Why are Modern Bikes So Expensive?
#476
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts
You are bordering on delusional if you are saying that a current endurance bike such as a S Works Roubaix is not better in every way for the average sporting cyclist than an equivalent 80’s era bike. You continuously pop up outside of C&V and gaslight everyone with these nonsensical circular arguments..
...what's circular about saying that riding a bicycle in an endurance event has been going on for a long time ? Other than a faster finishing time, how is the Roubaix "better in every way" ? "Continuously pop up outside C+V" ? PeteHski just told me I'm not one of the regulars he encounters engaging in this exercise. You guys need to coordinate on who the enemy is here.
But even in this thread, you've managed to repeat your argument that all steel frames from the 70's and 80's are the same.
It's likely that what's confusing you is that most people in the cycling community are open-minded and adjust their preferences as technology and information comes to light. They're not locked into myths and old wives' tales picked up from hanging around a dusty bike shop or riding with a grizzled old veteran back in the 70s. Nowadays, facts and real information are accessible to anyone.
I recall back in the day we used to debate what was better: DeRosa, Colnago, or heaven forbid a Raleigh. Or the classic argument: Italian or California Masi. Little did we realize at the time they were all effectively the same.
I recall back in the day we used to debate what was better: DeRosa, Colnago, or heaven forbid a Raleigh. Or the classic argument: Italian or California Masi. Little did we realize at the time they were all effectively the same.
I let it slide, because I was anticipating another personal attack instead of any rational discussion from your direction. You are the classic one trick pony. You need to come up with another trick.
#477
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts
...please don't make this about character. We've been over this before. Once you start down this road, it will not end well. You were not a part of that exchange, and even though I realize personal attack is all you have left when it comes to me, the original quote is there for anyone interested, not that far up thread. "Coming out of the woodwork" is accurate. It is a phrase usually used to describe vermin or other insect infestations.
So don't preach to me about character. That's one.
So don't preach to me about character. That's one.
#478
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts
.
...I can see that this thread has provided no more opportunity for reasoned discussion, absent the usual informal fallacies presented as a substitute, than previous ones. I should have quit while I was ahead, and even Maelochs was agreeing with me.
...I can see that this thread has provided no more opportunity for reasoned discussion, absent the usual informal fallacies presented as a substitute, than previous ones. I should have quit while I was ahead, and even Maelochs was agreeing with me.
.Why are Modern Bikes So Expensive?
...because the people that make and sell them have targeted an income demographic that is happy to pay whatever the going price seems to be. As has already been state, not all modern bikes are expensive. Only the ones marketed to a certain, relatively small, user demographic. That small segment of the marketplace has followed the economics of all luxury products. I can find sunscreen that costs quite a bit, too, relative to the regular stuff.
...because the people that make and sell them have targeted an income demographic that is happy to pay whatever the going price seems to be. As has already been state, not all modern bikes are expensive. Only the ones marketed to a certain, relatively small, user demographic. That small segment of the marketplace has followed the economics of all luxury products. I can find sunscreen that costs quite a bit, too, relative to the regular stuff.
CR tests include 71 products from 24 brands, ranging in price from 58 cents to more than $26 per ounce.
https://www.consumerreports.org/heal...
https://www.consumerreports.org/heal...
#479
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,874
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4644 Post(s)
Liked 5,178 Times
in
3,200 Posts
...what's circular about saying that riding a bicycle in an endurance event has been going on for a long time ? Other than a faster finishing time, how is the Roubaix "better in every way" ? "Continuously pop up outside C+V" ? PeteHski just told me I'm not one of the regulars he encounters engaging in this exercise. You guys need to coordinate on who the enemy is here.
Incidentally I drove the 800 miles down to the start in a comfortable modern car. But that was obviously a waste of money because I could have driven there in an 80s car. I even own an 80’s classic car to make that choice real. But horses for courses….
Likes For PeteHski:
#480
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 701
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 390 Times
in
219 Posts
44 years ago, I was working at Cornell. The President of the university visited China and agreed to an "Academic Exchange" - scholars from Cornell would go to China and vice versa. The prof I worked for, who was Chinese, was one of the few in the Sciences to accept any of the Chinese post-docs. For the most part, they had absolutely no concept of Molecular Biology, and the technology they were used to was about 30 years out of date. And they were the best China could send at that time.
