Bike porn

Obviously proper skewers would be functionally better

which skewers would be proper ?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oFiFLrtmA7Q/TKKHfwh6bSI/AAAAAAAAASA/KzVbW7X472s/s1600/Pizzazeries-Witches-Brew-Party-by-Kristen-Steele-Photography14-e1285706448602.jpg

witch skewers lol

It is real! The floor and skirtingboard do look like photoshop.

thats sick

fucking ugly, really

Looks like it has a top tube protector on it :S

My only problems with the above B&Wdale is the gross forks and the Ritchey stem/bar combo.

Never seen Ritchey stuff look anything but cheap.

It's an SRM, it's the right age for the frame, it looks good on there.

The carbon section of the top tube only looks like a frame protector if you don't know what these frames were famous for.

Bishop-bashing in the p0rn thread has now gone over two pages. I'm surprised they're not stuck together.

played, yo

Plaid, no?

caad10 frames are crazy expensive

A complete new CAAD 10 105 bike is ~$1500 USD here (in NY).
New framesets are around on eBay and the like for ~$800. Doesn't strike me as a lot, personally.

Cannondale's commitment to frame only is grudging at best.They deliberately aim to price punters out of it. You can buy the black inc CAAD10 frameset in London for about £800, which in fairness gives you a lifetime warranty and crash amnesty. The price seems fair compared to the 105 build - but personally I think the 105 build is about £300 too rich.

which skewers would be proper ?

Any enclosed cam, ideally the Campag ones which match the rest of the groupset

so the minimalist looking ones, like tune dc14, dont hold no shit ?

fucking ugly, really

Fucking yawn, really

^^ They do, but they require TLC. The cam needs to be lubricated*, and the lube attracts gunk, which needs be removed, and you then need more lube...

On a steel frame which isn't a weight weenie build you might as well make your life easy and use enclosed cam.

In fact, just use enclosed cam.

• Oh OK, Tune say they don't need lubing. But they will need cleaning.
  

Any enclosed cam, ideally the Campag ones which match the rest of the groupset

This would be preferable for function *and *form/porn IMO. No-brainer!

Fucking yawn, really

Fucking yawn, really

Luckily the untrained eye (over the internet) isn't of concern. If you own a bike like that you know what you've got.

Never seen Ritchey stuff look anything but cheap.

You can blame Nitto for a lot of his earlier components - I always liked that style even though it was derivative and kind of plain.

^^^ I'm intrigued*. What type of top tube protector does it look like?

*bemused

I do not give a fuck...

Then don't give a fuck.

Never seen Ritchey stuff look anything but cheap.

Really? The basic to high end stuff looks quite similar\traditional until you get up close then some is second to none.

Bishop-bashing in the p0rn thread has now gone over two pages. I'm surprised they're not stuck together.

Nice1 dad.
:-)

google 1980s bmx and go to 'images'.

Srsly?

Mind blown.

Jeez reverts to charm mode again......

I do not give a fuck if it is the right age for the frame. IMHO the chainset looks horrid in itself and would look horrid on any bike you put it on.

It looks like a frame protector because it looks like a frame protector. It sits where a frame protector might sit and is the same shape and an appropriate colour. The fact that something looks like something else doesn't mean that I am confused about what it is.

And whilst understanding function can help you appreciate something's aesthetic appeal, if something looks ugly whilst functioning well it is still ugly. I haven't got a problem with the way the TT looks, but it does look like a frame protector.

edit - and try reading exactly what people say and not assuming what they mean.

Arawn said "Looks like it has a top tube protector on it :S"
I said* "That's what I thought"*

In other words I said "I thought 'it looks like it has a top tube protector'.". I did not say "I thought 'it has a top tube protector'."

No - if you knew what you were looking at you'd not make that mistake, it's a little like one of those optical illusions I suppose wherein once you have twigged, you never get taken in again.

The cause of your interpretation is your own ignorance- sort it out.

Same thing with the cranks, I have massive anecdotal evidence to back me on this- I am an aesthetic genius, I am never, ever wrong, and I say they look purposeful and, by dint of their utility they are therefore a good looking pair of cranks.

So- double lose for you I'm afraid.

Soz.