Originally Posted by
kunsunoke
What is undeniable is that the builders eventually coalesced around Italian ideas about aesthetics and function. They did that in the USA, England, Japan, the low countries and even France.
I deny that. Italians couldn’t paint for beans, and ignored quality control processes, thinking they were good enough. Sometimes they were, sometimes better, sometimes worse..
Originally Posted by
kunsunoke
The Italians got good at the bike business because they focused on the details that mattered - handling, ride quality (dictated by geometry and tubing metallurgy), mass reduction, aesthetics and fitment. There were other builders but the Italians consistently got it right. If you want to refer to that as "je ne sais quoi" nobody will stop you, though. My opinion is that this stuff is pretty tangible.
Too generic to agree on the former, but there is something there. Cool factor.
When triathletes started racing on bikes they could afford, others started paying more attention to affordable bikes that were as good as the Italians but cost 1/5 to 1/4 the price. Triathletes, despite how I really feel about most of them, did not bring a cultural need for Italian bikes or Campy components to the game. They just wanted bikes they could go fast with and that worked. Instead of objects of affection, they were tools, a means to an end. To me, that’s when things changed. I use 1985 as both a great year for Italians and a bookmark for their “dominance.” The market grew the next big dogs, and they were not Italian.