Are bicycle components designed by second-rate engineers?

In article ,
Jobst Brandt wrote:

Jay Beattie wrote:

Yes, but you can see what blunders they make and deduce their
incompetence.

It would be interesting to look at the history of this, I think.
*I have not studied it, but I suspect there were probably a lot
of really good engineers making bikes at the turn of the 20th
century, but a huge number of them migrated away into making cars
(indeed a lot of companies that made bikes turned into companies
that made cars). *It's quite plausible that ever since then the
good people have gone elsewhere.

I think we're putting too much on the back of the cycling industry
and ignoring general trends throughout all industries. Cheap &
disposable is the way of the electronics industry these days;
better to cram as many features into something as you can than
consider making it repairable or durable beyond its warranty.

Cell phones are the perfect example -- they can do anything except
transmit and receive voices with decent fidelity. If they were
truly function-driven, callers would sound like they were standing
next to you and not talking over a tuna can with a string attached.
But rather than working on signal strength, fidelity, network
backbone, etc., etc., you get a camera and a game of solitaire.
Then the thing craps out when it gets wet. Its all about do-dads.
I am amazed by car ads where the big selling point is an iPod
adapter. And technology has trended toward expensive replacement
parts -- chains, cogs, chain wheels used to be cheap (particularly
with all the knock off Campy chainrings). Now they appear to be a
major profit center. You can spend $12 on 8 oz of mystery oil.
It's like printer ink cartridges.

Hey Jobst, that's your fault. How come you never designed a
printer with consumer refillable cartridges?

The inkjet was developed in the HPL laboratory where I worked and
found to be a highly sensitive ink. It is one that has low viscosity
and dries fast, so it is not something one can readily fill "in the
field", but rather something that must remain sealed as it is in
print cartridges. As You see these can be made by other suppliers
and work well. Besides, the heater/piezo elements of an inkjet have
a finite life as well, and are best replaced with a new load of ink.

The ink used in inkjets is reportedly very similar to fountain pen ink-
a solution of dye in water with a detergent added to improve wetting and
flow.

I hope you noticed how poorly refilled cartridges work and their
longevity. That should be an explanation why a consumer refillable
cartridge is impractical.

However, it is sheer greed that results in printer ink costing the
equivalent of $2500-8000 per gallon when bought inside a cartridge.

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

Jobst Brandt wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

So why shouldn't bicycle component manufacturers be able to afford
the best engineers?

That is my estimate of the situation because I haven't met any natural
designers and idea people in the bicycle industry while I have met
them elsewhere.

There isn't much money in bicycles. There isn't much mechanism
manufacturing in the US anymore, that's mostly migrated overseas. It's
much more efficient to put the designers with the manufacturers. When
the Japanese dominated optical and electronic manufacturing, they also
had the best electromechanical mechanism designers. I worked for a US
printer company in the 80's and it was impossible to compete. You
couldn't hire the engineers, they didn't exist in the US.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

I think we're putting too much on the back of the cycling industry and
ignoring general trends throughout all industries. Cheap & disposable is
the way of the electronics industry these days; better to cram as many
features into something as you can than consider making it repairable or
durable beyond its warranty.

Nobody even questions how long something should last anymore, because
nobody can define it. That's nuts in my book. How long *should* a TV
last? Or an internet switch? Or a bicycle wheel?

I laughed when a friend said he wanted to buy a computer to last 10
years. I build my own, recycling components to whatever degree possible,
but it becomes dumb after a few years.

The irony is that automobiles, once derided as being among the worst in
terms of long-term durability, are now dramatically better than what was
sold 20 years ago. At least US autos anyway. But I suspect even there
the introduction of greater amounts of electronics will create more
issues down the road (although at least cars have some standards for
tapping into their onboard engine computers).

Digital electronics are cheap to produce, it makes economic sense to
replace metal (or plastic or gas) with chips.

Jay Beattie wrote:

Cell phones are the perfect example -- they can do anything except
transmit and receive voices with decent fidelity. If they were truly
function-driven, callers would sound like they were standing next to
you and not talking over a tuna can with a string attached. But
rather than working on signal strength, fidelity, network backbone,
etc., etc., you get a camera and a game of solitaire. Then the thing
craps out when it gets wet. Its all about do-dads. I am amazed by car
ads where the big selling point is an iPod adapter.

You've got to distinguish between the appliance and the network. It's
basically free to add digital doodads to the appliance. The incremental
cost of chips is nothing. Towers, backbones and even well sealed cases
cost lots of money.


And technology has
trended towards expensive replacement parts -- chains, cogs, chain
wheels used to be cheap (particularly with all the knock off Campy
chainrings). Now they appear to be a major profit center. You can
spend $12 on 8 oz of mystery oil. It's like printer ink cartridges.
Hey Jobst, that's your fault. How come you never designed a printer
with consumer refillable cartridges, -- Jay Beattie.

