The imaginary benefits of modern race equipment
03-08-13, 12:49 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
11 Posts
The imaginary benefits of modern race equipment
As a grumpy old man, I'm kind of tired of hearing about how much faster today's race bikes are as compared with those from 20, 30, 40 years ago. People seem to think that anything not swoopy and carbon and covered with logos is some kind of barely rideable old relic that couldn't possibly compete. Well, I'm all for swoopy carbon bikes if that's what floats your boat, but let's inject some reality...
Weight: Yeah, lighter is better, as a general principle. But ignoring that extra 15 pounds you're carrying around, and ignoring that a few pounds of bike weight make a difference on paper that doesn't really turn up in the real world, are today's bikes really that much lighter anyway? Reliable sub 20 pound bicycles have been available for more than 50 years. You could buy a 17 pound Klein in 1980. You could buy a 17 pound Barra in 1950. And if really wanted, you could push down into the 15 pound range, for enough money, even 30 years ago. Yet none of those bikes set the world on fire. Hmm...
Bearing friction: All I hear about is "ceramic bearings!" Well, okay. I'll buy that ceramic bearings have infinitesimally lower resistance than steel ones. But the friction of your hub bearings (let alone your bottom bracket bearings) is such a tiny part of the overall picture that it just doesn't matter. And the issue is compounded by the fact that today's bicycle bearings are so thoroughly shielded that they actually have quite a bit more resistance than plain cup-and-cone bearings of a few decades ago. Pick up an old Campy Super Record or SunTour Superbe Pro hub in good shape and give it a spin. There's almost no resistance; the axle will spin a few revolutions on its own. Now try it on one of today's miracle bearings. If it's typical, it'll stop turning the instant you stop turning it.
Rolling resistance: great tires have been available since the 1930s, at least. In fact, we seem to have forgotten quite a bit about how to make tires roll well. Today's harsh plastic tires may hold up well on a steel drum, but then, so would a tire made out of steel itself! A fast tire is a supple tire, absorbing road shock rather than sending it directly to the rider. A handmade, high thread count cotton tire will outperform a machine-made nylon casing tire every time.
Frame stiffness: If stiffer is better, why have so many races been won on wet-noodle frames? In the early days of carbon we were riding around on swingsets fashioned out of narrow diameter carbon tubes glued into aluminum lugs. And guys like LeMond and Indurain kicked ass on them. Before that, the Vitus 949 frames - made on the same principle as the glued carbon bikes, but with aluminum tubes - were used to win just about everything worth winning. The great sprinter Sean Kelly beat the best finishers in the world on his Vitus. And even if stiffer is better, it's not like stiffness was patented in 2005. Klein and Cannondale have been making ridiculously stiff frames for decades. Those frames have won a lot of races - but they've lost a lot to less-stiff bikes too. I'll buy that today's carbon race bikes are stiff. I just don't buy the idea that it matters.
Aerodynamics: I'll accept that aero wheels make a big difference in timed events. There's no way anyone's winning a high-level TT without a disk. But in a pack? I don't think so. Even today you'll see pro racers together in the pack, some of them on deep Vs, and others on essentially box section rims. Group dynamics all but eliminate differences in bicycle aerodynamics - and we all know by now that rider position plays a far more important role in aerodynamics than does any bicycle equipment. And an aerodynamic advantage of shaped carbon frame members over tubular frame members? Please...
Pedals: ever time a clips vs. clipless vs. platforms thread comes up, people will be singing the praises of the great retention offered by clipless over clips and straps. I can only assume this exists because there are so many lousy clip/strap set-ups being sold to the fixie kids these days. Well, a properly put-together clip and strap system will hold your foot in so tightly that it won't come out even in a crash. I don't know how much more retention a person could need. A clipless system may be more comfortable and is almost certainly easier to use - but it doesn't make you any faster.
Shifting: I know, I know, downtube shifters are difficult and dangerous and obsolete. Except that the one time they really went head-to-head with brifters (the 1990 TdF) the downtube friction bike came out ahead of all the STI bikes. I view brifters in the same light as clipless: they work fine, and they're easy to use, but they don't seem to confer any real advantage. The better rider is still going to win.
And that's kind of the bottom line for me: the better rider is still going to win. The guy who can put out a few more watts, the guy who knows how to position himself for the finish, the guy who knows where to save his strength and where to use it, he's the guy that's going to win, regardless of what kind of bearings he's got or whether his bike is a couple of pounds more or less or if his frame is stiffer or not so stiff.
So by all means, buy the swoopy carbon bling if you like it. Enjoy the hell out of it. But don't go around giving it the credit for beating your buddy up the hill - and don't think your buddy beat you up the hill because of his bike.
