Road Cycling - Have roadies lowered their standards when it comes to the bikes they ride?

When I was in the bike business in the 1980s through the early 1990s any self respecting roadie would not be seen dead on a Trek or Cannondale, and Giant! Who were they? Most serious road bike riders had Italian imports; names like Colnago, Pogliagi, Guerechotti, and Gios. The rest rode bikes built by people like myself, and American custom builders.

Obviously companies like Trek and Cannondale have greatly improved their product, but at the same time have roadies lowered their standards and accept less craftsmanship; maybe in exchange for a more reasonable price? (In the 1980s I couldn’t have sold a tig welded frame at any price.) Or is it a case of this is all there is available now. It would be tough for anyone new to go up against the Treks and the Cannondales now without a huge capital investment.

I would like to hear from roadies out there especially the die hard ones who were around twenty years ago. What’s your input on this? I am out of the business now, so I really don’t know.

Edit 11/7/04
If you are new to this thread please take a little time to read through the posts so far. It has become a highly intelligent discussion without too much hostility and trash talk. I hope it will continue that way.

Twenty years ago, I was still piddling around on my 3 speed! But now, I got a nice DeRosa I especially went to Milan to get, and I upgraded the components too, so I have the Veloce.

I think maybe the folks who go for the mass manufactored bikes maybe just wouldn't have the money for the imports? And for some folks, they are getting the top line Treks, Cannondales and Giants, like the ones ridden by US Postal, Saeco, and Telekom. Do you really think that the bikes the people get that are similar to the team bikes are any lesser quality than the Italian bikes or custom bikes made by Americans (like Serotta)?

It may be that some of these old school companies have just upped the quality of their high end road bikes, and people are going for those bikes. Or it could be that as the demand for higher quality bikes increase, all bike builders are putting higher quality components on their cheaper bikes. When I went to Interbike, there were so many carbon frames there I almost bought another bike... ALMOST. I figured I should spend at least a year on my DeRosa before I know what my next bike will be, so I got the rollers instead! But what surprised me most is how affordable some of those carbon frame bikes were- it seems as though they are responding to the demand and putting better bikes out there on the market that more people can afford to buy.

Sorry, I'm not quite the person you were looking for, but I was riding 20 years ago... just had a 3 speed girls bike with a straw basket in front that had a flower on it, and probably was a little small for me, since my parents didn't get me a new bike until I practically looked like I was riding one of those hot wheels trykes!

Koffee

Boy, Dave. Back then I would have killed for one of your bikes.

Personal opinions here.

I prefer steel bikes and I prefer lugged steel, I like the look and the feel. That said I have a steel TIG welded and I have an ALuminum (1) bike.

I think a lot of the issue with TIG welding is that this is what is available at a price less than the down payment on a new house. Custom builders can still provide lugged frames but that will have to wait till the kids are grown and out of the house I think.

Tig welded, aluminum, carbon, etc I think are better suited to mass production and I have the sense that Bicycles, like all things, have "benefitted" from consolidation of production and larger factories, etc. Anything that is suited to mass production will be what is available.

As to CArbon fibre, titanium, etc. I will not own any of those products, I like a solid, durable steel bike. If I have to lose a pound - I'll lose it.

For my money I think the market has changed, advertising has taken over to convince bikies that if it ain't carbon it ain't woth paying for. Even the "old Classic" names are now mostly carbon, or Al and carbon. For those of those that like steel, we are now shopping at domestic custom builders to get our bikes, you got out of the business too soon.

I have a TIG welded steel frame (custom) as well as a lugged steel frame (production). I can't discern any differences in ride quality or durability that are due expressely to constuction methods.

What are the difference between the two (assuming each are done correctly)?

It seems to me that lugs are mostly an opportunity for the builder to make an aesthetic statement.

I believe that steel is undergoing a renessiance right now. Mostly because cycling is amazingly popular these days. Steel is available in so many variations and a steel frame can be made really light - even compared to titanium or carbon. I think custom and boutique builders are doing fairly well selling these types of "modern" steel frames. Why TIG welding rather than lug or fillet brazing? TIG welding is easy. TIG welding costs less. TIG welding takes less time. TIG welding is a perfectly reasonable way to put a joint together. No, it's not as nice as lugs or a fillet braze - but the emphasis now is on performance and weight, not on "classic great looks". Yes, you CAN have all three, but it just costs more. The more people that can afford bikes the more people will be riding and better off we'll be as cyclists. So what's wrong with a TIG welded Ti frame that weighs 3 pounds? Nothing! What about a carbon frame that's glued together using aerospace technology that's been continually improved since the mid 60's, weighs 2.5 pounds, is stiff as hell, climbs like a goat, has the latest Shimano gruppo, and costs $3000-4000? Nothing! These bikes are good! Yes, there is plenty of hype among the different brands. But you know what? This stuff is not all made up. Ti and Carbon are REALLY good materials to make a bike out of, and so is STEEL!. So the consumer has choice of what to ride. Let's say your budget is $5000. For that price you can get a custom steel frame, or a production TI or Carbon frame. All of which would be "top-of-the-line". All of which will ride great and be long-lasting. The choice is up to the rider to decide which will be best for him/her. I say if you like steel - great. If you like Ti - fantastic. If Carbon is what turns you on - excellent. Don't try to convince anyone that one material is absolutely better in all circumstances then another, because it's just not true. I say just buy a frame that 1) you can afford 2)fits you like a glove 3)does what you need it to and 4)is of high quality.