Give away the razor, sell the blades. That particular strategy (scam)
has been going for a long time now. At least you can refill cartridges,
sharpening blades is a little trickier.

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Jobst Brandt wrote:

Jay Beattie wrote:

Yes, but you can see what blunders they make and deduce their
incompetence.
It would be interesting to look at the history of this, I think.
I have not studied it, but I suspect there were probably a lot
of really good engineers making bikes at the turn of the 20th
century, but a huge number of them migrated away into making cars
(indeed a lot of companies that made bikes turned into companies
that made cars). It's quite plausible that ever since then the
good people have gone elsewhere.
I think we're putting too much on the back of the cycling industry
and ignoring general trends throughout all industries. Cheap &
disposable is the way of the electronics industry these days;
better to cram as many features into something as you can than
consider making it repairable or durable beyond its warranty.
Cell phones are the perfect example -- they can do anything except
transmit and receive voices with decent fidelity. If they were
truly function-driven, callers would sound like they were standing
next to you and not talking over a tuna can with a string attached.
But rather than working on signal strength, fidelity, network
backbone, etc., etc., you get a camera and a game of solitaire.
Then the thing craps out when it gets wet. Its all about do-dads.
I am amazed by car ads where the big selling point is an iPod
adapter. And technology has trended toward expensive replacement
parts -- chains, cogs, chain wheels used to be cheap (particularly
with all the knock off Campy chainrings). Now they appear to be a
major profit center. You can spend $12 on 8 oz of mystery oil.
It's like printer ink cartridges.
Hey Jobst, that's your fault. How come you never designed a
printer with consumer refillable cartridges?
The inkjet was developed in the HPL laboratory where I worked and
found to be a highly sensitive ink. It is one that has low viscosity
and dries fast, so it is not something one can readily fill "in the
field", but rather something that must remain sealed as it is in
print cartridges. As You see these can be made by other suppliers
and work well. Besides, the heater/piezo elements of an inkjet have
a finite life as well, and are best replaced with a new load of ink.

The ink used in inkjets is reportedly very similar to fountain pen ink-
a solution of dye in water with a detergent added to improve wetting and
flow.

I hope you noticed how poorly refilled cartridges work and their
longevity. That should be an explanation why a consumer refillable
cartridge is impractical.

However, it is sheer greed that results in printer ink costing the
equivalent of $2500-8000 per gallon when bought inside a cartridge.


One might whittle a set of wooden movable block type and
make ink at home from lampblack if the prospect of
"enriching HP" irritates all that greatly.

I'm still in awe of modern post-24-pin printers. Quick,
quiet and the darned things (like my Laserjet II) just last
forever. Like magic! What's _that_ worth?

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

Jobst Brandt wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

Yes, but you can see what blunders they make and deduce their
incompetence.

It would be interesting to look at the history of this, I
think. I have not studied it, but I suspect there were probably a
lot of really good engineers making bikes at the turn of the 20th
century, but a huge number of them migrated away into making cars
(indeed a lot of companies that made bikes turned into companies
that made cars). It's quite plausible that ever since then the
good people have gone elsewhere.

I think we're putting too much on the back of the cycling industry
and ignoring general trends throughout all industries. Cheap &
disposable is the way of the electronics industry these days;
better to cram as many features into something as you can than
consider making it repairable or durable beyond its warranty.

Cell phones are the perfect example -- they can do anything except
transmit and receive voices with decent fidelity. If they were
truly function-driven, callers would sound like they were standing
next to you and not talking over a tuna can with a string attached.
But rather than working on signal strength, fidelity, network
backbone, etc., etc., you get a camera and a game of solitaire. Then
the thing craps out when it gets wet. Its all about do-dads. I am
amazed by car ads where the big selling point is an iPod
adapter. And technology has trended toward expensive replacement
parts -- chains, cogs, chain wheels used to be cheap (particularly
with all the knock off Campy chainrings). Now they appear to be a
major profit center. You can spend $12 on 8 oz of mystery oil.
It's like printer ink cartridges.

Hey Jobst, that's your fault. How come you never designed a
printer with consumer refillable cartridges?

The inkjet was developed in the HPL laboratory where I worked and
found to be a highly sensitive ink. It is one that has low viscosity
and dries fast, so it is not something one can readily fill "in the
field", but rather something that must remain sealed as it is in print
cartridges. As You see these can be made by other suppliers and work
well. Besides, the heater/piezo elements of an inkjet have a finite
life as well, and are best replaced with a new load of ink.

HP and others have been successfully sued under anti-monopoly laws.

I hope you noticed how poorly refilled cartridges work and their
longevity. That should be an explanation why a consumer refillable
cartridge is impractical.

It's not only practical, it's the only way to make inkjet printers
practical. It helps to use a printer like a Canon which doesn't discard
the print head with the cartridge, it's designed to last many cartridges
(or refills).

