Whay are bicycle tires so damn expensive?

On 9/12/2011 7:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
T°m Sherm@n wrote:
On 9/11/2011 9:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Chalo wrote:
TâËâ€*…m ShermâËâ€*´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.


Inside it or somewhere else? The smell would be hard to get out, eh?

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

On 9/11/2011 8:10 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã 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, 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.)

My 1994 Civic Si had poor interior materials - that is why the fabric on
the driver's seat with 160,000+ miles of use looked almost as good as
the fabric on the rear seats with less than a couple of thousand miles
of use?

The engine was crappy also. After the same 160K+ miles of hard starts
and speed-shifts above redline, compression was still excellent and
never used a measurable amount of oil. Only engine maintenance besides
oil and filter changes was valve lash adjustment every 30K and new spark
plugs every 60K.

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

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.

Have not noticed anything like that on my last 3 Honda's (two of which I
still have).

[1] 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.

Every time I see one of the few remaining [1] 1970's "Detroit" full size
cars, I have a very unpleasant visceral reaction - sort of like finding
an adult Komodo Dragon in your bathtub in the morning feeling.

Of course, new car designs of the last 5 to 8 years have returned to
deliberate ugliness, especially Chrysler/Dodge. Ugh.

[1] There *is* an upside to road deicing salt corrosion.

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

On 9/11/2011 8:10 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
[...]
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.[...]

While not the most cosmetically beautiful, everything on my 1979 Honda
CB400T worked well, and the bike was a joy to ride. Wish I could have
it back.

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

On 9/12/2011 2:03 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
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.

Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?
Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
*and* poorer fuel economy, poor drivability (especially when
carburated), poorer handling and brakes, less comfortable seats, poorer
crash survivability, horrible ergonomics in instruments and control,
etc, etc, etc (in in particular "Detroit" products of that period).

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.

Well, no one that earns a fair wage can afford to fly anything but an
ultralight.

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.

And this is from experience with which makes and models of modern cars?

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?

Well, an ArmaLite AR-15/M-16 is much nicer in tolerances and finish
quality compared to the ubiquitous AK-47, in the real world the AK-47
works as well at a much lower unit cost.

Then there is the Israeli Iron Dome system that costs well over
$1,000,000.00 per installation and is $50,000.00+ every time it is used.
So a Party of God (aka Hezbollah) member can shoot off a $250 rocket
built in a garage or basement and cost the US taxpayer [1] more than
200: 1. No wonder we are going broke.

[1] You do not think the Israelis pay for this, do you now?

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

On Sep 12, 6:31*pm, "T°m Sherm@n" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

My 1994 Civic Si had poor interior materials - that is why the fabric on
the driver's seat with 160,000+ miles of use looked almost as good as
the fabric on the rear seats with less than a couple of thousand miles
of use?

The engine was crappy also. *After the same 160K+ miles of hard starts
and speed-shifts above redline, compression was still excellent and
never used a measurable amount of oil. *Only engine maintenance besides
oil and filter changes was valve lash adjustment every 30K and new spark
plugs every 60K.

And if you wanted a car built more in line with Chalo's
standards, Honda offered that too. The NSX had an
aluminum body (chromate conversion before painting),
forged aluminum suspension, ... . But in 15 years of
production they sold about 20,000 worldwide. Cars
reflect what people are willing to pay for.

Tom Ace

T°m Sherm@n wrote:

Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:

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.

Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?

Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.

Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
*and* poorer fuel economy,

Like the 55mpg VW Rabbit Diesel? Or the Honda Civic that got over
50mpg in the early eighties, but doesn't now even in its hybrid
form?

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/...age-1978-2007/

I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
fuel economy.

Chalo

On 9/13/2011 3:21 AM, Chalo wrote:
T°m Sherm@n wrote:

Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:

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.

Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?

Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.


Comparing my oldest bicycle (27 year $400 Specialized Expedition) to our
oldest car (15 year old $17,900 Toyota Camry), the maintenance cost
relative to the purchase price is about the same. The preventative
maintenance and changing of wear items on the Camry averages about $400
per year (oil changes, tires, brakes) with a very occasional repair
(knock on wood).

