Thorn in my side...

Please be fair and thoughtful in your opinions. No rants please.
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by leftpoole »

Mick F wrote:Thanks Leftpoole - great to put the record straight.

What we need now, is to find out what the measurement was on CJ's tested Thorn.

Perhaps some scanning of the picture, and some computer measurements are in order, or perhaps Thorn could be contacted to set the record straight.

Either way, CJ says there is O/L and you say there isn't.

Mick F
The reason I know that the toe overlap does not exist is because I had a Club Tour frame the same size as the one tested. A 533 S. It was too small. I got the next size up. I take size 9 shoes. I had and still have, no overlap.
Sorry if I sound obstinate but the facts are very clear, at least to me.
I do not know the measurements of the 533 S but as above all was well at the front end.
Of course CJ might have his cleats in the wrong place. May not like Thorns (I know he does not like recumbents as neither do I) and so his feet might be further forward than is normal?
John.
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by glueman »

leftpoole wrote:The reason I know that the toe overlap does not exist

:shock:

leftpoole wrote:Sorry if I sound obstinate but the facts are very clear, at least to me.

:shock: :shock:

leftpoole wrote:CJ... May not like Thorns

That'll be it. The easiest way to show disapproval is to completely make up a wheel/shoe conflict.
Perhaps you think CJ has SPD recesses in his heels?
Last edited by glueman on 3 Dec 2009, 11:41am, edited 1 time in total.
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by leftpoole »

glueman wrote:
leftpoole wrote:The reason I know that the toe overlap does not exist

:shock:

leftpoole wrote:Sorry if I sound obstinate but the facts are very clear, at least to me.

:shock: :shock:

leftpoole wrote:CJ... May not like Thorns

That'll be it. The easiest way to show disapproval is to completely make up a wheel/shoe conflict.


Don't be silly.
John
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by glueman »

Just a thought, but you may not be doing Thorn's PR a power of good on this thread.
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by leftpoole »

glueman wrote:Just a thought, but you may not be doing Thorn's PR a power of good on this thread.



This Forum and this thread is supposed to be a place to air views share advice pass on reports of trips trials and turmoils.
It is a shame that a known fact aired for all to see, even with actual measurements, cannot be taken as truthful! The truth is the bigots win every time in my opinion.
Sorry if I upset anyone but it seems to me that some just want to stir for the sake of it.
Thorn have every right to counter this particular report of Chris Judden as it is not factual. I have been very careful and polite so far....
John.
AndyB
Posts: 921
Joined: 21 Feb 2007, 12:24pm
Location: Lancashire

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by AndyB »

Mick F wrote:What we need now, is to find out what the measurement was on CJ's tested Thorn.

603mm, according to the magazine.

Oh, and leftpoole - your blind fanaticism is quite funny. How can you get so defensive about a review that essentially said - good bike, but not "the best money can buy"? Have you read it (you're not spelling CJ's name correctly)?

And what exactly do you mean by the following strange suggestion?

leftpoole wrote:May not like Thorns (...) and so his feet might be further forward than is normal?
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by leftpoole »

AndyB wrote:
Mick F wrote:What we need now, is to find out what the measurement was on CJ's tested Thorn.

603mm, according to the magazine.

Oh, and leftpoole - your blind fanaticism is quite funny. How can you get so defensive about a review that essentially said - good bike, but not "the best money can buy"? Have you read it (you're not spelling CJ's name correctly)?

And what exactly do you mean by the following strange suggestion?

leftpoole wrote:May not like Thorns (...) and so his feet might be further forward than is normal?


Of course I read it and I actually wrote off to CTC telling them my views. Its a complete disgrace. I will no longer trust a review in Cycle magazine as the facts are to me very clear.
I have had it with this.
603 mm in the article which is more than enough clearence for CJs feet.
Just think about it and maybe you will actually see that my enthusiasm is not blind or fanatical in the slightest. Simply truthful.
John.
AndyB
Posts: 921
Joined: 21 Feb 2007, 12:24pm
Location: Lancashire

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by AndyB »

leftpoole wrote:Of course I read it and I actually wrote off to CTC telling them my views. Its a complete disgrace. I will no longer trust a review in Cycle magazine as the facts are to me very clear.
I have had it with this.
603 mm in the article which is more than enough clearence for CJs feet.
Just think about it and maybe you will actually see that my enthusiasm is not blind or fanatical in the slightest. Simply truthful.
John.


I have not suggested you are being untruthful, indeed my post merely confirmed (to within 3mm) your own measurements. How you can call a positive review "a complete disgrace" is a mystery to me. And your blind fanaticism is apparent because you will not accept any criticism of a good, but imperfect, bike. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you though, so could you please clarify what you meant by:
leftpoole wrote:May not like Thorns (...) and so his feet might be further forward than is normal?
fatboy
Posts: 3477
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by fatboy »

leftpoole wrote:Thorn have every right to counter this particular report of Chris Judden as it is not factual.


