"Airnimals" look straight out of scrapheap challenge

[bonj2]

Yes, but only some time after wading in with an opinion that was based almost entirely on ignorance (you didn't know what the bike was, why it was made the way it was etc.). In other words you tried to pretend you had some rational basis for what was basis for what amounted to nothing more than laughing and pointing.

I have got a rational explanation. And I don't see you succeeding in even attempting to debunk it. Which means it must be well-founded.

Please do us a favour, and go do some of your own research on folding bikes, and on the Airnimal. It's no particular fun discussing with someone who is not interested in learning.

You do some research. I've told you why the headset will wear faster. Now you tell me why it won't.

And, BTW, small-wheeled bikes are specifically banned by the UCI in road cycling events... something you could also easily look up yourself.

What does that prove?

 

[bonj2]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but i'll correct you on a few points.

In another thread, bonj said recumbents were crap, and listed all the reasons that ignorant people usually list (and which all recumbentists know are false),

I initially said they were crap, but towards the end of the argument have come round to the belief that they have their advantages. I still maintain that the main disadvantage I cited of them, that they are harder to balance, is true, they are - but what I now accept that I didn't before is that once the skill is learnt, it probably doesn't matter too much.

plus the fact that he tried to ride one once, fell off several times and didn't like it.

I only said this to prevent the arguments 'but you haven't ever ridden one bonj so all your opinions are by definition invalid', and it worked. I then later admitted this to be a lie...

So we've learnt that he's not a natural cyclist, with little patience for learning a new skill.

...so therefore this inference is completely invalid and unfounded.

We have to allow for the fact that he might only just have taken the stabilisers off his MTB...

Funny.

And remember before, when he tried to ride a roadbike that apparently wasn't the right size, or set up for him, and pronounced it rubbish?

Ah, that bike was rubbish. IIRC that was when I bought a puch that was made of steel and had drop handlebars, it was a genuine work of crapola. I couldn't ride it very well because it had downtube shifters and the bottom bracket was completely f**ked. However it did enable me to arrive at the answer to the question of whether I wanted a bike with drop handlebars or not, which was 'no'. So for commuting to work I bought a road bike with flat handlebars.
I left it outside against a railing with a notice on inviting any passer-by to take it, but it just got put on the other side of the railing so nobody could see it.
I then dumped it in a charity shop. Wonder what's happened to it now...

 

[bonj2]

No, the Moulton is not UCI-legal. Same reason as for 'bents - the combination of the small wheels and huge gearing makes them just too damn fast for competition.

********. They're faster to accelerate maybe, but that's it.
Once a large-wheeled bike is up to speed, the small-wheeler has no advantage whatsoever. If it did then why don't you see them on club runs and overtaking lycra-clad chain gangs on a sunday?

 

[bonj2]

Basically, small wheels are better for lower rotating mass so are faster.

"are faster" isn't a very scientific statement.
Small wheels have lower rotating mass, that's fine. But a rotating mass requires a moment (rotational force) to make it accelerate or decelerate. A bigger wheel requires a larger rotational force to make it decelerate from a given rolling speed to zero than a small wheel does. So therefore it is easier to maintain speed on it.

 

[Arch]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but i'll correct you on a few points.

In another thread, bonj said recumbents were crap, and listed all the reasons that ignorant people usually list (and which all recumbentists know are false),

I initially said they were crap,

So I was right. What's your correction?

but towards the end of the argument have come round to the belief that they have their advantages. I still maintain that the main disadvantage I cited of them, that they are harder to balance, is true, they are - but what I now accept that I didn't before is that once the skill is learnt, it probably doesn't matter too much.

Well done on learning that.

plus the fact that he tried to ride one once, fell off several times and didn't like it.

I only said this to prevent the arguments 'but you haven't ever ridden one bonj so all your opinions are by definition invalid', and it worked. I then later admitted this to be a lie...

So we've learnt that he's not a natural cyclist, with little patience for learning a new skill.

...so therefore this inference is completely invalid and unfounded.

So, let's get this right. You are correcting me on an inference I made because you told a lie, and you think that's a victory of some sort? You don't think it just shows you up as dishonest?