44 years later, while Biotech in China is not ahead of us, it is not far behind. A number of companies that provide services for the Biotech industry in the US have labs in China to do the work, and they do good work. Yes, it's cheaper because of standard of living and cost of living differences, but it is absolutely not second rate work by any means.
44 years later, while Biotech in China is not ahead of us, it is not far behind. A number of companies that provide services for the Biotech industry in the US have labs in China to do the work, and they do good work. Yes, it's cheaper because of standard of living and cost of living differences, but it is absolutely not second rate work by any means.
#481
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7163 Post(s)
Liked 11,368 Times
in
4,858 Posts
In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.
(Now I'll sit back and wait for 3A to question whether I am racing at my advanced age, or claim that non-pro riders somehow can't take advantage of those gains, or offer some other non-sequitur response.)
Last edited by Koyote; 04-06-24 at 07:42 AM.
#482
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 701
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 390 Times
in
219 Posts
I pop into this thread every few days to see how far afield it's gotten from the OP. Mostly the usual suspects beating their same old dead horses -- which have nothing to do with the thread's original question. But this post really shines.
In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.
In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.
Modern bikes are expensive because people will pay for them. The shift did not occur today but in 2010. Lots of bikes in 2010 that cost $15,000. By todays level, that would be over $20K. There is a substantial wealth imbalance in the world and the rich are getting much richer and prices should reflect that.
The "performance" of today's bikes are questionably better. The rest is marketing to sell bikes. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Likes For vespasianus:
#483
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,573
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3261 Post(s)
Liked 2,583 Times
in
1,535 Posts
Looking at it from outside of the thread, there appears to be 2 lines of thought.
1) The equipment(in any sport) is an extension/part of the competitor. So, "Heck I'm a better cyclist/whatever now than I ever was. Still setting PRs in my 70s"
2) The equipment is just a tool/tools but not an actual reflection on the competitor's current ability. "Heck, I'm still setting PR's in my 70s, but it's because of the equipment. I'd suck, maybe even give up the sport if I couldn't use the equipment available now.
It's similar to when I was caddying. If the player was playing well, it was, "We shot a 65 today!" If the player was off his/her game, it was, "He hit 2 OB and could putt his way out of a paper bag."
Which makes me wonder why E-bikes aren't allowed in UCI racing yet. They wouldn't change the outcome/competition at all and make the racing even more exciting. Maybe in the future. Maybe not.
1) The equipment(in any sport) is an extension/part of the competitor. So, "Heck I'm a better cyclist/whatever now than I ever was. Still setting PRs in my 70s"
2) The equipment is just a tool/tools but not an actual reflection on the competitor's current ability. "Heck, I'm still setting PR's in my 70s, but it's because of the equipment. I'd suck, maybe even give up the sport if I couldn't use the equipment available now.
It's similar to when I was caddying. If the player was playing well, it was, "We shot a 65 today!" If the player was off his/her game, it was, "He hit 2 OB and could putt his way out of a paper bag."
Which makes me wonder why E-bikes aren't allowed in UCI racing yet. They wouldn't change the outcome/competition at all and make the racing even more exciting. Maybe in the future. Maybe not.
#484
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7163 Post(s)
Liked 11,368 Times
in
4,858 Posts
For that matter, show me the bikes that cost $15,000 in 2010.
You're just making up stuff.
#485
I am potato.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,194
Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1838 Post(s)
Liked 1,718 Times
in
981 Posts
A single example would be your statement earlier about how all the C+V curmudgeons are always complaining about proprietary parts on modern bikes. Here it is again:
I asked later on if someone could make a legitimate case for something like a proprietary integrated headset, or a proprietary seat mast, working better than its non proprietary predecessor. I got crickets.
Technological progress...real progress...is not defined by the number of engineers employed designing proprietary parts that work on the same principles, and about as well, as the old ones. And it would be swell if you could back up your statements about this new army of bicycle engineers working for the various manufacturers. I have no idea whether it's true or not, it might very well be. But if all they're doing is continuing to redesign the carbon fiber plastic framed bicycle with a chain drive shifted by derailleurs, I don't see the leap. Maybe a short hop.
