Bike Rack for Trek ALR4 Disc (women's)

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:41:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/23/2020 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of
versatility a selling point. And the customers who say "This
will be my only bike, but I'll never ever want to carry
anything with it."



Frank there are good reasons that Pagani doesn't ship his car with a
bike roof rack.

If you bought a Pagani and then complained there was no way to carry
bikes on it that's your problem not his.

Of course, I wouldn't buy a Pagani under any circumstances, even at one
thousandth it's current price. Cars like that are marketed at those with
super-active fantasy lives, or with a pathetic need to show off, plus
not much sense.

But to compare a couple slightly more practical cars: One person I know
asked for help strapping a typical folding bike rack onto the rear of
her Nissan Leaf electric car. She needed to carry a couple kids bikes
from time to time. But Nissan apparently told a team of engineers to be
sure no bike rack could ever fit that car. (Well, perhaps a hitch
mounted rack, if you paid to install a hitch receiver, which she didn't
want to do.)

By contrast, our Mazda 3 has hidden hard mounts in the roof, four 6mm
female threads that allowed me to easily re-use a roof rack I already
owned. And of course, I can strap a typical rear rack in place.

ISTM that the sort of person who would buy a plug-in electric car is
precisely the sort of person who would ride a bike. So what benefit came
from omitting the hard mounts for a bike rack? Or designing a rear hatch
and rear "spoiler" that precluded use of a strap-on rack?

Answer: Precisely the same benefit that comes from omitting a few female
threaded holes for mounting a rack on a bike. None at all.


Actually you are wrong about the benefit from omitting threaded holes.
Way back in the days of Detroit I worked with a guy that had been an
engineer for Ford (I believe) and who had gotten an cash award for a
design change that reduced the number of screws in the firewall of one
model by two.

When you talk about the numbers of auto's produced by modern factories
"a penny saved is a penny earned" is a valid claim :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:54:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 1:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:42:11 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

All that is not the question. You should asked why the OP end up with that bike if putting on a rack was a requirement. With the current offerings of bikes you must be really dumb/ignorant/foolish/naive not finding a bike that can't take a rear rack even without an adaptor which is a kludge from the beginning. Today most of the times you end up what is called nowadays with a gravel bike.


If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.


I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

The marketing guy is just doing his job and I don't think he puts 'lack of versatility' in the ad or mention it in the commercial. If plenty versatile bikes are out there who is to blame? And you know what versatility will be mentioned as a selling point for the bikes in question. You just have to pay attention.

Yes, you do nave to pay attention to avoid getting a trendy bike with
hugely limited practicality. Because ability to carry more than a loaf
of bread is now considered somehow detrimental, at least in some market
segments. Just as, recently, ability to install even 28mm tires was
somehow detrimental.

It didn't used to be that way. Plenty of people carried significant
loads on "sport touring" bikes, either commuting to work, getting
groceries or even hauling camping gear. When unladen, those bikes worked
as well as full-on racing bikes by simply changing rear cogs.

No more. Now you've got to realize that "sporty" means "can't carry
anything." If you're a denizen of this discussion group or an avid
reader of other bike information you'll have been warned. But if you're
an average bike customer you can end up stuck.

I guess this is somehow good for the industry. Retailers can say "You
want to do sporty weekend rides AND ride to work? Well, you'll need two
bikes!" But it seems counterproductive for people who actually ride bikes.


But Frank, how many people today buy a bicycle with the intent of
carrying a load on it? You and who else? The Lawyer has never mention
a load on his commuting bike? Andrew has never mentioned carrying a
load to work, I (blushes) have never carried a load on my bicycles...
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/23/2020 6:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:41:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/23/2020 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of
versatility a selling point. And the customers who say "This
will be my only bike, but I'll never ever want to carry
anything with it."



Frank there are good reasons that Pagani doesn't ship his car with a
bike roof rack.

If you bought a Pagani and then complained there was no way to carry
bikes on it that's your problem not his.

Of course, I wouldn't buy a Pagani under any circumstances, even at one
thousandth it's current price. Cars like that are marketed at those with
super-active fantasy lives, or with a pathetic need to show off, plus
not much sense.

But to compare a couple slightly more practical cars: One person I know
asked for help strapping a typical folding bike rack onto the rear of
her Nissan Leaf electric car. She needed to carry a couple kids bikes
from time to time. But Nissan apparently told a team of engineers to be
sure no bike rack could ever fit that car. (Well, perhaps a hitch
mounted rack, if you paid to install a hitch receiver, which she didn't
want to do.)

By contrast, our Mazda 3 has hidden hard mounts in the roof, four 6mm
female threads that allowed me to easily re-use a roof rack I already
owned. And of course, I can strap a typical rear rack in place.

