From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2017012110020570596-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > Weird angles, probably to get the strap buttons spaced out so the thing   
   > can be " worn " comfortably.  Strats have that protruding upper bout ( sp   
   > ? ) simply to move the strap button more toward the headstock ... for   
   > balance. Guitars have a balance problem. Some tend to be " neck heavy ",   
   > as in, if you take your hand off the fretboard, the guitar neck wants to   
   > drop.  Very annoying tendency if you have to play the thing standing.   
   > It's about balance.   
      
   Not playing guitar, I wouldn't be familiar with that so I just expected that   
   when they're designed, proper balance would be designed in.   
      
   > On that, I looked at a G&L " thinline " Tele last month. A tele style body   
   > with an f hole and partially routed body. Done to lighten the thing up a   
   > bit, shave a few lbs off the weight. Problem with the one I looked at was   
   > balance. If you sat and played it, nothing out of the ordinary. But   
   > standing, with a nylon strap, you had to hold the neck up, always, or it   
   > would try and drop down. Bad.  I didn't buy the thing.   
      
   It's a poor, STUPID design - why would  anyone buy one?   
   Besides, guitars don't have to be light - keyboards do though ;)   
      
   > If they are baked into the carbon, they're not replacable.   
      
   More like molded in rather than 'baked' ;) But in that case, they'd BETTER   
   hold up!   
      
   > Don't know. I sorta thought Parker was out of that game. Sold the design   
   > to some low end guitar company.   
      
   I've seen them around and don't remember seeing the original name...but it's   
   still an ugly axe ;)   
      
   > Well, he has more money than me .....   :-)   
      
   Even if I had it, I wouldn't pay that amount even if it was claimed to be   
   the best recumbent ever made!   
      
   > Nope.  Not at all.   
      
   It's very strong...unless of course one  tries to see how light and thin   
   something can be made out of it, like a bicycle frame.   
      
   > It's very expensive tho.  It takes stresses in the directions it was   
   > designed to well. It doesn't take any in ways it wasn't made to resist.   
   > The thing is, when it fails, it's all at once, catastrophic. He's broken   
   > some. Has some shattered frames hanging in his basement as proof.  When cf   
   > breaks in a bike frame, it sort of shatters like glass, lets go all at   
   > once, no warning, not bending but staying in one piece.  If you're riding   
   > it at the time, you'll be eating pavement.   
      
   Yes, when the limit is exceeded, it really goess, completely, which is why   
   it's Insane to try to skimp into such a dangerous range just to save a few   
   grams here and there.   
      
   > Scratches  ????  Say you just lose it in some gravel and end up sliding   
   > along scraping the frame up a bit  ......   once you get up and have your   
   > wounds attended to, it might be a good time to go shopping for a new bike.   
   > Carbon fiber doesn't do well once it's scratched or scraped.  It's thin,   
   > it's fragile, it's ......... ha, it's great .... right ?   
      
   It's only fragile when something is deliberately made that way, skimping   
   right out of safe parameters, and into the danger zone.   
      
   > Not really. There are minimum weight limits in some races. Like in horse   
   > racing, if a jockey is light, they have to carry weights. It's really   
   > about endorcements.  The bike companies, on the high end, sell carbon   
   > fiber as elitist, as better. And that it is wildly more expensive is good   
   > too.  In some business models it's better to sell 10 units at a million   
   > dollars each, than a million at 10 dollars each.   
      
   Keeping so many from enjoying a product is an INSANE model, and hopefully,   
   another company will do something about that because that's a big problem   
   with 'bents - they're about as old as conventional bikes but weren't   
   produced in the same quantity like they should have been.   
   I vote for the million at 10 bucks each so those who want one can have one.   
      
   > At least that's how I see it.  Chrome Moly is every bit as good for bike   
   > frames.   
      
   Sure, and it's a proven performer.   
      
   > Aluminum is almost as good.  Problem with Al is forks made of aluminum are   
   > bad, fail without warning. Mirco cracks develop over time from stress then   
   > the part fails without warning.   
      
   It work hardens easily, becomes brittle, and shatters or snaps without any   
   warning, which is what caused the initial disasters for the De Havilland   
   DH-106 Comet and Lockheed L-188 Electra II. With the Comet, the fuselage   
   disintegrated at altitude, with the Electra, half of one wing would would   
   literally snap off, and in both cases, everyone died.   
      
      
   > Carbon fiber is snob appeal in bikes.  Yes it's good, but it " too good ",   
   > it's far past what's required and it is far too expensive for the use.   
   > Kinda like making auto lug nuts out of gold.  You could do it, someone   
   > would buy them, but they wouldn't be better in any sane way, just more   
   > expensive.   
      
   I've heard of guns being at least finished in gold, and that's kind of silly   
   too.   
      
   > There, bet you thought I'd like plastic bikes  :-)   
      
   Jim   
      
   No I'm not surprised, and there's nothing wrong with plastic bikes but it   
   has the be the right plastic and the right price!   
      
   Ouisie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)