Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

An open letter to the bike industry

31K views 387 replies 136 participants last post by  fenix501 
#1 ·
An open letter to the bike industry

Dear Bike Industry,

I’m beginning to feel that you don’t have myself and my fellow rider’s best interest at heart, all you seem to be interested in is creating new “standards” and try to force people to buy them under the auspice that the new “standard” is better than before. I would like to think that most cyclists are a savvy bunch, but we do glom onto new tech with eagerness, a fault that you (the bicycle industry) seems more than happy to exploit.
Every year there’s a new bottom bracket “standard”. Something becomes a standard once it is in wide, common, and accepted use like a square taper bb. I have never felt the need to put any of these new, false standards on my bike instead of using a tried and true standard. I think you need to think about how you label all of these pointless bottom bracket options out there. The advantages are nominal to the rider, and only serve to create more niche markets and confuse new riders that get overwhelmed by all the “standards” that have been made. Shame on you. The people that can really gain any benefit if at all from any of these alleged improvements are pro racers, and pro races get their bikes and parts for free, we, the majority of the bike buying public have to pay for our stuff. Did my square tape bb suddenly stop working after years of loyal service and 1000’s of miles? No, it did not. My mountain bike is old for sure and my friends that have newer bikes are still behind me just like they are before they had a new bike with all of the new “improvements” in technology, I expected them to leave me in the dust being that I have only 21 speeds and they 30, but alas it did not happen. I also find it funny that I having 21 speeds never once thought I could make this traverse or climb that section of trail if I only had some more gears, and now you try and sell me less gears in the form of a 2 x10 drive train for more money than my 21 gears, do you take me for a fool? Shame on you bike industry. I can go on, how lame and pointless 31.8 bars are and how ugly they look, or how a 200 dollar seat post that drops can’t beat a 10 buck quick release seat post clamp and to take the 10 seconds to take in the view before you drop in is worth way more than another lever do-hickey on your bike, are you really that lazy? And the 29 wheels, really? Every time I see some poor 5.5” guy on a 29er, I just feel like the bike industry is made up of carneys and we are it’s willing dupes. And these massive head tube bearings they look like the wheel bearings in my van, there’s no way you can convince me I “need” that junk. At some point I just feel like you think I’m an idiot they will buy anything that you put before me, I think you think so little of us as a group that one can keep changing things endlessly chasing one’s tail in the pointless quest of improving something that needs no improvement, even the bike magazines are getting weary of your cavalcade of falsehoods, they are usually your ever loyal heralds but that is even changing.
I turned away from mountain biking magazines for few years and when I came back, mountain bikes no longer existed. There are xc, all mountain, free ride, downhill, etc. but there are no “mountain bikes” anymore. I still own and use a mountain bike, I understand that by creating labels and slicing the pie in ever-smaller slices you can perhaps sucker someone into buying a bunch of bikes that only get used for one type of trail. I guess that’s clever marketing and sales go up, but I think in doing so you alienate the beginner that will certainly be confused and intimidated by all the jargon and techo-babble when they go to their local shop and want a “mountain bike” Shame on you bike industry, I think you need a time-out to think about what you’ve done.
 
See less See more
#110 ·
I just bought a frame having a PF-30 BB shell and while not crazy about it as a straight forward BB shell vs. threaded, I can run a Beer Components eccentric to fool with geometry and the bearing cups do not require being pressed or drifted in.

Similar story on the drive train where I run 6 cogs on a single speed hub.

Point being that I find all these new standards give me room to really build something individual where this was somewhat more of a challenge in the days of 1" threaded steer tubes and tapered crank spindles.

Some things like multiple seat tube diameters I think are certainly superfluous, but in the end I think these are the most exciting days to live for bicycle enthusiasts because of all these new, creative efforts.

I'll take the bad with the good.
 
#111 ·
Just came across a recent blog post by Joe Graney, lead engineer at Santa Cruz, where he discusses new standards in detail. In short, while some new standards make sense and are legitimate advancements, most are nothing more than marketing bull. This is one of the biggest reasons why I'm a Santa Cruz fan - they've always been very selective in which new standards they adopt. Wish every manufacturer took this approach. Copied and pasted below for your viewing pleasure.