I asked later on if someone could make a legitimate case for something like a proprietary integrated headset, or a proprietary seat mast, working better than its non proprietary predecessor. I got crickets.
Technological progress...real progress...is not defined by the number of engineers employed designing proprietary parts that work on the same principles, and about as well, as the old ones. And it would be swell if you could back up your statements about this new army of bicycle engineers working for the various manufacturers. I have no idea whether it's true or not, it might very well be. But if all they're doing is continuing to redesign the carbon fiber plastic framed bicycle with a chain drive shifted by derailleurs, I don't see the leap. Maybe a short hop.
To the headset thing. Tapered headsets in all their varieties, including just plain bigger upper/lowers allow for a lot more material and a better stress path for carbon steer tubes. 1&⅛ straight simply doesn't cut it any more from a materials strength requirement. They come in 1&⅜ (Cervelo) 1&¼, & 1&½ varieties and all are available in integrated or Zero-Stack. The reasoning is to match the stresses between the frame and the fork so that neither unfairly gives/takes the load causing failure of the other.
Another benefit behind the larger diameter head tubes that headset is installed into is frame torsional stiffness. No longer are people riding the gas-pipe wet noodles of yesteryear. The head tube resisting twisting forces just in general by nature of it's diameter, but also immunity from self-reinforcing oscillations by nature of it's shape means that higher speed can be achieved in a much more stable, safer, reassuring manner. Speed Wobble just doesn't happen on modern bikes unless there is something egregiously wrong with rider fit or weight distribution. (usually both)
A 3rd "benefit" (in quotes) to modern headset design is the large upper bearing allows a path for integrated cable systems to hide the cables from aerodynamic forces. This saves precious watts on paper when every nth of efficiency and performance (on paper) is the goal.
To the seatpost thing: A longer seatpost has a higher lever moment. The effect is the seatpost is "softer" over rougher terrain. Whereas short seatposts transfer external forces to the rider much more effectively.
Modern seatpost design actually starts with the bike frame lowering the top tube/seat stay/seat tube cluster down some distance to allow for more available exposed post to flex. Then post length and diameter, &/or shape can be optimized. Giant really likes the "D-fuse" "D" shape to intentionally remove the back half of the post to purposefully allow more rearward flex. There are other solutions. The THM Mandibulaonly flexes horizontally allowing the bike to thrust upward under the rider. I think Roval copied the basic design but made their own innovation enough to escape patent concerns with consequently, a bunch of extra weight.
Nobody in modern engineering uses Post Modern spring loaded seatposts any more. Too many moving parts. Too heavy. Too complicated. ThudBuster, etc...Just are not good solutions for the high performance or enthusiast market.
Then there is RedShift that has come up with a two-position seatpost. It allows for comfortable reach to Aerobars without closing up the riders hip angle. This means that a given road bike can be switched to 95% the benefit of a dedicated TT bike on the fly while riding and back again as the riding situation changes. It really does work & it works well.
Last edited by base2; 04-06-24 at 08:41 AM.
Likes For base2:
#486
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 701
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 390 Times
in
219 Posts
I have bike magazines from the 80's to the 2020's. Mountain and road. Not sure why but I am a bike of a bike mag holder. History to me. These are from 2011 Bicycling bike buyers guide.
Again, these are not the norms - just like a 15K bike today is not the norm. But they represent what people are willing to pay. The Felt from 2011 for $12.5K would be ~$16,500 today. A Felt.
Likes For vespasianus:
#487
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7163 Post(s)
Liked 11,368 Times
in
4,858 Posts
#488
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,874
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4644 Post(s)
Liked 5,178 Times
in
3,200 Posts
I don't have a dog in this fight so please excuse if I am speaking out of turn...
To the headset thing. Tapered headsets in all their varieties, including just plain bigger upper/lowers allow for a lot more material and a better stress path for carbon steer tubes. 1&⅛ straight simply doesn't cut it any more from a materials strength requirement. They come in 1&⅜ (Cervelo) 1&¼, & 1&½ varieties and all are available in integrated or Zero-Stack. The reasoning is to match the stresses between the frame and the fork so that neither unfairly gives/takes the load causing failure of the other.
