Werehatrack wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2006 12:12:48 -0800, "The Historian" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> may have said:
>
> >Do people often name their bikes? A friend of mine is restoring a 1978
> >Volkswagon Vanagon, which he has named "Brooke."
>
> Picking a small nit, the Vanagon model designation was not used in the
> US in 1978; that year, the model available was just a Van. (The
> Vanagon model has the flatter nose, the non-torsion-bar front
> suspension, the relocated fuel tank which allowed the rear area deck
> to be lower than the Van's, and eventually was fitted with the
> absolutely awful "waterboxer" engine that I renamed "the popcorn
> motor" not long before I left the VW dealer system.)
You can see Brooke here:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Go to the end of the photo album. Ignore the fat bicyclist in front of
her.
>
> Chronic crowding in my garage (five bikes [1] and one car) has just
> about persuaded me that it's time to toss my veteran 1973 Astra 10-speed.
> I've had that bike through thick and thin, ridden it in places from El
> Paso to Edmonton, towed my first trailer with it, had all kinds of fun on
> it.
> But next time the city puts one of those big open-top dumpsters out in
> my neighborhood, "Henry" [2] is going. What finally persuaded me that his
> time had come was riding the other two bikes, and then getting aboard the
> old warhorse and comparing condition, fit, and handling. I'll miss the
> old steed, but the new bikes will ease the pain.
>
>
> Bill
HEY! Bikes belong in the dining room, not the garage! I thought everybody
knew that. And, don't dump the bike--donate it to your local bike recycling
group.
"Ozark Bicycle" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1167005415.321765.109990@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>> Rex Kerr <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> > Well, I did it... I bought the Trek 520 that I've been talking about at
>> > Chain Reaction to replace my tired commuting bike... I'm excited, can't
>> > wait to go for a ride... but when I got home and parked it next to my
>> > old Nishiki I just felt this overwhelming sadness. I've had many good
>> > miles on that bike, and now I'm just going to put it in storage!
>>
>> Chronic crowding in my garage (five bikes [1] and one car) has just
>> about persuaded me that it's time to toss my veteran 1973 Astra 10-speed.
>> I've had that bike through thick and thin, ridden it in places from El
>> Paso to Edmonton, towed my first trailer with it, had all kinds of fun on
>> it.
>> But next time the city puts one of those big open-top dumpsters out in
>> my neighborhood, "Henry" [2] is going. What finally persuaded me that
>> his
>> time had come was riding the other two bikes, and then getting aboard the
>> old warhorse and comparing condition, fit, and handling. I'll miss the
>> old steed, but the new bikes will ease the pain.
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> [1] Three mine, two my kids'.
>>
>> [2] My bikes are named after American conservationists: Henry is named
>> for Thoreau, and commuter bike Waldo for Emerson. I had intended to name
>> my newest bike Leopold, after Aldo. (Aldo and Waldo being just a little
>> too close.) But this bike is so--zonal--with its silver paint and black
>> accessories, that I ended up naming him Ansel.
>
> Surely, "Henry" deserves a better fate than a dumpster ride to the
> landfill! Someone, somewhere can offer "Henry" a home and a new life.
>
Agree. If you're in the S.F. Peninsula or South Bay, you can donate your
bike here:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
GaryG wrote:
> > But next time the city puts one of those big open-top dumpsters out in
> > my neighborhood, "Henry" [2] is going.
>
> If "Henry" is not completely broken, please consider dontating it to one of
> the organizations that recycles bikes and sends them to Third World
> countries (e.g., [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ). Or, Google "donate
> bicycles", or ask your local bike shop. With any luck, Henry can provide
> service to someone else, rather than winding up in a landfill.
Agreed, but if it's too much trouble to donate it at least leave it
propped up near the street with a "FREE!" sign in plain sight for a few
days. Chances are it'll quickly find a new home where it'll be ridden
or at least provide some spare parts to keep another bike ridable.
Ozark Bicycle <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Surely, "Henry" deserves a better fate than a dumpster ride to the
> landfill! Someone, somewhere can offer "Henry" a home and a new life.
