Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement

[John Morgan]

(WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)

>> The bottom bracket argument isn't much of anything, since
>> bottom brackets only cost around $30 anyway.
>
> It's not about merely the BB. So, let's say tomorrow, I
> bust my XT crank arm. *Right now*, I can probably find an
> XT Octalink crankarm or crankset to replace it. In three
> years? In five years? I'll bet that ISIS will still be
> going strong then. Not only do they have a new crankset
> standard, but they have been carrying 3 *other* BB types:
> V2 Octalink, V1 Octalink, and square taper. I'm going to
> pick up 4 extra Octalink BBs (two for each bike) and when
> they are done, the cranks will be replaced with some non-
> Shimano stuff.
>
> BTW, did you see the new Saint gruppo, and how the RD is
> attached? Different standard...
>
>> Usually you decide what kind of cranks you want and then
>> buy the bottom bracket to match...
>
> Yup, I have Octalink XTs on right now - both bikes. They
> are nice, and were relatively inexpensive for their
> quality. In three years, how many new Octalink XT
> cranksets do you think I might be able to buy?
>
>> by using the new external bearing setup, they save you
>> the trouble of buying a bottom bracket separately.
>
> As you say, a $30 BB is not an issue. As I was shopping
> for hubs the other day, I asked my not-so-LBS about XT ISO
> disk hubs. One of his catalogs doesn't even have the M756s
> any more. Hmmmm. How long before they stop production on
> Octalink BBs? (Thus rendering my expensive XT cranksets
> useless upon BB failure.)
>
> Shimano is doing it's best to make the old gear obsolete,
> such that if you break one thing some time in the future,
> you'll be obligated to buy a whole bunch of stuff to
> replace perfectly fucntional, but now-obsolete, ancillary
> gear. I very much object to throwing away (giving away,
> selling for some miniscule price) perfectly usable bike
> gear. Standard ISO hubs, conventionally-return-sprung RDs,
> ISIS BB/cranksets, separate brake and shifter controls. I
> hope bike consumers also see what I see, so that they
> might choose their poison with open eyes, whether that be
> poison dished out by the Big S, or some other poison.

Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the
wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving older
products obsolete. This is true in any industry, and
shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every generation of
gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
little improvement.

You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the benefits
Octalink has over standard square taper. If I apply your
sweeping judgment, Shimano should have stuck with square
taper because it is compatible with cranks that have been
made for decades. The splined bottom bracket is a superior
technology that is not compatible with anything previously
made, but at some point we must let go of our obsolete
cranks and accept the new standard. To do so bitterly would
be a shame indeed.

That being said, I need you to explain further why the
advancement of technology upsets you. You state the case
that replacement of one part may require you to replace
many other parts that are still functional. Again, I submit
to you that this is currently a reality and it always has
been. (Oh, you want to upgrade your fork? You'll need a
threadless headset and side-pull brakes! But my headset and
center-pull brakes work fine! Sorry, they aren't
compatible.) Obsolete parts can still be found long after
they are replaced by newer technology, but they just aren't
readily available in your latest mail order catalogs. Just
ask some of the retros on this group who still use threaded
headsets and thumb shifters.

What you're experiencing with Shimano's new lineup isn't
new. Every new generation of parts has had some kind of
backlash with people who do not want to change over. What
happens to these people? Either they find a way to keep
fixing their old gear, or they upgrade and realize what
they've been missing.

And finally, I must say that unless you're really lucky,
you will be changing out parts on your bike for new ones
long before they become obsolete. You may even find
yourself wanting that hot new item for your bike before
your old stuff wears out. If you're like me, chances are
you'll buy an entirely new bike before anything on it
becomes hard to find.

John M

 

[Zeeexsixare]

> Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the
> wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving older
> products obsolete. This is true in any industry, and
> shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every generation of
> gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
> little improvement.

Not true. We still have freehubs that are largely compatible
with each other, especially with the use of spacers. Maybe
this part didn't need better engineering... I dunno.

What about Octalink V1? Obviously a big failure. Doesn't
follow "Technology always advances, leaving older products
obsolete." at all.

> You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the
> benefits Octalink has over standard square taper. If I
> apply your sweeping judgment, Shimano should have stuck
> with square taper because it is compatible with cranks
> that have been made for decades. The splined bottom
> bracket is a superior technology that is not compatible
> with anything previously made, but at some point we must
> let go of our obsolete cranks and accept the new standard.
> To do so bitterly would be a shame indeed.

It's such a new "technology" that needing to upgrade a whole
drivetrain just because a smaller component failed is
backwards and wasteful.

> What you're experiencing with Shimano's new lineup isn't
> new. Every new generation of parts has had some kind of
> backlash with people who do not want to change over. What
> happens to these people? Either they find a way to keep
> fixing their old gear, or they upgrade and realize what
> they've been missing.

But this is a sudden change of many things... "Standard ISO
hubs, conventionally-return-sprung RDs, ISIS BB/cranksets,
separate brake and shifter controls." Most of these work
fine and are so much cheaper than the new stuff.

> And finally, I must say that unless you're really lucky,
> you will be changing out parts on your bike for new ones
> long before they become obsolete. You may even find
> yourself wanting that hot new item for your bike before
> your old stuff wears out. If you're like me, chances are
> you'll buy an entirely new bike before anything on it
> becomes hard to find.

You would be ****** if you bent your disc rotor and were
subsequently required to replace your wheel. Hmm... a $30
item (Hayes 6" rotor) versus a $330 item (front Shimano
centerlock wheel plus a new Shimano rotor)... a 1000% higher
cost! (prices estimated from Cambria)

I don't see how anybody would be so willing to throw your
money out on a proprietary system that nobody else supports
at a cost that is significantly higher than the prices of
competitors that have products of similar quality. If you
enjoy doing that, then have fun wasting your money. I'd
rather spend my money on, say, food, or water.

Imagine buying a new nice car... Let's say a Nissan Maxima.
You spend $30,000 on it. You drive it for a year, and the
axle, or some other critical support breaks. You go to your
dealer, and you say, "I need a new axle installed." His
reply: "I'm sorry sir - that was last year's model. We've
made advancements since then, so your only recourse is to
buy our new model year Maxima."

Sounds pretty shitty to me.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"John Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
> Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the
> wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving older
> products obsolete. This is true in any industry, and
> shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every generation of
> gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
> little improvement.

The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old stuff.

To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
retrogrouch lemming.

 

[Slacker]

John Morgan wrote:

> And finally, I must say that unless you're really lucky,
> you will be changing out parts on your bike for new ones
> long before they become obsolete. You may even find
> yourself wanting that hot new item for your bike before
> your old stuff wears out. If you're like me, chances are
> you'll buy an entirely new bike before anything on it
> becomes hard to find.
>
> John M
>
>
And speaking of new technologies
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=30039

I can't believe that company actually made a good looking
bike. The future looks very promising.

--
Slacker

 

[G.T.]

