John Morgan <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%rvAc.6743$u%3.5153@fed1read04>...
> <lots o' snipage throughout, doesn't matter, nobody will read it anyways>
[snip] Some folks do read this stuff, LOL.
> > like I said before, I'm
> > totally on-board with stuff that makes a real difference.
>
> Of course, I'm sure anyone that could afford it would be glad to accept
> giant leaps in technology that obviously improve performance.
That's what I mean about disk brakes and suspension. Even SPV shocks
are pretty neat stuff. I consider these things to be significant
improvements.
> Unfortunately, improvements usually come in small, incremental, performance
> neutral steps.
I agree. Which is why I don't buy a computer or computer parts when
the latest/greatest hits the shelves. I like to buy my performance
upgrade all in one shot.
> >> 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.
>
> XT? I was suggesting you go with square taper LX or Deore level. I mean,
> we're talking value and Deore is great for that.
I wanted the best value for my dollar. I felt that XT was the
lightest, strongest gear I could get for that money. I accepted
Octalink as a downside, but only a downside because I would prefer to
be able to do my own BB maintenance. This is where the new XTR is
attractive.
Another reason was that the Fango has chainstays that require the
curved shape of the Shimano stuff. So says Mr. Castellano, on the
spec sheet that came with the bike.
> You can punish Deore
> components just as long as anything else, then replace them for half the
> cost when they wear out.
It's true. I almost did buy LX, but the supplier I was buying from
didn't have any 180mm.
> >> 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.
>
> I have a more progressive attitude about this. The length of time a
> standard is in place isn't as important as getting someplace better with a
> newer standard. You said yourself it's about the quality of the ride...
> and you probably rarely think about your gripe with Shimano while you're
> cruising along.
No, I don't, really. I like the fact that the gear works well and
that it's pretty cheap for the performance level.
> Nothing wrong with being satisfied by the gear you
> currently have, but where do you draw the line between being satisfied and
> wanting to upgrade to newer and better stuff?
I do that when I break, bend or am upgrading due to other reasons
(disk brake hubs, and to replace the hubs that the shitty LBS screwed
up by not putting grease in them. Don't get me started...)
> Is it at the $60 price
> point? $120? $200? Really, the whole issue boils down to cost.
I agree - I am willing to go new tech if the price is right. XTR
ain't got the right price.
> If you
> could get the new XTR stuff for less dough, you wouldn't have any
> complaint, would you?
Depends - but I sure as heck wouldn't buy it now - my XT gear works
just fine, and I'm quite happy with it's performance. I frankly can't
tell the difference between the XTR on a riding buddy's bike and my
XT. It pedals, it stops, it changes gears. And it doesn't do it so
much better as to have me going "holy ****, I gots to get me that
stuff!"
> >> > 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?
>
> Alright, I will meet you half-way. I've owned a splined XT setup and I've
> owned a new XTR setup. I've owned dual-control, rapid fire, and grip shift
> setups. Honestly, they all work great. I have no complaints about any of
> them. The new XTR runs the smoothest and "feels" higher quality than
> anything I've tried.
That's fine. It feels good. Heck, isn't that the reason we sometimes
buy one more expensive pair of pants over a cheaper pair?
> I'm a lightweight, so I couldn't tell you if XTR is
> any stiffer than what you use (I never noticed any flex in my XT cranks).
> The larger outboard bearings are superior in feel, that's for sure. I've
> heard they will last longer, having a larger surface area
I'll buy both of those - they actually make some sort of sense. I'm
on the border of clyde, and I never noticed any flex in my XTs either.
Frankly, on an FS bike, I have no idea how anyone could feel some
very small flex in the crankset.
> but I'm like
> you, I am usually fairly easy on my gear. The new generation gear shifts
> smoother, pedals smoother, brakes smoother, and is lighter weight than
> anything I've used.
>
> I know what you're going to say, it's not worth $400 for "feel" right?> Of
> course it isn't, not while your XT stuff works fine...
You *do* understand my point! And if you talk about braking and
shifting in addition to pedalling, it's getting closer to $1k, right?
