Hey Les, you might want to consider reading the thread before commenting. You missed Al's point completely.

I stand correted. I did not read through the entire post. Please accept my apology. I did not mean to offend. I was wondering about the knee-jerk response of hatred to all-lucra clad cycists.

Joejack pointed out that "performace commuters" have been on offering since 2004. And others have mentioned that at least one comfort style has been available... meanwhile the MTB bikes came onto the scene... what, back in the mid 80's?

No, I pointed out that the Globe model has been offered since 2004 and prior to that they have the Sirrus, which I only mentioned because I think it's a sweet bike (I bought my fiancee one). Specialized offers and has offered many bikes which could be used as commuter bikes aside from the Globe and Sirrus. Check out their website; they have an archive that goes back to 2002.

I'm not sure why I should be pointing this out to somebody with so many more years of experience than myself, but those mid '80s and even early '90s MTB's (like my '93 GT Tequesta, my first real bike, still in the family) were fully rigid frames (mostly steel) with flat bars. The only thing making them not commuter friendly would be the knobby tires they came with (hardly an impediment). MTB's have come a long way since their simple beginnings.

even early '90s MTB's (like my '93 GT Tequesta, my first real bike, still in the family) were fully rigid frames (mostly steel) with flat bars. The only thing making them not commuter friendly would be the knobby tires they came with (hardly an impediment).
My first commuter was a Diamond Back ascent ex from the very early 90s. Exactly as you describe. I put on semi-slicks, should have used full slicks.

Al

No, I pointed out that the Globe model has been offered since 2004 and prior to that they have the Sirrus, which I only mentioned because I think it's a sweet bike (I bought my fiancee one). Specialized offers and has offered many bikes which could be used as commuter bikes aside from the Globe and Sirrus. Check out their website; they have an archive that goes back to 2002.

I'm not sure why I should be pointing this out to somebody with so many more years of experience than myself, but those mid '80s and even early '90s MTB's (like my '93 GT Tequesta, my first real bike, still in the family) were fully rigid frames (mostly steel) with flat bars. The only thing making them not commuter friendly would be the knobby tires they came with (hardly an impediment). MTB's have come a long way since their simple beginnings.

My commuter, which I had custom built in the early '80s, is much like a rigid MTB, but with more road like gearing and flat bars. (I actually had a Campy record FD with Campy custom triple and a Suntour or Shimano Mountech RD) Indeed MTBs today are nothing like the early Kleins and others that dominated the off road scene. But consider that at the time, drop bar road bikes were predominate in stores, and MTBs were just making inroads... and a consumer looking at that time (mid 80's and early 90's) did not have the choices of comfort bikes or "performance commuter" that has appeared later. (I really need to go see these "performance commuters"). So a consumer at the time would go and see a shop full of road bikes and a hand full of MTBs and may have made the choice of MTB to fit their comfort bike needs... which actually helped spur the MTB sales... as NBDA points out... MTB sales have since flattened as offerings more similar to comfort bikes have made inroads. I want to be careful using the "comfort bike" term however as every campus and comfort bike I have seen was not really much more than a heavy frame best suited for not much more than "park" riding. I think something newer is coming out now that is less comfort and more practical... offering fatter tires, but geometry similar to a road bike, with flat bars and geared to be not quite "comfort" but practical.

Apparently these days (2000 and later) there are now being introduced more task specific bikes such as a "performance commuter."

BTW specifically the reason you are pointing this out to me, in spite of my years of cycling experience is that I didn't go into a bike shop much in the mid 80's through the '90's. My bikes worked fine, and I only tended to maintain them, but not shop around for other bikes much. Frankly index shifting came and went through some phases before I even knew it existed. All my bikes have friction shifters to this day.

In the '98 and '99 I started looking for replacement parts for my well worn commuter and was surprised to find out about cassettes vice freewheels... and then I started looking for a replacement bike... and found nothing suitable. Somewhere along the way Compact Frames and Carbon Fiber came into play.

My wife's latest bike, which I bought used in the late '90s (a Trek hardtail MTB), has both index shifting and lawyer lips. She loves index shifting (which I have yet to use) and I think the lawyer lips are ridiculous...

I am not saying that cyclists who wear logo-emblazoned clothing are jerks or that it's even a bad thing to do.

I am saying that many of the jerks out there just so happen to wear the logo-emblazoned clothing and thus the motorists will associate the clothing with the jerkishness whether it is true in your case or not.

Don't know what that is so hard to understand. Even you guys will make snap decisions about cyclists based on what they wear. Tell me what is the first thing that pops into your head if you see some guy with a hooded sweatshirt, hood on, riding a bike 5 sizes to small? Yeah, I thought so.

My commuter, which I had custom built in the early '80s, is much like a rigid MTB, but with more road like gearing and flat bars.

Speaking of gearing, didn't the original '80s MTBs have touring triples on them (like a 48/38/28) as opposed to what is now considered a MTB triple (42/32/22 or thereabouts)? [question directed at anybody who has an answer better than my assessment based on observations of ebay auctions]

Don't know what that is so hard to understand. Even you guys will make snap decisions about cyclists based on what they wear. Tell me what is the first thing that pops into your head if you see some guy with a hooded sweatshirt, hood on, riding a bike 5 sizes to small? Yeah, I thought so.

