C5 Golfer

Looks like one should NOT buy the Ford Excape Look at this cost of either.. in 27 years my 1980 280 SL and 180K miles has at most cost me $3500 total for everything. I would think a late model should be less cost to own than older one. Maybe not but this is a Ford isn't it? Item: 2006 Escape XLT V-6 4x2 1st figure 2006 Escape Hybrid 4x2 2nd figure Oil changes and tire rotations $960 $866 Air filter replacement $135 $155 Fuel filter replacement $315 $63 High-voltage battery A/C filter replacement $0 $581 Brake pads/shoes replacement, resurfacing rotors/drums* $2,545 $1,539 Tire replacement** $1,347 $1,335 Engine coolant changes $120 $120 PCV valve replacement $38 $0 Spark plug replacement $143 $143 Front wheel bearing adjustment/replacement $411 $0 Accessory belt replacement $105 $105 Automatic transmission fluid changes $172 $0 150,000-mile total $6,291 $4,907 From http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?section=Hybrid&story=hybShop2006&subject=stories&referer=&year=New

Are you saying it only take 5-6 gallons to fill it up?? it must have a very small gas tank...

Trade that guy in on a BMW 3 series coupe. Add 4WD if you need it, get the 6 speed manual tranny, and have a blast while driving 2K a month. All service including wipers and oil changes are free. Great resale value - my $.02 http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/3/default http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/3/328xicoupe/

First off Bob-- You are not supposed to be riding your Coiler on your shoulders -- you see the bindings are for your feet - not your shoulders. Second... friends don't let friends ride 2 sticks. Anyone close to him so we can have an intervention? Have a good ride -- hope you come back to the dark side.

Na -- let em cake. Here is another good one.. any ideas?? AFWOTAM... This would be used in military or any government agency, but also applies to most or any project status meetings when the number of invitees includes more than 2 managers.

One thing I might add is get a program that can give you a .stl file so that you may cheaply model this in a 3D printer, that is to say you can build your model of your new board to scale like 1/10 scale, 1/4 scale or parts of it full scale at a very cheap cost.

I sent you an email...

Solidworks user here---My suggestion is to find a copy of Solidworks 2004 and never upgrade. 2006 and 2007 have too many issues. Lines disappear, views go blank, dimensions are gone or you must exit the sketcher and then go back into to find them. You can't rotate model around a point when in Section view - list is long. But what am I think Pro-E has issues too! Back to your question - you might want to look at CadKey -- it may do everything you need at a much cheaper price and not all of the issues one has with a feature based CAD system. You may want to go here for light bathroom reading if you have a laptop. http://www.caddigest.com/

Thanks for info BambooGirl. What’s a nice Bamboo Girl like you doing in New Mexico? I have had a few Arbors over the years myself – only one stayed at home – the 170 Arbor Munoz. It has been a very wet rainy month since I picked up the Serotta - there is a picture of it in another post on bicycles - so haven't logged a bunch of miles yet, good part is I put more miles on my Prior 178 4WD and Hot Blast 178. and I have Whistler next week to ride em again. I live in a very hilly area and have my test ride pretty well sorted out. I am amazed how much difference there is in climbing this long a** hill in the Serotta compared to my Sekai 10 speed. Granted the Sekai is heavier ( damn that Sekai loves speed ), inefficient tires, needs a lower gear and it is not the best fit for me. The fit of a bike is/was more important that I thought going into this 5 or so months ago. The old bike felt great albeit a bit road vibration that was tiring after 30 miles or so but no sore joints or back. Biggest change in the new one is in body position so the foot is more forward at the 3 or 9 o’clock position and the change to a longer crank. I guess that is power efficiency related huh! For me one of the difficult choices/information/data what ever you call it is the fact most articles and private discussions as on this board relate to racing or speed and an age group of about 30 or so. Well my good friend double the age to 60 for me and change the bike requirements to a comfortable bike to ride with friends and a century ride someday. All the mechanics change at that point. I prefer the bar height to be closer to my saddle height than the 6 or so inches lower you young gals and bucks can ride. I prefer not to have 12 inches of seat post exposed specially with a carbon seat post. Don’t get me wrong I love speed – without really pushing it I hit 41 mph the other day on the Serotta - just not a steady diet of it on a bike, plus I love my riding partner and would like it to stay that way. My Serotta has a compact double – which so far seems to work for me on the hill climbs, very rarely am I in the last low gear, still getting used to the brake lever shifters instead of the down tube shifters which I kinda miss in that I could just look at the levers and know what gear I was in – miss that! So far it looks like my Brooks B-17 saddle was a good choice since my butt keeps wanting to ride more and longer. My only complaint so far is I think my handlebars a bit too wide but I think that is because my Sekai was so friggen narrow as most 10 speeds of the 1970 -1980 era were, plus it seems the bars including others I have felt are made so thin and light weight that I can feel them flex on a hill climb, the Sekai bars you could use for an engine hoist. I also miss the beauty of the lugged steel fabrication the Sekai has – it is a work of art. I may have buy a modern day bike someday with lugs just for the hell of it – One of the few advantages of being an old fart- you can do certain things just for the hell of it! Happy trails you Bamboo girl and someday you should try a narrow square tail snowboard !