[/RANT]
Weight: Yeah, lighter is better, as a general principle. But ignoring that extra 15 pounds you're carrying around, and ignoring that a few pounds of bike weight make a difference on paper that doesn't really turn up in the real world, are today's bikes really that much lighter anyway? Reliable sub 20 pound bicycles have been available for more than 50 years. You could buy a 17 pound Klein in 1980. You could buy a 17 pound Barra in 1950. And if really wanted, you could push down into the 15 pound range, for enough money, even 30 years ago. Yet none of those bikes set the world on fire. Hmm...
Bearing friction: All I hear about is "ceramic bearings!" Well, okay. I'll buy that ceramic bearings have infinitesimally lower resistance than steel ones. But the friction of your hub bearings (let alone your bottom bracket bearings) is such a tiny part of the overall picture that it just doesn't matter. And the issue is compounded by the fact that today's bicycle bearings are so thoroughly shielded that they actually have quite a bit more resistance than plain cup-and-cone bearings of a few decades ago. Pick up an old Campy Super Record or SunTour Superbe Pro hub in good shape and give it a spin. There's almost no resistance; the axle will spin a few revolutions on its own. Now try it on one of today's miracle bearings. If it's typical, it'll stop turning the instant you stop turning it.
Rolling resistance: great tires have been available since the 1930s, at least. In fact, we seem to have forgotten quite a bit about how to make tires roll well. Today's harsh plastic tires may hold up well on a steel drum, but then, so would a tire made out of steel itself! A fast tire is a supple tire, absorbing road shock rather than sending it directly to the rider. A handmade, high thread count cotton tire will outperform a machine-made nylon casing tire every time.
Frame stiffness: If stiffer is better, why have so many races been won on wet-noodle frames? In the early days of carbon we were riding around on swingsets fashioned out of narrow diameter carbon tubes glued into aluminum lugs. And guys like LeMond and Indurain kicked ass on them. Before that, the Vitus 949 frames - made on the same principle as the glued carbon bikes, but with aluminum tubes - were used to win just about everything worth winning. The great sprinter Sean Kelly beat the best finishers in the world on his Vitus. And even if stiffer is better, it's not like stiffness was patented in 2005. Klein and Cannondale have been making ridiculously stiff frames for decades. Those frames have won a lot of races - but they've lost a lot to less-stiff bikes too. I'll buy that today's carbon race bikes are stiff. I just don't buy the idea that it matters.
Aerodynamics: I'll accept that aero wheels make a big difference in timed events. There's no way anyone's winning a high-level TT without a disk. But in a pack? I don't think so. Even today you'll see pro racers together in the pack, some of them on deep Vs, and others on essentially box section rims. Group dynamics all but eliminate differences in bicycle aerodynamics - and we all know by now that rider position plays a far more important role in aerodynamics than does any bicycle equipment. And an aerodynamic advantage of shaped carbon frame members over tubular frame members? Please...
Pedals: ever time a clips vs. clipless vs. platforms thread comes up, people will be singing the praises of the great retention offered by clipless over clips and straps. I can only assume this exists because there are so many lousy clip/strap set-ups being sold to the fixie kids these days. Well, a properly put-together clip and strap system will hold your foot in so tightly that it won't come out even in a crash. I don't know how much more retention a person could need. A clipless system may be more comfortable and is almost certainly easier to use - but it doesn't make you any faster.
Shifting: I know, I know, downtube shifters are difficult and dangerous and obsolete. Except that the one time they really went head-to-head with brifters (the 1990 TdF) the downtube friction bike came out ahead of all the STI bikes. I view brifters in the same light as clipless: they work fine, and they're easy to use, but they don't seem to confer any real advantage. The better rider is still going to win.
And that's kind of the bottom line for me: the better rider is still going to win. The guy who can put out a few more watts, the guy who knows how to position himself for the finish, the guy who knows where to save his strength and where to use it, he's the guy that's going to win, regardless of what kind of bearings he's got or whether his bike is a couple of pounds more or less or if his frame is stiffer or not so stiff.
So by all means, buy the swoopy carbon bling if you like it. Enjoy the hell out of it. But don't go around giving it the credit for beating your buddy up the hill - and don't think your buddy beat you up the hill because of his bike.
[/RANT]
03-08-13, 01:02 AM
#2
Despite all my rage, I am
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,613
Bikes: LeMond Zurich, Colnago C-50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-08-13, 01:06 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
whats with all these damn horses delivering mail? smoke signals and transcontinental walking work perfectly fine, and dont require all the financial obligations of horsery.
