Groupo Differences

Antti Salonen wrote:
..

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure if "plastic" here means carbon fibre or some other
real-life frame material. I have two road bikes with steel frames and
forks, one with a full carbon fibre frame and fork and I used to have an
aluminium-framed road bike too. I don't notice any real difference in
power transfer and comfort between any of these. The carbon fibre bike
by far the lightest at less than 16 lbs and you can feel the weight
difference when climbing out of the saddle, but that's about it.

My comment was to include all 'composite' materials some of which are
advertised as being 'carbon'. There is a VAST difference in carbon fiber
quality and the resulting quality of the frames / parts. I've personally
seen a wide array of bike quality within the 'carbon' label. One bike I
played with was so flexible, I thought it had muffin mounts (or sort of)
at frame junctures. I could flex it many inches manually. I can't
imagine what a bike like that would feel like in a hard turn.

I have a friend who mfg'd aerospace parts for the US gov't from carbon
fiber. The stuff he used had little relationship to what we see in
bikes. If one were to make a frame from the stuff he used, it'd cost 2-3
million $$ minimum.

-paul

Jasper Janssen said:

To get back to the bike world, a $5k bike will certainly be nicer than a
$1k bike. But 5 times as nice? Probably not. On the gripping hand, it all
depends on how much money you care to spend on something that is still a
hobby. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that people riding 1970s
10 speeds are inherently not as good at biking as you are.

This friend of mine who is my advisor in bike things is one of those
older bike guys. He and his cronies' idea of a pinnicle bike to own is a
Paramount with top components from the 70's. All of them, and I mean all
of them, will run circles around me if I"m fresh and they're done with
century ride. I labor under no such illustions that my high zoot bike
makes me faster than these vets.

My buddy's idea of a pleasent day is 100 miles with 30 on dirt riding a
knobby tired mtn bike. That's on hills one of which I doubt I can ride
up and then have anything left for the rest of the ride.

Yet that said, I share no nostalgia for these older bikes or in many
older things in general. I really enjoy the new tech of my bike with its
very light wheels, frame and groupo. He clearly thinks it a fragile
quickly worn out demonstration in how to make a decent bike purposeless
because no way will it make it to the year 2020 unless put into a
nitrogen sealed capsule. So I own no Paramount collector's item of the
future.

It was his disdain for all new, light and thus not long lasting that
caused me to question him here. I often see his disdain for these new
bikes when we're together and he sees one. As an expert engineer /
machinest, he does have excellent points. Heck, he's right. I don't
doubt that the new bikes which meld plastic and aluminum will fail at
the joints first.

For him, that's a reason not to buy it. No way will it go 20,000 miles.
My argument back is that some of us don't find that to be a particularly
meritorious claim. We'll replace our bikes at some mileage short of that.

I got into this on another thread here about wheels. The tradionalists
here seem to think any short lived (8k km) wheel a bad wheel. Some
folks, me being one, will replace wheels every two years to get the 'gee
whiz' of riding these newer designs. Extreme endurance doesn't have much
value to me and apparently many others.

After all, how many high end bikes go out with traditional wheels such
as one would find on a Paramount?

Ron Ruff said:

Paul Cassel said:

I can say that the LBS's I visited
class <$2k bikes as "OK" but clearly not nearly the performance or
quality of the >$2k bikes. One store even graded the bikes into
categories with the >$5k bikes as being clearly where you'd wish to be
if only you had the moxie to reach high.

Well, you are clearly not buying speed with all that money. A newby on
the racing group was asking for advice awhile back and I suggested that
he look at the $500+ range... maybe Sora with Tiagra shifters... that
spending more would get him "mostly esoteric" improvements. Many people
took issue with that...

My recent personal experience is with a $300 MTB with slicks and a
$3,000 (when new, $1300 like new) Ti road bike with Dura Ace. My speed
difference on various TTs that I do regularly improved by 2% max. I
don't think that is a lot.

Quoted message said:

To me, the $1k bike felt like junk. The frame felt dead. It shifted
roughly, didn't turn well, felt harsh over rougher surfaces and overall
I didn't enjoy the short ride I had on it.

If it didn't fit you well, that could have made much of the difference.
Rough shifting is likely the bike shop's problem, and not turning well
is probably fit (geometries do not vary much among road-racing style
bikes). Also, tires have a *lot* to do with "feel". A cheaper bike will
tend to have a stiffer frame as well. Though this isn't bad at all,
some people prefer a bouncy feeling when they stand up.