INTWTFO?

This is nuts but I wonder more about the cameraman/woman? How'dtheydothat! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4832527121139830698

The Re-use it Center in Whistler has a complete set up for $180 cdn. This is about a 157-160 ish board with Blax Bindings and looks like new AF600 in size 25. Also there is Factory Prime in 157ish size for $25. You may need to substitute is for was -- that was as of last Tuesday. For those looking to get started cheap this may help. The boots alone are worth at least $200.

The Re-use it Center in Whistler has a complete set up for $180 cdn. This is about a 157-160 ish board with Blax Bindings and looks like new AF600 in size 25. Also there is Factory Prime in 157ish size for $25. You may need to substitute is for was -- that was as of last Tuesday.

This guy should have had his bike inspected before he rode it.

It is no BMW but a motorcycle -- 350 MPH with a V-4 16 valves http://bub.com/Racing/Number-7-Streamliner/index.html

Check out these speedometers from 2006 Bonneville - purest motorsport in the world. 1970 Plymouth Hemi Superbird - 438 cu in Hemi -- 192.185 MPH 1973 Oldsmobile Omega (Chevy II with Olds Badge)433 cu in Chevy V8 189.425 MPH 1999 Geo Metro with a 1 liter 3 cylinder 94.94 MPH - not bad for 3 cylinder 1988 Pontiac Firebird 0 437 cu in Chevy V-8 234.547 MPH 1971 Chevy Camaro 496 cu in Chevy V-8 247.148 MPH 1984 Pontiac Fiero (Remember those ?? ) 467 cu in Chevy V-8 263.881 MPH NOT BAD Chevrolet! looks like your motors are well respected.

I replaced the photo -- the other was quite distorted due to *7$%tty Camera. This one may show the 63cm size a little more accurately.

Kent, If my metric math is correct and I follow you -- correct me if I am astray here .. I have 3 spacers at 6 mm each = 18 mm = 1.8cm , is that well below your 4cm you mention? Also , the frame was built for 2 spacers so I could have a standover height of 88.84. My bet is by the beginning of summer I will be at 2 spacers.

Amazing there is no motor. http://www.kitelife.com/videos/demo/bethell_promo.htm

Kent, Not sure what Rise is, my bike actually is a sloping top tube - picture distorts it a bit the other way- but it is a 1° angle - not much.