*****

Each time we work on a bike design - and we're always working on new bikes- the engineering group and our product manager sit down to haggle about what the frame is going to be like, and what type of parts it will accept. This used to be a fairly simple process - it basically consisted of deciding 68 or 73 mm width on bottom bracket width. We try to make a lot of components interchangeable between our various models. If there's not a damn good reason to have different diameter seat-posts or front derailleur clamps, then those numbers remain the same. Recently, however, we've seen a proliferation of new "standards" representing conceptual minefields that must be crossed when designing a bike frame. An incomplete list would include (stick with me through the list, there's a point somewhere near the end):

Headsets: 1 1/8, 1.5, 1 1/8 to 1.5 tapered. And then you have integrated and semi-integrated options for each of those. Stems and forks are both subject to these dimensions, and each one can affect clearance between the fork crown to down-tube as well as influence bar height and frame geometry. To figure out what makes sense for what, we have to balance stiffness versus weight of the entire system, including the frame, headset, adaptors, stem AND fork. I've been told that the purpose of the tapered steerer "standard" (Sram and Fox have different taper lengths...) is to make it easier to find stems. WTF? So they're basically saying there is a new standard (1.5) that hasn't yet been adopted fully, so we're introducing another standard to address it, even though finding a headset or a fork will be more of a pain than finding a 1.5 stem ever was.

Bottom Brackets: 73mm BB shells are fairly standard now for 135mm rear axle spacing, but now we've also got 83mm BB shells, and 100! (my knees ache typing that), and Shimano's new press fit version that still gets you the same chain-line with no weight difference or discernable advantage, and now the "BB 30". Kill me please. In reality, there are only two chain-lines being widely used at the moment; 50mm and 57-ish mm (there's some squabble about a few mm around that one), so why does everyone want to change this? The BB is the part that frames are built around. It's "Manhattan real-estate" for a frame design.

Hubs and Spacing: 135mm QR rear, 135x12mm rear, 150x12mm rear, 100mm QR front, 110x20mm front, and now 100x15mm front. Let us not forget the special dropouts needed to accommodate the old Saint, or the current Maxle, on a frame. And of course there are Maverick's special hubs, and some other company w/ even bigger front axles.

Brakes: 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200mm rotors, you got your six-bolt and your center-lock action. Plus different adaptors for post mount, Boxxer mount, ISO mount, post mount for 200mm, not to mention the Dorado mount, Hayes 22, etc.... Now and again people who make brakes try to tell me that we should put post mount type attachments on our frames, cuz' everyone knows post mount is rad, right? So, uh, how do you face those tabs in a shop anyway? A die-cast fork leg is different than a welded swing-arm assembly. I've been told - multiple times, actually - that it's better for the bolts. Yeah, those M6 bolts used for an IS mount are just crying out, can you hear 'em? Can you?

Wheels: This is a subject that is not only related to axle diameter and spacing and rotor attachment, but also spokes and rims. These are fairly abused items on a bike, rims and wheels being the things that actually hit those rocks we ride over. There are very few "cool" wheels on the market today that can be repaired without a long wait, special tools and lots of patience. Oh, and they cost more. Cuz its freakin' *****in' to have white spokes when I'm x-in' up, yo. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the 29" and 650B wheel sizes. Yup. At least the hubs remain the same for those things, thanks to the freaks for leaving that much alone. [Late update: I just read about 135mm spacing front hubs for 29ers, what a relief!] I can see the message boards lighting up now, a boycott might start any minute now.

ISCG "standards" include about 13 different ways to configure three stupid holes around the bottom bracket. And even then half the chain-guides on the market don't fit right without spacers, and putting your cranks on, then taking them off, and on, and off to get it right. And then there's ISCG05, same 3 holes 'cept we moved 'em! These holes initially held a back-plate to orient rollers that weren't abused much, but now people are hanging "taco" style bash guards on there which puts a lot more force on that little frame tab. And how do you weld that tab on anyway? It's only in the way of the freaking DOWN-TUBE on a lot of bikes. Beauty standard you got there. Well thought out.

