Ewwww.... [Archive] - Triangle Cycling

Werehatrack

01-04-1970, 02:16 AM

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:55:10 -0800 (PST), Scott Gordo
<blubberpuss@gmail.com> may have said:

>Never been big into Cannondales, but no company deserves this:
>
>"Cannondale announces acquisition by Dorel Industries, Ltd.
>
>Cannondale announced that it has been acquired by Dorel Industries,
>Ltd., a Montreal, Canada-based 'global consumer products company' with
>US$1.8B in total sales last year. Dorel purchased Cannondale from a
>division of Pegasus Capital Advisors for a reported US$190-200M in
>cash but the final value of the transaction will be determined pending
>the report of Cannondale's annual earnings ending June 30, 2008. Also
>included in the sale is Canada-based cycling, running, and triathlon
>clothing manufacturer Sugoi Performance Apparel.
>
>Dorel adds Cannondale to its impressive portfolio of bicycle holdings
>which already includes Pacific Cycle, parent company of the GT,
>Mongoose, and Schwinn brand names. With this most recent acquisition,
>Dorel will now reorganize its so-called Recreational/Leisure segment
>into two distinct bicycle divisions: one to specifically address the
>needs of the independent bicycle dealer (IBD) channel and the other
>dealing exclusively with mass market, or 'big box', outlets such as
>Wal-Mart....":

So, anybody want to guess how long it'll be before Waldales show up to
complement the Walgeese and the Schwinnstickers[1] in the rack at
VoldeMart?

[1] I regard the "Schwinn" bikes sold at Wal-Mart as being little or
nothing more than commodity-level BSOs with a Schwinn sticker applied.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Scott Gordo

01-04-1970, 02:16 AM

On Feb 5, 6:13*pm, MattB <somedud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott Gordo wrote:
> > Never been big into Cannondales, but no company deserves this:
>
> > "Cannondale announces acquisition by Dorel Industries, Ltd.
>
> > Cannondale announced that it has been acquired by Dorel Industries,
> > Ltd., a Montreal, Canada-based 'global consumer products company' with
> > US$1.8B in total sales last year. Dorel purchased Cannondale from a
> > division of Pegasus Capital Advisors for a reported US$190-200M in
> > cash but the final value of the transaction will be determined pending
> > the report of Cannondale's annual earnings ending June 30, 2008. Also
> > included in the sale is Canada-based cycling, running, and triathlon
> > clothing manufacturer Sugoi Performance Apparel.
>
> > Dorel adds Cannondale to its impressive portfolio of bicycle holdings
> > which already includes Pacific Cycle, parent company of the GT,
> > Mongoose, and Schwinn brand names. With this most recent acquisition,
> > Dorel will now reorganize its so-called Recreational/Leisure segment
> > into two distinct bicycle divisions: one to specifically address the
> > needs of the independent bicycle dealer (IBD) channel and the other
> > dealing exclusively with mass market, or 'big box', outlets such as
> > Wal-Mart....":
>
> > Rest of article athttp://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2008/news/02-05.
>
> > Scott
>
> A fate worse than death. "To the PAIN!"
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Seriously. I've never owned a Cdale nor swooned over one, but, man,
this news made me throw up in my mouth a little. We have entered the
age of the Wallondale.

/s

DanKMTB@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 02:16 AM

On Feb 5, 6:13 pm, MattB <somedud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott Gordo wrote:
> > Never been big into Cannondales, but no company deserves this:
>
> > "Cannondale announces acquisition by Dorel Industries, Ltd.
>
> > Cannondale announced that it has been acquired by Dorel Industries,
> > Ltd., a Montreal, Canada-based 'global consumer products company' with
> > US$1.8B in total sales last year. Dorel purchased Cannondale from a
> > division of Pegasus Capital Advisors for a reported US$190-200M in
> > cash but the final value of the transaction will be determined pending
> > the report of Cannondale's annual earnings ending June 30, 2008. Also
> > included in the sale is Canada-based cycling, running, and triathlon
> > clothing manufacturer Sugoi Performance Apparel.
>
> > Dorel adds Cannondale to its impressive portfolio of bicycle holdings
> > which already includes Pacific Cycle, parent company of the GT,
> > Mongoose, and Schwinn brand names. With this most recent acquisition,
> > Dorel will now reorganize its so-called Recreational/Leisure segment
> > into two distinct bicycle divisions: one to specifically address the
> > needs of the independent bicycle dealer (IBD) channel and the other
> > dealing exclusively with mass market, or 'big box', outlets such as
> > Wal-Mart....":
>
> > Rest of article athttp://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2008/news/02-05.
>
> > Scott
>
> A fate worse than death. "To the PAIN!"
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The first thing you will lose will be your status, now below all else.
Then your QA at the outsourcing. Next your material quality...

Not a huge crack'n'fail fan, but bad news none the less.

still just me

01-04-1970, 02:16 AM

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:41:29 -0800 (PST), Scott Gordo
<blubberpuss@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Seriously. I've never owned a Cdale nor swooned over one, but, man,
>this news made me throw up in my mouth a little. We have entered the
>age of the Wallondale.

"Another one bites the dust. And another one sells, and another one
sells. And another one bites the dust".

01-04-1970, 02:16 AM

On Feb 5, 3:41 pm, Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:13 pm, MattB <somedud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Scott Gordo wrote:
> > > Never been big into Cannondales, but no company deserves this:
>
> > > "Cannondale announces acquisition by Dorel Industries, Ltd.
>
> > > Cannondale announced that it has been acquired by Dorel Industries,
> > > Ltd., a Montreal, Canada-based 'global consumer products company' with
> > > US$1.8B in total sales last year. Dorel purchased Cannondale from a
> > > division of Pegasus Capital Advisors for a reported US$190-200M in
> > > cash but the final value of the transaction will be determined pending
> > > the report of Cannondale's annual earnings ending June 30, 2008. Also
> > > included in the sale is Canada-based cycling, running, and triathlon
> > > clothing manufacturer Sugoi Performance Apparel.
>
> > > Dorel adds Cannondale to its impressive portfolio of bicycle holdings
> > > which already includes Pacific Cycle, parent company of the GT,
> > > Mongoose, and Schwinn brand names. With this most recent acquisition,
> > > Dorel will now reorganize its so-called Recreational/Leisure segment
> > > into two distinct bicycle divisions: one to specifically address the
> > > needs of the independent bicycle dealer (IBD) channel and the other
> > > dealing exclusively with mass market, or 'big box', outlets such as
> > > Wal-Mart....":
>
> > > Rest of article athttp://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2008/news/02-05.
>
> > > Scott
>
> > A fate worse than death. "To the PAIN!"
>
> > Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Seriously. I've never owned a Cdale nor swooned over one, but, man,
> this news made me throw up in my mouth a little. We have entered the
> age of the Wallondale.
>
> /s

Why the hell do you think I have been touting boutique builders for so
long? The writing has been on the wall for years and is getting even
bigger. Support the little guys because that's the only place we'll
get true quality anymore.

JD

Jay Beattie

01-04-1970, 02:16 AM

On Feb 5, 4:14*pm, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:41:29 -0800 (PST), Scott Gordo
>
> <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Seriously. I've never owned a Cdale nor swooned over one, but, man,
> >this news made me throw up in my mouth a little. We have entered the
> >age of the Wallondale.
>
> "Another one bites the dust. And another one sells, and another one
> sells. And another one bites the dust".

What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
bikes through LBS. Cannondale bit the dust years ago and was
purchased out of bankruptcy by its primary creditor Pegasus Parners --
a venture captital group. Pegasus decided to maintain the value of
the brand by keeping key managers and most of the production in the
US. Dorel says its going to do to the same thing. If you believe the
press release, Cannondale is not headed for Walmart, and it would not
make sense to devalue the brand by selling it mass market. -- Jay
Beattie.

Chalo

01-04-1970, 02:16 AM

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
> continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
> Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
> bikes through LBS.

I think we can expect a major expansion of Cannondale's recent
practice of having some of its frames manufactured overseas. An
aluminum Cannondale used to be a qualitatively different thing than an
aluminum Trek, Giant, Redline, etc. That's probably going to
change.

> If you believe the
> press release, Cannondale is not headed for Walmart, and it would not
> make sense to devalue the brand by selling it mass market.

It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
all, Schwinn. But they did. I think their track record speaks louder
than their press release about where this is all going.

If Dorel/Pacific think it is better for the bottom line to keep the
Cannondale brand exclusive to the LBS market, then they will. If they
think it will be more profitable for the brand to be retailed through
nationwide sporting goods chain stores, they'll do that. And have no
doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
at Wally World, they will do that.

