What is the point of tubeless tires?

I rest my case!

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 10:39:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts.

Really! In particular, one friend of mine bought her bike specifically
because of the Zertz (well, and the supposed comfort from carbon fiber).
I don't know if she saw ads or believed the local shop guy (who, BTW, is
a very good guy and probably believed the hype himself). She had some
back problems causing some discomfort and hoped for a real improvement,
but she said she felt no difference at all.

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?

I don't know. We talked about it only once, maybe two years ago. I
didn't ask for details.

I do have riding friends who are engineers. With them, I might ask more
details, and we might have discussed. But this person is a lawyer. I've
learned that with lawyers, it's better to just let certain things go.
Except here, of course. ;-)

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

Um... on that "road"? I think I'm reading a work of fiction. That
wouldn't qualify as an alley around here.

But yes, I'm skeptical about the idea that every time a helmet touches
something, an injury was prevented - even a "nice scalp injury." (Should
the people jogging on that path wear helmets for the same reason?)


OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.

I don't doubt disc brakes work great. And I know by experience that
caliper brakes do, too.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want.

Sorry, the industry _does_ tell you what you have to have. Sometimes
it's explicit, in (say) a Buycycling magazine cover page or article
headline. I'm sure "The Gear you Have to Have!" has been in print there.
But just as often, the phrasing is different but the meaning is the
same, telling the gullible they have to buy this or that to keep up with
their friends, or to be safe on the roads, or stay in fashion or whatever..

Can you buy whatever you want anyway? Yes, it's still a (mostly) free
country and the industry's push doesn't necessarily work. But the
marketers never stop trying.

I really don't know how ordinary consumers make their purchasing decisions -- what they see or how they are influenced by marketing. Most of the bicycle marketing I see is counter-productive and generally for products that I don't want because they don't meet my needs. From my experience watching others in bike shops (in a non-creepy way), I do know that some less sophisticated consumers get excited about weird things that are really meaningless, or they get turned off by minor issues that are easily fixed. For example, a civilian may test ride two bikes and prefer one because its shifts better although it is affirmatively worse than the other bike which just needs a cable tightened -- or he or she might get super excited about positive feeling discs, but the rest of the bike sucks. People develop preferences for some strange reasons entirely unrelated to marketing.

Marketing or reviews have swayed some of my HiFi purchases with mixed results. I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because of the talking Chihuahua. But with bike stuff, the market only affects me to the extent it dictates the technology I must endure on a bike that I otherwise want to purchase -- like all the dopey BB standards, multiple through axle standards, etc. I may get confirmation bias from a Velo News review (Bicycling finally quit coming), but my buying decisions are more often driven by price, industry contacts, warranty, etc. Every company's good bike is pretty damned good. It's hard to go wrong these days.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 1/16/2019 3:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 10:39:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts.

Really! In particular, one friend of mine bought her bike specifically
because of the Zertz (well, and the supposed comfort from carbon fiber).
I don't know if she saw ads or believed the local shop guy (who, BTW, is
a very good guy and probably believed the hype himself). She had some
back problems causing some discomfort and hoped for a real improvement,
but she said she felt no difference at all.

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?

I don't know. We talked about it only once, maybe two years ago. I
didn't ask for details.

I do have riding friends who are engineers. With them, I might ask more
details, and we might have discussed. But this person is a lawyer. I've
learned that with lawyers, it's better to just let certain things go.
Except here, of course. ;-)

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

Um... on that "road"? I think I'm reading a work of fiction. That
wouldn't qualify as an alley around here.

But yes, I'm skeptical about the idea that every time a helmet touches
something, an injury was prevented - even a "nice scalp injury." (Should
the people jogging on that path wear helmets for the same reason?)


OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.

I don't doubt disc brakes work great. And I know by experience that
caliper brakes do, too.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want.

Sorry, the industry _does_ tell you what you have to have. Sometimes
it's explicit, in (say) a Buycycling magazine cover page or article
headline. I'm sure "The Gear you Have to Have!" has been in print there.
But just as often, the phrasing is different but the meaning is the
same, telling the gullible they have to buy this or that to keep up with
their friends, or to be safe on the roads, or stay in fashion or whatever.

Can you buy whatever you want anyway? Yes, it's still a (mostly) free
country and the industry's push doesn't necessarily work. But the
marketers never stop trying.