Jobst Brandt

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 31, 5:51 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
... you can see what blunders they make and deduce their
incompetence.

Of course, we've all read stories of incompetence in (say) automotive
engineering, despite the intense testing that's done before bringing a
new car to market.

But to whatever degree this problem is real, I think it's partially
explained by the nature of the industry. I think that, with few
exceptions, bike engineers work for small companies that are driven by
the market to innovate and to chase weight savings, and do so
quickly. If it's not NEW and LIGHTER it had better be damned cheap.

But another explanation is that most bike engineers probably enter the
field out of love for bikes. When companies can get engineers willing
to work for love, they don't have to pay them as much money. When
they're not offered much money, the best engineers are likely to look
elsewhere for a job. So while I'm sure there are some excellent
engineers in the bike biz, it makes sense that there are also lots of
not-so-excellent ones.

Design has to be tightly coordinated with manufacturing process. Tooling
design is generally more complicated than part design if the process is
hard tooled, as any high volume parts are. When manufacturing went
offshore, the tool & die business went with it. About the only thing
produced here is low volume CNC stuff, and even that seems to have
declined sharply. There are no engineers here because there are no jobs
here.

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Tim Bradshaw wrote:

On 2010-07-31 22:51:31 +0100, Jobst Brandt said:

Yes, but you can see what blunders they make and deduce their
incompetence.
It would be interesting to look at the history of this, I think. I
have not studied it, but I suspect there were probably a lot of
really good engineers making bikes at the turn of the 20th century,
but a huge number of them migrated away into making cars (indeed a
lot of companies that made bikes turned into companies that made
cars). It's quite plausible that ever since then the good people
have gone elsewhere.

There seem to have been few engineers- at least as we know them- making
bikes throughout the history of the machine. The first bike makers
(velocipedes) were mostly carpenters and cabinet makers, then
blacksmiths and the like (ordinaries and early safeties), and eventually
mass marketers like Col. Pope, Gormully and Jeffries, etc. Heck, the
pneumatic tire was invented by a veterinarian. The basic principles of
bicycles were found through trial and error and, if one looks at
surviving examples from the history of bicycles there were a *lot* of
errors.

Engineers have tended to write books about what the blacksmiths and
carpenters discovered- Archibald Sharp back around the end of the 19th
century and, more recently the authors of _Bicycle Science_- rather than
making bicycles themselves. There appear to be a lot of designers but
few engineers in the bicycle industry.


Not really.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/biography/james-starley

On Jul 31, 10:51*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I'm really very surprised by what Jobst says so
bluntly: "...the bicycle industry cannot afford to hire competent
engineers."

That is my estimate of the situation because I haven't met any natural
designers and idea people in the bicycle industry while I have met
them elsewhere.

This thread is off the rails and above is the point where it was
derailed by Jobst's either/or, on/off absolutism. The fact that a
bunch of engineers are not first-rate, or even average, doesn't make
them incompetent.

Natural innovators are, by the laws of nature evidenced in any bell
curve distribution of natural talents, few and far between. There is
absolutely no reason that I can see to expect a particularly greater
concentration of innovators in bicycles.

you can see what blunders they make and deduce their
incompetence.

But surely they do something right as well, Jobst? I'm not arguing
that none of the engineers working in bicycle or bicycle component
design is incompetent, but it seems obvious to me that the vast
majority should be average, a few better than that, and only a small
number actually incompetent -- or we would see more liability suits.

Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)

Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

On 1 Aug, 20:36, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
*Tim Bradshaw wrote:

On 2010-07-31 22:51:31 +0100, Jobst Brandt said:

Yes, but you can see what blunders they make and deduce their
incompetence.

It would be interesting to look at the history of this, I think. *I
have not studied it, but I suspect there were probably a lot of
really good engineers making bikes at the turn of the 20th century,
but a huge number of them migrated away into making cars (indeed a
lot of companies that made bikes turned into companies that made
cars). *It's quite plausible that ever since then the good people
have gone elsewhere.

There seem to have been few engineers- at least as we know them- making
bikes throughout the history of the machine. *The first bike makers
(velocipedes) were mostly carpenters and cabinet makers, then
blacksmiths and the like (ordinaries and early safeties), and eventually
mass marketers like Col. Pope, Gormully and Jeffries, etc. *Heck, the
pneumatic tire was invented by a veterinarian. *The basic principles of
bicycles were found through trial and error and, if one looks at
surviving examples from the history of bicycles there were a *lot* of
errors.

Engineers have tended to write books about what the blacksmiths and
carpenters discovered- Archibald Sharp back around the end of the 19th
century and, more recently the authors of _Bicycle Science_- rather than
making bicycles themselves. *There appear to be a lot of designers but
few engineers in the bicycle industry.

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

igit