A Question for the Engineers Among You

I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
you in a dream.

It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.

http://www.fastexercise.com/

I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm no
expert (as I've explained in other posts.)

What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing? Wouldn't
it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit than it is
to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?

I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That part
of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a track
several times before returning a mile back.).

Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
build?

I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
Shrimp? Fosters?).

I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of those
things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for the parts
needed to build one.

<d wells> wrote in message
news:iaaoj2lctbau7i53616t6kmr2msnic9qnp@4ax.com...
>I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
> a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
> you in a dream.
>
> It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>
> http://www.fastexercise.com/


It's Jason Earl's favorite exercise machine. He REALLY wants one, despite
his objections.


> I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm no
> expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
>
> What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing? Wouldn't
> it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit than it is
> to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
>
> I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
> walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
> as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
> recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That part
> of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a track
> several times before returning a mile back.).
>
> Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
> build?
>
> I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
> Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
> Shrimp? Fosters?).
>
> I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of those
> things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for the parts
> needed to build one.


I actually do want one, but, I wouldn't trade any dog, gun, or knife that I
own or ever have owned, for one. In fact, I own every knife and gun and dog
I ever have owned. And that's a lot of guns and knives. Not so many dogs,
but, they don't last forever

David

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:51:07 -0400, d wells wrote:


>
>I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
>Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
>Shrimp? Fosters?).
>

I thought I'd point out that my crack about Australian currency was
meant to be more a commentary on my, the typical American's, ignorance
about most things not of this country.

It was not meant to as a suggestion that the Australian people are too
primitive to print currency.

(Although one could argue that replacing dollars with beer would be a
step forward in any crountry. Though making change might be tricky.)

There. I'll sleep better now.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:51:07 -0400, d wells wrote:

>I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
>a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
>you in a dream.
>
>It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>
>http://www.fastexercise.com/
>
>I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm no
>expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
>
>What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing? Wouldn't
>it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit than it is
>to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
>
>I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
>walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
>as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
>recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That part
>of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a track
>several times before returning a mile back.).
>
>Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
>build?
>
>I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
>Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
>Shrimp? Fosters?).
>
>I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of those
>things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for the parts
>needed to build one.

My guess is the material costs are the big factor. Assembling and
manufacture do not look difficult. I suspect they are using
expensive materials which drive up the cost. It isn't unusual for
people to spend $1000 for a bike. You can buy the same thing cheaper
but the materials are not as good.

Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to build.
That would make it worthwhile to sell at such a high price.

I can't really figure out what there scam is though. A high price
like that makes them more vulnerable to a lawsuit if it doesn't work.
I really can't see how 4 minutes a day is going to make one fit no
matter how good the machine is. This reminds of some machines in the
80's which did the exercises for you. They didn't exactly take off.

Shute wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:51:07 -0400, d wells wrote:
>
> >I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
> >a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
> >you in a dream.
> >
> >It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
> >
> >http://www.fastexercise.com/
> >
> >I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm no
> >expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
> >
> >What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing? Wouldn't
> >it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit than it is
> >to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
> >
> >I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
> >walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
> >as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
> >recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That part
> >of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a track
> >several times before returning a mile back.).
> >
> >Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
> >build?
> >
> >I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
> >Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
> >Shrimp? Fosters?).
> >
> >I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of those
> >things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for the parts
> >needed to build one.
>
> My guess is the material costs are the big factor. Assembling and
> manufacture do not look difficult. I suspect they are using
> expensive materials which drive up the cost. It isn't unusual for
> people to spend $1000 for a bike. You can buy the same thing cheaper
> but the materials are not as good.

a $1000 bike is not $1000 because of material costs. rather than the
statement 'you can buy the same thing cheaper but the materials are not
as good', a more accurate statement would be 'you can buy something
cheaper with the same materials, but the build / design / marketing
isn't as good' would be a much more accurate statement. aluminum and
carbon fiber aren't really that expensive.

> Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to build.

i'd say you're on crack. ;D

<snip>

"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote
> Shute wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:51:07 -0400, d wells wrote:
>>
>> >I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
>> >a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
>> >you in a dream.
>> >
>> >It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>> >
>> >http://www.fastexercise.com/
>> >
>> >I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm no
>> >expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
>> >
>> >What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing? Wouldn't
>> >it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit than it is
>> >to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
>> >
>> >I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
>> >walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
>> >as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
>> >recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That part
>> >of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a track
>> >several times before returning a mile back.).
>> >
>> >Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
>> >build?
>> >
>> >I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
>> >Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
>> >Shrimp? Fosters?).
>> >
>> >I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of those
>> >things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for the parts
>> >needed to build one.
>>
>> My guess is the material costs are the big factor. Assembling and
>> manufacture do not look difficult. I suspect they are using
>> expensive materials which drive up the cost. It isn't unusual for
>> people to spend $1000 for a bike. You can buy the same thing cheaper
>> but the materials are not as good.
>
> a $1000 bike is not $1000 because of material costs. rather than the
> statement 'you can buy the same thing cheaper but the materials are not
> as good', a more accurate statement would be 'you can buy something
> cheaper with the same materials, but the build / design / marketing
> isn't as good' would be a much more accurate statement. aluminum and
> carbon fiber aren't really that expensive.
>
>> Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to build.
>
> i'd say you're on crack. ;D

No, Ed, he isn't on crack That, at least, would provide an excuse.

Poop Shute is a moron, who knows little about anything, but takes pride in
demonstrating his ignorance, publically and frequently.

He does provide some entertainment value, so, like the cockroach and the
leech, has a place in the circle of life.

David

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> writes:

> <d wells> wrote in message
> news:iaaoj2lctbau7i53616t6kmr2msnic9qnp@4ax.com...
>>I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
>> a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
>> you in a dream.
>>
>> It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>>
>> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>
> It's Jason Earl's favorite exercise machine. He REALLY wants one,
> despite his objections.

You are correct. If I could afford a ROM (and a room to hide it in,
the thing is hideous looking) I would get one. I've got a buddy that
sold an Internet company during the boom for over $100 million. If I
was in his shoes I would own a ROM.

>> I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm
>> no expert (as I've explained in other posts.)

I have no trouble believing the claims. There's quite a bit of
research that touts the benefits of short, brutal workouts. Google
for Tabata intervals for a similar 4 minute protocol with piles of
research to back it up.

Better yet just read:

http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle....4-046-training

and try an effective 4 minute workout yourself. Just remember to
start really really light.

>> What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing?
>> Wouldn't it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500
>> profit than it is to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000
>> profit?

Yes, of course they would be better off. Especially considering how
ridiculously easy such a machine would be to manufacture. The machine
is essentially a flywheel, some pedals, and a pair of levers. I would
bet that most mountain bikes are more difficult to manufacture.

The problem is that the folks selling the ROM almost certainly know
that they couldn't really compete if creating ROMs was simply a matter
of who could manufacture them at the lowest price. If this gizmo
became the next Bowflex then the ROM would face competition from
knockoffs that would draw most of the profit out of the business. By
pricing these things ridiculously they guarantee that they fly under
the radar of potential competitors.

There's a pretty big market for miracle fat cures, and there is also a
fairly large market (in the U.S. at least) for which $14,000 is not
really that large a sum of money. From my own limited experience with
this particular market I think that it is possible that the huge price
is actually a bonus. I know folks that would definitely like the idea
of owning an exercise machine that is more expensive than the car I
drive to work, especially if it actually worked as advertised.

>> I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the
>> 4-mile walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace)
>> actually counts as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was
>> doing it for simple recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse
>> of the city. That part of the pulse that is about a mile away and
>> then goes around a track several times before returning a mile
>> back.).
>>
>> Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
>> build?
>>
>> I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian
>> Dollars. British Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use
>> (Australian Dollars? Shrimp? Fosters?).
>>
>> I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of
>> those things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for
>> the parts needed to build one.

Sadly, I don't own any hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks.

