t2p

your professor was mistaken

was this in the happy valley ?

Eric F 

Those folks bought their bikes within the last 4 years, and won't be ready to buy another one for a long time (some, probably never). High end customers have different motivations.

Note: These ^^^ are uneducated guesses/generalizations.

unterhausen

What he actually said is, "I could probably do it, but you couldn't." I forget which Va Tech professor told me that. They hired a carbon specialist after I took the course, but I don't think it was him.
Since I was an experienced framebuilder, and he wasn't, I might have had a better chance. He probably wouldn't have been able to build a usable frame. It's not like it was easy to learn about framebuilding in the early '80s. We might have been able to collaborate and be successful. In the end, it's not like it's that difficult.

Atlas Shrugged

Over the past decade, the S-Works Tarmac has made significant progress in terms of design and features. In fact, the current version is vastly different from its earlier counterparts, with a lighter frame that weighs 250 grams less, a completely new design and layup, significantly improved aerodynamics, internal wiring including cockpit, 12-speed wireless with wider gearing range, tubeless tires, and disc brakes, among other features. So other than the name, there is no real comparison between a 2014 and 2024 S Works Tarmac.

Compare this with a 1970 Cinelli SC and a 1980 Cinelli SC, and the two bikes are almost identical.

genejockey 

Plus, I find Trek's product name/number scheme impenetrable, so I can't tell whether the two Domanes are directly comparable.

Koyote

Here is what Pete said:

If you want to argue with his statement, you might first need to simply comprehend it. He did not say what you seem to think he said. Reading is fundamental.

genejockey 

This thread has more straw men than a scarecrow convention.

3alarmer 

...speaking of which.

Why anyone would expect Cinelli (as a company) to have much in the way of an R+D department is beyond my comprehension. Sure they were expensive, but they were still small, limited in numbers of production, and generally made by a company that was primarily earning money by selling components like stems, bars, and saddles. They did change out the stem designs periodically, often producing a stem that worked less well than their original 1A.

Here's the Cinelli timeline. 1970-1980 were not especially innovative years. The steel frame tech was a relatively mature one by then. As technologies mature, that happens. They did do a time trial funny bike in 1974, but the Cinelli SC was a boutique product that was selling well in small numbers. Why change it ? Columbo (of Columbus tubing) bought into the company in 1978. Columbus tubing was in constant development mode for new and different frame tubing sets.

genejockey 

I don't think this was so much about Cinelli as about the bike industry in general, which seems to have been pretty stagnant from the mid-50s till about 1980.

NumbersGuy

I think vastly different is a bit of a stretch.

• The frame from what I can see is 200 grams lighter, but the complete bike is heavier.
• Fact 12r carbon vs Fact 11r carbon for 10 years of R&D… not really impressive or major; mostly marketing.
• Incrementally improved aerodynamic at pro tour speeds which means minuscule for everyone else, despite marketing hype.
• Internal routing for the cockpit (SL4 had internal cables)is again an aero advantage for pros, not much elsewhere and not mind-blowing R&D.
• 12 speed vs 11 speed is the same incremental gain over a decade that’s been happening for ages, no great R&D for that.
• Wireless isn’t something the bike industry developed. They just finally are using current, cheap technology for shifting.
• Tubeless tires are a questionable advantage for road bikes, and again it’s long existing tech finally being used in bikes.
• Disc brakes are an excellent addition but the refinement is not quite there which leads me to question to amount and quality of R&D performed.

Maybe it’s just the expense of marketing to make the lack of real engineering progress sound like it’s game changing that’s behind the cost increases.

PeteHski

How many engineers do you think Kestrel employed back in 1989? I'm guessing you could count them on one hand. Major bike manufacturers like Specialized and Giant probably employ hundreds of engineers today. You only have to look at their vast product lines across the board. I bet their own engineering R&D departments are way bigger today than they were 20 or 30 years ago, with far more qualified engineers and designers. That's generally how it goes. It will likely be the same story at Shimano. I bet their engineering resources are 10 fold what they were in the 80s. It's not my industry, so I don't have any figures. In my own field (F1 motor racing) teams have grown from employing around 50 staff in the late 1980s to over 1000 today. The cars cost a LOT more today.

People keep mentioning cell phones as an example of things getting relatively cheaper with increasing tech. Well that tends to happen when sales volume grows exponentially. This doesn't apply with bicycles. They get more sophisticated, but also more expensive at the top end.

Yan 

The second half of what you wrote is the total opposite of the first half of what you wrote. You're refuting yourself.

Why are you punching yourself in the face? HELLO???

Oh, so you admit that what bikes "SHOULD" cost is not the same as what they "DO" cost. Well that was my point. Thank you for agreeing with me.

End of story.

​​​​​​​

smd4

Hey! I thought I was on your ignore list? What terrible thing did I do to get delisted?

Koyote

PeteHski and genejockey : you guys are arguing with posters who can't (or won't) comprehend your rather simple statements or are deliberately concocting straw man arguments -- probably the former, since a child could come up with better straw man arguments than the ones they are offering.

At any rate, you should quit while you are behind. With some of these folks, you're never gonna get through. Just state your case and move on. I'm speaking from experience.

That's just my $.04. (That's $.02, adjusted for inflation.)

genejockey 

Oh, dear. More straw men for the convention.

The first statement is totally aligned with the second. Let me restate, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit: Ignoring technological improvements and simply comparing prices is ludicrous, but EVEN IF YOU DO, cell phones are cheaper now than 35 years ago.

This one's singing "If I Only Had A Brain".

genejockey 

What, are you feeling listless?

Yan 

Koyote never actually puts anyone on his ignore list. He just says he does while actually still spying on you, because he can't help himself.

Yan 

So under your logic, if phones have gotten cheaper as they have advanced, then why have bikes gone the other way as they have advanced?

PeteHski

Phone sales have grown exponentially. Bike sales haven’t.

Trakhak

That will undoubtedly be the post that ends the thread. Except for this one.

genejockey 

Shorter Yan:

Yan 

Translation:

"I've lost the argument and now I'm gyrating and thrashing"

smd4

I figured. And in his “last” post to me he accused me of stalking him!

genejockey 

Dude, you don't even have a point that you're arguing.

Yan 

So if the sales volume of a particular product is holding steady year-to-year, that mean the price trend of this product will need to outpace inflation?

Interesting theory.