Too young to be a retrogrouch?

[Peter Cole]

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> IMVAIO, a true retrogrouch is someone who rejects positive advancements,
> such as hyperglide, indexed shifting, brifters, etc.
>
> There should be a more positive term for someone who wisely rejects
> changes that have been made solely for the benefit of the bottom line of
> the manufacturer, but that worsen the actual product, i.e. "compact"
> frames, aluminum tubing, and threadless headsets. At a time when most
> bicycle manufacturers are in a race to the bottom, the customers that
> patronize the few remaining good companies, such as Rivendell, deserve a
> better label.

I think you're confusing function with fashion. Fashion has its place, and
taste is individual, but don't misrepresent things, Grant Peterson is
selling fashion.

 

[Olebiker]

>http://www.bikespecialties.com/marip_petite.html

Man, I hope that pea soup color is more atrractive in person than it is
on that web page. That is one butt-ugly color.
**** "arbiter of bike style" Durbin

 

[Peter Cole]

"Bob Wheeler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Bicycle frames reached the peak of perfection with carefully lugged
> Reynold's 531 and equivalent tubing. It was essentially impossible to
> improve the product, and so alternative marketing techniques came into
> use, which capitalized on psychological factors to create demand --
> chief among which is "newer is better." Your preference may be retro,
> but it isn't unjustified.

This is silly. Bicycles have become lighter and less expensive to produce.
The ultimate performance material is carbon fiber, by a wide margin.
Nothing comes close to the price/performance level of welded aluminum.
Lugged frames may appeal to some with their aesthetics, but they're way
behind in performance, very expensive to make, and below average in
reliability.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:23:32 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There should be a more positive term for someone who wisely rejects
>changes that have been made solely for the benefit of the bottom line of
>the manufacturer

Yep. Helmets, rechargeable lighting systems for road use...

;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Stephen Harding]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:

> days riding steel. I own a real nice custom made Reynolds 653
> frame built by Mark Mulholand in Vernon B.C. with my name
> on the top tube.

You ride a custom Mulholand "Mazzoleni"? Any air foils or
dams on it?

Sounds *really* fast!


SMH

 

[Terry Morse]

Peter Cole wrote:

> The ultimate performance material is carbon fiber, by a wide margin.

Please explain what you mean by performance, and why carbon is
better than other materials.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Peter Cole]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > The ultimate performance material is carbon fiber, by a wide margin.
>
> Please explain what you mean by performance, and why carbon is
> better than other materials.

In bikes, as in aircraft, performance = strength to weight. Composites are
pretty much displacing all other materials in that domain, except in high
temperature applications. The cycling market is perverse, it claims to be
about performance, but it's really about fashion. I'm a value shopper, so I
go with welded aluminum, if I really cared about performance more, I'd go
with CF. Lugs look nice I guess, but you really can't look at them while
riding, perhaps it makes more aesthetic sense to have a really beautiful
stem.

 

[[email protected]]

Intersting! I purchased my last frame 10 years ago and chose titanium.
CF was more exotic at the time. My reasoning was that Ti would never
rust like steel and I liked the ride better than Al. I had no
experience with CF frames. I justified the price as it being "my last
frame."

10 years and some 30,000 miles and it rides and looks like new. That
spreads the cost over a lot of riding and makes it my "value" bike.
(Although my 30 year old steel Bottechia is pretty good on the value
scale as well, but I never ride it anymore)

 

[Bob Wheeler]

Peter Cole wrote:

> "Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The ultimate performance material is carbon fiber, by a wide margin.
>>
>>Please explain what you mean by performance, and why carbon is
>>better than other materials.
>
>
> In bikes, as in aircraft, performance = strength to weight. Composites are
> pretty much displacing all other materials in that domain, except in high
> temperature applications. The cycling market is perverse, it claims to be
> about performance, but it's really about fashion. I'm a value shopper, so I
> go with welded aluminum, if I really cared about performance more, I'd go
> with CF. Lugs look nice I guess, but you really can't look at them while
> riding, perhaps it makes more aesthetic sense to have a really beautiful
> stem.
>
>

I'll repeat myself. It would be very difficult to set up an experiment
to verify your claim using real riders under real conditions.

