In a message dated 3/9/04 9:40:29 AM, losborn2@wvu.edu writes:
>Not certain what point Phil was trying to communicate in his comment about
>it being "a failed bike". I'm not aware of any serious shortcomings with
>the bike, and for some reason I seem to remember John Schubert had good
>things to say about it in an old article in Bikecentennial magazine.
>(Apologies to JS if I'm accidentally putting words into his mouth. I'm
>not
>sure how they got into MY head. Or why they're still there.). It may have
>failed in the marketplace, but the fact that it didn't sell by the boatload
>doesn't necessarily make it a bad bike.
Didn't say it was bad. In fact I looked seriously at buying one at the time. Very appealing. Said it failed and it did, mostly because of the oddball tire size. And since the original poster-whose name escapes me-lives in Berkeley his tires are just a BART ride away, it would seem. It's just like the Beta-VHS war. Beta was better but failed in the marketplace. Pleny of examples of that. Phil Brown