bar-end shifters



On 18 Jan 2006 19:36:43 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> It's pretty clear that many people -- esp casual riders -- want more
>> comfort on their bikes. That's one reason large tired bikes have
>> become widely more popular in comparison to the more narrow-tired
>> "racing bikes" that were pushed (via marketing) in the 70s and 80s.
>> Marketing can push some things, but unless the things are appropriate
>> for the user, the popularity will wane over time. (Biopace, drillium,
>> aero brake calipers, etc, etc. are examples) Whether suspension forks
>> are well-executed at low price points is another issue but their
>> popularity is a response to consumer desires.
>>
>> I don't think many casual riders care much about riding in the rain or
>> on very wet roads -- full-size fenders haven't been popular for
>> adult-sized bikes in the US for my lifetime or maybe more (40 years?
>> ever?) and recent forks dont' have much to do with that.
>>
>> Tim -- now it's time for you to try to get the last word in.

>
>Can I have his turn?
>
>Your idea seems to be that what's on the market is there because people
>want it, and what's not on the market is absent because people don't
>want it.


Not exactly. THings that persist in the market are desired. Some
things are marketed heavily, sell for awhile, and then fade because
they're really not so good.


>
>I think it's more common that people are _told_ what they should want,
>and then believe it. It's a fashion thing. And fashion is driven, at
>least in America, by the racing image.




>Biopace is derided these days... um, except by the friend of mine who
>claimed they saved his knees and still searches for them. And by this
>guy Sheldon Brown, whom you may have heard of, and who says the racer
>crowd drove them out of fashion. (Sheldon's got a reputation for
>knowledge, you may recall.)
>
>Aero brake calipers are out of fashion. Does it mean they didn't work?
> Not exactly. Sure, the aero advantages were minute and negligible,
>but the significant "disadvantage" was probably that Shimano had
>something else it wanted to be "in style."


Dura Ace AX didnt' stop so. Neither did Dia Compe AGC..... Delta was
far worse.

> Remember the ancient car
>ads from the 1950s? "Wouldn't you rather have _this_ year's model?"


>Regarding the suspension forks on road bikes: People don't want
>suspension forks per se. They want comfort.


I think I said that.

>There are far better ways
>to get comfort on a bike than by fastening a lot of bouncy metal to the
>front wheel.


> But people aren't going to bother to learn about things
>like proper fit, tire sizes, handlebar styles, etc. that could solve
>their "problem" simply and effectively.


Yeah, I know, you and I are the smart ones who know how to do it
right, unlike the masses who haven't learned what's right for them.

Suspension + big tires seems to me what people want. We both bikes
with both on the road.

>Suspension forks for road bikes and STI are much alike, in my view.
>They both fit that last paragraph perfectly.


If by road bikes you mean narrow-tire road bikes with suspension
forks, then yeah, that's a waste. Do they actually sell? I know
they've been "marketed." Will they actually be on the market for
long? Will they take over like STI did? Hmm. Why is one thing really
prevalent and the other not? Could it have something to do with real
function? Just a thought.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On 18 Jan 2006 19:36:43 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Biopace is derided these days... um, except by the friend of mine who
>claimed they saved his knees and still searches for them. And by this
>guy Sheldon Brown, whom you may have heard of, and who says the racer
>crowd drove them out of fashion.


I don't understand your point. Are you saying that a large number of
consumers not liking a product and letting other people know that is a
form of marketing? I thought marketing was something companies did to
sell a product. But because users didn't like a product and letting
that be known, it's marketing and somehow wrong or unjust? Was the
racers dislike of the product somehow promoted or catalyzed by a
company, the way you imply support for STI was?

I may be mistating what you mean, but I don't understand it. Who did
this?

Was it a plot by Shimano to get everyone to buy new chainrings -- sell
em round, then sell em unround then switch back to round? That seems
strange, since I recall reading info from Shimano about how great the
product was, and interviews with their head sales guy saying how great
it was. I never read any info from them to turn people against the
product, or even marketing from other companies deriding the product.
Just saw very little uptake other than OEM stuff.

Can you explain what your point is with this example?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2006 19:36:43 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Biopace is derided these days... um, except by the friend of mine who
> >claimed they saved his knees and still searches for them. And by this
> >guy Sheldon Brown, whom you may have heard of, and who says the racer
> >crowd drove them out of fashion.