Quoted message said:

Well, thanks to the group here for setting me straight. I'm still happy
about my bike even if I spent money foolishly.

I think you did great. I'm not at all sorry about my purchase... just
because the improvements are "mostly esoteric" doesn't mean I don't
notice them.

There is the pride in ownership too. For me, this is 100% hobby and
hobbies are to be enjoyed or why are we doing them?

Good point about the tires, but I did look at them and personally
inflated them to 120 psi. Something was really wrong there or maybe I
just got used to my bike that all others feel wrong. The bike fit me
very well. My friend is almost exactly my size so it was setup very
close to where I would.

The LBS was REI which is a place I trust quite a bit. Although it's easy
to blame the shop for a lousy setup, I"d sooner blame my pysche than
claim any problem with the LBS.

As a note, my friend just loves her bike. She bought it on a Saturday
then wouldn't get off of it that weekend. The next week, she pushed me
to installing a bike tight in her truck so she can truck the bike to
work allowing her to ride EVERY DAY after work which she's doing.

It's incredibly pleasent to see someone so taken with a new hobby and a
new hobby which will benefit her in the end.

Paul Cassel said:

I have a friend who I rely on for bike advice, however he recently said
something which caused my skepticism meter to max out. He said that once
you get to a certain very basic level in groupos, the only benefit to
gettting a better grade is that they last longer.

I think it varies from different manufacturers.

Campy definitely skimped on Gransport components compared to Super
Record components. The axles, bearing cups, and cones, were probably
all of inferior quality in the 1970's and 1980's for these components :

http://www.campyonly.com/history/1974/super_record.pdf page 12
http://www.campyonly.com/history/1974/gran_sport.pdf page 61

However, many experimental Super Record components ended in failure.
Super record pedals and Super record BB spindles were known to snap.
Same is probably true of titanium hub axles. So SR stuff probably had
a shorter life - more from pushing the envelope than from anything
intentional on campy's part.

I think the same is true today with campy carbon components. Even if
they last longer, they will probaby look ratty sooner with no possible
way to restore them to pristine condition (unlike unanodized aluminum
which can be polished ..) If a carbon component touches a drivetrain
component such as the chain or gear teeth, rapid death will ensue ..

I can't speak from experience on Shimano. Their designs are all
secret. There is no small parts catalogue (that I am aware of) to
tell you that Shimano Dura Ace cranks use the same bearing cups as
Shimano 105 cranks. It may well be that Shimano 105 stuff is made
from pot metal ...

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Donald Gillies said:

I think it varies from different manufacturers.

Campy definitely skimped on Gransport components compared to Super
Record components. The axles, bearing cups, and cones, were probably
all of inferior quality in the 1970's and 1980's for these components :

http://www.campyonly.com/history/1974/super_record.pdf page 12
http://www.campyonly.com/history/1974/gran_sport.pdf page 61

However, many experimental Super Record components ended in failure.
Super record pedals and Super record BB spindles were known to snap.
Same is probably true of titanium hub axles. So SR stuff probably had
a shorter life - more from pushing the envelope than from anything
intentional on campy's part.

I think the same is true today with campy carbon components. Even if
they last longer, they will probaby look ratty sooner with no possible
way to restore them to pristine condition (unlike unanodized aluminum
which can be polished ..) If a carbon component touches a drivetrain
component such as the chain or gear teeth, rapid death will ensue ..

I can't speak from experience on Shimano. Their designs are all
secret. There is no small parts catalogue (that I am aware of) to
tell you that Shimano Dura Ace cranks use the same bearing cups as
Shimano 105 cranks. It may well be that Shimano 105 stuff is made
from pot metal ...

I still have much to learn. I'm surprised to read a gruppo (I think I've
gotten the spelling down now) can be 'secret'. It seems all out there.

I agree that the new carbon plastic bikes and components can't look as
good as long unless they are used very carefully. However that takes us
back to if you think everlasting bikes are a good or a bad thing. That
seems not to have been settled here.

-paul

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:43:31 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Donald Gillies wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't speak from experience on Shimano. Their designs are all
secret. There is no small parts catalogue (that I am aware of) to
tell you that Shimano Dura Ace cranks use the same bearing cups as
Shimano 105 cranks. It may well be that Shimano 105 stuff is made
from pot metal ...

