On 6 Mar 2004 13:01:03 -0800,
[email protected] (Chris Hansen)
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I've talked to several people who have talked about how
>bicycle technology has improved in the last 10-15 years. I
>realize that mountain bikes have come a long way and that
>shifters and brakes on road bikes are fancier now but it
>was also mentioned that drivetrain components and wheels
>and stuff are a lot better. I was just wondering what that
>means by being a lot better, what has changed? In terms of
>rolling resistance, is it worth upgrading wheels or tires
>if the ones you have are still in good shape? I keep
>wondering if the new stuff is really that much better?
>
>Thanks.
I think that you need to clarify what you are doing with the
bike in the first place. Professional road racers, for
example, will be hesitant to use new technology if it won't
improve their performance, and probably wouldn't use
anything that hurts their performance (yes, I bet they all
have their price...).
Mountain bikers have been subjected to a series of
improvements based on new technology. It's a relatively
young field, so having improvements in the first decade or
more makes sense for any new technology.
And then some of it is crossover stuff. V-brakes are
probably a good example. They did have a purpose and
answered a problem on rear suspension bikes. I'm not
certain, but I can see that setting up V-brakes would be a
touch faster than setting up cantilever brakes. In a
factory, 5 seconds saved per operation can add up to a lot
of money. As long as you get it so the V-brakes don't throw
everyone over their handlebars, they were probably adapted
to mass-marketed bikes because they saved manufacturers
money and didn't create hazards. Much easier to have only
one style, one operation to train for, in a factory.
There are some concrete improvements over the years. I
haven't used brifters to any great degree, but many
people love them, and I can see why. V-brakes? I don't
see the need. Yes, they are different, but not better for
my purposes.
And in a very simple sense, a company needs to sell goods to
survive over the years. Selling parts for bicycles that will
wear out and fail is downright dangerous, and expensive from
the lawsuits. So they have to generate new sales in other
ways. New eye candy, new (although not improved) design for
components, new colors.... And count on people with
disposable income and low self-confidence and immature ego
states to keep them in business.
If I had the latest, greatest, most efficient equipment, I
think that I could appreciate the difference and consider
much of it improved. When it comes to bikes, though, I am
content with second or third generation technology. That's
my choice. And since I do not race and do not spend time
with people who compare and judge equipment every day or
week, I am content to stay where I am.
Enjoy the ride. If the equipment helps you enjoy riding in
the manner you want to ride, then it is good. That's my
criteria for buying new equipment- when something is
hindering my enjoyment of riding, I will see if new (or
used) equipment would change this.
In the end, that is what counts- are you getting what you
want out of what you have? If not, explore whether that is
because of limits of the equipment or limits of you. My aim
is to get on my bike and not give a flying f*** about the
equipment, not notice it, not worry about it, etc. When I
don't even think about the equipment on my bike, I have it
set up perfectly.
