ramzilla

I never go out into the woods without a compass, K-Bar, water bottle, & paper map. All that other stuff could fail and, I want to make sure I can get back to civilization some day.

gomango

Hah!

Isn't that the truth. When we were riding around Lake Superior earlier this summer, I saw the motleyist collection of beat up touring bikes loaded with sleeping bags, cooking equipment, radios, and overstuffed panniers.

Really, most of the "touring" bikes I observed were old mtbs with garage sale Blackburns.

Let's just say I was impressed with their ingenuity.

Fast forward to the other day. I was talking to two guys with a MAP and a Bruce Gordon loaded with all the fancy new stuff. Custom racks, Swift Bags, Schmidt dyno hubs and Edelux II lights.

Incredible bikes.

I asked them where they were touring to and they said they use the bikes mainly for commuting.

I just about wet myself.

I thought they were off on a trans-continental tour.

mstateglfr 

[QUOTE=RobbieTunes;18133078]Once you've followed a Di2 for about 2 miles, it's just another bunch of cogs and fairly ugly cranksets.[QUOTE]

I don't understand why cranksets have turned ugly. They went from functional art to functionally fugly.

nlerner

I actually don't begrudge anyone who wants to attain a certain look with their bicycle, regardless of intended use (I'm not implying that you do either). The aesthetic part might mean a lot more to some than others, but it certainly plays a role for all.

Fwiw, on a 150-mile group ride I did last month, the array of bicycles was pretty interesting. I was on my Lemond Buenos Aires 650B conversion with Shimergo 8-speed drivetrain. Another rider was an a new-ish Cannonade alu or CF (I couldn't tell which) bike and had all of his stuff in a backpack. Another rider was on a fixed-gear Raleigh Pro. There were several Surleys, a Boulder, and a Soma. The only thing that all shared were generator hubs and LED lamps as it was a night-time ride. On the whole, these were all experienced brevet riders. Whatever gets the job done.

noglider 

I think just about all the new stuff is better than most of the old stuff in one way or another. I wouldn't question that. But:

1. is it worth the extra cost?
2. is it sufficiently better than the old stuff to declare the old stuff useless?
3. by gaining a new advantage, do you lose an old advantage? What is the overall balance of loss and gain?
4. how long does it take before the advance becomes obsolete?
5. does it really do what it claims?
6. what is its failure mode?

An example of #3 is the reparability of steel frames. Needing to repair or modify a frame isn't all that common, so I won't claim it's a highly valuable trait, but mixed in with the other desirable attributes of steel frames, it does have significant value.

I'm also a technologist by trade. In essence, I promote the use of computers for communication and enterprise management. I'm building more and more capable systems for people to use in their jobs. But I don't promote building a web site to announce that we're heading out for lunch today, just to make a silly example.

Another interest of mine is choral singing, usually a cappella. I go to a three-hour rehearsal once a week, and I perform in about six concerts a year. These are my hours of no tech. I use paper and pencil. I don't even use a mechanical pencil; I use the kind I have to sharpen. One day I will learn to use a scoring app, but I haven't needed to yet. I enjoy the freedom from electronics in those few hours per week.

I have two bikes with brifters. I like brifters. I'm fine with riding old shifting systems, too. The longer the ride, the more I want more gears and easy shifting.

I've tried carbon fiber bikes. They ride great. One day, I might own one, but they are expensive, and they are even expensiver than they appear, because their expected lifespan is a lot shorter than that of steel bikes.

I tried a relative's Di2 shifting. It worked like a champ on one ride I took, which was about 15 miles. The actual advantage seemed quite small, since I don't find repair and maintenance of cables to be burdensome. I expect its failure modes to be more annoying than those of cable systems. Given this disadvantage and the tiny advantage it offers, I don't crave electronic shifting at all.

RJM

I agree with you. In the end...do what you want.

I'd be happy to stick electronic shifting on my Rivendell if it didn't cost so much more money than the great functioning Ultegra 6800 group that is on there. I could be happy with friction bar ends too.

icepick_trotsky 

Electronic shifting is just something I don't see an advantage in. Any shifter is basically a remote control for the derailleur. Why do I need it to be wireless if the two are always a fixed distance away from each other?

That said, I've never used it. Maybe it performs better, I can't say. It doesn't seem suited to my purposes, so I'll refrain from judgment.

RJM

I've noticed electronic shifting does perform better in certain situations...

One, when climbing a hill under power you can shift up or down through the cassette without it getting all hinkey.