John Morgan wrote:
> (WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)
>
>
>>>The bottom bracket argument isn't much of anything, since
>>>bottom brackets only cost around $30 anyway.
>>
>>It's not about merely the BB. So, let's say tomorrow, I
>>bust my XT crank arm. *Right now*, I can probably find an
>>XT Octalink crankarm or crankset to replace it. In three
>>years? In five years? I'll bet that ISIS will still be
>>going strong then. Not only do they have a new crankset
>>standard, but they have been carrying 3 *other* BB types:
>>V2 Octalink, V1 Octalink, and square taper. I'm going to
>>pick up 4 extra Octalink BBs (two for each bike) and when
>>they are done, the cranks will be replaced with some non-
>>Shimano stuff.
>>
>>BTW, did you see the new Saint gruppo, and how the RD is
>>attached? Different standard...
>>
>>
>>>Usually you decide what kind of cranks you want and then
>>>buy the bottom bracket to match...
>>
>>Yup, I have Octalink XTs on right now - both bikes. They
>>are nice, and were relatively inexpensive for their
>>quality. In three years, how many new Octalink XT
>>cranksets do you think I might be able to buy?
>>
>>
>>>by using the new external bearing setup, they save you
>>>the trouble of buying a bottom bracket separately.
>>
>>As you say, a $30 BB is not an issue. As I was shopping
>>for hubs the other day, I asked my not-so-LBS about XT ISO
>>disk hubs. One of his catalogs doesn't even have the M756s
>>any more. Hmmmm. How long before they stop production on
>>Octalink BBs? (Thus rendering my expensive XT cranksets
>>useless upon BB failure.)
>>
>>Shimano is doing it's best to make the old gear obsolete,
>>such that if you break one thing some time in the future,
>>you'll be obligated to buy a whole bunch of stuff to
>>replace perfectly fucntional, but now-obsolete, ancillary
>>gear. I very much object to throwing away (giving away,
>>selling for some miniscule price) perfectly usable bike
>>gear. Standard ISO hubs, conventionally-return-sprung RDs,
>>ISIS BB/cranksets, separate brake and shifter controls. I
>>hope bike consumers also see what I see, so that they
>>might choose their poison with open eyes, whether that be
>>poison dished out by the Big S, or some other poison.
>
>
> Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the
> wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving older
> products obsolete. This is true in any industry, and
> shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every generation of
> gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
> little improvement.
>
> You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the
> benefits Octalink has over standard square taper. If I
> apply your sweeping judgment, Shimano should have stuck
> with square taper because it is compatible with cranks
> that have been made for decades. The splined bottom
> bracket is a superior technology that is not compatible
> with anything previously made, but at some point we must
> let go of our obsolete cranks and accept the new standard.
> To do so bitterly would be a shame indeed.
>

For every splined bottom bracket there are 5 Shimano
"innovations" that were profit advances rather than
technological advances.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives Before it is too late The
battles we fought were long and hard Just not to be consumed
by rock'n'roll

 

[Jonesy]

John Morgan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05>...
> (WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)
[snip]

> Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the
> wrong angle.

No, I don't think I am. I'm looking at it from the angle of
a consumer of purely luxury goods. A consumer with a self-
imposed limited budget.

> Technology always advances, leaving older products
> obsolete.

Indeed. But forced obsolesense, with very little gain in
functionality - this is what I see from Shimano. Yes, there
is some improvement, but not (in my mind) cost-justified.

> This is true in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so
> negatively.

Like computers, right? Except when advances are made, it's
"faster, better, cheaper." For the most part. I don't
necessarily see Shimano as being "better and cheaper," but
rather, "different and more expensive."

> If every generation of gear was compatible with the
> previous, there would be very little improvement.

Like wheels? Or the parallelogram RD? Or chain-drive? The
bicycle is a mature technology. Has been for quite some
time. Square-taper BB/cranksets are still quite functional,
and will be for the vast majority of bicycle owners.

> You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the
> benefits Octalink has over standard square taper.

Uhhh, no. I bought an XT crankset because of value/dollar.
$120 for the crankset, $20 for the BB - hard to beat. It
just happened to be Octalink-only. I do not plan on being a
gear ***** and buying the latest and greatest crankset in
two years time. I want this thing to last a while.

> If I apply your sweeping judgment, Shimano should have
> stuck with square taper because it is compatible with
> cranks that have been made for decades.

1.) Does it work?
2.) Does the new technology work appreciably better?
3.) Will the new tech become a new standard, or just another
failed experiment?

Does anyone remember VESA local bus? No? MCA?

"New" doesn't always mean "better."

> The splined bottom bracket is a superior technology

In some respects. And ISIS is going to be around a while.
Octalink will just flat disappear - a failed experiment, or
a cynical marketing tactic.

> that is not compatible with anything previously made, but
> at some point we must let go of our obsolete cranks and
> accept the new standard.

I like splined. Easy, and hard to screw up (unlike square
taper.) Maybe in ten years, everyone will be using the XTR/XT-
style BB. Or, maybe some new, as-yet-unseen tech will
emerge. By then, I'm sure I will have gotten new cranks.
Mostly because my Octalink BB supply will have disappeared.
Or I will have broken a crank, and cant get a replacement
arm in Octalink style.

> To do so bitterly would be a shame indeed.

If the standard changes every three years, to very little
real benefit for the end user, I become somewhat cynical.

> That being said, I need you to explain further why the
> advancement of technology upsets you.

What does Dual Control do for me? The new crank and BB
style? Centerlock hubs and disks? Low-normal vs. high-
normal? 1.5 headtube diameter?

See, tech advances don't upset me at all, if I can see a
clear benefit *worth the additional outlay to acquire it.*
Disk brakes. Suspension. Tubless [sic] tires. Stable-
platform valving in suspension. Butted tubing and spokes.
Lightweight alloys. All of these things are good. But
Shimano's direction seems to be change for change's sake. Is
the new crank style so much better as to make a $300
difference? That's a big percentage of most consumer bikes'
total cost. What does Centerlock bring to the consumer?
Slightly less weight (important for weight weenies, of
course) and installation/removal is easier. Not much of a
leap to justify changing out two hubs and two rotors, for a
total cost of what - $250?

> You state the case that replacement of one part may
> require you to replace many other parts that are still
> functional. Again, I submit to you that this is currently
> a reality and it always has been.

The time span between standard changes has not been so
short. And some changes are well worth the replacement of
other gear. The move from rigid to front suspension cost me
fork, headset and stem. The headset and stem were very
small incremental cost increases, AND the removal of the
old stuff saved a bunch of weight. The move from Vs to disk
cost me hubs, rotors and calipers. But the benefits were
very large compared to the cost. It's not as cut-and-dried
as you would believe.

> Obsolete parts can still be found long after they are
> replaced by newer technology, but they just aren't readily
> available in your latest mail order catalogs. Just ask
> some of the retros on this group who still use threaded
> headsets and thumb shifters.

