big john

Motorsports, bicycling, boating and other sports are where the technology is developed. It's where the manufacturers spend the R&D money to improve things for the market.
I don't see how making people race on gas pipe bikes could benefit anything.

On the other hand you have a staunch supporter of $3 bikes saying that the money is winning races which can only mean he believes there is something about expensive bikes which makes them faster. This is contrary to the BS he usually posts about his own abilities and how fast he is on dumpster bikes.

Hermes

Who cares? Boring.

Hermes

Rydabent….not so sure.

VegasJen

Sounds like an excellent way to kill innovation! But seriously, there are auto racing programs like that, "spec" classes. You can run a "spec" Miata as an amateur driver, or some time back (don't know if they're still doing it) that was the point of the Corvette Challenge and IROC cars. I'm sure the same thing could be done for bikes. But if you want to see real innovation, innovation that does eventually trickle down to real world technology mere mortals can access, look to Formula One. There are rules, and there are limits, but there is also room for innovation, and innovation improves the sport, regardless of what sport you want to talk about.

tomato coupe

How can that KTM be worth $13.5k, when others sell new for thousands less?

A350driver

True, true, and I can understand and appreciate that.

livedarklions

It doesn't asplode, it's disintegrated by the constant stream of butt numbers.

livedarklions

The UCI should change its rules to make everyone compete on bikes they've stolen themselves. All thefts must be documented on video. This would be good for society to show people not to get too attached to their material objects. And it would also produce some entertaining caper videos.

livedarklions

I could buy a $500 computer that has many, many more parts than that.

Different market, different machines, different pricing.

livedarklions

And dumpster vodka.

Koyote

I think I wrote this earlier in the thread, and I’ll state it again: the inability to understand that other people’s preferences are different from your own is a particularly childish fallacy.

retswerb

More or less L'Eroica, if it was competitive.

Ironfish653

And yet, you choose to ride three versions of the same, basic bicycle.


All of my bikes are significantly different from each other, in layout, function and appearance, depending on what their intended use is.

I don't compete at a level where my bikes are subject to all but the most basic safety checks, so UCI compliance needed here either.
One of them is quite good at what it does; so good in fact, it was specifically banned by the UCI.
I ride it anyway

Kontact

2 years ago I bought a used Lemond Buenos Aires for $100. If I were riding with a guy in similar shape who has a $14,000 bike, would we notice a difference?

It isn't surprising that a bike could be luxury goods priced at $14,000. But it is surprising the bikes nearly as capable are essentially valueless.

livedarklions

The differences would be obvious even before getting on the bikes, the question is whether those differences meaningfully translate into performance. Run the experiment and find out.

The point about the high end not holding its value on the market is a lot more interesting. It does create great buying opportunities so I don't really want to complain about it. Basically, if a person is looking at a bike as a long term investment, they're doing it wrong.

livedarklions

​​​​​First guy makes a proposal having next to nothing to do with topic of thread, (change UCI rules as a propaganda tool to promote socialism) second guy needs to weigh in to note that the proposal has absolutely nothing to do with him.
I approve this train wreck.

Sy Reene

Queue up the discussion on watches' timekeeping ability.. TImex vs ROlex
Go!

beng1

Well, if they overeat food to soothe a tortured psyche, then they will overeat on anything. It is a common phenomenon in decaying civilizations for it's citizens to resort to instead of learning anything about themselves or their society.

beng1

Cool..

A350driver

Neither….
I prefer my Garmin Vivoactive 4, always accurate to the second, providing lots of great info and much less $$ than the Rolex.

elcruxio

...what?

livedarklions

Queue up discussion of whether watches actually have any function you don't have on a smartphone.

beng1

A. Just because a marketer says something is an improvement over last-year, does not mean it is an improvement. When marketers say something is better, it is marketing, being able to tell consumers something is new is a way to keep profits up for corporations and that is it.

B. Of course a lighter and more aerodynamic cycle can be faster, but that has no value to 99.999% of the population that are no pro racers. It is simply a common marketing tactic to trick consumers into believing that if they buy what pros use, then they will also be "winners" when all they really win is an empty wallet or bank account, or worse a new debt.

C. If all pros had to use low-end racing bikes as someone else mentioned Japan may, then there would be a chance that people could learn that racing is about being the fastest rider, not the rider with the most money or technology. In my area there is a 59 year-old woman who wins local time-trials over all other female entrants. She is obviously a good athlete, but she is wealthy and rides $14,000 bicycles that no other competitor has, so who or what won the race? If that is the example set then there are no winners at all, especially the average spectator or rider that sees that sort of thing and figures they have to have the same bike if they want to win and believes that having things that way is a "good" thing because marketers say it is a good thing.

D. My only claim for my $3 TT bike, is that in local fun events I can do as well on it time-wise as 2/3rds of the entrants, and could do much better if I was not a cardiac patient in my 60s. And because I am not brainwashed by marketers I can have fun on $3 bicycles, as much fun as the brainwashed have for 13,997 more. So today I am going to go help someone buy eye drops to treat their glaucoma which they can not afford.

Chuck M 

I think many BF members probably could at least make an informed guess by looking at components. In the C&V sub-forum, there are many members that can date a bike by looking at the components or tell you with a reasonable level of certainty who built the frame by features such as lugs and dropouts. As rydabent posed the question I'm thinking he wouldn't be able to tell the difference by looking at them but you probably could.

When you say able, do you mean skills or opportunity? Because if you can ride blindfolded that is quite a skill.

venturi95

A mass produced Specialized carbon road bike for $14,000? What an excellent value! I'll take two, one for me and one for the wifey.
There is no point in comparing this racing bicycle's pricing to a racing motor vehicle of any sort, the costs of development and production are leagues apart.
How about comparing the bike to a Picasso? Pointless.
It is a plastic disposable frame that costs about 6 grand once the over-priced parts are removed. It takes a lot of bicycle sales to put a rainbow jersey on some guy who makes millions of dollars for... pedaling a bicycle. This is modern life. In 200 years people will be scratching their heads wondering what the heck were they thinking back then?