>
> I don't understand your point. Are you saying that a large number of
> consumers not liking a product and letting other people know that is a
> form of marketing? I thought marketing was something companies did to
> sell a product. But because users didn't like a product and letting
> that be known, it's marketing and somehow wrong or unjust? Was the
> racers dislike of the product somehow promoted or catalyzed by a
> company, the way you imply support for STI was?
>
> I may be mistating what you mean, but I don't understand it. Who did
> this?
>
> Was it a plot by Shimano to get everyone to buy new chainrings -- sell
> em round, then sell em unround then switch back to round? That seems
> strange, since I recall reading info from Shimano about how great the
> product was, and interviews with their head sales guy saying how great
> it was. I never read any info from them to turn people against the
> product, or even marketing from other companies deriding the product.
> Just saw very little uptake other than OEM stuff.
>
> Can you explain what your point is with this example?


Actually, you're right; it wasn't company marketing. Instead, it was
the voice of the racing contingent, spread through Buycycling and Velo
News, etc.

My point with that example was that racing drives bike fashion in the
US to an inappropriate degree.

And overall, consumers don't research or think much about what might
actually be best for them. They make their decisions based on
fashion.

(Like the portly fellow I saw entering a local shop a couple months
ago, determined to get a bike "exactly like Lance rides." )

- Frank Krygowski
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> If by road bikes you mean narrow-tire road bikes with suspension
> forks, then yeah, that's a waste. Do they actually sell? I know
> they've been "marketed." Will they actually be on the market for
> long? Will they take over like STI did? Hmm. Why is one thing really
> prevalent and the other not? Could it have something to do with real
> function? Just a thought.
>


The issue with road bikes is that often they follow racing, and racers
will spend $500 on a seatpost that is 4g lighter then a $5 seatpost. So
a heavy suspension isn't going to sell in racing and therefore will not
do well with road bikes either. This is precisely why fenders fell out
of favour in the 1970's, because racers didn't want the weight.

Other countries do it differently, in Holland for example the typical
bike is a commuter bike, very different from a racer or an MTB.

W
 
On 18 Jan 2006 21:27:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:


>Actually, you're right; it wasn't company marketing. Instead, it was
>the voice of the racing contingent, spread through Buycycling and Velo
>News, etc.


You use the word "Buycycling" but if it didn't have to do with
"buying" and selling, isn't it possible that the writers for those
magazines, like other cyclists, simply didn't find the product to be
any good? Certainly their writing against the product (which I don't
recall reading in VeloNews BTW; I didn't read Bicycling much) seems to
be contrary to any marketing interests (selling ads so consumers buy
things).

>
>My point with that example was that racing drives bike fashion in the
>US to an inappropriate degree.


Let me get this straight. A product doesn't work well for most
riders. Racers spot the flaw in the product first -- despite the
product being specced on bikes and advertised. And the backlash
against the flawed product is considered by you to be a "fashion." I
think we should consider it to be an evaluation of the product.

And then, beause some small number of users (your friend who preferred
the Biopace) can blame racers for that. Or the implicit "marketing"
that racer's decisions make. That's pretty contrived. The simple
fact is that Biopace, like bar-ends today, are a niche product that
works better for a small or very small number of users. If you want
to complain about something, complain about the relatively small
number of manufacturs such that niche products aren't sold more --
don't claim it's fashion and marketing that drive products that don't
work so well for most people out of use.

I think you're over-emphasizing the impact of racers on product. Yes,
the demands of racing may drive innovation and help get new products
recognized, but I don't believe that marketing that use can sustain
things that don't work well.


>And overall, consumers don't research or
> think much about what might
>actually be best for them. They make their
> decisions based on
>fashion.


I dont' see how your friend who likes biopace would have stumbled upon
it withot the company at least advertising it a little or speccing it
on some products. But it seems to me that if someone chooses something
that you don't like so much, it's due to fashion, and if it's
something that you think works well, it's due to evaluation or
research. Interesting.

>(Like the portly fellow I saw
> entering a local shop a couple months
>ago, determined to get a bike "exactly like Lance rides." )


Sound to me he wants to try athletic cycling, in which case a racing
Trek is not a bad thing at all.

And I've had friends ask me about bikes and say "I just want it for
riding around -- I don't want a racing bike."

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>I did not. All that is necessary to explode your ridiculous hyberbole is
>>"more than 10%", and that's a result. Perhaps if you confine yourself
>>to more sensible predictions you'll get better answers in future.