Some can. And some can't. Finding a decent 1" stem in
anything but 5-degree/120mm is not that easy a task. Heck,
even finding a 1" steerer suspension fork can cause some
consternation. I happen to know where to look, but they are
not widely available. And there are plenty of MTB frames out
there that are perfectly functional, yet have that obsolete
1" head tube. How long was the 1" headtube good enough?

> What you're experiencing with Shimano's new lineup isn't
> new. Every new generation of parts has had some kind of
> backlash with people who do not want to change over.

If I saw the actual benefit/cost as being there, I'd be all
over it. See my comments above on disk brakes and front
suspension. Add to that clipless pedals. And FS. I like 'em.

> What happens to these people? Either they find a way to
> keep fixing their old gear, or they upgrade and realize
> what they've been missing.

Somehow, I don't see Centerlock or the new crankset as being
so functionally different as to be that noticeable. Dual
Control? Low-normal?

> And finally, I must say that unless you're really lucky,
> you will be changing out parts on your bike for new ones
> long before they become obsolete.

And that may be at the crux of the problem. I am easy on
gear, and can make the stuff last a long damn time. Like
hubs - I dunno if my Shimano stuff will ever wear out. I
maintain it religiously, and am easy on it when riding. When
it finally gives up, I have no idea what the rotor
attachment standard will be. But if stuff is changed around
merely for change's sake, or because there is some miniscule
improvement in design and functionality, then I object on
the grounds that for all but the most demanding consumers,
current tech really is very good. Even the tech of three
years ago is pretty damn good, for most folks. I guess my
test of whether or not the change is good or bad is this:
what question does it answer, what problem does it solve? If
it answers an unasked question, or solves a very minor
problem, then the tech, to me, is more *marketing*-driven
than *market*-driven. And Shimano, by it's very dominance of
the market, can jam any standard it wants down our throats,
because they can. And it doesn't really matter if that
standard has any real benefit to anyone, other than to the
stockholders in Shimano, Inc.

> You may even find yourself wanting that hot new item for
> your bike before your old stuff wears out. If you're like
> me, chances are you'll buy an entirely new bike before
> anything on it becomes hard to find.

I'm not like you. I run my gear a long time, because it's
not about the gear, but the ride, and because I'm pretty
easy on it. Stuff that complicates my life and keeps me from
riding annoys me. I don't lust after the latest and
greatest. New does not always mean better.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

"ZeeExSixAre" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> You would be ****** if you bent your disc rotor and were
> subsequently required to replace your wheel. Hmm... a $30
> item (Hayes 6" rotor) versus a $330 item (front Shimano
> centerlock wheel plus a new Shimano rotor)... a 1000%
> higher cost! (prices estimated from Cambria)

I'd call the cost more on the order of: new front hub,
new rotor, labor to lace the wheel (in the case you
couldn't DIY.)

Less than $300, but certainly more than a $20 Avid rotor.

> I don't see how anybody would be so willing to throw your
> money out on a proprietary system that nobody else
> supports at a cost that is significantly higher than the
> prices of competitors that have products of similar
> quality.

And there is really the issue: similar quality. Is the
RaceFace stuff so much inferior to the XT/XTR crankset? Is
the difference even measurable, saying nothing of
noticeable?

> If you enjoy doing that, then have fun wasting your money.
> I'd rather spend my money on, say, food, or water.

How about gas to drive to a really cool MTBing vacation? Or
a bike for your kid? Etc, etc.

> Imagine buying a new nice car... Let's say a Nissan
> Maxima. You spend $30,000 on it. You drive it for a year,
> and the axle, or some other critical support breaks. You
> go to your dealer, and you say, "I need a new axle
> installed." His reply: "I'm sorry sir - that was last
> year's model. We've made advancements since then, so your
> only recourse is to buy our new model year Maxima."

I think a closer analogy would be, "I'm sorry sir, that part
of the drivetrain is obsolete. We will be happy to sell you
a new transaxle and related components." Of course, it would
set you back $2500 or more, instead of the $200 or so for a
broken axle.

I like new tech that makes real improvement. Incremental,
small, performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough
and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-functional gear is what
bothers me.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "John Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
> > Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the
> > wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving older
> > products obsolete. This is true in any industry, and
> > shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every generation
> > of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be
> > very little improvement.
>
> The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old stuff.

Your opinion, not necessarily shared by everyone.

> To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
> retrogrouch lemming.

Good thing nobody is doing that.
--
Jonesy

 

[basilkies]

Yah, right technological advancements. Like the high tech
improvement of moving from 7 speed cassettes to 9 speed
cassettes over the last ten years. I still have the original
drive train on my old 7 gear cassette but have changed drive
trains on my 8 speed once a year.

And those thinner chains what high tech wonders, if you
don't break them on your first ride up a really steep hill.

There's no reason why shimano can't continue to make parts
for the older bikes. The auto manufacturers stock and build
parts for 20 years. Besides Campi manages to build higher
tech stuff and still supply parts for old stuff.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:03:21 -0700, John Morgan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>(WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)
>
>>> The bottom bracket argument isn't much of anything,
>>> since bottom brackets only cost around $30 anyway.
>>
>> It's not about merely the BB. So, let's say tomorrow, I
>> bust my XT crank arm. *Right now*, I can probably find an
>> XT Octalink crankarm or crankset to replace it. In three
>> years? In five years? I'll bet that ISIS will still be
>> going strong then. Not only do they have a new crankset
>> standard, but they have been carrying 3 *other* BB types:
>> V2 Octalink, V1 Octalink, and square taper. I'm going to
>> pick up 4 extra Octalink BBs (two for each bike) and when
>> they are done, the cranks will be replaced with some non-
>> Shimano stuff.
>>
>> BTW, did you see the new Saint gruppo, and how the RD is
>> attached? Different standard...
>>
>>> Usually you decide what kind of cranks you want and then
>>> buy the bottom bracket to match...
>>
>> Yup, I have Octalink XTs on right now - both bikes. They
>> are nice, and were relatively inexpensive for their
>> quality. In three years, how many new Octalink XT
>> cranksets do you think I might be able to buy?
>>
>>> by using the new external bearing setup, they save you
>>> the trouble of buying a bottom bracket separately.
>>
>> As you say, a $30 BB is not an issue. As I was shopping
>> for hubs the other day, I asked my not-so-LBS about XT
>> ISO disk hubs. One of his catalogs doesn't even have the
>> M756s any more. Hmmmm. How long before they stop
>> production on Octalink BBs? (Thus rendering my expensive
>> XT cranksets useless upon BB failure.)
>>
>> Shimano is doing it's best to make the old gear obsolete,
>> such that if you break one thing some time in the future,
>> you'll be obligated to buy a whole bunch of stuff to
>> replace perfectly fucntional, but now-obsolete, ancillary
>> gear. I very much object to throwing away (giving away,
>> selling for some miniscule price) perfectly usable bike
>> gear. Standard ISO hubs, conventionally-return-sprung
>> RDs, ISIS BB/cranksets, separate brake and shifter
>> controls. I hope bike consumers also see what I see, so
>> that they might choose their poison with open eyes,
>> whether that be poison dished out by the Big S, or some
>> other poison.
>
>Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the
>wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving older
>products obsolete. This is true in any industry, and
>shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every generation of
>gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
>little improvement.
>
>You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the
>benefits Octalink has over standard square taper. If I
>apply your sweeping judgment, Shimano should have stuck
>with square taper because it is compatible with cranks that
>have been made for decades. The splined bottom bracket is a
>superior technology that is not compatible with anything
>previously made, but at some point we must let go of our
>obsolete cranks and accept the new standard. To do so
>bitterly would be a shame indeed.
>
>That being said, I need you to explain further why the
>advancement of technology upsets you. You state the case
>that replacement of one part may require you to replace
>many other parts that are still functional. Again, I submit
>to you that this is currently a reality and it always has
>been. (Oh, you want to upgrade your fork? You'll need a
>threadless headset and side-pull brakes! But my headset and
>center-pull brakes work fine! Sorry, they aren't
>compatible.) Obsolete parts can still be found long after
>they are replaced by newer technology, but they just aren't
>readily available in your latest mail order catalogs. Just
>ask some of the retros on this group who still use threaded
>headsets and thumb shifters.
>
>What you're experiencing with Shimano's new lineup isn't
>new. Every new generation of parts has had some kind of
>backlash with people who do not want to change over. What
>happens to these people? Either they find a way to keep
>fixing their old gear, or they upgrade and realize what
>they've been missing.
>
>And finally, I must say that unless you're really lucky,
>you will be changing out parts on your bike for new ones
>long before they become obsolete. You may even find
>yourself wanting that hot new item for your bike before
>your old stuff wears out. If you're like me, chances are
>you'll buy an entirely new bike before anything on it
>becomes hard to find.
>
>John M