Huh? What should I think? That its cold out? That a BMX bike is not well suited for long distance riding? I'm missing this one. There are lots of kids/young adults who ride this kind of bike where I live and I don't think much of it, its just another style of bike riding of which competition even occasionally makes it to network TV. Watch it some time and you may learn that there is more to cycling than going places.

For example look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irqdis0fNs8
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAiQW1akAUw

Note that this style of riding requires the seat to be very low, making the bike look like it is much too small.

Are you not the same person who said before that anyone on a bike is good for cycling? Or does it actually matter to you what kind of bike they ride and what they are wearing?

Al

I am not saying that cyclists who wear logo-emblazoned clothing are jerks or that it's even a bad thing to do.

I am saying that many of the jerks out there just so happen to wear the logo-emblazoned clothing and thus the motorists will associate the clothing with the jerkishness whether it is true in your case or not.

Don't know what that is so hard to understand. Even you guys will make snap decisions about cyclists based on what they wear. Tell me what is the first thing that pops into your head if you see some guy with a hooded sweatshirt, hood on, riding a bike 5 sizes to small? Yeah, I thought so.

and that means exactly squat.

by your logic (if that's what you want to call it) here's a similar line of thinking that gets thrown out all the time.
...so because most terrorists are muslim, we're supposed to think being muslim makes you a more likely terrorist or at least where we should put our suspicions.


The fact that some trouble makers wear full racing kit has nothing to do with the likelihood that other ppl that wear the same are likely to cause trouble. It's a ridiculous argument that you're making.

Who said BMX? Just as I expected. A snap assessment. You didn't picture a cold very tall man on a ladies racing bike did you?

and that means exactly squat.

by your logic (if that's what you want to call it) here's a similar line of thinking that gets thrown out all the time.
...so because most terrorists are muslim, we're supposed to think being muslim makes you a more likely terrorist.


The fact that some trouble makers wear full racing kit has nothing to do with the likelihood that other ppl that wear the same are likely to cause trouble. It's a ridiculous argument that you're making.

I am not making the correlation. I'm saying that the correlation exists in some drivers' minds. I'm not saying that racing attire or muslim appearance = anything. I'm saying that to some people it does. And to the original poster, racing attire = drivers getting mad at you because they think you are going to behave a certain way happens enough that he doesn't want to wear racing attire. I can understand that.

Who said BMX? Just as I expected. A snap assessment. You didn't picture a cold very tall man on a ladies racing bike did you?
But I made no such assessment about character. You described a clothing style and bike fit style that is very common and made some additional assumption about the age of the person and the likely type of bike, but no assumption about what that person's character is like, which is what is at the heart of the debate: That a cyclists character is or is not correlated to what they wear and/or the bike they ride.

Al

Speaking of gearing, didn't the original '80s MTBs have touring triples on them (like a 48/38/28) as opposed to what is now considered a MTB triple (42/32/22 or thereabouts)? [question directed at anybody who has an answer better than my assessment based on observations of ebay auctions]

Not sure what was offered in shops... I set my commuter up for touring and commuting... carrying loads.

I had a Record Campy drilled and machined out to make a triple, which apparently was something that was done by a few folks at the time, but has resulted in a really odd BCD for which I cannot find chainrings today.

I went with a 52/44/36 (can't remember if it is 36 or 34) and used a half step shifting system with a custom freewheel. Since then I have long learned that the half step at the FD was not exactly ideal, and trying to replace a custom freewheel years later was also painful. Better to use what is off the shelf.

These days I would probably go with a 50/40/30 and a 13-34 mega range RD. 52/44 was real real common for chain rings back then... my road bike has that too. I have since put a different set of wheels (original wheels are sewup) on my road bike and I can use a 7 speed cassette on it, and I use cool stop brakes now vice the old short block pads... other than that, it is vintage early 80's.

which is what is at the heart of the debate: That a cyclists character is or is not correlated to what they wear and/or the bike they ride.

Al

Amen.

But what do motorists think of what they see... what are their first impressions... are all cyclists equal in their eyes?

I think a couple of studies have determined that spandex wearing cyclists don't get as much clearance as others... of course the validity of the studies are in question by spandex wearing cyclists. ;)

That a cyclists character is or is not correlated to what they wear and/or the bike they ride.

Al

Exactly. It is not correlated in fact. But it is correlated in many people's minds. Enough so that the original poster has decided it's not worth the aggravation he receives to trigger the erroneous correlation with his choice of cycling attire. He chooses to wear something that doesn't trigger an erroneous correlation. I'm simply saying that I can understand his motivation.

Exactly. It is not correlated in fact. But it is correlated in many people's minds.
Including yours as you wrote previously (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5515821&postcount=188):

"Lots of people have that need [to be a prick], and many of them seem to be drawn to clothing with a lot of logos and ride in big packs of other cyclists. I see these people all the time."
and
"I am saying that many of the jerks out there just so happen to wear the logo-emblazoned clothing..."

I am only suggesting as a cycling advocate to be a little more open minded and less influenced by the effect that I suspect anti-cyclist propaganda has had on you, but more importantly I ask why do you insist on perpetuating the stereotype invented by anti-cyclists if it is 'not correlated in fact'?

