|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
"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." |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
wrote in message news Yah, right technological advancements. Like the high tech improvement of moving from 7 speed cassettes to 9 speed cassettes over the last ten years. I still have the original drive train on my old 7 gear cassette but have changed drive trains on my 8 speed once a year. And those thinner chains what high tech wonders, if you don't break them on your first ride up a really steep hill. ROTFLMAO! Holy hyperbole Batman! 9 speed rocks, especially when coupled with a 32 tooth middle ring. I guees I'm REALLY, REALLY lucky, along with the folks I ride with because our high tech thinner chain wonders lasted through the first really steep hill, and thousands after that. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
Jonesy wrote:
(WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought) 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. So there it is, the argument in its entirety. Thanks for summing it up for me. Every person may have a different point at which they think gear is cost-justified. IMO, nothing is cost-justified with mountain bikes, being a niche market and all. Bike tires can cost $40 a piece... same as the 50,000 mile guaranteed tires on my car. *However* I make sacrifices for the sport I love... which explains why I have more invested in my bikes than I do in my car. 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? Those are all good technologies, but as soon as the opportunity to improve them or replace them comes along, you can be damn sure it's going to happen. 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. Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older square taper model for $60? They are still available, and it would be more consistent with the argument you're making. 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? 1.) Square taper works, sure. 2.)Splined works appreciably better, yep. 3.) I would say it's been the standard for a while, failed no... because it's better than what we had before it existed. Does anyone remember VESA local bus? No? MCA? "New" doesn't always mean "better." VLB was quite an improvement over ISA, having a 32-bit wide data channel instead of the old 16 or 8. It wasn't a failure at all... it disappeared because it was replaced by PCI. PCI will disappear when something else comes out that's better. What's the problem? Thank you for bringing up MCA architecture. It is a case-in-point, falling perfectly in line with with what we're talking about here with Shimano. MCA was a superior technology to ISA, but it did not persist because it was incompatible with ISA (which is why VLB succeeded) and because it caused the price of the systems to go up. Both of these technologies were newer *and* better than ISA. The latter only failed because it didn't gain a lot of public support. If the same thing happened to Shimano's new lineup, I can guarantee you that they would drop it pretty quick. Obviously, there are a few naysayers about the new Shimano stuff, but there always will be. The important thing is, the majority of bike builders and the buying public support Shimano. Guess you'll just have to deal. 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. How can you say Octalink was a failure? You bought into it yourself, and you obviously enjoy the benefits or you wouldn't have made the choice to buy it or stick with it this long. Failure? By whose standards? The way I see it, there are more criteria for judging the success or failure of a product than its production cycle. (And even by your standards, is 8 years [ongoing] that bad for a product to be on the shelf?) 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? Try them out and answer your own questions. Obviously just reading about them isn't going to convince you. 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. 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. Yep, you correctly analyzed it. Shimano is a business. And...*gasp* they're trying to make money! Now, now... I understand. Nobody wants to be forced to accept new standards... but do you think if they truly came up with horrible crappy ideas people would buy it? Of course not! Biopace cranks, from what I hear, ended up being a bad idea... so people stopped buying them, consequently, Shimano had to stop making them. The very fact that Shimano is a business, means they are market driven. They want to deliver new and improved gear to folks who want gear that is better than what they've already got... and to make a buck in the meantime. They aren't the government, you know. I can't believe I'm here defending SHIMANO... but have you thought any of this through? The 'Man' is not trying to keep you down in this case, Jonesy. John M PS. I, too, was against Shimano and Shimano products at one time... as evidenced by one of my bikes being Shimano-free. Now that I have all the new XTR stuff on my other ride, I had to change my tune. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
John Morgan says:
Bike tires can cost $40 a piece... same as the 50,000 mile guaranteed tires on my car. Ahem! Where do you buy your tyres. Here in RI I can't find a decent tyre for under about $80 (just "around town" tyres, nuttin' special) I once (and once only) put cheapo tyres on the family car - result was a hydroplane (with 3 cars helping crunch the wagon), concussed wife with a pelvis broken in 3 places, and 2 well-bruised kids (other two were safely strapped in their kiddie seats and sound asleep.) There's cheap, and then there's inexpensive... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote in message .com...