Why do you think that he is not using facts? If he said that he had toe overlap then he had toe-overlap, end of story as far as I am concerned. If you look at dimensions of Thorn vs Dawes the top tube lengths are shorter (Top tube length Dawes Galaxy similar size = 547mm vs 540mm for the Thorn) so the front wheel will be closer to toes. Now it does appear to be true that the next size up might not have had it but it does look tight to me even by looking at a photo of the bike.

Again I urge you to re-read the article with an open mind. You have a deep love of your bikes that we can all understand but do try to understand that this article was not a personal slight on your bikes. CJ actually quite liked it but pointed out a couple of things that one should be careful of when ordering (one of which by Thorn's own admission was an oversight in the ordering that a simple note would have covered off).

Now let's talk facts.

Fact 1 - Your bikes don't have toe-overlap with your feet, shoes, etc
Fact 2 - The test bike for what ever reason did have toe-overlap for CJ with his feet, shoes etc. Perhaps he should have been riding the next size up but he was reporting acurately on the bike that he was testing.

Can we please stop this sillyness. CJ will not have been lying would he now? Why would he? Did he just want to upset Thorn for some personal reason? I think not. It is possible for both the above facts to be true.

Personally I used to quite fancy the idea of a Thorn but after all the stuff regarding this, IMHO fair, test has put me off the whole idea of them. I'm sure that they are great bikes but the letters, adversiting hype etc leaves a poor taste in my mouth I'm afraid.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by leftpoole »

so could you please clarify what you meant by:
leftpoole wrote:May not like Thorns (...) and so his feet might be further forward than is normal?
[/quote]

A fairly light hearted comment not a fact .........
John.
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by leftpoole »

Fact 1 - Your bikes don't have toe-overlap with your feet, shoes, etc
Fact 2 - The test bike for what ever reason did have toe-overlap for CJ with his feet, shoes etc. Perhaps he should have been riding the next size up but he was reporting acurately on the bike that he was testing.

If I recall correctly CJ has smaller feet than me. Ask him outright and while at it ask him to review the bike again.
As a matter of interest I usually hate films which get rave reviews and love films that critics pan! Does this make me an individual with views?
John
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by Mick F »

I don't have the mag any more, sadly.

I wonder if the measurements given (from what I remember, there is usually a diagram with dimensions for the tested bikes?) are not the measurements of the actual tested bike.

Strange that Leftpoole is adamant there is no O/L, but CJ says there was. I'm sure CJ knows how to fit cleats, and unless his feet are particularly long, I don't really see how we can progress the argument.

Believe me, I have no axe to grind, but CJ wouldn't fib and I'm sure Leftpoole wouldn't fib either, but why the difference of opinion?

I must be that the bike CJ tested had toe O/L, and that all other Thorns, to Leftpoole's knowledge, don't. CJ was just unlucky.
Mick F. Cornwall
AndyB
Posts: 921
Joined: 21 Feb 2007, 12:24pm
Location: Lancashire

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by AndyB »

leftpoole wrote:A fairly light hearted comment not a fact .........
John.

Might I tactfully suggest not suggesting other people are lying (this is, really, the essence: you are implying that CJ made up the toe-overlap issue; everyone else believes him), then randomly sprinkling light-hearted comments amongst other comments that you want to be read as facts.
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by leftpoole »

Mick F wrote:I don't have the mag any more, sadly.

I wonder if the measurements given (from what I remember, there is usually a diagram with dimensions for the tested bikes?) are not the measurements of the actual tested bike.

Strange that Leftpoole is adamant there is no O/L, but CJ says there was. I'm sure CJ knows how to fit cleats, and unless his feet are particularly long, I don't really see how we can progress the argument.

Believe me, I have no axe to grind, but CJ wouldn't fib and I'm sure Leftpoole wouldn't fib either, but why the difference of opinion?

I must be that the bike CJ tested had toe O/L, and that all other Thorns, to Leftpoole's knowledge, don't. CJ was just unlucky.


Mick F
You are a star! Thank you for some clean clear and clinical comment at last.
I am off on my bike soon so will clear my head, get frozen feet and wish I were riding my best bike and not my old Thorn Club tour winter version. Having said that my winter bike is the one I enjoy riding the most for some reason.
John.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Thorn in my side...

Post by Si »

With statements being made that could easily be read as inferring that people were rigging bike tests (even if they are followed by some back pedalling), and with people being called fanatics and bigots, I think that it might be time to ask everyone to cool down a bit, please, before things really do get out of hand.

Seems to me that both sides seem somewhat convinced in their own view and that there is little chance of either convincing the other that they are wrong. So, unless you've something to add that is both constructive and does not lend itself to being taken as a 'dig', I'd suggest that there is little value in continuing this line of discussion.
Post Reply