Al

Exactly. It is not correlated in fact. But it is correlated in many people's minds. Enough so that the original poster has decided it's not worth the aggravation he receives to trigger the erroneous correlation with his choice of cycling attire. He chooses to wear something that doesn't trigger an erroneous correlation. I'm simply saying that I can understand his motivation.

Yes, excellent point.

I'll also add that I don't dress in lycra because it is not comfortable for me!!

I started serious riding (for me, a couple hundred miles a week) this summer. Since then I've done two centuries, a few several-day tours, I ride almost every day, three times a week rides of between 20 and 50 miles.

I had been riding in cotton boxer briefs and cotton denim cutoffs. They were very comfortable for me, and I had no problem.

But given all the wonderful things I've been reading here about lycra and padded bike shorts, I thought I was missing something, so I went out and blew some bucks on some bike shorts.

I've ridden in them a few times now, at various distances. And I don't like them.

They are not any more comfortable than my denim shorts, and in fact with the bike shorts I get chafing and a kind of general numbness that I never get when I'm wearing cotton shorts.

As for base layers, on top I use a long-sleeve light-weight merino-wool shirt, which I really like a lot, which I wear under a cotton t-shirt.

So for me, another reason not to dress like a superhero is that it's just not comfortable. I'd rather look like fred and be comfortable than look like a superhero and be uncomfortable.

But I'll also add that justified or not, there is hostility among many people towards the lycra superhero look, and especially given the comfort issue, there's no reason to go with lycra for me.

Why are so many people so uptight about so many other people? That sounds like a lot of personal problems to me. You don't have to be like other people and they don't have to be like you.

I ride a road bike to work. I love the way it looks. I wear bright lycra jerseys and spandex shorts. I have a blast on my bike. People like me because I like me. A little boy yells "hi" to me from his yard every day when I ride by. We both look for each other.

I'm not going to let myself whine about what other people do or don't do. I see people riding on sidewalks without helmets and I think that is crazy, but it's still their business and they are probably people I would like if I met them. I certainly wouldn't influence them by being snobbish or mean spirited. I'll just nod my head and keep going.

Bike shops are businesses and they are going to stock what sells for them or they'll be out of business. They have to be market driven. You'd have to fuss at the whole market if you have a problem with what stores are stocking. If you can't find what you want locally you can almost always find it somewhere else.

Here is part of an interview between Grant Petersen and Sheldon Brown that is very similar to what I have tried to express here:

Grant:
I think the worst thing thats happening in bicycles these days and it's been happening for years is using racing and competition bicycles to sell bicycles to people who are not going to do that. I mean, it wouldn't happen in cars. You don't see people driving around in cars that people race on the dragstrip or in NASCAR cars but that's the kind of bike that people get on and ride. It's not a practical bike for everyday living, but people, I don't know, they get caught up in the excitement of racing, and in the bike industry, everyone is sort of fretting about "what's going to happen with road bike sales, now that Lance Armstrong is retired?" And that's a pathetic way to look at it. Normal people should be able to ride bikes and they should be able to be comfortable on a bike. Riding a bicycle is a fantastic thing, but if you have to dress like Lance (and I'm a Lance fan, by the way.)
Sheldon:
Oh, who isn't?
Grant:
If you have to dress like him and look like him and try to ride like him, you are not going to have a fun time on a bike. I would have a miserable - the most miserable rides I ever do are the ones where I try to go fast. I try to go fast about once a week, and those are the rides that I don't like. I'm caught up in it a little bit, and everybody is.
Sheldon:
It really bothers me, the concept that you need to wear special clothing to ride a bicycle.
Grant:
I think that's what keeps people off of bikes. If you had to wear an oddball uniform to go buy a McDonald's hamburger, McDonalds would go out of business.

From: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/podcasts/grantpetersen.html

Gene, you've never seen a car with a spoiler or air-dam? Ever heard of an IROC?

Gene, you've never seen a car with a spoiler or air-dam? Ever heard of an IROC?
Yeah, people who drive cars like that are arrogant pricks. ;)

That is why I removed the spoiler on my Prius, so other drivers would know I'm not really a jerk. I get treated so much better now.

Al

Yeah, people who drive cars like that are arrogant pricks. ;)

That is why I removed the spoiler on my Prius, so other drivers would know I'm not really a jerk. I get treated so much better now.

Al

Spoiler on a Prius? :roflmao:

Spoiler on a Prius? :roflmao:

Yeah, I had to reality check on that one before I made a total (instead of partial) fool of myself. It's actually what the replacement part is commonly called though:
http://www.google.com/search?q=prius+spoiler
http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/7/G/m/ag_07prius_spoiler.jpg
Al

Gene, you've never seen a car with a spoiler or air-dam? Ever heard of an IROC?

Sure I've seen them... don't have a clue as to what IROC is.

And their practical application is what exactly? To hold the car on the road at what 130MPH? Or do they just increase the comfort of the driver? I have no idea what they are for.

....
Now it appears that some "performance commuters" are arriving on the scene... I've got to try to ask for one of those when I go to the LBS next time. But the bottom line is a more practical bike, not racing, not mtb, and not "comfort" is slowly arriving on the scene... is it possible that more "unsuperhero-clad" like folks may be taking to cycling?

