derek.fulmer

That's a fair point.

I am the kind of consumer who buys once/buys for a lifetime. At least, that's the consumer I've tried to become because I used to buy and sell/flip items often as I got tired of them. It's easy to see it as an "investment" but if you can't get the return on that "investment" i.e. support and replacement products such as brakes and pads, then what is the point other than continually buying new and "better".

Stucky

Yeah, but that's only because they were universal to all bikes of the period. With all the proprietary BS and plethora of different standards with all of this ever-changing new stuff, just try getting a seatpost for my Venge 10 years from now....much less 35 years from now- they'll be collectors items on Ebay. (If these CF bikes even last that long....)

cale

Titanium bike? Road disks brakes "can" (I'll be skewered if I say "will") extend the life of your wheels. If you really are the "buys once/buys for a lifetime" person, that should sound appealing.

Stucky

So will using decent-quality rubber pads, instead of metalic. Unless you're a clyde who rides 10's of thousands of miles in the mountains, doing strictly descents*, and riding thin wheels with metalic pads...I don't think it's an issue.

[*=I'm assuming that there's a place on the other side of the world where it is possible to ride downhill both ways, 'cause i know here, it's only possible to ride up-hill both ways....]

cale

Rims don't last that long if you ride four seasons like many do in the PNW.

derek.fulmer

It is appealing for sure. I'm open to the notion of discs on road bikes, or even owning a cross bike with discs and just swapping tires between seasons. A future purchase may very well be one with discs. But, I'm looking at it from my view today and what I ride now and if that will see me into the future as well, that's all.

sam_cyclist

There, there.

sam_cyclist

LOL! Calm down, brah. It's just disc brakes. Not worth sweatin' over.

Get a date next friday night instead of ranting here.

Zas

:-D yeah, I admit it. And I hate my limited storage space.

elcruxio

Says the dude who's been pulling a hissy fit for 11 pages?
Classy

UnfilteredDregs

He's gone full potato; you never go full potato.

Stucky

Between the hills and the wet weather, I'd imagine that's true.....but really, they don't have to go industry-wide and force discs on all cyclists; and make everyone's stuff incompatible, just because of the relatively small percentage of cyclists who live in the PNW AND ride lots of miles AND ride year-round. Nice to have the option for those who truly do need/want it....but C'mon- you KNOW that the maion drive behind the proliferation of discs is marketing.....

Psimet2001 

There's plenty of options for everyone. Hardly anything goes truly obsolete and there are viable parts for just about everything. Unless someone is going to come buy out all the inventory in my shop I know we'll have plenty of parts for enough years to even outlast the most staunch retro grouch in the crowd.

bt

I hope Shimano includes both rim brakes and disc brakes in their future group set advancements.

RJM

The choices in 5, 6, 7 speed freewheels is pathetic.

Brian Ratliff

Is that what everyone's afraid of? That disc brakes will supersede and obsolesce caliper brakes?

Come on now. You can still get old stuff, and for a long time still. No need to get all panicked just because you are worried you won't be able to find spares in 10 years. You can still get 10 year old stuff now. There is no reason to believe that 10 years from now you'll still be able to get 10 year old technology for spares. This is not at all to mention that advances in caliper brakes are still being developed for current product lines.

To me, it's the central contradiction. The ones arguing vehemently to keep their access to spares for eternity are the same ones that never buy anything and brag about how they keep a chain going for 5 years. If you can keep a chain going for 5 years, why not just go out and buy 3 or 4 chains at a time? Then you have chains to last the next 20 years and you can drop the vehement opposition to any and all changes in market trends.

Psimet2001 

The fact that there's even a 5 speed freewheel still around more than proves my point. Way more archaic than a rim brake will ever be.

Psimet2001 

^^ This.

Stucky

I can still get a NOS 3TTT quill stem for my Klein....but have you seen what they cost? (Actually, I need one....but I'm using a shim made out of a soda can, because I don't care to spend 1/3 of what the bike is worth, on a stem...)

Stucky

As I said in an earlier post, it's not going to be the same. Today, we still have access to lder parts because things were more standardized in the past. Lately, there is a lot more proprietary stuff; and less standardization; meaning that in the future, many parts are going to be rare. e.g. look how many kinds of BB's there are today! You buy a bike today that has one that is only used on a small percentage of bikes for a year or tweo and then falls into obscurity, how likely do you think it'll be to be able to find parts for it ten years from now? It'll be like certain ones of the recent past, where, IF YOUR LUCKY, you might be able to get the part from Phil Wood for a few hundred bucks...... The more they keep refusing to settle on common standards; the more they keep changing things for no legitimate reason; the more this is going to be an issue in the near future...and for no reason, other than to render perfectly good things obsolete, so that we are forced to buy new things; new things which have features we don't want.