I really don't know how ordinary consumers make their purchasing decisions -- what they see or how they are influenced by marketing. Most of the bicycle marketing I see is counter-productive and generally for products that I don't want because they don't meet my needs. From my experience watching others in bike shops (in a non-creepy way), I do know that some less sophisticated consumers get excited about weird things that are really meaningless, or they get turned off by minor issues that are easily fixed. For example, a civilian may test ride two bikes and prefer one because its shifts better although it is affirmatively worse than the other bike which just needs a cable tightened -- or he or she might get super excited about positive feeling discs, but the rest of the bike sucks. People develop preferences for some strange reasons entirely unrelated to marketing.

Marketing or reviews have swayed some of my HiFi purchases with mixed results. I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because of the talking Chihuahua. But with bike stuff, the market only affects me to the extent it dictates the technology I must endure on a bike that I otherwise want to purchase -- like all the dopey BB standards, multiple through axle standards, etc. I may get confirmation bias from a Velo News review (Bicycling finally quit coming), but my buying decisions are more often driven by price, industry contacts, warranty, etc. Every company's good bike is pretty damned good. It's hard to go wrong these days.

Most of us here are probably much the same. But regarding the typical
consumer's decisions, a book I'm currently reading has some relevant
ideas. The book is _Risk_ by Dan Gardner, and it deals in detail with
the psychology that causes people to have greatly distorted ideas about
danger. (Um - like regarding riding bikes, although he doesn't mention
that.)

In discussing psychology fundamentals, he makes much of the difference
between what he calls "Gut" and "Head" which he treats as almost two
separate brains living inside your skull. "Gut" is your first
instinctive reaction, and is quick but not so smart. It's what makes
that stick look like a snake and cause you to jump away, or what makes
_that_ girl look very, very interesting. "Head" is the smarter but
slower, calculating part that says "There are no snakes in the snow" or
"If she's standing on a street corner at midnight in a miniskirt, she
might not make a good mother." Or whatever.

Thing is, it takes a certain amount of intelligence and a certain amount
of relevant knowledge for "Head" to do a decent job. With bikes as with
so much else, a lot of people's "Heads" aren't properly equipped.

So "Gut" says "Oooh, this one is shiny!" And the purchase is made.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 16/01/2019 3:30 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 10:39:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts.

Really! In particular, one friend of mine bought her bike specifically
because of the Zertz (well, and the supposed comfort from carbon fiber).
I don't know if she saw ads or believed the local shop guy (who, BTW, is
a very good guy and probably believed the hype himself). She had some
back problems causing some discomfort and hoped for a real improvement,
but she said she felt no difference at all.

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?

I don't know. We talked about it only once, maybe two years ago. I
didn't ask for details.

I do have riding friends who are engineers. With them, I might ask more
details, and we might have discussed. But this person is a lawyer. I've
learned that with lawyers, it's better to just let certain things go.
Except here, of course. ;-)

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

Um... on that "road"? I think I'm reading a work of fiction. That
wouldn't qualify as an alley around here.

But yes, I'm skeptical about the idea that every time a helmet touches
something, an injury was prevented - even a "nice scalp injury." (Should
the people jogging on that path wear helmets for the same reason?)


OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.

I don't doubt disc brakes work great. And I know by experience that
caliper brakes do, too.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want.

Sorry, the industry _does_ tell you what you have to have. Sometimes
it's explicit, in (say) a Buycycling magazine cover page or article
headline. I'm sure "The Gear you Have to Have!" has been in print there.
But just as often, the phrasing is different but the meaning is the
same, telling the gullible they have to buy this or that to keep up with
their friends, or to be safe on the roads, or stay in fashion or whatever.

Can you buy whatever you want anyway? Yes, it's still a (mostly) free
country and the industry's push doesn't necessarily work. But the
marketers never stop trying.

I really don't know how ordinary consumers make their purchasing decisions -- what they see or how they are influenced by marketing. Most of the bicycle marketing I see is counter-productive and generally for products that I don't want because they don't meet my needs. From my experience watching others in bike shops (in a non-creepy way), I do know that some less sophisticated consumers get excited about weird things that are really meaningless, or they get turned off by minor issues that are easily fixed. For example, a civilian may test ride two bikes and prefer one because its shifts better although it is affirmatively worse than the other bike which just needs a cable tightened -- or he or she might get super excited about positive feeling discs, but the rest of the bike sucks. People develop preferences for some strange reasons entirely unrelated to marketing.