ISTM that the sort of person who would buy a plug-in electric car is
precisely the sort of person who would ride a bike. So what benefit came
from omitting the hard mounts for a bike rack? Or designing a rear hatch
and rear "spoiler" that precluded use of a strap-on rack?

Answer: Precisely the same benefit that comes from omitting a few female
threaded holes for mounting a rack on a bike. None at all.


Actually you are wrong about the benefit from omitting threaded holes.
Way back in the days of Detroit I worked with a guy that had been an
engineer for Ford (I believe) and who had gotten an cash award for a
design change that reduced the number of screws in the firewall of one
model by two.

When you talk about the numbers of auto's produced by modern factories
"a penny saved is a penny earned" is a valid claim :-)

I know exactly what you're talking about. I was working at a GM
subsidiary when I attended a "design for manufacturability" seminar. One
pair of slides showed the number of fasteners for the front end of a
Ford product (IIRC) and the much greater number of fasteners for a GM
product that was its competitor. They do take that stuff seriously.

However, I'm sure that's not the reason there are no threaded bosses in
a lot of these performance-oriented bikes.

(And it's also got nothing to do with weight distribution. Tom K is, as
usual, frothing at the mouth.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/23/2020 6:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:54:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 1:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:42:11 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

All that is not the question. You should asked why the OP end up with that bike if putting on a rack was a requirement. With the current offerings of bikes you must be really dumb/ignorant/foolish/naive not finding a bike that can't take a rear rack even without an adaptor which is a kludge from the beginning. Today most of the times you end up what is called nowadays with a gravel bike.


If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.


I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

The marketing guy is just doing his job and I don't think he puts 'lack of versatility' in the ad or mention it in the commercial. If plenty versatile bikes are out there who is to blame? And you know what versatility will be mentioned as a selling point for the bikes in question. You just have to pay attention.

Yes, you do nave to pay attention to avoid getting a trendy bike with
hugely limited practicality. Because ability to carry more than a loaf
of bread is now considered somehow detrimental, at least in some market
segments. Just as, recently, ability to install even 28mm tires was
somehow detrimental.

It didn't used to be that way. Plenty of people carried significant
loads on "sport touring" bikes, either commuting to work, getting
groceries or even hauling camping gear. When unladen, those bikes worked
as well as full-on racing bikes by simply changing rear cogs.

No more. Now you've got to realize that "sporty" means "can't carry
anything." If you're a denizen of this discussion group or an avid
reader of other bike information you'll have been warned. But if you're
an average bike customer you can end up stuck.

I guess this is somehow good for the industry. Retailers can say "You
want to do sporty weekend rides AND ride to work? Well, you'll need two
bikes!" But it seems counterproductive for people who actually ride bikes.


But Frank, how many people today buy a bicycle with the intent of
carrying a load on it? You and who else? The Lawyer has never mention
a load on his commuting bike? Andrew has never mentioned carrying a
load to work, I (blushes) have never carried a load on my bicycles...

You _should_ blush! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/23/2020 3:50 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Actually you are wrong about the benefit from omitting threaded holes.
Way back in the days of Detroit I worked with a guy that had been an
engineer for Ford (I believe) and who had gotten an cash award for a
design change that reduced the number of screws in the firewall of one
model by two.

When you talk about the numbers of auto's produced by modern factories
"a penny saved is a penny earned" is a valid claim :-)

That's true when the design change doesn't remove any functionality.

When there's a design change that removes features or reduces
functionality the cost savings needs to be weighed against the number of
lost sales that will result from customers that wanted that feature.

In any case, it looks like there is likely a good solution for the
original poster by combining the Robert Axle Thru Axle and a seatpost
clamp with eyelets. I've used the latter on one road bike that had no
seat stay braze-ons but did have tapped holes down by the rear axle. The
Ibera disc compatible rack is a good rack to use
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002T5OG5Y.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:16:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 6:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:54:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 1:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:42:11 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

All that is not the question. You should asked why the OP end up with that bike if putting on a rack was a requirement. With the current offerings of bikes you must be really dumb/ignorant/foolish/naive not finding a bike that can't take a rear rack even without an adaptor which is a kludge from the beginning. Today most of the times you end up what is called nowadays with a gravel bike.


If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.


I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

The marketing guy is just doing his job and I don't think he puts 'lack of versatility' in the ad or mention it in the commercial. If plenty versatile bikes are out there who is to blame? And you know what versatility will be mentioned as a selling point for the bikes in question. You just have to pay attention.

Yes, you do nave to pay attention to avoid getting a trendy bike with
hugely limited practicality. Because ability to carry more than a loaf
of bread is now considered somehow detrimental, at least in some market
segments. Just as, recently, ability to install even 28mm tires was
somehow detrimental.

