UniChris

Indeed, reality can be a painful thing to accept.

If you can afford not to and have some level of background awareness that it's what you are doing, no harm in that.

PeteHski

+1
Why would anyone who was remotely into cycling as a hobby/sport and have a reasonable disposable income want to limit themselves to the bare minimum of what was "sufficient". IME that's not generally how things work with hobbies. If you are into something you tend to gravitate toward the best you can afford and if you can't afford the best you convince yourself that it isn't worth having!

UniChris

​​​​​​As I just said, there's nothing wrong with activating your reward centers with an enjoyable but unecessary, in-budget upgrade for an activity habitually engaged in.

Metieval

Unnecessary purchase ? Schwinn ssx blackout kick back cruiser from 2007

Necessary purchase ? carbon 650b wheel set, even though i have a perfectly working 700c wheelset.

I am so glad, I still get to determine what is or isn't necessary in my life.

I also have a certain amount of earned money to spend. I am glad I have the freedom/ liberty to spend it as I wish.

Some ideologies that push spending behavior on others is odd , and absolutely unnecessary.

UniChris

If you think I said that was "wrong", you're imagining things.

Metieval

I think that your statement is clear. With the use of 'unnecessary' as a definitive qualifier.

My opinion is what one person determines to be "unnecessary", has nothing to do with what other people chose to do.

We don't need more thought control, we need less.

UniChris

Necessity and choice are largely independent.

Even where a solution or replacement is necessary, which one is a choice typically made with little honest reference to necessity - but rather just to desire and (we could hope) budget.

Probably the worst purchase I ever made was replacing a dying car with brand new version of the same thing. I had the money to buy it outright, decided I deserved nice things, and hey, commuting was fun for a week (though the cockpit was less comfortable, the accelerator spring painfully weak, and the windshield slightly distorting). What I hadn't really thought through was what a worry parking it in an urban area would be. Or how I'd more than pay for it a second time in insurance premiums on a value that hadn't previously been worth insuring. Paying that wasn't an issue, but every month it was a reminder that if I'd actually known what it was going to cost in money and concern, I'd have searched a little harder for another used vehicle with four remaining years of service life.

Maybe all your purchases have brought you the joy you priced them at. If so, lucky unusual you.

PeteHski

Pretty much everything beyond food, water and shelter is "unnecessary". I'm pretty sure you used the term "activating your reward centres" to make it sound slightly derogatory.

UniChris

I'm pretty sure I used it to distinguish the pleasure of anticipation, aquistion, and ownership from the marginal functional utility of one choice vs another.

And as I've been saying all along, there's nothing wrong with putting available funds into an activity that has a large role in your life. At least not as long as at some private never-admitted angrily argue with anyone who would dare to suggest such a thing level in the back of your mind you're being halfway honest with yourself about what you're doing.

PeteHski

I'm struggling to comprehend this sentence^
Looks like it went wrong somewhere in the middle!

MattTheHat 

Wut? I don’t recall EVER making a bicycling purchase with the expectation it would bring me joy. I’ve expected the purchase to accomplish something better than another less expensive option. But purchasing to bring joy?

Sounds like you’re hurt that other people decide to spend more money than you do.

Metieval

Begs the question...if someone is making payments, could they afford it? if I can't pay cash, I can't afford it. Banks pay me, I don't pay them.
Pretty sure a number of your complaints could have been found in a car reviews pre-purchase. Some of them reviewers are very thorough!
Your example has nothing to do with innovation though. Sounds more like cutting corners to hit a price point.

As for bicycles I did make a **** purchase. I bought a trek crossrip. I hated everything about it. Years later I bought a Niner RLT9 Rdo and I love everything about it. Live and learn.

Innovation being ..

Thru axle
Carbon
Design
Tire clearance
Stiffer
Yet still being super compliant.
Way more efficient.
Lighter by 6 lbs
Carries loads better for bikpacking than the trek.

A bike is a tool.

Good tools are the essentials of a successful business.
I apply the same mentality to tools in my hobbies. Yet a bicycle can be so much more than a hobby. It can also be fitness, it can also be transportation. Unfortunately distances are fixed, thus 2 variables are mass and energy needed to move said mass.

A bike offering more Efficiency, less weight, ultra compliance, are all necessities of eating less food to go the same set distances.

This applies to me, and is very correct.

Metieval

Do you know how many "innovative" bicycles that financial loss could have bought you?

At least 1.......

badger1

As ever, the amount of cod psychology combined with a pompous attitude here on teh Biek Forms never ceases to amaze.

