smd4

Do you have a Jennifer Lawrence fixation? Because your arguments seem to have been reduced to this gif. This is the third time you’ve used it.

Not that I’m blaming you if you do. I may have one myself.

Yan 

Yeah Mr. GIF-man says LMAO

genejockey 

I use it when someone says something transparently ridiculous. Since I had downloaded the GIF when you said something transparently ridiculous, it was sitting at the top of my Downloads folder. Serendipitous, you might say.

Yan 

Ridiculous why? Because it showed that you were wrong and you didn't enjoy that? Ok.

​​​​​​

Maelochs

I would say the notion was wrong then and is most obviously wrong now. Given that CF tech was pretty far advanced by the '80s, I cannot see how one could have come to such a conclusion

McLaren's 1981 F1 car had a complete CF monocoque. I am pretty sure it didn't weigh as much as a steel frame of similar strength would weigh ... in fact, if it had not been lighter and stronger than an aluminum honeycomb monocoque, then it would have been an aluminum monocoque like prior models had been.

One must keep in mind that that was a complete CF chassis .... the company (and others) must have been experimenting and testing for quite a while before using CF for the entire chassis.

In fact, CF seems to have really started as a practical manufacturing material between 1956 and 1964 (according to the internet, which is always right when it agrees with me. (https://www.nasampe.org/page/CarbonFiber)) Another site says "The door to uses of composite material for commercial aircraft was opened by adoption of GFRP to a radar dome in 1940. In 1975, NASA developed for a research purpose elevators (horizontal rudders) of B727 and B737, and vertical stabilizers of DC10 made of composite material. This switching over from a metal to FRP contributed to about 30% weight reduction." (https://www.carbonfiber.gr.jp/english/field/craft.html)

As far as CF not being as strong as steel .... or a CF frame needing to weigh as much as a steel frame to bear the loads ... I have to think your professor was not a great designer or engineer, or just not up to speed ... I do not mean to cast aspersions, but just think about what we actually know about the strength of CF compared to steel by weight.

This makes more sense.

Well, it makes more sense to me ... which isn't really saying anything.

That initial assertion really caught my eye, though. A modern "If man were meant to fly .... ."

genejockey 

The answer to all your questions lies here.

3alarmer 

.
...if the engineering and development of the modern bicycle makes it so expensive, has anyone stopped to wonder whether all that money now supposedly being spent on innovation and engineering, in the new super bicycles being made and sold, is an appropriate pursuit ? Is it risky for me to point out that these are not formula one cars, no matter how much they might fulfill the same fantasy requirements?

Are the quantitative gains in the cycling industry worth the collective costs being imposed by that same industry ? When does the pursuit of ever smaller gains in speed and efficiency reach the point of diminishing returns ?

If speed of transport on two wheels is your ultimate goal, e-bikes do it cheaper and quicker.

Maelochs

Because mobile phones went from being a luxury item used by only the very wealthy to being a ubiquitous daily life accessory, and an access point for many other cash sources. In many poor countries, people who have nothing more advanced than wooden implements have cell phones, because the cell phones support the banking industry. Nobody needs a cash economy if you have cell phones and banking apps, and the banks, which had no place in those nations' economies for most of the populations, are now raking in the bucks. People who mostly barter and deal only in small sums of cash don't use banks, but as more people got phones 9to be connected to each other) they also transformed the economy from barter and cash to credit transactions---stores do sales via pay-by-phone, workers are paid via direct-deposit pay-by -phone, bills are paid by phone ... suddenly the banking industry had its finders in Everybody's lives, not just the wealthy and upper middle class. Complete transformation driven by cheap cellphones.

Bikes (at least in most of the "Western World" or "First World" ... have goner exactly the other way. Bikes are rarely used for transport, and those which are are usually the cheapest bikes and are used by the poorest people. Bikes have gone form transport/toys to "serious sports equipment" and for the upper end of the price range, right into "luxury hobby" status, like power boats and golf clubs---you can buy the utilitarian bass boat or driver, but the good stuff is very expensive.

Seems pretty simple ... not sure why people cannot fathom this. Luxury goods are priced on social cachet, utilitarian goods are priced more for volume sales.

smd4

You and several others’ arguments basically boils down to: “We can’t compare anything today with anything from the past because everything is different, and adjusted for inflation bikes today cost the same as they did in 1990.”

Talk about transparently ridiculous.

I paraphrase, of course. Something seemingly not allowed here, but acceptable on other forums.

Can you insert the Jennifer Lawrence gif here for me? I’ve gotta grab dinner. Thanks.

Yan 

Re-linking to your own post doesn't do anything. You're just proliferating the wrong.

I wasn't the one who first started arguing about cellphones in this thread. YOU were. See I can link your posts too.

Link to your post on page 1 arguing about phones

If your argument is that technological advances naturally should result in ever higher prices, then you massively punched yourself in the face the moment you started arguing about phones.

End of story. Next time don't punch yourself in the face.

genejockey 

In theory, The Market should take care of that - if the price of innovation becomes too great, companies will either cut back on it or go out of business, or both, and companies not burdened by those excessive costs will undercut the market and flourish.

E-bikes? E-BIKES?!? E-BIKES?!?!?!?

BURN, HERETIC!!!!

Maelochs

Wow, you are a business genius.

here is a competing theory---bike manufacturers are in the business of ... Making MONEY. Bikes are just the means to that end.

if more R&D can translate into higher prices and people are paying those higher prices, then to a business which wants to make money, the R&D is perfectly justified.

Pretty much no one buys a bike just for self-powered transport. I meana, this is a bicycle website, and most people here are not car-free, and not that many are full-time or even seasonal commuters. The idea that bicycling and the bike industry is about "transport on two wheels" is a plainly incorrect and unrealistic notion.

genejockey 

Again with the straw man.

Yan 

I get that you don't enjoy losing an argument but let's stop with this BS trying to save face crap. It's not a strawman. It's literally what you've been arguing in favor of this entire thread.

smd4

Is this how you talk with the guys after a ride while you discuss bikes while imbibing in an adult beverage?

Yan 

Yes this exactly. The correct answer to the question in the thread title.

genejockey 

The problem with your paraphrase is that it's not correct, and thus not a paraphrase. See also "straw man argument".

Koyote made the basic point in post #8 on this thread - technological improvements over time complicates direct price comparisons - they're not the same product.

smd4

I’m not going to re-quote @Maelochs, but yes, that was well-written.

genejockey 

None of the folks I ride with are prone to making fallacious arguments.

genejockey 

And now projection.

smd4

I think it summarizes the thread well.

If I compare top of the line 1989 carbon with Dura Ace with top of the line 2024 carbon with Dura Ace, that somehow is an invalid comparison. And on it goes. Every proposed comparison is met with arguments about why it’s invalid.

And many folks insist that today’s bikes aren’t any more expensive than bikes from previous eras.

No, I think my summarization is quite accurate indeed.

smd4

Did you just learn that term this election cycle?

Eric F 

Based on the examples provided in this thread, it seems that bikes are both more expensive, and not more expensive.

genejockey 

I'm sure you do.

You seen to be a very binary thinker. Yes/no, black/white, valid/invalid. Instead, realize how the comparison is complicated by not only technological improvement, but even more by the fact that you're looking at the extreme end of the bell curve of bikes - a small segment of the market, not the market as a whole. You seem to want to make that comparison a stand-in for the entire market, which is questionable at best.

genejockey 

I've known the term for a long, long time.