Marketing or reviews have swayed some of my HiFi purchases with mixed results. I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because of the talking Chihuahua. But with bike stuff, the market only affects me to the extent it dictates the technology I must endure on a bike that I otherwise want to purchase -- like all the dopey BB standards, multiple through axle standards, etc. I may get confirmation bias from a Velo News review (Bicycling finally quit coming), but my buying decisions are more often driven by price, industry contacts, warranty, etc. Every company's good bike is pretty damned good. It's hard to go wrong these days.

-- Jay Beattie.


My wife will often comment about a commercial that was just on and I
won't have a clue what she's talking about. I tend to ignore marketing.

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something but
generally it's like you say. I have what came with the bike when I
bought it. My current bike has SRAM 11 speed. I had no interest in
SRAM and in fact was hesitant because I was used to Shimano stuff. But
I really liked the bike and the price was right. So now I have SRAM.
That's typical in my opinion.

On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something...

If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 05:26:50 -0800, lou.holtman wrote:

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:39:34 -0800, lou.holtman wrote:


Why is marketing a bad thing? Every company in the West has a
marketing department. That is how it works. Every product you have in
your house has been marketed and advertised at some moment. The
people I refer to as dinosaurs question always the choice of people
for bicycle parts in this case they consider as 'not detectable
improvements', 'insignificant', 'less reliable' 'too expensive', 'not
needed' and they are victim of marketing and that is what bothers me
from time to time. Most of the times the net outcome of all the
efforts of the marketing departments is that people have more choice
and that is a good thing in my opinion. If the marketing department
make a bad decision the product will disappear in the end. In this
discussion there are people that really benefit from tubeless tires.

If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what
marketing people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences
and opinion and leave it at that. However, there are some products that
over the years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow
anyone to use on any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give,
they are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience,
riding on slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to
return home in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm
not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

Both. It was on sealed roads that I first encountered riders with them,
briefly as soon after you'd hear they'd been carted off in an ambulance.
The killer to the theory of how good they are is that gravel and other
rubbish on the road makes them very unstable. I think people put them on
for "performance" reasons and find out very quickly that you can not
treat them like treaded tyres.

My last encounter was a local ride around reserve trails where someone
came on slicks, despite being stongly advised not to. People would be
talking to him and suddenly he'd not be there, but if you looked down,
there was heap of bicycle and rider. He pulled out after third fall.
Admittedly we do have clay based soils around here.

Lou

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:40:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/16/2019 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:


If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

I agree with Lou on this. I've done many, many miles on Avocet slicks
and liked them really well. I never had a problem.

(Well, except the time my car was parked in the hot sun with my bike
inside. One Avocet tire blew out in the heat.)

The road bike treaded tires I've seen have a tread just deep enough
that you can feel it if you rub your finger over the tire and I doubt
that the so called "tread" on most road tires has any effect on the
traction of the tire.

I might add that the indomitable Brandt and the all encompassing
Sheldon both said that there was no tread on road tires.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:55:10 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 16/01/2019 12:17 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:40:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:


If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

I agree with Lou on this. I've done many, many miles on Avocet slicks
and liked them really well. I never had a problem.

(Well, except the time my car was parked in the hot sun with my bike
inside. One Avocet tire blew out in the heat.)

Basically every high-end road tire on the market is a slick or semi-slick. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews Knobby tires are notoriously squirmy and slippery on wet asphalt. The best wet grip tires have a big contact patch and a grippy compound and either a modest file tread (my choice in fall with the leaves) or slicks when the leaves get swept. And setting into a wet corner with oil or other slick contaminant, nothing will keep you up short of outriggers. The good news is that I've never returned home in an ambulance because of a crash on wet pavement. I typically rode home and then drove myself to the hospital later -- or urgent care. My wife did pick me up the last time when I cartwheeled over my son who crashed on a wet descent, but I had to ride 5-10 miles to the pick-up point with a broken hand (which now has a swanky Ti plate in it)

-- Jay Beattie.





What would be the logic of knobs on concrete?

Tits on a Bull?
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:01:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/16/2019 2:39 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 7:48:44 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

Why is marketing a bad thing? Every company in the West has a marketing department. That is how it works. Every product you have in your house has been marketed and advertised at some moment.

