Tell me about bicycles

13»

Comments

  • shawn474
    shawn474 Posts: 3,047
    edited March 2007
    I have owned Trek, Specialized, Nishiki and Gary Fisher mountain bikes. I would say that at its price point, the Nishiki was the best of the bunch as far as cost to performance ratio. The Trek and Specialized were great bikes, but probably out of your range. My favorite bike to ride is the Gary Fisher. I love that bike, man. As others have suggested, check Craigslist and E-Bay for deals local to you. Good luck in the search.

    Shawn
    Shawn
    AVR: Marantz SR-5011
    Center Channel: Polk LsiM706c
    Front: Polk LsiM703
    Rear: LSI fx
    Subwoofer: SVS 20-39pci
    Television: Samsung UN58NU7100FXZA
    DVD Player: Sony PS4
  • bobman1235
    bobman1235 Posts: 10,822
    edited March 2007
    My favorite thing about my Fisher is still "All work and no play is no good at all work and no play is no good at all...."
    If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
  • bikezappa
    bikezappa Posts: 2,463
    edited March 2007
    Got it, had to look a the photo.
  • treitz3
    treitz3 Posts: 18,972
    edited March 2007
    shawn474 wrote:
    I have owned Trek, Specialized, Nishiki and Gary Fisher mountain bikes. I would say that at its price point, the Nishiki was the best of the bunch as far as cost to performance ratio.
    Shawn, you are right and I absolutely forgot about Nishiki. Great bike! I have logged 103,000 miles on a Nishiki. I think it was a Cresta bought waaaaaaaay back in 1987. That was back when bike manufactures used to build a "touring" bike. Boy, do I miss that bike!

    Thanks for bringing the memory back. Cheers to you! Good times man, good times!:D :D:D
    ~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~
  • seo
    seo Posts: 305
    edited March 2007
    treitz3 wrote:
    I can't help but laugh when I see **** like that.

    Why, they have their advantages and disadvantages. Yes, they look different, but they serve a purpose, unlike your comment.:rolleyes:
    Signature goes here
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited March 2007
    seo wrote:
    Why, they have their advantages and disadvantages. Yes, they look different, but they serve a purpose, unlike your comment.:rolleyes:

    :p

    I have to admit I think they have a high dork factor. The folks I see riding them on the trails I run around here are almost always wearing helemts with huge sun glasses, knee pads, bike pants they shouldn't be wearing, and have giant mirrors. Not to mention they can't ever seem to stay in their own lane. :)

    Honestly, though -- what kind of exercise value do you get from them? This is a serious question.
  • bikezappa
    bikezappa Posts: 2,463
    edited March 2007
    Demiurge wrote:
    :p

    I have to admit I think they have a high dork factor. The folks I see riding them on the trails I run around here are almost always wearing helemts with huge sun glasses, knee pads, bike pants they shouldn't be wearing, and have giant mirrors. Not to mention they can't ever seem to stay in their own lane. :)

    Honestly, though -- what kind of exercise value do you get from them? This is a serious question.

    In CA they had a store that had about 5 different recombends. I tried them all and found them difficult to get used to. That's probably because I ride a lot on a regular bike. They are very hard to accelerate because you can't use your weight and not so much fun on up hills. However with a well designed fairing they will go faster than any regular bike down hill and on the flats.

    At one time any one riding with black tights was called a dork.

    I know because I was that dork.
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited March 2007
    I don't think a person is a dork for wearing spandex bike pants, but they're obviously made for some bodies and not others. If you produce a muffin top, you probably shouldn't be wearing them. :p
  • bikezappa
    bikezappa Posts: 2,463
    edited March 2007
    What's a muffin top?
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited March 2007
    bikezappa wrote:
    What's a muffin top?

    Muffin-top-2.jpg

    Think of the wrapper as being the pants. The top of the muffin spilling over is the fat, blubber, what have you.

    cover_muffintop250.jpg
  • bikezappa
    bikezappa Posts: 2,463
    edited March 2007
    Ok I get it. Lycra will make you either look really good (2% of the people) or really F'in bad (98%).
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited March 2007
    I'd fall into that 98%. :)
  • seo
    seo Posts: 305
    edited March 2007
    Demiurge wrote:
    Honestly, though -- what kind of exercise value do you get from them? This is a serious question.

    Recumbents are a niche item within cycling. I understand the "dork" factor comments. They do attract people who want attention. But, there are other reasons that people end up on recumbents. A lot of times it's a back injury. I have a herniated L4/L5 disk and the riding position on my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra road bike was a problem. That was the original drive to switch to recumbents. They also are easier on the upper body.

    One does have to adapt their riding style, climbing is definitely different. The short wheel base ' bents tend to allow more leverage than the long wheel base version. Typically though, you present a lower profile and have less wind resistance, hence the capability for faster speeds on the flats and down hill.

    I would say the exercise value is similar, you just spin more up the hills instead of standing.
    Signature goes here