On 1/13/2019 8:57 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What
problem do they solve and is it worth the extra
maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are
a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products
last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the
industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just
to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then
"Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!"
... and on and on, with front suspension, full
suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds,
carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel
bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the
improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are
deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles
the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is
going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim
brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for
a while (~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of
useless junk that shows up. There are also some great
improvements, and some wonders. While we will disagree
about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which
area of "improvement" would really work. I think most of
the categories of improvements we enjoy today had early
failures - hilariously so in some cases, and they were
surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas that
really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements
I've seen that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later
70's, assembling new bikes. Right about then Raleigh
shifted from lots of steel (or plastic) Nervar, Simplex,
Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and SR stuff. The
latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was junk
(plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s,
I doubt we would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts
could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the
quality, rolling resistance, weight of sewups,
pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI (Specialized
Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's
outsourced "LeTour" tires were good too. Today I can get
"handmade" non-vulcanized tires by Challenge, Veloflex, or
major brands like Vittoria that come pretty close to
duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are
only slightly heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were,
IIRC, pretty crappy. One could easily have thought that
"quality clincher" was a pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps
tightened enough to work - and I kept 'em pretty loose - I
still had killer problems with cold feet in winter. With
clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers, etc., not to
mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be
marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson
comes to mind, or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've
forgotten the names of most of the others, but they
certainly gave the impression that clipless pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming
majority of cyclists seem to think that index shifting is a
pretty neat idea. Despite some real turkeys early on
(Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that "clearly"
signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed
shifter. Who knew?

I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and
carbon frames, bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's
reaching back many years), and yes, disc brakes, etc. - and
all those advances coming on the scene with many poor early
designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about that
never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which
inventions would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all
have invested in Intel and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich
now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large
part, that churn turns out a few
not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most of us are
glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

http://velobase.com/ViewComponent.as...d-c614029c2627


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971