Seat-posts: I don't have to list every diameter post there is, but to add to that mess, road and XC bikes are now getting super neat by not saving weight and adding a new way to screw up your bike by integrating the seat-post into the frame. Anyone ever cut a steerer tube too short by accident? I wonder if anyone out there has had to buy a "tall" saddle to make up for a mistake... Wanna sell your bike ever? Here's a great way not to.

Saddle/Post: There are different rail diameters of course, along with the unfortunate execution of the I-beam concept. I predict this relatively constant area to blow up in the next few years. It's just too predictable and easy not to have new "standards". Roadies are already getting into one piece molded post/saddle combos.

Bars and Stems: Forget about the varying stem length and bar widths, that's something justifiable. But if, speaking as a bike company, you figure on two steerer diameters, 5 stem lengths, and two bar diameters (25.4 and 31.8), then we've got 20 different combos right there. No wonder you can't find the combination you want for a particular type of riding (from a product manager point of view) that doesn't suck or cost a ton. Nobody can commit to tool up that much crap.

Derailleur mounting and cable routing is another thing, but probably more arcane than is worth getting into - top and bottom pull, top and bottom mount, 31.8, 34.9, E type, etc. Shimano should be applauded for doing a great job in recent years of making their FDs work in multiple situations though with adaptors and clever design. Just wait though; new "standards" are coming your way.

I won't even get into shock mounting or annual height increases of fork top caps, as I think my point is made. There are lots of different "standards". Fans of evolutionary theory might argue that this sort of proliferation is good for mountain bikes, and I tend to agree with that sentiment - in theory. However, the concerns I have are when a trend conflicts with two core values I hold when designing a new bicycle: choice and long-term support. There's a crew of mountain bike freaks that work at Santa Cruz Bicycles engineering department. We're not old-school curmudgeons and don't sit around lamenting the day that clunkers weren't used anymore. We get paid to push the envelope and be creative and come up with new stuff. But evaluating "performance gains" versus our core values is something we take very seriously - we put a lot of time into figuring out if the new way will be better than the old way. And I mean things that are fairly basic, albeit time consuming, like calculating the system weight by switching a frame to integrated headset from a plain old boring press in style. Call us crazy, but that seems like something that should be considered in the decision making process. Turns out, it doesn't save more than a few grams, it decreases your choice in headsets, and it looks kinda dumb with some forks.

Choice, as we define our customizable mountain bike builds, depends on compatibility. Long term support, to a great degree, does as well. It's hard to be confident that the newest steerer tube diameter or BB attachment scheme is going to be supported for a long time by the company introducing it, and for that reason it's difficult for us to spec a frame with a new "standard", since we want our customers to use our bikes for a long time. And if only one or two companies adopt the new specifications, one's choices and chances for long-term support are even more restricted.

On the surface, this multiplication of options seems a boon for cyclists that appreciate performance gains. Look a little closer, however, and sometimes new options are introduced merely because the manufacture has nothing new to offer, so they create "buzz" by making something different even though it doesn't provide much in terms of increased performance. Companies introducing new standards have a vested interest in their success, and we should all be wary of accepting the marketing claims. The performance data (if there even is any) should be independently vetted. Often, it takes years of evolution with any new design to optimize it, since engineers are typically (and hopefully) initially conservative with the design to ensure rider safety.

Some critical questions that get in the way of the rad factor with any new product can go a long way in determining if that product has been well thought through. Beyond the system weight comparison mentioned previously, there are some even more basic ones: How do you get those bearings out? Does your local shop have a tool? How much does the tool cost and when will it ship? How exactly does pressing bearings in make a difference? Did you make up a problem to solve after you made this thing? What other problems does it create? Let's take this marketing BS down to brass tacks here, because I don't want to screw with my bike all the time. I want to ride it, put it away and go drink beer, okay? Tomorrow, I want to pick it up and do that again. Maybe some people have the time and patience to screw with their bikes all the time, but I bet many of these people (a) don't ride enough, or (b) don't have a life, or (c) consider working on their bike a hobby. (If you are (c), I have some stuff to sell you, gimme a ring.)