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "p e t e f a g e r l i n"
> <[email protected]> wrote
in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "John Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
> > > Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from
> > > the wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving
> > > older products obsolete. This is
true
> > > in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so
> > > negatively. If every generation of gear was compatible
> > > with the previous, there would be
very
> > > little improvement.
> >
> > The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old
> > stuff.
>
> Your opinion, not necessarily shared by everyone.

Of course it is. Along that same line, the sky is blue.

Let me get this straight, you dislike the new Shimano stuff
enough to whine about it, yet you haven't tried it? Please
correct me if you have indeed tried the latest XTR nad/or
Saint cranks.

If you have tried them and think they aren't superior (ease
of install, rigidity, durability, weight, etc.) to the older
Shimano stuff, or Raceface, etc., then we must have VERY
different riding experiences.
>
> > To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
> > retrogrouch lemming.
>
> Good thing nobody is doing that.

Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror.

"Incremental, small, performance-neutral tech that costs a
lot of dough and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-functional
gear is what bothers me."

 

[P E T E F A G E]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Yah, right technological advancements. Like the high tech
> improvement of moving from 7 speed cassettes to 9 speed
> cassettes over the last ten years. I still have the
> original drive train on my old 7 gear cassette but have
> changed drive trains on my 8 speed once a year.
>
> And those thinner chains what high tech wonders, if
> you don't break them on your first ride up a really
> steep hill.

ROTFLMAO!

Holy hyperbole Batman!

9 speed rocks, especially when coupled with a 32 tooth
middle ring.

I guees I'm REALLY, REALLY lucky, along with the folks I
ride with because our high tech thinner chain wonders
lasted through the first really steep hill, and thousands
after that.

 

[John Morgan]

Jonesy wrote:

>> (WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)

>> Technology always advances, leaving older products
>> obsolete.
>
> Indeed. But forced obsolesense, with very little gain in
> functionality - this is what I see from Shimano. Yes,
> there is some improvement, but not (in my mind) cost-
> justified.

So there it is, the argument in its entirety. Thanks for
summing it up for
me. Every person may have a different point at which they
think gear is cost-justified. IMO, nothing is cost-
justified with mountain bikes, being a niche market
and all. Bike tires can cost $40 a piece... same as
the 50,000 mile guaranteed tires on my car. *However*
I make sacrifices for the sport I love... which
explains why I have more invested in my bikes than I
do in my car.

>> If every generation of gear was compatible with the
>> previous, there would be very little improvement.
>
> Like wheels? Or the parallelogram RD? Or chain-drive?

Those are all good technologies, but as soon as the
opportunity to improve them or replace them comes along, you
can be damn sure it's going to happen.

>> You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the
>> benefits Octalink has over standard square taper.
>
> Uhhh, no. I bought an XT crankset because of value/dollar.
> $120 for the crankset, $20 for the BB - hard to beat. It
> just happened to be Octalink-only. I do not plan on being
> a gear ***** and buying the latest and greatest crankset
> in two years time. I want this thing to last a while.

Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older square
taper model for $60? They are still available, and it would
be more consistent with the argument you're making.

>> If I apply your sweeping judgment, Shimano should have
>> stuck with square taper because it is compatible with
>> cranks that have been made for decades.
>
> 1.) Does it work?
> 2.) Does the new technology work appreciably better?
> 3.) Will the new tech become a new standard, or just
> another failed experiment?

1.) Square taper works, sure. 2.)Splined works appreciably
better, yep.
2.) I would say it's been the standard for a while,
failed no... because it's better than what we had
before it existed.

> Does anyone remember VESA local bus? No? MCA?
>
> "New" doesn't always mean "better."

VLB was quite an improvement over ISA, having a 32-bit wide
data channel instead of the old 16 or 8. It wasn't a failure
at all... it disappeared because it was replaced by PCI. PCI
will disappear when something else comes out that's better.
What's the problem?

Thank you for bringing up MCA architecture. It is a case-in-
point, falling perfectly in line with with what we're
talking about here with Shimano. MCA was a superior
technology to ISA, but it did not persist because it was
incompatible with ISA (which is why VLB succeeded) and
because it caused the price of the systems to go up.

Both of these technologies were newer *and* better than ISA.
The latter only failed because it didn't gain a lot of
public support. If the same thing happened to Shimano's new
lineup, I can guarantee you that they would drop it pretty
quick. Obviously, there are a few naysayers about the new
Shimano stuff, but there always will be. The important thing
is, the majority of bike builders and the buying public
support Shimano. Guess you'll just have to deal.

>> The splined bottom bracket is a superior technology
>
> In some respects. And ISIS is going to be around a while.
> Octalink will just flat disappear - a failed experiment,
> or a cynical marketing tactic.

How can you say Octalink was a failure? You bought into it
yourself, and you obviously enjoy the benefits or you
wouldn't have made the choice to buy it or stick with it
this long. Failure? By whose standards? The way I see it,
there are more criteria for judging the success or failure
of a product than its production cycle. (And even by your
standards, is 8 years [ongoing] that bad for a product to be
on the shelf?)