What I would not count on in any case is for the new owners to
continue to uphold the few quality distinctions Cannondale has managed
to retain-- or USA frame production, for that matter.

Chalo

datakoll

01-04-1970, 02:17 AM

On Feb 5, 8:45*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
> > continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
> > Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
> > bikes through LBS.
>
> I think we can expect a major expansion of Cannondale's recent
> practice of having some of its frames manufactured overseas. *An
> aluminum Cannondale used to be a qualitatively different thing than an
> aluminum Trek, Giant, Redline, etc. *That's probably going to
> change.
>
> > If you believe the
> > press release, Cannondale is not headed for Walmart, and it would not
> > make sense to devalue the brand by selling it mass market.
>
> It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> If Dorel/Pacific think it is better for the bottom line to keep the
> Cannondale brand exclusive to the LBS market, then they will. *If they
> think it will be more profitable for the brand to be retailed through
> nationwide sporting goods chain stores, they'll do that. *And have no
> doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> What I would not count on in any case is for the new owners to
> continue to uphold the few quality distinctions Cannondale has managed
> to retain-- or USA frame production, for that matter.
>
> Chalo

right! hard times are upon the needy and Dorel is to the rescue.
Cannondale's designwork was always worth a look: aesthetic tubing,
raceful, made a statement, communicated.
Does that sell to Everyman?

Andre Jute

01-04-1970, 02:17 AM

On Feb 6, 1:45*am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
> > continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
> > Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
> > bikes through LBS.
>
> I think we can expect a major expansion of Cannondale's recent
> practice of having some of its frames manufactured overseas. *An
> aluminum Cannondale used to be a qualitatively different thing than an
> aluminum Trek, Giant, Redline, etc. *That's probably going to
> change.
>
> > If you believe the
> > press release, Cannondale is not headed for Walmart, and it would not
> > make sense to devalue the brand by selling it mass market.
>
> It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> If Dorel/Pacific think it is better for the bottom line to keep the
> Cannondale brand exclusive to the LBS market, then they will. *If they
> think it will be more profitable for the brand to be retailed through
> nationwide sporting goods chain stores, they'll do that. *And have no
> doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> What I would not count on in any case is for the new owners to
> continue to uphold the few quality distinctions Cannondale has managed
> to retain-- or USA frame production, for that matter.
>
> Chalo

Is Cannondale so distinguished a brand that it is worth saving? (This
is not a rhetorical question; I just know nothing about Cannondale.)

Is it necessarily a bad thing to kick a sliding brand around a bit?
(This is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It is, No.)

There are good conglomerates and bad conglomerates. Some of the
world's finest bikes come from good conglomerates.

A few decades ago, Raleigh was ****, it's bikes were ****, it's
reputation was ****. It was sold to a conglomerate who thought they
could milk the name. They came a cropper. Raleigh was sold to a good
conglomerate and now the name is slowly coming to mean something
again.

Perhaps Cannondale comes out of the process leaner, meaner and once
more honest, two or three owners down the road. If not, is it really
such a hardship that another lowball bike assembler has bitten the
dust?

Andre Jute
Economist & Darwinist

Jay Beattie

01-04-1970, 02:17 AM

On Feb 5, 5:45*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
> > continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
> > Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
> > bikes through LBS.
>
> I think we can expect a major expansion of Cannondale's recent
> practice of having some of its frames manufactured overseas. *An
> aluminum Cannondale used to be a qualitatively different thing than an
> aluminum Trek, Giant, Redline, etc. *That's probably going to
> change.

Not according to the full news release, and even if they do move more
production to Asia, that would be in keeping with all of the
manufacturers including Trek, at least its low end products.

> It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> than their press release about where this is all going.

Schwinn was never a premium brand. It was always a plumbing pipe,
boat anchor brand that sold through its own stores until the company
was driven in to the ground by feuding family members and competition
ffrom overseas -- and then sold three (or four) times out of various
bankruptcies. We may have all sorts of warm and fuzzy feelings about
Paramounts, but those were the wall ornaments at the local Schwinn
shop and not typical of the usual Schwinn production. I think that
the current Asian Schwinns put out by Pacific are better than any
Varsity I ever rode. And Dorel says in its press release that it is
going to fluff up the GT brand and make that part of its top tier LBS
offerings.

> If Dorel/Pacific think it is better for the bottom line to keep the
> Cannondale brand exclusive to the LBS market, then they will. *If they
> think it will be more profitable for the brand to be retailed through
> nationwide sporting goods chain stores, they'll do that. *And have no
> doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> at Wally World, they will do that.

True, business is business -- but why would someone want to compete at
the lowest end of the market with narrowest margins? That does not
make sense. Dorel already has brands in that market, and it looks to
be following the usual course of purchasing a premium brand in an
effort to increase its margins. This is a very common way to go.
Ford owns Jag, Volvo and Land Rover and maintains those brands.
Harman owns Mark Levinson and maintains that brand. There are many
other examples.

>
> What I would not count on in any case is for the new owners to
> continue to uphold the few quality distinctions Cannondale has managed
> to retain-- or USA frame production, for that matter.
>

You may be right, but with the current state of the dollar, it may not
make sense to move production of Al frames overseas immediately. It
is the rare American manufacturer that has kept production here, and I
don't think there is any guaranty that even the most traditionally
Amereican of manufacturers will keep its production here, sad to
say.-- Jay Beattie.

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 02:17 AM

On Feb 5, 8:03*pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:45*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
> > > continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
> > > Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
> > > bikes through LBS.
>
> > I think we can expect a major expansion of Cannondale's recent
> > practice of having some of its frames manufactured overseas. *An
> > aluminum Cannondale used to be a qualitatively different thing than an
> > aluminum Trek, Giant, Redline, etc. *That's probably going to
> > change.
>
> > > If you believe the
> > > press release, Cannondale is not headed for Walmart, and it would not
> > > make sense to devalue the brand by selling it mass market.
>
> > It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> > all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> > than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> > If Dorel/Pacific think it is better for the bottom line to keep the
> > Cannondale brand exclusive to the LBS market, then they will. *If they
> > think it will be more profitable for the brand to be retailed through
> > nationwide sporting goods chain stores, they'll do that. *And have no
> > doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> > at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> > What I would not count on in any case is for the new owners to
> > continue to uphold the few quality distinctions Cannondale has managed
> > to retain-- or USA frame production, for that matter.
>
> > Chalo
>
> right! hard times are upon the needy and Dorel is to the rescue.
> Cannondale's designwork was always worth a look: aesthetic tubing,
> raceful, made a statement, communicated.

I guesss you don't recall the early (1983-84) C'dales, eh? Some of the
ugliest bikes ever made, they looked like they were made in a basement
by a drunk in a hurry.

> Does that sell to Everyman?

Sure, cheap BSOs with "Cannondale" festooned all over the frame will
fly outta Wally World, Target, etc., at least for a few years.

unforgiven99@juno.com

01-04-1970, 02:17 AM

On Feb 5, 9:11 pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:45 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
> > > continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
> > > Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
> > > bikes through LBS.
>
> > I think we can expect a major expansion of Cannondale's recent
> > practice of having some of its frames manufactured overseas. An
> > aluminum Cannondale used to be a qualitatively different thing than an
> > aluminum Trek, Giant, Redline, etc. That's probably going to
> > change.
>
> > > If you believe the
> > > press release, Cannondale is not headed for Walmart, and it would not
> > > make sense to devalue the brand by selling it mass market.
>
> > It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> > all, Schwinn. But they did. I think their track record speaks louder
> > than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> > If Dorel/Pacific think it is better for the bottom line to keep the
> > Cannondale brand exclusive to the LBS market, then they will. If they
> > think it will be more profitable for the brand to be retailed through
> > nationwide sporting goods chain stores, they'll do that. And have no
> > doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> > at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> > What I would not count on in any case is for the new owners to
> > continue to uphold the few quality distinctions Cannondale has managed
> > to retain-- or USA frame production, for that matter.
>
> > Chalo
>
> Is Cannondale so distinguished a brand that it is worth saving? (This
> is not a rhetorical question; I just know nothing about Cannondale.)

If you don't know, are you just posting to hear yourself type?