I think you're right. Last time I went to Performance, one of these http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/bikes_detail.php?id=981 was the first bike you saw when you walked in the store. It's the type that appeals to me too after using an old school mountain bike for almost 2 years.

Yeah, I had to reality check on that one before I made a total (instead of partial) fool of myself. It's actually what the replacement part is commonly called though:
http://www.google.com/search?q=prius+spoiler
http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/7/G/m/ag_07prius_spoiler.jpg
Al

You realize that there is probably a pretty good reason for that spoiler from an aerodynamics standpoint. It'll keep the air flowing over the top of the car from swirling over the flat back end and causing drag. Most cars with a flat back end with have some sort of spoiler, or at least a concave section, to increase the aerodynamics of the car. The Prius is one of the most aerodynamic commercial cars on the market, probably only beat by the Insight.

Why would you mess with that for stylistic reasons?

Why would you mess with that for stylistic reasons?

Yes I know what it is for. Do you really think I ripped of the spoiler?

Al

Here is part of an interview between Grant Petersen and Sheldon Brown that is very similar to what I have tried to express here:

Grant:
I think the worst thing thats happening in bicycles these days and it's been happening for years is using racing and competition bicycles to sell bicycles to people who are not going to do that. I mean, it wouldn't happen in cars. You don't see people driving around in cars that people race on the dragstrip or in NASCAR cars but that's the kind of bike that people get on and ride. It's not a practical bike for everyday living, but people, I don't know, they get caught up in the excitement of racing, and in the bike industry, everyone is sort of fretting about "what's going to happen with road bike sales, now that Lance Armstrong is retired?" And that's a pathetic way to look at it. Normal people should be able to ride bikes and they should be able to be comfortable on a bike. Riding a bicycle is a fantastic thing, but if you have to dress like Lance (and I'm a Lance fan, by the way.)
Sheldon:
Oh, who isn't?
Grant:
If you have to dress like him and look like him and try to ride like him, you are not going to have a fun time on a bike. I would have a miserable - the most miserable rides I ever do are the ones where I try to go fast. I try to go fast about once a week, and those are the rides that I don't like. I'm caught up in it a little bit, and everybody is.
Sheldon:
It really bothers me, the concept that you need to wear special clothing to ride a bicycle.
Grant:
I think that's what keeps people off of bikes. If you had to wear an oddball uniform to go buy a McDonald's hamburger, McDonalds would go out of business.

From: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/podcasts/grantpetersen.html

The big business people look at markets a bit different form the small guys like Grant Peterson. Here, Grant (and Sheldon by agreeing with him) is assuming that demand can be pushed around by supply. If only someone would supply a cheap, no frills bike, then everyone will suddenly go out and buy a bike and ride like a kid again. Right?

But it's the other way around. Grant describes the effect of the low popularity of adult transportational cycling, that the only people who want bikes want racing bikes and dress like racers, as if it is the cause and the low popularity were the effect. This is pushing on a rope, hoping to move the cart.

Which progression makes the most sense:

Progression A
1) cycling has a low popularity because cars are used as the primary transportation in the US
2) because of this, the only people who are interested in buying a bicycle as an adult are the ones who are interested in riding fast with racing bikes and clothing
3) because of where the market is, the bicycle companies design or specify bikes which serve this market.

Progression B
1) bike companies decide that they enjoy making high performance racing bikes more than any other type of bike
2) because there are only racing bikes to buy, the only bikes that people ride are racing bikes
3) because some people don't like racing bikes, they don't ride
4) hence, bicycling is unpopular in the US.

Progression A presupposes that everyone, both the consumer and the seller, are acting in their best interests - customers buy what they want, sellers sell what customers buy. Progression B presupposes that the customers are pawns who either take what sellers sell or don't - they have no predetermined preferences, and sellers ignore a market which should be easy for them to service "because they don't want to". If there were a large body of people who wanted plain jane bikes, then there should be a lot of money to be had in selling these bikes to them.

Consider this made up story:
CycleLuna sells both plain jane bikes and a few, almost custom racing bikes. As cars gain in popularity and the US approaches an average of one car per person, the plain jane bikes sales start slowing down because people don't need them anymore to get around having only one or no cars per family. But there are still some people interested in cycling, and they are buying the racing bikes. So CycleLuna's overall market shrinks, but there is still a fairly solid fan base who are buying racing bikes. So, instead of investing in a new factory for plain jane bikes, CycleLuna offers a second model racing bike, at lower volumes and higher margins. As a trend, cycling for sport is becoming a popular hobby and people are buying the racing bikes, but there are now very few people buying plain jane bikes (at this point, they are still being sold right next to the racing bikes). This trend continues until CycleLuna is selling only a couple hundred plain jane bikes a year, while they sell a couple thousand racing bikes (at high margin, I should add). The plant for the plain jane bikes is old and is becoming a drain on the company; because the volume of sales for the plain jane bikes is so low, a plant for popping them out at low cost and high volume is not worth the overhead anymore. So CycleLuna sells the plant to a holding company who takes operations over to China where world sales volume justify the cost of the plant. Now CycleLuna only makes racing bikes for hobbyists.