>> That being said, I need you to explain further why the
>> advancement of technology upsets you.
>
> What does Dual Control do for me? The new crank and BB
> style? Centerlock hubs and disks? Low-normal vs. high-
> normal? 1.5 headtube diameter?

Try them out and answer your own questions. Obviously just
reading about them isn't going to convince you.

>> And finally, I must say that unless you're really lucky,
>> you will be changing out parts on your bike for new ones
>> long before they become obsolete.
>
> I guess my test of whether or not the change is good or
> bad is this: what question does it answer, what problem
> does it solve? If it answers an unasked question, or
> solves a very minor problem, then the tech, to me, is more
> *marketing*-driven than *market*-driven. And Shimano, by
> it's very dominance of the market, can jam any standard it
> wants down our throats, because they can. And it doesn't
> really matter if that standard has any real benefit to
> anyone, other than to the stockholders in Shimano, Inc.

Yep, you correctly analyzed it. Shimano is a business.
And...*gasp* they're trying to make money! Now, now... I
understand. Nobody wants to be forced to accept new
standards... but do you think if they truly came up with
horrible crappy ideas people would buy it? Of course not!
Biopace cranks, from what I hear, ended up being a bad
idea... so people stopped buying them, consequently, Shimano
had to stop making them. The very fact that Shimano is a
business, means they are market driven. They want to deliver
new and improved gear to folks who want gear that is better
than what they've already got... and to make a buck in the
meantime. They aren't the government, you know. I can't
believe I'm here defending SHIMANO... but have you thought
any of this through?

The 'Man' is not trying to keep you down in this case,
Jonesy.

John M

PS. I, too, was against Shimano and Shimano products at one
time... as evidenced by one of my bikes being Shimano-
free. Now that I have all the new XTR stuff on my other
ride, I had to change my tune.

 

[Jonesy]

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "p e t e f a g e r l i n"
> > <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:<[email protected]
> odigy.com>...
> > > "John Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > message news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
> > > > Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from
> > > > the wrong angle. Technology always advances, leaving
> > > > older products obsolete. This is
> true
> > > > in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so
> > > > negatively. If every generation of gear was
> > > > compatible with the previous, there would be
> very
> > > > little improvement.
> > >
> > > The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old
> > > stuff.
> >
> > Your opinion, not necessarily shared by everyone.
>
> Of course it is. Along that same line, the sky is blue.
>
> Let me get this straight, you dislike the new Shimano
> stuff enough to whine about it, yet you haven't tried it?

Go back and read it again. You obviously are having reading
comprehension difficulties.

> Please correct me if you have indeed tried the latest XTR
> nad/or Saint cranks.

I have two functional nads - I do not need to replace them
with the lighter, more expensive XTR nads, which have
compatibility issues with the previous generation of
Shimano nads.

Seriously, if I have perfectly functional XT gear, why do I
need to go out and buy XTR to try it out? If you supply the
*measured* difference in torsional rigidity between '03 XT
and '03/04 XTR, then maybe we have a place to start in a
discussion over "better."

(Hint: read the post before you go off and make all kinds of
assumptions.)

> If you have tried them and think they aren't superior
> (ease of install, rigidity, durability, weight, etc.)

*How* superior? Enough to throw away $150 of perfectly
useable gear? Send me a free set so I can try them out. That
way I won't have to spend $400 (or whatever XTR goes for
now) to see "for myself."

> to the older Shimano stuff, or Raceface, etc., then we
> must have VERY different riding experiences.

Again, how superior? I will give you "ease of installation."
But that's not worth $400. Maybe it is to you, but not to
me. Weight? the weight difference from carrying a couple of
Powerbars? Give me a break.

> > > To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
> > > retrogrouch lemming.
> >
> > Good thing nobody is doing that.
>
> Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror.
>
> "Incremental, small, performance-neutral tech that costs a
> lot of dough and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-
> functional gear is what bothers me."

You seem to be quoting something that has nothing to do with
your sweeping generalization, and everything to do with your
mistaken assumptions.

Try again.
--
Jonesy "Kung Fu master my ass."

 

[Jonesy]

John Morgan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<EbbAc.5702$ey.2955@fed1read06>...
> Jonesy wrote:
>
> >> (WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)
>
> >> Technology always advances, leaving older products
> >> obsolete.
> >
> > Indeed. But forced obsolesense, with very little gain in
> > functionality - this is what I see from Shimano. Yes,
> > there is some improvement, but not (in my mind) cost-
> > justified.
>
> So there it is, the argument in its entirety. Thanks for
> summing it up for
> me. Every person may have a different point at which they
> think gear is cost-justified. IMO, nothing is cost-
> justified with mountain bikes, being a niche market
> and all. Bike tires can cost $40 a piece... same as
> the 50,000 mile guaranteed tires on my car. *However*
> I make sacrifices for the sport I love... which
> explains why I have more invested in my bikes than I
> do in my car.

Yes, that *is* dedication. The part that is missing, yet, is
that keeping replacement parts for older spec stuff means
that the gear will live until it's useful live is over,
instead of being force-retired at an early age. That's part
of my equation.

> >> If every generation of gear was compatible with the
> >> previous, there would be very little improvement.
> >
> > Like wheels? Or the parallelogram RD? Or chain-drive?
>
> Those are all good technologies, but as soon as the
> opportunity to improve them or replace them comes along,
> you can be damn sure it's going to happen.

The bicycle wheel hasn't changed much in 100 years. This
according to The Man, Jobst Brandt. Paralellogram
derailleurs have been around for decades. Chain drive is the
most efficient of all the tried set-ups. Has been for over a
century. Now, maybe in twenty or so years, some new, whizzy
materials will render some of those things obsolete, and
I'll be on board for real improvement - like I said before,
I'm totally on-board with stuff that makes a real
difference.

> >> You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the
> >> benefits Octalink has over standard square taper.
> >
> > Uhhh, no. I bought an XT crankset because of
> > value/dollar. $120 for the crankset, $20 for the BB -
> > hard to beat. It just happened to be Octalink-only. I do
> > not plan on being a gear ***** and buying the latest and
> > greatest crankset in two years time. I want this thing
> > to last a while.
>
> Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older square
> taper model for $60?

There was no such thing as a new XT 180mm crankset in square
taper. But I would not have had any problem buying one if I
could have found one.

> They are still available, and it would be more consistent
> with the argument you're making.

Where? I didn't go out and actually LOOK for one, nor did I
consciously decide to purposely go Octalink. Hell, if I had
known I could get a square-taper XT never-used crankset in
180mm for $60, I would have done it.

> >> If I apply your sweeping judgment, Shimano should have
> >> stuck with square taper because it is compatible with
> >> cranks that have been made for decades.
> >
> > 1.) Does it work?
> > 2.) Does the new technology work appreciably better?
> > 3.) Will the new tech become a new standard, or just
> > another failed experiment?
>
> 1.) Square taper works, sure. 2.)Splined works appreciably
> better, yep.