"Jonesy" wrote in message m... "p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote in message .com... "John Morgan" wrote in message news:5_Mzc.72304$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 $400. Maybe it is to you, but not to me. Weight? the weight difference from carrying a couple of Powerbars? Give me a break. To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming. Good thing nobody is doing that. Mirror, meet Jonesy. Jonesy, meet Mr. Mirror. "Incremental, small, performance-neutral tech that costs a lot of dough and obsoletes my existing, perfectly-functional gear is what bothers me." You seem to be quoting something that has nothing to do with your sweeping generalization, and everything to do with your mistaken assumptions. Try again. -- Jonesy "Kung Fu master my ass." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
John Morgan wrote in message news:EbbAc.5702$ey.2955@fed1read06...
Jonesy wrote: (WAS: Time to build some new wheels - opinions sought) 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. So there it is, the argument in its entirety. Thanks for summing it up for me. Every person may have a different point at which they think gear is cost-justified. IMO, nothing is cost-justified with mountain bikes, being a niche market and all. Bike tires can cost $40 a piece... same as the 50,000 mile guaranteed tires on my car. *However* I make sacrifices for the sport I love... which explains why I have more invested in my bikes than I do in my car. Yes, that *is* dedication. The part that is missing, yet, is that keeping replacement parts for older spec stuff means that the gear will live until it's useful live is over, instead of being force-retired at an early age. That's part of my equation. 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? Those are all good technologies, but as soon as the opportunity to improve them or replace them comes along, you can be damn sure it's going to happen. The bicycle wheel hasn't changed much in 100 years. This according to The Man, Jobst Brandt. Paralellogram derailleurs have been around for decades. Chain drive is the most efficient of all the tried set-ups. Has been for over a century. Now, maybe in twenty or so years, some new, whizzy materials will render some of those things obsolete, and I'll be on board for real improvement - like I said before, I'm totally on-board with stuff that makes a real difference. 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. Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older square taper model for $60? There was no such thing as a new XT 180mm crankset in square taper. But I would not have had any problem buying one if I could have found one. They are still available, and it would be more consistent with the argument you're making. Where? I didn't go out and actually LOOK for one, nor did I consciously decide to purposely go Octalink. Hell, if I had known I could get a square-taper XT never-used crankset in 180mm for $60, I would have done it. 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? 1.) Square taper works, sure. 2.)Splined works appreciably better, yep. How? Ease of installation? Yes. Weight? Yes. And the splined stuff was not that much more expensive than the square-taper stuff (like from RaceFace) that I was looking at. 3.) I would say it's been the standard for a while, failed no... because it's better than what we had before it existed. If the "standard" fades away after only a few years, then it wasn't a very good standard. Does anyone remember VESA local bus? No? MCA? "New" doesn't always mean "better." VLB was quite an improvement over ISA, having a 32-bit wide data channel instead of the old 16 or 8. It wasn't a failure at all... it disappeared because it was replaced by PCI. Nope. They were concurrent (PCI did come out a year later) for at least two years. VLB faded away, and any gear you had that was VLB was rendered obsolete. PCI will disappear when something else comes out that's better. What's the problem? PCI has lasted a long damn time for a computer standard, you will have to agree. And the new standard WAS a damn sight better than ISA. IOW, the cost/benefit ratio was pretty good. If another leap comes out that is as good, you damn right I'd jump at it. Such is NOT the case with current Shimano products. Thank you for bringing up MCA architecture. It is a case-in-point, falling perfectly in line with with what we're talking about here with Shimano. MCA was a superior technology to ISA, but it did not persist because it was incompatible with ISA (which is why VLB succeeded) and because it caused the price of the systems to go up. So, it was the XTR of it's day, hmmm? Both of these technologies were newer *and* better than ISA. The latter only failed because it didn't gain a lot of public support. And because IBM wasn't licensing it to the clone makers. An Apple mistake. Shimano is big, and can cram any new gear it wants down the throats of buyers. If the same thing happened to Shimano's new lineup, I can guarantee you that they would drop it pretty quick. The public doesn't have much