>
> Is it necessarily a bad thing to kick a sliding brand around a bit?
> (This is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It is, No.)
>
> There are good conglomerates and bad conglomerates. Some of the
> world's finest bikes come from good conglomerates.
>
> A few decades ago, Raleigh was ****, it's bikes were ****, it's
> reputation was ****. It was sold to a conglomerate who thought they
> could milk the name. They came a cropper. Raleigh was sold to a good
> conglomerate and now the name is slowly coming to mean something
> again.
>
> Perhaps Cannondale comes out of the process leaner, meaner and once
> more honest, two or three owners down the road. If not, is it really
> such a hardship that another lowball bike assembler has bitten the
> dust?
>
> Andre Jute
> Economist & Darwinist

Pegasus is selling the company for more than three times as much as
they paid to get it out of bankruptcy in 2003. Quality has been
steadily improving, and the fact that some of their goofy proprietary
hardware (BB-30 for example) is becoming standard for other
manufacturers puts them in a very respected position. The bankruptcy,
by the way, was caused entirely by the addition of a motorsports
division. So this is hardly a sliding brand, and the process to make
it "leaner, meaner and once more honest" happened five years ago.
This is just a case of investors cashing out.

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 02:17 AM

On Feb 6, 3:12*am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

> I guesss you don't recall the early (1983-84) C'dales, eh? Some of the
> ugliest bikes ever made, they looked like they were made in a basement
> by a drunk in a hurry.

I had one of those. A metallic sea-foam green one (Built up with
Ofmega Mistral, Nisi Laser, Concor, Modolo, and white Looks). When I
took it to Italy, the folks there called it "the pregnant" bike.

I think the later models slimmed down a bit, and other bikes widened,
so they don't seem so huge now, but back in the day it was like a bike
from space.

Joseph

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

On Feb 6, 1:58*am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:12*am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > I guesss you don't recall the early (1983-84) C'dales, eh? Some of the
> > ugliest bikes ever made, they looked like they were made in a basement
> > by a drunk in a hurry.
>
> I had one of those. A metallic sea-foam green one (Built up with
> Ofmega Mistral, Nisi Laser, Concor, Modolo, and white Looks). When I
> took it to Italy, the folks there called it *"the pregnant" bike.

It wasn't only the "fat tubes"; the early C'dales had hideous, lumpy
welds and tubes that were bowed during the heat treating process
(alignment was kept reasonable by putting the frame in a jig during
the heat treating, so a frame could be sorta in alignment but still
have noticeably bowed tubes). There were other issues, as well. By
~1986, the welds, at least, looked better.

>
> I think the later models slimmed down a bit, and other bikes widened,
> so they don't seem so huge now, but back in the day it was like a bike
> from space.
>

As fatter tubes became the norm, the early C'dales no longer stood
out.

I had forgotten just how really ugly the early C'dale production was
until about 4-5 years ago, when I came across a guy riding an '83
ST500, their first production bike. "Ewwww", indeed!

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

On Feb 6, 12:59*pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:58*am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 3:12*am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > I guesss you don't recall the early (1983-84) C'dales, eh? Some of the
> > > ugliest bikes ever made, they looked like they were made in a basement
> > > by a drunk in a hurry.
>
> > I had one of those. A metallic sea-foam green one (Built up with
> > Ofmega Mistral, Nisi Laser, Concor, Modolo, and white Looks). When I
> > took it to Italy, the folks there called it *"the pregnant" bike.
>
> It wasn't only the "fat tubes"; the early C'dales had hideous, lumpy
> welds and tubes that were bowed during the heat treating process
> (alignment was kept reasonable by putting the frame in a jig during
> the heat treating, so a frame could be sorta in alignment but still
> have noticeably bowed tubes). There were other issues, as well. By
> ~1986, the welds, at least, looked better.
>
>
>
> > I think the later models slimmed down a bit, and other bikes widened,
> > so they don't seem so huge now, but back in the day it was like a bike
> > from space.
>
> As fatter tubes became the norm, the early C'dales no longer stood
> out.
>
> I had forgotten just how really ugly the early C'dale production was
> until about 4-5 years ago, when I came across a guy riding an '83
> ST500, their first production bike. "Ewwww", indeed!

I had ridiculously narrow Avocet Fasgrip 19's too. The 80's was one of
those transition periods where things looked particularly Frankenstein
as old blended with new.

Joseph

Jay Beattie

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

On Feb 6, 3:59*am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:58*am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 3:12*am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > I guesss you don't recall the early (1983-84) C'dales, eh? Some of the
> > > ugliest bikes ever made, they looked like they were made in a basement
> > > by a drunk in a hurry.
>
> > I had one of those. A metallic sea-foam green one (Built up with
> > Ofmega Mistral, Nisi Laser, Concor, Modolo, and white Looks). When I
> > took it to Italy, the folks there called it *"the pregnant" bike.
>
> It wasn't only the "fat tubes"; the early C'dales had hideous, lumpy
> welds and tubes that were bowed during the heat treating process
> (alignment was kept reasonable by putting the frame in a jig during
> the heat treating, so a frame could be sorta in alignment but still
> have noticeably bowed tubes). There were other issues, as well. By
> ~1986, the welds, at least, looked better.
>
>
>
> > I think the later models slimmed down a bit, and other bikes widened,
> > so they don't seem so huge now, but back in the day it was like a bike
> > from space.
>
> As fatter tubes became the norm, the early C'dales no longer stood
> out.
>
> I had forgotten just how really ugly the early C'dale production was
> until about 4-5 years ago, when I came across a guy riding an '83
> ST500, their first production bike. "Ewwww", indeed!

I had one, and it rode better than my custom steel frame and weighed
a pound less. In a 63cm frame, the big tubes gave it a nice
proportionality. I broke the derailleur hanger in a freak accident
and replaced the frame free on warranty with a spiffy Black Lightening
frame that I raced and rode for twenty years until it fell apart.
Compared to current production Al frames, those things were bomb
proof. -- Jay Beattie.

Chalo

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

Ozark Bicycle
>
> I had forgotten just how really ugly the early C'dale production was
> until about 4-5 years ago, when I came across a guy riding an '83
> ST500, their first production bike. "Ewwww", indeed!

I have a mid-'80s ST500; I think it's an '85. It must be from after
they sorted out their manufacturing issues, because it's a perfectly
nice-looking bike. It even looks slender and classic compared to my
'90s Cannondales.

I have noticed that the late '80s and early '90s seems to have been
the sweet spot for Cannondale's weld finish quality. Recent C'dale
frames have their welds smoothed down, but not filleted into the
adjoining tubes like they were before. The new way is probably just
as strong and easier to keep from undercutting the tubing, but it sure
doesn't look as nice.

Chalo

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
> ...
> I had ridiculously narrow Avocet Fasgrip 19's too. The 80's was one of
> those transition periods where things looked particularly Frankenstein
> as old blended with new.
>
19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome. At any
pressure that can be used on real roads, a 23 mm tire will have lower
combined rolling and aerodynamic resistance than anything narrower
(assuming similar casing and tread), even at the speeds professionals ride.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

On Feb 6, 6:12*am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:59*pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 1:58*am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 6, 3:12*am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > > I guesss you don't recall the early (1983-84) C'dales, eh? Some of the
> > > > ugliest bikes ever made, they looked like they were made in a basement
> > > > by a drunk in a hurry.
>
> > > I had one of those. A metallic sea-foam green one (Built up with
> > > Ofmega Mistral, Nisi Laser, Concor, Modolo, and white Looks). When I
> > > took it to Italy, the folks there called it *"the pregnant" bike.
>
> > It wasn't only the "fat tubes"; the early C'dales had hideous, lumpy
> > welds and tubes that were bowed during the heat treating process
> > (alignment was kept reasonable by putting the frame in a jig during
> > the heat treating, so a frame could be sorta in alignment but still
> > have noticeably bowed tubes). There were other issues, as well. By
> > ~1986, the welds, at least, looked better.
>
> > > I think the later models slimmed down a bit, and other bikes widened,
> > > so they don't seem so huge now, but back in the day it was like a bike
> > > from space.
>
> > As fatter tubes became the norm, the early C'dales no longer stood
> > out.
>
> > I had forgotten just how really ugly the early C'dale production was
> > until about 4-5 years ago, when I came across a guy riding an '83
> > ST500, their first production bike. "Ewwww", indeed!
>
> I had ridiculously narrow Avocet Fasgrip 19's too. The 80's was one of
> those transition periods where things looked particularly Frankenstein
> as old blended with new.
>

Way back when, I rode with a guy on an early C'dale "racing
bike" (SR900?). He used those silly, 18-19mm wide Specialized Turbos
on the stock, 36 spoke box rims, which seemed a bit wider than the
tires. He rode a C'dale 'cuz, as a big guy, he wanted a "stiff" frame.
With those tires and his size, pinch flats were more than a common
occurance, even at 130+ psi. The bike looked silly, too, with those
big, fat (red) tubes perched upon those skinny 'lil tires.

John Forrest Tomlinson

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

>19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.

Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?

Wow.

