Originally Posted by sykerocker

The comment may be sharpish and not fair, but it's not untrue. Let's be honest, for a bicycle company to survive, if not thrive, they constantly have to come up with something new to get the customer back in their store. And, quite frankly, probably every 'improvement' made in bicycle technology since the double-barreled introduction in index shifting and brifters has been overkill for the average (non-racing) cyclist. OK, I'm one of the old curmudgeons. The newest road bike that I own is a 1992 Diamondback Expert, non-lugged steel with a horizontal top tube, Shimano RSX 3x7 drivetrain. Over the past fifteen years I've owned a bit fancier (the most exotic I've ever owned is an aluminum frame with carbon fork and carbon rear stays, 2x9 Shimano Ultegra, running sewups on 32 spoke alloy rims),but right now, all my other road bikes are downtube shifters, half of which are friction. My one mountain bike is steel, 3x8, hardtail with a suspension fork and V-brakes. Ok, I'll put disc brakes almost up there with indexing and brifters.

Every other 'advancement' out there is sheer marketing. Mountain bikes, 26, 27.5, 29 wheels, if you're just riding like the majority of MTB riders out there, the wheel size really doesn't matter all that much. But the manufacturers gotta get your completely dissatisfied with your current MTB at least once every 5-7 years. Bottom brackets. Once again unless you're racing and critically worried about weight, the old Stronglight invented square-end bottom bracket serves just as well as BB30 or whatever the newest flavor. Hell, for that matter, just how much more does 11 cogs on the rear give you over 7? I've noticed now that the style is going to single chainwheels, guess that's a good justification for 11 on the rear. Carbon fiber frames? I've ridden more than a few, and with my age (71) riding style and level of fitness (I can still do centuries) they're a complete waste to me. I prefer steel, and fully understand that aluminum came about with the primary intention of lowering production costs.

Electric shifting - now that's the one that does not make sense to me in the slightest. Yes, I fully understand the concept, operation, and reason for it. I also realize that the only people who need that kind of stuff are riders under a team contract who don't have to buy their bikes, they're team issue. But boy, are they marketed to the Sunday riding dentists and accountants. (Me? I built myself an aluminum framed Mavic neutral support bike replica.). And if there's anything that goes against the inherent simplicity of the bicycle, that's it.

Enough soapbox. I'm an old man who walked to school uphill both ways in the snow. And still looks with wry humor at most of the 'improvements' that show up every year.