Bikes and how they are ridden

[Gone 'n POP]

Where's the pedestal? Folks talking about racing type bikes will talk about that type of bike and how to ride it. Where does the obligation to address the rest of the universe of riders arise from?

If folks wanna talk about other types of bikes and riding fine, start a post or add a comment that adds value or a point of view. That's good stuff.

But what's the point in anyone going beyond that or even without adding that value, attacking a poster or a post because it doesn't seem to discuss what you ride or want to ride? It's just the internet not an indictment of personal choices. Why do people take offense at these things? They're bikes not a reflection of ones self worth. Personal attacks on folks that are taking the time and putting themselves out there to help and share their years of wisdom and experience is chickensh*t.

Greg,

I think were not having the same conversation or at the very least, I'm missing something. I certainly didn't offer up any personal attacks. My conversation with Swoop was entirely done defending myself from what I considered, a personal attack.

If the gist of Dave's OP was about bike choice and not what there is to learn from the bike racers style of doing things, then I didn't get that either. I thought this was all about a purposeful fit? Nothing personal in that at all.

[Gone 'n POP]

well heck now we're gonna have to be frank, and when that happens, folks
get all offended and shiit. atmo even this so-called french fit stuff has roots
in, er - france. more to the point, most of the recent francophilia stuff is
directly tethered to the french trials, the PBPs, and similar events, all of
which were/are competitions. so where's the rubmo? the fastest guy wins,
and when he wins on a rene herse, folks wanna ride one and look like they'd
be hot and all proper looking atop a close copy of one. it's all good atmo.
mebbe there's only one real question ever: if we think we're cool, and they
think they're cool, how come we have these silly threads trying to make
distinctions between the nits?

In all frankness, I could care less about whether anyone's ever won a race on a Rene Herse. The only reason I lust for one, and I really do lust for one, is that they're beautifully made and artfully presented bikes. To borrow a metaphor from you, cream rises to the top.
I also couldn't care less about whether I look cool on the RH, just whether I'd look better on a Singer.

Hmm, maybe a Carminargent?......

[Gone 'n POP]

a few random thoughts:

a) doesn't anyone read something they disagree with and just think to themselves.........i disagree?

b) DK is a strait up, good dude. i am thankful to Dave and others willingness to share their knowledge and experience with us.

c) i saw the word obtuse used several time in this thread...........i thought that word was reserved for the jerk?

d) my cycling ability (or lack there of) has ZERO...repeat ZERO effect on my own selfworth as a human being.

cheers,

shaner

I'm taking this one as directed towards me, so I'll answer if you don't mind:

A: Yes of course and that's the spirit I've answered with from the start. If you mean to 'disagree respectfully' that is.

B. I am in 100% agreement with you on that and take it as a privilege to be given the opportunity for the conversation.

C. The word obtuse, thankfully, has no man's personal reservation and a range of meaning. Dictionary.com says this about it:

1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.
[Origin: 1500–10; < L obtūsus dulled (ptp. of obtundere), equiv. to ob- ob- + tūd-, var. s. of tundere to beat + -tus ptp. suffix, with dt > s]

—Related forms
ob·tuse·ly, adverb
ob·tuse·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. unfeeling, tactless, insensitive; blind, imperceptive, unobservant; gauche, boorish; slow, dim.

D. That's very nice to know and good on you.

[quaintjh]

[QUOTE=Gone 'n POP;12951]I'm taking this one as directed towards me, so I'll answer if you don't mind:

A: Yes of course and that's the spirit I've answered with from the start. If you mean to 'disagree respectfully' that is.

Maybe he meant "and not post at all"

[Gone 'n POP]

It's hard not to notice that most folks posting on this forum are biased towards racing/performance riding. Nothing wrong with that, of course -- except when you get to believing that all that actually matters, and take the position that those who aren't so biased are wrong and ignorant, and if they were simply educated and shown the error of their ways, they'd come around to the racer viewpoint -- and they'd get a proper fit, with low bars, too.

And that, IMO, is the gist of Dave's post. The rest was implementation details: "how do we use forums to accomplish that task?" I disagree with the basic premise. I think most people who have adopted a "bars level with the saddle" position have done so consciously and for a worthwhile purpose, not out of ignorance.

You're showing that bias when you draw a distinction between "finely crafted racing bicycles" and "machines designed for casual riding around town." That's hardly the total span of the cycling universe. Taking a good look at the finely crafted machines exhibited at the Cirque (and I think we can all agree they were finely crafted), I think you'd agree, very few of the new ones were racing bicycles, and very few were set up with a racer's position.

In consideration for how offended the majority of participants have become over what's being read as a 'critical' and 'personal' indictment of Dave Kirk for what he wrote, I'd like to point out that this post is the only one I've seen that is even mildly critical of the original post. I'd also like to point out that it's been written carefully, well and respectfully.

Personally, I think it's pretty great and it made me think about the OP in a new way. If there's to be one example of how to disagree politely, this is it.

[Gone 'n POP]

[QUOTE=quaintjh;12953]

I'm taking this one as directed towards me, so I'll answer if you don't mind:

A: Yes of course and that's the spirit I've answered with from the start. If you mean to 'disagree respectfully' that is.