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

On Feb 6, 2:01 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:> ...
> > I had ridiculously narrow Avocet Fasgrip 19's too. The 80's was one of
> > those transition periods where things looked particularly Frankenstein
> > as old blended with new.
>
> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome. At any
> pressure that can be used on real roads, a 23 mm tire will have lower
> combined rolling and aerodynamic resistance than anything narrower
> (assuming similar casing and tread), even at the speeds professionals ride.
>

I was 15 then and I guess I weighed about 195lbs. I used clear
polyurethane tubes. The Nisi Laser rims were very narrow with an aero-
like trapezoidal section. I don't recall pinch flats being a problem.

Joseph

G.T.

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:38djq3pn0ouej9d8kbkt8aknruhm14rd4v@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>
> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>
> Wow.

There was a time when very narrow tires were the norm. I rode them myself.
And geez, did they knock you around. I'm not sure what we were trying to get
with those tires, but there were a lot of them out there. 18c even in some
cases.

For aerodynamic reasons, it's best to have a tire that matches the width of
the rim. US Postal was very big on this. Rims at the time were fairly
narrow, and they *could* have chosen to go with a narrower tire to match the
rim they were provided with (by Trek). But instead they asked (ok, demanded)
for wider rims to match their 22-23c tubulars.

Saying 19mm tires have no purpose anywhere but a velodrome isn't true, but
they certainly don't serve the purpose most think (delivering greater
efficiency on normal roads). The OP was probably just reacting to that
still-very-large group of people who think narrower always equals faster.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 02:19 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>
> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>
> Wow.
>
Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.

The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
likely offer some speed advantage.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 02:20 AM

On Feb 6, 11:04*am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:59*am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 1:58*am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 6, 3:12*am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > > I guesss you don't recall the early (1983-84) C'dales, eh? Some of the
> > > > ugliest bikes ever made, they looked like they were made in a basement
> > > > by a drunk in a hurry.
>
> > > I had one of those. A metallic sea-foam green one (Built up with
> > > Ofmega Mistral, Nisi Laser, Concor, Modolo, and white Looks). When I
> > > took it to Italy, the folks there called it *"the pregnant" bike.
>
> > It wasn't only the "fat tubes"; the early C'dales had hideous, lumpy
> > welds and tubes that were bowed during the heat treating process
> > (alignment was kept reasonable by putting the frame in a jig during
> > the heat treating, so a frame could be sorta in alignment but still
> > have noticeably bowed tubes). There were other issues, as well. By
> > ~1986, the welds, at least, looked better.
>
> > > I think the later models slimmed down a bit, and other bikes widened,
> > > so they don't seem so huge now, but back in the day it was like a bike
> > > from space.
>
> > As fatter tubes became the norm, the early C'dales no longer stood
> > out.
>
> > I had forgotten just how really ugly the early C'dale production was
> > until about 4-5 years ago, when I came across a guy riding an '83
> > ST500, their first production bike. "Ewwww", indeed!
>
> *I had one, and it rode better than my custom steel frame and weighed
> a pound less. *In a 63cm frame, the big tubes gave it a nice
> proportionality. *I broke the derailleur hanger in a freak accident
> and replaced the frame free on warranty with a spiffy Black Lightening
> frame that I raced and rode for twenty years until it fell apart.

Agreed, the early C'dales had some merits. But, the early production,
with the bowed tubes and laughably lumpy welds, were very, very ugly.

> Compared to current production Al frames, those things were bomb
> proof.

Such frames are still available, but not from Cannondale. And, they
are quite inexpensive, too.

Chalo

01-04-1970, 02:20 AM

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
[re: Wal-marketing the Cannondale brand]
> > It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> > all, Schwinn. But they did. I think their track record speaks louder
> > than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> Schwinn was never a premium brand. It was always a plumbing pipe,
> boat anchor brand that sold through its own stores until the company
> was driven in to the ground by feuding family members and competition
> ffrom overseas -- and then sold three (or four) times out of various
> bankruptcies. We may have all sorts of warm and fuzzy feelings about
> Paramounts, but those were the wall ornaments at the local Schwinn
> shop and not typical of the usual Schwinn production. I think that
> the current Asian Schwinns put out by Pacific are better than any
> Varsity I ever rode.

Schwinn was a quality-conscious brand by the standards of the day.
Their bikes looked better and held up better than others in the same
price categories. Those Electro-Forged Schwinns are still around in
great numbers. Their competition? Not so much.

On top of that, Schwinn enjoyed a wide reputation for quality, out of
proportion to the observable quality of their production. This must
have been due in part to their lifetime warranty, and to their astute
cultivation of brand mystique (comparable to what Gazelle of the
Netherlands exhibits today). But it would be inaccurate to say that
there was nothing about Schwinns to uphold their good reputation.

It would be accurate, however, to say that there is nothing about
_today's_ Pacific/Schwinns to uphold whatever shreds of esteem they
might have among the buying public.

> And Dorel says in its press release that it is
> going to fluff up the GT brand and make that part of its top tier LBS
> offerings.

We'll see. That would be inconsistent with their business practices
up to now.

> > And have no
> > doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> > at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> True, business is business -- but why would someone want to compete at
> the lowest end of the market with narrowest margins? That does not
> make sense. Dorel already has brands in that market, and it looks to
> be following the usual course of purchasing a premium brand in an
> effort to increase its margins.

Taking a $100 Pacific, slapping on a Cannondale decal and selling it
for $150 is a nice way to get a better margin. That appears to be
exactly what they did with the Schwinn brand. It also appears to be
why all those Wal-bikes are branded Schwinn and Mongoose instead of
Murray, which is another Dorel brand.

> This is a very common way to go.
> Ford owns Jag, Volvo and Land Rover and maintains those brands.
> Harman owns Mark Levinson and maintains that brand. There are many
> other examples.

I wouldn't rule out the likelihood that Dorel/Pacific feel they have
liquidated most of the residual honor out of the Mongoose and Schwinn
names, and now they need another well-respected name to wring the
juice out of.

Ford understands the same principle in its way-- that seems to be why
they keep switching the names of their most miserable cars as people
come to understand what those names indicate. The Fiesta became the
Festiva, and then the Aspire. The Tempo became the Contour. Those
cars had to acquire new names in an attempt to outrun their
overwhelming suckiness. Evidently changing a car's name is an easier
thing for Ford to do than making a car that doesn't suck.

I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).

Chalo

landotter

01-04-1970, 02:21 AM

On Feb 6, 12:21 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote in messagenews:38djq3pn0ouej9d8kbkt8aknruhm14rd4v@4ax .com...
>
> > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
> > <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>
> > Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>
> > Wow.
>
> There was a time when very narrow tires were the norm. I rode them myself.
> And geez, did they knock you around. I'm not sure what we were trying to get
> with those tires, but there were a lot of them out there. 18c even in some
> cases.

I've seen Fasgrip 19s on a couple of basement fresh early 80s bikes.
They ride very nicely. I'd hate to encounter broken pavement with
them.

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 02:21 AM

On Feb 6, 7:33*pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:21 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote in messagenews:38djq3pn0ouej9d8kbkt8aknruhm14rd4v@4ax .com...
>
> > > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
> > > <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>
> > > Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>
> > > Wow.
>
> > There was a time when very narrow tires were the norm. I rode them myself.
> > And geez, did they knock you around. I'm not sure what we were trying to get
> > with those tires, but there were a lot of them out there. 18c even in some
> > cases.
>
> I've seen Fasgrip 19s on a couple of basement fresh early 80s bikes.
> They ride very nicely. I'd hate to encounter broken pavement with
> them.

NYC in the 80's sure didn't have mirror smooth asphalt everywhere, but
the bike and tires served me well. My next bike was a steel Tommasini
with Vittoria CX Seta tubulars. That was quite a different ride!