--
Bob Wheeler --- http://www.bobwheeler.com/
ECHIP, Inc. ---
Randomness comes in bunches.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Don't get your feathers up. He's not saying you should be ashamed to sell
> Trek plastic and aluminum bicycles. Races are won on them and money is
> made
> from selling them.
>
> Assembly line workers in a Trek or Cannondale plant probably do take a lot
> of pride in their work, but they differ very little from similar workers
> at
> GM or Ford.

There's a fundamental difference between a bicycle company, which is
manufacturing things that people don't have to own (especially at the high
end), and a company that manufactures something that is seen, for better or
worse, as a required staple of the American life. This pervades an entire
company, from top to bottom, and most of the "line people" I've met would
take offense at the notion that they're mere worker droids on an endless
assembly line. They know they have to put something special into the product
if people are going to buy it.

But, I may be unintentionally reinforcing a myth here. US-built Trek frames
(and most likely those from other companies as well) aren't built on
assembly lines. There may be a sub-assembly involved (the two rear
triangles, which is often done by custom builders as well), but it's a
single person putting all elements of the frame together and checking it for
alignment. It's a single person who does the high-end paint. Decals are laid
entirely by hand (and without templates, believe it or not).

> To compare these people to Richard Sachs or Bryan Bayliss is like
> comparing
> a school picture photographer to Annie Leibovitz.

The comparison included Waterford and Rivendell, so it would appear to be
more of an issue with the style of building rather than something that
represents the absolute pinnacle of the master craftsman.

I learned an interesting number last week. 13. That's the number of years
the average person has worked at Trek. Something is keeping these people in
an industry that historically doesn't garner the pay (nor apparently the
respect) of others. Anyone wanting the answer should take a tour of the
facility themselves (call ahead of time, I believe they offer them two
days/week).

It's probably similar elsewhere as well, but I can only speak for what I
personally have seen and experienced.

I will reiterate my main point- that "handcraftsmanship" and being an
"artisan" aren't the exclusive properties of small custom frame builders.
Tradition, rather, is what is carried forward by those in that end of the
business. The "retro-grouch" aspect comes from believing that things are
good enough and don't need to change. Something about a "traditional" frame
captures a mood/feeling/whatever that the owner is looking for, and such
things are difficult to move past because it's not about function (whether
that be weight, durability, suitability to task, whatever), but something
that is both obviously (to them) tangible and, at the same time, intangible.
It's a link to an older, simpler way of doing things, and, to some extent,
blinds one to the benefits of technology.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Pat]

: > > The ultimate performance material is carbon fiber, by a wide margin.
:
: In bikes, as in aircraft, performance = strength to weight. Composites are
: pretty much displacing all other materials in that domain, except in high
: temperature applications. The cycling market is perverse, it claims to be
: about performance, but it's really about fashion. I'm a value shopper, so
I
: go with welded aluminum, if I really cared about performance more, I'd go
: with CF. Lugs look nice I guess, but you really can't look at them while
: riding, perhaps it makes more aesthetic sense to have a really beautiful
: stem.

If bicycles made of carbon fiber and titanium performed exactly the same,
you might have an argument. But they don't.

Pat in TX
:
:

 

[Pat]

The "retro-grouch" aspect comes from believing that things are
: good enough and don't need to change. Something about a "traditional"
frame
: captures a mood/feeling/whatever that the owner is looking for, and such
: things are difficult to move past because it's not about function (whether
: that be weight, durability, suitability to task, whatever), but something
: that is both obviously (to them) tangible and, at the same time,
intangible.
: It's a link to an older, simpler way of doing things, and, to some extent,
: blinds one to the benefits of technology.
:
: --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
:
I think you are leaving out something: the beauty of lugged frames. Have you
never seen a carved wood headboard of a bed, for example, and then gone down
to Home Depot and seen that you can buy similar scrollwork done by a machine
in a few seconds and just glue it on a piece of plain wood? I think we
humans appreciate the work done by hand because we know we could never do
it. But, when I see a welded frame without lugs, I don't get that same
"Wow!" feeling. Yes, it's new technology and saves time and money, etc., but
it seems something has been lost, too. I don't feel blinded to technology,
but I mourn the passing of the obvious human touch.

