Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement

(WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought)

The bottom bracket argument isn't much of anything, since bottom brackets
only cost around $30 anyway.

It's not about merely the BB. So, let's say tomorrow, I bust my XT
crank arm. *Right now*, I can probably find an XT Octalink crankarm
or crankset to replace it. In three years? In five years? I'll bet
that ISIS will still be going strong then. Not only do they have a
new crankset standard, but they have been carrying 3 *other* BB types:
V2 Octalink, V1 Octalink, and square taper. I'm going to pick up 4
extra Octalink BBs (two for each bike) and when they are done, the
cranks will be replaced with some non-Shimano stuff.

BTW, did you see the new Saint gruppo, and how the RD is attached?
Different standard...

Usually you decide what kind of cranks you
want and then buy the bottom bracket to match...

Yup, I have Octalink XTs on right now - both bikes. They are nice,
and were relatively inexpensive for their quality. In three years,
how many new Octalink XT cranksets do you think I might be able to
buy?

by using the new external
bearing setup, they save you the trouble of buying a bottom bracket
separately.

As you say, a $30 BB is not an issue. As I was shopping for hubs the
other day, I asked my not-so-LBS about XT ISO disk hubs. One of his
catalogs doesn't even have the M756s any more. Hmmmm. How long
before they stop production on Octalink BBs? (Thus rendering my
expensive XT cranksets useless upon BB failure.)

Shimano is doing it's best to make the old gear obsolete, such that if
you break one thing some time in the future, you'll be obligated to
buy a whole bunch of stuff to replace perfectly fucntional, but
now-obsolete, ancillary gear. I very much object to throwing away
(giving away, selling for some miniscule price) perfectly usable bike
gear. Standard ISO hubs, conventionally-return-sprung RDs, ISIS
BB/cranksets, separate brake and shifter controls. I hope bike
consumers also see what I see, so that they might choose their poison
with open eyes, whether that be poison dished out by the Big S, or
some other poison.

Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the wrong angle.
Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete. This is true
in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every
generation of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
little improvement.

You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the benefits Octalink has
over standard square taper. 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. The splined bottom bracket is a superior
technology 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. To do so bitterly would be a shame indeed.

That being said, I need you to explain further why the advancement of
technology upsets you. 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.
(Oh, you want to upgrade your fork? You'll need a threadless headset and
side-pull brakes! But my headset and center-pull brakes work fine! Sorry,
they aren't compatible.) 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

John M

Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the wrong angle.
Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete. This is
true in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every
generation of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be
very little improvement.

Not true. We still have freehubs that are largely compatible with each
other, especially with the use of spacers. Maybe this part didn't need
better engineering... I dunno.

What about Octalink V1? Obviously a big failure. Doesn't follow
"Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete." at all.

You gave the perfect example of this. You enjoy the benefits
Octalink has over standard square taper. 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. The splined
bottom bracket is a superior technology 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. To do so bitterly would
be a shame indeed.

It's such a new "technology" that needing to upgrade a whole drivetrain just
because a smaller component failed is backwards and wasteful.

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. 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.

But this is a sudden change of many things... "Standard ISO hubs,
conventionally-return-sprung RDs, ISIS BB/cranksets, separate brake and
shifter controls." Most of these work fine and are so much cheaper than the
new stuff.

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. 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.


You would be ****ed if you bent your disc rotor and were subsequently
required to replace your wheel. Hmm... a $30 item (Hayes 6" rotor) versus a
$330 item (front Shimano centerlock wheel plus a new Shimano rotor)... a
1000% higher cost! (prices estimated from Cambria)

I don't see how anybody would be so willing to throw your money out on a
proprietary system that nobody else supports at a cost that is significantly
higher than the prices of competitors that have products of similar quality.
If you enjoy doing that, then have fun wasting your money. I'd rather spend
my money on, say, food, or water.

Imagine buying a new nice car... Let's say a Nissan Maxima. You spend
$30,000 on it. You drive it for a year, and the axle, or some other
critical support breaks. You go to your dealer, and you say, "I need a new
axle installed." His reply: "I'm sorry sir - that was last year's model.
We've made advancements since then, so your only recourse is to buy our new
model year Maxima."

