget front suspension at this price level. IMHO the money would be
>better spent on better quality elsewhere. Suspension's nice for
>serious off-road (*big* bumps and/or big velocities on rough) or if
>you're throwing lots of money at the thing, but a rigid bike will be
>perfectly capable of doing what you want, and you'll probably save
>weight (and thus effort) and get a better frame and/or components that
>will last longer and work better (less effort again).
>
>Something like a Ridgeback Speed (plus rack and 'guards) is what I'd
>get for a new bike at £200.
>
>Pete.
I would agree with the above if I was only going to use it for towpaths
and commuting. If I thought I was going to use it anywhere I might hit
a tree root or big stone I would be concerned about the strength of the
fork and might prefer a suspension fork.
--
Michael MacClancy
Michael MacClancy
fish <alber...@spamworld.com> writes
>you need to LEAVE school and get a job, K ? then maybe you'll meet a
>nice woman and get shag. It'll help you relax and calm down a bit and
>while you may lose a bit more energy and /ahem/ "arrive" sweaty trust
>me, it's well worth it ;-)
Albert,
There is no need for this abuse.
--
Michael MacClancy
Michael MacClancy
<ne...@macclancy.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hello Den,
>
>I would have no qualms about buying a Giant bike. My wife and I have
>owned Giant mountain bikes for about 9 years and they have been
>extensively used on and off-road throughout Europe, including mountain
>trails in the Alps. We have had no problems beyond normal wear and
>tear. They have fixed forks which goes to show that these things do go
>along trails! I think the situation now is that it's difficult to get
>a 'utility' bike without front suspension so the discussion about its
>pros and cons is, perhaps, a bit theoretical.
>
>We're so happy with our Giants that we've recently bought two Giant
>road bikes. Giant is the biggest manufacturer in the world and appears
>to be able to apply economy of scale to its pricing. I think you tend
>to get more bike for your money from Giant.
>
>Personally I don't like the look of the two bikes you mentioned. For
>me they're too 'sit-up-and-beg'. I would buy more of a mountain bike
>from the Giant Terrago or Boulder ranges. Apart from the styling I
>would feel happier using it in a variety of different situations. I
>think the 'comfort' bikes look as if they're made for people who want
>to potter about town.
>
>It may now be too late but I think the best advice anyone could give
>you is to look around for last year's models. If you can find one that
>fits you should be able to get something pretty good for £200-£250.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>
I have just had a look at www.dalescycles.com and think that my choice
from the 2003 range would be a Giant Rincon at £250. I still think it's
worth having a look at last years models, though.
--
Michael MacClancy
albert fish
news:s7T3LUNu...@macclancy.demon.co.uk...
he called me stupid, ignorant etc ..
all incorrect, all abusive terms for having a differing opinion to his.
as a decisive terminator to our 'discourse' I told him to leave school, get a shag and chill out.
that's not abuse, thats just good advice.
Albert
Peter Clinch
> I would agree with the above if I was only going to use it for towpaths
> and commuting. If I thought I was going to use it anywhere I might hit
> a tree root or big stone I would be concerned about the strength of the
> fork and might prefer a suspension fork.
Only if you're doing it on a routine basis. As the Roughstuff
Fellowship proved for a great many years before MTBs, let alone
suspension equipped MTBs, were even invented it's quite possible to take
unmodified rigid bikes through relatively challenging terrain and come
out the other end with you and the bike in one piece.
For regular trail riding I'd agree that these days it makes a great deal
of sense to get FS, but *only* if you're doing regular trail riding as a
fundamental part of what the bike is for.
Michael MacClancy
>"Michael MacClancy" <ne...@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:s7T3LUNu...@macclancy.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <RVzma.3000$Aq1....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, albert
>> fish <alber...@spamworld.com> writes
>> >you need to LEAVE school and get a job, K ? then maybe you'll meet a
>> >nice woman and get shag. It'll help you relax and calm down a bit and
>> >while you may lose a bit more energy and /ahem/ "arrive" sweaty trust
>> >me, it's well worth it ;-)
>>
>> Albert,
>> There is no need for this abuse.