In order to be a decent, safe ride again, Henry would need numerous
repairs. First and worst, the bottom bracket is shot. I hear sometimes
that there is a way to deal with this problem, which is actual wear to the
(steel) frame, but it sounds difficult and expensive. Additionally, I'd
have to replace the entire drive train and both wheels (parts might be
tough to find, this bike is a '72 or '73 model). Add in some minor stuff,
like all new cables, brake shoes, handlebar tape, and a seat.
Kind of like the mechanic I once heard tell somebody that he needed to
jack his gas cap up and install a new car under it. (Couldn't think of a
bicycle analogy -- it's way late.)
Do all these extensive, expensive repairs, and at length I, or the new
owner, would have a beat-up looking, outdated ten-speed with the shifters
on the down tube and my name engraved into the paint in a couple of
places.
So, somebody who has experience with recycling bikes, does this still
sound like a bike worth saving? It doesn't sound particularly economical
to fix to me. OTOH, it WOULD beat a dumpster ride to the landfill.
Bill
__o | Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer,
_`\(,_ | has no invention; it is all memory.
(_)/ (_) | --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Pat wrote:
>>I shouted myself an expensive new touring bike a few months ago, but I
>>just can't give up my old one. In fact I prefer it - not even sure why I
>>bought the new one now.
>
>
> I had a bona fide touring bike for years that was perfect--if I were about 6
> feet tall. It had a 23" frame, which makes it, what, 59 cm? It was always
> 'way too tall for me, but I didn't know any better. Now that I have one with
> a smaller frame, I still didn't want to give up the old one!
>
> Pat
>
>
My first good road bike was just a hair too big, also. Can't make
myself get rid of it. Even though I have a new bike, I still split time
with the old one. I've been tempted, but not enough.
The Historian wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
>
>>HEY! Bikes belong in the dining room, not the garage! I thought everybody
>>knew that.
>
>
> Do you really keep your bike in the dining room? I've heard of being
> attached to it....
>
If you have a tolerant spouse, you can get away with nonsense like that.
Mine's in the living room most of the time, though it is temporarily
displaced to the den on account of the Christmas tree.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
> > Surely, "Henry" deserves a better fate than a dumpster ride to the
> > landfill! Someone, somewhere can offer "Henry" a home and a new life.
>
> In order to be a decent, safe ride again, Henry would need numerous
> repairs. First and worst, the bottom bracket is shot. I hear sometimes
> that there is a way to deal with this problem, which is actual wear to the
> (steel) frame, but it sounds difficult and expensive.
It depends on the extent of the damage. If someone with the interest
and skills were given the bike, they might first try an inexpensive
"fix" with something like JB Weld.
> Additionally, I'd
> have to replace the entire drive train
Do you mean freewheel and chainrings? Or are you saying the FD and RD
must go, as well?
> and both wheels
Why do the wheels need to be replaced? Last year, I "resuscitated" a
pair of ~25 year old, 27" wheels. It was all just labor, save for new
bearing balls and grease. And two cheap but decent 27" tires (From
Nashbar, @ $8 ea.) If the rims aren't damaged in some way, yours can
probably be made ridable again.
>(parts might be
> tough to find, this bike is a '72 or '73 model). Add in some minor stuff,
> like all new cables, brake shoes, handlebar tape, and a seat.
> Kind of like the mechanic I once heard tell somebody that he needed to
> jack his gas cap up and install a new car under it. (Couldn't think of a
> bicycle analogy -- it's way late.)
> Do all these extensive, expensive repairs, and at length I, or the new
> owner, would have a beat-up looking, outdated ten-speed with the shifters
> on the down tube and my name engraved into the paint in a couple of
> places.
Might just be the ideal urban commuter, no one will steal it and it's
already "ugly", so damage from being locked up outdoors is moot.
> So, somebody who has experience with recycling bikes, does this still
> sound like a bike worth saving? It doesn't sound particularly economical
> to fix to me. OTOH, it WOULD beat a dumpster ride to the landfill.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
> __o | Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer,
> _`\(,_ | has no invention; it is all memory.
> (_)/ (_) | --Ralph Waldo Emerson