Dropper posts for every bike?

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/5/2019 2:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/5/2019 1:06 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:


Come on, John. Don’t be a smarty pants. If I’ve got a roof over my head and
a million in the bank, I may choose other means to achieve fulfillment than
if I have a roof over my head and $2 in my pocket. The main point that
people are dancing around here is whether they feel that a certain
technology is worth paying list price for. I’m currently running a 3x9 STI
setup with canti brakes, simply because I do not feel that I will get
adequate incremental satisfaction per dollar by going with disks and Di2.
However, if there was another zero on all of my bank balances, I might give
it a try. What makes Lou happy is overkill for Frank. Chalo and Jay are on
different paths to enlightenment, but it doesn’t mean that their personal
choices don’t get them where they wanna go. Now, I personally believe that
there is excessive marketing going on and that a lot of new stuff is being
sold simply because “we can’t sell you something that you already own”. I
also think that at the bleeding edge, the incremental cost of innovation is
pretty darn high, but without early adopters, there’s nobody subsidizing
the more affordable mass market products.

+1, with the addition of my usual comment: We should be able to discuss
the benefits and detriments of each marketed "advancement."


Hopefully in an informed way after having tried said "advancement."

Really?

In (say) the 1880s, when bicycles were changing and improving rapidly,
that may have made sense to evaluate different springing systems, wildly
different frame designs, brand new pneumatic tires, etc. But now
bicycles are an extremely mature technology. We're deep into diminishing
returns. In fact, this is the era of negligible returns.

I don't have to try the next aerodynamic frame to know that the benefits
of a tiny reduction in aero drag are negligible. I haven't ridden an 11
cog bike, but based on my experience owning from 5 up to 9 and briefly
trying a 10, I don't need to ride an 11 to know it won't transform my
experience. I understand physics well enough to know that yet another
bottom bracket standard, 8% stiffer than the last, will be undetectable
in my riding.

Decades ago, an article in (IIRC) Scientific American discussed bike
technology. One interesting part was the computation of the performance
of the "ultimate" conventional bike - one with zero mass and zero aero
drag. The point was, it would not be much faster than what we have. The
mass and drag of the rider already dominate. Performance is not going to
improve much, and that's been shown by historical data from the grand
tours.

I already have so few problems (braking, shifting, etc.) that it's hard
to imagine any great mechanical improvement. If I could choose the
direction of the research efforts, it would be toward greater climate
comfort. It's cold out there! And rain still sucks when riding,
especially in halfway presentable clothing!

Simple, as in the early autos simply add a collapsible top and side
curtains.
--
cheers,

John B.