>> --
>> Michael MacClancy
>
>he called me stupid, ignorant etc ..
>
>all incorrect, all abusive terms for having a differing opinion to his.
>
>as a decisive terminator to our 'discourse' I told him to leave
>school, get a shag and chill out.
>
>that's not abuse, thats just good advice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Albert
>
>
I take it that these are the sections which offend you:
Albert
>> Granted. but the difference will be the difference between a rucksack containing 4 sarnies
>> and a flask of tea versus four sarnies and a packet of biscuits. bugger all in real terms and
>> only pertinent when attempting a win on points.
>
Pete
>But why have any difference at all, when having it confers no real
>advantage? That's just stupid, especially where the money can go on
>something more useful to the job in hand.
>
Albert
>> and the OP is going to be doing how many uphill sprints ?
>
Pete
>Quite possibly none, but if you think that you only lose power to
>suspension if you're sprinting then it just goes to show you're
>ignorant about it (why is that not a surprise?).
This hardly warrants the abuse you threw back at him, eh? I assume you
_wouldn't_ say that 'you only lose power to suspension if you're
sprinting', would you? So you're not ignorant, are you? And it is
stupid to have suspension if it conveys no real advantage, isn't it? If
you disagree with the 'real advantage' contention then continue arguing
your point but the abuse really isn't necessary.
It's only Usenet, nobody dies.
--
Michael MacClancy
albert fish
> It's only Usenet, nobody dies.
> --
quite.
Albert
David Damerell
>"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3E9A7E56...@dundee.ac.uk...
>>Going up kerbs, if you approach them slowly you can hop the front wheel
>>up and it will make no practical difference whether or not you have
>>suspension.
>untrue. non suspension bikes are far easier to bunny hop. I can get my
>front susser about 2' off the ground
Do you meet many 2' kerbs on your commute?
>if you approach a 4" kerb at speed having 6" of travel isn't going to save you
>from taco'ing your front wheel.
Now you seem to be arguing that suspension is useless for commuting.
>>Going down kerbs, as long as you know how to momentarily take your
>>weight off the bars there won't be much shock.
>yeah, right. and it's possible to do that every time ?
I've been riding unsuspended bikes for about twenty years and never have
any trouble coming down off kerbs, so I think it's fair to say that that
is perfectly possible.
>and better handling, even the cheapo elastomer suspension tracks better over
>pebble strewn bepotholed road margins
Have you considered not riding in the gutter?
>>>it's a commuter, for going over bumps and putting up with the daily
>>>battering uk roads tend to give, not some esoteric time trials machine.
>>Ah, so the entire range of Dawes touring bikes, made to go hundreds of
>>miles in reliable comfort over all sorts of roads and tracks, are
>>esoteric time trials machines" because nobody saw fit to give them
>>front suspension forks?
>lets just bring this thread back to reality, shall we ?
The reality is that very many people commute perfectly easily on
unsuspended bikes such as the tourers that Peter Clinch mentions.
>>It'll still weigh more,
>Granted. but the difference will be
[very small]
How curious - when I pick up low-end suspension components in shops they
seem very heavy. Do they get lighter when installed, or what?
>>pogo more when climbing
>and the OP is going to be doing how many uphill sprints ?
Sprints, no, but on a commute you often have no choice about going up
hills - and you tend to be laden with laptop, work clothes, lunch, or
whatever.
>>Oh, and it'll need more maintenance input
>and someone buying at the saracen end of the market would view this how ?
A regular commuter will have to have their machine maintained.
>so it would be fair to say if you wanted to experience the full range
>of terrain in your locale ( and, lets face it, who buys any kind of MTB
>without having that dream lodged firmly in their heads) you'd be better
>off getting *some* kind of suspension bike,
Rubbish. The OP wanted a commute bike for terrain up to towpaths. Grinding
along more slowly every workday for the sake of a small bonus (because,
after all, rigid bikes work perfectly well offroad) in places the original
remit doesn't haven't the rider going is braindead.
>luggae options ? you're getting desperate now, it's a hack / commuter !
My panniers are full on my commute. If I want to carry anything much extra
- like groceries on the way home - I need the trailer. Front panniers
would alleviate that.
