ScottCommutes

And the pro chefs can cook better than everyone else with a sharp $15 knife and plain aluminum pots and pans. They don't need All-Clad, Le Creuset, or Henkels. It's about the ingredients, not the tools.

smd4

My son, then a 15 year old amateur chef, spent a huge sum on a Korin knife from Japan. There’s no question it cuts better than our Henckels.

No. Question.

Night and day…

We can make excuses and justifications all day long. The simple fact is that many times, the quality items simply perform better than the crap. That skilled chefs can “make do” goes more to their skills than the quality of their equipment. Given the proper equipment, their skills can sing.

Same with bikes.

I have a pro-level pitcher’s glove. It’s all-leather. Cost way more than the ones at Dick’s, with the synthetic leather inner.

I can’t pitch.

Yep, it’s better. Will last longer, feels way better, and is worth the money to me—if such things are important to you.

rsbob 

161 lbs exactly.

smd4

Nicely played.

Yan 

Falsely editing someone else's quote is not appropriate. It's not funny. It's moronic. Multiple people have called you out. Don't do it again.

smd4

I didn’t yawn. I liked it. Well written and reasoned.

genejockey 

One wonders where the high tech carbon bikes for World Tour pros would come from if the bike companies didn't sell the same bikes to consumers.

BITD, you could buy a lugged steel bike from the same manufacturers kitted out with the same top-end Campagnolo, etc that the World Tour riders did. And you still can buy the same bike as the pros. So, did writers of that time natter on and on about how the average cyclist didn't really NEED a 21 lb bike?

Maelochs

Inadvertently, ..... he made an internet funny.

big john

Haven't you ever heard of fify? Lighten up Francis

tomato coupe

Really? His argument starts with the following:

Guess what. Those same people have to pay for steel, aluminum, and titanium bikes as well. That doesn't fall under the category of "reasoned."

Leisesturm

I've been patiently wading through two threads worth of diatribe, and in all the muck and mire only post #56 seems to have been able to understand the intent of that column piece. If Bike Snob was a poster here he would be on a half dozen ignore lists (like yours truly) because the one thing the majority of you hate more than someone with a strong opinion, is someone that is correct. They never said a single one of you do not have the God given inalienable right to wad up as many $5K CF roadbikes as you can afford to (or not afford to), he merely pointed out, in merciless detail, the absurdity of wasting money like that. It's called 'rage baiting', and I will bet money that tongue was FIRMLY in cheek from the very first word of that piece to the last.

One clue that the writer was being less than serious is the Red Herring of the "Steel Frame" offered as the only viable material for bike construction. The real answer is Aluminum. Have you seen what can be done with Aluminum in the 21st Century? Take a look. Only the fork is Carbon. I have to keep one eye on it at all times out and about because it looks like it cost 5x what it actually did, and in Portland that means it attracts thieves like NBA players attract, oops never mind, wrong forum. Steel is real mainly in the abstract. It's an o.k. thing to make bikes out of but it's not better than Aluminum. Bike Snob knows that. He totally gave the game away with the double down on Steel as the clear alternative over CF.

Yeah, I'm afraid youse guys have been rage baited into a right lather the lot of you. It's simply not possible that the Bike Snob intended that piece to be taken as instructional. He knows better. But, I'm just saying, if you do happen to have five large burning a hole, take $2K of it and buy the nicest non carbon bike from the previous years overstock that you can find. Tell your Old Lady what you did. Prove it with the sales receipt. If you are over 65 take appropriate precautions as normal when intimacy is expected. For a good long time to come ...

PeteHski

This is true but not important in the big picture. A steel frame uses around 5kg CO2, while a carbon frame uses around 50kg CO2.

So whilst that is a big difference, it pales into insignificance compared to even the CO2 shipping costs. Air freight is around 0.5kg CO2 per kg per km. So flying a 1.5kg steel frame 5000 km would use around 3,750kg CO2 and a 1.0kg carbon frame would use 2,500kg CO2. Sea freight is much cheaper, but still around 300kg CO2 to ship a 1.5kg steel frame from the far east vs 200kg for a 1.0kg carbon frame.

So actually it is far more important to compare the environmental impact of transport than the manufacture, which is only a small part of the overall environmental impact.

Carbon fibre can also be recycled, but it usually isn’t commercially viable - probably because there isn’t very much of it to recycle. I don’t think I’ve ever had to dispose of any carbon fibre in the last 50 years.

