John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 23:46:10 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:46:12 UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try
riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike
(which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't
quite feel like new chain/cassette issues. It was subtle and more
like a loose freehub body. So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let
me check. He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't
loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he
pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes
back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a
charm. Took 8 minutes.

Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not.

This will always be the case. Different people know different things,
which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile
equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny
improvements in speed.

Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a
super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops. My
son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were
usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes. He
worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance
of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone.

I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old
ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at
about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much
younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the
shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few
months.)

But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication
and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry
pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable.

It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic
percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs.
Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts
that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker.

How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've)
gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder.
Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank.

We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for
your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders.
But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because
they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to
repair, cost less and are less fashionable?

Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter
wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims?

I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I
remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7
rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we
and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than
in those days.

I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined
as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that
mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists.

But! It sells bicycles!
(and without sales there would be no bicycle shops :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

Ah, but a lot of bicyclists want a bicycle that resembles a racing
bicycle. Even in MTBs the tendency is towards racing bikes. Look at how
the chainstays have become shorter on MTBs over the years since the early
1980s. Here's a small image of my 1980's Bianchi MTB. Look carefully and
you can see the water bottle and cage mounted BEHIND the seattube.

Cheers


You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to
sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the
market demand?

Basic marketing strategy, like basic stats seems to evade people.

Yes, you do create markets by convincing consumers.


Bull****.

Even to the extent that the level of the shelves in the supermarket
where your stuff is displayed is important as it has been known for
years that people most often tended to buy stuff displayed at eye
level,


You’re confusing competition with market creation.

Or that people predominantly buy autos of certain colors, or all the
other things that the "marketers" have discovered about the buying
habits of the vast unwashed.


You’re confusing consumer preference with market creation. Red car or blue
car,the market is for the car.

Political Pundits do extensive survey's to see that will best convince
the proletariat that "my guy is best" and cry "vote for my guy. He'll
give you everything you'll ever want"! (Knowing of course, from the
surveys exactly what the voter "wants")
--


Totally irrelevant.


Cheers,

John B.




--
duane