snip ... I say if you like steel - great. If you like Ti - fantastic. If Carbon is what turns you on - excellent. Don't try to convince anyone that one material is absolutely better in all circumstances then another, because it's just not true. I say just buy a frame that 1) you can afford 2)fits you like a glove 3)does what you need it to and 4)is of high quality.

Obviously you're a Swiss national. Nicely put.

-mark

20 years ago, companies like Trek, Cannondale and Giant were very young in terms of breaking into the road market. Hardcore roadies didn't take them seriously but a lot of people just getting into cycling turned to them because they represented a good value. These companies grew as their reputation spread and their products got better. Oh sure, eventually they offered products designed to compete with the customs and the Italians but the real target for them was broad range in the middle - the people who had the money the spend and wanted something more than just an entry level bike. In some ways, you can thank Greg Lemond for this as his tour wins in the 80's did a lot to bring the sport to the attention of the masses here in the states.

The cycle continues today - new riders with money are getting into the sport everyday, fueled by the media circus that is Lance Armstrong et all, and a big percentage are going straight to the Treks, Giants and Cannondales for the value they represent and for all they've read and heard. It's the second and third generation riders - the guys that have been in it for a couple of years or longer and are sticking with it - who are fueling the custom market.

Interesting topic. What I would like to know is:

1. What is the market share here in the states for customs and Italians today? What was it 20/30 years ago?
2. What newer companies exist today that represent what the likes of Trek, Cannondale and Giant did 20 years ago?

55/Rad

The OCLV by Trek in the early 90s started a revolution. I went from the Trek 2500 (which was a sweet bike in it's own way) to a Trek 5200 in 1993. It was a 2.44 lb frame, stiff, yet comfortable. I think this bike had a lot to do with Trek gaining respect among serious roadies.

Dave,

In a word, Yes.
now, the long version.
I don't think that Trek back in the 80's was all that bad, the Tim Issacs era produced
some very nice bikes, I'd even go so far as to say they rivaled the rides of some italian
steel (where did I lift that line from?), they just didn't have the Cache. Now they have
Carbon Fibre, Lance and they are the microsoft of the bike world.
So, where is Colnago now? mass produced bikes as far from Ernesto's early bikes
as you can get.
Pogliaghi? when Sante died so did the marque (I'd kill for a 60's pog).
Gios? Carbon Fibre and Aluminium.
I think that CF and Alu were the death knell for non boutique (you, Serotta, Sachs,
Eisentraut) builders like Colnago, Gios, Pinarello etc.
They can build bikes inexpensively (and quickly) using TIG welding machines,
preformed CF molds, and sell alot of them. Profits are up, the avg rider gets a
colnago and everyone is happy. Except us retrogrouch type, we more and more
go to the small boutique builders for lugged steel frames.
Back in the day cannondale was ok, but it was italian steel that everyone wanted.
I don't think that todays riders are any different in that they want a good riding,
well engineered bike. I think the manufactures have lowered the standard in that
quality, craftmanship, pride of work (and ownership?) has been taken out of the
equation.

just musing here, probably have more thoughts on this later.

Marty

When I was in the bike business in the 1980s through the early 1990s any self respecting roadie would not be seen dead on a Trek or Cannondale, and Giant! Who were they? Most serious road bike riders had Italian imports; names like Colnago, Pogliagi, Guerechotti, and Gios. The rest rode bikes built by people like myself, and American custom builders.

Wonder if this is where the idea of Elitist Roadie With Stick In Butt(ERWSIB) originates?. 20 years ago I was riding a Sears 10 speed Free Spirit,and was glad to have it.I wore it out and then wore out an even worse POS. But, I probably wasn't a 'REAL' Roadie(ERWSIB) Today I have some of evertying from Trek to Cdale to Serotta and most of the Italian stuff.A good bike is one you ride alot,not one that hangs in the garage, regardless of the label on it. Remove the label and you probably couldn't tell the difference anyway.I'm probably still not a 'REAL' Roadie(ERWSIB)

I think the quality of the domestic/Thai bikes has increased to such a point that they're every bit as good as the Italian frames. The European Peloton demonstrates this.

