Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

Do you agree with Richard Schwinn?

Search
Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

Do you agree with Richard Schwinn?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-24-09, 08:50 AM
  #76  
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,792

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3591 Post(s)
Liked 3,401 Times in 1,935 Posts
Originally Posted by mtnbke
Columbus SL flexy
Reynolds 531 flexy
Dedacciai flexy

They've got nothin' on my 3.0 'dale.



'fine riding qualities' translates into, self fulfilling things I need to believe about myself as a cyclist, validated by my exquisite taste in a common flexy, inefficient frame.

A steel frame is the emperor's clothes.
In an earlier message you wrote "I'm 6'7" and 375 lbs."

That's likely the reason you find steel frames flexy and your Cannondale better.

I'm 5'8" and 140#. Cannondales are WAY too stiff for me.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 06-24-09, 09:32 AM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
embankmentlb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North, Ga.
Posts: 2,401

Bikes: 3Rensho-Aerodynamics, Bernard Hinault Look - 1986 tour winner, Guerciotti, Various Klein's & Panasonic's

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked 375 Times in 162 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson
In an earlier message you wrote "I'm 6'7" and 375 lbs."

That's likely the reason you find steel frames flexy and your Cannondale better.

I'm 5'8" and 140#. Cannondales are WAY too stiff for me.
The other problem with those early Cannondales is that only the narrowest of tires will fit under the brake bridge. Just know way to soften the ride. I feel sorry for those 23 mm tires carrying around 200 pounds each.
embankmentlb is offline  
Old 07-12-09, 09:10 PM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
An 18 pound carbon bike with a 176 pound rider. A 24 pound steel bike with a 170 pound rider. Whats the difference?

Given this scenario it boils down to the quality of components and the 'feel' of the bike.
capricho is offline  
Old 07-12-09, 09:14 PM
  #79  
K2ProFlex baby!
 
ilikebikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: My response would have been something along the lines of: "Does your bike have computer controlled suspension? Then shut your piehole, this baby is from the future!"
Posts: 6,133

Bikes: to many to list

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by Exit.
"real professionals" are all riding full carbon, so his point is rather flawed.
I think real pros are no longer in it for the ride, thats why they ride the lightest bike they can find, (or are paid to ride) I don't see any pro Auto racers racing a 57 Chevy Nomad, but I'd take the 57 over the lightest race car every time!
__________________
You see, their morals, their code...it's a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these...These "civilized" people...they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve
ilikebikes is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.