>at the end of the day, you pays yer money and makes yer choice and my choice
>would be to haggle like a demon for the best most feature laden cycle I
>could get for my money (disregarding geegaws and fashion items,
... other than full suspension, you mean?
>the OP *will* want to get off road at some point
Will they? I never feel any urge to do so recreationally; and on the rare
occasions I am compelled to do so, I do just fine.
>and a rigid fork bike, over treestumps and
>2" pebbles, is no fun beyond the age of 12
I suspect you are too young to remember it, but this will come as news to
the large numbers of adults who enjoyed riding rigid bikes offroad before
suspension became commonplace.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
David Damerell
>he called me stupid, ignorant etc ..
Yes - and you have kindly demonstrated that he was entirely correct.
albert fish
news:GPc*xU...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> albert fish <alber...@spamworld.com> wrote:
> >"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3E9A7E56...@dundee.ac.uk...
> >>>commuting = potholes, kerbs, drain holes etc.
> >>Going up kerbs, if you approach them slowly you can hop the front wheel
> >>up and it will make no practical difference whether or not you have
> >>suspension.
> >untrue. non suspension bikes are far easier to bunny hop. I can get my
> >front susser about 2' off the ground
>
> Do you meet many 2' kerbs on your commute?
I'm not a workaday gimp so I've no need to commute but your opening gambit
is better than your last post.
> >if you approach a 4" kerb at speed having 6" of travel isn't going to save you
> >from taco'ing your front wheel.
>
> Now you seem to be arguing that suspension is useless for commuting.
no, I'm arguing that approaching a 4" kerb at speed will knacker your front wheel.
how you connect that and commuting is interesting. for about a second.
> >>Going down kerbs, as long as you know how to momentarily take your
> >>weight off the bars there won't be much shock.
> >yeah, right. and it's possible to do that every time ?
>
> I've been riding unsuspended bikes for about twenty years and never have
> any trouble coming down off kerbs, so I think it's fair to say that that
> is perfectly possible.
and who, FFS, is arguing that it isnt ?
now you have built up a head of steam lets see where you take yourself next.
> The reality is that very many people commute perfectly easily on
> unsuspended bikes such as the tourers that Peter Clinch mentions.
and who said that was not the case ? why the feck are you presenting this
crap to me as some sort of 'argument' and what do you hope to gain ?
> >>It'll still weigh more,
> >Granted. but the difference will be
> [very small]
>
> How curious - when I pick up low-end suspension components in shops they
> seem very heavy. Do they get lighter when installed, or what?
the term 'heavy' is relative. define your 'heavy' 300g, 500g 4 20kg plates ?
> >>pogo more when climbing
> >and the OP is going to be doing how many uphill sprints ?
>
> Sprints, no, but on a commute you often have no choice about going up
> hills - and you tend to be laden with laptop, work clothes, lunch, or
> whatever.
>
> >>Oh, and it'll need more maintenance input
> >and someone buying at the saracen end of the market would view this how ?
>
> A regular commuter will have to have their machine maintained.
deviation is not possible. you must comply. check out the cronks most
commuters commute on. apparently, it's to ward off marauding bandits.
> >so it would be fair to say if you wanted to experience the full range
> >of terrain in your locale ( and, lets face it, who buys any kind of MTB
> >without having that dream lodged firmly in their heads) you'd be better
> >off getting *some* kind of suspension bike,
>
> Rubbish. The OP wanted a commute bike for terrain up to towpaths. Grinding
> along more slowly every workday for the sake of a small bonus (because,
> after all, rigid bikes work perfectly well offroad) in places the original
> remit doesn't haven't the rider going is braindead.
sorry, can I have that again, please. Forwards, slowly and in english only this
time take your thumb out of your mouth.
> >luggae options ? you're getting desperate now, it's a hack / commuter !
>
> My panniers are full on my commute. If I want to carry anything much extra
> - like groceries on the way home - I need the trailer. Front panniers
> would alleviate that.
trailer.... and your little windmill on the 'bars and the fan on the top of your hat ?