Joseph

Jay Beattie

01-04-1970, 02:22 AM

On Feb 6, 4:11*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:
>
> [re: Wal-marketing the Cannondale brand]
>
> > > It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> > > all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> > > than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> > Schwinn was never a premium brand. *It was always a plumbing pipe,
> > boat anchor brand that sold through its own stores until the company
> > was driven in to the ground by feuding family members and competition
> > ffrom overseas -- and then sold three (or four) times out of various
> > bankruptcies. We may have all sorts of warm and fuzzy feelings about
> > Paramounts, but those were the wall ornaments at the local Schwinn
> > shop and not typical of the usual Schwinn production. * I think that
> > the current Asian Schwinns put out by Pacific are better than any
> > Varsity I ever rode.
>
> Schwinn was a quality-conscious brand by the standards of the day.
> Their bikes looked better and held up better than others in the same
> price categories. *Those Electro-Forged Schwinns are still around in
> great numbers. *Their competition? *Not so much.
>
> On top of that, Schwinn enjoyed a wide reputation for quality, out of
> proportion to the observable quality of their production. *This must
> have been due in part to their lifetime warranty, and to their astute
> cultivation of brand mystique (comparable to what Gazelle of the
> Netherlands exhibits today). *But it would be inaccurate to say that
> there was nothing about Schwinns to uphold their good reputation.
>
> It would be accurate, however, to say that there is nothing about
> _today's_ Pacific/Schwinns to uphold whatever shreds of esteem they
> might have among the buying public.
>
> > And Dorel says in its press release that it is
> > going to fluff up the GT brand and make that part of its top tier LBS
> > offerings.
>
> We'll see. *That would be inconsistent with their business practices
> up to now.
>
> > > And have no
> > > doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> > > at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> > True, business is business -- but why would someone want to compete at
> > the lowest end of the market with narrowest margins? *That does not
> > make sense. *Dorel already has brands in that market, and it looks to
> > be following the usual course of purchasing a premium brand in an
> > effort to increase its margins.
>
> Taking a $100 Pacific, slapping on a Cannondale decal and selling it
> for $150 is a nice way to get a better margin. *That appears to be
> exactly what they did with the Schwinn brand. *It also appears to be
> why all those Wal-bikes are branded Schwinn and Mongoose instead of
> Murray, which is another Dorel brand.
>
> > This is a very common way to go.
> > Ford owns Jag, Volvo and Land Rover *and maintains those brands.
> > Harman owns Mark Levinson and maintains that brand. There are many
> > other examples.
>
> I wouldn't rule out the likelihood that Dorel/Pacific feel they have
> liquidated most of the residual honor out of the Mongoose and Schwinn
> names, and now they need another well-respected name to wring the
> juice out of.
>
> Ford understands the same principle in its way-- that seems to be why
> they keep switching the names of their most miserable cars as people
> come to understand what those names indicate. *The Fiesta became the
> Festiva, and then the Aspire. *The Tempo became the Contour. *Those
> cars had to acquire new names in an attempt to outrun their
> overwhelming suckiness. *Evidently changing a car's name is an easier
> thing for Ford to do than making a car that doesn't suck.
>
> I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).

Some people see the Fordification of Jag as a good thing -- a sleek
exterior, decent wiring and no oil leaks!

I know what you are saying about Schwinn, but that brand was already
beaten down before it was bought at fire sale by Pacific. There was
nothing left of it except the goodwill of baby-boomers who had warm
and fuzzy feelings about their first boat anchor bikes. Even before
the first bankrupcy, Schwinn was outsourcing to Japan and was
struggling to hold on to its market. It's dealer network was falling
apart, and people were looking for lighter imports -- including me. I
dumped my Varsity for a Gitane in '69 -- which cost the same as a
Varsity. Schwinn was shorthand for clunker after that. My Gitane
would still be around had it not been stolen.

But I won't pick nits. You could be right. We'll have to check
Walmart in a year to see if Dorel remains true to its PR. -- Jay
Beattie.

PS -- check out some of the current offernings from Schwinn including
the Madison. There are some pretty neat bikes -- and many are not
cheap (pricewise -- I cannot vouch for build quality).

Michael Press

01-04-1970, 02:22 AM

In article
<a6291a09-7cc6-436f-bd0d-eedeb647536d@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).

What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?
They had a good racing team.
They were sought after for their symbolism.
They had mystique and reputation.
I also heard that you needed two,
so one could be in the shop.

--
Michael Press

Scott Gordo

01-04-1970, 02:22 AM

On Feb 6, 8:25*pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:11*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > Chalo wrote:
>
> > [re: Wal-marketing the Cannondale brand]
>
> > > > It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> > > > all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> > > > than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> > > Schwinn was never a premium brand. *It was always a plumbing pipe,
> > > boat anchor brand that sold through its own stores until the company
> > > was driven in to the ground by feuding family members and competition
> > > ffrom overseas -- and then sold three (or four) times out of various
> > > bankruptcies. We may have all sorts of warm and fuzzy feelings about
> > > Paramounts, but those were the wall ornaments at the local Schwinn
> > > shop and not typical of the usual Schwinn production. * I think that
> > > the current Asian Schwinns put out by Pacific are better than any
> > > Varsity I ever rode.
>
> > Schwinn was a quality-conscious brand by the standards of the day.
> > Their bikes looked better and held up better than others in the same
> > price categories. *Those Electro-Forged Schwinns are still around in
> > great numbers. *Their competition? *Not so much.
>
> > On top of that, Schwinn enjoyed a wide reputation for quality, out of
> > proportion to the observable quality of their production. *This must
> > have been due in part to their lifetime warranty, and to their astute
> > cultivation of brand mystique (comparable to what Gazelle of the
> > Netherlands exhibits today). *But it would be inaccurate to say that
> > there was nothing about Schwinns to uphold their good reputation.
>
> > It would be accurate, however, to say that there is nothing about
> > _today's_ Pacific/Schwinns to uphold whatever shreds of esteem they
> > might have among the buying public.
>
> > > And Dorel says in its press release that it is
> > > going to fluff up the GT brand and make that part of its top tier LBS
> > > offerings.
>
> > We'll see. *That would be inconsistent with their business practices
> > up to now.
>
> > > > And have no
> > > > doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> > > > at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> > > True, business is business -- but why would someone want to compete at
> > > the lowest end of the market with narrowest margins? *That does not
> > > make sense. *Dorel already has brands in that market, and it looks to
> > > be following the usual course of purchasing a premium brand in an
> > > effort to increase its margins.
>
> > Taking a $100 Pacific, slapping on a Cannondale decal and selling it
> > for $150 is a nice way to get a better margin. *That appears to be
> > exactly what they did with the Schwinn brand. *It also appears to be
> > why all those Wal-bikes are branded Schwinn and Mongoose instead of
> > Murray, which is another Dorel brand.
>
> > > This is a very common way to go.
> > > Ford owns Jag, Volvo and Land Rover *and maintains those brands.
> > > Harman owns Mark Levinson and maintains that brand. There are many
> > > other examples.
>
> > I wouldn't rule out the likelihood that Dorel/Pacific feel they have
> > liquidated most of the residual honor out of the Mongoose and Schwinn
> > names, and now they need another well-respected name to wring the
> > juice out of.
>
> > Ford understands the same principle in its way-- that seems to be why
> > they keep switching the names of their most miserable cars as people
> > come to understand what those names indicate. *The Fiesta became the
> > Festiva, and then the Aspire. *The Tempo became the Contour. *Those
> > cars had to acquire new names in an attempt to outrun their
> > overwhelming suckiness. *Evidently changing a car's name is an easier
> > thing for Ford to do than making a car that doesn't suck.
>
> > I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> > that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> > what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).
>
> Some people see the Fordification of Jag as a good thing -- a sleek
> exterior, decent wiring and no oil leaks!
>
> I know what you are saying about Schwinn, but that brand was already
> beaten down before it was bought at fire sale by Pacific. There was
> nothing left of it except the goodwill of baby-boomers who had warm
> and fuzzy feelings about their first boat anchor bikes. *Even before
> the first bankrupcy, Schwinn was outsourcing to Japan and was
> struggling to hold on to its market. It's dealer network was falling
> apart, and people were looking for lighter imports -- including me. I
> dumped my Varsity for a Gitane in '69 -- which cost the same as a
> Varsity. *Schwinn was shorthand for clunker after that. My Gitane
> would still be around had it not been stolen.
>
> But I won't pick nits. *You could be right. *We'll have to check
> Walmart in a year to see if Dorel remains true to its PR. -- Jay
> Beattie.
>
> PS -- check out some of the current offernings from Schwinn including
> the Madison. *There are some pretty neat bikes -- and many are not
> cheap (pricewise -- I cannot vouch for build quality).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, after Schwinn's first sale they were doing some pretty neat
stuff. They purchased Yeti, who built the high end aluminum "Home
Grown" frames of the late 90's. Serotta built their Paramount ti and
steel road frames, and their upper-to-mid range bikes were nice
overseas 853 steel frames while everyone else was using aluminum. I
don't remember who was running the company then, but they were putting
out some pretty neat stuff and I think that their shops were generally
happy. Once Pacific took over I the Schwinn dealer I knew threw in the
towel as there wasn't enough to differentiate their bikes with those
in the big box stores. Their high end stuff does look like nice stuff
(and may gain from the economy of scale of belonging to a huge brand,
but I have yet to see one in person or in a shop.