Two, when sprinting hard you can continue to shift to get to higher and higher gears.


None of this is really all that important to me. I'm cool with cabled shifting...but I will say the new Ultegra stuff shifts better than my older 6500 stuff.

Can't beat downtube friction or even barend for simplicity though.

YouthxCrew

One thing I enjoy about school (I'm a music student) is how often I get to see low-tech traditions survive. I mean, there's people who do use scoring apps and people who write all their music with programs like MuseScore (I can't, it's too complicated for me) But there's still plenty of hand written scores. I actually like having a binder with everything I've learned or performed with all my hints and notes written in, it's gratifying to go back and look through it.

jcoll003

I think some developments in MTB-specific gear are good, and I think others are BS. I've been on 1x9 for 3 years before sram came out with the 1x11 drivetrain. You can shed quite a bit of weight by losing the front der, the cable, the front shifter, and a chainring. It simplifies shifting - there is less to think about in sketchy technical bits, and let me tell you - it will make you a stronger climber. So I was very interested in the 1x11 when sram introduced that drivetrain. I very much liked the ideas of a bit more for the climbs, but also that you wouldn't have to worry about chain drops (as much). I've taken some pretty good facers by dropping my chain and catastrophically unclipping on one side. The 1x11 sram freewheels are also amazingly lightweight because of the cnc-ing. And that is what makes the system expensive. But I waited until the 2nd gen to put it on my MTB rig. It took a LOT of futzing to set up right. It's VERY sensitive to sag. If you don't do the derailleur setup with the sag set to your riding position (weight), then you get a lot of ghost shifting in the middle of the cassette under load. Took awhile to figure that out. Once I did, it's been just flawless.

On the other hand, I feel the move from 26" wheels was just a marketing ploy. I like the immediate, flickable nature of the 26" wheel. I like technical riding; I like riding over obstacles, while feeling what I am doing. I think 29" wheels feel like riding around on a tank. And I feel that 27.5" wheels were an attempt to rectify the sluggishness of the 29", but still allowed manufacturers to be able to sell the 'next thing' to the masses. I don't know why I feel so strongly about this, but I hate hearing people say that 27.5" wheels roll over things so much better, or that they smooth this or that out. That's not why I love MTB. I *want* to be challenged.

All that said, I love 27.5 and 29" wheels. They made a LOT of very expensive, very strong 26" wheelsets available nearly for the price of dirt.

cousinmosquito

Hey guys, its really cool to see you critiqueing my blog post from (Jeff's Bike Blog) but bear in mind, its just a blog. Just another opinion : ) I am a fan of technology, but not when usability is sacrificed, or as someone else said, the pros don't outweigh the cons. Keep up the debate! The guy talking about having 1x9, and how it made him stronger, implies hes having to work harder, so he presulmabley has less of a usable range of gears. Thats cool if you are still young : ) Like riding a singlespeed eh! You have to attack everything. I don't follow XC racing much anymore, I still do it but not as much as I used to. I watched the last world cup on the net last night. Man, gone are the days when people winched there way about the course, now its just attack attack attack. Does anyone have a view on whether this came about because of limited gear range or is it just a change in racing style? My guess is that some of these courses don't have a great amount of elevation anyway ? Its certainly exciting to watch. A shame its not all televised. A kiwi came 1st in U23 last night !

Blue Belly

that is/has been common across most industries. Consumer awareness is what is lacking

Blue Belly

I think the point that it's still a bunch of gears on a bike is on par. If you take a top road bicycle from 1980 vs 2015, visually they will be night & day different. The complexity of the bicycle has increased. The speed? Very little. However, that very little bit came from mountains of change. Advancements have made for some great improvements. Most of which the average cyclist will gain no benefit. A whole lot of perceived benefit but, none actually. The consumer wants the the latest, greatest, coolest looking thing on the market.

cousinmosquito

I think wheel/tire clearance is something that has gone by the way-side and is now coming back : )
I found this to be an interesting read. Possibly best posted somewhere else tho ?
New research unlocks secrets of steel tubing - Cycling Weekly

iab

1. "Worth" is in the eye of the beholder. Not to imply that you are, but the blog writer is awfully preachy about "worth". Quite frankly, there are a lot of grail bikes out there I consider worthless. I would not want them if you gave them to me. Not worth the hassle to rid myself of them. But that bike is nonetheless someone's grail.

2. Anyone who calls old stuff useless is an a-hole. Just like anyone who calls new stuff worthless is the same a-hole on the other side of the card. By this definition, my cambio corsa is useless. But as a matter of fact, I do use it. And I enjoy using it. Hardly useless.