>You don't mind if I check up on you, do you?


Feel free. The Reading CTC rides normally start on Sunday mornings between
0915 and 1000.

>Once again, how much over 10% was it?


Ah, ah, not so fast. See, what you don't want to do is to pull another
figure out of thin air and have me knock that one down too; you're trying
to avoid admitting that actually you have no idea at all.

So on balance I think I'll keep the numbers to myself, just in case you're
tempted to produce any more guesses. After all, it doesn't matter how much
over 10% it was to make you wrong, wrong, wrong...
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, January.
 
Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
>>>>>"Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
>>>>>imagine.
>>>>The most recent bike they tested in VBQ was a 2005 Weigle randonneur
>>>>and they gave it top marks- the equal of Rene Herse or Alex Singer.
>>>>And it had Ergo.
>>>Gasp! A brifter setup? Oh, my....

>>Oh, my, my "name" is JJ and I am trying to weasel out of admitting I was
>>flat wrong about VBQ. Ooops!

>The fact that this vintage cycling mag tested an '05 bike doesn't change Mr.
>Heine's well known penchant for ancient equipment.


Tested an '05 bike and gave it top marks.

And is his penchant "well known"? The reason you produced for justifying
the idea that he values old equipment because it is old is that he edits
and publishes "Vintage Bicycle Quarterly".

But wait! They tested an '05 bike and gave it top marks. So your
inference about Mr. Heine doesn't _really_ hold up. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, January.
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dane Buson <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Maybe we could veer into a discussion of wool vs. synthetic jerseys,
>> perhaps with a detour into clinchers vs. tubulars.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be fun! No?

>
> It's hard to find any commuter/hybrid/practical bikes
> with rigid forks anymore.


True. I'm building up a 26" grocery bike, and I did manage to
find an old steel rigid fork frame I could work with. The worst
part of it is that almost everything I have is for 700c, so I don't
have a plethora of spare parts like I would if I was building up a
road bike.

> Those cheap-o RST suspension
> forks must be superior. Everybody wants them. Their
> ubiquitousness is solely due to the market responding to
> the clamour of popular demand, because everybody knows
> they're way better than rigid forks on a city bike.
> Especially if you want/need to install fenders.


Who'd want fenders? You'd only want them if you're some sorta fredly
retrogrouch POB excuse for a human bean.

> (I'm a bad man too :) )


You are. Not that I'm wearing any halos myself.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"The flattening of underwear with pleasure is the job of
the chambermaid."
-In a Yugoslavian Hotel
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dane Buson <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
>> precipitate.

>
> Dang, I like that!


Feel free to blame my wife for that one, she's the chemistry/biology
geek in the household. Biology was always too *squishy* for me, I
prefer the gentle sussuration of electrons coursing through copper.

> Heck, there's enough noise already and probably not a danged thing
> worth reading in the past 10 days. Everybody's entrenched in their
> viewpoints and that's that.


True. There's been bits and pieces of sense in it (mainly at the
beginning). Unfortunately now the trenches are dug, the concertina wire
is rolled out for the honorable gentleman approaching and the 120mm
artillery has been adjusted as a courtesy detail.

>> Maybe we could veer into a discussion of wool vs. synthetic jerseys,
>> perhaps with a detour into clinchers vs. tubulars.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be fun! No?

>
> Another time, perhaps?


Hmmm, not even a waifer thin mint? Tut, tut. I'm dissappointed. Ah well,
I'll wile away my time trying to figure out what the correct BB length is
for this mystery MTB crank set I picked up (cheap). The chainrings are in
pretty decent condition, but most of the marks on the arm have been rubbed
off. Just a '200' left on it.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"The GOP is the evil party, the Democrats are the stupid party, and
bipartisanship is when they join forces to do something both evil and stupid."
- Stephen Johnson
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bwaaahahaha....! Please quote me. Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't
>>>> have the time. So do please continue to make it up as you go
>>>> along. It's a real *timesaver* for you.
>>>
>>> Heh. Why should I bother, JJ? I don't for a moment think that you
>>> are going to learn from having your own words quoted back to you,
>>> if you didn't get it when you wrote them.

>>
>> Why should you? It's more like "Why should you not?" Because it will
>> show how you continually revise what others write.