How? Ease of installation? Yes. Weight? Yes. And the splined
stuff was not that much more expensive than the square-taper
stuff (like from RaceFace) that I was looking at.

>
> 3.) I would say it's been the standard for a while, failed
> no... because it's better than what we had before it
> existed.

If the "standard" fades away after only a few years, then it
wasn't a very good standard.

> > Does anyone remember VESA local bus? No? MCA?
> >
> > "New" doesn't always mean "better."
>
> VLB was quite an improvement over ISA, having a 32-bit
> wide data channel instead of the old 16 or 8. It wasn't
> a failure at all... it disappeared because it was
> replaced by PCI.

Nope. They were concurrent (PCI did come out a year later)
for at least two years. VLB faded away, and any gear you had
that was VLB was rendered obsolete.

> PCI will disappear when something else comes out that's
> better. What's the problem?

PCI has lasted a long damn time for a computer standard, you
will have to agree. And the new standard WAS a damn sight
better than ISA. IOW, the cost/benefit ratio was pretty
good. If another leap comes out that is as good, you damn
right I'd jump at it. Such is NOT the case with current
Shimano products.

> Thank you for bringing up MCA architecture. It is a case-in-
> point, falling perfectly in line with with what we're
> talking about here with Shimano. MCA was a superior
> technology to ISA, but it did not persist because it was
> incompatible with ISA (which is why VLB succeeded) and
> because it caused the price of the systems to go up.

So, it was the XTR of it's day, hmmm?

> Both of these technologies were newer *and* better than
> ISA. The latter only failed because it didn't gain a lot
> of public support.

And because IBM wasn't licensing it to the clone makers. An
Apple mistake. Shimano is big, and can cram any new gear it
wants down the throats of buyers.

> If the same thing happened to Shimano's new lineup, I can
> guarantee you that they would drop it pretty quick.

The public doesn't have much choice - when a bike is
built up already, it's hard to get the thing re-specced
non-Shimano. Impossible, really. And Shimano is the
800lb gorilla.

> Obviously, there are a few naysayers about the new Shimano
> stuff, but there always will be. The important thing is,
> the majority of bike builders and the buying public
> support Shimano. Guess you'll just have to deal.

If Shimano offers the lowest price, due to volume of sales,
then we are in a Microsoft argument. Microsoft can do
anything it wants, because they can. Shimano is in the same
boat. I can't go and get a fully-built XTR-spec bike "de-shimano-
ized" for free, so market forces aren't as clear as you
pretend. The buying public supports a lot of Shimano stuff,
but it sure as hell ain't XTR that's driving that.

The lower-end stuff (all square-taper, high-normal, separate
brake and shifter, etc.) is the volume. Go to Walmart and
see for yourself. It's like buying an IBM clone. What OS do
you get with that, 99 times out of 100?

> >> The splined bottom bracket is a superior technology
> >
> > In some respects. And ISIS is going to be around a
> > while. Octalink will just flat disappear - a failed
> > experiment, or a cynical marketing tactic.
>
> How can you say Octalink was a failure?

If it only lasts ten years, it wasn't that great. If the new
set-up is the new standard, and it's better, AND other
companies support it, then Octalink will be a distant
memory. Like Biopace.

> You bought into it yourself, and you obviously enjoy the
> benefits or you wouldn't have made the choice to buy it or
> stick with it this long.

You are impling motives on my part that don't exist. I like
the ease of installation. The lighter weight is a bonus. But
mostly, I went with it because I had no idea square-taper XT
existed anywhere. I would have bought that, if I could have.

> Failure? By whose standards? The way I see it, there are
> more criteria for judging the success or failure of a
> product than its production cycle. (And even by your
> standards, is 8 years [ongoing] that bad for a product to
> be on the shelf?)

It was an incremental, evolutionary change whose line is
dying. I'm sure there's a computer analogy somewhere. 3DFx?
Microsoft Bob? LOL.

The plain fact is that Octalink is going away. If it's so
good, then it should be continuing. Hell, maybe LX will keep
it as a standard. Or Deore. I dunno - time will tell.

> >> That being said, I need you to explain further why the
> >> advancement of technology upsets you.
> >
> > What does Dual Control do for me? The new crank and BB
> > style? Centerlock hubs and disks? Low-normal vs. high-
> > normal? 1.5 headtube diameter?
>
> Try them out and answer your own questions.

LOL. Nice tactic. No, I want *you* to tell me why you think
they are so great that I should change my bike over to them.
What makes them worth the money? Why should I spend so much,
if the benefits aren't easily apparent?

> Obviously just reading about
> them isn't going to convince you.

Depends on who is doing the telling. MTBR? No way. You? Much
more credibility.

> >> And finally, I must say that unless you're really
> >> lucky, you will be changing out parts on your bike for
> >> new ones long before they become obsolete.
> >
> > I guess my test of whether or not the change is good or
> > bad is this: what question does it answer, what problem
> > does it solve? If it answers an unasked question, or
> > solves a very minor problem, then the tech, to me, is
> > more *marketing*-driven than *market*-driven. And
> > Shimano, by it's very dominance of the market, can jam
> > any standard it wants down our throats, because they
> > can. And it doesn't really matter if that standard has
> > any real benefit to anyone, other than to the
> > stockholders in Shimano, Inc.
>
> Yep, you correctly analyzed it. Shimano is a business.
> And...*gasp* they're trying to make money! Now, now... I
> understand. Nobody wants to be forced to accept new
> standards... but do you think if they truly came up with
> horrible crappy ideas people would buy it?

If it says "XTR", there are quite a few folks out there who
buy the hype. Don't deny it. And I never claimed, ever, that
they were "horrible" or "crappy."

> Of course not! Biopace cranks, from what I hear, ended up
> being a bad idea... so people stopped buying them,
> consequently, Shimano had to stop making them.

Yeah, but those chainrings could be swapped out - you didn't
have to replace the whole damn crankset to get rid of them.
I had biopace - but I couldn't tell the difference anyway.
Another example of incremental, performance-neutral, marketing-
driven products.

> The very fact that Shimano is a business, means they are
> market driven.

Since they are so big, they can push their product on
suppliers better than other makers can. Whether or not their
new designs are actually noticably better.

> They want to deliver new and improved gear to folks who
> want gear that is better than what they've already got...
> and to make a buck in the meantime.

Or they are pushing gear that *might* be better, or slightly
better, via a marketing strategy that obsoletes designes
that are three years old, in order to get folks to buy gear
faster. Do the Centerlock brakes actually brake better than
ISO-mount brakes? How much weight does it save? Is that
weight savings worth the entire price it would cost to
switch (hubs, rotors)?

> They aren't the government, you know. I can't believe I'm
> here defending SHIMANO... but have you thought any of this
> through?

Have you read what I have written? Keep it civil, John.

> The 'Man' is not trying to keep you down in this
> case, Jonesy.

Where did I claim they were?