Phunny how each sport has it own little peculiarities-- Golf for example size of golf clubs could easily have this same discussion. When I was asked by several local "what do you have 1-2 inch longer shafts?" I say "No, just standard length”. That discussion on shaft length and Lie Angle could go on on. With my long arms even tho a 6’3” frame my wrists come to the same distance to the floor as a 5’9” guy. Christ! I have an 81” wingspan, I need short clubs not longer ones! But also I believe a longer shafted club is harder to hit, but some say they are easier to hit. So it goes. Snowboard length too! Never one finally answer, except Jack Nicklaus – “What ever works for you” Justin - What is your handicap? I play to a 8.5, was a 7.0 but that was when I didn't work and played 5 days a week. Below is another interesting read… I take from all the good discussion above each of you have different uses and desires for your bike ride. I personally can’t stand a small bike below me – Rode em – Hate em. Hey – It is ok to ride what ever you like. I have comfort at the top of my bike requirements; I do not sprint or race. You may have a different Number 1 goal, which is where we may diverge. But first paragraph or so from RivBike says quite a bit.!!! :) :) http://www.rivbike.com/how_to_pick_your_bike/choosing_a_frame_size Too-small bikes are not comfortable Every day we talk to folks who bought a $3,500 titanium this, or a $2,500 carbon fiber that, and now that the honeymoon is over, they realize it's not comfortable. Sore neck, sore lower back, sore hand---and almost without exceptions it's caused by a frame that's too small and doesn't let them raise the bars high enough to cure these ills. Understandably, they're feeling foolish and bummed out. Handlebars too low cause 90 percent of the discomfort people suffer. And buying a frame too small guarantees that the bars will be too low. Often, people size bikes by the top tube length. Since the reach to the bars is so obviously important, it makes sense to be concerned about the top tube length. But don't let it lead you around by the nostrils. If the top tube is in the right ballpark, you do the fine-tuning with stem length. Also, there's a good deal of misunderstanding about the effect of top tube length. Scroll down a bit and you'll see how a shallower seat tube angle and higher handlebars can make a bike with a 59cm top tube feel shorter (in the reach) than one with a 57cm tt. Don't go there yet, though. Sizing Trends If you look at old racing photos or drawings, you'll see bikes with "a fistfull of seat post" showing. That was the rule --- a fistfull of post. You bought a frame size that, when the saddle was set at the right height for you, exposed a fistfull of seat post! If in order to get the saddle at the right height, it required much more than a fistfull of seat post, then the frame was too small. These days, "a fistfull of seat post" sounds quaintly stupid, charmingly naive, cute but dumb, stay away from me with your dangerous folk medicines! And yet, riders back then were a lot more comfortable. We aren't suggesting that you go by "a fistfull of seat post," but that simplistic approach was (and still is) successful because it allowed the handlebar to be close to the height of the saddle. So it resulted in a fit that took weight off your hands, and strain off your neck and lower back. (It also allows sufficient standover clearance. In other words, when you straddle your bike, your genitals may rest on the top tube, but your pubic bone will easily clear it -- as you'll notice if you grab a handful of genitals and pull up. Apologies if this is too graphic for you.) In those days, most saddles were leather, and most leather saddles (of any vintage) sit higher above the saddle rails than do modern plastic saddles. So, on a modern plastic saddle, the equivalent rule might be "seven fingers of post." Of course, fingers vary in fatness. Fitting and sizing are not sciences. How to Size any Bike, Including Ours Want some sort of a concrete recommendation for sizing a road bike? Okay. You have to know your saddle height. If you know your saddle height, read the chart below. If you don't know your saddle height, take off your shoes, stand on a hard surface with your feet 10-inches apart, and measure between your legs (the tape measure should be right in the middle) from the floor to your pubic bone. Not your genitals. Hit the bone. Figure out how to do this using a thin, hardcover book and a metal tape. Your floor-to-pubic bone measurement is your pubic bone height. example: If you are 5 feet 9 1/2, your pubic bone might be 85cm. Your saddle height will be about 75cm. Once you've determined your saddle height, you have a simple subtraction to determine a good frame size. "A good frame size" doesn't mean it's the only size for