livedarklions

TBH, I think disc vs. rims make so little difference that I don't even see it as a factor in buying a bike. I think that probably relates better to the OP's topic.

Rolla

I've requested to close the thread; it seems to have run its course. Thank you all for your participation.

Kapusta

Yes, that does relate to the OP.

For me, it depends on the type of bike.

rekmeyata

You will still have tire adhesion problems.

Wildwood 

Flapping is not what vintage brake cable/housing does.
Fake news in earlier post needs fact check.
Classics' dignity will not be impugned.
.


Long flapping chains are truly inefficient.

livedarklions

It's not flapping, it's waving!

rydabent

The bottom line here is that every one need to look at the "new" thing and decide for themselves if it is logical.

Point

Completely agree. Over the past 38 years of cycling, I’ve embraced some new tech, been indifferent to much of it, and found fault with some “improved” components and “standards”.

Jrasero

I am still not sold on electronic shifting. I have tried and and it's great just not "x" amount of $ better IMO and the hassle of charging yet another device. Cycling has massive diminishing returns, I'd rather put the money into wheels, carbon bits, or a power meter

A350driver

Agree…but I’d rather invest the money in….IPA!

beng1

I would worry about myself if I needed any new technology or what is fashionable to enjoy cycling. I enjoyed riding my Marin MTB a lot when I bought it 25 years ago, and just as much now, and there is no good reason why I should not. I love riding my road bike too, which is 50 years old, just as I enjoyed riding a similar bike back in the 1970s when I was a teenager. All most technology is for is a marketing strategy, so they have something to advertise as being "new", so they can trick someone into buying something. I had an 1899 Pierce, and aside from being fixed, gear, it did not look or function any differently that something you can buy today. The big secret is that most all enjoyment is going to come from finding new things out about yourself, not new things in a retail setting.

Rolla

Thank goodness you're on to them and their nefarious plot to advance technology. Long live the dandy horse!

toto34

New bikes are just too much. Golf and cycling suck for that

Camilo

Nothing to worry about. New stuff can be enjoyable. So is old stuff. I like my AXS ETap as much as my downtube shifting and vice versa. I'll give it more thought, but being worried about myself for enjoying new technology has never occorred to me.

Nah, no trickery involved. Just speaking for myself, as I'm sure you were, I know exactly what I'm buying, exactly what it cost and can make a rational guess at how much I will enjoy it. This is across the board. Maybe some of us are smart enough to discern the information/educational value of marketing and weed out the BS and what new stuff is actually new and valuable vs. just bells and whistles. If you believe all new technology is mostly marketing which is in turn, trickery Maybe your suspicion is based on your own experience being tricked? If so, learn to be more discerning.

How old is the computer you're using? Your TV? Your car? and the big one: your phone? Are all those things progressing just because of marketing? Have you been tricked into buying them? Are you worried that you enjoy them more than the TVs, computers, phones and cars you had 25 years ago? If you don't enjoy, at least, the computers, phones and cars of today vs. 25 years ago, I don't know what to say.

PeteHski

That's just your perception, not reality. Technology and engineering generally improves products over time. It's fine to have a personal preference for older technology (people still enjoy steam engines) but that doesn't mean everything new is some kind of trick or conspiracy. I've been riding bikes since the mid 70s as a kid and to me they just keep getting better with every new generation. It's a slow and gradual process, a bit like evolution in the natural world.

livedarklions

It might not sound like it, but I'm agreeing with you on this post. I think there's a false dichotomy being drawn between marketing and technological innovation. Bicycles are, in essence, a mature technology where innovations are going to be incremental and evolutionary rather than radical. Marketing needs can drive the technological development, but that doesn't make it any kind of con. It's a matter of figuring out how to better meet the desires of some of the consumers who have or might buy bikes. Like all commercial endeavors, some of this will fail and some will be successful. The standard for determining which is which isn't how you or I feel about the particular innovation. That's what I like about this thread, people saying how they feel about particular innovations without being allowed to tell others that they're wrong to feel differently.

livedarklions

The big difference is that computers, smart phones, smart TVs, etc. were so revolutionary that a big part of the marketing was explaining what the technology actually was.