Do you want to restrict the discussion to bicycling, or consider this
from a more general viewpoint? Let's go general for a bit.

Is marketing bad? Not if your objective is to have people's lives and
self-worth dominated by the amount of **** that they can manage to
afford - or buy on credit and hope to pay off some day. Not if you think
the best use of the world's manufacturing capacity is to pump out
gigatons of disposable crap. Not if you think that it's wise to sow
discontent in every underclass by telling them that richer folks are
more happy because they have bigger cars and TVs.

Marketing, almost by definition, is urging people to buy what they don't
really need. (Nobody markets toilet repair kits; you buy one only if you
really need one.) The promise is that buying THIS new cell phone, or
THAT brand of toothpaste, or THIS fancy car, will finally give meaning
to your life. Or returning to the bicycling context, buying THIS
derailleur or THAT aero handlebar will either allow you to keep up with
your stronger buddies, or make your rides - what? - 10% more pleasurable?

It's bull****. Those who are susceptible get a few weeks of endorphins
from the pride of new ownership. They may even be a bit faster on their
bike, due to the placebo effect. Then the magic product fades into the
background and becomes "old." It's time to get another hit by buying
something "new."

But if successful, those who ordered and produced the marketing effort
do very well indeed. They get more fees, more commissions, more stock
options. And they can go out and buy bigger cars, bigger TVs and even
more ****.

It seems like a cheap and ineffective attempt to bring meaning to life.

I think that you are getting carried away, just a bit.

Much, probably most, of the so called "deposable crap" is made that
way for two reasons, It is cheaper to make, and thus easier to market,
because the average buyer wants CHEAP, and due largely to the
extremely high cost of labour, particularly in the U.S., overly costly
to repair.

Some 40 years ago I took a 1/2 hp electric motor to a repair shop and
was told "go buy a new one at Sears, it will be cheaper then repairing
this one".

As for "buy THIS new cell phone, or THAT brand of toothpaste, or THIS
fancy car, will finally give meaning to your life" how else would you
market a product? Trying to explain why the front suspension on this
car is more advanced in design to the average buyer would be a futile
as talking Swahili. They wouldn't understand.

As an aside, according to STATISTA, in 2017, some 36,722,000 USians
were employed in wholesale and retail sales and manufacturing. Without
advertising many, maybe most, of them would be without a job.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:39:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts.

Really! In particular, one friend of mine bought her bike specifically
because of the Zertz (well, and the supposed comfort from carbon fiber).
I don't know if she saw ads or believed the local shop guy (who, BTW, is
a very good guy and probably believed the hype himself). She had some
back problems causing some discomfort and hoped for a real improvement,
but she said she felt no difference at all.

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?

I don't know. We talked about it only once, maybe two years ago. I
didn't ask for details.

I do have riding friends who are engineers. With them, I might ask more
details, and we might have discussed. But this person is a lawyer. I've
learned that with lawyers, it's better to just let certain things go.
Except here, of course. ;-)

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

Um... on that "road"? I think I'm reading a work of fiction. That
wouldn't qualify as an alley around here.

But yes, I'm skeptical about the idea that every time a helmet touches
something, an injury was prevented - even a "nice scalp injury." (Should
the people jogging on that path wear helmets for the same reason?)


OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.

I don't doubt disc brakes work great. And I know by experience that
caliper brakes do, too.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want.

Sorry, the industry _does_ tell you what you have to have. Sometimes
it's explicit, in (say) a Buycycling magazine cover page or article
headline. I'm sure "The Gear you Have to Have!" has been in print there.
But just as often, the phrasing is different but the meaning is the
same, telling the gullible they have to buy this or that to keep up with
their friends, or to be safe on the roads, or stay in fashion or whatever.

Can you buy whatever you want anyway? Yes, it's still a (mostly) free
country and the industry's push doesn't necessarily work. But the
marketers never stop trying.

But Frank, how do you know "what you want" unless someone tells you?
Depend on one's experience? And how does one get experience? Why, by
living a long time. So only the elderly can buy what they want?

And you a teacher. What else is "education", but telling inexperienced
people what someone else thinks or believes. If you remember, the sun
going around the earth was the de facto truth for about the first 1500
years of .the Christian era. And even today about 1/4 of the U.S.
population still believe it is true.
http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-american...-orbits-earth/
--

Cheers,

John B.