There's plenty of opportunity for improvement on bikes. Hey, it's what I do for a paycheck, so there better be. There's a flip side to the coin though. I have the first frame I ever designed (a fixed gear made in Waterloo) that I can't get the bottom bracket out of, because the new "standard" tool that the manufacturer dreamed up in 1996 is extinct, and it worked so poorly anyway that it destroyed the interface the last time I tried to remove it six years ago. I'm lucky that the spindle still turns, which is more than I can say for some of these brand new "oversized" bearings that don't last six months without seizing up (and those were created by the people that want us to change). Does anyone understand how much work that is? There's moving front derailleur mounting, pivot locations, tire clearance, down-tube welding, alignment, QC tooling, machining tooling, etc., etc... It better be for something, but the track record is not looking good.

Let's face it, we've all been burned before with glittering promises of radness, stiffness, and the newest bestest thing ever. But when you open the box, does it really deliver as advertised? When do we wake up and not believe the same old song and dance? Show me something that lasts ten years and I'll change to it tomorrow. Boring, huh? I just want my bike to work well and last a long time without spending more money on it.

Done well, product improvements can make our bikes lighter, stronger, faster and more fun to ride. Done poorly (no perceptible improvement but a 100% increase in incompatibility), they can disenfranchise riders who find themselves unable to get parts and have their vacations or after-work rides ruined by simple mechanical failures that can't be easily repaired, and create a whole scrap heap of prematurely obsolete bicycles that could otherwise have had longer functional life-spans. The "market" (that's you by the way) has the last word in this. If you can control your addiction to shiny new stuff for a few minutes, and ask the right critical questions when faced with "new standards", manufacturers and suppliers might think twice - or even once - about those questions before they dribble out their next batch.
 
#116 ·
I think new stuff is way expensive and the prices for everything just keep going up. And now alot of manufacturers are leaning toward 29"(nothing against them so dont bully me). I personally prefer the mountain bikes from 07-11. Some sh** is getting ridiculous.
 
#117 ·
Unless riding a bike is paying your bills, just ride what you want and be selective in what you buy. I picked up a 29er 3 years ago and am very happy with that purchase. I can't swing buying a new bike each year, so now I ride a 2010. Big f'ing deal!

When I AM READY I will get a new rig. I recently inquired about going 2x10 on my current bike (feeding off the hype). Rough #'s from the shop was $500 +/-. The new model of my current bike now comes with 2 x 10 off the floor, so I will wait for 2 x 10 until I get a new bike (or what ever then next advancement is).

Don't get me wrong. I am all for advancement of the technology and companies need to make a profit, I just contribute to the cash flow when I choose to, not when the next shiny thing hits the sales floor.
 
#120 ·
I did not just say what I said just to stir up a hornets nest, I've come to these conclusions after years of riding and professionally wrenching, watching all the twisted up angry confused faces of people that don't care about all the new standards or whatever you want to call them. I have a friend who is a very fit, very strong rider and he has a 300 dollar 29 from performance bike (a whole different kind of evil), he bought a niner and said for the huge difference in cost the difference in ride quality was none or nominal as best. Now if you just plopped down $$$ for some new bit for your bike would you be honest enough with yourself to say it was a waste of money or you noticed no appreciable difference? New is not better all the time, new is simply new. I feel the bike industry is out of control with forcing new on to us, and it is up to us to do or at least say something about it.

And to those that hurled insults from the safety of their computer, I'm so hurt! Grade school antics lead me to believe that you need to let off some steam and ride more.

Thanks!
 
#121 ·
Now if you just plopped down $$$ for some new bit for your bike would you be honest enough with yourself to say it was a waste of money or you noticed no appreciable difference? !
Sure, I've stated many times when I spent a bunch of money on something and was unimpressed or disappointed.

But my Gravity Dropper that I bought 6 years ago is definitely not one of those cases.
 
#123 ·
Hey nobody said this was a cheap hobby , i buy what i want when i want ... You can feed me all the new stuff and old stuff bla bla bla , but at the end of the day WE make our own choices and spend OUR own money..