Maybe he meant "and not post at all"

And your point then?

[Sandy]

It's often misconstrued on this and other forums that the appreciation of fine things and the PROPER use of those things constitutes arrogance. Some get it, some don't, some of us have patience for those who don't, there are days when I like to think I do, todays not one of them. I've thought about self awareness vs ignorance on a bike, I don't often race but an occasional CX race but I care enough about the art of riding to ride a fine bike that meets an aeshestetic standard and ride well and right, it sets me part from those "who do not care", I am a cyclist.

What may I ask is an aesthetic standard? Does aesthetics actually have a standard??? Who decides that standard? And what , may I ask is the standard that decides what is "PROPER use" and what is not? Who determines it? What is the standard by which "self awareness vs. ignorance on a bike" is determined? Who decides it??? What is the standard for "appreciation of fine things". Who defines such?

You have used the words/phrases "PROPER use" , " awarness versus ignorance", "aesthetic standard", "appreciation of fine things". Do you determine the standard? Who?? Be specific please.


Sandy

[GrantM]

What may I ask is an aesthetic standard? Does aesthetics actually have a standard??? Who decides that standard? And what , may I ask is the standard that decides what is "PROPER use" and what is not? Who determines it? What is the standard by which "self awareness vs. ignorance on a bike" is determined? Who decides it??? What is the standard for "appreciation of fine things". Who defines such?

You have used the words/phrases "PROPER use" , " awarness versus ignorance", "aesthetic standard", "appreciation of fine things". Do you determine the standard? Who?? Be specific please.


Sandy

you get to decide all those things for yourself.
and so do the rest of us.

[Gone 'n POP]

water seeks its own level atmo. this place is just a message board, not life.
i s'pose if folks started talking about small portions at french restaurants, it'd
be a board about food and restaurants. as it is now, i didn't see any texts
so far that warrant putting dave, his ideas, or the OP under such a micro-
scope. did i miss something? you wanna address the cost of oil, no problem.
should more people bicycle commute? sure. sounds swell to me. i don't know
why it has to put as an either/or question:
>> a 'racers opinion only' board
>> fine bicycles and bicycle riding.
that, in itself, seems limiting atmo.

You know what? After reading your post again I thought for a moment about what it is that I want from this thread. If you'll kindly indulge me, what I want is to hear some ideas about the things that Dave gleened from his race car driving class and exactly how he's applied that to his time on the bike, and then his, and others, experiences related directly to that imagined conversation. I believe that the conversation we're actually having has turned towards a perception of murky 'intentions' and has lost sight of its original 'purpose'.

IOW, if everyone were to forget entirely Dave's proposal of the 'French Fred' (an extreme over-simplification of what he wrote, I know) and get back to the mindset needed for actual, aware driving/riding ("Timing, intensity, duration, looking ahead, picking of lines, etc."), then we'd have a return to the basis for good conversation.

[flick]

Cyclists with ownership experience encompassing quality bikes used in the manner intended. We of this forum(or at least most I presume) know. There are hundreds of photographs posted here and on SF which illustrate this point. There are certainly people who love bikes, but care not for the aesthetics and traditions of cycling. They are good, smart people; but they are not "cyclists".

[swoop]

slide back on the saddle, put your hands in the drops, relax, lower your chest, look where you want to go, feel the road through your shoes, press down the ouside leg, press down the inside hand. so much of it is about being relaxed. tend towards late apexing. brake early. when you brake, the bike wants to go straight. commit.

the times i've followed d1 one guys like karsten kroon down hills the more i've been amazed at how low and relaxed they are and how they know how to press their wheels into the ground. there isn't a paranthesis around descending that makes it more stressful than riding straight.
and its all best communicated en vivo.

it has nothing to do with racing except for that in racing its a skill that you have to develop where in riding for fun you don't... you succeed without needing the skill because the ride isnt quantified by a clock.

if you're ever in la, i'll ring up my friends that ride for a living and you can follow them down a hill and in the course of ten minutes you'll have your sense of it.

everyone forgets what was said about bike riding and cycling..... that although they are different things there is no hierarchy.


the problem here is that it like talking about how to be a good lover. its not the most effective medium for it.

and none of this works if the bike doesn't fit or the geo is whacked. its more difficult if your stem is higher than your saddle.

[Sandy]

you get to decide all those things for yourself.
and so do the rest of us.

Totally agree. Apparently flick and others do not. If not phrases like "...appreciation of fine things and the PROPER use...", "self awareness versus ignorance on a bike", and ..."a bike that meets an aesthetic standard..." would not be uses as it was.

Clearly there are some here who understand very clearly what a well fit, well designed, and well built bicycle is. Heck, they build some of the finest bikes produced anywhere. But there are some others who make a broad generalization that recreational cyclists, whose bikes do not fit certain design and aesthetic standards, are simply ignorant, unaware, non-appreciative of what is proper, and ride bikes that are simply wrong in both fit and look. That being said with little or no knowledge of the cyclist who is even riding the bike. Quite a jump to me in logic and sensitivity.


sandy

[Gone 'n POP]

Purposeful fit or all wrong?