> I actually do want one, but, I wouldn't trade any dog, gun, or knife
> that I own or ever have owned, for one. In fact, I own every knife
> and gun and dog I ever have owned. And that's a lot of guns and
> knives. Not so many dogs, but, they don't last forever

I would trade my kettlebell for one, but only if I was allowed to buy
another kettlebell.

Jason

Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> writes:

> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:51:07 -0400, d wells wrote:
>
>>I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can
>>at a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it
>>came to you in a dream.
>>
>>It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>>
>>http://www.fastexercise.com/
>>
>>I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm
>>no expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
>>
>>What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing?
>>Wouldn't it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit
>>than it is to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
>>
>>I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
>>walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
>>as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
>>recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That
>>part of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a
>>track several times before returning a mile back.).
>>
>>Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
>>build?
>>
>>I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian
>>Dollars. British Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use
>>(Australian Dollars? Shrimp? Fosters?).
>>
>>I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of
>>those things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for
>>the parts needed to build one.
>
> My guess is the material costs are the big factor. Assembling and
> manufacture do not look difficult. I suspect they are using
> expensive materials which drive up the cost. It isn't unusual for
> people to spend $1000 for a bike. You can buy the same thing
> cheaper but the materials are not as good.

Thanks to an earlier discussion on the ROM I have the ROM promotional
DVD. It looks to me as if this thing is made primarily from stainless
steel.

> Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to build.
> That would make it worthwhile to sell at such a high price.

It doesn't cost that much to build a Honda Civic. Try again.

> I can't really figure out what there scam is though. A high price
> like that makes them more vulnerable to a lawsuit if it doesn't
> work.

Err... no.

> I really can't see how 4 minutes a day is going to make one fit no
> matter how good the machine is. This reminds of some machines in
> the 80's which did the exercises for you. They didn't exactly take
> off.

Google for Tabata Intervals and try them for a week or two. You can
get a good workout in 4 minutes. You just have to spend at least 20
minutes lying on the ground recovering afterward.

Jason

"Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:87lkn7ez28.fsf@workhorse.earlhome...
> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:51:07 -0400, d wells wrote:
>>
>>>I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can
>>>at a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it
>>>came to you in a dream.
>>>
>>>It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>>>
>>>http://www.fastexercise.com/
>>>
>>>I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm
>>>no expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
>>>
>>>What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing?
>>>Wouldn't it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit
>>>than it is to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
>>>
>>>I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
>>>walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
>>>as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
>>>recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That
>>>part of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a
>>>track several times before returning a mile back.).
>>>
>>>Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
>>>build?
>>>
>>>I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian
>>>Dollars. British Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use
>>>(Australian Dollars? Shrimp? Fosters?).
>>>
>>>I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of
>>>those things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for
>>>the parts needed to build one.
>>
>> My guess is the material costs are the big factor. Assembling and
>> manufacture do not look difficult. I suspect they are using
>> expensive materials which drive up the cost. It isn't unusual for
>> people to spend $1000 for a bike. You can buy the same thing
>> cheaper but the materials are not as good.
>
> Thanks to an earlier discussion on the ROM I have the ROM promotional
> DVD. It looks to me as if this thing is made primarily from stainless
> steel.
>
>> Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to build.
>> That would make it worthwhile to sell at such a high price.
>
> It doesn't cost that much to build a Honda Civic. Try again.
>
>> I can't really figure out what there scam is though. A high price
>> like that makes them more vulnerable to a lawsuit if it doesn't
>> work.
>
> Err... no.
>
>> I really can't see how 4 minutes a day is going to make one fit no
>> matter how good the machine is. This reminds of some machines in
>> the 80's which did the exercises for you. They didn't exactly take
>> off.
>
> Google for Tabata Intervals and try them for a week or two. You can
> get a good workout in 4 minutes. You just have to spend at least 20
> minutes lying on the ground recovering afterward.