Twenty years ago I was watching Alexi Grewal win the gold medal up in Mission Veijo, on a Pinarello, while his teammates were riding Murrys. You couldn't go out and buy the same Murrys, they were special made by someone else because Murry couldn't build a frame worth a crap.
The only good production bike from the U.S. was the Schwinn Paramount, and for $50 you could get Campy brakes added. Otherwise racers went with small frame builders like Dave Tesch or Dave Moulton, amoung others.
I remember seeing a LeJunne bicycle hanging in the window of a small bike shop in downtown Vista CA, it was like a sign that this shop spoke serious cycling, which was not too common back then.
I went from Olmo, Follis, Bianchi, Tesch and Miyata when I was racing. I couldn't afford a Moulton but knew the experience that went into one.
I always thought the frames without lugs looked 'cheap', and were welded as Dave mentioned, or had internal lugs. That was about the time Masis were starting to be made here in Southern CA instead of Italy. I think that was the beginning of a change.
Specialized wanted Tesch to work for them, he declined; other big companies knew they had to get help from experienced builders to start producing anything worthwhile, but they also wanted too much control. They had to account for expenditures, and that probably made for compromises.
So what you have now are bikes endorsed by racers paid to ride them, designed by engineers justifying their work through computer aided design programs, and trying to get feedback from riders that don't know how to give constructive criticism that experienced builders have known for years.

I remember riding my $400 Nishiki. Had SunTour Superbe components. Was a good bike. The other roadies had really nice frames ... most notably (that I can remember) were Masi and Medici. After college, I broke down and got a Medici Pro Strada. It was and still is a beautiful frame. But in no way does it compare to my Litespeed Ghisallo.

30 years ago I would have chosen the equivalent of a Cannondale or a Litespeed for my dedicated race bike if it was available simply because I think that they hold up better to the rigors of actual racing than most lugged steel frames, and I have gone throught the "realign your frame on Monday after riding through a pile of riders on Sunday" routine. Even then I was looking for Columbus SP to race on simply because I felt it would last longer. Even now I keep a Cannondale frame just for racing, but since I don't think I'll be racing anymore, I will probably sell it. But I know that it will hold up well in a race, and I can replace it with relatively little expense.

For that first sunny spring day, fall rides through the leaves, or Sunday morning cafe runs, perhaps I wax nostalgic for the feel of my Clement Criterium tires mounted on my Raleigh Pro or Tim Isaac, but I don't think the ride of my Colnago Ovalmaster is any less satisfying in actuality. Nor do I think it is any lower quality than a quality lugged steel ride.

Some people will always wish for the things of their youth no matter if things are better later in their lives. The saying "The Good Old Days" is a cliche, not a fact.

I think most cyclist have accepted the fact that mass produced bikes will "do the job". They are less expensive and come with "good enough" components. My bikes in the '80's and early '90's were all hand made Italian jobs from Ciocc and Tomassini. They were beautiful bikes with paint jobs that were works of art. They also cost a fortune and because of advances in technology a bike that cost 2/3 of what I paid for my Ciocc is probably overall a better bike. The frame may not be better but the overall bike itself is.

Today I look at my group rides (usually a minimum of 50 riders) the majority of bikes are C'dales. Now I've spoken with a couple of guys who have had their C'dales repainted only to find bondo filling holes and pits in the welds. This is unacceptable in a builder who is trying to come off as high end.

When I look at all the frames I own, Orbea Orca, LOOK Kg381, Bianchi Pista, Bob Jackson Track, and a Burley Duet tandem, there is no question that the Bob Jackson is the most beautiful and highly crafted. I'd also have to give a nod to my former bike a Serotta Atlanta, also a highly crafted beautiful steel lugged frame.

My two carbon bikes, the Orca and Kg381, they perform flawlessly, and are light and lively frames. Of the two the LOOK feels like a steel frame both are light and stiff. Both of these bikes are 3.5k to 5k bikes and I can tell the difference when I ride a bike of 1k to 1.5k.

When I was in the bike business in the 1980s through the early 1990s any self respecting roadie would not be seen dead on a Trek or Cannondale, and Giant! Who were they? Most serious road bike riders had Italian imports; names like Colnago, Pogliagi, Guerechotti, and Gios. The rest rode bikes built by people like myself, and American custom builders.

Obviously companies like Trek and Cannondale have greatly improved their product, but at the same time have roadies lowered their standards and accept less craftsmanship; maybe in exchange for a more reasonable price? (In the 1980s I couldn’t have sold a tig welded frame at any price.) Or is it a case of this is all there is available now. It would be tough for anyone new to go up against the Treks and the Cannondales now without a huge capital investment.

I would like to hear from roadies out there especially the die hard ones who were around twenty years ago. What’s your input on this? I am out of the business now, so I really don’t know.

13 years ago I rode a 'dale, and thought it was the bomb. My Orbea makes that bike seem jittery, harsh, and not quite the prize I thought it was. I wanted a Colnago at that time, but couldn't get near the price...now...I don't care about the name, brand, or anything else, as longas the bike does what I ask it to.