Sounds pretty ****ty to me.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"ZeeExSixAre" wrote in message ...


You would be ****ed if you bent your disc rotor and were subsequently
required to replace your wheel. Hmm... a $30 item (Hayes 6" rotor) versus a
$330 item (front Shimano centerlock wheel plus a new Shimano rotor)... a
1000% higher cost! (prices estimated from Cambria)

I'd call the cost more on the order of: new front hub, new rotor,
labor to lace the wheel (in the case you couldn't DIY.)

Less than $300, but certainly more than a $20 Avid rotor.

I don't see how anybody would be so willing to throw your money out on a
proprietary system that nobody else supports at a cost that is significantly
higher than the prices of competitors that have products of similar quality.

And there is really the issue: similar quality. Is the RaceFace
stuff so much inferior to the XT/XTR crankset? Is the difference even
measurable, saying nothing of noticeable?

If you enjoy doing that, then have fun wasting your money. I'd rather spend
my money on, say, food, or water.

How about gas to drive to a really cool MTBing vacation? Or a bike
for your kid? Etc, etc.

Imagine buying a new nice car... Let's say a Nissan Maxima. You spend
$30,000 on it. You drive it for a year, and the axle, or some other
critical support breaks. You go to your dealer, and you say, "I need a new
axle installed." His reply: "I'm sorry sir - that was last year's model.
We've made advancements since then, so your only recourse is to buy our new
model year Maxima."

I think a closer analogy would be, "I'm sorry sir, that part of the
drivetrain is obsolete. We will be happy to sell you a new transaxle
and related components." Of course, it would set you back $2500 or
more, instead of the $200 or so for a broken axle.

I like new tech that makes real improvement. Incremental, small,
performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough and obsoletes my
existing, perfectly-functional gear is what bothers me.
--
Jonesy

"John Morgan" wrote in message
news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the wrong angle.
Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete. This is true
in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every
generation of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
little improvement.

The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old stuff.

To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming.

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote in message .com...
"John Morgan" wrote in message
news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the wrong angle.
Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete. This is true
in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every
generation of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be very
little improvement.

The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old stuff.

Your opinion, not necessarily shared by everyone.

To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming.

Good thing nobody is doing that.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy says:

To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming.

Good thing nobody is doing that.

Oh, what the heck - someone has to do it:

I hereby poopoo the new ****mano stuff. Simply because it IS new ;-)

Steve "Luddite"

"Jonesy" wrote in message
m...
"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote
in message .com...
"John Morgan" wrote in message
news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the wrong angle.
Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete. This is
true
in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every
generation of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be
very
little improvement.

The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old stuff.

Your opinion, not necessarily shared by everyone.

Of course it is. Along that same line, the sky is blue.

Let me get this straight, you dislike the new Shimano stuff enough to whine
about it, yet you haven't tried it? Please correct me if you have indeed
tried the latest XTR nad/or Saint cranks.

If you have tried them and think they aren't superior (ease of install,
rigidity, durability, weight, etc.) to the older Shimano stuff, or Raceface,
etc., then we must have VERY different riding experiences.

To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming.

Good thing nobody is doing that.

Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror.

"Incremental, small,
performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough and obsoletes my
existing, perfectly-functional gear is what bothers me."

"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote in message .com...
"Jonesy" wrote in message
m...
"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote
in message .com...
"John Morgan" wrote in message
news:5_Mzc.72304$My6.32711@fed1read05...
Jonesy, I think you're looking at this problem from the wrong angle.
Technology always advances, leaving older products obsolete. This is
true
in any industry, and shouldn't be viewed so negatively. If every
generation of gear was compatible with the previous, there would be
very
little improvement.

The new Shimano **** is lightyears ahead of the old stuff.

Your opinion, not necessarily shared by everyone.

Of course it is. Along that same line, the sky is blue.

Let me get this straight, you dislike the new Shimano stuff enough to whine
about it, yet you haven't tried it?