Metieval

Guys are buying $20-30k sxs, then dropping $20k in mods.
Then $100k for toy haulers.
Then $80k for a truck to pull it all.


I'll never regret dropping 5k on innovation on a bicycle. nor 28k on a Ford transit to live in. Camp in, and haul 3 bicycles.
Then again I'm a little selfish, everything I do is just to make my life better. No regrets.

My bicycle with innovative stuff . Is like using smart phone vs flip phone.

I willing to compromise in some areas,other areas not so much. Point is I like freedom of choice.

indyfabz

“Arguing with a fool proves there are two.”—D. Smith

livedarklions

You're arguing with people who think it's not ok to tell prospective and new cyclists that sales people and marketing may present items to you as necessities when they aren't. They will now put a bunch of words in your mouth accusing you of disparaging people and products.

News flash guys: salespeople earn their living by selling stuff. If you don't keep that in mind when you shop for an item you're not familiar with, you might not make decisions that are right for you.

And if someone new to road cycling asks me if they really need Di2 or whatever the hell it's called, I'm not deciding anything for the if I say "no."

We've had this argument before, about kit-- people who sell stuff will tend to try to steer people to higher end stuff by labeling it as needed because the high end stuff is higher margin. The problem is that this scares some people from starting cycling because they think the cost of entry is too high. I am not discouraging anything when I reassure people that starting with a basic bike and simple or no kit is not going to result in some kind of disaster. Those people weren't going to make the high end purchases anyway. They might put their toe in with relatively cheap stuff, then figure out they either do or don't want the "good stuff". But by then, they're likely going to feel they can make the informed decision.

livedarklions

Sounds like you're projecting a whole lot of things he didn't say into a couple of words.

This thread has been full of people saying they enjoy riding high end bikes. That means the bikes bring them pleasure. You guys seem to think acknowledging that might be your motivation for making the purchase implies some sort of moral judgment on you. It doesn't.

Take this out of the context of bikes--have you never regretted a purchase of an item you thought you would enjoy using? If you haven't, lucky you. You may be unique in that regard.

I'm all about us sharing our experiences using or not using stuff because I think that's a good source of consumer info that doesn't have a sales agenda. "It's worth it to me, and here's why" is good information. "I don't use it, and I can do this riding without it" is also good information . Neither of them involves a value judgment on the other.

GhostRider62

Was my upgrade to e-Tap necessary? I think so. Did it make riding more enjoyable? Absolutely. Was the cost burdensome? No, it was trivial.

I was losing the ability to shift using brifters due to a nerve issue, so I mounted TT bar ends and that worked for a while. Once I upgrades to e-Tap, it was like.....heaven, I could shift and shift without unnecessary pain. Would I have upgraded had I not had my problem? Probably not but then again, I would have denied myself an easier shifting and virtually maintenance free derailleur system.

When I could ride upright bikes, were Assos T-Centos bibs worth it? Absolutely, worth 10x their weight in gold.

63rickert

Yes, that is a rod actuated (suicide) Simplex derailleur on front of Robic’s bike. It is not there because it is old, it is there because it is reliable.

On subject of reliability. Robic’s chain is hanging loose most likely because his derailleur is not working well. Both riders are on narrow range gears not because derailleurs were incapable of wide range, it was because the riders and their mechanics thought the derailleurs would be less stressed and more reliable if used as narrow range. Also note both riders have spare tires worn over their shoulders. Team car? The team cars were not reliable either. Driving 1947 cars in the mountains was quite adventurous. Also note the cylinder clipped behind Coppi’s seat tube. That is a gonfleur. Filled with pressurized nitrogen. Predecessor to today’s CO2 cartridges.

Also on reliability. Racing Bianchis of that era were built plain heavy, so as not to break. Tube thickness of 1.5mm would be normal. Coppi could have had a special, I will assume there is a Bianchi specialist within spitting distance who knows for sure and will not make a claim for that particular bike, other racing Bianchis would be 3 kilos or better. For the few who wanted light frames 1500 grams was easy, 1300 grams was possible. Note that Pogacar’s Colnago is advertised as 790 grams. Advertised.

Sidepull brakes in 1947 were plain bad. Descents were done with caution. Even after brakes got better descent speeds remained moderate most of the time, races are not won or lost on descents and the pros want to live until the next payday. Some guys will always go fast just because it is fun and because they can. Bernard Hinault in that second photo was one of the best descenders ever, his descents with Lemond remain epic and just very fast. Peak speeds of 110kph. Done with Modolo brakes, which were better than 1947 but still not much. 1953 Mafacs were way better. Bernard and Greg just knew how to ride bike. Lots of this comes down to can you ride a bike. It is possible to engineer for klutzes. The limit on that comes due. If you want brakes that require no hand strength, no arm strength, no shoulder strength, you could end up going pretty darn fast with the worlds safest brakes and not have the muscle to complete next turn. Designing race bikes for customers with big wallets and no race skills and no race muscle can be done, it is not the best idea. In 1947 or 1980 it was assumed race bikes were for racers.