Z

Twenty years ago I was watching Alexi Grewal win the gold medal up in Mission Veijo, on a Pinarello, while his teammates were riding Murrys. You couldn't go out and buy the same Murrys, they were special made by someone else because Murry couldn't build a frame worth a crap.
The Murrays were made by Serotta. And I bet Alexi could have won the gold on one of them if he had taken the stick out of his butt and tried one.

I got into cycling in 1985, not quite 20 years ago. After riding a used 30 lb Azuki around for a year I decided to buy a decent racing bike. A custom or high-end import was out of the question financially. I did test-ride a Trek made out of 531 Reynolds tubing that rode very nicely, but was a few hundred out of my budget. I settled on a Gitane Performance – their bottom of the line racing bike at the time - that is constructed out of Columbus Aelle tubing, which I am sure you know is made out of flat stock that is rolled, and then welded into a tube (cheep!). However, the dealer carried the complete line of Gitane bikes, which included the exact same bike that Finion won the tour on – constructed of 531P Reynolds tubing with full Record groupo and hidden cables. A sweet ride!

I think that the market was just too small for the custom builders and high-end imports. The best riders get their bikes for free, so that leaves the snobs and wanna-bees. There are just not that many people who are going to spend $3000+ on a bike. Look at this site and how many people it attracts… not that many! And a bunch of the riders on this site argue about Sora…….

The fact is that the Trek and Cannodale product is a good, solid product. For the average rider, that’s good enough.

I would say that roadie's standards are the same but that the larger US builders have gained a large share of the high-end bike market. Just like Honda did to the high end motorcycle market back in the late 60's.

i would bet 8 out of 10 roadies would have no idea that their colnago is a cannondale if you just gave it a different color of paint.
i think the average bike has gotten so good that for anyone not racing seriously the top of the line bikes of today are light years beyond what's needed or perceived. it's more about show than go, that's for sure

who cares, as long as people are out there riding, advancing the hobby and having fun.
Its nice to see products out there that the average working stiff (like me and most of you) can afford. An example how to ruin a sport:The skiing industry has been slowly choking itself out over the years with WAY too expensive products and lift tickets (of course much of the ticket expense is due to the fact that we live in a litigious society). Snowboarding was the saving grace. They did it by getting young people involved at first by lower priced products that teens could afford..and then by marketing genius.The beauty of biking is you can by a middle-of --the-road bike for $800-1000. Spread that over the life time of the bike its only causting you maybe a hundred a year (I spend that in a day on the slopes). The greater supply of bikes out there the lower the prices should move..... not everyone cares if there are aestheticly pleasing weld points, nervex lugs or a 3oz weight difference in their frame.

Did I sound hostile enough??? I think the administrators of this forum have put some kind of mind control on all of us, so that we think WAAAAAY too much about bikes and all the minutia that comes with them.....and makes you crave it fortnightly

I need to proofread more....I swear I am not illiterate....i am mostlyliterate
by = buy
causting = costing (wow)

i would bet 8 out of 10 roadies would have no idea that their colnago is a cannondale if you just gave it a different color of paint.
i think the average bike has gotten so good that for anyone not racing seriously the top of the line bikes of today are light years beyond what's needed or perceived. it's more about show than go, that's for sure

I would agree with the 8 out of 10 rule. I would also bet that these same riders couldn't tell the difference if I moved their saddle 5 mil up or down. The other 2 (myself included) would notice in about 10 feet. I spend so much time on my bike that it really is a part of me. I have Chourus on my LOOK and Record on my Orbea and I can tell the difference. The shifting is crisper on the Record and the brakes are better, especially the rear as the Record is dual pivot while the Chourus is not. The Orbea has a Neutron wheelset with Record based hubs while the LOOK has Chourus hubs. The Record hubs roll better.

Also I look at my bikes and the hand built lugged steel frames are works of art. My BJ track frame is just beautiful, while my Bianchi Pista is a functional practical bike frame. Go look on the "what bike do you ride" thread for the pic of one of Daves frames. Tell me that a $1000.00 Trek or C'dale is half as beautiful as that bike http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=15329 . For me and the other 2% sometimes it is the bike.

I also agree that the average bike is better now than the average bike was in 1989. My first road bike was a Centurian Le Mans an average bike. Today that average bike is better and builders like Trek and C'dale have helped road biking grow because of it.

The Murrays were made by Serotta. And I bet Alexi could have won the gold on one of them if he had taken the stick out of his butt and tried one.


I agree, I don't think it was the bike that allowed Alexi to win a sprint against one of the greatest sprinters at the time, Steve Bauer, and the fact that he took off and left his teams best sprinter behind, Davis Phinney, because he knew he was going to win. So a climber won a sprint. It wasn't the bike, it was Alexi. And he won the first medal for the U.S. since my wife's grandfather won in 1912, on a bike with wooden rims.

