Italian/steel frames need more prep?

On 31 Mar 2006 22:02:57 -0800, "41" wrote:

I think the objection was instead to the rude surprise at the gate. If
they had known in advance, they would have been able to factor this
into their decision. The objection is also: why should I have to pay
more because it is a bicycle, if the guy in the next seat can take the
same or more, as long as it is not a bicycle?

Most bikes will put you over the weight limit if they were weighed in, but
aside from that, a bike is an awkward shape that requires special
handling. It can't be loaded almost onto the plane by conveyor belt,
someone actually has to physically wheel the bike, or a cart with the bike
on it, from check in to plane. It's not a case of someone else getting to
take the same for free, because it's not the same.

Jasper

Sandy wrote:

Perhaps like computers for me. What I have is adequate, very, especially in
comparison to what I first had some 20 or so years ago. My needs are met,
fully.

A complete, middle of the range bicycle today is by far superior to what was
the height of bike technology some time ago. For many if not most, this
adequate bike satisfies and represents an improvement over the one that it
may be replacing. Likely, at a lower cost. So there's the happy customer,
not all of whom whine on on RBT.

I agree, I think the point of diminishing returns has come down a lot in
recent years. It's not all 3rd world labor, either. I have a very nice,
made in USA, (Cannondale) frame that wasn't all that expensive.
Technology marches on.

James Thomson wrote:
"Phil, Squid-in-Training"
wrote:

Although I'm not sure if it's a 2004 or 2005, it's a Giant XTC
singlespeed MTB frame, new in the box from eBay, shipped
cheaper than wholesale.

In other words, *not* a $200 frame, but an $X00 frame on closeout.
There's a difference.

Yes, my apologies. It is a frame that retails for $500.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 06:36:10 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Half of what you say blames the buyer, the other half blames --- whom?
Some amorphous "them" rather than the seller, who pays for the ads that
implant the expectations in the consumer's head?

Sorry, but it's not entirely a marketing issue, much as many would like to
believe. It's a lot tougher than that, because it deals with the emerging
global economy, where the rules have turned upside-down such that product
differentiation, the traditional road to profits (which allows companies the
option of producing a higher-quality product that stands apart from the
rest), is no longer a practical road. Why? Because the difference in cost
between an "adequate" product and a truly high-quality version is far
greater than ever before... because the emerging manufacturing nations of
the world are best used for the manufacture of commodity products.

It depends on the product. You don't see emerging-market cars doing all
that well worldwide, even though they can undercut the competition. That
is one area where quality does seem to produce sales. Sure, cars are
big-ticket items, and people don't care as much about a trash can. But
even in smaller things there is a market for better-made products.

Bikes, the subject at hand, are on a cusp in terms of the money invested
and expectations of quality. But another part of this issue is that
emerging-market manufacture does not necessarily equate with poor
quality.

Look at it this way- if there's a 30% premium between an exceptional
product and one that looks the part but isn't as durable etc., many
people will be able to rationalize the better product, which encourages
manufacturers to stay in, and even consider entering, that market. But
when that difference becomes 50% and even greater? A whole lot of the
market drops out.

So, would you buy a fake Rolex? Or, on the other side, is an Asian-made
watch necessarily of lower quality than the Rolex? Do people buy real
Rolex's for their quality, or because the price is so high? Obviously, I
think that the appeal of something like the Rolex watch is the outrageous
price, which I think is rather bizarre.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:08:18 -0800, "G.T." wrote:


"RonSonic" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:51:16 -0800, "G.T."
wrote:


"Helmut Springer" wrote in message
...
G.T. wrote:
I think it's absurd that this ends up the bike shop's
responsibility.

This is business, nothing is absurd if it is according to
contractual responsibilities or business model.

I love captalism. Where elese would 99% of business people favor the
"Barely Meet Expectations" business model over the "Do What's Right"
business model.

What's the system that promotes the "do what's right" model?


Basic ethical living?