The market for their 1950's-70's is still in great shape though. I
garbage pick, fix up and sell them all the time. Why? Because they're
simple, fun, relatively cheap, built to last, and look good.

/s

Chalo

01-04-1970, 02:22 AM

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> PS -- check out some of the current offernings from Schwinn including
> the Madison. There are some pretty neat bikes -- and many are not
> cheap (pricewise -- I cannot vouch for build quality).

I saw a Madison at a local bike shop and I really liked the retro
graphics treatment. The chrome looked too thin and cheesy to be
retro, but it was nice that they tried. The fork looked sort of
steroid-enhanced, too. But all in all, it seemed like a nicely turned-
out bike and a tasteful way to refer back to Schwinn's glory days.
Better than the average fashion fixie, for sure.

Chalo

John Forrest Tomlinson

01-04-1970, 02:24 AM

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:53:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>>
>> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>>
>> Wow.
> >
>Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
>resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
>aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
>usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
>pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
>with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.
>
>The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
>allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
>likely offer some speed advantage.

Thanks for mixing in some disinformation. Between two tires of equal
construction in tersm of casing and tread at 19 and 23, the 23 will
have lower rolling resistance. But 19s can and sometimes are built
with thinner casing and that will roll faster than a comparable 23.

So for a very light rider (women in particular) on smooth roads, in
tirme trials, the narrower tire can and often is a better choice.

Ed Pirrero

01-04-1970, 02:24 AM

On Feb 6, 10:29 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <a6291a09-7cc6-436f-bd0d-eedeb6475...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> > that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> > what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).
>
> What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?

The E-type was a piece of automotive art.

> They had a good racing team.

In general, manufacturers that win at racing are doing something
right.

> I also heard that you needed two,
> so one could be in the shop.

Many of the sporty cars made in GB were that way. An

And quite a few Italian cars of the era.

The early E-type Jag was just a splendidly beautiful car.

E.P.

Andre Jute

01-04-1970, 02:24 AM

On Feb 7, 6:29*am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <a6291a09-7cc6-436f-bd0d-eedeb6475...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> > that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> > what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).
>
> What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?
> They had a good racing team.
> They were sought after for their symbolism.
> They had mystique and reputation.
> I also heard that you needed two,
> so one could be in the shop.

The founding generation endowed Jaguar with the finest styling, the
finest engine (victories at Le Mans) and the finest suspension of any
saloon car, But after the founders retired, British labour unions and
their destructive attitudes happened to Jaguar. Under BL management
(state ownership) the cars were poorly made. Ford took over and
straightened out the quality and made Jaguar again into cars to be
proud of. Ford must be also be commended for pulling Volvo, the
Swedish maker of tractorlike quality cars (you can see I'm a big fan,
and have been since i was college) into the modern age. (GM by
contrast has done very badly by SAAB, once one of the most innovative
car makers in the world, turning SAABs into badge-engineered Opel/
Vauxhalls.) BMW pulled Range Rover into the modern age and made their
trucks reliable, but Ford is doing a good job with another iconic
brand there. By the way, whatever people may say about Ford's own
brands in the States, in Europe they make and sell very fine cars; a
European Mondeo in terms of build quality and performance leaves many
a small Mercedes standing in the taxi ranks (where it anyway properly
belongs).

Andre Jute
Who gave up the car altogether in 1992

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 02:25 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:53:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>>> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>> Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
>> resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
>> aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
>> usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
>> pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
>> with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.
>>
>> The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
>> allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
>> likely offer some speed advantage.
>
> Thanks for mixing in some disinformation. Between two tires of equal
> construction in tersm of casing and tread at 19 and 23, the 23 will
> have lower rolling resistance. But 19s can and sometimes are built
> with thinner casing and that will roll faster than a comparable 23.
>

Any test data to show this?

> So for a very light rider (women in particular) on smooth roads, in
> tirme trials, the narrower tire can and often is a better choice.
>
Better hope the road is really smooth and debris free, if one is riding
what must be necessity be a fragile tire.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jay Beattie

01-04-1970, 02:27 AM

On Feb 7, 7:23*am, unforgive...@juno.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:11 pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 1:45 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > > What I take away from the press release is that Pacific Cycles will
> > > > continue with its low-end bikes through high volume dealers, and
> > > > Cannondale will continue in its current niche selling higher quality
> > > > bikes through LBS.
>
> > > I think we can expect a major expansion of Cannondale's recent
> > > practice of having some of its frames manufactured overseas. *An
> > > aluminum Cannondale used to be a qualitatively different thing than an
> > > aluminum Trek, Giant, Redline, etc. *That's probably going to
> > > change.
>
> > > > If you believe the
> > > > press release, Cannondale is not headed for Walmart, and it would not
> > > > make sense to devalue the brand by selling it mass market.
>
> > > It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> > > all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> > > than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> > > If Dorel/Pacific think it is better for the bottom line to keep the
> > > Cannondale brand exclusive to the LBS market, then they will. *If they
> > > think it will be more profitable for the brand to be retailed through
> > > nationwide sporting goods chain stores, they'll do that. *And have no
> > > doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> > > at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> > > What I would not count on in any case is for the new owners to
> > > continue to uphold the few quality distinctions Cannondale has managed
> > > to retain-- or USA frame production, for that matter.
>
> > > Chalo
>
> > Is Cannondale so distinguished a brand that it is worth saving? (This
> > is not a rhetorical question; I just know nothing about Cannondale.)
>
> If you don't know, are you just posting to hear yourself type?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is it necessarily a bad thing to kick a sliding brand around a bit?
> > (This is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It is, No.)
>
> > There are good conglomerates and bad conglomerates. Some of the
> > world's finest bikes come from good conglomerates.
>
> > A few decades ago, Raleigh was ****, it's bikes were ****, it's
> > reputation was ****. It was sold to a conglomerate who thought they
> > could milk the name. They came a cropper. Raleigh was sold to a good
> > conglomerate and now the name is slowly coming to mean something
> > again.
>
> > Perhaps Cannondale comes out of the process leaner, meaner and once
> > more honest, two or three owners down the road. If not, is it really
> > such a hardship that another lowball bike assembler has bitten the
> > dust?
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Economist & Darwinist
>
> Pegasus is selling the company for more than three times as much as
> they paid to get it out of bankruptcy in 2003. *Quality has been
> steadily improving, and the fact that some of their goofy proprietary
> hardware (BB-30 for example) is becoming standard for other
> manufacturers puts them in a very respected position. *The bankruptcy,
> by the way, was caused entirely by the addition of a motorsports
> division. *So this is hardly a sliding brand, and the process to make
> it "leaner, meaner and once more honest" happened five years ago.
> This is just a case of investors cashing out.- Hide quoted text -

Absolutely correct. Pegasus is a venture capital LLP and was the
primary creditor of Cannondale. It was secured by all the assets of
the corporation, and it was first in line in bankruptcy. It was in it
purely for the money -- but it was also smart and understood that by
preserving the brand and building it up, it would get more money.
That is my point about Dorel. Even assuming that it is in it just for
the money, there is money to be made by preserving the brand. There is
also quick, short term money in trashing the brand at Walmart -- which
is Chalo's point. It will be interesting to see which road it takes.
-- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie

01-04-1970, 02:27 AM

On Feb 7, 9:04*am, Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:25*pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 4:11*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > > Chalo wrote:
>
> > > [re: Wal-marketing the Cannondale brand]
>
> > > > > It didn't make sense for them to do it to Mongoose, GT, or worst of
> > > > > all, Schwinn. *But they did. *I think their track record speaks louder
> > > > > than their press release about where this is all going.
>
> > > > Schwinn was never a premium brand. *It was always a plumbing pipe,
> > > > boat anchor brand that sold through its own stores until the company
> > > > was driven in to the ground by feuding family members and competition
> > > > ffrom overseas -- and then sold three (or four) times out of various
> > > > bankruptcies. We may have all sorts of warm and fuzzy feelings about
> > > > Paramounts, but those were the wall ornaments at the local Schwinn
> > > > shop and not typical of the usual Schwinn production. * I think that
> > > > the current Asian Schwinns put out by Pacific are better than any
> > > > Varsity I ever rode.
>
> > > Schwinn was a quality-conscious brand by the standards of the day.
> > > Their bikes looked better and held up better than others in the same
> > > price categories. *Those Electro-Forged Schwinns are still around in
> > > great numbers. *Their competition? *Not so much.
>
> > > On top of that, Schwinn enjoyed a wide reputation for quality, out of
> > > proportion to the observable quality of their production. *This must
> > > have been due in part to their lifetime warranty, and to their astute
> > > cultivation of brand mystique (comparable to what Gazelle of the
> > > Netherlands exhibits today). *But it would be inaccurate to say that
> > > there was nothing about Schwinns to uphold their good reputation.
>
> > > It would be accurate, however, to say that there is nothing about
> > > _today's_ Pacific/Schwinns to uphold whatever shreds of esteem they
> > > might have among the buying public.
>
> > > > And Dorel says in its press release that it is
> > > > going to fluff up the GT brand and make that part of its top tier LBS
> > > > offerings.
>
> > > We'll see. *That would be inconsistent with their business practices
> > > up to now.
>
> > > > > And have no
> > > > > doubt-- if they think there's more money in selling $150 "Cannondales"
> > > > > at Wally World, they will do that.
>
> > > > True, business is business -- but why would someone want to compete at
> > > > the lowest end of the market with narrowest margins? *That does not
> > > > make sense. *Dorel already has brands in that market, and it looks to
> > > > be following the usual course of purchasing a premium brand in an
> > > > effort to increase its margins.
>
> > > Taking a $100 Pacific, slapping on a Cannondale decal and selling it
> > > for $150 is a nice way to get a better margin. *That appears to be
> > > exactly what they did with the Schwinn brand. *It also appears to be
> > > why all those Wal-bikes are branded Schwinn and Mongoose instead of
> > > Murray, which is another Dorel brand.
>
> > > > This is a very common way to go.
> > > > Ford owns Jag, Volvo and Land Rover *and maintains those brands.
> > > > Harman owns Mark Levinson and maintains that brand. There are many
> > > > other examples.
>
> > > I wouldn't rule out the likelihood that Dorel/Pacific feel they have
> > > liquidated most of the residual honor out of the Mongoose and Schwinn
> > > names, and now they need another well-respected name to wring the
> > > juice out of.
>
> > > Ford understands the same principle in its way-- that seems to be why
> > > they keep switching the names of their most miserable cars as people
> > > come to understand what those names indicate. *The Fiesta became the
> > > Festiva, and then the Aspire. *The Tempo became the Contour. *Those
> > > cars had to acquire new names in an attempt to outrun their
> > > overwhelming suckiness. *Evidently changing a car's name is an easier
> > > thing for Ford to do than making a car that doesn't suck.
>
> > > I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> > > that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> > > what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).
>
> > Some people see the Fordification of Jag as a good thing -- a sleek
> > exterior, decent wiring and no oil leaks!
>
> > I know what you are saying about Schwinn, but that brand was already
> > beaten down before it was bought at fire sale by Pacific. There was
> > nothing left of it except the goodwill of baby-boomers who had warm
> > and fuzzy feelings about their first boat anchor bikes. *Even before
> > the first bankrupcy, Schwinn was outsourcing to Japan and was
> > struggling to hold on to its market. It's dealer network was falling
> > apart, and people were looking for lighter imports -- including me. I
> > dumped my Varsity for a Gitane in '69 -- which cost the same as a
> > Varsity. *Schwinn was shorthand for clunker after that. My Gitane
> > would still be around had it not been stolen.
>
> > But I won't pick nits. *You could be right. *We'll have to check
> > Walmart in a year to see if Dorel remains true to its PR. -- Jay
> > Beattie.
>
> > PS -- check out some of the current offernings from Schwinn including
> > the Madison. *There are some pretty neat bikes -- and many are not
> > cheap (pricewise -- I cannot vouch for build quality).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually, after Schwinn's first sale they were doing some pretty neat
> stuff. They purchased Yeti, who built the high end aluminum "Home
> Grown" frames of the late 90's. Serotta built their Paramount ti and
> steel road frames, and their upper-to-mid range bikes were nice
> overseas 853 steel frames while everyone else was using aluminum. I
> don't remember who was running the company then, but they were putting
> out some pretty neat stuff and I think that their shops were generally
> happy. Once Pacific took over I the Schwinn dealer I knew threw in the
> towel as there wasn't enough to differentiate their bikes with those
> in the big box stores. Their high end stuff does look like nice stuff
> (and may gain from the economy of scale of belonging to a huge brand,
> but I have yet to see one in person or in a shop.
>
> The market for their 1950's-70's is still in great shape though. I
> garbage pick, fix up and sell them all the time. Why? Because they're
> simple, fun, relatively cheap, built to last, and look good.

I think the models you are talking about (the 853 and Ti Serotta
Paramount) were in the very late 90s while Schwinn was owned by
Questor Partners -- who bought from Zell/Chilmark (who bought it out
of bankruptcy). You are right that they were coming up with some
interesting bikes -- which is doubly interesting since they were owned
by Questor, a turn around capital company. I guess they couldn't get
them turned around with the interesting bikes, IMO, probably because
the brand loyalty was in the low end market. I think Pacific
understood where the brand loyalty/value was and catered to that
market -- for better or for worse. -- Jay Beattie.

Seth Hammond

01-04-1970, 02:28 AM

"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9e69fbf-e29c-43dc-9f00-de424d0e5ef8@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>> PS -- check out some of the current offernings from Schwinn including
>> the Madison. There are some pretty neat bikes -- and many are not
>> cheap (pricewise -- I cannot vouch for build quality).
>
> I saw a Madison at a local bike shop and I really liked the retro
> graphics treatment. The chrome looked too thin and cheesy to be
> retro, but it was nice that they tried. The fork looked sort of
> steroid-enhanced, too. But all in all, it seemed like a nicely turned-
> out bike and a tasteful way to refer back to Schwinn's glory days.
> Better than the average fashion fixie, for sure.
>
> Chalo

My first was a Schwinn and my last is a Schwinn. I don't know about glory,
but my latest does everything I need done:

http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/bikes_detail.php?id=422

My ex-racer son spent 18 times the price of mine for his serious mountain
bike. Trek? Made here in Tempe, AZ.

John Forrest Tomlinson

01-04-1970, 02:28 AM

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:51:51 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:53:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>>>> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>>>>
>>>> Wow.
>>>>
>>> Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
>>> resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
>>> aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
>>> usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
>>> pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
>>> with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.
>>>
>>> The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
>>> allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
>>> likely offer some speed advantage.
>>
>> Thanks for mixing in some disinformation. Between two tires of equal
>> construction in tersm of casing and tread at 19 and 23, the 23 will
>> have lower rolling resistance. But 19s can and sometimes are built
>> with thinner casing and that will roll faster than a comparable 23.
>>
>
>Any test data to show this?

Not handy. Where's yours?

PS what i describe is well known.

> Better hope the road is really
> smooth and debris free, if one is riding
> what must be necessity be a fragile tire.

People do it all the time in certain races. They don't hope - they
know and they choose. That's what it's about. Not FUD and fear when
it's unnecessary.

PS how much do you weigh? For some reason I think you weigh too much.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 02:28 AM

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:29 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <a6291a09-7cc6-436f-bd0d-eedeb6475...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
>>> that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
>>> what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).
>> What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?
>> They had a good racing team.
>> They were sought after for their symbolism.
>> They had mystique and reputation.
>> I also heard that you needed two,
>> so one could be in the shop.
>
> The founding generation endowed Jaguar with the finest styling, the
> finest engine (victories at Le Mans)

Was not Jaguar's first victory at Le Mans mostly due to having superior
brakes (discs) to the competition (drum brakes)?

> and the finest suspension of any
> saloon car, But after the founders retired, British labour unions and
> their destructive attitudes happened to Jaguar. Under BL management
> (state ownership) the cars were poorly made.

You don't say! I had a British Leyland era MG Midget, which I almost
spent more time repairing than driving.

> Ford took over and
> straightened out the quality and made Jaguar again into cars to be
> proud of. Ford must be also be commended for pulling Volvo, the
> Swedish maker of tractorlike quality cars (you can see I'm a big fan,
> and have been since i was college) into the modern age. (GM by
> contrast has done very badly by SAAB, once one of the most innovative
> car makers in the world, turning SAABs into badge-engineered Opel/
> Vauxhalls.)

Yes, when they moved the ignition key from the console to the column,
that was the end.

> BMW pulled Range Rover into the modern age and made their
> trucks reliable, but Ford is doing a good job with another iconic
> brand there. By the way, whatever people may say about Ford's own
> brands in the States, in Europe they make and sell very fine cars; a
> European Mondeo in terms of build quality and performance leaves many
> a small Mercedes standing in the taxi ranks (where it anyway properly
> belongs).
>
Most USians buy Mercedes-Benz vehicles as status symbols.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 02:29 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:51:51 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:53:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>>>>> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>
>>>> Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
>>>> resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
>>>> aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
>>>> usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
>>>> pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
>>>> with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.
>>>>
>>>> The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
>>>> allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
>>>> likely offer some speed advantage.
>>> Thanks for mixing in some disinformation. Between two tires of equal
>>> construction in tersm of casing and tread at 19 and 23, the 23 will
>>> have lower rolling resistance. But 19s can and sometimes are built
>>> with thinner casing and that will roll faster than a comparable 23.
>>>
>> Any test data to show this?
>
> Not handy. Where's yours?
>
Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
the fastest tire was the 23-mm.