Go back and read it again. You obviously are having reading
comprehension difficulties.

Please correct me if you have indeed
tried the latest XTR nad/or Saint cranks.

I have two functional nads - I do not need to replace them with the
lighter, more expensive XTR nads, which have compatibility issues with
the previous generation of Shimano nads.

Seriously, if I have perfectly functional XT gear, why do I need to go
out and buy XTR to try it out? If you supply the *measured*
difference in torsional rigidity between '03 XT and '03/04 XTR, then
maybe we have a place to start in a discussion over "better."

(Hint: read the post before you go off and make all kinds of
assumptions.)

If you have tried them and think they aren't superior (ease of install,
rigidity, durability, weight, etc.)

*How* superior? Enough to throw away $150 of perfectly useable gear?
Send me a free set so I can try them out. That way I won't have to
spend $400 (or whatever XTR goes for now) to see "for myself."

to the older Shimano stuff, or Raceface,
etc., then we must have VERY different riding experiences.

Again, how superior? I will give you "ease of installation." But
that's not worth $400. Maybe it is to you, but not to me. Weight?
the weight difference from carrying a couple of Powerbars? Give me a
break.

To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming.

Good thing nobody is doing that.

Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror.

"Incremental, small,
performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough and obsoletes my
existing, perfectly-functional gear is what bothers me."

You seem to be quoting something that has nothing to do with your
sweeping generalization, and everything to do with your mistaken
assumptions.

Try again.
--
Jonesy "Kung Fu master my ass."

"Jonesy" wrote in message
om...
Seriously, if I have perfectly functional XT gear, why do I need to go
out and buy XTR to try it out? If you supply the *measured*
difference in torsional rigidity between '03 XT and '03/04 XTR, then
maybe we have a place to start in a discussion over "better."

(Hint: read the post before you go off and make all kinds of
assumptions.)

Ah, so you haven't tried the new stuff yet you continue to whine about
planned obsolescence.

Perfect.

As far as supplying measured rigidity, LOL. Go play your games in RBT where
you *might* impress some newbies.

The fact is that the new XTR/Saint stuff is very good, and noticably better
than the older stuff, or Raceface.

So sorry.

If you have tried them and think they aren't superior (ease of install,
rigidity, durability, weight, etc.)

*How* superior? Enough to throw away $150 of perfectly useable gear?
Send me a free set so I can try them out. That way I won't have to
spend $400 (or whatever XTR goes for now) to see "for myself."

Thanks for admitting once again that you have no bassis for comparision. It
really just comes down to you whining for the sake of hearing yourself
whine, eh?

p.s. I never suggested that you throw away usable gear. It was a way to
expose the fact that your naive rant was just that, naive.

to the older Shimano stuff, or Raceface,
etc., then we must have VERY different riding experiences.

Again, how superior? I will give you "ease of installation." But
that's not worth $400. Maybe it is to you, but not to me. Weight?
the weight difference from carrying a couple of Powerbars? Give me a
break.

Ease of installation, stiffness, ease of maintenance, weight, etc. If you
have a problem with the cost of the new stuff, perhaps you should whine
about that rather than a vast conspiracy by Shimano to inflict planned
obsolescence upon Spider.

To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming.

Good thing nobody is doing that.

Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror.

"Incremental, small,
performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough and obsoletes my
existing, perfectly-functional gear is what bothers me."

You seem to be quoting something that has nothing to do with your
sweeping generalization, and everything to do with your mistaken
assumptions.

Let me help Spider:

How has the new XTR stuff made your existing gear obsolete? Are parts not
available? Are replacements not available?

The fact is that you're just the latest in a long line of whiners (starting
at least with the folks who freaked when 7 speed was introduced) who can't
accept change, even when the products are superior(I know, I know, you have
no experience with the new stuff so you can't possibly know how its changed,
but that won't stop you from make spurious arguments about big bad Shimano).

John Morgan wrote:

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. 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.

John M


And speaking of new technologies
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=30039

I can't believe that company actually made a good looking bike. The
future looks very promising.

--
Slacker