Another benefit behind the larger diameter head tubes that headset is installed into is frame torsional stiffness. No longer are people riding the gas-pipe wet noodles of yesteryear. The head tube resisting twisting forces just in general by nature of it's diameter, but also immunity from self-reinforcing oscillations by nature of it's shape means that higher speed can be achieved in a much more stable, safer, reassuring manner. Speed Wobble just doesn't happen on modern bikes unless there is something egregiously wrong with rider fit or weight distribution. (usually both)
To the headset thing. Tapered headsets in all their varieties, including just plain bigger upper/lowers allow for a lot more material and a better stress path for carbon steer tubes. 1&⅛ straight simply doesn't cut it any more from a materials strength requirement. They come in 1&⅜ (Cervelo) 1&¼, & 1&½ varieties and all are available in integrated or Zero-Stack. The reasoning is to match the stresses between the frame and the fork so that neither unfairly gives/takes the load causing failure of the other.
Another benefit behind the larger diameter head tubes that headset is installed into is frame torsional stiffness. No longer are people riding the gas-pipe wet noodles of yesteryear. The head tube resisting twisting forces just in general by nature of it's diameter, but also immunity from self-reinforcing oscillations by nature of it's shape means that higher speed can be achieved in a much more stable, safer, reassuring manner. Speed Wobble just doesn't happen on modern bikes unless there is something egregiously wrong with rider fit or weight distribution. (usually both)
#489
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts
I don't have a dog in this fight so please excuse if I am speaking out of turn...
To the headset thing. Tapered headsets in all their varieties, including just plain bigger upper/lowers allow for a lot more material and a better stress path for carbon steer tubes. 1&⅛ straight simply doesn't cut it any more from a materials strength requirement. They come in 1&⅜ (Cervelo) 1&¼, & 1&½ varieties and all are available in integrated or Zero-Stack. The reasoning is to match the stresses between the frame and the fork so that neither unfairly gives/takes the load causing failure of the other.
Another benefit behind the larger diameter head tubes that headset is installed into is frame torsional stiffness. No longer are people riding the gas-pipe wet noodles of yesteryear. The head tube resisting twisting forces just in general by nature of it's diameter, but also immunity from self-reinforcing oscillations by nature of it's shape means that higher speed can be achieved in a much more stable, safer, reassuring manner. Speed Wobble just doesn't happen on modern bikes unless there is something egregiously wrong with rider fit or weight distribution. (usually both)
A 3rd "benefit" (in quotes) to modern headset design is the large upper bearing allows a path for integrated cable systems to hide the cables from aerodynamic forces. This saves precious watts on paper when every nth of efficiency and performance (on paper) is the goal.
To the seatpost thing: A longer seatpost has a higher lever moment. The effect is the seatpost is "softer" over rougher terrain. Whereas short seatposts transfer external forces to the rider much more effectively.
Modern seatpost design actually starts with the bike frame lowering the top tube/seat stay/seat tube cluster down some distance to allow for more available exposed post to flex. Then post length and diameter, &/or shape can be optimized. Giant really likes the "D-fuse" "D" shape to intentionally remove the back half of the post to purposefully allow more rearward flex. There are other solutions. The THM Mandibulaonly flexes horizontally allowing the bike to thrust upward under the rider. I think Roval copied the basic design but made their own innovation enough to escape patent concerns with consequently, a bunch of extra weight.
Nobody in modern engineering uses Post Modern spring loaded seatposts any more. Too many moving parts. Too heavy. Too complicated. ThudBuster, etc...Just are not good solutions for the high performance or enthusiast market.
Then there is RedShift that has come up with a two-position seatpost. It allows for comfortable reach to Aerobars without closing up the riders hip angle. This means that a given road bike can be switched to 95% the benefit of a dedicated TT bike on the fly while riding and back again as the riding situation changes. It really does work & it works well.
To the headset thing. Tapered headsets in all their varieties, including just plain bigger upper/lowers allow for a lot more material and a better stress path for carbon steer tubes. 1&⅛ straight simply doesn't cut it any more from a materials strength requirement. They come in 1&⅜ (Cervelo) 1&¼, & 1&½ varieties and all are available in integrated or Zero-Stack. The reasoning is to match the stresses between the frame and the fork so that neither unfairly gives/takes the load causing failure of the other.