> >and a rigid fork bike, over treestumps and
> >2" pebbles, is no fun beyond the age of 12
>
> I suspect you are too young to remember it, but this will come as news to
> the large numbers of adults who enjoyed riding rigid bikes offroad before
> suspension became commonplace.
you suspect wrong (as I suspected) I'm just able to move with the times
I suggsted that £235 would go further in a sale (of which there are many) and front
suspension was not a waste of time at this price point. if this carries on I'll be accused
of being a baby raper next. chill out, ffs.
Albert
Michael MacClancy
fish <alber...@spamworld.com> writes
>"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:GPc*xU...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> albert fish <alber...@spamworld.com> wrote:
>> >"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:3E9A7E56...@dundee.ac.uk...
>> >>>commuting = potholes, kerbs, drain holes etc.
>> >>Going up kerbs, if you approach them slowly you can hop the front wheel
>> >>up and it will make no practical difference whether or not you have
>> >>suspension.
>> >untrue. non suspension bikes are far easier to bunny hop. I can get my
>> >front susser about 2' off the ground
>>
>> Do you meet many 2' kerbs on your commute?
>
>I'm not a workaday gimp so I've no need to commute but your opening gambit
>is better than your last post.
>
>> >if you approach a 4" kerb at speed having 6" of travel isn't going
>> >from taco'ing your front wheel.
>>
>> Now you seem to be arguing that suspension is useless for commuting.
>
>no, I'm arguing that approaching a 4" kerb at speed will knacker your
>front wheel.
>how you connect that and commuting is interesting. for about a second.
>
>> >>Going down kerbs, as long as you know how to momentarily take your
>> >>weight off the bars there won't be much shock.
>> >yeah, right. and it's possible to do that every time ?
>>
>> I've been riding unsuspended bikes for about twenty years and never have
>> any trouble coming down off kerbs, so I think it's fair to say that that
>> is perfectly possible.
>
>and who, FFS, is arguing that it isnt ?
You implied that it isn't. "...And it's possible to do that every
time?"
>
>now you have built up a head of steam lets see where you take yourself next.
>
>> The reality is that very many people commute perfectly easily on
>> unsuspended bikes such as the tourers that Peter Clinch mentions.
>
>and who said that was not the case ? why the feck are you presenting this
>crap to me as some sort of 'argument' and what do you hope to gain ?
I suppose it's because anyone who had read your other posts would
conclude that suspension is necessary for commuting.
>
>> >>It'll still weigh more,
>> >Granted. but the difference will be
>> [very small]
>>
>> How curious - when I pick up low-end suspension components in shops they
>> seem very heavy. Do they get lighter when installed, or what?
>
>the term 'heavy' is relative. define your 'heavy' 300g, 500g 4 20kg plates ?
>
>> >>pogo more when climbing
>> >and the OP is going to be doing how many uphill sprints ?
>>
>> Sprints, no, but on a commute you often have no choice about going up
>> hills - and you tend to be laden with laptop, work clothes, lunch, or
>> whatever.
>>
>> >>Oh, and it'll need more maintenance input
>> >and someone buying at the saracen end of the market would view this how ?
>>
>> A regular commuter will have to have their machine maintained.
>
>deviation is not possible. you must comply. check out the cronks most
>commuters commute on. apparently, it's to ward off marauding bandits.
Well, if they don't maintain their bikes they'll break at some point and
need maintaining.
>
>> >so it would be fair to say if you wanted to experience the full range
>> >of terrain in your locale ( and, lets face it, who buys any kind of MTB
>> >without having that dream lodged firmly in their heads) you'd be better
>> >off getting *some* kind of suspension bike,
>>
>> Rubbish. The OP wanted a commute bike for terrain up to towpaths. Grinding
>> along more slowly every workday for the sake of a small bonus (because,
>> after all, rigid bikes work perfectly well offroad) in places the original
>> remit doesn't haven't the rider going is braindead.
>
>sorry, can I have that again, please. Forwards, slowly and in english only this
>time take your thumb out of your mouth.
You're getting abusive again. A sign that you're losing the argument.
He's saying that the OP doesn't need the extra weight associated with
forks for commuting.