When I ride my 1984 Dave Moulton, I notice it is different than my 1983 Pinarello. And both of those are different than the Tesch I had-that was totally hyper sensitive to the road. The Moulton rides in a way that integrates with me like none of the others I've had.

I think riders today have nothing like that to compare to.
This thread wasn't about the rider, but the bike. Still, the rider is the most important, and the only constant in any discussion about bikes.

I agree, I don't think it was the bike that allowed Alexi to win a sprint against one of the greatest sprinters at the time, Steve Bauer, and the fact that he took off and left his teams best sprinter behind, Davis Phinney, because he knew he was going to win. So a climber won a sprint. It wasn't the bike, it was Alexi. And he won the first medal for the U.S. since my wife's grandfather won in 1912, on a bike with wooden rims.

When I ride my 1984 Dave Moulton, I notice it is different than my 1983 Pinarello. And both of those are different than the Tesch I had-that was totally hyper sensitive to the road. The Moulton rides in a way that integrates with me like none of the others I've had.

I think riders today have nothing like that to compare to.
This thread wasn't about the rider, but the bike. Still, the rider is the most important, and the only constant in any discussion about bikes.

You own a Tesch! I love those bikes. My buddy had a pink one (don't laugh he used spank pro's on that thing) that was just a sweet sweet ride. I always lusted after that bike, I rode it once and I've never decended on a better bike.

I need to proofread more....I swear I am not illiterate....i am mostlyliterate
by = buy
causting = costing (wow)
You can edit your own postings and correct spelling, etc. Go to edit, bottom right of your post.
I always compose my post in MS Word first, then copy and paste; that way I have the advantage of spellcheck.

Thanks for all the great input so far on this thread. In the mid 1970s in England my customers were exclusively serious racing cyclists; their main concern was how the bike rode; how it handled. Many of them cared little about geometry, etc. That was left up to me.

When I came to the US in 1979 and I saw bikes built by Richard Sachs, Ben Serotta, and the like I realized I had to pay more attention to detail, mainly paint and aesthetics. I worked for Masi for a while and Ted Kirkbride who ran that operation always insisted on the highest quality of workmanship.

So when I opened my own business in 1982 in order to compete my bikes had to not only ride and feel better than anything else, they had to look better also. All this extra work pushed the price sky high and people then said the bikes were not only too pretty to race they were too expensive. The bikes became to a certain extent art objects to look at rather than ride, which was always a thorn of contention for me because the beauty of a bike is in how it rides.

Then I brought out the Fuso line of limited production frames. I still did all the main brazing so the Fuso rode exactly the same as the custom ‘dave moulton’ frame, but for less money. Had tig welding been acceptable back then I could have produced an even lower priced frame that probably would have felt as good. As I see it the acceptance of tig welding came about because of the MTB. Here was a group of riders who cared more about price and durability than aesthetics.

I can see already it is not so much a case of lowering standards; it is just a case of bike riders accepting that the bike is just a tool to get the job done. Not unlike a baseball bat is to baseball. And the people buying bikes in the US today are not much different than the customers I had back in England in the mid 1970s.

Please keep the posts coming; they all give me wonderful food for thought. In a way it’s like I’m learning the bike business all over again.

You own a Tesch! I love those bikes. My buddy had a pink one (don't laugh he used spank pro's on that thing) that was just a sweet sweet ride. I always lusted after that bike, I rode it once and I've never decended on a better bike.


My Tesch was too twitchy in a way I could never relax while riding, I always had to be alert to road conditions. The Moulton is way different, just disappears beneath me. I ride with confidence over any roads, and decend the same. Climbing is better also, whether sitting or standing, it seems to go along with me. I never knew a bike could be like that. Nice.

I think that the market was just too small for the custom builders and high-end imports. The best riders get their bikes for free, so that leaves the snobs and wanna-bees. There are just not that many people who are going to spend $3000+ on a bike. Look at this site and how many people it attracts… not that many! And a bunch of the riders on this site argue about Sora…….


Well said!

[who cares, as long as people are out there riding, advancing the hobby and having fun.
Its nice to see products out there that the average working stiff (like me and most of you) can afford. An example how to ruin a sport:The skiing industry has been slowly choking itself out over the years with WAY too expensive products and lift tickets (of course much of the ticket expense is due to the fact that we live in a litigious society). Snowboarding was the saving grace. They did it by getting young people involved at first by lower priced products that teens could afford..and then by marketing genius.The beauty of biking is you can by a middle-of --the-road bike for $800-1000. Spread that over the life time of the bike its only causting you maybe a hundred a year (I spend that in a day on the slopes). The greater supply of bikes out there the lower the prices should move..... not everyone cares if there are aestheticly pleasing weld points, nervex lugs or a 3oz weight difference in their frame.