****

As far as I can see, this is essentially the story of the bicycle industry in the US. Perhaps it isn't racing bikes but mountain bikes which fills the hobby void. Perhaps it is hybrid bikes. Perhaps it is all of these at various point in time. Whatever. The point is still the same. Companies only invest the money into a plant to make something if there are people who want to buy the product. And when people don't want the product coming out of the plant anymore, the company will start selling different things that people do want. The bicycle industry is not the cause of the fall in bicycling popularity (that can probably be attributed mostly to the invention of the car), and it will not be its savior either. The industry will follow wherever their customers want to go. Do they want fixed gears? Well, in the last few years (you can count them) every major bike company has magically come out with an urban fixed gear bike. You want a 17 lb road bike? Magically, those companies who were popping out mountain bikes a couple years ago all now have their tricked out 17 lb road bike. You want dutch utility bikes? Well, same thing; the last couple years have seen the rise of companies which specialize in either look-alike dutch bikes or companies who import dutch bikes to sell in the US.

Grant Peterson tries to push on a rope and where does that get him? He has a couple of retrogrouch fans who buy his stuff, but he is less than popular. He's merely a nitch market guy. His bikes, supposedly the solid, cheap (???), practical variety, are more expensive than (probably) 90% of the bicycles sold in the US. They are sold to people who's stated purpose is to tour and commute; generally the uses which beat up bikes and where people obtain less flashy, more solid pieces of equipment. He is supposedly all about the ride, but don't dare talk about clipless pedals or other efficiency improving measures with him; he is basically intolerant of those who are "racer wannabes". He's used his personality to open up a very small nitch market, and there he remains, probably losing money as often as he makes money. That's what happens if you try to push on a rope.

Trek is the biggest bicycle manufacturer in the US (I don't think this includes the department store bikes). They let the rope pull them, and they are quite successful because of it.

Yes I know what it is for. Do you really think I ripped of the spoiler?

Al

:roflmao:

I was hoping it wasn't the case. :D

Companies only invest the money into a plant to make something if there are people who want to buy the product.

Right. Explain "New Coke."

Right. Explain "New Coke."

My only explanation need be that "New Coke" doesn't exist anymore. Sometimes they are wrong, but these wrongs are addressed pretty quickly.

New Coke didn't work because Coke was trying to find new customers and take some away from Pepsi, and found that their new stuff lost them more customers than they gained. Evidently taste does matter, it isn't just image that is supporting that particular product.

But "New Coke" isn't a case in point. New Coke was concieved because Coca Cola was trying to expand. They were trying probing to find a new market and they were wrong, so they went back to the old stuff and put "classic" underneath the name so there'd be no mixups.

Here, bike companies discontinued an old product because sales were lagging, and latched onto a new product, serving a fundamentally different customer base in order to survive. This would be like if Coca Cola found that nobody was drinking Coke anymore because most everyone was drinking Starbucks and they started producing, I dunno, fruit juice because a smaller but robust group of people were drinking fruit juice in order for the Coca Cola company to survive in a changing world on a smaller customer base given that Starbucks had a lock on the coffee industry.

I should add that going from "New Coke" to "Classic Coke" is an easy switch for them because the plants for both are identical. They just changed the mixture of chemicals which went into the drink. This was why they could 1) afford the experiment in the face of some high uncertainties, and 2) quickly rectify the situation once it was clear that people thought it tasted like crap.

Companies who make things you can hold, like bicycles, are not as flippant about changing some part of their manufacturing line. You don't go from plain jane to racing bikes and back to plain jane at a flip of a button like you literally can with going from "new Coke" to "Coke classic".

My only explanation need be that "New Coke" doesn't exist anymore. Sometimes they are wrong, but these wrongs are addressed pretty quickly.

New Coke didn't work because Coke was trying to find new customers and take some away from Pepsi, and found that their new stuff lost them more customers than they gained. Evidently taste does matter, it isn't just image that is supporting that particular product.

But "New Coke" isn't a case in point. New Coke was concieved because Coca Cola was trying to expand. They were trying probing to find a new market and they were wrong, so they went back to the old stuff and put "classic" underneath the name so there'd be no mixups.

Here, bike companies discontinued an old product because sales were lagging, and latched onto a new product, serving a fundamentally different customer base in order to survive. This would be like if Coca Cola found that nobody was drinking Coke anymore because most everyone was drinking Starbucks and they started producing, I dunno, fruit juice because a smaller but robust group of people were drinking fruit juice in order for the Coca Cola company to survive in a changing world on a smaller customer base given that Starbucks had a lock on the coffee industry.

Now compare that market to folks looking for bikes as the price of gas went through the roof.

BTW I don't disagree with your assessment of Grant Petersen and his products... but consider the bike buyer going into a Trek store and what they really face... lots of fancy bikes... but Jane just wants "a bike."

Trek et al have split the bike market into Xmart sales, and boys with toys. (sorry girls, it just rhymed better).

Now compare that market to folks looking for bikes as the price of gas went through the roof.

BTW I don't disagree with your assessment of Grant Petersen and his products... but consider the bike buyer going into a Trek store and what they really face... lots of fancy bikes... but Jane just wants "a bike."