>
>> >luggae options ? you're getting desperate now, it's a hack / commuter !
>>
>> My panniers are full on my commute. If I want to carry anything much extra
>> - like groceries on the way home - I need the trailer. Front panniers
>> would alleviate that.
>
>trailer.... and your little windmill on the 'bars and the fan on the
>top of your hat ?
>
More abuse.
>> >and a rigid fork bike, over treestumps and
>> >2" pebbles, is no fun beyond the age of 12
>>
>> I suspect you are too young to remember it, but this will come as news to
>> the large numbers of adults who enjoyed riding rigid bikes offroad before
>> suspension became commonplace.
>
>you suspect wrong (as I suspected) I'm just able to move with the times
>
>I suggsted that £235 would go further in a sale (of which there are
>many) and front
>suspension was not a waste of time at this price point. if this carries
>on I'll be accused
>of being a baby raper next. chill out, ffs.
No need to swear.
As I mentioned in a post to the OP the argument about suspension is
largely irrelevant. But, if he has the choice between two bikes
costing, say, rrp £235 one with suspension and the other without the
chances are that the one without suspension will meet his requirements
better because the other components will be better. He doesn't _need_
suspension and it is a waste of time if he has other options.
>
>Albert
>
>
--
Michael MacClancy
David Damerell
>"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>if you approach a 4" kerb at speed having 6" of travel isn't going to
>>>save you from taco'ing your front wheel.
>>Now you seem to be arguing that suspension is useless for commuting.
>no, I'm arguing that approaching a 4" kerb at speed will knacker your
>front wheel. how you connect that and commuting is interesting.
You brought up kerbs and suchlike obstructions, I remind you, as a
justification for suspension. Now you say suspension doesn't help with
kerbs.
>>>>Going down kerbs, as long as you know how to momentarily take your
>>>>weight off the bars there won't be much shock.
>>>yeah, right. and it's possible to do that every time ?
>>I've been riding unsuspended bikes for about twenty years and never have
>>any trouble coming down off kerbs, so I think it's fair to say that that
>>is perfectly possible.
>and who, FFS, is arguing that it isnt ?
You are, just above.
>>The reality is that very many people commute perfectly easily on
>>unsuspended bikes such as the tourers that Peter Clinch mentions.
>and who said that was not the case ?
You implied it when you said that those machines had nothing to do with
"reality".
You do appear to have a rather selective memory.
>>How curious - when I pick up low-end suspension components in shops they
>>seem very heavy. Do they get lighter when installed, or what?
>the term 'heavy' is relative.
Relative to the weight of other bicycle components, obviously.
>>>>Oh, and it'll need more maintenance input
>>>and someone buying at the saracen end of the market would view this how ?
>>A regular commuter will have to have their machine maintained.
>deviation is not possible.
No, it's not. If your bike falls to bits, it's impossible to commute on
it. Surely this is self-evident?
>check out the cronks most commuters commute on.
Such "cronks" are often in perfectly good shape. They look bad because most
commuters know that a clean glossy bike is a stolen bike.
>>Rubbish. The OP wanted a commute bike for terrain up to towpaths. Grinding
>>along more slowly every workday for the sake of a small bonus (because,
>>after all, rigid bikes work perfectly well offroad) in places the original
>>remit doesn't haven't the rider going is braindead.
>sorry, can I have that again, please.
I'm not responsible for your poor standard of literacy, I'm afraid. Get an
adult to explain it to you.
>>>luggae options ? you're getting desperate now, it's a hack / commuter !
>>My panniers are full on my commute. If I want to carry anything much extra
>>- like groceries on the way home - I need the trailer. Front panniers
>>would alleviate that.
>trailer.... and your little windmill on the 'bars
Your urge to froth has let you down. If you dislike trailers so much, you
are only strengthening the case for front panniers.
>>>and a rigid fork bike, over treestumps and
>>>2" pebbles, is no fun beyond the age of 12
>>I suspect you are too young to remember it, but this will come as news to
>>the large numbers of adults who enjoyed riding rigid bikes offroad before
>>suspension became commonplace.