Did I sound hostile enough??? I think the administrators of this forum have put some kind of mind control on all of us, so that we think WAAAAAY too much about bikes and all the minutia that comes with them.....and makes you crave it fortnightly]

I agree with Kaisersling. I don't consider my bike (Felt 85) "below standard". I am not elitist. I ride and have fun doing so. Rain or shine. Someday when I'm rich and famous I might upgrade. Or maybe not. BTW, I didn't even notice Kaiserslings misspellings.

22 years agao i rode a eddie merckx, it was bright orange I think it had suntour components.

Just got back into cycling bought an entry level Raleigh road bike, test rode several and found I prefered the steel bike.

I question if the advent of mtn biking had something to do with the growth of TIG welded bikes and decline of top-end lugged frames. It seems to me that as the mtn bike faze kicked in during the mid-80s that there were more and more frames built with TIG welding and as riders began to accept TIG mtn bikes as "durable" it caused the crossover to road bikes. It was also a method to lower bike weights. So, today you get a TIG road bike that weighs around 18 lbs or under (compared to 22-23 lbs lugged) and it's as durable (or more so) than lugged bikes from 20 yrs ago.


tomcat

Tomcat,

I concur with what you said except for one point. The lugs on a bike are not going
to account for a 4 or 5 pound difference in weight over a TIG welded bike.
Sure, MTB helped the demise of high-end steel frames, we haven't even
begun to talk about that little chestnut.

Marty

[who cares, as long as people are out there riding, advancing the hobby and having fun.
Its nice to see products out there that the average working stiff (like me and most of you) can afford. An example how to ruin a sport:The skiing industry has been slowly choking itself out over the years with WAY too expensive products and lift tickets (of course much of the ticket expense is due to the fact that we live in a litigious society). Snowboarding was the saving grace. They did it by getting young people involved at first by lower priced products that teens could afford..and then by marketing genius.The beauty of biking is you can by a middle-of --the-road bike for $800-1000. Spread that over the life time of the bike its only causting you maybe a hundred a year (I spend that in a day on the slopes). The greater supply of bikes out there the lower the prices should move..... not everyone cares if there are aestheticly pleasing weld points, nervex lugs or a 3oz weight difference in their frame.

Did I sound hostile enough??? I think the administrators of this forum have put some kind of mind control on all of us, so that we think WAAAAAY too much about bikes and all the minutia that comes with them.....and makes you crave it fortnightly]

I agree with Kaisersling. I don't consider my bike (Felt 85) "below standard". I am not elitist. I ride and have fun doing so. Rain or shine. Someday when I'm rich and famous I might upgrade. Or maybe not. BTW, I didn't even notice Kaiserslings misspellings.
You have put forward the anti BS argument that I struggled with for years while I was in the business. On arriving in the US I soon found out that I could spend all day BS’ing about bikes leaving little time to actually build them. So much so that when I opened my own shop in Southern California in 1983 I operated a strict no visitor policy. I even had an unlisted business 800 number. I sold all my frames through bike dealers and they were the only people I would talk to.

In time the fact that no one could find me created some sort of mystique around my business. Had people found me they would have discovered there was no mystique; just some old fart building bicycle frames. Now I have the time to BS on this forum you’re telling me people don’t want to BS. There’s an irony in that.

Now I have the time to BS on this forum you’re telling me people don’t want to BS. There’s an irony in that.There is plenty of BS around.

Anybody have market data about the cycling industry? It would seem that, especially recently, as road riding seems to be increasing in popularity/mass appeal (...Lance...TDF...) that the "elite amateur" riders who appreciate hand crafted frames would represent a smaller portion of the market in relative terms.

Is the road cycling market growing? How much? (It seems like it is growing to me, or is just that my "cycling consciousness" is expanding?)

Of course if it is growing, we know that the value (quality relative to cost) of bikes that are made by larger producers should increase with an increased volume of sales. It would also seem logical that custom/hand builders are not as well positioned to take advantage of market growth in the same way. While they may be able to increase production and sales, I would think they would be looking at decreasing market share... Not a bad thing; for a niche market with limited capacity to ride on the coat-tails of a more popular surge in interest in the sport. But this is all pure hypothesis.

Is it possible that there are just as many classic handcrafted bikes out there, but they seem fewer amidst the tide of cannondales and treks?

For me: I broke the bank and I am still paying for my litespeed "classic." I bought it because I expected it to last me a long time and to remain a classic, and a nice ride. I would need a fair bit more disposable income to consider something twice as expensive (maybe I will get there.) I see that some people are quite convinced of the beauty of design and handling of handmade italian steel: it sounds convincing to me, and I would be curious to find out for myself someday! I love my litespeed though. I actually feel rather lucky and a bit privelidged to own it (...there is a thread pinned at the top of this website for bikes under $700.) Enjoying the ride with the best equipment you can afford comes first. However, I am also a aesthete, and though it may be in relative decline, I believe that there will always be a place for high quality, lovingly made, handcrafted goods, that take attention to detail beyond the constraints of utility and raise the mundane to the level of art.