I still have much to learn. I'm surprised to read a gruppo (I think I've
gotten the spelling down now) can be 'secret'. It seems all out there.

If I interpret him correctly, on Campy, they issue exploded diagrams
detailing the parts numbers for all the various subcomponents, and when
those subcomponents are the same for different groups, those also get the
same part number. Whereas in Shimano, they don't really do small parts for
many things, since they're not intended to be replaceable, and where they
do they might even use different parts numbers, even when the parts are
the same parts.

Quoted message said:

I agree that the new carbon plastic bikes and components can't look as
good as long unless they are used very carefully. However that takes us
back to if you think everlasting bikes are a good or a bad thing. That
seems not to have been settled here.

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

Except that people buy such products. If you are a producer for a
living, you wish folks to buy/consume what you produce so you can
produce/sell more.

Our economy will die if things don't wear out. Yes, you and I can
construct a synthetic economy not so based, but that's not the economy
we live in or is it one we can implement.

"Jasper Janssen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<edited good stuff...>

Quoted message said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

The evil is *people keep buying the stuff.*

Don't feed the beast and it dies.

C.J.Patten said:

"Jasper Janssen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<edited good stuff...>

Quoted message said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

The evil is *people keep buying the stuff.*

Don't feed the beast and it dies.

How do you discern durability for your application before you try it?
How do you determine durability if your sample size is one?

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

The evil is *people keep buying the stuff.*

Don't feed the beast and it dies.

How do you discern durability for your application before you try it? How
do you determine durability if your sample size is one?

There will always be early adopters - the trail blazers who beta test
technology for us.

Those early-adopters are far fewer than the majority of "us".
It's up the rest of us to do our homework, Google, mtbr.com and so on to
find out what's [censored] and what's not.

Paul Cassel said:

Except that people buy such products. If you are a producer for a
living, you wish folks to buy/consume what you produce so you can
produce/sell more.

Our economy will die if things don't wear out. Yes, you and I can
construct a synthetic economy not so based, but that's not the economy
we live in or is it one we can implement.

Our "economy" will die? I hear such things often enough, but it makes
no sense at all... unless you are thinking only of an economy based on
the ever increasing proliferation of junk consumables, proffered by
huge monopolistic corporations. If that is so, then let it die... in
fact let's kill it. An "economy" dependant on endless "growth" has as
much reason to live as cancer.

If you are a producer, and the market becomes saturated with your good
quailty long lasting product, then maybe you won't be selling as many
as before... but you will still be able to find a stable and profitable
position with lower sales (and you've certainly made a lot of money
already). Or maybe you could venture into new areas... or even retire.
That is change... not death.

On a national (or world) scale, what this means is that we all have to
work less to obtain what we need... which would be a wonderful thing,
IMO.

Ron Ruff said:

Our "economy" will die? I hear such things often enough, but it makes
no sense at all... unless you are thinking only of an economy based on
the ever increasing proliferation of junk consumables, proffered by
huge monopolistic corporations. If that is so, then let it die... in
fact let's kill it. An "economy" dependant on endless "growth" has as
much reason to live as cancer.

If you are a producer, and the market becomes saturated with your good
quailty long lasting product, then maybe you won't be selling as many
as before... but you will still be able to find a stable and profitable
position with lower sales (and you've certainly made a lot of money
already). Or maybe you could venture into new areas... or even retire.
That is change... not death.

On a national (or world) scale, what this means is that we all have to
work less to obtain what we need... which would be a wonderful thing,
IMO.

Ron,

It's not reasonable for me to run through this in email / fora, but the
truth is that the current extremely high population load our planet is
carrying depends on an unsustainable rate of consumption. This
consumption is both of raw materials (can be recycled some) and energy.

What you posit will only work for a drastically lowered population
level. Sure, one producer can make a long lasting product and it may
sell well, but then he's going to have to be satisfied with a lower
volume / income. Say he is, but that philisophy won't feed the planet at
these levels.

If we could put the planet on a diet with drastically reduced
consumables, the adjustment would take the form of a drastic reduction
in the world's human population. The result may be an Eden of sorts when
we have a high tech low pop Earth, but the transition would be hideous.