Another benefit behind the larger diameter head tubes that headset is installed into is frame torsional stiffness. No longer are people riding the gas-pipe wet noodles of yesteryear. The head tube resisting twisting forces just in general by nature of it's diameter, but also immunity from self-reinforcing oscillations by nature of it's shape means that higher speed can be achieved in a much more stable, safer, reassuring manner. Speed Wobble just doesn't happen on modern bikes unless there is something egregiously wrong with rider fit or weight distribution. (usually both)
A 3rd "benefit" (in quotes) to modern headset design is the large upper bearing allows a path for integrated cable systems to hide the cables from aerodynamic forces. This saves precious watts on paper when every nth of efficiency and performance (on paper) is the goal.
To the seatpost thing: A longer seatpost has a higher lever moment. The effect is the seatpost is "softer" over rougher terrain. Whereas short seatposts transfer external forces to the rider much more effectively.
Modern seatpost design actually starts with the bike frame lowering the top tube/seat stay/seat tube cluster down some distance to allow for more available exposed post to flex. Then post length and diameter, &/or shape can be optimized. Giant really likes the "D-fuse" "D" shape to intentionally remove the back half of the post to purposefully allow more rearward flex. There are other solutions. The THM Mandibulaonly flexes horizontally allowing the bike to thrust upward under the rider. I think Roval copied the basic design but made their own innovation enough to escape patent concerns with consequently, a bunch of extra weight.
Nobody in modern engineering uses Post Modern spring loaded seatposts any more. Too many moving parts. Too heavy. Too complicated. ThudBuster, etc...Just are not good solutions for the high performance or enthusiast market.
Then there is RedShift that has come up with a two-position seatpost. It allows for comfortable reach to Aerobars without closing up the riders hip angle. This means that a given road bike can be switched to 95% the benefit of a dedicated TT bike on the fly while riding and back again as the riding situation changes. It really does work & it works well.
Likes For 3alarmer:
#490
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts
I pop into this thread every few days to see how far afield it's gotten from the OP. Mostly the usual suspects beating their same old dead horses -- which have nothing to do with the thread's original question. But this post really shines.
In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.
(Now I'll sit back and wait for 3A to question whether I am racing at my advanced age, or claim that non-pro riders somehow can't take advantage of those gains, or offer some other non-sequitur response.)
In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.
(Now I'll sit back and wait for 3A to question whether I am racing at my advanced age, or claim that non-pro riders somehow can't take advantage of those gains, or offer some other non-sequitur response.)
I'm happy you're "faster" thanks to disposable income, if "In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." All of us want to be our best version of self.
Likes For 3alarmer:
#491
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7163 Post(s)
Liked 11,368 Times
in
4,858 Posts
And by the way: I don't know what you mean by "detuned," but bear in mind that a more comfortable bike is often faster, other things equal -- especially for long endurance events. (It's okay to not realize that, but then perhaps you shouldn't have strong opinions if you're ignorant of the requirements of such events.)
Likes For Koyote:
#492
The Wheezing Geezer
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Española, NM
Posts: 1,131
Bikes: 1976 Fredo Speciale, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr., Libertas mixte
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked 1,027 Times
in
486 Posts
Colnago, Shmolnago
#493
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,415
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10656 Post(s)
Liked 12,317 Times
in
6,306 Posts
...not me. I'm still astonished to realize that all the guys pushing modern technological improvements, driven by the desire for increased speed and performance, are actually riding stuff that has been intentionally detuned, for comfort. And using those "improvements", and the research costs behind them, as a rationale for expensive top end toys. I'm here to learn.
I'm happy you're "faster" thanks to disposable income, if "In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." All of us want to be our best version of self.
I'm happy you're "faster" thanks to disposable income, if "In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." All of us want to be our best version of self.
