base2 

It is always interesting the relativity of comparing apples to oranges.

Yep. Half the World lives on $6/day. But the goin' rate where half the world resides is not $6.

It's easy to zoom out or change scope until all comparisons lose meaning. It's easy to cherry pick data, or find motivated reasoning to make yourself & you alone morally superior.

Exist in the First World on $6/day. I dare you, or any one...The market here, where there is internet, community, society, mobility, empowerment, resources, infrastructure, just does not support that cost of doing business (meaning: running you life) in the First World. It's a nonsense data point if not adjusted for local market factors.

There's a reason people move to the coast, make all their money & then retire to the Plains States, or some place tropical with a righteous sense of accomplishment. Too bad the poor suckers, the takers, & the hangers-on can't or won't be as industrious & motivated as you...Right?

Riches are meaningless. The sooner a person realizes that, the more interesting & influential person they are going to be. Galt's rationalizations we're just a way to justify being an entitled, righteous A-hole. A delusional taker & an ingrate of the highest order.
*shrug*

BTW: I retired at 42. My bikes are expressions of creativity, resourcefulness, & perseverance. What they cost is meaningless.

There is little that is less interesting than decadence & humble bragging dollar value.

koala logs

If you really mean what you say, give your bikes to me free of cost, including shipping, taxes, and all other possible costs it may incur!

Oh and I liked them packaged nicely and free of damage when it gets to my doorstep

If you can't give me your bikes, money will do! Since you find riches meaningless, to me, it's a matter of death and living so yeah, I need it! Give me some!

base2 

Lol.


I said what they cost is meaningless.
I did not say they don't have value.

koala logs

Alright! You keep your bikes that are valuable to you but would you order a bike for me, pay for it, shipping and everything since the cost of bikes is meaningless to you

And no, I'm not joking, I'm serious!

base2 

You wouldn't believe the bikes I've given away.

(& I too, am being serious.)

(...seriously.)

Let's stop this.

koala logs

I believe you. But how far are you willing to explore the "meaningless" of riches.

I am still serious about having a new bike. Nothing fancy, best I can find or build with $1000 budget I simply don't have $1000. Not even $100 free dollars! There's not even enough to satisfy all my food cravings to meet my calorie demands for training!

I know that money won't give me true happiness but life would be a lot less stressful and less painful if only I had enough to assure me and my mom won't end up homeless in the near future.

AlgarveCycling

Spelling mistake aside, the good Prof Clueless has admitted the truth in the paragraph you quoted: "my thin students have purchased road bikes (in partial emulation of me their prof) made of unyeilding junk..."



He's just trying to wind folks up, he knows he is talking unmitigated bollocks. Either that, or he is a parachute salesman using some kind of subliminal messaging.

GhostRider62

Ok, you win again.

Who said "always"

Yes, there is a contradiction. Value or relative bargain is subjective. Frankly, I value my opinion more than yours. I will always buy Dura Ace or Red, if supply chain permits. And, I do not care what others think of my choice. If I am going to spend 1,000 hours per year doing something, another thousand or two on the top of the line components isn't even noise. OTOH, broken components are no bargain. I have never had DA break. I have had lessor stuff break. N = 1

livedarklions

No, the OP in that thread has made it clear in well over a year of starting threads that he does nothing but very short rides. It's not snobbery to notice that it really doesn't matter what he wears on such short rides. Nice try at the deflection, though.

After posting this, I realized you must have looked at my post history to pull that quote from another thread. Pretty sure it wasn't my "nerve" that got hit.

indyfabz

You must be unfamiliar with Che to post the above.

timtak

Please believe me! Everything I write here I believe to be 100% true (or as true as true ever gets).

I think my bike (and beng1's bike) are the business, and that current road bikes with high headtubes are... (if you want bling, rolex, cosplay, to admire engineering very good but) a monumental, and deceitful waste of money for anyone that wants to ride fast, keep fit, and not have to spend on maintenance.

My thin graduating student (partly I think in emulation of me, his professor) bought a typical contemporary "entry level road bike" made of aluminium with torso to the wind (i.e not long and low).

It was made of aluminium, like a mountain bike, with a sit up and parachute geometry like a mountain bike, but with road bike handle bars. He (my student) thought it was a road bike. I don't know what became of him, but from several years ago he has stopped posting to SNS.

It had a junk geometry and it was made of unyielding junk (aluminium).

I have been trying to think of a way of explaining why some roadbike drawbacks (such as weight) do not matter much, whereas others (aerodynamics and flex) really do.

It seems to me that weight does not result in a change that varies according to effort. If you ride a heavy bike up a hill relaxed way, or blast up a hill with effort, I don't think that the heavy bike penalises either attempt (relaxed or effortful) differently. The penalty is there whatever speed you ride and does not increase with effort (?? afaik()

However, suspension and aerodynamics make a difference that gets worse with increased effort.
If you try harder on an aluminium bike you get your nether regions smashed up, and the more you try the more the bumps beat your perineum to a pulp.
If you try harder on a comfort bike with that parachute that you are pulling behind you then the more you try the more the parachute tugs (at the cube of speed?).

