some people have to much $ and not enough brains
- Thread starter srbeck
- Start date
bye bye front brake. i love when people do that. haha
Wow.
I guess he likes a shorter wheelbase.
Some people get real confused with reverse arch forks eh?
I guess he likes a shorter wheelbase.
Some people get real confused with reverse arch forks eh?
Did you leave him a note?
I'm think more , of you relize how easy it is to cut that cable ?
there should be a thread started of pictures of reversed reverse arches
my personal favorite is the one from ebay
my personal favorite is the one from ebay
You should ask him if ever takes that bike off of some cool jumps.
Note to self, never sit on you bike when installing brakes.
splat said:
I didn't even notice the fork thing; I just thought you were commenting on the crappy lock. Around here that would have been stolen in <10mins. Last time I used a lock like the bike was stolen in less than 10 mins. Gave me an excuse to get my Blur, tho. :devil:
I bet you it was a box-n-ship job, and "I don't need a shop to reassemble it".druber said:
I am guessing this is a college genius, hence the $2000 bike and the $5 cable-lock system. Also zero dirt on the bike (not that the person would survive riding with the fork turned backwards).
The sad part is, I bet a bike shop put that bike together...
is there an echo in here?druber said:
1.) I hope the bike is still there when he gets back. I wouldn't trust that with a U-lock, much less a little cable
2.) Um, yeah, I hope it's obvious by now. "hmm, strange that the dropouts are in the back, but I guess they knew what they were doing." -- Just wondering, how much does that actually weaken the design or effect the riding? I've never done that, so I really have no idea.
2.) Um, yeah, I hope it's obvious by now. "hmm, strange that the dropouts are in the back, but I guess they knew what they were doing." -- Just wondering, how much does that actually weaken the design or effect the riding? I've never done that, so I really have no idea.
kinghami3 said:
I would think worst case scenario is that if he pulled the front brake with all four fingers he is going over the bars. The tangential force would be directed down and since that force is in front of the axle...well you can see the potenial. I would think the dropouts would still perform relatively the same?!?
well because the rotor and wheel are moving forward, if he suddenly grabbed the front brake for whatever reason at a high speed there is a good chance that the front brake could get ripped off due to the forces being exerted on it. whether this is true or not i really am not sure but it does make sense from a physics standpoint.kinghami3 said:
Slugman said:
He / she would probably come out later in the day to get their bike and wonder wtf their fork was on "backwards".
Some people are idiots. "Well, the stickers are backwards, the crown is backwards, the dropouts are backwards, and the caliper is on the front of the fork, but I MUST be right because the arch is forwards!"
Outside magazine made this mistake in their buyers guide with a Blur and a Minute. It made me cry. I think Manitou should just put a little sticker on the top of the arch with an arrow pointing to the front. "This side forward".
Outside magazine made this mistake in their buyers guide with a Blur and a Minute. It made me cry. I think Manitou should just put a little sticker on the top of the arch with an arrow pointing to the front. "This side forward".
Maybe he crashed and spun the bars the wrong way......
Maybe not.
Maybe not.
is that bush's trek?
narlus said:
G.W. rides the dirt.
doesn't negate the fact that he's capable of such blunders:Turd Ferguson said:
http://fearofclowns.com/gfx/bush_binoculars.jpg
narlus said:doesn't negate the fact that he's capable of such blunders:
Can't see the pic.
btw, it's nice to live in a country where you can openly slam the leader and not be chopped up into little pieces and fed to your family.
Heh
fixed to a URL; apparently that site doesn't allow offsite linking.Turd Ferguson said:
i wouldn't have it any other way. btw, america's hardly alone in that category.Turd Ferguson said:
and i'm curious about yr "openly slam the leader" comment, when you couldn't see what i linked to. that behaviour is reminiscent of religious whack jobs who burn books/boycott movies they've never read or seen.
smart guy, new inverted manitou... :devil:
:love:
So typing:"doesn't negate the fact that he's capable of such blunders"
is not openly slamming him?
Tell me your point if I was wrong.
btw, religious wack jobs? Really?
Come on now, Jesus loves you just as much as "Dub-ya". :love:
narlus said:
So typing:"doesn't negate the fact that he's capable of such blunders"
is not openly slamming him?
Tell me your point if I was wrong.
btw, religious wack jobs? Really?
Come on now, Jesus loves you just as much as "Dub-ya". :love:
so you prefer yr leaders to be infallible, immune from ordinary human foibles? keep searching.Turd Ferguson said:
narlus said:
I thought Bill Clinton filled that roll.
which is worse, a BJ or a war fought under false pretense?Turd Ferguson said:I thought Bill Clinton filled that roll.
narlus said:
I have received a few really lame hummers before. I'm going with a BJ.
J
JRB
Guest
narlus said:
this is my political agreement for the week.
Name a war that was not fought under false pretense.narlus said:
Turd Ferguson said:
from yr deflection of my earlier query, i suppose you do take more umbrage @ the stained dress incident than the current disaster ongoing in iraq?