> PS what i describe is well known.
>
>> Better hope the road is really
>> smooth and debris free, if one is riding
>> what must be necessity be a fragile tire.
>
> People do it all the time in certain races. They don't hope - they
> know and they choose. That's what it's about. Not FUD and fear when
> it's unnecessary.
>
> PS how much do you weigh? For some reason I think you weigh too much.

About 0.6 Chalo.

I have a skinny 35-mm wide Primo Comet on the front of one of my
bicycles, which is about as small as can be reasonably used when I could
kit a pothole at 80 or more kph.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Andre Jute

01-04-1970, 02:30 AM

On Feb 8, 3:22*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 6:29 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <a6291a09-7cc6-436f-bd0d-eedeb6475...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> *Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> >>> that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> >>> what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).
> >> What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?
> >> They had a good racing team.
> >> They were sought after for their symbolism.
> >> They had mystique and reputation.
> >> I also heard that you needed two,
> >> so one could be in the shop.
>
> > The founding generation endowed Jaguar with the finest styling, the
> > finest engine (victories at Le Mans)
>
> Was not Jaguar's first victory at Le Mans mostly due to having superior
> brakes (discs) to the competition (drum brakes)?

That's what the losers would like to have you think. But disc brakes
are no good unless you first have the engine power and the
aerodynamics to give you speed. It was a class thing, see. Today an
engineer might think of a Jaguar as an alternative to a Mercedes or a
BMW and so on. Back then, Jaguar had the reputation for building "Cars
for cads." Flash bodywork on other people's engines; whatever you
couldn't see on SS cars (as Jaguar was called before the war, was
cheap; I had a 100 which had the original firewall, made of painted
plywood... After the war Jaguar put the overhead cam engine they
designed during the war into big lumbering Bentley-sized saloons.
Still no racing track record. Meanwhile, Mercedes and Alfa were racers
from veteran days, and they and whoever of the noble French marques
not net bankrupted by the spite of socialist French governments, and
Ferrari who, though he started making cars under is own name only
after he war, had a long and distinguished record as team manager for
others, thought they owned Le Mans. So now, here comes this upstart
*assembler* of Cads' Cars (about the equivalent of a Jordan in the
States), with an admirable engine that beat them hollow -- well, of
course they need an excuse, and that excuse was, Oh, they had disc
brakes and we didn't. I had a Mk II with that engine, an XK150, an E-
type, an XK6 and they were all fabulous cars at half or less than the
price of cars that never even came close. (A Mercedes 300SEL 6.3,
which I also had, had a swing axle rear suspension!) Then the British
unions wrecked Jaguar's hardwon quality, its image and its markets...
Ford is to be hugely admired for salvaging a dead brand and remaking
it in the image of the great founders, only better and truer to their
vision than they themselves could ever afford.

> > and the finest suspension of any
> > saloon car, But after the founders retired, British labour unions and
> > their destructive attitudes happened to Jaguar. Under BL management
> > (state ownership) the cars were poorly made.
>
> You don't say! I had a British Leyland era MG Midget, which I almost
> spent more time repairing than driving.

Yeah, I had an XJ6 as a company car in the early 1970s and after a
fortnight gave it back and demanded a car that actually ran. A
protottype Bertone spyder on Fiat mechanicals that I ran as a backup
car had fewer faults in a year than that Jaguar had on any one day.

Andre Jute
Bicyclist

John Forrest Tomlinson

01-04-1970, 02:30 AM

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:38:38 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

>Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
>widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
>the fastest tire was the 23-mm.

There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
fastest and I believe it.

That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
certain widths but fine in narrower widths.

[Sherman's weight]
> About 0.6 Chalo.

What is that? 150#? 200#?

In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
needs vary based on the rider.

For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
probably be faster than a 23.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 02:31 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:38:38 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
>> widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
>> the fastest tire was the 23-mm.
>
> There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
> conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
> road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
> thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
> fastest and I believe it.
>
> That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
> especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
> the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
> riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
> tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
> certain widths but fine in narrower widths.
>
> [Sherman's weight]
>> About 0.6 Chalo.
>
> What is that? 150#? 200#?
>
At last posting, Chalo was at about 150 kgf.

> In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
> fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
> needs vary based on the rider.
>
> For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
> probably be faster than a 23.
>
OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

John Forrest Tomlinson

01-04-1970, 02:33 AM

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:16:46 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:38:38 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
>>> widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
>>> the fastest tire was the 23-mm.
>>
>> There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
>> conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
>> road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
>> thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
>> fastest and I believe it.
>>
>> That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
>> especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
>> the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
>> riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
>> tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
>> certain widths but fine in narrower widths.
>>
>> [Sherman's weight]
>>> About 0.6 Chalo.
>>
>> What is that? 150#? 200#?
>>
>At last posting, Chalo was at about 150 kgf.

Are you embarrassed to state your own weight directly?
>
>> In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
>> fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
>> needs vary based on the rider.
>>
>> For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
>> probably be faster than a 23.
>>
>OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
>of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.

I don't know the percentages, but there are several times a year a
handful of the top riders in my club should and do use narrower tires.
Maybe that is even rarer than what you say, maybe not.

Nonetheless I find it annoying when big boys with limited
understanding or practical experience in bike racing, and little
regard for the fact that there are some fast small cyclists out there,
don't have the same needs. I know and have coached riders weighing
just over half your weight and some have achieved great things on the
bike. Good thing they haven't followed your advice.

If you need to feel better about it by making up some percentages to
cover your simplistic thinking, go ahead.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 02:43 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:16:46 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:38:38 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
>>>> widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
>>>> the fastest tire was the 23-mm.
>>> There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
>>> conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
>>> road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
>>> thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
>>> fastest and I believe it.
>>>
>>> That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
>>> especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
>>> the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
>>> riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
>>> tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
>>> certain widths but fine in narrower widths.
>>>
>>> [Sherman's weight]
>>>> About 0.6 Chalo.
>>> What is that? 150#? 200#?
>>>
>> At last posting, Chalo was at about 150 kgf.
>
> Are you embarrassed to state your own weight directly?

I thought Sorni was the math challenged one.

>>> In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
>>> fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
>>> needs vary based on the rider.
>>>
>>> For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
>>> probably be faster than a 23.
>>>
>> OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
>> of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.
>
> I don't know the percentages, but there are several times a year a
> handful of the top riders in my club should and do use narrower tires.
> Maybe that is even rarer than what you say, maybe not.
>
> Nonetheless I find it annoying when big boys with limited
> understanding or practical experience in bike racing, and little
> regard for the fact that there are some fast small cyclists out there,
> don't have the same needs. I know and have coached riders weighing
> just over half your weight and some have achieved great things on the
> bike. Good thing they haven't followed your advice.
>
> If you need to feel better about it by making up some percentages to
> cover your simplistic thinking, go ahead.
>
Yet, there are too many riders out there who assume that narrower is
always faster, based on nothing but Myth & Lore [TM].

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Chalo

01-04-1970, 02:43 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>
> >> For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
> >> probably be faster than a 23.
>
> >OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
> >of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.
>
> I don't know the percentages, but there are several times a year a
> handful of the top riders in my club should and do use narrower tires.
> Maybe that is even rarer than what you say, maybe not.
>
> Nonetheless I find it annoying when big boys with limited
> understanding or practical experience in bike racing, and little
> regard for the fact that there are some fast small cyclists out there,
> don't have the same needs.

There is one rarely mentioned benefit-- not a direct efficiency
benefit, mind you-- to very skinny tires.

At equal pressure, a narrow tire will ride more softly than a wider
one. (Until it runs out of suspension travel by bottoming.)

But if a rider is light enough to run a 19mm tire at 100psi instead of
a 23, 25, or 28mm tire at the same pressure, it will have more
compliance over the same bumps, until it bottoms. Within reason, more
cush can result in more speed because there is less energy being
transferred into jarring the rider.

Whether this means that a very lightweight rider on a very smooth
course can go faster with a 19mm tire at 100psi rather than a 23mm
tire inflated to a pressure that provides the same _compliance_ is an
open question. But using a tire just big enough for the job allows
potentially lighter weight and potentially less air resistance, so all
else equal, it should still be faster all in all.

Chalo