Where can I get a decent bike today with downtube shifter bosses? I dislike brifters. Needless weight; they obliterate the ability to feel what I'm doing; they limit how I can trim the FD; they are grossly inefficient. But they have taken over; and if I want a bike with DT's, my only choices are C&V; low-end Bikesdirect bikes; or super high-end/custom. It's going to go the same way with brakes, sadly.

grolby

The proliferation of proprietary and/or obscure standards is both not new and not really related to the rise of disc brakes. Back in the day, basically every bicycle manufacturing nation had their own threading and fastener standards for everything. The level of interchangeability in the bike industry, even with a return to more proprietary standards, is exceptional among manufactured consumer goods. Freakish, even.

Part of why people like Stucky are so upset is the belief that bicycles were made, in the past, to be used and maintained for decades and that this legacy is now being discarded by a greedy, profit-hungry industry. The problem is that this was never true. It was always about expediency, and developing better technologies, and yes, making a profit. Pretty much no one wants to just sell you one widget that you use for the rest of your life and never replace. It's not a great business strategy. There's nothing nefarious about this, either. Planned obsolescence is not required. The reality is that all technologies have a shelf life until something new and better comes along. That's just how it works. Most people don't get bent out of shape about the development of technology in the cars they buy - it's just the natural order of things that when your car wears out, it might become harder to get some replacement parts, and if you get a new car, it'll be better and use different parts than your old one. That's just normal. Again, backward compatibility in the bike industry is exceptional. Technological progress ain't perfect but it just keeps happening. You might as well complain about the tides. I can think of few worse things than to just stop developing new products because some cranky old guy has decided that what we currently have is "good enough." It's never good enough! There's always room to make things better. Not everything works out to be a great innovation, but somehow the aggregate activity of industry keeps yielding better products over time.

Of course, another part of the problem is when you're unable to recognize how out-of-the-mainstream your personal tastes are. Getting angry because you can't buy a quality mass-produced bike with downtube shifters is ridiculous. The bike industry doesn't not make those products because they want to force you to upgrade, they don't make those products because there's no market to sell into. Because, to a first approximation, EVERYONE agrees that downtube shifters suck donkey balls compared to integrated shifters. No one wants them or has any interest in them except for a handful of enthusiasts and cranky old-timers. The very fact that you can get 10-speed DT shifters that work with modern derailleurs is a friggin miracle of industry and you should be grateful you have that much.

Brian Ratliff

This is something of a good point, but the bike industry has never ever ever been standardized. There have always been at least 2 or 3 bottom bracket standards in use at any one time; the situation is no different today than it was 20 years ago, just the standards have changed. There have always been at least two drivetrain standards at any one time. Handlebar clamps... same deal. Seatposts... same deal. The bicycle industry has always been a product of the here and now. If anything, things are more clear now... time was, you couldn't tell visually if you had an Italian threaded or English threaded BB until you went to install it and the threads didn't fit. Or the Campy and Shimano square axle taper issue, or, God, the horrible, horrible experiment with splined axles (ISO, vs. Shimano V1, vs. Shimano V2; had a friend strip a $400 track crankset because he was using the wrong splined axle). The system has always been one that thrived on innovation caused by two or three simultaneous, competing standards, all fighting for prominence by getting frame manufacturers to buy in. That horrible experiment with splined axles led directly to the current outboard bearing style which is far superior in every way to the old internal BB bearing designs. (once you let go of the tapered design, you make a spline work better by enlarging the diameter to increase engagement and lower backlash, and then you move the bearings outside the bottom bracket cup and separate the axle from the bearings. Once the axle is separate from the bearings, you think, well, no reason for the user to have to install the axle into both crankarms. And now that the bearings are outside the old BB shell, now you customize the bottom bracket to the bearings and make things easier by press-fitting. - evolution of the bottom bracket in a nutshell)

This is a red herring. You say your complaint is that nobody mass produces the things you want to buy anymore.... but this isn't why you argue against new products such as disc brakes. You argue because you are mad at your fellow cyclists for "buying in" and being part of a mass movement towards different standards that you aren't accustomed to and which you want no part of. Tough. I like exploring new ideas. It's part of the enjoyment of the hobby for me. New mixing with the old and all of it pushed by good ol'fashioned leg power.

Sometimes I think the retro-enthusiasts are way too much about the bike; way too materialistic. Bicycling is about movement. For me at least. Doesn't matter the bike as long as it disappears beneath me when I ride. Standards, they come and go, driven by industry consensus rather than standards' institutes. When I need a new bike, it's like when I need a new anything. I either look around to find stuff that works with what I've got, or if that's too expensive (I mean, you can have anything made for you, right?) I start anew and relish learning the new possibilities with the new equipment.