choice - when a bike is built up already, it's hard to get the thing re-specced non-Shimano. Impossible, really. And Shimano is the 800lb gorilla. Obviously, there are a few naysayers about the new Shimano stuff, but there always will be. The important thing is, the majority of bike builders and the buying public support Shimano. Guess you'll just have to deal. If Shimano offers the lowest price, due to volume of sales, then we are in a Microsoft argument. Microsoft can do anything it wants, because they can. Shimano is in the same boat. I can't go and get a fully-built XTR-spec bike "de-shimano-ized" for free, so market forces aren't as clear as you pretend. The buying public supports a lot of Shimano stuff, but it sure as hell ain't XTR that's driving that. The lower-end stuff (all square-taper, high-normal, separate brake and shifter, etc.) is the volume. Go to Walmart and see for yourself. It's like buying an IBM clone. What OS do you get with that, 99 times out of 100? 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. How can you say Octalink was a failure? If it only lasts ten years, it wasn't that great. If the new set-up is the new standard, and it's better, AND other companies support it, then Octalink will be a distant memory. Like Biopace. You bought into it yourself, and you obviously enjoy the benefits or you wouldn't have made the choice to buy it or stick with it this long. You are impling motives on my part that don't exist. I like the ease of installation. The lighter weight is a bonus. But mostly, I went with it because I had no idea square-taper XT existed anywhere. I would have bought that, if I could have. Failure? By whose standards? The way I see it, there are more criteria for judging the success or failure of a product than its production cycle. (And even by your standards, is 8 years [ongoing] that bad for a product to be on the shelf?) It was an incremental, evolutionary change whose line is dying. I'm sure there's a computer analogy somewhere. 3DFx? Microsoft Bob? LOL. The plain fact is that Octalink is going away. If it's so good, then it should be continuing. Hell, maybe LX will keep it as a standard. Or Deore. I dunno - time will tell. 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? Try them out and answer your own questions. LOL. Nice tactic. No, I want *you* to tell me why you think they are so great that I should change my bike over to them. What makes them worth the money? Why should I spend so much, if the benefits aren't easily apparent? Obviously just reading about them isn't going to convince you. Depends on who is doing the telling. MTBR? No way. You? Much more credibility. 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. 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. Yep, you correctly analyzed it. Shimano is a business. And...*gasp* they're trying to make money! Now, now... I understand. Nobody wants to be forced to accept new standards... but do you think if they truly came up with horrible crappy ideas people would buy it? If it says "XTR", there are quite a few folks out there who buy the hype. Don't deny it. And I never claimed, ever, that they were "horrible" or "crappy." Of course not! Biopace cranks, from what I hear, ended up being a bad idea... so people stopped buying them, consequently, Shimano had to stop making them. Yeah, but those chainrings could be swapped out - you didn't have to replace the whole damn crankset to get rid of them. I had biopace - but I couldn't tell the difference anyway. Another example of incremental, performance-neutral, marketing-driven products. The very fact that Shimano is a business, means they are market driven. Since they are so big, they can push their product on suppliers better than other makers can. Whether or not their new designs are actually noticably better. They want to deliver new and improved gear to folks who want gear that is better than what they've already got... and to make a buck in the meantime. Or they are pushing gear that *might* be better, or slightly better, via a marketing strategy that obsoletes designes that are three years old, in order to get folks to buy gear faster. Do the Centerlock brakes actually brake better than ISO-mount brakes? How much weight does it save? Is that weight savings worth the entire price it would cost to switch (hubs, rotors)? They aren't the government, you know. I can't believe I'm here defending SHIMANO... but have you thought any of this through? Have you read what I have written? Keep it civil, John. The 'Man' is not trying to keep you down in this case, Jonesy. Where did I claim they were? John M PS. I, too, was against Shimano and Shimano products at one time... as evidenced by one of my bikes being Shimano-free. Now that I have all the new XTR stuff on my other ride, I had to change my tune. I have tried Dual Control, and found it to be a PITA. It's easy to get used to, but I like being able to grab a ton of gears at once, and not have to click through all of them. That's one of the things I love about Gripshift. I don't see going to Dual Control for any reason - it just doesn't suit my style. Luckily, the derailleurs are still cable-operated, and the brakes still hydraulic, so the controls can be changed out to suit the rider. I didn't think the Centerlock brakes braked any better than Hayes hydraulics on ISO mounts. And I really have no idea how much stiffer the new cranks are. Where is the data? If it can't be measured, it can't be felt. Even if it can be measured, it doesn't necessarily feel different. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally bagging on Shimano. I have liked their price/performance ratio, at least on XT stuff. But as I said in the very beginning, if I break something tomorrow, I want to be able to buy just a replacement part, and not have to replace a lot of functional parts just because the old design was obsoleted. That's it. -- Jonesy |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
"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). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
"Jonesy" wrote in message m... Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older square taper model for $60? There was no such thing as a new XT 180mm crankset in square taper. But I would not have had any problem buying one if I could have found one. But there are a number of other manufacturers that make those cranks... But mostly, I went with it because I had no idea square-taper XT existed anywhere. I would have bought that, if I could have. That is truly odd. You actually limited yourself to Shimano cranks rather than getting a square taper crank from one of the many companies that offer them? Why? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote in message .com...
"Jonesy" wrote in message m... Why not go for the better value/dollar of an older square taper model for $60? There was no such thing as a new XT 180mm crankset in square taper. But I would not have had any problem buying one if I could have found one. But there are a number of other manufacturers that make those cranks... Really? News to me. Tell me, Pete, who - besides Shimano - makes XT stuff? But mostly, I went with it because I had no idea square-taper XT existed anywhere. I would have bought that, if I could have. That is truly odd. You actually limited yourself to Shimano cranks rather than getting a square taper crank from one of the many companies that offer them? Why? Read what I have written on the subject. You'll find the clue you lack. -- Jonesy |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on bike gear technology advancement
"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote in message .com...
"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. Who said I hadn't tried it? Perfect. Ahh, assumptions... As far as supplying measured rigidity, LOL. So, I'm supposed to just believe some marketing hype spouted off in USENET? Get real. All kinds of myths about materials exist - and claims made by someone who may or may not have any idea of what he's talking about don't prove anything. The fact is that the new XTR/Saint stuff is very good, and noticably better than the older stuff, or Raceface. According to whom? You? LOL - "I bought it, so it must be good." 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. Oh, I do have a bassis [sic]. Your inferrences based on unfounded assumptions aside, of course. It really just comes down to you whining for the sake of hearing yourself whine, eh? And your counter-whine is what, exactly? p.s. I never suggested that you throw away usable gear. Bull****. What else am I going to do with it? Start some metal-sculpture project? 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 That, and weight - already given. I'll drag two extra Powerbars up the hill for $400, thanks. Installation? I'm not sure how much faster it is than installing a cartridge BB and regular crank arms, but since I'm not installing 100 of them a day, I don't think that's much of an issue. stiffness An unsubstantiated claim. ease of maintenance How much simpler can it be - pull out old, used cart. BB, throw in a new one. Is it worth $250 over the limited lifetime of the product? etc. Etc.? What else is there? 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: No, let *me* help *you*: "To poopoo it simply because it's new is to be a retrogrouch lemming." I'm not poopooing the stuff simply because it's new. Re-read my comments for the clue you need. Oh, and you quoted out of context: "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." See that first sentence? It's not a throw-away. Thanks for playing. -- Jonesy "waiting for the pedantic 'real improvement' riposte" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fixed Gear Bike? | [email protected] | General | 4 | October 29th 03 04:40 AM |
my new bike | Marian Rosenberg | General | 5 | October 19th 03 03:00 PM |
First road bike: braking? | Alan Hoyle | General | 47 | September 28th 03 11:40 PM |
mountain bike or fixed gear singlespeed:thanks everyone | Brink | General | 1 | July 29th 03 04:44 AM |
Dumb Newbie Qs on Gears and Speed | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 14 | July 27th 03 08:23 PM |