Sory but I'll have to side with Dave on this one. Tom, Dave and I are old industry people and he has been doing it twice as long as I have so I can say we've known hundreds, maybe thousands, of shop folk. Most shop people who aren't in it for the pro deal ride stuff that they bought at a pro deal a few years before. Almost every shop has someone like most of the list members who ride the old stuff because it appeals to them. I'll put money that if you surveyed all the shops with more than 8 people working in them the numbers would be as follows. This only concerns "riding" bikes, not ones on the collections. 60% would be on MTB's 30% would be on some kind of newish road bike, no more than 5 years old. 5% on high-zoot racing machines 5% on something classic
enjoy, Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
"Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would get done." Gil Scott-Heron
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Tom Dalton wrote:
> >>>>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
>
> --- Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com> wrote:
> > 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://www.bikelist.org/