It didn't used to be that way. Plenty of people carried significant
loads on "sport touring" bikes, either commuting to work, getting
groceries or even hauling camping gear. When unladen, those bikes worked
as well as full-on racing bikes by simply changing rear cogs.

No more. Now you've got to realize that "sporty" means "can't carry
anything." If you're a denizen of this discussion group or an avid
reader of other bike information you'll have been warned. But if you're
an average bike customer you can end up stuck.

I guess this is somehow good for the industry. Retailers can say "You
want to do sporty weekend rides AND ride to work? Well, you'll need two
bikes!" But it seems counterproductive for people who actually ride bikes.


But Frank, how many people today buy a bicycle with the intent of
carrying a load on it? You and who else? The Lawyer has never mention
a load on his commuting bike? Andrew has never mentioned carrying a
load to work, I (blushes) have never carried a load on my bicycles...

You _should_ blush! ;-)


When we lived in Phuket it was an 80 km trip into town and back and we
went shopping once a week.... be a big bicycle that could carry a
weeks shopping :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:15:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 6:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:41:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/23/2020 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of
versatility a selling point. And the customers who say "This
will be my only bike, but I'll never ever want to carry
anything with it."



Frank there are good reasons that Pagani doesn't ship his car with a
bike roof rack.

If you bought a Pagani and then complained there was no way to carry
bikes on it that's your problem not his.

Of course, I wouldn't buy a Pagani under any circumstances, even at one
thousandth it's current price. Cars like that are marketed at those with
super-active fantasy lives, or with a pathetic need to show off, plus
not much sense.

But to compare a couple slightly more practical cars: One person I know
asked for help strapping a typical folding bike rack onto the rear of
her Nissan Leaf electric car. She needed to carry a couple kids bikes
from time to time. But Nissan apparently told a team of engineers to be
sure no bike rack could ever fit that car. (Well, perhaps a hitch
mounted rack, if you paid to install a hitch receiver, which she didn't
want to do.)

By contrast, our Mazda 3 has hidden hard mounts in the roof, four 6mm
female threads that allowed me to easily re-use a roof rack I already
owned. And of course, I can strap a typical rear rack in place.

ISTM that the sort of person who would buy a plug-in electric car is
precisely the sort of person who would ride a bike. So what benefit came
from omitting the hard mounts for a bike rack? Or designing a rear hatch
and rear "spoiler" that precluded use of a strap-on rack?

Answer: Precisely the same benefit that comes from omitting a few female
threaded holes for mounting a rack on a bike. None at all.


Actually you are wrong about the benefit from omitting threaded holes.
Way back in the days of Detroit I worked with a guy that had been an
engineer for Ford (I believe) and who had gotten an cash award for a
design change that reduced the number of screws in the firewall of one
model by two.

When you talk about the numbers of auto's produced by modern factories
"a penny saved is a penny earned" is a valid claim :-)

I know exactly what you're talking about. I was working at a GM
subsidiary when I attended a "design for manufacturability" seminar. One
pair of slides showed the number of fasteners for the front end of a
Ford product (IIRC) and the much greater number of fasteners for a GM
product that was its competitor. They do take that stuff seriously.

However, I'm sure that's not the reason there are no threaded bosses in
a lot of these performance-oriented bikes.

(And it's also got nothing to do with weight distribution. Tom K is, as
usual, frothing at the mouth.)

I thought that you were talking autos about with the threaded holes in
the Mazda. For bikes I suspect that it is largely a matter of "style"
as by using the proper frame ends and bridges no additional work is
done by adding or removing threaded holes.

But again, I suspect that relatively few recreational cyclists buy a
bike with the intent of carrying stuff on it. Off the top of my head,
in the last two years I believe that I've seen two guys with a load on
their bikes and they were obviously touring with the saddle bags fore
and aft and the big handle bar bags. One of the guys even had a flag
on his bike :-) A sort of spring mounted radio antenna with a yellow
flag on the top (I thought of SMS when I saw it :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:45:07 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 3:50 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Actually you are wrong about the benefit from omitting threaded holes.
Way back in the days of Detroit I worked with a guy that had been an
engineer for Ford (I believe) and who had gotten an cash award for a
design change that reduced the number of screws in the firewall of one
model by two.

When you talk about the numbers of auto's produced by modern factories
"a penny saved is a penny earned" is a valid claim :-)

That's true when the design change doesn't remove any functionality.

When there's a design change that removes features or reduces
functionality the cost savings needs to be weighed against the number of
lost sales that will result from customers that wanted that feature.

