REI Greatly Improves Novara Transfer Commute Bicycle. Now has Cro-Mo frame and Adjustable Height Quill Stem and Chain Guard and 700C Wheels----20% off Coupon now at REI.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/10 11:10 AM, landotter wrote:

Novara likely switched to steel because the tube diameters are
fashionable among twenty-somethings who lie to each other about the
nature of the triangle.

Unlikely that that was the reason. Commute bicycles are not stored in a
garage for the whole week and taken out on the weekend for a ride along
country roads, following a ride on top of the owner's car on a $400 Thule
rack. They are ridden every day and subject to abuse. You want something
more rugged. REI didn't add $20 of cost to the Transfer just for the
marketing advantage of Cro-Mo versus aluminum. Nor did they switch to a
quill stem for no reason.

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing advantage" in
terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built for strength and
not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable than a steel frame...
any steel frame. The past is littered with failed steel frames. The fact
that the present day is littered with aluminum frames that have met their
fate is because that's what frames are made from these days.

The product guy at REI is simply piggy-backing onto Rivendel and seeing an
opportunity to take a line that hasn't done as well as they'd like, when
competing with mainstream lines, and instead go after a niche in which they
have a better chance of success.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Mar 31, 12:53*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
[trim]
The product guy at REI is simply piggy-backing onto Rivendel and seeing an
opportunity to take a line that hasn't done as well as they'd like, when
competing with mainstream lines, and instead go after a niche in which they
have a better chance of success.

And another thing--the previous generation of Transfer was a far
cooler bike. Bombproof alu frame and 26" wheels with a nice rigid
threadless setup. Basically a rigid mtb with a gearhub and dynohub.
Very different from the new version which is trying to go Schwinn
Collegiate on us.

Hopefully REI won't ruin their funkiest bike, the Safari--which is all
about good design, geekiness be damned!

On 31/03/10 7:34 AM, landotter wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:53 am, "Mike
wrote:
[trim]
The product guy at REI is simply piggy-backing onto Rivendel and seeing an
opportunity to take a line that hasn't done as well as they'd like, when
competing with mainstream lines, and instead go after a niche in which they
have a better chance of success.

And another thing--the previous generation of Transfer was a far
cooler bike.

They had too many complaints about it from owners, and were smart enough
to figure out that for every person complaining about it there were
probably 100 people not buying it for the same reasons as owners were
complaining about it. Weak non-responsive aluminum frame, wheels more
suited to a mountain bike than a commute bike, very limited
adjustability of the stem in terms of height and reach, and no chain
guard. The new version solves all these problems and is much more
marketable as a commute bicycle.

On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long
if you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of
the garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago
that Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item
(and we all know what happened to Cannondale!).

On Mar 31, 9:49*am, SMS wrote:
On 31/03/10 7:34 AM, landotter wrote:

On Mar 31, 12:53 am, "Mike
wrote:
[trim]
The product guy at REI is simply piggy-backing onto Rivendel and seeing an
opportunity to take a line that hasn't done as well as they'd like, when
competing with mainstream lines, and instead go after a niche in which they
have a better chance of success.

And another thing--the previous generation of Transfer was a far
cooler bike.

They had too many complaints about it from owners, and were smart enough
to figure out that for every person complaining about it there were
probably 100 people not buying it for the same reasons as owners were
complaining about it.

Wow, that's a whole lot of ubsubstantiated lying!

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame,

Weak frame? No evidence for that lie.

Unresponsive? It's metal triangles with about ~72ish angles. Gimme a
break.

Your bizarre materials fundamentalism really is a sickness, isn't it?

wheels more
suited to a mountain bike than a commute bike,

Strong wheels--what a turnoff! You're going from lying to just absurd
reaching.

very limited
adjustability of the stem in terms of height and reach,

That would be a lie. The 09 came with both a stack of spacers and an
adjustable stem.

and no chain
guard.

Another lie, the 09 version came with a chain guard.

The new version solves all these problems and is much more
marketable as a commute bicycle.

You mean the new version overcomes the imaginary version which you
dreamed up as a straw man?

I like heritage styling as much as the next Swede--I just don't see a
need to adapt American religious fundamentalism to bike aesthetics.
The lying and hysteria is pretty weird. Sure you don't sell bikes late
at night on the Trinity Network--along with gold bullion and seeds--ya
know--Armageddon supplies.

Hooboy.

On 3/31/2010 9:53 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long
if you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of
the garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago
that Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item
(and we all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Yes, Cannondale made an ill-advised venture into motorized vehicles.
What does that have to do with bicycle frame materials?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

On 31/03/10 1:02 PM, landotter wrote:

snip

There's no evidence that your claims of cost saving are true--just
more made up **** from a velo-authoritarian*.