Trek et al have split the bike market into Xmart sales, and boys with toys. (sorry girls, it just rhymed better).

That's the price of capitalism.

However, that said, at my favorite shop in the area, the first thing to face the customer is a bunch of single speed beach crusers, second are some stately 3 speed utility bikes and third is Trek bikes with the coasting group. You go to the back of the store before you see the section devoted to mountain bikes and road bikes. The road and mountain bikes have much bigger selections, mind you (probably because customers of these special purpose bikes are pickier about what they buy), but the first thing the customer sees are the "every-day man" bikes that this particular shop offers.

Speaking of gearing, didn't the original '80s MTBs have touring triples on them (like a 48/38/28) as opposed to what is now considered a MTB triple (42/32/22 or thereabouts)? [question directed at anybody who has an answer better than my assessment based on observations of ebay auctions]

My 1994 Trek mtb was something like that

Seems as though something like the highway law in Alaska would apply here, where if you have at least five cars behind you, you must pull over at the first opportunity or be ticketed. A quick web search indicates that this is the law in tennessee as well, at the very minimum, as per a short article on bike safety.

Also, in regards to "New Coke", the original Coke uses sugar as a sweetener. "Classic Coke" uses high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, much cheaper. Give the people sewage, and the trash you wanted to give them originally will look heavenly in comparison, especially once no-one remembers what the place looked like without being covered in sewage anymore.

...especially once no-one remembers what the place looked like without being covered in sewage anymore.
Hey, you leave Detroit out of this!!

The big business people look at markets a bit different form the small guys like Grant Peterson. Here, Grant (and Sheldon by agreeing with him) is assuming that demand can be pushed around by supply. If only someone would supply a cheap, no frills bike, then everyone will suddenly go out and buy a bike and ride like a kid again. Right?

But it's the other way around. Grant describes the effect of the low popularity of adult transportational cycling, that the only people who want bikes want racing bikes and dress like racers, as if it is the cause and the low popularity were the effect. This is pushing on a rope, hoping to move the cart.

Which progression makes the most sense:

Progression A
1) cycling has a low popularity because cars are used as the primary transportation in the US
2) because of this, the only people who are interested in buying a bicycle as an adult are the ones who are interested in riding fast with racing bikes and clothing
3) because of where the market is, the bicycle companies design or specify bikes which serve this market.

Progression B
1) bike companies decide that they enjoy making high performance racing bikes more than any other type of bike
2) because there are only racing bikes to buy, the only bikes that people ride are racing bikes
3) because some people don't like racing bikes, they don't ride
4) hence, bicycling is unpopular in the US.

Progression A presupposes that everyone, both the consumer and the seller, are acting in their best interests - customers buy what they want, sellers sell what customers buy. Progression B presupposes that the customers are pawns who either take what sellers sell or don't - they have no predetermined preferences, and sellers ignore a market which should be easy for them to service "because they don't want to". If there were a large body of people who wanted plain jane bikes, then there should be a lot of money to be had in selling these bikes to them.

Consider this made up story:
CycleLuna sells both plain jane bikes and a few, almost custom racing bikes. As cars gain in popularity and the US approaches an average of one car per person, the plain jane bikes sales start slowing down because people don't need them anymore to get around having only one or no cars per family. But there are still some people interested in cycling, and they are buying the racing bikes. So CycleLuna's overall market shrinks, but there is still a fairly solid fan base who are buying racing bikes. So, instead of investing in a new factory for plain jane bikes, CycleLuna offers a second model racing bike, at lower volumes and higher margins. As a trend, cycling for sport is becoming a popular hobby and people are buying the racing bikes, but there are now very few people buying plain jane bikes (at this point, they are still being sold right next to the racing bikes). This trend continues until CycleLuna is selling only a couple hundred plain jane bikes a year, while they sell a couple thousand racing bikes (at high margin, I should add). The plant for the plain jane bikes is old and is becoming a drain on the company; because the volume of sales for the plain jane bikes is so low, a plant for popping them out at low cost and high volume is not worth the overhead anymore. So CycleLuna sells the plant to a holding company who takes operations over to China where world sales volume justify the cost of the plant. Now CycleLuna only makes racing bikes for hobbyists.

****

As far as I can see, this is essentially the story of the bicycle industry in the US. Perhaps it isn't racing bikes but mountain bikes which fills the hobby void. Perhaps it is hybrid bikes. Perhaps it is all of these at various point in time. Whatever. The point is still the same. Companies only invest the money into a plant to make something if there are people who want to buy the product. And when people don't want the product coming out of the plant anymore, the company will start selling different things that people do want. The bicycle industry is not the cause of the fall in bicycling popularity (that can probably be attributed mostly to the invention of the car), and it will not be its savior either. The industry will follow wherever their customers want to go. Do they want fixed gears? Well, in the last few years (you can count them) every major bike company has magically come out with an urban fixed gear bike. You want a 17 lb road bike? Magically, those companies who were popping out mountain bikes a couple years ago all now have their tricked out 17 lb road bike. You want dutch utility bikes? Well, same thing; the last couple years have seen the rise of companies which specialize in either look-alike dutch bikes or companies who import dutch bikes to sell in the US.

