John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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.
I'm not going to rag Frank because he has some valid points, but lets
review for a moment the current state of the market as it compared to
the market in, let's say, 1967 -- a golden age for fatter-tire
bicycles. I walk in to the local Schwinn shop and this is what I see:
a Varsity, a Continental (pimped out Varsity), a Suburban (a mixte
Varsity with metal fenders and upright bars), a nameless single speed
Schwinn cruiser, massive numbers of tiny little bikes with streamers
coming out the ends of the bars, some pink girl's bikes with plastic
handlebar baskets and mixte frames, and a bunch of Apple Krates and
other banana seat/ape hanger bicycles. There is one five speed
Paramount on the wall, right inext to the puddle of drool. It's not
even the one with all Campagnolo parts -- it has Weinmann center-pulls.
None of these bicycles has finger-tip shifters, by the way.
Fast forward to my lunch time trip to the downtown Trek store. I see
zillions of mountain bikes, hybrids, so-called commuters (the Portland
is on the floor now), OCLVs, three brands of cross bikes, "comfort
bikes" in CF and aluminum, various kinds of kids bikes from one-speeds
to shrunken race-worthy mountain bikes, a recumbent or two. There are
all sorts of high zoot bikes like Madones, Orbeas and others. I look at
all this and say, "damn! I sure do miss 1967." I then ask the sales
person, "excuse me, could you please show me where you keep the boat
anchors that shift like ****?"-- Jay Beattie.