Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists

On May 30, 5:39 pm, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 10:10:41 +1000, James
wrote:



On 31/05/13 09:42, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:42:27 +1000, James
wrote:

On 30/05/13 22:28, John B. wrote:

So there you have it. Costs have gone up but I'd guess that the buying
public is largely to blame for the increase in prices. I doubt that
any major bike company starts out by calculating the costs to build
the bike. I'd guess they start out with a number that they think will
sell and calculate backwards from that. and if this is so, the
companies are reckoning that there is a market for a $10,000 bike.

That's not really how the author explained it. Basically he said that
the presence of a $10,000+ bike at the top of the range dragged peoples
expenditure toward the higher end. Instead of being happy buying a
$2000-$3000 bike, customers were happy to spend $4000-$5000, being well
below the top of the range.

I gather the manufacturers don't expect there to be much market at all
for the $10,000+ bikes, but by it being there on the shop floor
increases the sale price of the mid range bikes - and their profits.

Did you read the part of the article about marketing?

Not really. I already know a bit about that. Perceived value, for
instance. I participated in a marketing experiment back in the late
1950's where we changed the price of an outboard motor monthly for a
while. We discovered that their selling price was very much a factor
in sales. Which seems simple until you find that maximum sales did not
occur at the lowest sales price but at a higher figure. In fact the
sales figure was a bell curve and sales dropped off at both the low
and the high price.

And don't kid yourself, the bike companies know all that.

Probably the highest cost item in the Coca-Cola accounts is
advertisement. Far higher than cost of materials.

The author talked about a different marketing experiment that gave
useful insight.

You (and the author) are of course correct. In fact marketing is an
extremely complex subject. for example, studies have shown...

I know this is impolite of me, but... yawwwwwwwwn.

... that people
are more likely to turn to the right when entering a store, or to look
to the right, so goods on the right side of the isle are more often
picked by shoppers.

Most store chains have some sort of "members discount plan" which
allows them to identify who makes most of the purchases made in the
store. I recently read a study of Target Corp.'s marketing. From the
a study of purchases they can identify whether a young woman is single
or married and whether expecting a child or already has one and then
they can mail out discount coupons targeted to these peoples. It was
said that this increased their sales by a billion dollars the first
year.

(It also identified the statistician that developed the system but
didn't say how much his annual bonus was at the end of the billion
dollar sales year :-)

I used to have a Miyata road bike (have had two... no - three of them,
actually; but anyway, the one I'm talkign about), a top-of-the-(non-
professional)-line 914 cost (I think it was) about a thousand dollars
new in 1989.

The Miyata that I bought new in ~1987 was more bottom-of-the-line 112,
and I paid ~$300.

But the used-but-very-good-condition 914 that I had for a while cost
me ~$300 on ebay. I rode it and enjoyed owning it for a few years at
least, then sold it for grocery money. Asking $400, I readily had a
potential buyer interested enough to drive an hour with cash in his
pocket, but just as readily acquiesed to his haggling to throw in a
spare wheelset at that price. I wound up ~whole on the deal, and he
went home smiling.

Good quality and market value are interesting, yes.

(OTOH, if the record company presses too many copies of a really
excellent musical recording, it doesn't take long before they go in
the 99-cent cut-out bin. Markets are interesting like that, too.)

On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:00:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

snipped

I used to have a Miyata road bike (have had two... no - three of them,
actually; but anyway, the one I'm talkign about), a top-of-the-(non-
professional)-line 914 cost (I think it was) about a thousand dollars
new in 1989.

The Miyata that I bought new in ~1987 was more bottom-of-the-line 112,
and I paid ~$300.

But the used-but-very-good-condition 914 that I had for a while cost
me ~$300 on ebay. I rode it and enjoyed owning it for a few years at
least, then sold it for grocery money. Asking $400, I readily had a
potential buyer interested enough to drive an hour with cash in his
pocket, but just as readily acquiesed to his haggling to throw in a
spare wheelset at that price. I wound up ~whole on the deal, and he
went home smiling.

Good quality and market value are interesting, yes.

(OTOH, if the record company presses too many copies of a really
excellent musical recording, it doesn't take long before they go in
the 99-cent cut-out bin. Markets are interesting like that, too.)

But they don't put them in the bargain bin until sales fall off and
they (or at least they used to) pay disk-jockeys to play their latest
release in order to boost sales.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On May 30, 7:55 pm, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:00:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

snipped



I used to have a Miyata road bike (have had two... no - three of them,
actually; but anyway, the one I'm talkign about), a top-of-the-(non-
professional)-line 914 cost (I think it was) about a thousand dollars
new in 1989.

The Miyata that I bought new in ~1987 was more bottom-of-the-line 112,
and I paid ~$300.

But the used-but-very-good-condition 914 that I had for a while cost
me ~$300 on ebay. I rode it and enjoyed owning it for a few years at
least, then sold it for grocery money. Asking $400, I readily had a
potential buyer interested enough to drive an hour with cash in his
pocket, but just as readily acquiesed to his haggling to throw in a
spare wheelset at that price. I wound up ~whole on the deal, and he
went home smiling.

