Bicycle Irony

On 17 Feb 2007 23:43:19 -0800, [email hidden] (Donald Gillies)

Quoted message said:

just
about everything that was standard and interchangeable go to
proprietary.

Yeah, those propietary tires, and handlebar dimensions, and seat rail
sizing really bug me. And having to buy Shimano chains is a drag.
Can only fit a Trek BB on my bike -- what a problem. I heard that
back in the 1960s every bike used the same threading for bottom
brackets -- is that true?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Donald Gillies said:

In my lifetime, as a computer engineer, we have seen just about
everything proprietary ( byte size, operating system, language, etc.)
go to standard, interchangeable things.

Meanwhile, in my lifetime, as an avid bicyclist, i have seen just
about everything that was standard and interchangeable go to
proprietary.

I concluded that each camp must have been stealing ideas from the
other camp.

It's interesting to note that at the start of my life, IBM had a
virtual monopoly on computers, and all IBM stuff was proprietary.
Now, Shimano has a near-monopoly on bicycle parts, and Shimano
stuff has been going proprietary for the last howmany? years.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Yes thank God we can choose now. That's a good thing IMO. If you want 36
spoke wheels, square tape cranks, lugged steel frames, a Rolls saddle
etc. etc. you still can.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

"Donald Gillies" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In my lifetime, as a computer engineer, we have seen just about
everything proprietary ( byte size, operating system, language, etc.)
go to standard, interchangeable things.

Meanwhile, in my lifetime, as an avid bicyclist, i have seen just
about everything that was standard and interchangeable go to
proprietary.

I concluded that each camp must have been stealing ideas from the
other camp.

It's interesting to note that at the start of my life, IBM had a
virtual monopoly on computers, and all IBM stuff was proprietary.
Now, Shimano has a near-monopoly on bicycle parts, and Shimano
stuff has been going proprietary for the last howmany? years.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

I'm not sure that's irony; rather some comparative coincidence? Irony is a
genius going mad or a software engineer that is cool :P

Donald Gillies said:

It's interesting to note that at the start of my life, IBM had a
virtual monopoly on computers, and all IBM stuff was proprietary.
Now, Shimano has a near-monopoly on bicycle parts, and Shimano
stuff has been going proprietary for the last howmany? years.

You can't buy third party parts for Shimano equipped bikes? Why not? I
bought a third party cassette for my Campag grouppo'd bike. I'd think
you can do the same with Shimano.

If nobody is mfg'ing such, it's hardly Shimano's fault.

Donald Gillies said:

In my lifetime, as a computer engineer, we have seen just about
everything proprietary ( byte size, operating system, language, etc.)
go to standard, interchangeable things.

You might have heard of a certain company from Redmond who would like to
disagree. They're quite big I hear.

Donald Gillies said:

In my lifetime, as a computer engineer, we have seen just about
everything proprietary ( byte size, operating system, language, etc.)
go to standard, interchangeable things.

Meanwhile, in my lifetime, as an avid bicyclist, i have seen just
about everything that was standard and interchangeable go to
proprietary.

I concluded that each camp must have been stealing ideas from the
other camp.

It's interesting to note that at the start of my life, IBM had a
virtual monopoly on computers, and all IBM stuff was proprietary.
Now, Shimano has a near-monopoly on bicycle parts, and Shimano
stuff has been going proprietary for the last howmany? years.

For further reading, Paul Romer got a lot of that to [finally] make
sense. The forces in the two markets have been different. Note the 1969
IBM antitrust case for example and the further effect of the AT&T breakup.

good links here:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v92y2002i2p213-216.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Donald Gillies said:

In my lifetime, as a computer engineer, we have seen just about
everything proprietary ( byte size, operating system, language, etc.)
go to standard, interchangeable things.

Really? The "interchangeability" of operating systems and file formats
is exactly what Microsoft wants to restrict, and is (as usual) doing in
its new offerings. Just check out all the web sites that are
"optimized" for IE --- meaning that they intentionally violate standards
so that other browsers won't work. That is slated to get a lot worse
when Vista goes into wide use.