4 minutes of heavy DL or SQ singles could be pretty serious workout, and
4 minutes of alternating singles in the TGU is a good workout - I can
attest to that one from personal experience. 4 minutes of heavy bent
presses would be another one. All such that a new rep could be started
every 15-30 seconds or so and you'd get between 8 and 16 reps done in
your 4:00.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

On 23 Oct 2006 08:46:08 -0700, "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

>a $1000 bike is not $1000 because of material costs. rather than the
>statement 'you can buy the same thing cheaper but the materials are not
>as good', a more accurate statement would be 'you can buy something
>cheaper with the same materials, but the build / design / marketing
>isn't as good' would be a much more accurate statement. aluminum and
>carbon fiber aren't really that expensive.

Not according to the people riding the bikes. Tell them the cheaper
bike is only cheaper because of marketing.

>> Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to build.
>
>i'd say you're on crack. ;D

As opposed to your estimate. Oh wait you didn't give one did you. I
guess that makes mine closer than yours.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:12:31 -0600, Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com>
wrote:

>Thanks to an earlier discussion on the ROM I have the ROM promotional
>DVD. It looks to me as if this thing is made primarily from stainless
>steel.

Than why would they charge so much? It can't cost more than a few
hundred dollars to build. They could slap one together in few hours.

Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> writes:

> On 23 Oct 2006 08:46:08 -0700, "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>>a $1000 bike is not $1000 because of material costs. rather than
>>the statement 'you can buy the same thing cheaper but the materials
>>are not as good', a more accurate statement would be 'you can buy
>>something cheaper with the same materials, but the build / design /
>>marketing isn't as good' would be a much more accurate statement.
>>aluminum and carbon fiber aren't really that expensive.
>
> Not according to the people riding the bikes. Tell them the cheaper
> bike is only cheaper because of marketing.

Engineering is worth money and can definitely make a difference.
However, there is no question that marketing becomes more expensive
the more "niche" a product becomes. Just because the rubes paying the
money think that the more expensive bike is "worth it" doesn't mean
that the materials (or even the engineering) is substantially
different.

>>> Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to
>>> build.
>>
>>i'd say you're on crack. ;D
>
> As opposed to your estimate. Oh wait you didn't give one did you.
> I guess that makes mine closer than yours.

You can buy a new car (albeit a small one) at retail prices for $8K.
The ROM is nothing more than a flywheel and some levers. I can't
imagine that it takes more than $1000 per machine to manufacture.

Jason

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:49:53 -0600, Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com>
wrote:

>You can buy a new car (albeit a small one) at retail prices for $8K.
>The ROM is nothing more than a flywheel and some levers. I can't
>imagine that it takes more than $1000 per machine to manufacture.
>
>Jason

Not if it is standard materials. I was thinking more along the lines
of new state of the art metals which are either expensive or have a
lot of invested research. Even a small shop should be able to build
it for less than that with standard materials. The whole thing sounds
flaky to me. I wouldn't buy one.

Shute wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2006 08:46:08 -0700, "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> >a $1000 bike is not $1000 because of material costs. rather than the
> >statement 'you can buy the same thing cheaper but the materials are not
> >as good', a more accurate statement would be 'you can buy something
> >cheaper with the same materials, but the build / design / marketing
> >isn't as good' would be a much more accurate statement. aluminum and
> >carbon fiber aren't really that expensive.
>
> Not according to the people riding the bikes. Tell them the cheaper
> bike is only cheaper because of marketing.

ahh, you ARE on crack. ;D
1- the 'people riding the bikes' generally have no idea, so what you
tell them doesn't really matter.
2- i didn't say it was 'only cheaper because of marketing' (although
that is undoubtedly true in some cases)- i said cheaper due to build /
design / marketing. the build quality can have a lot to do with it-
good labor, proper q/a, and consistency is expensive. design is
important too, as good r&d engineering can be expensive (but a lot of
the cheaper products - while perfectly good products, don't have this
expense, because they're knockoffs of designs that makes use of the
good engineering).

> >> Based solely on the price I would say it costs them $8000 to build.
> >
> >i'd say you're on crack. ;D
>
> As opposed to your estimate. Oh wait you didn't give one did you. I
> guess that makes mine closer than yours.

nope, my estimate that you're on crack is MUCH closer than you're
estimate that this thing costs $8k to build. there's no way this thing
costs more than a few hundred bucks in materials, unless it's fur
trimmed and comes w/ a gold plated flywheel.