> John M
>
> PS. I, too, was against Shimano and Shimano products at
> one time... as evidenced by one of my bikes being Shimano-
> free. Now that I have all the new XTR stuff on my
> other ride, I had to change my tune.

I have tried Dual Control, and found it to be a PITA. It's
easy to get used to, but I like being able to grab a ton of
gears at once, and not have to click through all of them.
That's one of the things I love about Gripshift. I don't see
going to Dual Control for any reason - it just doesn't suit
my style. Luckily, the derailleurs are still cable-operated,
and the brakes still hydraulic, so the controls can be
changed out to suit the rider. I didn't think the Centerlock
brakes braked any better than Hayes hydraulics on ISO
mounts. And I really have no idea how much stiffer the new
cranks are. Where is the data? If it can't be measured, it
can't be felt. Even if it can be measured, it doesn't
necessarily feel different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally bagging on Shimano. I
have liked their price/performance ratio, at least on XT
stuff. But as I said in the very beginning, if I break
something tomorrow, I want to be able to buy just a
replacement part, and not have to replace a lot of
functional parts just because the old design was
obsoleted. That's
it.
--
Jonesy

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seriously, if I have perfectly functional XT gear, why do
> I need to go out and buy XTR to try it out? If you supply
> the *measured* difference in torsional rigidity between
> '03 XT and '03/04 XTR, then maybe we have a place to start
> in a discussion over "better."
>
> (Hint: read the post before you go off and make all kinds
> of assumptions.)

Ah, so you haven't tried the new stuff yet you continue to
whine about planned obsolescence.

Perfect.

As far as supplying measured rigidity, LOL. Go play your
games in RBT where you *might* impress some newbies.

The fact is that the new XTR/Saint stuff is very good, and
noticably better than the older stuff, or Raceface.

So sorry.

> > If you have tried them and think they aren't superior
> > (ease of install, rigidity, durability, weight, etc.)
>
> *How* superior? Enough to throw away $150 of perfectly
> useable gear? Send me a free set so I can try them out.
> That way I won't have to spend $400 (or whatever XTR goes
> for now) to see "for myself."

Thanks for admitting once again that you have no bassis for
comparision. It really just comes down to you whining for
the sake of hearing yourself whine, eh?

p.s. I never suggested that you throw away usable gear. It
was a way to expose the fact that your naive rant was
just that, naive.

> > to the older Shimano stuff, or Raceface, etc., then we
> > must have VERY different riding experiences.
>
> Again, how superior? I will give you "ease of
> installation." But that's not worth $400. Maybe it is to
> you, but not to me. Weight? the weight difference from
> carrying a couple of Powerbars? Give me a break.

Ease of installation, stiffness, ease of maintenance,
weight, etc. If you have a problem with the cost of the new
stuff, perhaps you should whine about that rather than a
vast conspiracy by Shimano to inflict planned obsolescence
upon Spider.

> > > > To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
> > > > retrogrouch lemming.
> > >
> > > Good thing nobody is doing that.
> >
> > Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror.
> >
> > "Incremental, small, performance-neutral tech that costs
> > a lot of dough and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-
> > functional gear is what bothers me."
>
> You seem to be quoting something that has nothing to do
> with your sweeping generalization, and everything to do
> with your mistaken assumptions.

Let me help Spider:

How has the new XTR stuff made your existing gear obsolete?
Are parts not available? Are replacements not available?

The fact is that you're just the latest in a long line of
whiners (starting at least with the folks who freaked when 7
speed was introduced) who can't accept change, even when the
products are superior(I know, I know, you have no experience
with the new stuff so you can't possibly know how its
changed, but that won't stop you from make spurious
arguments about big bad Shimano).

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older
> > square taper model
for
> > $60?
>
> There was no such thing as a new XT 180mm crankset in
> square taper. But I would not have had any problem buying
> one if I could have found one.

But there are a number of other manufacturers that make
those cranks...

> But mostly, I went with it because I had no idea square-
> taper XT existed anywhere. I would have bought that, if I
> could have.

That is truly odd. You actually limited yourself to Shimano
cranks rather than getting a square taper crank from one of
the many companies that offer them?

Why?

 

[Jonesy]

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older
> > > square taper model
> for
> > > $60?
> >
> > There was no such thing as a new XT 180mm crankset in
> > square taper. But I would not have had any problem
> > buying one if I could have found one.
>
> But there are a number of other manufacturers that make
> those cranks...

Really? News to me. Tell me, Pete, who - besides Shimano -
makes XT stuff?

> > But mostly, I went with it because I had no idea square-
> > taper XT existed anywhere. I would have bought that, if
> > I could have.
>
> That is truly odd. You actually limited yourself to
> Shimano cranks rather than getting a square taper crank
> from one of the many companies that offer them?
>
> Why?

Read what I have written on the subject. You'll find the
clue you lack.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Seriously, if I have perfectly functional XT gear, why
> > do I need to go out and buy XTR to try it out? If you
> > supply the *measured* difference in torsional rigidity
> > between '03 XT and '03/04 XTR, then maybe we have a
> > place to start in a discussion over "better."
> >
> > (Hint: read the post before you go off and make all
> > kinds of assumptions.)
>
> Ah, so you haven't tried the new stuff yet you continue to
> whine about planned obsolescence.

Who said I hadn't tried it?

> Perfect.

Ahh, assumptions...

> As far as supplying measured rigidity, LOL.

So, I'm supposed to just believe some marketing hype spouted
off in USENET? Get real. All kinds of myths about materials
exist - and claims made by someone who may or may not have
any idea of what he's talking about don't prove anything.

> The fact is that the new XTR/Saint stuff is very good, and
> noticably better than the older stuff, or Raceface.

According to whom? You? LOL - "I bought it, so it must be
good."

> > > If you have tried them and think they aren't superior
> > > (ease of install, rigidity, durability, weight, etc.)
> >
> > *How* superior? Enough to throw away $150 of perfectly
> > useable gear? Send me a free set so I can try them out.
> > That way I won't have to spend $400 (or whatever XTR
> > goes for now) to see "for myself."
>
> Thanks for admitting once again that you have no bassis
> for comparision.

Oh, I do have a bassis [sic]. Your inferrences based on
unfounded assumptions aside, of course.

> It really just comes down to you whining for the sake of
> hearing yourself whine, eh?

And your counter-whine is what, exactly?

> p.s. I never suggested that you throw away usable gear.

********. What else am I going to do with it? Start some metal-
sculpture project?

> > > to the older Shimano stuff, or Raceface, etc., then we
> > > must have VERY different riding experiences.
> >
> > Again, how superior? I will give you "ease of
> > installation." But that's not worth $400. Maybe it is to
> > you, but not to me. Weight? the weight difference from
> > carrying a couple of Powerbars? Give me a break.
>
> Ease of installation

That, and weight - already given. I'll drag two extra
Powerbars up the hill for $400, thanks. Installation? I'm
not sure how much faster it is than installing a cartridge
BB and regular crank arms, but since I'm not installing 100
of them a day, I don't think that's much of an issue.