The question would be "how many customers actually want that feature?"
Probably 20 years ago I was in the market for a manual shift car in
Bangkok. Guess what? None of the dealers stocked such a critter. I
asked one dealer "How come the taxies are manual shift then?" and he
told me that if I wanted to order a fleet they would have them
specially built for me.

As an aside, today all the taxies are automatic shift :-)


In any case, it looks like there is likely a good solution for the
original poster by combining the Robert Axle Thru Axle and a seatpost
clamp with eyelets. I've used the latter on one road bike that had no
seat stay braze-ons but did have tapped holes down by the rear axle. The
Ibera disc compatible rack is a good rack to use
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002T5OG5Y.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/23/2020 5:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:54:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 1:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:42:11 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

All that is not the question. You should asked why the OP end up with that bike if putting on a rack was a requirement. With the current offerings of bikes you must be really dumb/ignorant/foolish/naive not finding a bike that can't take a rear rack even without an adaptor which is a kludge from the beginning. Today most of the times you end up what is called nowadays with a gravel bike.


If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.


I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

The marketing guy is just doing his job and I don't think he puts 'lack of versatility' in the ad or mention it in the commercial. If plenty versatile bikes are out there who is to blame? And you know what versatility will be mentioned as a selling point for the bikes in question. You just have to pay attention.

Yes, you do nave to pay attention to avoid getting a trendy bike with
hugely limited practicality. Because ability to carry more than a loaf
of bread is now considered somehow detrimental, at least in some market
segments. Just as, recently, ability to install even 28mm tires was
somehow detrimental.

It didn't used to be that way. Plenty of people carried significant
loads on "sport touring" bikes, either commuting to work, getting
groceries or even hauling camping gear. When unladen, those bikes worked
as well as full-on racing bikes by simply changing rear cogs.

No more. Now you've got to realize that "sporty" means "can't carry
anything." If you're a denizen of this discussion group or an avid
reader of other bike information you'll have been warned. But if you're
an average bike customer you can end up stuck.

I guess this is somehow good for the industry. Retailers can say "You
want to do sporty weekend rides AND ride to work? Well, you'll need two
bikes!" But it seems counterproductive for people who actually ride bikes.


But Frank, how many people today buy a bicycle with the intent of
carrying a load on it? You and who else? The Lawyer has never mention
a load on his commuting bike? Andrew has never mentioned carrying a
load to work, I (blushes) have never carried a load on my bicycles...
--
Cheers,

John B.


Au contraire!

I regularly carry a plastic shopping bag in one hand while
riding. For a 'big' load (a kilo or two) I'll even slip the
bag over my wrist.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:55:42 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/23/2020 5:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:54:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2020 1:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:42:11 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

All that is not the question. You should asked why the OP end up with that bike if putting on a rack was a requirement. With the current offerings of bikes you must be really dumb/ignorant/foolish/naive not finding a bike that can't take a rear rack even without an adaptor which is a kludge from the beginning. Today most of the times you end up what is called nowadays with a gravel bike.


If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.


I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

The marketing guy is just doing his job and I don't think he puts 'lack of versatility' in the ad or mention it in the commercial. If plenty versatile bikes are out there who is to blame? And you know what versatility will be mentioned as a selling point for the bikes in question. You just have to pay attention.

Yes, you do nave to pay attention to avoid getting a trendy bike with
hugely limited practicality. Because ability to carry more than a loaf
of bread is now considered somehow detrimental, at least in some market
segments. Just as, recently, ability to install even 28mm tires was
somehow detrimental.

It didn't used to be that way. Plenty of people carried significant
loads on "sport touring" bikes, either commuting to work, getting
groceries or even hauling camping gear. When unladen, those bikes worked
as well as full-on racing bikes by simply changing rear cogs.

No more. Now you've got to realize that "sporty" means "can't carry
anything." If you're a denizen of this discussion group or an avid
reader of other bike information you'll have been warned. But if you're
an average bike customer you can end up stuck.

I guess this is somehow good for the industry. Retailers can say "You
want to do sporty weekend rides AND ride to work? Well, you'll need two
bikes!" But it seems counterproductive for people who actually ride bikes.


But Frank, how many people today buy a bicycle with the intent of
carrying a load on it? You and who else? The Lawyer has never mention
a load on his commuting bike? Andrew has never mentioned carrying a
load to work, I (blushes) have never carried a load on my bicycles...
--
Cheers,

John B.


Au contraire!

I regularly carry a plastic shopping bag in one hand while
riding. For a 'big' load (a kilo or two) I'll even slip the
bag over my wrist.

O.K. but as I am "getting on a bit" I can claim that I never hear you
mention this lugging packages on bicycles before :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.