If you listen to the audio of the presentation that Sheldon Brown gave
to recumbent club, you'll understand the facts regarding cost savings,
and how they were responsible. Geez, I didn't think there was _anyone_
that denied that the move to mass-produced aluminum frames was driven by
anything other than the incredibly low cost of aluminum. Throw a
"lifetime warranty" in (at least on non-mountain bikes) and you've
convinced naive buyers that aluminum must be great or else how could the
manufacturer offer a warranty like that.

Cannondale is doing fine. They helped bring great aluminum frames to
the masses. They still have no equal on the mass market when it comes
to gorgeous double-pass welding. Even the lower end hybrid frames are
handsome.

They went into bankruptcy, and were purchased by Dorel, purveyor of
Schwinn, Roadmaster, Mongoose, and Iron Horse. Cannondale counted on its
bicycle division to generate sufficient cash to fund expansion into
other product lines, but it didn't work out that way, and even before
that failed attempt at diversification they were doing poorly in
bicycles (which was what let to the attempt to diversify in the first
place). A few years back you could buy some Cannondale models at Costco
at a good price, but not right now.

*Anyone who wants to understand the predictable attitude of SMS should
read Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians". Explains the hysterical
devotion to bull**** and the willingness to lie up a storm in defense
of dogma.

Very weak. You can't respond with any facts so you come up with that
schtick.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long if
you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of the
garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago that
Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item (and we
all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Uh.... no. Aluminum frames became dominant in the marketplace long before
they became cheaper to build. Once dominant, competitive forces pushed
innovation and techniques to lower cost. Had steel remained the dominant
material, the same thing would have happened (and steel frames would be
dirt-cheap).

The overall cost of using an aluminum frame is lower not just due to
production, but also reduced likelihood of warranty expenditures down the
road. Aluminum frames fail at a markedly-lower rate than the steel frames of
yesteryear. Just talk to anyone who worked in a bike shop back in the day.
I'm closing in on 39 years in this biz now and have pretty much seen it all.
But the extraordinary hype that some people confer on steel remains amazing
to me. Especially this one-

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame

My goodness, are we talking about a racing bike with 19mm tires here? No,
this discussion was about a hefty go-anywhere brawler with big wide tires
that are going to soak up just about anything that could be considered an
aspect of "responsiveness" and yet you just have to lay that ridiculous
claim in, yet again. Please tell me how anyone's going to notice much
difference in frame material when you've got big squishy tires?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Mar 31, 5:29*pm, SMS wrote:
On 31/03/10 1:02 PM, landotter wrote:

snip

There's no evidence that your claims of cost saving are true--just
more made up **** from a velo-authoritarian*.

If you listen to the audio of the presentation that Sheldon Brown gave
to recumbent club, you'll understand the facts regarding cost savings,
and how they were responsible. Geez, I didn't think there was _anyone_
that denied that the move to mass-produced aluminum frames was driven by
anything other than the incredibly low cost of aluminum.

I take it that you posted that with your wooden abacus. I'm impressed!

Throw a
"lifetime warranty" in (at least on non-mountain bikes) and you've
convinced naive buyers that aluminum must be great or else how could the
manufacturer offer a warranty like that.


Because modern bikes are quite well made?

[snip]

Very weak. You can't respond with any facts so you come up with that
schtick.

I've yet to see you provide evidence that the introduction of aluminum
bikes upon the mass market has resulted in a terrible increase in
frame failure.

I'm not the one making big claims here, you are.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long if
you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of the
garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago that
Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item (and we
all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Uh.... no. Aluminum frames became dominant in the marketplace long before
they became cheaper to build. Once dominant, competitive forces pushed
innovation and techniques to lower cost. Had steel remained the dominant
material, the same thing would have happened (and steel frames would be
dirt-cheap).

The overall cost of using an aluminum frame is lower not just due to
production, but also reduced likelihood of warranty expenditures down the
road. Aluminum frames fail at a markedly-lower rate than the steel frames of
yesteryear. Just talk to anyone who worked in a bike shop back in the day.
I'm closing in on 39 years in this biz now and have pretty much seen it all.
But the extraordinary hype that some people confer on steel remains amazing
to me. Especially this one-

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame

My goodness, are we talking about a racing bike with 19mm tires here? No,
this discussion was about a hefty go-anywhere brawler with big wide tires
that are going to soak up just about anything that could be considered an
aspect of "responsiveness" and yet you just have to lay that ridiculous
claim in, yet again. Please tell me how anyone's going to notice much
difference in frame material when you've got big squishy tires?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Are reputed frame builders like Roberts in the UK wrong to be using
quality steels in their touring bike frames then Mike?

I really want to know. I just can not believe an Alu frame can ever by
stronger and longer lasting than a good steel one.