That path of deception by function got us to the cartridge bottom bracket
and cartridge bearing headsets ("OEM factories and LBSs don't prep frames
for headsets and BBs"). "Oh, these work so much better than the old ones"
when pointing this out was easier than addressing the complex issue of
standardized bicycle mechanic certification, repair shop functions and the
number of "warranty" replacement parts being subsidized due to incomplete
preparation, installation and adjustment at factories and shops all over.
Disc brakes don't obligate wheels to be round, true or dished properly, the
braking surface is nearly inert and hard to screw up. The frame fixtures
for calipers remove most adjustments (hard to screw up so much as to be a
liability). Troubling to hear local riders talk about how often they use up
pads. Many riders are carrying a set on long trail rides if they expect
mud. That defines both their ability to discern pad wear, potential disc
damage and trailside ability to drop in some new ones.
I spent my licensed youth buying, fixing, driving and laddering up old cars
that were interesting. Not cars resistant to the abuses of mass market
consumers' use. I loved that they did more with less, had simplicity on
their side and performed under my foot and hand as long as I used my
discrimination and didn't over do it.
I really enjoyed working my way up to my first "store bought" vehicle and
found that the new cars became soulless in their correction of things I
didn't find to be faults, but consumers buying cars as appliances did.
Bicycles follow this course in a slower manner. A Porsche 911 Turbo 4S can
go 200 MPH, 0-60 in 2.5 seconds and corner at 1.09 g, but you can't get a
manual transmission or have any fun using it in real world where I live.
I ensure I am supplied with bikes that are fun to my uses, big parts makers
and bike companies aside. They'll get it occasionally, like with bigger
tires, but I don't wait for them and their component makers to show me that
path.
Andy Cheatham
Pittsburgh
On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 11:22:38 AM UTC-4, Mark in Beacon wrote:
>
> "Money trail" and "investment world" sure make this sound
> big-time--conspiratorial, even! But then again, all bicycles and bicycle
> parts cost money. It's not quite as simple as, "Hey, let's come up with
> something completely different so we can make more money." The way our
> economy is set up, combined with the enormous inputs of energy, basically
> requires us to make more and more stuff to sell and buy. Everything is
> continually expected to rise, and as long as there is 1. the flow of cheap
> to produce energy, 2. a debt load that is in proportion to what can
> reasonably be expected to be produced and earned in the future, and 3. a
> working force that can afford the products being churned out, everything is
> hunky dory. Which basically describes the 1950s and 60s in the U.S.
> Unfortunately for us, none of these conditions applies any longer. (The
> price of oil may be cheap right now, but not the price to retrieve it from
> the earth, which is what matters. The price is low because the workers are
> being squeezed, which sends the economy down, and the need for oil drops,
> etc. Until one day, the "recovery" part of the cycle just doesn't happen.)
>
> Again, the interesting angle to me in Grant's piece is not this brake is
> better than that brake, but the increasing complexity of bicycles, and the
> issue of diminishing marginal returns. Which is also related to energy
> inputs. The more energy a society has at its disposal, the more complex it
> will become. You can go from there to Tainter's The Collapse of Complex
> Societies. In other words, disc brakes = Apocalypse. Please brake
> responsibly.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 6:59:05 AM UTC-4, Garth wrote:
>>
>> Benz has got it ...... always follow the money trial . Hey, people that
>> know a whole lot more about the investment world than I or anyone here does
>> know the money trail does not lie. They know the product is but a means
>> to the end, profit, or else they would not waste a moment on it. So the
>> merits of the product are quite secondary or even irrelavant , so all this
>> arguing over it is futile as as long as thè product is profitable it is
>> going to be sold,.
>>
>> Who has has noticed, the only purpose of a debate is the debate itself,
>> there are no winners or losers. Debates never end as the subject just
>> shifts to another one. Well, they end when you catch on that is ....... and
>> you laugh wih Eternity the Eternal laughter of Joy .
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