>you suspect wrong (as I suspected)
It seems the kindest explanation of your minimal grasp of English.
>I'm just able to move with the times
This makes no sense. Why does availability of suspended bikes make riding
unsuspended bikes less enjoyable? It's exactly the same activity as
before.
>chill out, ffs.
I should emulate your calm and non-confrontational style, you mean?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
albert fish
> albert fish <alber...@spamworld.com> wrote:
> >he called me stupid, ignorant etc ..
>
> Yes - and you have kindly demonstrated that he was entirely correct.
> --
what ?
when I've sussed the connection between you three ?
yeah, right.
Albert
David Damerell
>"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>he called me stupid, ignorant etc ..
>>Yes - and you have kindly demonstrated that he was entirely correct.
Myself, Peter Clinch and Michael MacClancy are connected? Yes, I admit it.
Amazingly enough, we all post to u.r.c.!
Michael MacClancy
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>Myself, Peter Clinch and Michael MacClancy are connected? Yes, I admit
>it. Amazingly enough, we all post to u.r.c.!
And we've all got the letters i, e and l in our names. And we ride
bikes. Amazing. Anything else?
--
Michael MacClancy
Dennis
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> > I would agree with the above if I was only going to use it for towpaths
*Biting fingernails*
er, th th thanks guys, please calm down.
And here was I, thinking I was asking a pretty
straightforward question :D
Well anyway, I went for the 'GIANT' with sus forks
and sus saddle. Picked it up late on Saturday.
Got home and realised that the sus forks were fresh outta sus.
(rigid sus forks). Took it back on Monday, haven't seen it since :)
New forks are on the way, but then, I never COULD buy anything
right first time.
Den
albert fish
>
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3E9ADA7A...@dundee.ac.uk...
> > Michael MacClancy wrote:
> >
> > > I would agree with the above if I was only going to use it for towpaths
> > > and commuting. etc etc
>
> *Biting fingernails*
> er, th th thanks guys, please calm down.
> And here was I, thinking I was asking a pretty
> straightforward question :D
it was, it's just that someone dared to put an opinion different to one of the
'know it all' regulars. it happens a lot in newsgroups, ignore it, pick out the
'bones' of what's being said, apply it to your own situation, violá :-)
> Well anyway, I went for the 'GIANT' with sus forks
> and sus saddle. Picked it up late on Saturday.
good for you ! should be a bit more plush than any 50's eastern bloc
'been riding rigids for 500 years, see no reason to change' option...
> Got home and realised that the sus forks were fresh outta sus.
> (rigid sus forks). Took it back on Monday, haven't seen it since :)
> New forks are on the way, but then, I never COULD buy anything
> right first time.
> Den
>
>
doh ! ne'er mind, plenty of good riding to be had when you get it back :-)
Albert
Peter Clinch
> good for you ! should be a bit more plush than any 50's eastern bloc
> 'been riding rigids for 500 years, see no reason to change' option...
You don't need to be that good at reading to know I ride a fully
suspended bike (though with suspension designed for the roads, not
trails, and at rather higher cost than the bikes discussed in this
thread).
But then again, that doesn't mean I should be surprised you failed to
notice...
albert fish
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Jez
°¹°¹°¹¹°¹°°¹¹¹°¹°¹¹°¹°¹°¹¹°¹°°¹¹¹°
©®¥tÕgeni© ©atap|ex¥
i t ' s a w a y o f l i f e
°¹°¹°¹¹°¹°°¹¹¹°¹°¹¹°¹°¹°¹¹°¹°°¹¹¹°
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3E9FD855...@dundee.ac.uk...
> albert fish wrote:
>
> > good for you ! should be a bit more plush than any 50's eastern bloc
> > 'been riding rigids for 500 years, see no reason to change' option...
>
> You don't need to be that good at reading to know I ride a fully
> suspended bike (though with suspension designed for the roads, not
> trails, and at rather higher cost than the bikes discussed in this
> thread).
>
> But then again, that doesn't mean I should be surprised you failed to
> notice...
here she is again, butting in...
pete, I didn't notice because I wasn't looking, k ?
and I wasn't looking because I don't care.
Albert