wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 2:21:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2019 7:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.

I see what you are saying, but people don't *buy* crap.Â* They buy it
because it's [marginally] better than what the had.Â* Eg. I could buy
this mountain bike

Â*Â*Â*Â*https://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Roadma...Black/55376950

Or I could buy this;

Â*Â*Â*Â*https://www.damianharriscycles.co.uk...8-touring-bike

By your argument, the first is a clear winner, because it's every bit as
good as the latter and 600 bucks cheaper!

Sorry, but no. There's almost always a wide range of price and quality
in every consumer good. Nobody's saying a Roadmaster is equivalent to a
Dawes. And really, I'm not even saying that (for example) cable discs
are _exactly_ as good as hydraulic discs.

What I'm saying is that for almost all cyclists, the difference between
hydraulic and cable discs is negligible, and so is the difference
between discs and decent rim brakes. Really, what percentage of cyclists
really need absolutely perfect braking in heavy rain or deep mud? Are
there really many people here who have had significant brake problems
riding before the modern disc mania? Has a high percentage of the
world's bike riders had those problems? I very much doubt it. For me,
like most, braking more than gently is a rare event.

The same logic applies to 11 cogs vs. 10 or 9 cogs; to wheels that
differ in mass by 50 grams; to derailleurs moved by electricity vs.
steel cables, and more.

But the industry (including the publishing portion) pushes discs as THE
thing everyone must have, as if we're incredibly lucky to not have been
killed multiple times by our caliper brakes. Likewise, carbon fiber is
purported to change your life; tubeless tires will make you wish you
never saw an inner tube; and how could someone possibly ride without 11
cogs in back? Oh, and with more than one sprocket in front?

But I know I'm an oddball retrogrouch. I still shift with both my right
hand and my left hand! I still know how to let go of the handlebars to
shift! And I still more than keep up with my (um, somewhat decrepit)
peer group while using 1980s technology.

I just ride.

But boy, when they start selling carbon fiber inner wires for shifters,
I'm jumping on those. And carbon fiber safety pins for keeping my pants
cuffs out of the chain. Think of the weight savings! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

I would have to agree with that. While there are rather large differences
in quality and ride between the lowest and the middle grade bikes there
sure isn't much between the middle and top end.

I don't know how to tell the difference between a well installed cable
and a hydraulic disk for anyone other than a very high performance rider.
We've seen that pro's tend t0 shy away from disks because it takes so
much time to change a wheel.

And when they are using disks they get in just as many wrecks as rim
brakes. They do not seem to corner any faster since what sort of fool
would dive deeper into a corner taking so many more chances for a
millisecond in cornering speed?

The same with the steadily increasing number of speeds - this makes a
difference for racers alone. I think that 8 speeds was the point at which
gear ratios vs. reliability of shifting and wear of components hit their
peak. Now they're talking about 14 speeds with cogs getting paper thin
and chains getting so narrow that breaking them isn't unheard of anymore.

Unlike you, I am more to the performance side. Over the same course the
difference between my Colnago, Time and steel Pinarello Stelvio are
barely seconds. I absolutely do feel the weight difference between the 18
lb Colnago and the 26 lb Pinarello but only at the tops of the short
steep climbs I'm trying to bust when I'm getting tired.

Surprisingly, on long climbing days there isn't enough difference to put
in a hat. Hard climb speeds are set by your endurance and not strength so
8 lbs makes no difference I can tell.


For group sets assuming they are set up well, the only difference really
that I notice is jumps between gears, and even then 9 to 11 speed cog, not
something that I notice really or care about.

Present Adventure bike seems more comfortable than the cheaper CX that it
replaces using same tyres etc. I do slightly notice the weight difference
but it’s not huge.

I do though notice rim vs Disk and cable vs Hydraulic which is very
noticeable. Some variation within them as well though fairly slight.

Roger Merriman