So if you dont like the new stuff , dont buy it lol plain and simple . I sure as hell can tell the difference between a $500 bike and a $3-4k bike big time ..You just gotta pay to play thats all . :)
 
#132 ·
I remember finding some Amanita muscaria out hiking not too long ago. I was happy to see them, really! It had been some time. Though I hope you know that those aren't for consuming. The muscimol in them is pretty terrible for you. Finding real magic mushrooms is easier than these guys, in my experience, because these you have to actually find growing.
 
#133 ·
Yeah I know these are dangerous, this is the first mushroom you are taught never to touch when you are a kid. The vikings supposedly ate them, and if one viking survived the experience it was then considered safe to drink his urine :) to get the same effect.
 
#134 · (Edited)
OP, I have a sizable collection of classic rarities and exotic vintage MTB's, and love them for what they are as well (though, a lot of what we rode then could be considered off-road capable road bikes). ...but I've also wound up in scary sections well beyond my ability where the performance capabilities of a modern DH bike were not just apparent, but neck-saving.

I work as a design consultant between a few co's. Every time we sit down to hash out a new suspension concept, we go through standards gridlock. Nobody likes it. What's a bit depressing is that there ARE great solutions already in existence to the modern design issues brought about by suspension and big wheels which these "standards" were created to solve. Just, not yet all in one place, readily available, compatible with each other, or well-understood/marketable. So instead of building the ultimate bike, every manufacturer in the biz has to waste thousands of hours obsessing over which pile of compromises they're going to endorse. However, if every MFG were to unite behind a set of standards, making things a lot more convenient & less $ for new bikes, it instantly relegates millions of bikes built around these myriad interim standards to obsolescence when component MFG's stop producing compatible product. Whatever happens, it's going to be ugly. But keep in mind, there are very few companies "making millions" on this stuff. Most of us barely eke out a living. It's not a colossal conspiracy to screw you, most of design is trying to make bikes lighter, more durable, less expensive, and lastly, still somehow compatible with old bb shells from road bikes 30 years ago. Bikes just aren't perfect enough that anyone can ride one and not find some way of improving it.

Check back in in another 5 years when things are a bit more ironed out, and go for a test ride. If your classic ride is sufficient, enjoy it, and take comfort in the knowledge that your bikes don't have issues that need complicated solutions, and even as you wear out gearing, you'll never exhaust the production capacity of Phil Wood, Chris King, & Paul Component, whose "obsolete" component lines are still the finest made in the entire biz, and still sell like hotcakes.
 
#135 ·
I dont read this forum much at all, but I had to respond to the OP

I DO agree with you to a point. Especially after selling a fork with a 20mm thru axle and buying another with a 15mm thru axle. New front wheel here we come-lol.

I kind of agree 21 speeds were enough, as long as the high and low gears could be what we have now.

I have been riding since before suspension. I remember the first Rockshox. Everyone wanted a fork that didnt dare move when pedaling.

Now its years later, I still ride at all the same places. And l wouldnt give up my full suspension 29er with disc brakes for anything-lol. Its not the fact that I can ride faster. Its just more damn fun. If anything we ride slower now, playing on the technical parts of the trail.

I am not one of those guys that always has to have to latest and greatest stuff, if anything I'm usually the holdout. But like many of the posters mentioned, no one is forcing you to buy anything.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I'd still be riding now if it wasnt for the changes in the industry. My body couldnt handle it-lol

Tom
 
#136 ·
I agree with the bottom bracket "standards". There are so many bottom bracket sizes these days it's hard to keep up. There are really three standards that I can think of 1) square taper 2) IsIs and outboard bearing. They are widely accepted and can be found in almost any shop.

Trek have at least 4 standard BB according to them. Cannondale has the BB30 which I almost consider a standard since it has been around so long.
 