> stiffness

An unsubstantiated claim.

> ease of maintenance

How much simpler can it be - pull out old, used cart. BB,
throw in a new one. Is it worth $250 over the limited
lifetime of the product?

> etc.

Etc.? What else is there?

> > > > > To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
> > > > > retrogrouch lemming.
> > > >
> > > > Good thing nobody is doing that.
> > >
> > > Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror.
> > >
> > > "Incremental, small, performance-neutral tech that
> > > costs a lot of dough and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-
> > > functional gear is what bothers me."
> >
> > You seem to be quoting something that has nothing to do
> > with your sweeping generalization, and everything to do
> > with your mistaken assumptions.
>
> Let me help Spider:

No, let *me* help *you*:

"To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
retrogrouch lemming."

I'm not poopooing the stuff simply because it's new. Re-read
my comments for the clue you need.

Oh, and you quoted out of context:

"I like new tech that makes real improvement. Incremental,
small, performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough
and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-functional gear is what
bothers me."

See that first sentence? It's not a throw-away. Thanks
for playing.
--
Jonesy "waiting for the pedantic 'real improvement' riposte"

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "p e t e f a g e r l i n"
> <[email protected]> wrote
in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older
> > > > square taper
model
> > for
> > > > $60?
> > >
> > > There was no such thing as a new XT 180mm crankset in
> > > square taper. But I would not have had any problem
> > > buying one if I could have found one.
> >
> > But there are a number of other manufacturers that make
> > those cranks...
>
> Really? News to me. Tell me, Pete, who - besides Shimano -
> makes XT
stuff?

How...pedantic. Not surprising though.

Please focus on this bit right here------->"180mm crankset
in square taper"

If you think you need Shimano instead of other equally
good brands, perhaps you're a blind brand loyalist or
something similar.

>
> > > But mostly, I went with it because I had no idea square-
> > > taper XT existed anywhere. I would have bought that,
> > > if I could have.
> >
> > That is truly odd. You actually limited yourself to
> > Shimano cranks
rather
> > than getting a square taper crank from one of the many
> > companies that
offer
> > them?
> >
> > Why?
>
> Read what I have written on the subject. You'll find the
> clue you lack.

I'm not interested in reading all of your posts to
figure out why you would limit yourself to Shimano when
then are many other manufacturers that make perfectly
compatible cranks.

Sorry.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "p e t e f a g e r l i n"
> <[email protected]> wrote
in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Seriously, if I have perfectly functional XT gear, why
> > > do I need to go out and buy XTR to try it out? If you
> > > supply the *measured* difference in torsional rigidity
> > > between '03 XT and '03/04 XTR, then maybe we have a
> > > place to start in a discussion over "better."
> > >
> > > (Hint: read the post before you go off and make all
> > > kinds of assumptions.)
> >
> > Ah, so you haven't tried the new stuff yet you continue
> > to whine about planned obsolescence.
>
> Who said I hadn't tried it?

"Send me a free set so I can try them out. That way I won't
have to
spend $400 (or whatever XTR goes for now) to see "for
myself."

Maybe you forgot this part? You're really losing it this
time. It is quite spectacular though.

>
> > Perfect.
>
> Ahh, assumptions...
>
> > As far as supplying measured rigidity, LOL.
>
> So, I'm supposed to just believe some marketing hype
> spouted off in USENET?

ROTFLMAO.

Real world experience from people who have tried both cranks
is now "marketing hype"?

You're too much.

> Get real. All kinds of myths about materials exist - and
> claims made by someone who may or may not have any idea of
> what he's talking about don't prove anything.

Ah, more RBT geekitude. Awesome!

> > The fact is that the new XTR/Saint stuff is very good,
> > and noticably
better
> > than the older stuff, or Raceface.
>
> According to whom? You? LOL - "I bought it, so it must
> be good."

Uh...yeah right Spider. I don't have my self-worth wrapped
up in what kind of cranks I ride.

It's quite simple. They are better. They were better before
I owned them and they're also better now.

I've bought plenty of **** and have no problems identifying
those products as such. In this case, the new XTR stuff is
simply superior.

You're projection is quite telling though...

> > > > If you have tried them and think they aren't
> > > > superior (ease of
install,
> > > > rigidity, durability, weight, etc.)
> > >
> > > *How* superior? Enough to throw away $150 of perfectly
> > > useable gear? Send me a free set so I can try them
> > > out. That way I won't have to spend $400 (or whatever
> > > XTR goes for now) to see "for myself."
> >
> > Thanks for admitting once again that you have no bassis
> > for comparision.
>
> Oh, I do have a bassis [sic]. Your inferrences based on
> unfounded assumptions aside, of course.

Hmmm...more fantasies, eh?

>
> > It really just comes down to you whining for the sake of
> > hearing yourself whine, eh?
>
> And your counter-whine is what, exactly?

Not a counter whine. Just an attempt at educating someone
who is apparently hopelessly clueless. I try.

> > p.s. I never suggested that you throw away usable gear.
>
> ********. What else am I going to do with it? Start some
> metal-sculpture project?

LOL.

You're apparently really wrapped up this time Spider. Here's
a bit of Spiderism:

Please quote where I suggested that you throw away
usable gear.

> > > > to the older Shimano stuff, or Raceface, etc., then
> > > > we must have VERY different riding experiences.
> > >
> > > Again, how superior? I will give you "ease of
> > > installation." But that's not worth $400. Maybe it is
> > > to you, but not to me. Weight? the weight difference
> > > from carrying a couple of Powerbars? Give me a break.
> >
> > Ease of installation
>
> That, and weight - already given. I'll drag two extra
> Powerbars up the hill for $400, thanks. Installation? I'm
> not sure how much faster it is than installing a cartridge
> BB and regular crank arms, but since I'm not installing
> 100 of them a day, I don't think that's much of an issue.
>
> > stiffness
>
> An unsubstantiated claim.

LOL again at the RBT geekitude.

> > ease of maintenance
>
> How much simpler can it be - pull out old, used cart. BB,
> throw in a new one. Is it worth $250 over the limited
> lifetime of the product?

Simply replacing the outboard bearings is easier with the
new setup. Again, you obviously don't know jack about the
new system. That and your silly whine about planned
obsolescence makes for entertaining reading.

> > Let me help Spider:
>
> No, let *me* help *you*:

That'll be the day Fred.

> "To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a
> retrogrouch lemming."
>
> I'm not poopooing the stuff simply because it's new. Re-
> read my comments for the clue you need.
>
> Oh, and you quoted out of context:
>
> "I like new tech that makes real improvement. Incremental,
> small, performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough
> and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-functional gear is
> what bothers me."
>
> See that first sentence? It's not a throw-away. Thanks for
> playing.

And that just about sums it up...you lack the experience
with the new stuff that would allow you to understand
that it's anything but incremental, small, performance-
neutral tech.

It also doesn't obsolete your existing equipment.

So what do you have left to whine about?