03-08-13, 01:37 AM
#6
or tarckeemoon, depending
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the pesto of cities
Posts: 7,020
Bikes: Davidson Impulse, Merckx Titanium AX, Bruce Gordon Rock & Road, Cross Check custom build, On-One Il Pomino, Shawver Cycles cross, Zion 737, Mercian Vincitore, Brompton S1L, Charge Juicer
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
*popcorn*
I agree on most counts. None of the technology will teach you how to properly sit on and operate a bicycle.
Training with power is legit though.
I agree on most counts. None of the technology will teach you how to properly sit on and operate a bicycle.
Training with power is legit though.
03-08-13, 01:57 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 345
Bikes: Black Beauty; The Lone Ranger; Samsquantch
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Phew, I'm in the clear...I'm glad I just bought a swoopy hydroformed aluminum frame and not one of them swoopy carbon fiber frames he talks about...This post would have changed my mind...
03-08-13, 03:09 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Sure you are right. The better rider is still gonna win most times. The better rider on obsolete/inferior technology (especially the ones you wrote about) is gonna be working much harder than required were he to be riding modern technology. Sure, maybe ceramic bearings are bulls**t, but the days of the TdF and other grand tours or even classics being worn on a steel bike equipped with down tube shifters and strapped clips are long gone. It will never happen again.
So get used to the modern conveniences (at least some of them).
And another thing to think about is the fact that among elite riders, skill and talent level are real close (why grand tour victory margins are sometimes in seconds), so, a superior rider on crappy/obsolete equipment is kinda doomed.
So get used to the modern conveniences (at least some of them).
And another thing to think about is the fact that among elite riders, skill and talent level are real close (why grand tour victory margins are sometimes in seconds), so, a superior rider on crappy/obsolete equipment is kinda doomed.
03-08-13, 03:13 AM
#11
Senior Member
Agree with pretty much everything.
Now does anyone know where I can get some 100mm carbon rims and some stiffer cranks?
Now does anyone know where I can get some 100mm carbon rims and some stiffer cranks?
03-08-13, 03:20 AM
#12
he said member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: is everything
Posts: 12,980
Bikes: yes please
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2404 Post(s)
Liked 1,679 Times
in
1,012 Posts
Come on, get with the times! He didnt even mention DI2.
03-08-13, 03:33 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Posts: 6,681
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
IMHO, after the diamond frame and the pneumatic tire, only the freewheel qualifies as a significant technological advancement.
a little exaggeration...
a little exaggeration...
03-08-13, 03:47 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
i think OP fails to realize the overwhelming majority of cyclists dont have competitive goals, and enjoy making their bikes as sexy as possible. we are all sexy bike lovers.
03-08-13, 04:07 AM
#15
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
And yes, I ride carbon bikes too.
The performance advantages of weight and stiffness aren't imaginary, but I'll bet they decide far fewer races than we might imagine, even at the top level. Like Six jours said, Kelly's Vitus was exceptionally noodly even in an era when noodles were commonplace. But he, and others, beat the crap out of plenty of good sprinters while riding it.
03-08-13, 04:13 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Incheon, South Korea
Posts: 2,836
Bikes: Nothing amazing... cheap old 21 speed mtb
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I agree with most of it. A high level racer MAY benefit from the latezt and greatest, but joe average probably won't. Still I prefer my indexed bar mounted shifters any day over old fashioned friction any day.
03-08-13, 04:29 AM
#17
2 Fat 2 Furious
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
But my buddy did beat me up the hill because of his bike. That's more comforting than looking in the mirror and seeing how much more work it takes to haul my fat ass up the hill than his lightweight frame.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
03-08-13, 04:40 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,435
Bikes: Colnago, Cervelo, Scott
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Ride whatever you want, you dusty old fart! We'll be waiting for you back at Starbucks loading our Colnagos back on our M3s when you get dropped.
03-08-13, 04:48 AM
#19
Peloton Shelter Dog
As a grumpy old man, I'm kind of tired of hearing about how much faster today's race bikes are as compared with those from 20, 30, 40 years ago. People seem to think that anything not swoopy and carbon and covered with logos is some kind of barely rideable old relic that couldn't possibly compete. Well, I'm all for swoopy carbon bikes if that's what floats your boat, but let's inject some reality...
Weight: Yeah, lighter is better, as a general principle. But ignoring that extra 15 pounds you're carrying around, and ignoring that a few pounds of bike weight make a difference on paper that doesn't really turn up in the real world, are today's bikes really that much lighter anyway? Reliable sub 20 pound bicycles have been available for more than 50 years. You could buy a 17 pound Klein in 1980. You could buy a 17 pound Barra in 1950. And if really wanted, you could push down into the 15 pound range, for enough money, even 30 years ago. Yet none of those bikes set the world on fire. Hmm...
