On 1/16/2019 5:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:54:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/16/2019 3:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 10:39:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts.

Really! In particular, one friend of mine bought her bike specifically
because of the Zertz (well, and the supposed comfort from carbon fiber).
I don't know if she saw ads or believed the local shop guy (who, BTW, is
a very good guy and probably believed the hype himself). She had some
back problems causing some discomfort and hoped for a real improvement,
but she said she felt no difference at all.

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?

I don't know. We talked about it only once, maybe two years ago. I
didn't ask for details.

I do have riding friends who are engineers. With them, I might ask more
details, and we might have discussed. But this person is a lawyer. I've
learned that with lawyers, it's better to just let certain things go.
Except here, of course. ;-)

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

Um... on that "road"? I think I'm reading a work of fiction. That
wouldn't qualify as an alley around here.

But yes, I'm skeptical about the idea that every time a helmet touches
something, an injury was prevented - even a "nice scalp injury." (Should
the people jogging on that path wear helmets for the same reason?)


OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.

I don't doubt disc brakes work great. And I know by experience that
caliper brakes do, too.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want.

Sorry, the industry _does_ tell you what you have to have. Sometimes
it's explicit, in (say) a Buycycling magazine cover page or article
headline. I'm sure "The Gear you Have to Have!" has been in print there.
But just as often, the phrasing is different but the meaning is the
same, telling the gullible they have to buy this or that to keep up with
their friends, or to be safe on the roads, or stay in fashion or whatever.

Can you buy whatever you want anyway? Yes, it's still a (mostly) free
country and the industry's push doesn't necessarily work. But the
marketers never stop trying.

I really don't know how ordinary consumers make their purchasing decisions -- what they see or how they are influenced by marketing. Most of the bicycle marketing I see is counter-productive and generally for products that I don't want because they don't meet my needs. From my experience watching others in bike shops (in a non-creepy way), I do know that some less sophisticated consumers get excited about weird things that are really meaningless, or they get turned off by minor issues that are easily fixed. For example, a civilian may test ride two bikes and prefer one because its shifts better although it is affirmatively worse than the other bike which just needs a cable tightened -- or he or she might get super excited about positive feeling discs, but the rest of the bike sucks. People develop preferences for some strange reasons entirely unrelated to marketing.

Marketing or reviews have swayed some of my HiFi purchases with mixed results. I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because of the talking Chihuahua. But with bike stuff, the market only affects me to the extent it dictates the technology I must endure on a bike that I otherwise want to purchase -- like all the dopey BB standards, multiple through axle standards, etc. I may get confirmation bias from a Velo News review (Bicycling finally quit coming), but my buying decisions are more often driven by price, industry contacts, warranty, etc. Every company's good bike is pretty damned good. It's hard to go wrong these days.

Most of us here are probably much the same. But regarding the typical
consumer's decisions, a book I'm currently reading has some relevant
ideas. The book is _Risk_ by Dan Gardner, and it deals in detail with
the psychology that causes people to have greatly distorted ideas about
danger. (Um - like regarding riding bikes, although he doesn't mention
that.)

In discussing psychology fundamentals, he makes much of the difference
between what he calls "Gut" and "Head" which he treats as almost two
separate brains living inside your skull. "Gut" is your first
instinctive reaction, and is quick but not so smart. It's what makes
that stick look like a snake and cause you to jump away, or what makes
_that_ girl look very, very interesting. "Head" is the smarter but
slower, calculating part that says "There are no snakes in the snow" or
"If she's standing on a street corner at midnight in a miniskirt, she
might not make a good mother." Or whatever.

Thing is, it takes a certain amount of intelligence and a certain amount
of relevant knowledge for "Head" to do a decent job. With bikes as with
so much else, a lot of people's "Heads" aren't properly equipped.

So "Gut" says "Oooh, this one is shiny!" And the purchase is made.


Rather like those that argue that guns are dangerous, isn't it. But
guns aren't dangerous per se. My grandfather kept two rifles and one
shotgun leaned in a corner of the passageway between the kitchen and
the "front room", and they never jumped out and shot anybody in the
probably 60 years that they sat there.

In fact people scoff at the idea, espoused by the National Rifle
Association I believe, that, "Guns don't kill, people kill"


Guns don't kill. Hammers do:
https://nypost.com/2019/01/16/hammer...buffet-attack/

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