Good quality and market value are interesting, yes.

(OTOH, if the record company presses too many copies of a really
excellent musical recording, it doesn't take long before they go in
the 99-cent cut-out bin. Markets are interesting like that, too.)

But they don't put them in the bargain bin until sales fall off and
they (or at least they used to) pay disk-jockeys to play their latest
release in order to boost sales.


Yes, that's true - exactly the "interesting" market dynamics in play;
but WTF I got a *lot* of really great albums for ~99 cents apiece
still in the shrinkwrap, and e.g. The Byrds excellent 4-CD boxed set
for like sixteen bucks!

On 5/30/2013 5:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2013 1:53 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

That's not true at all. Name brand producers police production, do
QC, have ISO compliant factories, have sophisticated domestic
designers.

The bottom line is that the direct buyers of these frames are not
reporting any more failures than the buyers of name brand frames. Well
part of it may be Frank's theory of risk compensation and the buyers
of the frames direct from China are treating them better.

I'm not seeing well made CF frames breaking in great number. Maybe
the bleeding edge stuff is disposable, but even if that is true,
that's why you get the lifetime warranty.

As I said, that's the value advantage of buying a Trek or Specialized
from an authorized dealer, it's the warranty.


I don't agree with that. The warrant may make you more comfortable with
the idea of buying a bike with a frame that isn't lugged steel but the
dealers provide a lot of value added dimensions to the bike. Jay gave
you several examples. My Tarmac frame is a result of a lot of
engineering, testing and design. That doesn't come for free. And the
bike is more than the frame.

At any rate, not everyone is going to buy their frame and put together a
bike from scratch. If they do, they won't have a Tarmac. They'll have
a CF frame bike that they built themselves. Plusses and minuses there.



The article is he
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2013/05/21/mag-consumers-go-straight-source#.UafAI0Ack4I

On Fri, 31 May 2013 06:41:06 -0400, Duane Hébert
wrote:

On 5/30/2013 5:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2013 1:53 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

That's not true at all. Name brand producers police production, do
QC, have ISO compliant factories, have sophisticated domestic
designers.

The bottom line is that the direct buyers of these frames are not
reporting any more failures than the buyers of name brand frames. Well
part of it may be Frank's theory of risk compensation and the buyers
of the frames direct from China are treating them better.

I'm not seeing well made CF frames breaking in great number. Maybe
the bleeding edge stuff is disposable, but even if that is true,
that's why you get the lifetime warranty.

As I said, that's the value advantage of buying a Trek or Specialized
from an authorized dealer, it's the warranty.


I don't agree with that. The warrant may make you more comfortable with
the idea of buying a bike with a frame that isn't lugged steel but the
dealers provide a lot of value added dimensions to the bike. Jay gave
you several examples. My Tarmac frame is a result of a lot of
engineering, testing and design. That doesn't come for free. And the
bike is more than the frame.

At any rate, not everyone is going to buy their frame and put together a
bike from scratch. If they do, they won't have a Tarmac. They'll have
a CF frame bike that they built themselves. Plusses and minuses there.


I've always been a bit ambiguous about "life time warranty". Is it
because they've built something that never breaks or is it that it
breaks so often that they need to offer the warranty to get people to
take them :-?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:20:01 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute

wrote:



On Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:53:18 PM UTC+1, Jay Beattie wrote:



... get a Surly



LHT because it won't break, and if it does break, he can re-braze/weld



it or re-purpose it as a boat anchor or rebar in the back patio.



Backyard micro steel smelters was official Chinese government policy in Chairman Mao's day.

The failure of that, and other kookie "policies" were among the reasons he was eventually removed from power.



Andre Jute



Backyard steel smelters?

From the same place you got your (unattributed) quotations below, Wikipedia: "The Great Leap Forward was a tragedy for the vast majority of the Chinese. Although the steel quotas were officially reached, almost all of the supposed steel made in the countryside was iron, as it had been made from assorted scrap metal in home-made furnaces with no reliable source of fuel such as coal. This meant that proper smelting conditions could not be achieved."

It is estimated that between 20 and 40 million people died in China

during the Great Chinese Famine of 1958 - 1961 and additionally an

estimated 40 million births were lost either terminated or through

delayed marriage or failure to conceive. With an estimated population

of 900,000,000 that amounts to some 9% of the population .

Mao was never removed from power. In fact Lin Biao, who it is alleged

planned a coup against Mao was killed in a plane crash in 1971, some

claim due to his airplane being sabotaged. Mao died in office in 1976.

From the source that you chose: "In the last years of his life, Mao was faced with declining health ... Mao remained passive as various factions within the Communist Party mobilized for the power struggle anticipated after his death."

That sounds like "in office but not in power".

Andre Jute

On 5/31/2013 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 06:41:06 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 5/30/2013 5:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2013 1:53 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

That's not true at all. Name brand producers police production, do
QC, have ISO compliant factories, have sophisticated domestic
designers.