There is plenty of BS around.
Well good; and you're going to pull that stick out of someone's butt and stir it. :D

I think the administrators of this forum have put some kind of mind control on all of us, so that we think WAAAAAY too much about bikes and all the minutia that comes with them.....and makes you crave it fortnightly
People who are into cars aren't only in it for the experience of driving. For a lot of us, the same holds true for cycling. Otherwise, we might as well take up jogging.

55/Rad

People who are into cars aren't only in it for the experience of driving. For a lot of us, the same holds true for cycling. Otherwise, we might as well take up jogging.

55/Rad

Then we would be discussing light weight shoes, socks or not, pronate, suplinate, assasinate, ITB syndrome, yadda yadda

Where I live most of the fast guys (15+ hour a week riders) are on Colnago's, Merxc CF's, lightspeeds, etc. This is there passion and they show it in the love of their steeds. I ride a utilitarian Trek 5200 with DA/Ult. I cant afford another ride atm, but I have lots of chioces to aspire to. I'm also realistic enough to recognize that I won't be $2k faster on a new bike over my current. But, the enjoyment in owning what I veiw as an art peice will justify my expense when the time comes.

Anybody have market data about the cycling industry? It would seem that, especially recently, as road riding seems to be increasing in popularity/mass appeal (...Lance...TDF...) that the "elite amateur" riders who appreciate hand crafted frames would represent a smaller portion of the market in relative terms.

Is it possible that there are just as many classic handcrafted bikes out there, but they seem fewer amidst the tide of cannondales and treks?
You could be right. I built some 3,000 Fuso frames over the years; most went to Southern California, my second biggest market was the San Francisco Bay area. In spite of this I had a guy from the Bay area email me recently to say in the twenty years he has owned his Fuso he has only ever seen one other on the road. And custom ‘dave moulton’ frames I only built 216 of them from 1982 – 1986. So my piddling amount of production was neither here nor there and I’m amazed that people even remember them.

You have put forward the anti BS argument that I struggled with for years while I was in the business. On arriving in the US I soon found out that I could spend all day BS’ing about bikes leaving little time to actually build them.
...Now I have the time to BS on this forum you’re telling me people don’t want to BS. There’s an irony in that.


I found the irony in that I knew your frames were the best in the early 80's but I couldn't afford them. At the point in my life when I can now afford one, or any other frame, I'm way older. I guess at least I kept in shape enough to still be able to really ride it and enjoy every minute.

And I enjoy it on this forum.

I love the looks of the classic lugged steel bikes of the 1980's. But, the best lugged steel bikes of today are out of my price range. So, I look for old bikes that are in good shape.

The new Trek and Cannondale bikes are mostly aluminum frames, and don't have the hand-crafted frames that lugged steel bikes featured. But, the modern aluminum frames do a good job for the four or five years that most people ride a bike before wanting the "latest and the newest". The fact that these frames can be stamped out cheap means that there are some really nice road bikes for around $500.

What I miss about the "old days" was that road bike frames came in flavors. A hard core racing frame. A sport tourer that was light, and strong, but built to handle racks and fenders. Loaded tourers with a long wheelbase and longchain stays.

Today, nine out of ten new road bikes have the geometry of a racing bike. No room for fat tires, fenders, or racks. So, although probably only one percent of owners of road bikes actually race on a regular basis, even the folks who just want to take week-end tours, or ride to school or to work are being sold racing style frames. Then complain "My fenders don't fit...my tires don't fit...my neck hurts..."

Given how cheap it is to stamp out aluminum frames, it would be easy to stamp out some sport touring frames, light touring frames, and loaded touring frames. But, the industry is so wedded a "racing image" and to "being like Lance", the needs of non-racing road bike riders continues to be a very low priority.

From Dave Moulton:Thanks for all the great input so far on this thread. In the mid 1970s in England my customers were exclusively serious racing cyclists; their main concern was how the bike rode; how it handled. Many of them cared little about geometry, etc. That was left up to me.
...


I think it is the same today, but I wonder how big manufacturers determine what design works and what they present as just different or better and what that is based on. I mean it's not like in Formula One, where the driver plays a significant role in changing a setup, even mid-race. The drivers know what needs to be changed, and can provide the engineers with the proper input to get it done. How do big manufacturers decide what really works?
I don't recall any racers asking me what my fork rake or offset was, what my chainstay length was, although there were certain accepted standards. I just knew when a bike handled sketchy, or you really had to force it in down-hill corners, or it dogged uphills.
All we could do was change frames companies. I couldn't afford custom and get personal attention from such.

[who cares, as long as people are out there riding, advancing the hobby and having fun.
Its nice to see products out there that the average working stiff (like me and most of you) can afford. An example how to ruin a sport:The skiing industry has been slowly choking itself out over the years with WAY too expensive products and lift tickets (of course much of the ticket expense is due to the fact that we live in a litigious society). Snowboarding was the saving grace. They did it by getting young people involved at first by lower priced products that teens could afford..and then by marketing genius.The beauty of biking is you can by a middle-of --the-road bike for $800-1000. Spread that over the life time of the bike its only causting you maybe a hundred a year (I spend that in a day on the slopes). The greater supply of bikes out there the lower the prices should move..... not everyone cares if there are aestheticly pleasing weld points, nervex lugs or a 3oz weight difference in their frame.