Shute wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:49:53 -0600, Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You can buy a new car (albeit a small one) at retail prices for $8K.
> >The ROM is nothing more than a flywheel and some levers. I can't
> >imagine that it takes more than $1000 per machine to manufacture.
> >
> >Jason
>
> Not if it is standard materials. I was thinking more along the lines
> of new state of the art metals which are either expensive or have a
> lot of invested research.

what 'state of the art materials' do you imagine might be in that
thing? or even simpler, what state of the art materials would justify
that cost/

<snip>

Shute wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:12:31 -0600, Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks to an earlier discussion on the ROM I have the ROM promotional
> >DVD. It looks to me as if this thing is made primarily from stainless
> >steel.
>
> Than why would they charge so much?

duh- because they can.

> It can't cost more than a few
> hundred dollars to build.

that's only relevant if they're trying to sell it as cheap as possible.

> They could slap one together in few hours.

Dnia 2006-10-23 Shute napisa³(a):
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:49:53 -0600, Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You can buy a new car (albeit a small one) at retail prices for $8K.
>>The ROM is nothing more than a flywheel and some levers. I can't
>>imagine that it takes more than $1000 per machine to manufacture.
>>
>>Jason
>
> Not if it is standard materials. I was thinking more along the lines
> of new state of the art metals

Like unobtanium?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-10-23 Steve Freides napisa³(a):
> "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:87lkn7ez28.fsf@workhorse.earlhome...
>>
>> Google for Tabata Intervals and try them for a week or two. You can
>> get a good workout in 4 minutes. You just have to spend at least 20
>> minutes lying on the ground recovering afterward.
>
> 4 minutes of heavy DL or SQ singles could be pretty serious workout, and
> 4 minutes of alternating singles in the TGU is a good workout - I can
> attest to that one from personal experience. 4 minutes of heavy bent
> presses would be another one. All such that a new rep could be started
> every 15-30 seconds or so and you'd get between 8 and 16 reps done in
> your 4:00.

Weren't you afraid it'll make you fluffy? Or maybe singles are so
magic that even if one does 16 of them in 4min time they promote no
fluff?

;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Leap of Faith, which is really needed as their publicity says to accept a
clear stupidity. Engineers and other professionals evidently unwilling to
close totally their trained mind. Where there is no reason, believers will
provide enough suckers to pay a lot for an other "Sting". Their
specification is a Mickey-Mouse drawing. I have to laugh loud on those who
fall into this transparent trap.


<d wells> wrote in message
news:iaaoj2lctbau7i53616t6kmr2msnic9qnp@4ax.com...
>I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
> a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
> you in a dream.
>
> It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>
> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>
> I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm no
> expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
>
> What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing? Wouldn't
> it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit than it is
> to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
>
> I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
> walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
> as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
> recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That part
> of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a track
> several times before returning a mile back.).
>
> Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
> build?
>
> I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
> Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
> Shrimp? Fosters?).
>
> I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of those
> things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for the parts
> needed to build one.

You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher level.
It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself deliver
on them.
It likely provides a base-line level of fitness for some portion of an
affluent group who might not even be able to motivate themselves to do
*that* much, without having spent $15 K.
But, even w/ these peeple, the novelty will wear off, and they'll have to
look for new promises elsewhere.
But the EQ (Elitist Quotient) is way up there.

Does *far less* than a simple jog, a little lifting, and a few calisthenics
would do.

