When is enough cycle technology too much?

In another thread I wrote: "The general market moment
for high-end autoboxes came and went, and left only a small niche
market of gearheads. Even if the Dura-Ace electronically assisted
manuals take off, the general market has looked and shrugged and just
about turned its back on high end automatics."

Several dealers in the Benelux told me that the Trek "Smover", though
well priced, was a hard sell because people just didn't think the
automatic gearbox technology would add value to their lives that a
manual hub gearbox didn't already add. In short, that the technology
wasn't wanted. They also told me what I could have guessed, that the
people who didn't mind the technology were rich and weren't buying
into the technology but into the exclusivity for vakansiefietse
(roughly holiday bikes; in the American vernacular, a personal or
weekend car as an addition to a car to drive to work, in other words
an expensive luxury and a superflous toy).

The impression I was left with was that to the intended market Cyber
Nexus was largely an irrelevant technology.

And yet, and yet... I found it a really is a very useful and
convenient technology. And it didn't cost a huge premium (in the
Gazelle implementation around a 40 per cent premium, roundabout the
same at Koga, maybe a third at Trek who gave you more than Gazelle did
of the Cyber Nexus gruppo). But the richest routine cyclists in the
world, who live in the Benelux, just didn't want it!

That raises the question whether a point comes where new and improved
technology is-- er, this will hurt a little -- irrelevant because the
existing product is developed, or perceived to be developed (same
thing in the market), to a high enough standard of competence and
convenience already to satisfy everyone except the irremediable
gearhead?

***
A brutally honest way of viewing the bicycle is as obsolete, crude low-
tech transport surviving only via poverty or the guilt of the trendies
(roadies, for whom the other cyclists involuntarily sacrifice so much,
don't count for **** in the global bike-count). To grasp the point,
ask yourself what else survives from the Victorian era that we still
use more or less unchanged, merely refined.

On the other hand, a product which reached its flowering more than a
century since -- has had a full century of refinement and now in all
its versions (including the cheap Indian Raleigh Roadster copy that
Andrew Muzi sells or sold) is a vastly better bike than anything sold
even forty years ago, not because of huge technical advances but
because of persistent refinement.

People may not want autoboxes (or CVTs, which also haven't taken the
world by storm) for the adequate and rational reason that what they
have (Shimano 7 and 8 speed hub gearboxes, and similar boxes from a
couple of competitors) is perfectly good enough and will be perfectly
good enough forever.

***

If any of that is true, I wouldn't bet any money on the Dura-Ace
electronically assisted manual shifting seeing its tenth birthday,
even among the pathologically conformist roadies the gruppo is aimed
at.

And I would say that your general cyclist considers bicycle technology
mature and would be hard to persuade to give new technology a trial,
regardless of whether it is cheap or expensive.

E&OE. In the case of innovation that means, "save for the genuine
tsunami of a total overthrow of the old order, say a fuel cell small
enough to fit in a bottom bracket and last 25 years of unlimited
mileage". I can see that impressing even the cyclists of the Benelux,
maybe even into paying a 10 per cent premium over the price of a nice
Gazelle for it.

***
Someone might want to give us a list of highlights of bicycle
technologies that didn't make it, and another list of highligts of
those that made it. My betting is that some which didn't will be
generally agreed to have deserved better, and some that did make it
will be wondered at.

Andre Jute
The psychology of mass markets is straightforward, except when it is
complicated -- Andre Jute to the 4As, NY, about 1970

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:11:45 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

In another thread I wrote: "The general market moment
for high-end autoboxes came and went, and left only a small niche
market of gearheads. Even if the Dura-Ace electronically assisted
manuals take off, the general market has looked and shrugged and just
about turned its back on high end automatics."

Why do you care about this?

Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:11:45 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

In another thread I wrote: "The general market moment
for high-end autoboxes came and went, and left only a small niche
market of gearheads. Even if the Dura-Ace electronically assisted
manuals take off, the general market has looked and shrugged and just
about turned its back on high end automatics."

Why do you care about this?

Jute is insecure, so he needs to endlessly promote his personal choices
as best, and those of others as inferior.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

On Apr 28, 9:52*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:11:45 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

In another thread I wrote: "The general market moment
for high-end autoboxes came and went, and left only a small niche
market of gearheads. Even if the Dura-Ace electronically assisted
manuals take off, the general market has looked and shrugged and just
about turned its back on high end automatics."

Why do you care about this?

Jute is insecure, so he needs to endlessly promote his personal choices
as best, and those of others as inferior.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

I think we all do that. But not the endlessly bit.