That's perfectly compatible with capitalism. I thought you had an alternative
that was better.

Ron

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:56:33 -0500, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
wrote:

RonSonic wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:45:10 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

In that high end frame. I have seen poor prep and workmanship from
just about every frame maker out there, European, Chinese,
Tiawanese, US, depends. Alternatively, I have seen spectacular
workmanship from small builders, like Nobilette and Mondonico. It's
not because of steel, it's because of the bike biz being flat for
so long and poor workmanship. They do not attract the craft-people
they once did, except for asia...

But it's not just about what is produced, but also what is demanded.
The general public doesn't seem to care about what's under the
hood... they just want a pretty paint job. The smallest flaw in the
paint becomes far more important than anything else you might try to
show and/or explain to somebody. This disconnect is extreme between
new (customers) & old-world (traditional craftsman) thinking... the
craftsman is often more concerned with how things have always been,
and making something that is extremely functional. This contrasts
with the Asian model, which seems to focus first on something that
appears to be superior (because the outside appearance is the
easiest for people to judge) and only later does quality become a
major issue.

A lot probably has to do with why they're building the bike, or
rather how it is they ended up making bikes instead of lighting
trusses or landing gear or exhaust manifolds.

There is a long history of bike building in, say, Italy with a
tradition of how things are done and what's important. Some factory
town in China has no idea of that. All they know is that XYZ-Megacorp
will pay them more to make bikes than ABC-Maxicorp paid for the lawn
furniture. The spec sheet and the company qc rep says make it look
like so, and it does.

There may also me a benevolent form of inexperience at work. The
emeging country manufacturers aren't confident of just what they can
get away with.

What do you mean by getting away with?

If I'm doing a job for the fiftieth time, I probably don't know just how crappy
my work can be before someone complains. So I better, at least, make it look
good. If I've been on the job for 30 years, I know exactly where I can get
sloppy without somebody who is important to me noticing.

Ron

RonSonic wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:08:18 -0800, "G.T." wrote:


"RonSonic" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:51:16 -0800, "G.T."

wrote:

"Helmut Springer" wrote in message
...

G.T. wrote:

I think it's absurd that this ends up the bike shop's
responsibility.

This is business, nothing is absurd if it is according to
contractual responsibilities or business model.

I love captalism. Where elese would 99% of business people favor the
"Barely Meet Expectations" business model over the "Do What's Right"
business model.

What's the system that promotes the "do what's right" model?


Basic ethical living?


That's perfectly compatible with capitalism.

Bwahahahahahahahaha, good one. That must be why capitalists protect the
environment so well and pay such good wages to their employees. They're
just full of ethics.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:35:01 -0700, G.T. wrote:

Bwahahahahahahahaha, good one. That must be why capitalists protect the
environment so well and pay such good wages to their employees. They're
just full of ethics.

You are confusing capitalists and assholes. By the way, I feel compelled
to point out that few workers in Socialist countries got or get good wages
by any standard, nor did they protect the environment. The difference is
that capitalists will do those things if forced by circumstances.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The motor car reflects our standard of living and gauges the
_`\(,_ | speed of our present life. It long ago ran down Simple Living,
(_)/ (_) | and never halted to inquire about the prostrate figure which
fell as its victim. -- Warren G. Harding

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:35:01 -0700, G.T. wrote:


Bwahahahahahahahaha, good one. That must be why capitalists protect the
environment so well and pay such good wages to their employees. They're
just full of ethics.


You are confusing capitalists and assholes. By the way, I feel compelled
to point out that few workers in Socialist countries got or get good wages
by any standard, nor did they protect the environment. The difference is
that capitalists will do those things if forced by circumstances.


What circumstances? Government regulation?

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

"People will put up with crap in a Ferrari they'd never tolerate in a
Fiat."

Whoa! You mean there are people who will tolerate a Fiat ?

I understand there's a guy named Tony, who fixes them again & again, who's
very much appreciative they exist.

(OK... FIAT- Fix It Again Tony)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com