Bearing friction: All I hear about is "ceramic bearings!" Well, okay. I'll buy that ceramic bearings have infinitesimally lower resistance than steel ones. But the friction of your hub bearings (let alone your bottom bracket bearings) is such a tiny part of the overall picture that it just doesn't matter. And the issue is compounded by the fact that today's bicycle bearings are so thoroughly shielded that they actually have quite a bit more resistance than plain cup-and-cone bearings of a few decades ago. Pick up an old Campy Super Record or SunTour Superbe Pro hub in good shape and give it a spin. There's almost no resistance; the axle will spin a few revolutions on its own. Now try it on one of today's miracle bearings. If it's typical, it'll stop turning the instant you stop turning it.
Rolling resistance: great tires have been available since the 1930s, at least. In fact, we seem to have forgotten quite a bit about how to make tires roll well. Today's harsh plastic tires may hold up well on a steel drum, but then, so would a tire made out of steel itself! A fast tire is a supple tire, absorbing road shock rather than sending it directly to the rider. A handmade, high thread count cotton tire will outperform a machine-made nylon casing tire every time.
Frame stiffness: If stiffer is better, why have so many races been won on wet-noodle frames? In the early days of carbon we were riding around on swingsets fashioned out of narrow diameter carbon tubes glued into aluminum lugs. And guys like LeMond and Indurain kicked ass on them. Before that, the Vitus 949 frames - made on the same principle as the glued carbon bikes, but with aluminum tubes - were used to win just about everything worth winning. The great sprinter Sean Kelly beat the best finishers in the world on his Vitus. And even if stiffer is better, it's not like stiffness was patented in 2005. Klein and Cannondale have been making ridiculously stiff frames for decades. Those frames have won a lot of races - but they've lost a lot to less-stiff bikes too. I'll buy that today's carbon race bikes are stiff. I just don't buy the idea that it matters.
Aerodynamics: I'll accept that aero wheels make a big difference in timed events. There's no way anyone's winning a high-level TT without a disk. But in a pack? I don't think so. Even today you'll see pro racers together in the pack, some of them on deep Vs, and others on essentially box section rims. Group dynamics all but eliminate differences in bicycle aerodynamics - and we all know by now that rider position plays a far more important role in aerodynamics than does any bicycle equipment. And an aerodynamic advantage of shaped carbon frame members over tubular frame members? Please...
Pedals: ever time a clips vs. clipless vs. platforms thread comes up, people will be singing the praises of the great retention offered by clipless over clips and straps. I can only assume this exists because there are so many lousy clip/strap set-ups being sold to the fixie kids these days. Well, a properly put-together clip and strap system will hold your foot in so tightly that it won't come out even in a crash. I don't know how much more retention a person could need. A clipless system may be more comfortable and is almost certainly easier to use - but it doesn't make you any faster.
Shifting: I know, I know, downtube shifters are difficult and dangerous and obsolete. Except that the one time they really went head-to-head with brifters (the 1990 TdF) the downtube friction bike came out ahead of all the STI bikes. I view brifters in the same light as clipless: they work fine, and they're easy to use, but they don't seem to confer any real advantage. The better rider is still going to win.
And that's kind of the bottom line for me: the better rider is still going to win. The guy who can put out a few more watts, the guy who knows how to position himself for the finish, the guy who knows where to save his strength and where to use it, he's the guy that's going to win, regardless of what kind of bearings he's got or whether his bike is a couple of pounds more or less or if his frame is stiffer or not so stiff.
So by all means, buy the swoopy carbon bling if you like it. Enjoy the hell out of it. But don't go around giving it the credit for beating your buddy up the hill - and don't think your buddy beat you up the hill because of his bike.
[/RANT]
Weight: Yeah, lighter is better, as a general principle. But ignoring that extra 15 pounds you're carrying around, and ignoring that a few pounds of bike weight make a difference on paper that doesn't really turn up in the real world, are today's bikes really that much lighter anyway? Reliable sub 20 pound bicycles have been available for more than 50 years. You could buy a 17 pound Klein in 1980. You could buy a 17 pound Barra in 1950. And if really wanted, you could push down into the 15 pound range, for enough money, even 30 years ago. Yet none of those bikes set the world on fire. Hmm...