Pat in TX

 

[Peter Cole]

"Bob Wheeler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > "Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Peter Cole wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The ultimate performance material is carbon fiber, by a wide margin.
> >>
> >>Please explain what you mean by performance, and why carbon is
> >>better than other materials.
> >
> >
> > In bikes, as in aircraft, performance = strength to weight. Composites
are
> > pretty much displacing all other materials in that domain, except in
high
> > temperature applications.

> I'll repeat myself. It would be very difficult to set up an experiment
> to verify your claim using real riders under real conditions.

I have no idea what you're repeating, or what experiment you're suggesting.
What I'm claiming about strength to weight is indisputable. Aesthetics is a
matter of opinion, material science isn't.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> : > > The ultimate performance material is carbon fiber, by a wide
margin.
> :
> : In bikes, as in aircraft, performance = strength to weight. Composites
are
> : pretty much displacing all other materials in that domain, except in
high
> : temperature applications. The cycling market is perverse, it claims to
be
> : about performance, but it's really about fashion. I'm a value shopper,
so
> I
> : go with welded aluminum, if I really cared about performance more, I'd
go
> : with CF. Lugs look nice I guess, but you really can't look at them
while
> : riding, perhaps it makes more aesthetic sense to have a really
beautiful
> : stem.
>
> If bicycles made of carbon fiber and titanium performed exactly the same,
> you might have an argument. But they don't.

I agree they don't, that's my whole point, CF is better than Ti in strength
to weight. That's the only objective *performance* metric important in bike
frames. If you have a performance advantage to Ti, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Pat]

: > If bicycles made of carbon fiber and titanium performed exactly the
same,
: > you might have an argument. But they don't.
:
: I agree they don't, that's my whole point, CF is better than Ti in
strength
: to weight. That's the only objective *performance* metric important in
bike
: frames. If you have a performance advantage to Ti, I'd like to hear it.

Your point that "that's the only objective performance metric important" is
wrong. That is just your opinion, not a statement of fact.

Pat in TX

 

[Peter Cole]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> : > If bicycles made of carbon fiber and titanium performed exactly the
> same,
> : > you might have an argument. But they don't.
> :
> : I agree they don't, that's my whole point, CF is better than Ti in
> strength
> : to weight. That's the only objective *performance* metric important in
> bike
> : frames. If you have a performance advantage to Ti, I'd like to hear it.
>
> Your point that "that's the only objective performance metric important"
is
> wrong. That is just your opinion, not a statement of fact.

OK, what's yours?

 

[Mike Latondresse]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in news:41bd0d87.37140720
@news.individual.net:

>
> Riding a fixed gear is pretty retro and mostly done by persons your
> age and younger as _the_ thing to do.
>
> They've heated up the market for old ten speeds.

Heated it up! They have turned it positively incandescent. I had to pay
real money at Cheapskates to get a frame to replace the too small one
on my existing fixie....bummer.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Hunrobe wrote:

> Your custom lugged frame may be prettier in your eyes but producing
> flawless welds requires as much if not more craftsmanship as do those
> brazed and hand filed lugs.

So much more that it's probably best done by robots.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> I learned an interesting number last week. 13. That's the number of
> years the average person has worked at Trek. Something is keeping
> these people in an industry that historically doesn't garner the pay
> (nor apparently the respect) of others. Anyone wanting the answer
> should take a tour of the facility themselves (call ahead of time, I
> believe they offer them two days/week).
>
> It's probably similar elsewhere as well, but I can only speak for
> what I personally have seen and experienced.

It's probably easier to live in Wisconsin on what a bike factory worker makes
than in California on three times that much. So people can have decent lives
doing what they like to do, on what these companies can afford to pay them.

Matt O.

 

[gds]

Just to interject. While they may not be as "objective" as a calculated
strenght/weight ratio. Such measures as stiffness and longevity
certainly should be considered. Clearly different materials yield
different "feels" and for some of this the differences are quite
marked. And if that desired feel can last a long time then there is
more value than if it can't.