>>>>There are reasons that men and women working in bike stores ride older equipment, or the older forms of newer stuff--familiarity in some cases sure doesn't breed greater endearment.
In general, I'd say shop employees are about the most
likely people to have the latest stuff. An alarming
number of shop employees are relatively new to riding
and are on their first or second bike. Often they
jump on a new bike during their first year (read
"summer") of employment, thrilled by getting new stuff
at or below cost. The folks riding the old stuff are
usually the people who have been around the longest
amnd have gotten over the "stuff at cost" issue.
These people are also often so sick of bikes that they
no longer ride. In any case, I think that you might
be confusing the ideal of a shop employee
(knowledgeable, experienced, enthusiastic rider) with
the average reality (inexperienced newbie mountain
biker).
>>>>>>I'll go out on a potentially offensive limb here
and say that the folks who really, truly know the most
about bikes are often the biggest skeptics about new
modes of equipment.
I think the people who know the most are the people
who ride the most, and these people usually ride what
is avaiable until they wear it out. Then they replace
it with the current equivalent. Are the new gizmos
worse than the old gizmos? Rarely. Are they about
the same? Sometimes. But the general trend is toward
improving the equipment. Is some of that improvement
totally unnecessary and driven by marketing concerns?
Sure, but the top end gear is developed for use by
racers and is developed with their input. If a
product doesn't work they or their mechanics will
reject it. Sounds starry-eyed, but based on what you
see pros riding, there is ample reason to believe it.
Of course I've shifted the arguement toward what works
best for elite riders, but I'll say that most of what
benefits them benefits riders at far lower levels.
>>>>I'll bet one gent on this list who has a
magnificent collection of old and new rigs rides the
old stuff often because it can need working on less
often!
The new suff does not violate the laws of physics. In order for modern drivetrains to do what they do (shift among 9 or 10 cogs, near-flawlessly, in or out of the saddle, with hand on the bars) the drivetrain needs to be clean and precisely adjusted. Given precise initial setup and some routine cleaning, the stuff requires little other maintenance. The decreased need to overhaul hubs, bbs and headsets probably offsets any added drivtrain cleaning requirements.
Tom Dalton
> I used to work at a large bike store that sold the
> products of an, ah,
> empire of multiple bike brands. Under different
> names the companies sold us
> steel, aluminum, and carbon fiber bikes. The
> defects in the carbon and
> aluminum frames outnumbered the problems in steel
> bikes by at least ten to
> one. There is a lot of merchandise on the market
> that is lighter and more
> fashionable but just doesn't get down and do the job
> as well as some older
> items. There are reasons that men and women working
> in bike stores ride
> older equipment, or the older forms of newer
> stuff--familiarity in some
> cases sure doesn't breed greater endearment.
> I'll go out on a potentially offensive limb here and
> say that the folks who
> really, truly know the most about bikes are often
> the biggest skeptics about
> new modes of equipment. I'll bet one gent on this
> list who has a
> magnificent collection of old and new rigs rides the
> old stuff often because
> it can need working on less often!
>
> David Feldman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "garth libre" <rabbitman@mindspring.com>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:25 PM
> Subject: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>
>
> Intrigued by this submission, I thought I would
> offer my response: Clipless
> pedals are a definite plus, but they were available
> in the mid 80's.
> Aluminum frames were available at that time too, but
> they are substantially
> cheaper now - However, in general, I do not find
> them to be better, just
> different. (Lighter with a discomfort price).
> Seatposts have not improved at
> all. Hubs have not improved, and I absolutely fail
> to see how threadless
> headsets or integral whatever are better. Stems
> allow you to swap handlebars
> easily, but are so ugly that they are like a visit
> from Frankenstein. Tires
> may or may not be an improvement; My memory should
> not be trusted on this
> one. I swear that shifting seems about the same.
> Braking is the same.
> Shifting from the drops: Are we fooling ourselves on
> this one? I have no
> trouble shifting in a race situation with downtube
> shifters. My rhythm is
> not thrown off, except if I need to shift in a turn.
> This is the one point
> that might have to be considered some kind of an
> improvement. However, my
> track training teaches me that one is often better
> off staying in one gear
> anyway, and certainly in a training situation,
> single gear training without
> freewheeling is hard to beat. So many road riders,
> in my area, are such poor
> riders with such high tech equipment, that I dare
> say that I do not feel
> intimidated with my downtube shifters and elegant
> lugged steel frame.
> Overall for function: Modern aluminum Sti bike
> scores an 8, 80's premium
> tubing, downtube- shifted bike scores an 8. For
> beauty: Modern bike scores a
> 4, 80's premium tubing lugged classic scores a 9.
> Sorry, I give it to the
> Classic, the Aluminum bike is the "weakest link".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/