Grant Peterson tries to push on a rope and where does that get him? He has a couple of retrogrouch fans who buy his stuff, but he is less than popular. He's merely a nitch market guy. His bikes, supposedly the solid, cheap (???), practical variety, are more expensive than (probably) 90% of the bicycles sold in the US. They are sold to people who's stated purpose is to tour and commute; generally the uses which beat up bikes and where people obtain less flashy, more solid pieces of equipment. He is supposedly all about the ride, but don't dare talk about clipless pedals or other efficiency improving measures with him; he is basically intolerant of those who are "racer wannabes". He's used his personality to open up a very small nitch market, and there he remains, probably losing money as often as he makes money. That's what happens if you try to push on a rope.

Trek is the biggest bicycle manufacturer in the US (I don't think this includes the department store bikes). They let the rope pull them, and they are quite successful because of it.

How about this progression for road cycling:

1. Racing is popularized by Americans winning the TDF etc.
2. Manufacturers jump on the bandwagon and take advantage of the publicity
3. Bicycle magazines follow and brainwash the consumers
4. Progressively the market adapts to hobby cycling as baby boomers age and become more affluent
5. Technology makes lighter bicycles possibe
6. Aging cyclists believe the hype in the magazines and think light bikes will make me fast like Lance
7. New cyclists grow up perpetuating the error and sensible bikes are all but forgotten
8. As cyclists start to wise up, due to loud mouth advocates of lugged steel and wool, more people make the switch to something that isn't carbon fiber and sporting 21mm wide tires.
9. More manufacturers see the need to produce steel bikes with traditional geometry and clearances for fenders and baggage. Rivendell, Surly,Waterford, Kogswell, to name a few and all the Big companies have and are, following suit....see the new 2008 Raleighs etc.
10. The change back to common sense cycling is happening and its not just a cheap simple bike that is practical its what is known as a touring or Audax bike that makes the most sense for road cycling from a practical and performance standpoint.

When people tire of getting beat up on their short wheelbase bikes and are forced to change flats too often and have a mud spray up their backside they eventually gravitate towards a practical machine that holds baggage, has fenderabilty, can take wide tires,won't crack after five years of use and rides comfortably. They generally see the light and find guys like Grant Peterson making alot of sense.

Right. Explain "New Coke."

New Coke was a marketing error. After creating a new but similar beverage, the invited folks to taste test the new product. The focus groups had strong positive responses to it. "Huzzah!" Shouted the marketing team; "We found Next New Thing!"

Sadly, they then proceeded to replace Coke with New Coke. Consumers were outraged! "Where is my Coca-Cola?" They demanded!

The market researchers never even hinted that the new beverage, if better, would replace the old product. Consumers liked New Coke, but they also liked "old" Coke. They they weren't asked if they wanted it to replace the other one. The researchers never asked the focus groups the right questions.

It is one of the top consumer marketing blunders of all time.

Which probably raised it to the level of one of the best marketing campaigns ever

New Coke was a marketing error. After creating a new but similar beverage, the invited folks to taste test the new product. The focus groups had strong positive responses to it. "Huzzah!" Shouted the marketing team; "We found Next New Thing!"

Sadly, they then proceeded to replace Coke with New Coke. Consumers were outraged! "Where is my Coca-Cola?" They demanded!

The market researchers never even hinted that the new beverage, if better, would replace the old product. Consumers liked New Coke, but they also liked "old" Coke. They they weren't asked if they wanted it to replace the other one. The researchers never asked the focus groups the right questions.

It is one of the top consumer marketing blunders of all time.

Of course it is, and marketing blunders are made all the time... yet the consumer is often lead to believe "it's simply a case of supply and demand" or other similar spin.

How about this progression for road cycling:

1. Racing is popularized by Americans winning the TDF etc.
2. Manufacturers jump on the bandwagon and take advantage of the publicity
3. Bicycle magazines follow and brainwash the consumers
4. Progressively the market adapts to hobby cycling as baby boomers age and become more affluent
5. Technology makes lighter bicycles possibe
6. Aging cyclists believe the hype in the magazines and think light bikes will make me fast like Lance
7. New cyclists grow up perpetuating the error and sensible bikes are all but forgotten
8. As cyclists start to wise up, due to loud mouth advocates of lugged steel and wool, more people make the switch to something that isn't carbon fiber and sporting 21mm wide tires.
9. More manufacturers see the need to produce steel bikes with traditional geometry and clearances for fenders and baggage. Rivendell, Surly,Waterford, Kogswell, to name a few and all the Big companies have and are, following suit....see the new 2008 Raleighs etc.
10. The change back to common sense cycling is happening and its not just a cheap simple bike that is practical its what is known as a touring or Audax bike that makes the most sense for road cycling from a practical and performance standpoint.

When people tire of getting beat up on their short wheelbase bikes and are forced to change flats too often and have a mud spray up their backside they eventually gravitate towards a practical machine that holds baggage, has fenderabilty, can take wide tires,won't crack after five years of use and rides comfortably. They generally see the light and find guys like Grant Peterson making alot of sense.