"intentionally detuned"? The difference between the Endurace I own and the Ultimate of the same level is the stack and reach, and wider tires, which aren't even slower.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#494
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,874
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4644 Post(s)
Liked 5,178 Times
in
3,200 Posts
#495
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,687
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2660 Post(s)
Liked 3,226 Times
in
1,843 Posts
It's fair, I think, to refer to an endurance/gravel geometry (formerly known as sport touring geometry) as (intentionally) detuned compared to a road racing geometry.
Probably fairer than calling them "detuned" would be to say that bikes that are ridden under conditions where the average speed is likely to be lower (than that seen with a racing geometry on good pavement) should have a slightly longer wheelbase. Horses for courses.
Last edited by Trakhak; 04-06-24 at 10:10 AM.
#496
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts
I've noticed that you often do this -- you make an argument personal, usually without any merit. (I stated nothing about my own bikes, nor about my riding -- whether I race or do other events. The discussion is not about me, nor about you.) I don't think it's exactly an Ad Hominem fallacy, but similar. Either way, it's off-topic and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Like any fallacious argument, it's a 'go-to' when you've got nothing else.
I pop into this thread every few days to see how far afield it's gotten from the OP. Mostly the usual suspects beating their same old dead horses -- which have nothing to do with the thread's original question. But this post really shines.
In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.
(Now I'll sit back and wait for 3A to question whether I am racing at my advanced age, or claim that non-pro riders somehow can't take advantage of those gains, or offer some other non-sequitur response.)
In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.
(Now I'll sit back and wait for 3A to question whether I am racing at my advanced age, or claim that non-pro riders somehow can't take advantage of those gains, or offer some other non-sequitur response.)
Likes For 3alarmer:
#497
Steel is real
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Not far from Paris
Posts: 2,051
Bikes: 1992Giant Tourer,1992MeridaAlbon,1996Scapin,1998KonaKilaueua,1993Peugeot Prestige,1991RaleighTeamZ(to be upgraded),1998 Jamis Dragon,1992CTWallis(to be built),1998VettaTeam(to be built),1995Coppi(to be built),1993Grandis(to be built)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 690 Post(s)
Liked 1,021 Times
in
679 Posts
Well, the 20K is my point.
I have bike magazines from the 80's to the 2020's. Mountain and road. Not sure why but I am a bike of a bike mag holder. History to me. These are from 2011 Bicycling bike buyers guide.
Again, these are not the norms - just like a 15K bike today is not the norm. But they represent what people are willing to pay. The Felt from 2011 for $12.5K would be ~$16,500 today. A Felt.
I have bike magazines from the 80's to the 2020's. Mountain and road. Not sure why but I am a bike of a bike mag holder. History to me. These are from 2011 Bicycling bike buyers guide.
Again, these are not the norms - just like a 15K bike today is not the norm. But they represent what people are willing to pay. The Felt from 2011 for $12.5K would be ~$16,500 today. A Felt.
Likes For georges1:
#498
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,148
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4073 Post(s)
Liked 7,665 Times
in
3,076 Posts
#499
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts
Same wheelbase? After stack and reach, that's the number I look at next. Actually, come to think of it, that's the first number I look at after the nominal size designation. If it's not within a few mm of my preferred wheelbase measurement (for the intended use), I'll skip the other numbers.
It's fair, I think, to refer to an endurance/gravel geometry (formerly known as sport touring geometry) as (intentionally) detuned compared to a road racing geometry.
Probably fairer than calling them "detuned" would be to say that bikes that are ridden under conditions where the average speed is likely to be lower (than that seen with a racing geometry on good pavement) should have a slightly longer wheelbase. Horses for courses.
It's fair, I think, to refer to an endurance/gravel geometry (formerly known as sport touring geometry) as (intentionally) detuned compared to a road racing geometry.
Probably fairer than calling them "detuned" would be to say that bikes that are ridden under conditions where the average speed is likely to be lower (than that seen with a racing geometry on good pavement) should have a slightly longer wheelbase. Horses for courses.
..thank you. This is also the reason that the "all steel frames are about the same frame" argument, that gets repeated every so often by my good friend and fellow BF poster Atlas Shrugged , was so entertaining the first five or six times I read it. That, and the knowledge that he really and truly believes it. I hope that's not too personal.
Likes For 3alarmer:
#500
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 305 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26482 Post(s)
Liked 10,449 Times
in
7,248 Posts