[Sandy]

Cyclists with ownership experience encompassing quality bikes used in the manner intended. We of this forum(or at least most I presume) know. There are hundreds of photographs posted here and on SF which illustrate this point. There are certainly people who love bikes, but care not for the aesthetics and traditions of cycling. They are good, smart people; but they are not "cyclists".

So I guess that you and a select group define who is in the set of people who have "..Ownership experience encompassing quality bikes used in the manner intended.." You are the standard to determine who " ...care for the aesthetics and traditions of cycling.." and you decide who is in the set of riders that "...are not "cyclists"... Is that the case?

So please tell, what percent of those that you deem that are "cyclists" race bikes or have raced bikes??????
Simple question. Just a number, please.

How about the name of a single "cyclist" who does not or has not raced bikes.



Sandy

[flick]

I came around to this recently,basically a recreational bike rider isn't interested in the "art and science of cycling"they don't care,they are not passionate like some some of us. Heck, or we wouldn't be on this board.By the way I love Big Dummys, I love my Surly 1x1 with fenders I mean its trick in its own way for its uses just like that big dummy is trick for its uses, again If your knowledgeable and passionate you know what is right. But if you don't care about your Big Dummy "its just an appliance"then you are not a cyclist, I just think that, passion begets knowledge, which in practice makes a cyclist.

[Sandy]

So please answer my questions:

What percent of those that you deem as "cyclists" are bicycle racers or are riders who have raced?

Name a single non bicycle racer (or past bicycle racer) who is a "cyclist".


Sandy

[flick]

I didn't mean racing as the manner intended, but I would generally think that spirited would define the intended use of a well designed bicycle with a racing heritage. As or non racing cyclists My good friend Greg Seifert, P.E. kicks my ass, has ridden many western climbs and is more passionate than I, I have teased him mercilessly to try racing, he would do well I think, but he never has, Doug, Brent,and Derrick are my LBS guys, I don't think any of em has raced, Brents got an awsome Big dummy, Doug a new custom Viscious road bike, and Derrick easily has a couple of dozen of truly fine bikes (merkxs, derosa etc.) he's restored. He also built up my Colorado almost 20 years ago, I myself have a racing history of almost 6 CX's over the last 3 years, No I am not a racer, just a guy that got back in shape who thought he'd try sumthin fun.

[Sandy]

Come on guys. The "cyclist" concept was brought up by flick, not me. I did not initiate a difference here between "cyclists" and non-cyclists. There are many athletes. I am in genuine awe of any athlete in the upper tier of ability level and accomplishment. They are simply at a level that is so far above most of us, period. A function of heredity, focus, training, technique, understanding, effort, dedication, and time spent. They have my total respect and awe. Racers have my total respect and real admiration. But I respect and admire recreational riders too. Racers at the pro level are special.

The large majority of cyclists have not raced. Flick's words simply seem condescending to the recreational type rider.

"..there is no hierarchy ...just a different relationship to the same thing..." Let's be direct- Just who is flick referring to when he uses the phrases he did? No differentiation between recreational riders and racers (however he or you define it) ? An equal respect for how one views, uses, and understands cycling? Are you serious?


Sandy

[Roman]

You know what? After reading your post again I thought for a moment about what it is that I want from this thread. If you'll kindly indulge me, what I want is to hear some ideas about the things that Dave gleened from his race car driving class and exactly how he's applied that to his time on the bike, and then his, and others, experiences related directly to that imagined conversation. I believe that the conversation we're actually having has turned towards a perception of murky 'intentions' and has lost sight of its original 'purpose'.

IOW, if everyone were to forget entirely Dave's proposal of the 'French Fred' (an extreme over-simplification of what he wrote, I know) and get back to the mindset needed for actual, aware driving/riding ("Timing, intensity, duration, looking ahead, picking of lines, etc."), then we'd have a return to the basis for good conversation.

Based upon a review of your posts to date, what motivation would we have to want to "kindly indulge you?" Your posts are provocative, and not in the good sense of the word.

[e-RICHIE]

In all frankness, I could care less about whether anyone's ever won a race on a Rene Herse. The only reason I lust for one, and I really do lust for one, is that they're beautifully made and artfully presented bikes. To borrow a metaphor from you, cream rises to the top.
I also couldn't care less about whether I look cool on the RH, just whether I'd look better on a Singer.

Hmm, maybe a Carminargent?......

this is silly atmo. it's ok for you to lust for the RH but it's
not ok for others to lust for something that gets them wet
and sticky, be it a saddle-stem drop, a racier position, or the
illusion that mebbe they'll look more sexist on a so-called
racing bicycle.

what do we/you wanna talk about here? for alotta folks,
efficient cycling is rooted in an optimum position. and since
riding is an excercise (outlet) for many, position is important.
are we gonna obsess about how you should look and feel on
your morning commute or paper route, or how you can sit on
a bicycle so that the activity is more efficiently carried outmo?

mebbe we should simply keep the chat to riding-as-excercise or
the like so that the commuters and save-the-world-buy-a-bike
cats aren't offended.