The only problem with your scenario is that non cyclists are not reading cycling magazines; the hype about Lance was as much about the drug situation as the race, (scandal... Sports Illustrated compared cycle racing to golf) so the hype may have sold bikes to existing cyclists, but didn't matter one bit to new cyclists... who were entering bike shops for the first time and confronted what... light plastic bikes that didn't look comfortable at all... so that crowd went to the local X-mart and increased that market share... bike shops then were stuck in the vicious cycle of selling highly specialized bikes to a crowd that already had bikes...

Other new entrants to cycling looked at the MTB which looked far more comfortable...

Oh yeah, practical bikes start to make a comeback... but golly, what to do with shops full of light road bikes?

This weekend I went to the local park (largest municipal park in the world) which was closed to motor vehicles for the day. There are also many miles of highly regarded mtb trails. On the (closed) road were many runner and rollerbladers as well.

One thing I noted was that most of the rollerbladers were dressed multi patterned/logoed tight fitting 'spandex' clothing. Most of the mountain bikers were wearing even more colorful clothing with even more logos apparent than most of the road cyclists I saw, who tended to have more sedate patterns with fewer logos. Even a good portion of the runners were wearing tight fitting clothes, many with bike shorts equivalent.

I can't see how the 'road bike racing' influence carried over to mtbers, rollerbladers and runners. There is more to it than that.

Al

This weekend I went to the local park (largest municipal park in the world) which was closed to motor vehicles for the day. There are also many miles of highly regarded mtb trails. On the (closed) road were many runner and rollerbladers as well.

One thing I noted was that most of the rollerbladers were dressed multi patterned/logoed tight fitting 'spandex' clothing. Most of the mountain bikers were wearing even more colorful clothing with even more logos apparent than most of the road cyclists I saw, who tended to have more sedate patterns with fewer logos. Even a good portion of the runners were wearing tight fitting clothes, many with bike shorts equivalent.

I can't see how the 'road bike racing' influence carried over to mtbers, rollerbladers and runners. There is more to it than that.

Al

Ever notice the logo'ed clothing that NASCAR drivers wear? Not to mention the cars themselves?

There is more to it, and again it comes down to cyclists being out on public streets.... vice in the "arena" where this sort of thing is seen as perfectly OK.

But remember it is not the logos that seem to get some folks all wound up... they are just freaked by the tight fitting clothing that we wear in public.

Tight clothes look ghastly on old, fat bodies. New cyclists don't often buy that stuff.
Even when you get in shape, its kind of revealing. I used to wear tight shorts in my twenties, commuting to work, until one day one of my female co-workers asked if I wore underwear under my shorts, to which I replied, no and she raised and eyebrow and mentioned, maybe I should start. MTB baggies seem more practical if a cyclist is stuck on the padded diaper concept. Tight fitting stuff might make you more aero but until you can look good in it, your fat will negate any perceived benefit. :eek:

Tight clothes look ghastly on old, fat bodies. New cyclists don't often buy that stuff.
Even when you get in shape, its kind of revealing. I used to wear tight shorts in my twenties, commuting to work, until one day one of my female co-workers asked if I wore underwear under my shorts, to which I replied, no and she raised and eyebrow and mentioned, maybe I should start. MTB baggies seem more practical if a cyclist is stuck on the padded diaper concept. Tight fitting stuff might make you more aero but until you can look good in it, your fat will negate any perceived benefit. :eek:

How can the look of something negate the advantages of the way it works. You are assuming that aero is the key, but for me it is the stretch and movement of the high tech clothing vice something not made for the task.

I really don't care what others think about my appearance in what I am wearing, any more than someone might feel that a rain hat is dorky... but if it keeps the rain off you... then it is effective.

How can the look of something negate the advantages of the way it works. You are assuming that aero is the key, but for me it is the stretch and movement of the high tech clothing vice something not made for the task.
Another aspect of aero is not the minor performance gains, but the 'environmental comfort', by that I mean not having some loose piece of fabric flapping around, sometimes making an annoying sound or sometimes flapping a way that can not be easily ignored.

Al

Another aspect of aero is not the minor performance gains, but the 'environmental comfort', by that I mean not having some loose piece of fabric flapping around, sometimes making an annoying sound or sometimes flapping a way that can not be easily ignored.

Al

Good point. Indeed that is aero.

I have to laugh as I used to wear these cotton shirts that had low collars when I commuted. They used to flap on my face at certain speeds. Changing to tighter cotten T's has reduced the problem... but golly, they are nearly spandex tight.

GChanging to tighter cotten T's has reduced the problem... but golly, they are nearly spandex tight.
I used to wear L sized Alert Shirt T-shirt for my commute. That's my normal fit.
I later switched to M sized which, while not a tight fit, reduced the flapping to unnoticeable levels.

Al

I refuse to dress like a suspended licensee or a Midtown hipster, so I wear my superhero costume whether I'm riding my geared or fixed bike.

Bleh. Go ride your bike.

I used to wear L sized Alert Shirt T-shirt for my commute. That's my normal fit.
I later switched to M sized which, while not a tight fit, reduced the flapping to unnoticeable levels.

Al

Well the real question is: is it the bright multi colored logos... or is it the tight fit?

Which is it that some folks seem to find so objectionable? Not that I really care mind you. :rolleyes:

I wear skin tight wet suits when I dive and swim too... of course not at the grocery store... ;)