Since I did all the bicycle repairs (other than wheel truing which I
suck at) myself, the cost was pretty low, but if I had run to the bike
shop for every repair I would have spent way more than the cost of the
bike. The only car maintenance I did on the Camry was the oil changes at
$10-15 each.

I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
fuel economy.

The cars have become loaded down with a lot more stuff that requires
larger engines in order to safely be able to accelerate.

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/11/19/story-of-a-decade-compact-cars-gain-weight-become-more-fuel-ef/

On 9/12/2011 9:00 PM, Tom Ace wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:31 pm, "T°m Sherm@n"""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

My 1994 Civic Si had poor interior materials - that is why the fabric on
the driver's seat with 160,000+ miles of use looked almost as good as
the fabric on the rear seats with less than a couple of thousand miles
of use?

The engine was crappy also. After the same 160K+ miles of hard starts
and speed-shifts above redline, compression was still excellent and
never used a measurable amount of oil. Only engine maintenance besides
oil and filter changes was valve lash adjustment every 30K and new spark
plugs every 60K.

And if you wanted a car built more in line with Chalo's
standards, Honda offered that too. The NSX had an
aluminum body (chromate conversion before painting),
forged aluminum suspension, ... . But in 15 years of
production they sold about 20,000 worldwide. Cars
reflect what people are willing to pay for.

Let us face it. The exact same car as the Honda NSX (Acura NSX in the
US) would have sold much better if it's price was 50% *higher* and it
had a Ferrari badge. Most exotic cars are bought for showing off, not
for any inherent value.

Just like uncomfortable and inferior Harley-Davidson cruisers outsell
"metric" sport-touring bikes in the US, despite the latter costing less
and out-performing the H-D in all objective ways - it is all about image
and social status.

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

On 9/13/2011 5:21 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
T°m Sherm@n wrote:

Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:

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.

Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?

Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
perhaps? How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
purchase of cars? I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.

Well, in general I would not want to use a 30 year old car as a daily
driver, no matter its condition.

Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
*and* poorer fuel economy,

Like the 55mpg VW Rabbit Diesel?

The old Diesel Golf I (Rabbit) could barely get out of its own way,
while the current Golf TDI matches it in fuel economy (upper 40 mpg
range is more realistic for both cars), while having more cargo and
passenger space, much stronger acceleration, better brakes and handling,
much better rustproofing [1], much lower emissions and noise, etc, etc, etc.

Or the Honda Civic that got over
50mpg in the early eighties, but doesn't now even in its hybrid
form?

That early 1980's Honda Civic would not meet current emissions standards.

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/...age-1978-2007/

I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
fuel economy.

Specific fuel economy (normalized to either power or vehicle weight) has
improved significantly, along with much better drivability. Good
riddance to the carburetor, not to mention the "tune-up" that has been
made obsolete by electronic engine management, which performs a
"tune-up" several times per second.

No one really wants an obsolete vehicle, although H-D riders think they do.

[1] In my experience the Golf I would rust out in less than 15 years in
the upper Midwest.

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

On Sep 13, 11:21*am, Chalo wrote:
T°m Sherm@n wrote:

Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:

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.

Why would anyone want a car to last 30 years (except for nostalgia)?

Because it costs six months to a year of a working person's income
perhaps? *How much of your hard-earned do you want to devote to the
purchase of cars? *I use my dishwasher almost every day, but I don't
want to devote a quarter of my gross revenue to it.

Compared to modern cars, those of 30 years ago had much weaker engines
*and* poorer fuel economy,

Like the 55mpg VW Rabbit Diesel? *Or the Honda Civic that got over
50mpg in the early eighties, but doesn't now even in its hybrid
form?

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/...age-1978-2007/

I have seen big increases in unsafe and unnecessary engine power over
the last 30 years, but I have not seen any significant increases in
fuel economy.

Chalo

A non-catalyst vehicle can lean out to 22:1 . With catalyst
enforcement, lean-out is typically 16:1 Dual charge and direct inject
systems can partly overcpome the problem. Catalysts also steal power
during their heat-up period.