On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:57:05 +0100, Elder
bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:10:57 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>On 6 Aug, 10:10, Boltar
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>>> On Aug 5, 8:10 pm,Squashme
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Very true. The argument is not just based on logic and reason, but
>>>>> also on emotions. As a cyclist, I just wish that people did not need
>>>>> to bring so many of their unnecessary ornaments, furniture and gadgets
>>>>> out to travel in close formation and at speed on the Queen's Highway.
>>>>
>>>> So do you ride around on the latest whizzy bike with suspension ,
>>>> fancy tyres and magnesium crank (or whatever)? If so , whats wrong
>>>> with some 20 year old clunker from Oxfam? It would do the same job.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good Lord, no. Hate whizzy bikes (and their rideers). Titanium pedals
>>>seen years ago for =A370 shocked me (and that was when =A370 was worth
>>>=A370, not 3s 6d.). Bikes are for use, not poncing. Last year paid =A3300
>>>for a Ridgeback, after final collapse of 25 year old drop-handle-
>>>barred Holdsworth (=A3120 in 1981). Expect that the Ridgeback will see
>>>me out, as I will probably become part of the sad, but necessary,
>>>costs of motorised traffic in the next few years.
>>>
>>>NB. The tinker-bell, lights (yes!), pannier bags and rack are
>>>necessary self-indulgences, I feel. Pump, too. Oh, luxury living. I do
>>>not even mention the optional helmet and ugly hi-vis waistcoat that
>>>help motorists to drive faster in confidence.
>>
>> Do any of you bastards still have bikes with cowhorn handlebars?
>>
>>
>Not quite proper cowhorns, but my SanAndreas has "downhill" bars on,
>like wide motorcross bars without the crossbrace. Nearly as wide as
>cowhorns. Last bike I had with cowhorns was a raleigh bomber, and that
>was factory fit.
You just don't seem to see them around like you used to.