#137 ·
An open letter to the bike industry

Dear Bike Industry,

I'm beginning to feel that you don't have myself and my fellow rider's best interest at heart, all you seem to be interested in is creating new "standards" and try to force people to buy them under the auspice that the new "standard" is better than before. I would like to think that most cyclists are a savvy bunch, but we do glom onto new tech with eagerness, a fault that you (the bicycle industry) seems more than happy to exploit.
Every year there's a new bottom bracket "standard". Something becomes a standard once it is in wide, common, and accepted use like a square taper bb. I have never felt the need to put any of these new, false standards on my bike instead of using a tried and true standard. I think you need to think about how you label all of these pointless bottom bracket options out there. The advantages are nominal to the rider, and only serve to create more niche markets and confuse new riders that get overwhelmed by all the "standards" that have been made. Shame on you. The people that can really gain any benefit if at all from any of these alleged improvements are pro racers, and pro races get their bikes and parts for free, we, the majority of the bike buying public have to pay for our stuff. Did my square tape bb suddenly stop working after years of loyal service and 1000's of miles? No, it did not. My mountain bike is old for sure and my friends that have newer bikes are still behind me just like they are before they had a new bike with all of the new "improvements" in technology, I expected them to leave me in the dust being that I have only 21 speeds and they 30, but alas it did not happen. I also find it funny that I having 21 speeds never once thought I could make this traverse or climb that section of trail if I only had some more gears, and now you try and sell me less gears in the form of a 2 x10 drive train for more money than my 21 gears, do you take me for a fool? Shame on you bike industry. I can go on, how lame and pointless 31.8 bars are and how ugly they look, or how a 200 dollar seat post that drops can't beat a 10 buck quick release seat post clamp and to take the 10 seconds to take in the view before you drop in is worth way more than another lever do-hickey on your bike, are you really that lazy? And the 29 wheels, really? Every time I see some poor 5.5" guy on a 29er, I just feel like the bike industry is made up of carneys and we are it's willing dupes. And these massive head tube bearings they look like the wheel bearings in my van, there's no way you can convince me I "need" that junk. At some point I just feel like you think I'm an idiot they will buy anything that you put before me, I think you think so little of us as a group that one can keep changing things endlessly chasing one's tail in the pointless quest of improving something that needs no improvement, even the bike magazines are getting weary of your cavalcade of falsehoods, they are usually your ever loyal heralds but that is even changing.
I turned away from mountain biking magazines for few years and when I came back, mountain bikes no longer existed. There are xc, all mountain, free ride, downhill, etc. but there are no "mountain bikes" anymore. I still own and use a mountain bike, I understand that by creating labels and slicing the pie in ever-smaller slices you can perhaps sucker someone into buying a bunch of bikes that only get used for one type of trail. I guess that's clever marketing and sales go up, but I think in doing so you alienate the beginner that will certainly be confused and intimidated by all the jargon and techo-babble when they go to their local shop and want a "mountain bike" Shame on you bike industry, I think you need a time-out to think about what you've done.
I hope that your "van" is from the 1960's, does not have an automatic transmission nor air conditioning. Furthermore, I hope that you have nothing but an AM radio as well.

As you proclaim things, anything above the basics is just useless marketing to create profits for the companies!
 
#141 ·
I will agree with so many companies deciding what is better is BS. However we are ultimately benefiting from all of this technology.
The "used market" is where we are really benefitting from! You can find so many great deals on everything because someone is "chasing" technology.
My advice is to become very familiar with the industry and follow the trends, dont bite until you are ready and its ironed itself out. Also work on your bikes!!! get tools!!! its so rewarding and you wont be at the mercy of someone else. Be a responsible person!!!
I understand the pain of wanting to stay primitive and when something breaks you are forced to buy the new standard because either they dont make it anymore or it doesnt fit.

Dont just say its an awesome upgrade unless you can really feel it!!! A lot of people just take the bait and are really fooled into thinking its the "monkeys nuts" just because they read an article from a bike mag stating it is so great. People dont think for themselves most of the time and follow blindly but act like its their idea...thats what they want you to think.
This is like all of the damn reality shows and someone is just checking it out because its LIVE ACTION. All we are doing is making networks want to make horrible fake reality shows and we are left with junk.

That being said....OP lets race and ill show you how new technology has helped me become faster and safer as well as happy, you are pissed because everytime you want something that looks great you are reminded of what a curmudgeon you are and you cant afford it.
 
