Originally Posted by
rydabent
I you read any of the famous cycling books from the 80s and before, they call any bike frame butt welded low class junk. But in the nearly 40 years since then advertising has conditioned cyclist to accept butt welded frames instead of beautiful lugged and low temp brazed frames. The simple reason for that is that now computers run robot welding machines, and frame mfg can make more money that way. Robots can churn out butt welded frames 24 hours a day. It is the same with CF frames. Again frame mfg in china can have some poor chinese woman lay up CF frames for 40 cents an hour. Then advertising has conditioned cyclist to be in awe of CF (plastic frames) and have have cyclist pay thousand of dollars for them.
Another example of how mfg advertising influence people was with the "need" for ever increasing number of gears on the rear sprocket. Cyclist JUST HAD to have the latest and largest number of gears, or they would be just old fashion Freds!!! Then all of a sudden WHIP LASH mfg now want you to buy the "new" one by gear trains.
As I say it is amazing how advertising can lead so many around by the nose.
I understand the GEARS paragraph pretty well, but I don't understand the FRAMES paragraph well so I pose some questions below in the interest of clarity . . .
1 -- back in the day, butt-welded frames were junk and they were called out as junk -- ok . . .
but now, we've been conditioned to accept butt welded frames as quality rather than as junk? . . . what contemporary frame would serve as an example of butt welding, and what contemporary frame would be an example of a beautiful lugged low temp brazed frame? is it your contention that the poorly welded frames (of today, not in the past) is priced equally or higher than frames with better welding?
2 -- automation has made manufacture of both welded frames and carbon frames cheaper -- yeah, I agree it has . . .
is it your contention here that carbon frames offer no performance benefit over welded frames, but that people pay premium for carbon because of how it's marketed? How do you account for / explain the science detailing carbon's performance compared to that of welded frames (in strength-to-weight, aero qualities, and compliance / rigidity)? . . . do you refute those findings that say carbon outperforms welded frames , or are you claiming those things don't really matter to a typical cyclist and shouldn't be valued / priced as if they did matter?