And remember before, when he tried to ride a roadbike that apparently wasn't the right size, or set up for him, and pronounced it rubbish?

Ah, that bike was rubbish. IIRC that was when I bought a puch that was made of steel and had drop handlebars, it was a genuine work of crapola. I couldn't ride it very well because it had downtube shifters and the bottom bracket was completely f**ked. However it did enable me to arrive at the answer to the question of whether I wanted a bike with drop handlebars or not, which was 'no'. So for commuting to work I bought a road bike with flat handlebars.

Whereas many people manage to ride with downtube shifters perfectly well. Also, with drop handlebars, which is your main gripe. Fair enough, if they don't suit you - they don't suit me all that well. But I don't go around pronouncing any bike with them crap, which is pretty much what you did, I seem to remember...

 

[bonj2]

So I was right. What's your correction?

The fact that you didn't tell all sides of the story, but only the one that projected the image that you wanted to project.

Well done on learning that.

It wasn't a learning, that would imply it is fact - it was a matter of changing my opinions/viewpoint, as opposed to learning.

plus the fact that he tried to ride one once, fell off several times and didn't like it.

I only said this to prevent the arguments 'but you haven't ever ridden one bonj so all your opinions are by definition invalid', and it worked. I then later admitted this to be a lie...

So we've learnt that he's not a natural cyclist, with little patience for learning a new skill.

...so therefore this inference is completely invalid and unfounded.

So, let's get this right. You are correcting me on an inference I made because you told a lie, and you think that's a victory of some sort?

It's not a victory OR a defeat. It just means your inference is incorrect. You should stop thinking about this in 'war' terms. Not everything has to be a 'victory' for somebody.

You don't think it just shows you up as dishonest?

No on the contrary, it shows me up as honest because on the rare occasion when I have to tell a lie I at least admit it, which is more than a lot of people do.

Whereas many people manage to ride with downtube shifters perfectly well.

People used to 'manage' with candles, instead of electricity - but I bet you've got it in your home. People used to 'manage' without pneumatic rubber tyres on their bike even, but I bet you've got them on your bike.
People used to 'manage' or still do 'manage' with a lot of things, but it doesn't mean that they're still a good idea or that the alternative doesn't make life a hell of a lot easier.

Also, with drop handlebars, which is your main gripe. Fair enough, if they don't suit you - they don't suit me all that well. But I don't go around pronouncing any bike with them crap, which is pretty much what you did, I seem to remember...

I didn't pronounce it crap because it had drop handlebars, I pronounced it crap because it was heavy as it was made of steel, its bottom bracket had gone, it had an uncomfy saddle, it had downtube shifters, was generally bad quality and was an absolute pile of shite.

 

[BentMikey]

Well bowl me over with a feather!!! Bonj actually learnt something.

 

[Arch]

Well bowl me over with a feather!!! Bonj actually learnt something.

No, I think his last post says he didn't after all... As you were, chaps.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

i have a friend who, when he purchased his bike about 8 years ago, was offered a choice of downtube shifters or stis. he prefered downtube shifters, and always asks how i "manage" with stis.

horses for courses no?

 

[bonj2]

probably only because he wants to look 'old-skool'. Has he also got a ford cortina and a council telly?

 

[Peyote]

I've been thinking about going back to down tube shifters, or maybe bar end shifters. They seem to be a lot cheaper than STI's and my Sora levers aren't in great nick anymore.

What's a 'council telly'? Is it like a 'council house'?

 

[alecstilleyedye]

probably only because he wants to look 'old-skool'. Has he also got a ford cortina and a council telly?

erm, no an mg sports car and a tv the size of bournemouth. likes real ale though and won't go on a ride that has no pubs en route.

 

[Arch]

What's a 'council telly'? Is it like a 'council house'?

Maybe it only shows the worst daytime telly and Big Brother...

 

[alecstilleyedye]

[QUOTE38671]

What's a 'council telly'? Is it like a 'council house'?

Maybe it only shows the worst daytime telly and Big Brother...

I wondered that. I wonder whether he means the ones that had a money slot?[/QUOTE]
what, richard and judy?

 

[velocipede2288]

Stop quarreling guys, let's just have some civilised chat....please! :-)