Bearing friction: All I hear about is "ceramic bearings!" Well, okay. I'll buy that ceramic bearings have infinitesimally lower resistance than steel ones. But the friction of your hub bearings (let alone your bottom bracket bearings) is such a tiny part of the overall picture that it just doesn't matter. And the issue is compounded by the fact that today's bicycle bearings are so thoroughly shielded that they actually have quite a bit more resistance than plain cup-and-cone bearings of a few decades ago. Pick up an old Campy Super Record or SunTour Superbe Pro hub in good shape and give it a spin. There's almost no resistance; the axle will spin a few revolutions on its own. Now try it on one of today's miracle bearings. If it's typical, it'll stop turning the instant you stop turning it.
Rolling resistance: great tires have been available since the 1930s, at least. In fact, we seem to have forgotten quite a bit about how to make tires roll well. Today's harsh plastic tires may hold up well on a steel drum, but then, so would a tire made out of steel itself! A fast tire is a supple tire, absorbing road shock rather than sending it directly to the rider. A handmade, high thread count cotton tire will outperform a machine-made nylon casing tire every time.
Frame stiffness: If stiffer is better, why have so many races been won on wet-noodle frames? In the early days of carbon we were riding around on swingsets fashioned out of narrow diameter carbon tubes glued into aluminum lugs. And guys like LeMond and Indurain kicked ass on them. Before that, the Vitus 949 frames - made on the same principle as the glued carbon bikes, but with aluminum tubes - were used to win just about everything worth winning. The great sprinter Sean Kelly beat the best finishers in the world on his Vitus. And even if stiffer is better, it's not like stiffness was patented in 2005. Klein and Cannondale have been making ridiculously stiff frames for decades. Those frames have won a lot of races - but they've lost a lot to less-stiff bikes too. I'll buy that today's carbon race bikes are stiff. I just don't buy the idea that it matters.
Aerodynamics: I'll accept that aero wheels make a big difference in timed events. There's no way anyone's winning a high-level TT without a disk. But in a pack? I don't think so. Even today you'll see pro racers together in the pack, some of them on deep Vs, and others on essentially box section rims. Group dynamics all but eliminate differences in bicycle aerodynamics - and we all know by now that rider position plays a far more important role in aerodynamics than does any bicycle equipment. And an aerodynamic advantage of shaped carbon frame members over tubular frame members? Please...
Pedals: ever time a clips vs. clipless vs. platforms thread comes up, people will be singing the praises of the great retention offered by clipless over clips and straps. I can only assume this exists because there are so many lousy clip/strap set-ups being sold to the fixie kids these days. Well, a properly put-together clip and strap system will hold your foot in so tightly that it won't come out even in a crash. I don't know how much more retention a person could need. A clipless system may be more comfortable and is almost certainly easier to use - but it doesn't make you any faster.
Shifting: I know, I know, downtube shifters are difficult and dangerous and obsolete. Except that the one time they really went head-to-head with brifters (the 1990 TdF) the downtube friction bike came out ahead of all the STI bikes. I view brifters in the same light as clipless: they work fine, and they're easy to use, but they don't seem to confer any real advantage. The better rider is still going to win.
And that's kind of the bottom line for me: the better rider is still going to win. The guy who can put out a few more watts, the guy who knows how to position himself for the finish, the guy who knows where to save his strength and where to use it, he's the guy that's going to win, regardless of what kind of bearings he's got or whether his bike is a couple of pounds more or less or if his frame is stiffer or not so stiff.
So by all means, buy the swoopy carbon bling if you like it. Enjoy the hell out of it. But don't go around giving it the credit for beating your buddy up the hill - and don't think your buddy beat you up the hill because of his bike.
[/RANT]
__________________
https://www.cotsiscad.com
https://www.cotsiscad.com
03-08-13, 04:49 AM
#20
Peloton Shelter Dog
Old guys who rant on Internet forums are morons.
__________________
https://www.cotsiscad.com
https://www.cotsiscad.com
03-08-13, 04:49 AM
#21
Peloton Shelter Dog
I see what you did there.
__________________
https://www.cotsiscad.com
https://www.cotsiscad.com
03-08-13, 05:21 AM
#22
Cool Guy
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 796
Bikes: Jamis Sputnik, Leader 722 Heritage Edition, Brompton, Bianchi Via Nirone, Robinson SST, Diamondback Sorrento
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-08-13, 05:35 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northeast United States
Posts: 1,147
Bikes: Tarmac, Focus Urban 8, Giant Hybrid
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-08-13, 05:38 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,781
Bikes: Felt AR1, Cervelo S2
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
typical bikeforums post. i'd think it was trolling if there wasn't so much text.
the only bike worth buying is the one I have
all products are gimmicks until I buy them
the only bike worth buying is the one I have
all products are gimmicks until I buy them
