John Morgan wrote in message news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
(WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)
[snip]

Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the wrong angle.

No, I don't think I am. I'm looking at it from the angle of a
consumer of purely luxury goods. A consumer with a self-imposed
limited budget.

Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete.

Indeed. But forced obsolesense, with very little gain in
functionality - this is what I see from Shimano. Yes, there is some
improvement, but not (in my mind) cost-justified.

This is true
in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so negatively.

Like computers, right? Except when advances are made, it's "faster,
better, cheaper." For the most part. I don't necessarily see Shimano
as being "better and cheaper," but rather, "different and more
expensive."

If every
generation of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
little improvement.

Like wheels? Or the parallelogram RD? Or chain-drive? The bicycle
is a mature technology. Has been for quite some time. Square-taper
BB/cranksets are still quite functional, and will be for the vast
majority of bicycle owners.

You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the benefits Octalink has
over standard square taper.

Uhhh, no. I bought an XT crankset because of value/dollar. $120 for
the crankset, $20 for the BB - hard to beat. It just happened to be
Octalink-only. I do not plan on being a gear whore and buying the
latest and greatest crankset in two years time. I want this thing to
last a while.


If I apply your sweeping judgment, Shimano
should have stuck with square taper because it is compatible with cranks
that have been made for decades.

1.) Does it work?
2.) Does the new technology work appreciably better?
3.) Will the new tech become a new standard, or just another failed
experiment?

Does anyone remember VESA local bus? No? MCA?

"New" doesn't always mean "better."

The splined bottom bracket is a superior
technology

In some respects. And ISIS is going to be around a while. Octalink
will just flat disappear - a failed experiment, or a cynical marketing
tactic.

that is not compatible with anything previously made, but at
some point we must let go of our obsolete cranks and accept the new
standard.

I like splined. Easy, and hard to screw up (unlike square taper.)
Maybe in ten years, everyone will be using the XTR/XT-style BB. Or,
maybe some new, as-yet-unseen tech will emerge. By then, I'm sure I
will have gotten new cranks. Mostly because my Octalink BB supply
will have disappeared. Or I will have broken a crank, and cant get a
replacement arm in Octalink style.

To do so bitterly would be a shame indeed.

If the standard changes every three years, to very little real benefit
for the end user, I become somewhat cynical.

That being said, I need you to explain further why the advancement of
technology upsets you.

What does Dual Control do for me? The new crank and BB style?
Centerlock hubs and disks? Low-normal vs. high-normal? 1.5 headtube
diameter?

See, tech advances don't upset me at all, if I can see a clear benefit
*worth the additional outlay to acquire it.* Disk brakes.
Suspension. Tubless [sic] tires. Stable-platform valving in
suspension. Butted tubing and spokes. Lightweight alloys. All of
these things are good. But Shimano's direction seems to be change for
change's sake. Is the new crank style so much better as to make a
$300 difference? That's a big percentage of most consumer bikes'
total cost. What does Centerlock bring to the consumer? Slightly
less weight (important for weight weenies, of course) and
installation/removal is easier. Not much of a leap to justify
changing out two hubs and two rotors, for a total cost of what - $250?

You state the case that replacement of one part may
require you to replace many other parts that are still functional. Again,
I submit to you that this is currently a reality and it always has been.

The time span between standard changes has not been so short. And
some changes are well worth the replacement of other gear. The move
from rigid to front suspension cost me fork, headset and stem. The
headset and stem were very small incremental cost increases, AND the
removal of the old stuff saved a bunch of weight. The move from Vs to
disk cost me hubs, rotors and calipers. But the benefits were very
large compared to the cost. It's not as cut-and-dried as you would
believe.

Obsolete parts can still be found long after they
are replaced by newer technology, but they just aren't readily available in
your latest mail order catalogs. Just ask some of the retros on this group
who still use threaded headsets and thumb shifters.

Some can. And some can't. Finding a decent 1" stem in anything but
5-degree/120mm is not that easy a task. Heck, even finding a 1"
steerer suspension fork can cause some consternation. I happen to
know where to look, but they are not widely available. And there are
plenty of MTB frames out there that are perfectly functional, yet have
that obsolete 1" head tube. How long was the 1" headtube good enough?

What you're experiencing with Shimano's new lineup isn't new. Every new
generation of parts has had some kind of backlash with people who do not
want to change over.

If I saw the actual benefit/cost as being there, I'd be all over it.
See my comments above on disk brakes and front suspension. Add to
that clipless pedals. And FS. I like 'em.

What happens to these people? Either they find a way
to keep fixing their old gear, or they upgrade and realize what they've
been missing.

Somehow, I don't see Centerlock or the new crankset as being so
functionally different as to be that noticeable. Dual Control?
Low-normal?

And finally, I must say that unless you're really lucky, you will be
changing out parts on your bike for new ones long before they become
obsolete.

And that may be at the crux of the problem. I am easy on gear, and
can make the stuff last a long damn time. Like hubs - I dunno if my
Shimano stuff will ever wear out. I maintain it religiously, and am
easy on it when riding. When it finally gives up, I have no idea what
the rotor attachment standard will be. But if stuff is changed around
merely for change's sake, or because there is some miniscule
improvement in design and functionality, then I object on the grounds
that for all but the most demanding consumers, current tech really is
very good. Even the tech of three years ago is pretty damn good, for
most folks. I guess my test of whether or not the change is good or
bad is this: what question does it answer, what problem does it
solve? If it answers an unasked question, or solves a very minor
problem, then the tech, to me, is more *marketing*-driven than
*market*-driven. And Shimano, by it's very dominance of the market,
can jam any standard it wants down our throats, because they can. And
it doesn't really matter if that standard has any real benefit to
anyone, other than to the stockholders in Shimano, Inc.

You may even find yourself wanting that hot new item for your
bike before your old stuff wears out. If you're like me, chances are
you'll buy an entirely new bike before anything on it becomes hard to find.

I'm not like you. I run my gear a long time, because it's not about
the gear, but the ride, and because I'm pretty easy on it. Stuff that
complicates my life and keeps me from riding annoys me. I don't lust
after the latest and greatest. New does not always mean better.
--
Jonesy