Did I sound hostile enough??? I think the administrators of this forum have put some kind of mind control on all of us, so that we think WAAAAAY too much about bikes and all the minutia that comes with them.....and makes you crave it fortnightly]

I agree with Kaisersling. I don't consider my bike (Felt 85) "below standard". I am not elitist. I ride and have fun doing so. Rain or shine. Someday when I'm rich and famous I might upgrade. Or maybe not. BTW, I didn't even notice Kaiserslings misspellings.


Amen...I must admit that when I saw the originating post I thought "Argh...and why do people think roadies are snobs again?" Maybe subconciously that's why I'm moving to a tourer?

Amen...I must admit that when I saw the originating post I thought "Argh...and why do people think roadies are snobs again?" Maybe subconciously that's why I'm moving to a tourer?
It was never my intention to imply that roadies were snobs, but was stating a fact that no serious road bike rider in the 1980s would ever ride a Trek or Cannondale. I was asking what had changed; the bikes or the riders attitude? I am finding it is a little of both.

I...was stating a fact that no serious road bike rider in the 1980s would ever ride a Trek or Cannondale.....

This is not the case for me, and since cycling is a life sport for me, I considered myself a serious cyclist, or rather at that time a competitive cyclist.

I raced on my first Cannondale in 1985 and many around me were racing on Cannondales because they were light, stiff, cheap, and basically indestructible. They handled just fine in a race. I never raced on a Trek, but not because I chose not to. I just never chose to. I think they would have made fine racing bikes and I saw many at races at that time.

Dave, are you perhaps considering getting back into frame-building?

I haven't been around biking for that long, but it seems as though there has been some degree of craft lost in bicycle building. That isn't to say that new TIG-welded bikes are inferior to vintage lugged-steel, at least not objectively, and in fact I think that anyone's bike-buying dollar probably buys a lot more bike today than it did twenty years ago. But it seems as if all bikes are now essentially the same--generic. Case in point; I took my '98 LeMond BA into my preferred LBS a few weeks ago because I was buying a new wheelset. Said LBS sells Trek and Bianchi, as well as Waterford and Gunnar, and they have the odd used this-or-that in from time to time. Now because I weld as hobby, as always look at bike welds, and there was no difference in the appearance of the welds on a steel Bianchi, Gunnar, Waterford, or my BA. So from the standpoint of percived value, it would be hard for me to justify twice the cost of a Bianchi, three times the cost of a Gunnar, or almost five times what I spent on my LeMond, for a custom Waterford that looks just the same? Of course, there is no objective benefit to a beautiful weld; a weld is a weld as long as it has structural integrity. But it seems that Waterford doesn't have any grasp of the craft that helps to make a custom bike special, or at least that is the impression I get after comparing their bikes to the others I mentioned.

In a similar vein, I think that the definition of what a "high-end" bike is has changed. There aren't a lot of ways to build a steel bike, and before 1990 or so, all serious bikes were made of steel. Thus, what seperated a high-end bike from a generic one was craftsmanship. Nowdays, high end has more to with high tech, and if you are talking about carbon fiber that comes out of a mold, the traditional conception of craftsmanship no longer applies. The downside to this is that all bikes start to look the same. The upside is that the same frames that Lance and Jan hammer on in the TdF can be purchased at you LBS for a reasonable price.

I am a cat 4. Am I serious enough? :) Hey, if it is good enough for the pros <cough> is good enough for me. I race on an Orbea Lobular.

Bikes are like clothes... Even the most expensive mass produced suit can't match a good tailors work. That's the same with bikes... Get Dave Moulton to build you a bike that fits you perfectly, and you will probably ride better on that one then on any Trek or Cannondale bought from a LBS. But then of course, it's all 'bout the money.

by the way...I have nothing against people who spend wads of cash on their bikes. If I had $4000+ to spend on it I would. I just wouldn't look down on the "less fortunate" (I am not implying that you are Dave)

That being said, I wouldn't ride a Cannondale, Trek, Lemond, Giant, Fuji. I have nothing against them, they are good bikes. Probably, superior than what I ride in many ways. I just like things that ya just don't see on every corner. (I will now place the target squarely on my back). A lot of them around probably means good Quality/Price ratio. In my neck of the woods EVERYONE rides Trek (except for the lady on the Seven that I thought about bike jacking). I just have never been the type to do what the masses do, probably to my detriment.


Hmmmmm......Is Mr. Mouton doing market research perhaps....testing the waters.
How sweet would that be.....A 2005 Mouton. I will place my order now.......provided its under $4000 ;)