>
> Fortunately foe me, JJ, your words need no revision. Funny though
> that you keep complaining that everyone who disagrees with you is
> twisting your words, but you offer no proof of that claim. Perhaps
> there is some disconnection between what you think you mean and what
> you actually write. Of perhaps it is a convenient way to try to put
> the attention off your your lame arguments and to try to make the
> thread about something else.
>
>>>>> and pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."
>>>>
>>>> It was obvious so why are you complaining? Or you just don't get
>>>> itt?
>>>
>>> LOL! I suppose it's just too tempting, you know? All those easy
>>> targets.

>>
>> No, more like you don't get it.

>
> What I get, JJ, is that for you brifters are the better choice. And
> you are so convinced they are the better choice that you think they
> are the better choice for almost everyone, the half-dozen "grouches"
> being the exceptions. LOL!
>
> In point of fact, there is no argument. There is no disagreement of
> fact on which to base an argument. Yet you go on acting like there
> is. That's what you don't get. Got it now? :)


Then you agree that bar ends are not as efficient for me, myself, to shift.
Finally.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bwaaahahaha....! Please quote me. Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't
>>>> have the time. So do please continue to make it up as you go
>>>> along. It's a real *timesaver* for you.
>>>
>>> Heh. Why should I bother, JJ? I don't for a moment think that you
>>> are going to learn from having your own words quoted back to you,
>>> if you didn't get it when you wrote them.

>>
>> Why should you? It's more like "Why should you not?" Because it will
>> show how you continually revise what others write.

>
> Fortunately foe me, JJ, your words need no revision. Funny though
> that you keep complaining that everyone who disagrees with you is
> twisting your words, but you offer no proof of that claim. Perhaps
> there is some disconnection between what you think you mean and what
> you actually write. Of perhaps it is a convenient way to try to put
> the attention off your your lame arguments and to try to make the
> thread about something else.
>
>>>>> and pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."
>>>>
>>>> It was obvious so why are you complaining? Or you just don't get
>>>> itt?
>>>
>>> LOL! I suppose it's just too tempting, you know? All those easy
>>> targets.

>>
>> No, more like you don't get it.

>
> What I get, JJ, is that for you brifters are the better choice. And
> you are so convinced they are the better choice that you think they
> are the better choice for almost everyone, the half-dozen "grouches"
> being the exceptions. LOL!


Sure, please post where I presented that premise. What's amazing is that
Planet Bar Con thinks that the unknowledgable brifter users are misguided
because they have never exposed to bar cons, hence they haven't "seen the
light." Whereas "traitors" to the bar con movement, must have something
wrong with them.


> In point of fact, there is no argument. There is no disagreement of
> fact on which to base an argument. Yet you go on acting like there
> is. That's what you don't get. Got it now? :)
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:tSz*[email protected]...
>>
>>> Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
>>>>>>"Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
>>>>>>imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>>The most recent bike they tested in VBQ was a 2005 Weigle
>>>>>randonneur and they gave it top marks- the equal of Rene Herse or
>>>>>Alex Singer. And it had Ergo.
>>>>
>>>>Gasp! A brifter setup? Oh, my....
>>>
>>> Oh, my, my "name" is JJ and I am trying to weasel out of admitting
>>> I was flat wrong about VBQ. Ooops!

>>
>> The fact that this vintage cycling mag tested an '05 bike doesn't
>> change Mr. Heine's well known penchant for ancient equipment.

>
> And you remain wrong still. Nice to know some things in the universe
> are constant, eh? It's reassuring somehow.


Just because you say so makes the Editor of a vintage bike mag, who also
uses vintage equipment on just about all his rides, not a proponent of
vintage biking parts. Sure, I got that and very *logical*.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>
>
> Let me get this straight. A product doesn't work well for most
> riders. Racers spot the flaw in the product first -- despite the
> product being specced on bikes and advertised. And the backlash
> against the flawed product is considered by you to be a "fashion." I
> think we should consider it to be an evaluation of the product.


But it's an evaluation of the product for racing uses. Racing
evaluations are not necesarily appropriate for non-racing uses, but in
the American cycling scene, it's often assumed that what's best for
racing is best for all uses.

Other examples are super-close-clearance frames, very low handlebar
heights, stupid-light components, wheels with proprietary spokes,
super-narrow tires.

> >And overall, consumers don't research or
> > think much about what might
> >actually be best for them. They make their
> > decisions based on
> >fashion.

>
> I dont' see how your friend who likes biopace would have stumbled upon
> it withot the company at least advertising it a little or speccing it
> on some products. But it seems to me that if someone chooses something
> that you don't like so much, it's due to fashion, and if it's
> something that you think works well, it's due to evaluation or
> research. Interesting.