Some peripherals are now more easily adapted to other systems, but
others are totally windows-only.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile, in my lifetime, as an avid bicyclist, i have seen just
about everything that was standard and interchangeable go to
proprietary.

The illusion that older bikes were standardized and interchangeable is
exactly that, an illusion. Ask anyone with an old French bike.

But the true, intensional, lack of interchangeability is in cars. Not
only are most parts not interchangeable between brands, they rarely are
interchangeable between different models of the same brand, produced in
the same year.

--

David L. Johnson

The motor car reflects our standard of living and gauges the
speed of our present life. It long ago ran down Simple Living,
and never halted to inquire about the prostrate figure which
fell as its victim. -- Warren G. Harding

On Feb 18, 2:22 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But the true, intensional, lack of interchangeability is in cars. Not
only are most parts not interchangeable between brands, they rarely are
interchangeable between different models of the same brand, produced in
the same year.

That does continue to amaze me. Even generic, unseen items seem to
be custom-designed.

I recall, many years ago, attending a conference where a GM employee
was bragging about an early use of robots and automated systems. The
application was assembling motors for power seat adjustments. The
bragging was about the fact that the robotic line could
instantaneously switch over from assembling Chevy motors to Buick
motors to Cadillac motors, etc.

And I remember wondering: Why on earth are they different? Making
them all identical would save considerable engineering, manufacturing
and inventory cost and complexity.

It seems one step away from manufacturing special screws for each
fastening task, each with a unique diameter and pitch.

In a related piece of news, I read recently that Toyota uses generic
firewalls across several of its models. GM has a separate stamping
for each car's firewall.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

But the true, intensional, lack of interchangeability is in cars. Not
only are most parts not interchangeable between brands, they rarely are
interchangeable between different models of the same brand, produced in
the same year.

Quoted message said:

That does continue to amaze me. Even generic, unseen items seem to
be custom-designed.
I recall, many years ago, attending a conference where a GM employee
was bragging about an early use of robots and automated systems. The
application was assembling motors for power seat adjustments. The
bragging was about the fact that the robotic line could
instantaneously switch over from assembling Chevy motors to Buick
motors to Cadillac motors, etc.
And I remember wondering: Why on earth are they different? Making
them all identical would save considerable engineering, manufacturing
and inventory cost and complexity.
It seems one step away from manufacturing special screws for each
fastening task, each with a unique diameter and pitch.
In a related piece of news, I read recently that Toyota uses generic
firewalls across several of its models. GM has a separate stamping
for each car's firewall.

Yes, as an amateur auto repairman (some people assume if you own a
wrench you're good for a favor)I am just amazed at the change in ethos -
30-50 years ago, GM used standardized small parts across models/brands
to good effect. Now even 2dr/4dr of the same model have huge
differences! That can't be efficient can it?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

John A said:

I'm not sure that's irony; rather some comparative coincidence? Irony is a
genius going mad or a software engineer that is cool :P- Hide quoted text -

Steel frames are quite ironic. Any more so and they'd rust too
easily.

Cam

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

But the true, intensional, lack of interchangeability is in cars. Not
only are most parts not interchangeable between brands, they rarely are
interchangeable between different models of the same brand, produced in
the same year.

Quoted message said:

That does continue to amaze me. Even generic, unseen items seem to
be custom-designed.
I recall, many years ago, attending a conference where a GM employee
was bragging about an early use of robots and automated systems. The
application was assembling motors for power seat adjustments. The
bragging was about the fact that the robotic line could
instantaneously switch over from assembling Chevy motors to Buick
motors to Cadillac motors, etc.
And I remember wondering: Why on earth are they different? Making
them all identical would save considerable engineering, manufacturing
and inventory cost and complexity.
It seems one step away from manufacturing special screws for each
fastening task, each with a unique diameter and pitch.
In a related piece of news, I read recently that Toyota uses generic
firewalls across several of its models. GM has a separate stamping
for each car's firewall.

