Whay are bicycle tires so damn expensive?

T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:

Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:

If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
become more like cars, Â*Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
they do with good bikes.

The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.

Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
bikes don't have.

What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)

As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content". Â*

I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.

[1] Â*E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.

Ugly? What do you mean?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...orino_Crop.jpg

Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.

Chalo

Chalo wrote:
T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
become more like cars, Â Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
they do with good bikes.
The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.

Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
bikes don't have.

What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)

As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content". Â

I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.

[1] Â E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.

Ugly? What do you mean?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...orino_Crop.jpg

Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.

Chalo

Plenty of examples both ways:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/REDTHX05.JPG



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

Chalo wrote:


If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
they do with good bikes.


I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most
bicycles seem more like cars from 100 years ago, with the working parts of
the drive train completely exposed to road dirt and weather, requiring
frequent cleaning and hand lubrication, and wearing out parts in hundreds or
thousands of miles, not hundreds of thousands of miles.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/reikopm/1573842804/

-- Andy

Andy Heninger wrote:
:Chalo wrote:

:
: If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
: become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
: they do with good bikes.
:

:I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most

Chalo's absolutely ****ing nuts. Yeah, you can't work on a modern car
with a rock and a bigger rock, which seems to be what he thinks you
should need, but modern cars are amazingly reliable and durable. It's
not uncommon for cars to go 50,000 miles before they need any work
beyond oil changes and windshield wipers.

The most reliable bicycles are pitiful junk in comparison.


--
sig 116

Chalo wrote:


Ugly? What do you mean?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...orino_Crop.jpg

Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.

Fashion is beyond human comprehension.

That car did inspire a pretty good movie, though.


--
- Frank Krygowski

David Scheidt wrote:

Andy Heninger wrote:
:
:Chalo wrote:
:
:
: If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
: become more like cars, *Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
: they do with good bikes.
:
:I'm not so sure. *Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most

Chalo's absolutely ****ing nuts. *Yeah, you can't work on a modern car
with a rock and a bigger rock, which seems to be what he thinks you
should need, but modern cars are amazingly reliable and durable. *It's
not uncommon for cars to go 50,000 miles before they need any work
beyond oil changes and windshield wipers. *

The most reliable bicycles are pitiful junk in comparison. *

Bicycles work very nicely for their purposes. Compare a bicycle that
has been ridden daily for thirty years and has consumed less than its
own original purchase price as maintenance, with a car meeting the
same criteria.

I have worked on air- and spacecraft. Those are much more like nice
bicycles, both in their build quality and in their price per pound.
They have good materials, good finishes, pleasing precision even in
noncritical areas, and where possible they have good service access.

By comparison, cars seem to be made out of garbage and designed to
stymie attempts to work on them, like department store "bikes". They
might work a lot better and last somewhat longer than BSOs, but they
are still junk. It's their nature.

Bikes and cars are not the only things that compare this way. Compare
a sewing machine to a washing machine. One is like a bike, and the
other is like a car. Nobody would have any difficulty identifying
which is which. Compare a gun and a lawnmower. Just as you don't
want a sewing machine that's built like a mashing machine, or a gun
built like a lawnmower, you don't want a bike built like a car. Is
this hard for you to understand?

Chalo

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:21:49 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

Andy Heninger wrote:
:Chalo wrote:

:
: If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
: become more like cars, Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
: they do with good bikes.
:

:I'm not so sure. Speaking as an owner/driver/rider, not a mechanic, most

Chalo's absolutely ****ing nuts. Yeah, you can't work on a modern car
with a rock and a bigger rock, which seems to be what he thinks you
should need, but modern cars are amazingly reliable and durable. It's
not uncommon for cars to go 50,000 miles before they need any work
beyond oil changes and windshield wipers.

The most reliable bicycles are pitiful junk in comparison.
50,000 is at the low end for a "quality" car. Around here we consider
80,000km (50,000 miles) "nicely broken in"

On 9/11/2011 9:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Chalo wrote:
T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
become more like cars, Â Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
they do with good bikes.
The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.

Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
bikes don't have.

What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)

As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content". Â

I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.

[1] Â E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with inadequate
handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.

Ugly? What do you mean?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...orino_Crop.jpg


Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.

Chalo

Plenty of examples both ways:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/REDTHX05.JPG

So you consider the Ford Explorer to have exemplary looks?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

T°m Sherm@n wrote:
On 9/11/2011 9:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Chalo wrote:
T∅m Sherm∴n wrote:
Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
If you had ever worked on a car, you would not wish for bikes to
become more like cars, Â Good cars have more in common with BSOs than
they do with good bikes.
The BSO equivalents in automobiles [1] mostly disappeared from the US
market by the mid 1980's due to competition from the Japanese.
Everything now for sale has at least competent handling, brakes,
specific engine output, reliability, durability, and ergonomics.

Yes, cars have those, with the notable exception of ergonomics for non-
Japanese sized people. Those qualities are the product of billions of
dollars of engineering efforts _per car model_, which is a resource
bikes don't have.

What cars don't have is decent materials, finishes, tolerances, or
serviceability, when it matters to anything except routine operation
for the duration of the warranty. In this regard they are just like
BSOs, but with a longer actual or implied warranty. (I think the
implied warranty on a Roadmaster expires at the point that money is
transferred to Walmart, which is the designed purpose of the bike.)

As another comparison, my Honda NHX110 [2] is about as nicely made as a
bicycle of the same cost, but offers much more "content". Â

I had a Honda VF1100S. The motor was impressive but ugly. The frame
and suspension were effective, but extra-ugly. All the parts that
weren't involved with making power and getting it to the ground (many
of which were just anti-ugliness covers) were so shabby and plasticky
that they tended to fall away in dandruff-like fashion. And my crude
homemade replacements for some of them (e.g. fenders) were much better
manufactured than the original parts despite being made extremely
expediently from materials I happened to have lying around.

[1] Â E.g., your typical 1970's "Detroit" passenger cars with
inadequate
handling, brakes, fuel economy, space efficiency, reliability,
durability and ergonomics, not to mention being as ugly as sin.

Ugly? What do you mean?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...orino_Crop.jpg



Even now I wonder what a stylist could have been thinking to invent
such a horrifying travesty against aesthetics.

Chalo

Plenty of examples both ways:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/REDTHX05.JPG

So you consider the Ford Explorer to have exemplary looks?


The owner of that vehicle died and rotted for weeks before
his body was found. Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.

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

Per :
Around here we consider
80,000km (50,000 miles) "nicely broken in"

My Suburban has a little over 190,000 on it and the only reason
I'm replacing it is that the roof has rusted through in several
places where the roof rack rails attach and nobody wants to fix
it.

If it weren't for that, I'd be thinking in terms of 350,000+ if I
live that long.
--
PeteCresswell