The bottom line is that the direct buyers of these frames are not
reporting any more failures than the buyers of name brand frames. Well
part of it may be Frank's theory of risk compensation and the buyers
of the frames direct from China are treating them better.

I'm not seeing well made CF frames breaking in great number. Maybe
the bleeding edge stuff is disposable, but even if that is true,
that's why you get the lifetime warranty.

As I said, that's the value advantage of buying a Trek or Specialized
from an authorized dealer, it's the warranty.


I don't agree with that. The warrant may make you more comfortable with
the idea of buying a bike with a frame that isn't lugged steel but the
dealers provide a lot of value added dimensions to the bike. Jay gave
you several examples. My Tarmac frame is a result of a lot of
engineering, testing and design. That doesn't come for free. And the
bike is more than the frame.

At any rate, not everyone is going to buy their frame and put together a
bike from scratch. If they do, they won't have a Tarmac. They'll have
a CF frame bike that they built themselves. Plusses and minuses there.


I've always been a bit ambiguous about "life time warranty". Is it
because they've built something that never breaks or is it that it
breaks so often that they need to offer the warranty to get people to
take them :-?

I think that the warranty is meant to deal with people's perception that
the frames are not as durable as a bike made of metal.

On Fri, 31 May 2013 05:19:32 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:20:01 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute

wrote:



On Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:53:18 PM UTC+1, Jay Beattie wrote:



... get a Surly



LHT because it won't break, and if it does break, he can re-braze/weld



it or re-purpose it as a boat anchor or rebar in the back patio.



Backyard micro steel smelters was official Chinese government policy in Chairman Mao's day.

The failure of that, and other kookie "policies" were among the reasons he was eventually removed from power.



Andre Jute



Backyard steel smelters?

From the same place you got your (unattributed) quotations below, Wikipedia:
"The Great Leap Forward was a tragedy for the vast majority of the
Chinese. Although the steel quotas were officially reached, almost all
of the supposed steel made in the countryside was iron, as it had been
made from assorted scrap metal in home-made furnaces with no reliable
source of fuel such as coal. This meant that proper smelting
conditions could not be achieved."


I really hadn't thought to emphasize the point. I had assumed that
most would describe a period where something like 40 million people
starved to death as a tragedy.

It is estimated that between 20 and 40 million people died in China

during the Great Chinese Famine of 1958 - 1961 and additionally an

estimated 40 million births were lost either terminated or through

delayed marriage or failure to conceive. With an estimated population

of 900,000,000 that amounts to some 9% of the population .

Mao was never removed from power. In fact Lin Biao, who it is alleged

planned a coup against Mao was killed in a plane crash in 1971, some

claim due to his airplane being sabotaged. Mao died in office in 1976.

From the source that you chose: "In the last years of his life,
Mao was faced with declining health ... Mao remained passive as
various factions within the Communist Party mobilized for the power
struggle anticipated after his death."

Yes I read that but for a better understanding of Mao's last years you
might read up on "the gang of four" which consisted of Mao Zedong's
last wife Jiang Qing, the leading figure of the group, and her close
associates Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, and Wang Hongwen. (You can
find it in the Wiki)


That sounds like "in office but not in power".

Or, perhaps "letting the Missus take care of it".


Andre Jute
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 31 May 2013 08:30:35 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 5/31/2013 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 06:41:06 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 5/30/2013 5:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2013 1:53 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

That's not true at all. Name brand producers police production, do
QC, have ISO compliant factories, have sophisticated domestic
designers.

The bottom line is that the direct buyers of these frames are not
reporting any more failures than the buyers of name brand frames. Well
part of it may be Frank's theory of risk compensation and the buyers
of the frames direct from China are treating them better.

I'm not seeing well made CF frames breaking in great number. Maybe
the bleeding edge stuff is disposable, but even if that is true,
that's why you get the lifetime warranty.

As I said, that's the value advantage of buying a Trek or Specialized
from an authorized dealer, it's the warranty.


I don't agree with that. The warrant may make you more comfortable with
the idea of buying a bike with a frame that isn't lugged steel but the
dealers provide a lot of value added dimensions to the bike. Jay gave
you several examples. My Tarmac frame is a result of a lot of
engineering, testing and design. That doesn't come for free. And the
bike is more than the frame.

At any rate, not everyone is going to buy their frame and put together a
bike from scratch. If they do, they won't have a Tarmac. They'll have
a CF frame bike that they built themselves. Plusses and minuses there.


I've always been a bit ambiguous about "life time warranty". Is it
because they've built something that never breaks or is it that it
breaks so often that they need to offer the warranty to get people to
take them :-?

I think that the warranty is meant to deal with people's perception that
the frames are not as durable as a bike made of metal.

could be although I don't remember carbon golf club shafts being
touted as having a lifetime guarantee. Or all the fiberglass yachts
:-)

But I think that you are right. Perception is everything.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:20:01 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

That sounds like "in office but not in power".

Andre Jute


Now you've got it - so apparently we all agree, that's different from
"removed from power"
--
Rob Lindauer, (replace "att" with "sbc")