Garthr

Considering he the author now owns two Rivendell frames and raves about them, I wouldn't be so quick to call his article as any form of brilliant click bait, and that he doesn't really hold those opinions, because he does as expressed further on his website.
https://bikesnobnyc.com/2024/01/29/n...o-the-mailbag/
​​​​​​https://bikesnobnyc.com/2024/01/30/m...differences-2/

[QUOTE][Now, I should note that since 2007 I’ve been writing about bikes in a provocative (some might even say “dickish”) manner on an almost daily basis, and in that time I’ve received who knows how many thousands of emails. Of those, I’d say I could count all the angry ones on my fingers–and of those angry ones, I’d say the angriest ones come from Outside readers. From this I’ve often been tempted to make the following generalization:
[list]

• Bike people are often smart people who don’t take themselves too seriously
• Outside readers are often ******bags
  
  To be fair, I have no idea if this particular letter writer is in fact a ******bag; I don’t know him and would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was clearly angry though, here are the salient points of his missive:
  • The column was “silly and short sighted”
  • I should “do some more homework before crafting such a ridiculous piece for a major outdoor media company”
  • Carbon is better than alloy in “every single way,” ideal for any type of bike including “commuting”
  • My mechanical skills are probably “that of a 5 year old”
  • My article “sucked”
  My column is of course an opinion piece, and the sender is of course entitled to his own opinion, which is fair enough. Given this, I think what concerns me the most is not that he thinks I have the mechanical skills of a young child–which, again, fair enough–but that he has such high expectations of Outside and respects them as a “major outdoor media company” that I have somehow defiled. I mean, sure, I write for Outside, so I realize this is a total self-own, but you should not read anything in a digi-rag like Outside and take it seriously enough to get angry. People believing what “major outdoor media companies” tell them is why we’re inundated with plastic bikes and battery-powered shifters in the first place. In fact, the faith people put in their favorite media brands explains pretty much everything wrong with modern discourse, and 97% of social media is idiots foaming at the mouth over some stupid article they read on [[i]insert media property here].
  QUOTE]

It's just an opinion for goodness sake, and we all have one.

Jughed

It was a joke, humor, sarcasm, internet standard operating procedure... FIFY (look it up) has been going on since the dawn of message boards.

I am sorry if you were bothered or offended by it somehow - but it was nothing more than a joke, not everyone likes humor - some will, some wont.

It was done light heartly with no harm intended.

But no, I won't stop doing it. Why - humor.

PeteHski

I think these are weak examples. I cook a lot and there is nothing more irritating than a cheap, blunt chopping knife. I use Japanese Global knives and they chop much better than any cheap knives I’ve ever used. They make the job effortless and require a lot less sharpening with their long, ultra-thin tapered blades that never distort . I avoid using cheap aluminium pans too. Again, the Le Creuset cast iron pans are much better. This stuff lasts forever too. I’ve got a 25 year old Le Creuset wok that looks brand new despite almost daily dishwashing.

Jughed

I was just about to go there!!

Like I said, I'm also in the fishing world - where the Yeti is the CF bike of coolers. Yes, they are nice and durable, but $$$$$.

I own a Coleman Extreme 120qt. Paid $75 at Wallyworld - the same Yeti at the time was over $700+++. The Yeti will hold ice a few % longer than the Extreme. And since my Extreme is going on 15 years old - durability argument is out the window. Yeti also sells a 5 gallon bucket for $70++, and they invented a reason fisherman "need" said bucket.

The marketing parallel is there... and it goes with my post on this subject in the other thread - what do you really gain by spending the extra money? I understand the "want" part, I want a Time Alpe d'Huez in the worst way... but the reality is, that bike will do nothing for my riding, just like a Yeti bucket will do nothing for my fishing.

PeteHski

I’m not convinced about this “clue” at all. A bit like trying to interpret abstract song lyrics.

Jughed

In the fishing world, where the knife reference started - a basic Dexter Russel is the weapon of choice for the "pro"s. $17.99.

The internet message board experts had people thinking they "need" to spend $100-200++ - and it gains them absolutely nothing.

I feel much the same way about the bike industry and many people in the hobby. People are sold, and in turn, "sell" a ton of expensive things that do little or nothing for them.

My Le Creuset pan rocks... I will give you that.

Trakhak

A couple of years ago, at a rehearsal of our classic rock band, someone said he was disappointed at how few of the songs we played were his picks. We went down the list. It turned out that in our five-man band, about two-fifths were his suggestions.

I remarked that none of the songs in our active set list were my picks. He mentioned bovine excrement.

Went down our list again. There were songs on the full list of suggested songs that were my suggestions, as he pointed out.

"Any we've tried more than once, if that?," I asked.

"Well . . . ."

He finally found the only one I'd suggested that we played occasionally.

"See? Gotcha!"

Don't know why that story came to mind . . .

smd4

He didn’t do that though, Francis. He didn’t strike through anything, Francis. He rewrote the quote to make it look original, Francis. Gaslighting at its best.

Jughed

Noted.

Next time instead of using bold text to show what I changed, I will strike through. Thanks for correcting my FIFY procedure...

Gaslighting?? Naw, I am in no way that sophisticated. I don't even understand what the whole gaslighting thing is about.

Yan 

You should try standup next, you'll bring the house down.

seypat

I have the weirdest story about golf clubs that would go against any logical explaination about equipment, but it would require the audience to be familar with golf equipment. Another time.

Steel Charlie

Don't Hesitate ! !

Discussions like this one are Boundless ! ! Get into it !


And now that I'm aware of the majesty of aluminum I begin to understand my wholly irrational affection for an old Specialized S-Works M4 that I recently acquired. WOW!

smd4

You're welcome.

FWIW, bolding is meant to highlight or emphasize something. Same for Italicizing or underlining. It's not meant to show that you changed something. That's what the strikethrough means.