Originally Posted by
lambo_vt
Unless you buy a Rivendell. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Actually, Rivendell
is making the point that their expensive steel frame is cheaper than a carbon frame because their frame is more durable.
There are two components to the cost of stuff: the initial price and the life of the item. It's not uncommon that more-expensive lighter stuff also has to be replaced more frequently.
(There's a third component, the replacement cost due to accident loss. But that cost for the Rivendell is about the same as for a carbon frame.)
================
Originally Posted by
Gene2308
I just remember from my biological research days that you were supposed to avoid "searching for significance" with your data...which is what Rivendell seems to be doing IMO.
The idea is something like: "Well, we can't possible make them as light." "I know! We'll toss in the weight of the components and an average rider to make them seem not so different!".
I realize what their point is, I get it. It just seems like they are trying to rationalize their frames without any need to do so. Just sell them as they are! Great and functional rides -- don't need to try to find a way to equate them to carbon frames.
Nah, what they are doing is "marketing"!
Anyway, most bicycle companies exclude the weight of the rider to make the difference seem
more different. Why is that OK?
What Rivendell is doing is probably more closer to reality.
"Weight weeny-ism" is so-much the norm in the marketplace that Rivendell might be obligated to say something about it. Also, if they can convincingly equate a steel frame to a carbon frame, they might be able to sell bikes to people who would only otherwise consider carbon (which is the
default material for expensive road bikes).