you. The whole purpose of sizing is too give you a comfortable riding position, and for most people that means getting the bars level with, or within a couple centimeters, of the saddle height. The lower the number you subtract, the higher the bars can be. In France or England in the '40s, you'd subtract about 15cm. In the case above, that would have that 5-foot 9 1/2 inch rider on a 60cm frame. If that same rider got sized in 10 different bike shops, probably 5 of them would suggest a 54 to 55. One would say a 53, two would say a 56, and one would say a 57. The more expensive the bike, the more likely the size is to be small. If you're psychologically uncomfortable with a frame so big, instead of subtracting 15 from your saddle height, subtract 16. If you're a tall guy and have long arms, go 17--but be prepared to use a stem with an upslope, or a long quill, because on a typical modern road bike with a level top tube, a small-stack headset, and a short-quilled stem, a 17cm difference between saddle height and frame size will put them bars too low (for comfort). Sizing Rivendells (the bikes we design) When you come to us already owning two or three or half a dozen or more bikes, and I recommend a size two to five centimeters bigger than the bikes you already own and have spent lots of money on, your brain tries to reconcile what you have (and have spent lots of money on) with what I’ve just recommended. Sizing chart for Riv-designed frames by Pubic Bone Height (PBH) & Saddle Height (SH). For 700c, 26 mtn, and 650B wheels. PBH SH 700c 26 mtn 650 76 66 52 47 - 51 49 - 50.5 77 66.5 - 66 53 51 52 78 67.5 - 68 53 - 54 51 53 79 68.5 - 69 54 - 54.5 53 54 80 69.5 - 70 55 53 - 54.5 54 - 55 81 70.5 - 71 56 53.5 - 55 55 - 56 82 71.5 - 72 56.5 - 57 54.5 - 56 56.5 - 57.5 83 72.5 - 73 57.5 - 58 55 - 57 57 - 58 84 73.5 - 74 58 - 59 55.5 - 58 57 - 58.5 85 74.5 - 75 58.5 - 60 56 - 59 58 - 59.5 86 75.5 - 76 59 - 61 56.5 - 60 58.5 - 60.5 87 76.5 - 77 60 - 62 57 - 61 60 - 61.5 88 77.5 - 78 60.5 - 62.5 57.5 - 62 60.5 - 62 89 78.5 - 79 61 - 63 58 - 62.5 61 - 62.5 90 79.5 - 80 62 - 64 58.5 - 63 61.5 - 63 91 80.5 - 81 63 - 65 59 - 64 62 92 81.5 - 82 64 - 66.5 59.5 - 65 62 93 82.5 - 83 65 - 68 60 - 66 too big for one 94 83.5 - 84 66.5 -68 60.5 - 68 too big for one 95 84.5 - 85 67 -69 61 - 68 see above This chart is a guide, and the numbers are based on extensive experience with several thousand riders over the past decade or so. Variances will be minor, but no chart can account for personal preferences or extreme crank lengths, and so forth. For any given size, the standover heights (height of the top tube) are lower, because the bottom bracket is closer to the ground and the seat tube angle is shallower (less vertical). “Lower top tubes” is not the goal in itself, it is just a result of the frame design. But it is a key reason you can straddle a bigger one-of-our-bikes than one-of-theirs. Standover clearance, though, is a highly overrated. You need to be able to straddle the bike when waiting for the light to turn, but you don’t need oodles of clearance. You pay for extra clearance with lower handlebars and less comfort, so at some point you have to ask: “Am I getting this bike so I can stand over it and see two fists of air between the top tube and my crotch, or do I want to be comfortable all day long?” The Consumer Products Safety Commission requires an inch between top tube and crotch, but doesn’t define “crotch.” To us it means pubic bone. Everything we do here, frame-sizingwise, revolves around pubic bone height. When you get a Rivendell, you get at least an inch of clearance, and usually more. Every builder has, or at least ought to have, a bias to his frames. Our bias is comfort. From comfort comes efficiency, strength, endurance, control, and fun. The best way to achieve comfort is with higher handlebars, and the first step toward higher handlebars is a larger frame size. A Good Position For Many Riders When you're in your riding position with your hands on the hoods, you should be able to remove your hands-put them behind your back, even-without ploppingdown onto the stem. For most riders, that means a back angle of 45-to-50 degrees. We're less adamant about the knee position relative to the pedal, but mention our preference here only to get you thinking. We like it behind the center of the pedal, because that way, the downstroke helps you maintain a rearward position on the saddle. If it's directly above it, you tend to scooch forward more. In any case, it is not easy to achieve this position with a normal, off-the-shelf bicycle and conventional sizing methods. Here are some other things related to fit that 99.999 percent of the experts don't know, haven't considered, and don't talk about * As the handlebar gets higher, your arm becomes more horizontal, effectively getting longer.