3. Why is it necessary to have a gain? Unless of course using this bike puts food on your table. For someone who races a bike for a living, I can see a need for a gain. Everyone else, any "gain" is merely a want, most definitely not a need. Are you going to tell me what I want? I don't think so.

4. I have no idea why this is relevant. So what if it is obsolete? You mean the company that made the technology in the first place doesn't support it and the availability of replacements gets more difficult over time? Ummm, what about C&V you don't understand?

5. While I am a serious stickler for having evidence to support a claim (go ahead, ask me about the bs of stiffer frame = improved performance), again, these bikes are a luxury. Claims are marketing puffery. The only relevant claims are the drivetrain makes the bike go forward, the handlebars steer the bike and the brakes stop the bike. Pretty easy to validate with any bike.

6. Again, how is this relevant? A steel, aluminum, or carbon frame will fail in different manners. But they all fail as a consequence of being pushed beyond their limits. The crash causes the failure, the failure does not cause the crash. Or if my cable breaks on my derailleur or the battery dies on my servo, I can't shift either way. Why is one "worse" than the other? No cables to break or batteries to die on a cambio corsa. Is that your go to shifting system?

I am not saying you aren't free to want things the way you want things. But when people start listing criteria for what's "best", like the author of the blog, it gets my hackles up. I don't like being told what my desires should be. They are my desires, just as valid or invalid as yours. What is worse is when the author of the blog makes it an us versus them piece of tripe.

cousinmosquito

I would have thought having your chain-ring wear out in a couple of weeks was a failure on many levels. That the chain-ring came from an "Industry leader" makes it worse in my view. That shows how much testing went into the product and I think shows a lot of disrespect to the consumer. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything, but I think there is expectation of some kind that wasn't being met here.

cousinmosquito

Google says yes!
wiggle.com | Shimano Dura Ace 9000 11 Speed Bar End Shifters | Gear Levers And Shifters Road

Edit. Sorry, mis-read your post. They are TT shifters grafted into a DT environment. There is more detail on them in the link to his bike on CX Magazine where most of the info came from.

https://www.cxmagazine.com/winning-gr...ns-breadwinner

Darth Lefty 

They're still out there. Campagnolo keeps Athena looking pretty. Sugino is still kicking. So is Stronglight. SRAM Apex would look pretty good if it were bare aluminum. This is a Campagnolo Athena crank:


This is a Stronglight Impact E

cousinmosquito

I hear you on that. For some reason, the modern shimano cranks seem divorced from their origins, as a component by itself, they work, but not when installed on a bicycle. They look like a kitchen appliance, something you would use to dice your veggies IMHO. Taste is personal though.

kunsunoke 

Wow, someone else lived through the mountain biking "let's change everything for no reason" era.

:-p

catgita

This thread is amusing, but the conversation hasn't changed in over 100 years. Back then they were scoffing over all the attempts to develop a practical gear changing system, reliable tires and effective brakes. Real men didn't need such things. The French started the technical trials that advanced bicycles from hunks of metal to bikes that would feel totally modern today, which then deteriorated into a dangerous weight saving competition.

Innovation is good, and time is the test. And yes, we often forget some great things. There was the story of the contemporary pro racer who rode a 70s era TDF bike, and loved the smooth ride, and had no trouble hanging with the contemporary bikes. Or the guy who took a ride with friction shifters and declared "Wow, this is smooth! When will these be coming out?"

For myself, I try to choose what I think are the best available technologies, of any era. But I just love my contemporary and ordinary Trek 29r MTB hardtail (all metal). Far better than my old cutting edge full suspension 26".

Here is a pretty contemporary crank; the TA Carmina:

cousinmosquito

That's lovely.

Shp4man

Since I don't have the cash for a new bike, I'm blissfully unaware of the glorious benefits of he latest bike technology.
And honestly, I don't really care.

noglider 

@iab, I feel exactly as you do. Worth and gain are in the eyes of the beholder. I'm not here to say which technology is best for anyone, and I certainly can't claim to know what's best for everyone. I'm trying to lay down a set of criteria for each individual for use to his/her own best use.

RJM

Man, that's still going on. I just bought a brand new full suspension 29er Trek over the winter (2014 bike) and it uses 142 rear spacing....which was changed to a boost148 spacing now. I think the front spacing is different too.

Oh yeah...I kinda dig the new shimano Dura Ace crank....and don't mind the Ultegra too.