Bike development in the last 25 years has been much more incremental than those. It's a finer distinction between the usefulness and uselessness of any particular cycle innovation than the fundamentally different nature of a 25 year old electronic device. Riding my 1995 bike is not as different from riding a 2021 bike of the same caliber as using a Windows 95 computer would be from today's computers. A new bike isn't going to be 20x faster than a 25 year old bike. The comparison really isn't fair.

That said, I agree with you that if you believe these innovations are real and useful, you're not being conned, you're making an informed personal value judgment that I might or might not agree with.

livedarklions

If you had bought the Pierce in 1899, you would've probably paid about $2000-3000 in today's dollars (about $75-100 in 1899). Seems pretty high for a simple fixed gear, huh? Innovation also drops prices.

Jeff Neese

Don't kid yourself. In the consumer space, technology and engineering serves at the direction of marketing, with the purpose of increasing sales and profits. If that involves developing a truly better product, that's what they'll do. But it's often the opposite - figure out ways to make something cheaper and lower the price, or add more marketable features without any real benefit, and just keep pushing product. You couldn't have a full-suspension mountain bike with disk brakes that sells for $149 at Walmart, without some serious technology and engineering effort. Many (most) products are engineered to hit a price point rather than a quality level. That's true for just about everything these days.

Milton Keynes

I certainly appreciate today's battery and LED technology compared to bicycle lighting technology back in the 1980's.

mschwett 

of course things have to sell well to be successful products, so they’re engineered/designed to meet a price point. that doesn’t mean you don’t get more for your dollar, or the same for less dollars, as technology and productivity improve. it’s pretty hard to argue that a $500 phone, TV, camera, etc isn’t massively superior to the same inflation-adjusted price point a decade or two ago. it isn’t even only true of things that take advantage of moore’s law - today’s cars (aesthetics and packaging choices aside!) are incredibly fast and comfortable compared to sports or luxury cars from a few decades ago, with better fuel economy, way less emissions, at much lower relative price points. the relatively affordable bike i got my 10 year old daughter recently blows away the bikes i had as a kid - lighter, more gears, better ergonomics, smoother shifting and more powerful braking, etc.

i’m not denying that market targets drive engineering and design, but that doesn’t mean things aren’t getting better all the time.

tomato coupe

No, but it is "y" amount of $ better, which exceeds the threshold of "z" for a lot of cyclists.

livedarklions

Life's too short to sort out all the false dichotomies you've got going on in that post. Suffice it to say that all things being equal, producing the same item cheaper and lowering the price is both serving the marketing and making the better roduct available to a greater number of people.

"Price point" and "quality level" are separate variables, but I don't know of any way not to consider both in creating a viable product. There's better versions (quality) of your hypothetical Walmart bike, they cost more money (price). Where are you going with that?

Rolla

Ugh. I get weary of the "it's all marketing" gripe that gets raised here whenever innovations are discussed. I've heard it used against everything from disc brakes to 1x drivetrains to tubeless tires. I suspect that those who repeat this sentiment the loudest have the least actual hands-on experience with the products in question.

Yes, manufacturers market their products; welcome to capitalism. But using "it's all marketing" as an excuse for an out-of-hand dismissal is frankly just laziness disguised as savvy discernment. Ride a couple hundred singletrack miles with tubeless tires and a dropper post and see if you still think it's just "marketing."

PeteHski

I'm not kidding myself. I'm a professional engineer. I can tell what tech is worth buying and what isn't. I've owned dozens of bikes and experienced their evolution first hand over the past 4 decades. I'm not in the market for Walmart bikes either and wasn't talking about that kind of cheap crap. I was thinking more about the evolution of high-end road and mtbs. The marketing side doesn't interest me at all (they talk a lot of BS) but the engineering is far more sophisticated than it was even a couple of decades ago.