Yes, as an amateur auto repairman (some people assume if you own a
wrench you're good for a favor)I am just amazed at the change in ethos -
30-50 years ago, GM used standardized small parts across models/brands
to good effect. Now even 2dr/4dr of the same model have huge
differences! That can't be efficient can it?

Hmm, and Detroit is in trouble.

Could there be a correlation? Nahhh....

E.P.

"Cam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John A said:

I'm not sure that's irony; rather some comparative coincidence? Irony is

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius going mad or a software engineer that is cool :P- Hide quoted

text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Steel frames are quite ironic. Any more so and they'd rust too
easily.

Cam

Hey hey!

Cam said:

John A said:

I'm not sure that's irony; rather some comparative coincidence?
Irony is a genius going mad or a software engineer that is cool :P-
Hide quoted text -

Steel frames are quite ironic. Any more so and they'd rust too
easily.

I find myself alloyed with that comment.

John A said:

"Cam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Feb 18, 10:33 am, "John A" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure that's irony; rather some comparative coincidence? Irony is

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius going mad or a software engineer that is cool :P- Hide quoted

text -

Quoted message said:

Steel frames are quite ironic. Any more so and they'd rust too
easily.

Quoted message said:

Cam

Hey hey!

My, my...

Jeff

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Feb 18, 2:22 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But the true, intensional, lack of interchangeability is in cars. Not
only are most parts not interchangeable between brands, they rarely

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

interchangeable between different models of the same brand, produced

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the same year.

That does continue to amaze me. Even generic, unseen items seem to
be custom-designed.

I recall, many years ago, attending a conference where a GM employee
was bragging about an early use of robots and automated systems. The
application was assembling motors for power seat adjustments. The
bragging was about the fact that the robotic line could
instantaneously switch over from assembling Chevy motors to Buick
motors to Cadillac motors, etc.

And I remember wondering: Why on earth are they different? Making
them all identical would save considerable engineering, manufacturing
and inventory cost and complexity.

It seems one step away from manufacturing special screws for each
fastening task, each with a unique diameter and pitch.

In a related piece of news, I read recently that Toyota uses generic
firewalls across several of its models. GM has a separate stamping
for each car's firewall.

- Frank Krygowski

Prior to the adoption of ISO standards France, Germany, the UK, Japan and
to some degree Italy all had different standards for fasteners. The UK was
the most egregious in this area with the Whitworth system of threads which
were intentionally maintained to protect British manufacturing interests.
There are many who conclude that this backfired and was one of the issues
that contributed to the downfall of manufacturing in the UK.

Not long ago you could find Whitworth, Unified and Metric threaded
fasteners on Brit cars.

Then there is the US, still grasping to a measuring system based on
fractional portions of a dead Brit king's foot.

Chas.

* * Chas said:

Then there is the US, still grasping to a measuring system based on
fractional portions of a dead Brit king's foot.

At the moment, all Brit kings are dead.

I'm just clarifying...

Hank Wirtz said:

* * Chas said:

Then there is the US, still grasping to a measuring system based on
fractional portions of a dead Brit king's foot.

At the moment, all Brit kings are dead.

I'm just clarifying...

Dear Hank,

Only after death could they truly serve as rulers.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hank Wirtz said:

* * Chas said:

Then there is the US, still grasping to a measuring system based on
fractional portions of a dead Brit king's foot.

At the moment, all Brit kings are dead.

I'm just clarifying...

Dear Hank,

Only after death could they truly serve as rulers.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

GROAN.....

Chas.

I think people are confusing "thread standards" with "open
standards". Its one thing to have french, italian, english(iso), and
swiss-threaded bottom brackets.

in that era, you could buy sugino, campagnolo, or TA BB's in all 4
threading configurations.

It's quite another to have a bottom bracket that works with ONE CRANK,
or at best, ONE manufacturer, period. That's just plain stupid - like
buying parts from a defense contractor and expecting to get a deal on
spare toilets ...

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA, USA