Stucky

That is the point: In the past, the differences in standards were pretty much limited to threading, simply because you had bikes being manufactured in Italy; Japan; France; Britain; The US- and they naturally used the style of thread that was common to their respective counties. If anything, now that 98% of bikes are all made in Asia, it should be a no-brainer to standardize things- and indeed, we see more standardization of threading......but LESS standardization in everything else; and more proprietary stuff. The reasons for which we can only speculate- some, I'd imagine, are just because the manufacturers don't give a darn...some, perhaps because they want to ensure that purchasers of their bikes continue to buy their own branded parts and accessories.

At least there are still some common standards- like 700c wheels. Imagine if every bike manufacturer decided to use proprietary wheels?! We may be almost approaching that point with discs.....

Nothing could be further from the truth. As an Anarcho-Capitalist and small-businessman, myself, I think that everyone should make a good profit for their endeavors. And yes, technology can get stale- but what I am opposed to, is needlessly replacing that which works perfectly well, and which is simple and efficient, with things which don't do the job any better/don't offer any true benefits to the average user; and which are less efficient(heavier; costlier; more cumbersome; require adoption of different standards....) and more complex, for no apparent reason, other than to make something "new and different"- which is the case, because it's not as if a multitude of cyclists are complaing about not being able to stop; and how crappy their rim brakes are.

Utter nonsesne. I realize that my opinion may not represent the mainstream, but the fact is, downtube shifters are superior to brifters in so many ways (as I described earlier- and which you did not refute); and the fact the brifters proliferate is probably due largely to the fact that many of the riders alive today have never ridden downtube shifters, and have been led to believe that they are somehow 2nd-rate and archaic.

I believe that in the near future, more and more people will figure out the truth about downtube shifters, and there will be a new demand for them, just as there is of late a demand for simple single-speed/fixies. At some point, people just say "Enough of this BS", and reject complex, expensive, heavy; less-durable technology, and return to what really works better.

I desire downtube shifters; there are others here who do, as well- yet, if we choose to buy new bikes, we can not have them. There, is a niche in the market not being filled- and it is my contention that that niche is going to grow as time goes on. Why do you think it is that vintage items- whether pertaining to cycling, or just about anything else, are seeing all-time high prices? In many Latin-American countries, you'll pay more for an old used appliance, than for a brand new one, because many people there have come to realize what works; what lasts; and what makes more financial sense in the long-run (i.e. buy a 20 year old washing machine and have it last another 15 years, and be able to fix it yourself, easily7 and cheaply, vs. buying a ndew one and having to junk it in 3-5 years and/or pay through the nose to have a pro repair it, because he's the only one with the diagnostic equipment; and the proprietary electronic assemblies cost a fortune....)

I'm all for true innovation, which benefits my experience- but as had been said 100 times already, the "innovation" we're seeing lately, is innovation just for innovation's sake- so you can take pride in having "the latest and greatest" and "Being on-board with state-of-the-fart technology" but which offers no real benefit; and in many cases, is even detrimental. You tell me brifters are an innovation because it saves me from having to reach down a few inches [Thurston Howell II voice: "Manual labor; how dreadful!"], but most of us never had a problem with reaching down a few inches; and on the contrary, we moss the quick sweep of the gears in either direction; the ability to trim any way we want; the crisp, direct shifts; the shorter cables...etc. Instead, we';re sitting here flailing those brifter levers 30 degrees every 2 seconds like a mentally-deficient bumpkin with an air-banjo.

Now if THAt isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I can't speak for all C&Vers, but for me, it's not so much about the bike, but rather the ride. I love the simplicity of bikes. It's a beautiful simplicity, which allows great mechanical advantage through very simple means. The bicycle has pretty much reached the height of it's development years ago. What they are continuing to add to them is often counter-productive; because when you have something works, and works well, and needlessly complicate it, while putting more and more interface between the user and the actual experience, you are not bettering the product- you are sullying it. We've already seen a rejection of that needless embelishment, with the large resurgence of fixies.

If anything, it's the proponents of the new high-tech stuff who are materialistic and status-conscious - so afraid of being labeled a "Luddite" that they're afraid to use a pen and paper, even though to do so is often way faster and easier and more practical than whipping out some electronic gizmo which contains more technology than an Apollo space capsule, just to write "Buy corn holders".

[Insert absurdly long last chord from The Beetles 'A Day In The Life' here]

Brian Ratliff

A long post all for saying exactly this. But the bike industry serves more than just you, yea? Innovation can be "true innovation" even if it doesn't benefit your experience, right? Is it "true innovation" if it doesn't benefit you, but it does benefit me?

All the CVers I've heard talk about one thing... the bike. The bike being "ideal", the bike being "simplistic", the bike being "beautiful". And that phrase "...you are sullying it". That whole paragraph and not a word on actually riding the bike. This is materialistic. The material is "the bike"; the -istic the worship of "the bike" - you can only sully that which you worship; otherwise, it's just people and ideas, some good, some bad. The bike doesn't exist outside the human experience of riding it. And the ride keeps getting better as modern technologies are applied to it.

bt

wow at the walls of text