If it's hand-made, they may need to charge that much. If the components are
high-quality, like on custom bikes, w/ custom machining, it's possible that
the profit on such a unit at that price is not really excessive.
Still doesn't justify it.
Costs about $1200 or so just to try the thing out on a trial basis.
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Ever-preparing for The Grand Insertion
Party Nominee, IPPVM
Independent Party of the Proctologically Violated®© (M)asses
"That's proly not a hemorrhoid you're feeling.... "
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"savonfort" <savonfort@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:ave0h.5717$eo1.108255@weber.videotron.net...
> Leap of Faith, which is really needed as their publicity says to accept a
> clear stupidity. Engineers and other professionals evidently unwilling to
> close totally their trained mind. Where there is no reason, believers will
> provide enough suckers to pay a lot for an other "Sting". Their
> specification is a Mickey-Mouse drawing. I have to laugh loud on those who
> fall into this transparent trap.
>
>
> <d wells> wrote in message
> news:iaaoj2lctbau7i53616t6kmr2msnic9qnp@4ax.com...
>>I know you've seen this thing somewhere. Maybe you were on the can at
>> a friend's house looking through Discovery Magazine. Maybe it came to
>> you in a dream.
>>
>> It's the ROM Bike that offers a 4-minute workout. It cost $14,615.
>>
>> http://www.fastexercise.com/
>>
>> I don't want one. I find it hard to believe the claims -- but, I'm no
>> expert (as I've explained in other posts.)
>>
>> What I wonder is ... what does it cost to build this thing? Wouldn't
>> it be better to sell 1 million of these guys at $500 profit than it is
>> to sell, crap, I don't know, 1000 at $14,000 profit?
>>
>> I read a bit of the web site. I was pleased to learn that the 4-mile
>> walk I take most nights of the week (15-minute pace) actually counts
>> as an acceptable cardio vascular workout. I was doing it for simple
>> recreation (And to keep my finger on the pulse of the city. That part
>> of the pulse that is about a mile away and then goes around a track
>> several times before returning a mile back.).
>>
>> Anyway, does anybody have a guess about what this thing costs to
>> build?
>>
>> I'm willing to hear guesses in American and Canadian Dollars. British
>> Pounds. Euros. Whatever it is the Aussies use (Australian Dollars?
>> Shrimp? Fosters?).
>>
>> I'd also be interested in knowing, if you wanted to build one of those
>> things, how many hunting dogs or 9MM Glocks you'd trade for the parts
>> needed to build one.
>
>

"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote in
message news:VKK0h.688$n47.411@newsfe12.lga...
> You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher level.
> It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself
> deliver on them.

Is an 'inneresting' theory anything like an 'outeresting' theory"

[.....]

I am flerting w/ regionally fonetic postings.
Good or bad idear?
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Ever-preparing for The Grand Insertion
Party Nominee, IPPVM
Independent Party of the Proctologically Violated®© (M)asses
"That's proly not a hemorrhoid you're feeling.... "
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:45446fa3$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote
> in message news:VKK0h.688$n47.411@newsfe12.lga...
>> You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher level.
>> It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself
>> deliver on them.
>
> Is an 'inneresting' theory anything like an 'outeresting' theory"
>
> [.....]
>

"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote in
message news:qT51h.29026$Xp2.22769@newsfe10.lga...
>I am flerting w/ regionally fonetic postings.
> Good or bad idear?

Inneresting you should say that. The flaw is that the "t" in interesting is
not silent. So if you actually pronounced the "t" you would be 'fonetic' -
so it's a bad idear

--
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
> Ever-preparing for The Grand Insertion
> Party Nominee, IPPVM
> Independent Party of the Proctologically Violated®© (M)asses
> "That's proly not a hemorrhoid you're feeling.... "
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45446fa3$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote
>> in message news:VKK0h.688$n47.411@newsfe12.lga...
>>> You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher level.
>>> It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself
>>> deliver on them.
>>
>> Is an 'inneresting' theory anything like an 'outeresting' theory"
>>
>> [.....]
>>
>
>

Ahh, but you err--
In *regional* fonetics, you account for the regional slop in language:
To wit, correck, objeck, ax (as in to ax a Q), ekc.
Very often, t's and d' are omitted.
Unnerstand?

But here's a dialectical linguistic brain-teaser for you:
In NYC areas, a la Archie Bunker in working-class Queens, "terlet" means
"toilet", BUT "woik" means "work".
Similarly, "idear" is "idea", BUT "sistuh" is "sister".
I unnerstand dialects, but these opposing reversals, if you will, seem
comtrarian, even, parden my paranoia, spiteful.