Tom Sherman wrote:
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:11:45 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

In another thread I wrote: "The general market moment
for high-end autoboxes came and went, and left only a small niche
market of gearheads. Even if the Dura-Ace electronically assisted
manuals take off, the general market has looked and shrugged and just
about turned its back on high end automatics."

Why do you care about this?

Jute is insecure, so he needs to endlessly promote his personal choices
as best, and those of others as inferior.


narcissists aren't insecure - andre's just plain crazy. bad at math too
apparently.

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:11:45 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote:

In another thread I wrote: "The general market moment
for high-end autoboxes came and went, and left only a small niche
market of gearheads. Even if the Dura-Ace electronically assisted
manuals take off, the general market has looked and shrugged and just
about turned its back on high end automatics."

Several dealers in the Benelux told me that the Trek "Smover", though
well priced, was a hard sell because people just didn't think the
automatic gearbox technology would add value to their lives that a
manual hub gearbox didn't already add. In short, that the technology
wasn't wanted. They also told me what I could have guessed, that the
people who didn't mind the technology were rich and weren't buying
into the technology but into the exclusivity for vakansiefietse
(roughly holiday bikes; in the American vernacular, a personal or
weekend car as an addition to a car to drive to work, in other words
an expensive luxury and a superflous toy).

The impression I was left with was that to the intended market Cyber
Nexus was largely an irrelevant technology.

And yet, and yet... I found it a really is a very useful and
convenient technology. And it didn't cost a huge premium (in the
Gazelle implementation around a 40 per cent premium, roundabout the
same at Koga, maybe a third at Trek who gave you more than Gazelle did
of the Cyber Nexus gruppo). But the richest routine cyclists in the
world, who live in the Benelux, just didn't want it!

That raises the question whether a point comes where new and improved
technology is-- er, this will hurt a little -- irrelevant because the
existing product is developed, or perceived to be developed (same
thing in the market), to a high enough standard of competence and
convenience already to satisfy everyone except the irremediable
gearhead?

The gearhead, if he's partial to hub gears will simply plunk for the Rohloff and
forget about it until it's completely broken in after a few thousand miles,
change the oil and proceed to continue forgetting about it. The technologically
inept seem never to have had the trouble with hub gears that they have with
derailleurs. Maybe Trek and Shimano might find a few more buyers for-sit-up-and-
beg-geometry bike lane cruisers with the automatic. My guess, and it's only a
guess is that it won't be a large number. The hub shifting doesn't seem to scare
those folks - they can drive a car, they can grasp sequentially higher and lower
gears.

Der's scare them. It's gotten much better after indexed shifting but still...

A brutally honest way of viewing the bicycle is as obsolete, crude low-
tech transport surviving only via poverty or the guilt of the trendies
(roadies, for whom the other cyclists involuntarily sacrifice so much,
don't count for **** in the global bike-count). To grasp the point,
ask yourself what else survives from the Victorian era that we still
use more or less unchanged, merely refined.

On the other hand, a product which reached its flowering more than a
century since -- has had a full century of refinement and now in all
its versions (including the cheap Indian Raleigh Roadster copy that
Andrew Muzi sells or sold) is a vastly better bike than anything sold
even forty years ago, not because of huge technical advances but
because of persistent refinement.

People may not want autoboxes (or CVTs, which also haven't taken the
world by storm) for the adequate and rational reason that what they
have (Shimano 7 and 8 speed hub gearboxes, and similar boxes from a
couple of competitors) is perfectly good enough and will be perfectly
good enough forever.

***

If any of that is true, I wouldn't bet any money on the Dura-Ace
electronically assisted manual shifting seeing its tenth birthday,
even among the pathologically conformist roadies the gruppo is aimed
at.

And I would say that your general cyclist considers bicycle technology
mature and would be hard to persuade to give new technology a trial,
regardless of whether it is cheap or expensive.

E&OE. In the case of innovation that means, "save for the genuine
tsunami of a total overthrow of the old order, say a fuel cell small
enough to fit in a bottom bracket and last 25 years of unlimited
mileage". I can see that impressing even the cyclists of the Benelux,
maybe even into paying a 10 per cent premium over the price of a nice
Gazelle for it.

***
Someone might want to give us a list of highlights of bicycle
technologies that didn't make it, and another list of highligts of
those that made it. My betting is that some which didn't will be
generally agreed to have deserved better, and some that did make it
will be wondered at.

Andre Jute
The psychology of mass markets is straightforward, except when it is
complicated -- Andre Jute to the 4As, NY, about 1970