#145 ·
I will agree with so many companies deciding what is better is BS. However we are ultimately benefiting from all of this technology.
The "used market" is where we are really benefitting from! You can find so many great deals on everything because someone is "chasing" technology.
My advice is to become very familiar with the industry and follow the trends, dont bite until you are ready and its ironed itself out. Also work on your bikes!!! get tools!!! its so rewarding and you wont be at the mercy of someone else. Be a responsible person!!!
I understand the pain of wanting to stay primitive and when something breaks you are forced to buy the new standard because either they dont make it anymore or it doesnt fit.

Dont just say its an awesome upgrade unless you can really feel it!!! A lot of people just take the bait and are really fooled into thinking its the "monkeys nuts" just because they read an article from a bike mag stating it is so great. People dont think for themselves most of the time and follow blindly but act like its their idea...thats what they want you to think.
This is like all of the damn reality shows and someone is just checking it out because its LIVE ACTION. All we are doing is making networks want to make horrible fake reality shows and we are left with junk.

That being said....OP lets race and ill show you how new technology has helped me become faster and safer as well as happy, you are pissed because everytime you want something that looks great you are reminded of what a curmudgeon you are and you cant afford it.
:thumbsup:
 
#144 ·
I'm a lot less concerned about what's newest, brightest, bestest, etc., than I am about the good stuff that fell by the wayside over the years.

I ride an ISIS crankset/BB; I'm getting a little concerned! I've been looking, and ISIS is getting pretty rare; AFAIC, it's better than Octalink, but external BB has taken over (and don't get me started about BB30/whatever). A lot of things I mourn are brand-specific (Santa Cruz dropped the VP-Free, and developed the Nomad -- I'd like to have BOTH! Manitou's Travis line has VANISHED....), but things like that damned 142 rearend standard just ruffle me.

I can see the advantage to a tapered steerer in some apps; but DAMN, standardize the headset! Standard cups top & bottom, or zero-stack top & bottom, let's just make it right!
 
#146 ·
Maybe I'm old school, or maybe I just don't get it, but OPs letter sounds like one big whine without any point at all. I don't know the first thing about bb taper, 92 bearings or any of the other minutiae he's talking about. Nor do I understand the whining about all new parts out there that may or may not be better than the current parts. You don't like one of the new standards, then don't buy it.

what I DO know is that the improvements in bikes the last 20 years has been vast, and I have a vertitable plethora of choices in bikes, and all the parts I decide to put on them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

what I also like is that so many bike parts are interchangeable. You can often take parts from one bike and put it on another bike, or you can buy parts on-line and have a high degree of confidence that those parts will work. In the last six months, I've upgraded my SS 29ER with carbon fork and post, wheels, seat, bashguard, pedals, stem, and probably a few other parts I don't recall offhand. All of these parts were bought online and they all worked. This is really a good thing.

So if I missed the point please let me know --- without anonymous neg rep please. And finally to OP, paragraph breaks are your friend, and the friend of everyone trying to get through your wall of text.
 
#152 ·
I pretty much stayed away from this thread, but since I just shared this thought elsewhere, this is probably a more appropriate spot:

Every bike forum I've read has way too much complaining from people about 'the industry' using 'marketing' to try and take their money and make them buy something new (29ers, 650b, tapered steerers, the list goes on). But there are a lot of people looking to buy at any given point, and besides I would guess the majority of bike sales are people buying new complete bikes, rather than enthusiasts building up a frame. I don't remember people complaining about having to buy a new car when side curtain airbags or traction control became common, but any advance in the bike industry has people screaming about being gouged rather than thinking "yeah, that might be cool when I get my next bike in a few years."
 
#153 ·
I've never had to use the features of a seat belt, and I've never had to use the features of ABS, yet I get to pay for them, because of the masses being idiots that are irresponsible drivers in the driving conditions out there. You can't fix stupid, be it people, or operators, with engineering feats mandated into place making vehicles more and more expensive for the masses.

I say, let Darwins Law sort it out, and leave all the crap bells and whistles off of our cars, morons shouldn't be driving in the first place, driving is a privelege, not a right. Leave it as an option for those that want it, not mandated by a Nanny State government.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top