Biopace was specified equipment on quite a few bikes back in its day.
And it was promoted and advertised. There's no problem with that.

The problem comes when the specification, promotion or evaluation are
done inappropriately. Sure, that's a matter of judgement - but I'm
among those who prefer to examine benefits and detriments, and do that
for the use the bike actually sees. I see lots of times that's not
done.

As an example, there are lots of folks who say that anything lighter is
automatically better - despite being more fragile, more expensive,
impossible to repair, incompatible with most existing equipment, etc.
For someone who's not trying to get to the finish line first, and who
will keep a bike more than five years, such equipment is not a good
thing. And the other example, says Sheldon, is racers saying "But you
can't spin Biopace at 100 rpm," as if nobody rides at less than 100
rpm. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html

>
> >(Like the portly fellow I saw
> > entering a local shop a couple months
> >ago, determined to get a bike "exactly like Lance rides." )

>
> Sound to me he wants to try athletic cycling, in which case a racing
> Trek is not a bad thing at all.


You'd have to have seen the guy. I doubt he could have cleared his
belly to be able to reach the low bars. And given his girth, a light
bike with light wheels (and our potholes) seems like a losing
proposition. In fact, I'd propose he do the losing around his middle.


My bet is that he took the bike out twice, maybe three times after he
bought it, and won't do much with it at all. A bike with friendlier
riding position and a little more ruggedness would have suited him
better.

Admittedly, I don't know his story. Perhaps he's a collector and never
rides any bikes. Perhaps he has two other bikes and he got this one as
a motivational reward for the weight he plans to lose. But taking the
transaction at face value, it certainly looked like a bad match to me,
a decision made for the wrong reason.

- Frank Krygowski
 
"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> Then you agree that bar ends are not as efficient for me, myself, to
> shift. Finally.


I've agreed with you on this time and time and time again, JJ. I
don't know how you missed it.

This horse flat enough for you yet?
 
On 19 Jan 2006 14:28:51 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me get this straight. A product doesn't work well for most
>> riders. Racers spot the flaw in the product first -- despite the
>> product being specced on bikes and advertised. And the backlash
>> against the flawed product is considered by you to be a "fashion." I
>> think we should consider it to be an evaluation of the product.

>
>But it's an evaluation of the product for racing uses. Racing
>evaluations are not necesarily appropriate for non-racing uses, but in
>the American cycling scene, it's often assumed that what's best for
>racing is best for all uses.
>
>Other examples are super-close-clearance frames, very low handlebar
>heights, stupid-light components, wheels with proprietary spokes,
>super-narrow tires.


And you're saying that that determines what people buy? I see lots
more hybrids and mountain bikes bought where I live. The athletic
cyclists buy racing stuff even if they're not going to race, but I
don't see what's wrong with that.

It's quite bizarre to me that you seem to claim that two products that
don't sell well do so because of some sort of racing/marketing
influence that keeps them off the market -- bar ends and biopace --
rather than because riders simply want something else. What about
stuff that you think is useful - say fat tires for road use? I assume
that stuff succeeds *in spite of* the racer/marketing. Seems pretty
selective causality there.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Then you agree that bar ends are not as efficient for me, myself, to
> > shift. Finally.

>
> I've agreed with you on this time and time and time again, JJ. I
> don't know how you missed it.
>


Amazin, ain't it?


> This horse flat enough for you yet?
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

>>> (Like the portly fellow I saw
>>> entering a local shop a couple months
>>> ago, determined to get a bike "exactly like Lance rides." )

>>

> You'd have to have seen the guy. I doubt he could have cleared his
> belly to be able to reach the low bars. And given his girth, a light
> bike with light wheels (and our potholes) seems like a losing
> proposition. In fact, I'd propose he do the losing around his middle.
>
> My bet is that he took the bike out twice, maybe three times after he
> bought it, and won't do much with it at all. A bike with friendlier
> riding position and a little more ruggedness would have suited him
> better.
>
> Admittedly, I don't know his story. Perhaps he's a collector and
> never rides any bikes. Perhaps he has two other bikes and he got
> this one as a motivational reward for the weight he plans to lose.
> But taking the transaction at face value, it certainly looked like a
> bad match to me, a decision made for the wrong reason.
>

Let's see what you really wrote.
1 - a heavy guy bought a light racing bike
2 - you have the imagination to propose a line of possible motivations
3 - Based on 1 and 2 you have an strong and precise opinion, which, of
course depends on the complete ignorance (as you readily admit) of any
reality other than as you conjured it.