Iny idears??
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
to Materially Improve Your Life: Stop Corruption in Congress,
Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, for *Anyone BUT* a Democrat or a Republican
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4545b5ae$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote
> in message news:qT51h.29026$Xp2.22769@newsfe10.lga...
>>I am flerting w/ regionally fonetic postings.
>> Good or bad idear?
>
> Inneresting you should say that. The flaw is that the "t" in interesting
> is not silent. So if you actually pronounced the "t" you would be
> 'fonetic' - so it's a bad idear
>
> --
>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>> Ever-preparing for The Grand Insertion
>> Party Nominee, IPPVM
>> Independent Party of the Proctologically Violated®© (M)asses
>> "That's proly not a hemorrhoid you're feeling.... "
>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>> reply--ie, all d'numbuhs
>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:45446fa3$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>
>>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
>>> wrote in message news:VKK0h.688$n47.411@newsfe12.lga...
>>>> You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher
>>>> level.
>>>> It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself
>>>> deliver on them.
>>>
>>> Is an 'inneresting' theory anything like an 'outeresting' theory"
>>>
>>> [.....]
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote in
message news:hso1h.1684$Jh4.695@newsfe08.lga...
> Ahh, but you err--
> In *regional* fonetics, you account for the regional slop in language:
> To wit, correck, objeck, ax (as in to ax a Q), ekc.
> Very often, t's and d' are omitted.
> Unnerstand?
>
> But here's a dialectical linguistic brain-teaser for you:
> In NYC areas, a la Archie Bunker in working-class Queens, "terlet" means
> "toilet", BUT "woik" means "work".
> Similarly, "idear" is "idea", BUT "sistuh" is "sister".
> I unnerstand dialects, but these opposing reversals, if you will, seem
> comtrarian, even, parden my paranoia, spiteful.
>
> Iny idears??

Yes, let's forget the whole fuckin' thing!

> --
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
> to Materially Improve Your Life: Stop Corruption in Congress,
> Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, for *Anyone BUT* a Democrat or a Republican
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4545b5ae$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote
>> in message news:qT51h.29026$Xp2.22769@newsfe10.lga...
>>>I am flerting w/ regionally fonetic postings.
>>> Good or bad idear?
>>
>> Inneresting you should say that. The flaw is that the "t" in interesting
>> is not silent. So if you actually pronounced the "t" you would be
>> 'fonetic' - so it's a bad idear
>>
>> --
>>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>> Ever-preparing for The Grand Insertion
>>> Party Nominee, IPPVM
>>> Independent Party of the Proctologically Violated®© (M)asses
>>> "That's proly not a hemorrhoid you're feeling.... "
>>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>> reply--ie, all d'numbuhs
>>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:45446fa3$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>>
>>>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
>>>> wrote in message news:VKK0h.688$n47.411@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>> You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher
>>>>> level.
>>>>> It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself
>>>>> deliver on them.
>>>>
>>>> Is an 'inneresting' theory anything like an 'outeresting' theory"
>>>>
>>>> [.....]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Sheeeeiit....
Ahm thinkin you was my last hope....
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, for *Anyone BUT* a Democrat or a Republican
Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
to Materially Improve Your Life
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:45461c73$0$14299$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote
> in message news:hso1h.1684$Jh4.695@newsfe08.lga...
>> Ahh, but you err--
>> In *regional* fonetics, you account for the regional slop in language:
>> To wit, correck, objeck, ax (as in to ax a Q), ekc.
>> Very often, t's and d' are omitted.
>> Unnerstand?
>>
>> But here's a dialectical linguistic brain-teaser for you:
>> In NYC areas, a la Archie Bunker in working-class Queens, "terlet" means
>> "toilet", BUT "woik" means "work".
>> Similarly, "idear" is "idea", BUT "sistuh" is "sister".
>> I unnerstand dialects, but these opposing reversals, if you will, seem
>> comtrarian, even, parden my paranoia, spiteful.
>>
>> Iny idears??
>
> Yes, let's forget the whole fuckin' thing!
>
>> --
>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>> Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
>> to Materially Improve Your Life: Stop Corruption in Congress,
>> Send the Ultimate Message:
>> Absolutely Vote, for *Anyone BUT* a Democrat or a Republican
>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>> reply--ie, all d'numbuhs
>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4545b5ae$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>
>>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
>>> wrote in message news:qT51h.29026$Xp2.22769@newsfe10.lga...
>>>>I am flerting w/ regionally fonetic postings.
>>>> Good or bad idear?
>>>
>>> Inneresting you should say that. The flaw is that the "t" in interesting
>>> is not silent. So if you actually pronounced the "t" you would be
>>> 'fonetic' - so it's a bad idear
>>>
>>> --
>>>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>>> Ever-preparing for The Grand Insertion
>>>> Party Nominee, IPPVM
>>>> Independent Party of the Proctologically Violated®© (M)asses
>>>> "That's proly not a hemorrhoid you're feeling.... "
>>>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>>> reply--ie, all d'numbuhs
>>>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:45446fa3$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
>>>>> wrote in message news:VKK0h.688$n47.411@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>>> You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher
>>>>>> level.
>>>>>> It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself
>>>>>> deliver on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is an 'inneresting' theory anything like an 'outeresting' theory"
>>>>>
>>>>> [.....]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote in
message news:3bp1h.4$0j7.2@newsfe08.lga...
> Sheeeeiit....
> Ahm thinkin you was my last hope....
> --