Trakhak

With all respect to 63rickert, I remember a story published in a bike magazine in the late '70s or early '80s that mentioned pro racing cyclists on French bikes on scary descents (maybe in the rain?) calling out "Mafac!" to riders on Campagnolo brake-equipped bikes. The idea was that the rider with Campy brakes would then allow the guy on the French bike to grab his saddle, so that the Campy brakes would for slow both riders. (It's possible that I'm misremembering and that the Mafac guy would help the Campy guy to stop.)

Campy brakes, of course, came in for their share of detractors, to the point that the official line, from Campy USA, anyway, was that Campy brakes were engineered strictly for racers and were thus meant to be used as "speed modulators," the (dubious) argument being that more-sensitive brakes would enable unsafely abrupt stops. (Translation: they miscalculated and came up with the wrong degree of mechanical advantage when they designed the brake.)

I remember seeing a teammate show up at a race in around 1966 with his brand new Atala equipped with the first set of Campy brakes any of us had ever seen. Thrilling to behold, although we were all mystified at their being side-pulls---what the???!?

However, I don't miss my Campy Record brakes at all. I'll take brakes that can be used with finesse over those that require brute strength every time.

livedarklions

Right, and acknowledging that all of those valuations are subjective is in no way implying that they're wrong. All of those things were obtained to enhance your pleasure in riding and/or minimize discomfort and the great news is that they were available to you at a price you decided was reasonable.

Where these discussions always go sideways is when people decide they either need to defend their preferences or convince other people to change theirs. Since our valuations are subjective, there's little we can do to prove ours right and theirs wrong. I don't need or want e-Tap, and I fully admit that one of the reasons I don't want it is a completely irrational esthetic choice (we had an entire thread about it a while back). I don't like the thought of any moving part not powered by me being in the drive train. In that thread a bunch of people kept saying "but that's irrational." To which my response is "and?" I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like. I also got a lot of "if you're such a luddite, what about cell phones and lights on the bike"? Never said I was a luddite or that it was any part of any coherent philosophy, and cell phones and lights are neither moving parts or in the drive train..

We did get into a bit of a fun conversation about whether the original luddites would break bikes, if I recall correctly.

But I digress from this utterly pointless thread.

I'm glad you're enjoying the e-Tap. Keep 'em flying!

63rickert

Mafac brakes are mocked in US. The problem was never with the hardware. The problem was the minimum wage high school kids at the LBS who refused to learn how the brakes worked. Peugeot and Mafac were made for a world in which the LBS was owned by an adult who cared about his customers and made sure the safety systems worked. That was not US in 70s.

Exact copies of Mafac calipers are still in production. There is a reason for that.

GhostRider62

You sayin there are close minded people on the internet, people who think they know it all, and then get angry when another voices another viewpoint? Shocking.

About 35 or so years ago, I was riding an old bike that had problems. My fellow club member during a ride asks me, "What percentage of your paycheck do you save" and the cheapskate in me answered. He told me he was a CPA and Financial Advisor and asked if he could give a friend some advice, I said sure. He said go buy THAT carbon bike topped with C Record. He was right. Was it necessary? No. I could have bought a crappy steel bike with Shimano 600EX and clincher tires. for 1/5 the price. I think the challenge for those speaking from an Economist type viewpoint, others can't think rationally or unemotionally when it comes to money. Case in point.....

I was playing golf with a very wealthy fellow who took such joy in finding golf balls. I said, "Pete, you're worth like $500mm, what are you doing looking for free golf balls" and he says, "More like a billion" but let me ask you, "If you saw a 5 dollar bill on the ground, would you pick it up" and of course, I said yes. He said, I know it sounds silly but it gives me pleasure. N + 1 philosophy in bikes is probably similar, it somehow gives pleasure and that pleasure isn't easily understood by the unafflicted. I still don't get the pleasure of a billionaire finding free golf balls but I accept he gets off on it. Some people have to have the latest and greatest. For me the greatest advancement in bikes are clipless pedals, indexed shifting, electronic shifting, and excellent lighting choices. Everything else is trivial in comparison

livedarklions

Hilarious! A pretentious disclaimer and a challenge--"not intended for actually stopping the vehicle should the rider lack the skills to keep going".