I found these effects, that get worse with increase effort, to be highly demotivating.

If you get a flexible (steel, titanium or carbon) bike which puts your torso in a low position you will fly and love flying imho.

Tim

smd4

I brought it up, but it was never addressed: How is a bike that give you a greater workout (i.e., less aero) a bad thing for losing weight, but an aero bike that puts the rider in a more-streamlines, more efficient position is somehow better for losing weight?

njkayaker

You are free to do whatever you want. That doesn't mean your choices necessarily make any sense. it just doesn't. People make dumb choices all the time.

You do care! You wouldn't have written about it if you really didn't care.

You are the second person in this thread that is overly insecure about their choices.

genejockey 

Your entire thesis comes from a misconception - it's not the head tubes being taller that leads to sloping top tubes. It's seat tubes being shorter. Head tubes are the same length, for the size of bike, that they always were. Indeed, the stack height on headsets is also less than it use to be in the days of threaded headsets, and stems also are generally lower rise. Saddle-to-bar drop on pro bikes is a lot more than it used to be BITD.

So, having started from a faulty premise, you've built an entire edifice on that mistake.

livedarklions

There's a fallacy in there--the quality of the workout is determined by the person, not the machine. One can put the exact same effort into riding the aero bike as one can the non-aero, the rider will just go faster. Likewise, there's nothing inherent about a non-aero bike that forces you to make a serious effort.

Basically, there's really no direct connection between the amount of resistance and the quality of the workout, the rider can dog it on the non-aero bike or the aero bike, or kill it on either.

smd4

Yeah, I was just trying to wrap my head around TT's arguments. I can't imagine being at all comfortable on a bike like his that puts me in a position that looks like I'm "presenting."

ofajen

Actually, the literature shows that all key physiological performance parameters are compromised by extremely low torso angles. The only reason to make that sacrifice is for speed, since the aero benefit more than compensates, up to a point. So being able to ride in that position is necessary for racers, though it can be accomplished on properly fitted modern race bikes. OTOH, when riding very low, you actually reduce the ability to work your body to its maximum potential.

Otto

genejockey 

Indeed, the basic argument is, as my Dad would have said, 'bass ackwards' - that people buy bikes to emulate the pros on which they are then TOO comfortable so they stop riding and get fat, when in fact if your average Joe buys an aero bike set up like the pros do - "FIip i! Slam it!" - they will be UNcomfortable and not ride.

livedarklions

Different point, though. It's not being aero (less resistance) that's making the difference, it's that the position is actually increasing your internal resistance (so to speak) to proper inhalation, etc.

smd4

Also, apparently Tim has never worked in a bike shop--because his descriptions of how sales staff interacts with, and works with customers to help them choose a bike, is in no way rooted in reality in any way whatsoever.

livedarklions

Don't get me wrong, the connections he's drawing between posture and effort are total nonsense.

livedarklions

At its heart, his stuff is really an elaborate conspiracy theory--"big bike" is scheming to keep us on unhealthy bad bikes for reasons. Only his genius is able to see through the plot.

Kapusta

Yes, it is one of SEVERAL faulty premises. It has been pointed out to him numerous times that modern racing bikes can easily be set up to replicate the riding position he advocates (and is shown in all the photos of the good old days he has posted), but he just keeps plowing on with his same tired line.

Other doozies include.....

2- His wacked-out premise that beginner riders are being turned off by being set up with road bike with riding position that are not aero enough.... when in fact the opposite has been true for a long time (new riders being turned off by riding positions TOO aero and uncomfortable for them) and that the move towards more relaxed endurance geo (and gravel bikes) has been a great benefit to new riders and increased access to the sport.

3- His premise that most people riding bikes on the road (including beginners) are myopically concerned with speed. Which begs the question of what he thinks the difference is between competitive and non-competitive (what this thread is about) riding.

4- Riding in an aero position somehow makes you more fit (as if speed is what burns calories, rather than effort).

Throw these 4 alternate universe realities into a pot and bake for an hour, and you come up with some of the most entertaining nonsense I have read on these forms in a while.

AlgarveCycling

Don't even try to make sense out of the nonsensical. He's just fishing for attention, however bizarre.

If Prof LooneyTunes was serious and not on a wind up, he would be posting his Strava (or similar app) times over several different length and gradient segments with his bike standard and modified to his liking and showing us the speed differences he has achieved and he would be seeking a proper peer review with relevant data from real-World experiences that can be independently verified.

But he won't, because 1. he can't really be as stupid as he is presenting unless he is a 'Flat-Earther', 'The End Is Nigh' or 'My Neighbour's Hachiko Was Kidnapped By LGBTQ Aliens From Venus' type and is just having a laugh and a wind up over his rice and Sake and, 2. he would be too embarrassed to show just how slow he actually is after all he has written.

I'll say one thing positive for him though, he is amusing.

3alarmer 

.
...page count on this thread is going up faster than Bitcoin in the boom.