Now I get what it means to be an amateur cycling purchase consultant.
Thaks for the lesson in applied engineering.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> It's quite bizarre to me that you seem to claim that two products that
> don't sell well do so because of some sort of racing/marketing
> influence that keeps them off the market -- bar ends and biopace --
> rather than because riders simply want something else. What about
> stuff that you think is useful - say fat tires for road use? I assume
> that stuff succeeds *in spite of* the racer/marketing. Seems pretty
> selective causality there.


I don't claim that this "racer" effect is universal in all things. I
don't claim that some non-racer goods succeed, or that all things
race-oriented are bad for other riders, or that race-oriented reviewers
are responsible for every scarcity of goods.

I'm simply saying that it's an effect that exists. Customers are
swayed by fashion and by product availability - and product
availability is also swayed by fashion. Many customers don't know what
the benefits and detriments of a particular feature might be, beyond
what the 19-year-old working at the bike shop says, and he probably
says what he reads in a few gee-whiz phrases in Velo News or Buycycling
- or what he overhears his "training" buddies say.

How would you explain integrated headsets, as another example? Do you
think customers came in off the street and spontaneously said "Hey, do
you happen to have any bikes with headset bearings that are
cosmetically covered up, and are completely non-standardized so I might
have to replace my frame in five years if I can't get the oddball
replacement parts? I'd love to have something like that!"


Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare. For one thing,
the guy buying a bike "exactly like Lance rides" is never going to be
able to put them on. There's no clearance. Another racing fashion
thing. There's _no_ practical benefit to having the skinny tire barely
clearing the frame - but it's fashionable!

- Frank Krygowski
 
On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> It's quite bizarre to me that you seem to claim that two products that
>> don't sell well do so because of some sort of racing/marketing
>> influence that keeps them off the market -- bar ends and biopace --
>> rather than because riders simply want something else. What about
>> stuff that you think is useful - say fat tires for road use? I assume
>> that stuff succeeds *in spite of* the racer/marketing. Seems pretty
>> selective causality there.

>
>I don't claim that this "racer" effect is universal in all things. I
>don't claim that some non-racer goods succeed, or that all things
>race-oriented are bad for other riders, or that race-oriented reviewers
>are responsible for every scarcity of goods.
>
>I'm simply saying that it's an effect that exists.


Are you saying it's the reasons bar-ends are so rare? Sounds like
grasping at straws to me.

>How would you explain integrated headsets, as another example?


If they don't work well enough for the users, they'll die out. If
they work well, they'll be available in the future since they look
nice. We'll see.

>Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.


I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common bike I
see when I walk to work.

> For one thing,
> the guy buying a bike "exactly like
> Lance rides" is never going to be
> able to put them on.


I didn't say he should and find it remarkable that you can know what
will be better for him by just looking at him. I was just pointing
out that your comments about racing influence on product choice sounds
like a bunch of whining since so many cyclists choose stuff that is
not used in racing. Like fat tires on the road.

> Another racing fashion
>thing. There's _no_ practical benefit to having the skinny tire barely
>clearing the frame - but it's fashionable!


And for most people there is no downside either.

So what? If you are truly special and need that stuff, get a bike
with it. That's my point. You tour South Dakota? OK, maybe bar-ends
are better than STI for you. But the fact remains that for most
riders it's the other way around.

Just because you can speculate or contrive or actually even find some
reason that the stuff you like works better, even your own experience
in helping people choose bikes shows that STI and Ergo are a better
choice for them, whining about racers and the ignorance of the public
aside.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.

>
> I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common bike I
> see when I walk to work.


I understand. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.

>
> > For one thing,
> > the guy buying a bike "exactly like
> > Lance rides" is never going to be
> > able to put them on.

>
> I didn't say he should and find it remarkable that you can know what
> will be better for him by just looking at him.


It's not remarkable at all, assuming he's actually hoping to ride the
bike.

A short man, whose weight easily topped 250 pounds, is going to ride a
bike with 23 mm tires in an area widely noted for its potholes? Well,
if he loves fixing pinch flats, perhaps.

I guess I can't prove that isn't true - but I'd tend to bet against it!

- Frank Krygowski
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
20
Views
535
Cycling Equipment
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J