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 r l i n]

"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

 

[Stephen Baker]

Jonesy says:

>> To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming.
>
>Good thing nobody is doing that.

Oh, what the heck - someone has to do it:

I hereby poopoo the new shitmano stuff. Simply because it IS new ;-)

Steve "Luddite"

 

[[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.

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 r l i n]

"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 r l i n]

<[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.
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.

> 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.

 

[Stephen Baker]

John Morgan says:

>Bike tires can cost $40 a piece... same as the
>50,000 mile guaranteed tires on my car.

Ahem! Where do you buy your tyres. Here in RI I can't find a decent tyre for
under about $80 (just "around town" tyres, nuttin' special)
I once (and once only) put cheapo tyres on the family car - result was a
hydroplane (with 3 cars helping crunch the wagon), concussed wife with a pelvis
broken in 3 places, and 2 well-bruised kids (other two were safely strapped in
their kiddie seats and sound asleep.)

There's cheap, and then there's inexpensive...

 

[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]>...
> > > "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

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

"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 r l i n]

"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"