[ranette]

“nothing looked better in the 70’s”

I would have to disagree with that.

http://tinyurl.com/5j3sdu

[Rupmisc]

Sorry for the off topic but, I’ll but put on your wide lapels, wide tie, or liesure suit — get into your ugly car – and do the hustle. Maybe the early ’70s weren’t so bad, but you can keep the rest. I will concede that you could probably find a few exceptions, but not many. Etc. I guess we can agree to disagree.

[Rupmisc]

At least until you break your back and have your head severed at the neck.

But megaspaz has a point, once you get used to it, forward is not unpleasant on your back (and I ruptured a disk about 12 years ago, so I care). I agree about the triumph, I could see it being a strain on long rides. Sport-Touring bikes provide more support. I’m not sure that I would be comfortable with my arms and feet stretched out in front of me.

It could be that the 696, which is more upright than the 848, feels a lot like the position you take galloping a horse or riding to a jump. Your body is aligned with your motion, you can move your upper body forward or backward as required, and your legs are in a position to help you rise above a bump, or shift your weight. Since I used to jump horses, I may relate to this position in a way that others wouldn’t.

For total back comfort over long rides, I suspect you’ll need a combination of back exercises and a less than ideal position from a control standpoint.

[ranette]

Actually whenever my wife sees a particularly ugly building she always says, “Uggh that building must have been built in the 70’s” Can’t say I really disagree about the esthetics of that decade , I was just talking about Farah-I was about 13 when that poster came out. I can’t think of anyone who didn’t have one. Platform shoes, Huckapoo shirts and AMC Pacers; nothing more need be said.

[Rupmisc]

I would have left this alone but how could you pick Farah over any of the other Angels? At least the bike you bought is beautiful, even if it has big teeth. .

[Author]

Posts