All good stuff and opinions.. sometimes it may start with a question of what do you want to do with the bike or what can this bike do for you. Could switch it to snowboard length choices .. some like those 220cm board and some like the 162 salom for a same size guy. both are good choices if the rider likes riding it. You mention fast handling is more important than highspeed stability for you -- just the opposite with me. I bought this bike for long distance road cruising so fast handling is not wanted/needed. I wanted comfort, you or Justin may be many years younger than I, small bike with low handle bars mean more Advil or Aleve for me. But here is an interesting read amoung others out there.. using the below info 6' 0" guy with approx 32" inseam = approx road bike size of 54-55cm. A 6'3" guy with a 35" or so inseam = approx road bike size of 62-63cm. It is all approx. flexibility and what you want the bike to do should figue in there too! I am sure a bike fitting and size discussion would take more beer than any of us can haul and still not have a definate answer. Bike Fitting Formulas The Basics of Bike Fitting The formulas discussed here yield starting positions for "normal" road and mountain bike sport / performance riding. They (or slight variations) are the foundation of virtually every fitting system in use today. Fitting systems based on body measurements can provide a good starting position. To get a position really "dialed-in" to perfection, most riders will need to "tweak" the position - make small adjustments, up, forward, back, down, to accommodate their personal flexibility, range of motion, and other bio-mechanical variations. Time-trial, triathlon, crit, downhill and other specialized riding events require different positions because the emphasis on various criteria such as power, endurance, comfort and aerodynamics change. However, the basic principle, that the geometry of the position is a function of the rider's anatomy remains the same. To my knowledge, these differences have not been published anywhere, but are embodied in many commercial fitting systems and fitting calculators. Cyclemetrics' FitStik can be used both for measuring a rider's anatomy, and position tweaking (a well-known pro dubbed it a "truing stand for your riding position"). For info on position tweaking, click here. FRAME SIZE AND SEAT HEIGHT - The "LeMond Formulas" The frame and seat height tables on the back of the use formulas originated by engineer, Wilfried Hüggi, and one of Greg LeMond's cycling coaches, Cyrille Guimard. I first saw the formulas in Greg's book, Greg LeMond's Complete Book of Bicycling, published in 1987. For a thorough discussion of the formulas, and a broad overview of fit, Greg's book is recommended. Further discussion of these formulas (and other generally sound fit advice) can be found on the Bike Fit Page of the Colorado Cyclist's Web Site. BIKE FRAME SIZE (in cm) = Inseam (cm) x .67 This gives the recommended size for a road bike frame, measuring from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube (also called center-to-top or c-t sizing)*. Larger riders (6'0" and up) who want a frame that allows them to stretch out, may be better off selecting a frame 27-28cm less than their inseam length. In general, this will be a cm or two larger than the frames the formula recommends. Mountain Bike frame sizes are generally 10 to 12 centimeters (4-5 inches) smaller than road frames. On both mountain & road bikes, if it comes down to choosing between two sizes, choose the one that matches the length requirement most closely. I.E., bikes on either side of the suggested size allow the same saddle position, but tend to be shorter or longer than the suggested size. Choose the one which allows the rider to bend over to the desired degree. As a general rule, larger riders tend to be more comfortable with a slightly larger frame, while smaller riders often do better with a slightly smaller frame. * The original formula used a factor of .65 times inseam to give a size measured as center-to-center (center of the bottom bracket to center of the top tube). These days many bikes use odd-sized tubing, sloping top-tubes and other non-traditional geometries, so center-to-center sizing is less meaningful. Accordingly, the factor was adjusted slightly to yield the center-to-top. Remember: if the length of the top-tube is right, you can usually adjust the seat height and setback to obtain a good fit.

Yes custom build for me. I am no expert but is that bike a little small for you? Seems like if you were to stand up with feet on the floor you have about 6" plus of space between your pubic bone and the top tube. ( if you lowered the seat are you not giving up some power by not letting your knee come to almost straight at BDC??) But if it rides for you and you like it it is a good fit. Happy Trails!

I'd take the Veyron -- then sell it and buy 17 $100,000 cars.

Justin -- how much seat post do you show on that 56 road bike.. if you are 6'0" you must have at least 32" inseam. But to each his own and "what ever works for you" as the great Jack Nicklaus once said. Regarding Tall Bikes...Wonder if the Rim and Tire companies could make us a 770c tire set up them our bikes would look just like yours. Proportionally that is, in a photo without a known size item , one would think it is just a standard old bike with a 56-58 frame.