Cycling Forums   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage

Go Back   Cycling Forums > General > The Bike Café > uk.rec.cycling
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


What do you think it the best bike for the city

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 26-04.-2008, 07:29 PM   #61
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What do you think it the best bike for the city

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:32:27 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<smert.spamionam@privacy.net> said in
<67dg09F2ofnpcU1@mid.individual.net>:

>Have you got a Brompton, Guy? And if so, why didn't you tell us? ;-)


I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
  Reply With Quote
Old 26-04.-2008, 11:56 PM   #62
Roger Merriman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What do you think it the best bike for the city

Doki <mrdoki@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:67bnikF2ohispU1@mid.individual.net...
> > Doki wrote:
> >

snip cars
>
> >> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> >> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> >> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> >> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> >> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> >> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> >> comfy shape has to be heavy.

> >
> > So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> > getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> > be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> > come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> > performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> > on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> > shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> > then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> > a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> > things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> > enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> > racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> > by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> > people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> > some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".
> >
> > I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> > all of us want it, or would benefit from it.

>
> I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
> shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
> suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
> that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town than my
> racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
> what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.


um the whole point is that is a 50 year old design.

Even the slackest mtb is not going to be as sit up and beg, and is quite
likely to weight close to the same by time, hubgears, brooks saddle,
chainguard, skirt guard on the rear wheel, basket etc, where added.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 28-04.-2008, 01:03 AM   #63
bornfree
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What do you think it the best bike for the city

On 26 Apr, 15:56, N...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Doki <mrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:67bnikF2ohispU1@mid.individual.net...
> > > Doki wrote:

>
> snip cars
>
> > >> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> > >> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> > >> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> > >> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> > >> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> > >> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> > >> comfy shape has to be heavy.

>
> > > So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> > > getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> > > be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> > > come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> > > performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> > > on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> > > shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> > > then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> > > a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> > > things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> > > enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> > > racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> > > by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> > > people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> > > some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".

>
> > > I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> > > all of us want it, or would benefit from it.

>
> > I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
> > shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
> > suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
> > that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town thanmy
> > racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
> > what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.

>
> um the whole point is that is a 50 year old design.
>
> Even the slackest mtb is not going to be as sit up and beg, and is quite
> likely to weight close to the same by time, hubgears, brooks saddle,
> chainguard, skirt guard on the rear wheel, basket etc, where added.
>
> roger
> --www.rogermerriman.com


  Reply With Quote



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com