I know zackly what you mean - it's jus' my momma taught me bout nunciation!

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, for *Anyone BUT* a Democrat or a Republican
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
> to Materially Improve Your Life
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45461c73$0$14299$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote
>> in message news:hso1h.1684$Jh4.695@newsfe08.lga...
>>> Ahh, but you err--
>>> In *regional* fonetics, you account for the regional slop in language:
>>> To wit, correck, objeck, ax (as in to ax a Q), ekc.
>>> Very often, t's and d' are omitted.
>>> Unnerstand?
>>>
>>> But here's a dialectical linguistic brain-teaser for you:
>>> In NYC areas, a la Archie Bunker in working-class Queens, "terlet" means
>>> "toilet", BUT "woik" means "work".
>>> Similarly, "idear" is "idea", BUT "sistuh" is "sister".
>>> I unnerstand dialects, but these opposing reversals, if you will, seem
>>> comtrarian, even, parden my paranoia, spiteful.
>>>
>>> Iny idears??
>>
>> Yes, let's forget the whole fuckin' thing!
>>
>>> --
>>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>> Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
>>> to Materially Improve Your Life: Stop Corruption in Congress,
>>> Send the Ultimate Message:
>>> Absolutely Vote, for *Anyone BUT* a Democrat or a Republican
>>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>> reply--ie, all d'numbuhs
>>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4545b5ae$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>>
>>>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
>>>> wrote in message news:qT51h.29026$Xp2.22769@newsfe10.lga...
>>>>>I am flerting w/ regionally fonetic postings.
>>>>> Good or bad idear?
>>>>
>>>> Inneresting you should say that. The flaw is that the "t" in
>>>> interesting is not silent. So if you actually pronounced the "t" you
>>>> would be 'fonetic' - so it's a bad idear
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>>>> Ever-preparing for The Grand Insertion
>>>>> Party Nominee, IPPVM
>>>>> Independent Party of the Proctologically Violated®© (M)asses
>>>>> "That's proly not a hemorrhoid you're feeling.... "
>>>>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>>>> reply--ie, all d'numbuhs
>>>>> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45446fa3$0$5105$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
>>>>>> wrote in message news:VKK0h.688$n47.411@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>>>> You have the Gazelle, then you have the ROM--a hustle on a higher
>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>> It actually hints at some inneresting theories, but does not itself
>>>>>>> deliver on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is an 'inneresting' theory anything like an 'outeresting' theory"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [.....]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>