> and especially not
> since you now have 4 BBs in stock. When it's time to upgrade, though I
> recommend you go with the new standard (if it's still around - LOL). And
> by then the cost will have come down.
I suspect I will have no choice but to go to some kind of different
standard. Octalink will be dead, probably (maybe the 105 gruppo will
continue on with Octalink...), and I'll have cranks that will be worth
their weight in aluminum.
> LOL, look Jonesy, why not just buy the newest thing out there and ride the
> edge of the wave? It's the *only* way to beat the system of obsolescence.
> You're playing a losing game right now and you know it. =P
You got that right. Raceface is going to an external bearing BB
set-up, too. But I'll bet that they keep the ISIS and square-taper
stuff going, for a while at least. Maybe by the time I've run out of
BB, there'll be a whole new standard that obsoletes everything!
> Give in to the dark side once, and you'll forget why you ever fought it in
> the first place.
Disk brakes, full suspension, really wide, low-pressure tires...
Damn, I'm halfway there...
> > 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)?
>
> Shimano designed a new XTR-level disc brake from the ground up. Why not
> create something *new* that may revolutionize disc brakes?
Here we must part company - the design is essentially the same. The
same as disk brakes have been for 40 or so years.
> All that is
> sacrificed is a little bit of compatibility (and even then the end user is
> still given the choice - being able to use XT rotors on any ISO hub they
> want). Again, being market driven, if it isn't what the public wants, it
> won't stick.
IIRC, XT is now going Centerlock as well. M760/765, I think.
> >> The 'Man' is not trying to keep you down in this case, Jonesy.
> >
> > Where did I claim they were?
>
> Your entire argument against
> corporate-giant-800-pound-gorilla-microsoft-business-model Shimano screams
> it.
Shimano is big. Very big. They own a huge portion of the bike parts
biz. Because they can offer very low cost OEM gear, they can, by
their very size, dictate the design, good or bad.
This is not paranoia, but just plain observation. In addition, since
their OEM buyer often buy the gruppos in full sets, compatablity
issues from year to year really don't touch them much. Last year, ISO
+ ISO rotor. This year, Centerlock + Centerlock rotor. It's still a
wheelset that does exactly the same thing as last year's. Who cares
if it's different? (Just an example.)
> > 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.
>
> Yup me too.
>
> I feel kind of bad for starting this thread now, it wasn't intended to call
> you out, Jonesy.
Don't be, and you didn't. My reasons for making the choices I do
might not make a ton of sense to everyone, and that's OK. It's my
money, and I'll spend it like I see fit. I have my opinions, and they
sure as hell aren't going to match everyone elses', LOL. I do,
however, consider myself a reasonable and careful shopper, no matter
what the item - bike, car, stereo, lawnmower...you get the idea. If I
screw up in my purchases, I will tell folks what, and why.
I'll start with two things:
Lawnmower. I bought a Troy-bilt. It had all the features I wanted,
for a decent price. But that price turned out to be false economy,
because half of those features failed right out of the warranty
period, in an expensive fashion. Now I have a very heavy POS mower
that I plan to run until the engine seizes. I am not putting another
drop of oil in that damn thing, either. And wouldn't you know it, I
haven't seen the level of oil drop on the dipstick in two years.
Great - the whole thing's a POS EXCEPT the motor. LOL.
Fork. I got a Marz Z1 Flylight 80. It's a nice fork, except that
it's an air fork. Even at very low pressure, it's harsh in it's
travel, ramping up too fast as it nears the end of it's stroke. I
prefer MUCH more the coil-n-oil varieties of Marzocchi forks. Don't
get me wrong, I think the Flylight is pretty good, but I wouldn't get
another single-chamber air fork. (Maybe the Doppio Air is a better
system. I'd have to try it to see.)
> I respect your opinion, but there's really not a lot left
> that can be said about the subject until someone else adds another
> perspective.
I agree with you there. Maybe my Shimano-free pledge is foolish. But
I'm going to go for it until I have a reason not to.
Thanks for a good discussion,
--
R.F. Jones