-paul

C.J.Patten said:

The evil is *people keep buying the stuff.*

Don't feed the beast and it dies.

To most of the world's people, disposable == good. Look, real people
have different values than we in the overfed US think.

We had a solar powered ice maker which the Mexican gov't wanted to put
in villages to assist them in their fish catching industry. If they
could preserve their catch, they could HAVE a fishing / fish farming
industry.

The Mexican populace said to shove the ice maker. If the gov't was going
to give them anything, they wanted a large TV dish and big screen TV's
to use it.

So the ice maker languishes.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:37:52 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

To most of the world's people, disposable == good. Look, real people
have different values than we in the overfed US think.

We had a solar powered ice maker which the Mexican gov't wanted to put
in villages to assist them in their fish catching industry. If they
could preserve their catch, they could HAVE a fishing / fish farming
industry.

The Mexican populace said to shove the ice maker. If the gov't was going
to give them anything, they wanted a large TV dish and big screen TV's
to use it.

Ah yes, 'those people' have a sense of entitlement and just want to suck
off the government teat.

I call [censored]. Racist and/or classist [censored], at that.

Jasper

Paul Cassel said:

Ron,

It's not reasonable for me to run through this in email / fora, but the
truth is that the current extremely high population load our planet is
carrying depends on an unsustainable rate of consumption.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

This
consumption is both of raw materials (can be recycled some) and energy.

Yup.

Quoted message said:

What you posit will only work for a drastically lowered population
level.

What? If we reduce our consumption (and energy use) then we will *need*
a lower population level? Are you sure you don't have a sign wrong
somewhere in that equation? Seems obvious that our impact per person
would certainly go down... making it possible for the earth to sustain
a larger population... or (hopefully) sustain less with ease.

Quoted message said:

If we could put the planet on a diet with drastically reduced
consumables, the adjustment would take the form of a drastic reduction
in the world's human population. The result may be an Eden of sorts when
we have a high tech low pop Earth, but the transition would be hideous.

Can you give me a hint as to why improving efficiency and reducing
consumption (and waste) would have this effect?

Ron Ruff said:

What? If we reduce our consumption (and energy use) then we will *need*
a lower population level? Are you sure you don't have a sign wrong
somewhere in that equation? Seems obvious that our impact per person
would certainly go down... making it possible for the earth to sustain
a larger population... or (hopefully) sustain less with ease.

We need the hyperactive extractive economy (unsustainable) to employ the
world's current population. We allocate according to production. With 6
billion wanting allocation, we need to have 6 billion doing *something*
which means they produce consumables.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If we could put the planet on a diet with drastically reduced
consumables, the adjustment would take the form of a drastic reduction
in the world's human population. The result may be an Eden of sorts when
we have a high tech low pop Earth, but the transition would be hideous.

Can you give me a hint as to why improving efficiency and reducing
consumption (and waste) would have this effect?

The main part of the 'problem' is aesthetic. While you can I probably
can see living small, riding our bicycles around and a general quietude
as a desirable way to spend our existence, the vast majority of the
world see a Hummer running full throttle as their existence goals. Then
there is the attendant lifestyle which is concurrent with that Hummer.

Consider that even on the day that the large wave hit Thailand last Dec,
the world *netted* an increase in populuation and each one of those
mouths wants to eat and each one of those seats wants a Hummer and each
one of those heads wants a 3,000 foot ranch home. Then perhaps you'll
see why I'm not optimisitic on the world going into a quiet, sustaining
model.

I also think that, given the current human psyche, at any level of
consumption, the world will reproduce itself into an unsustainable
level. Here in the US, our native population wasn't growing so we are
being over populated by immigration. It nets out to the same thing. Too
many people all of whom want too many things and want to burn too much
of our future.

BTW, while not ever mentioned, I have to think the current hurricane
plague is an early symptom of world warming.

-paul

C.J.Patten said:

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you discern durability for your application before you try it? How
do you determine durability if your sample size is one?

Quoted message said:

There will always be early adopters - the trail blazers who beta test
technology for us.

Those early-adopters are far fewer than the majority of "us".
It's up the rest of us to do our homework, Google, mtbr.com and so on to
find out what's [censored] and what's not.

Those tools are pretty weak, IMO. None of them tell you if a product is
suitable for the way /you/ use it. And most of the mtbr reviews are from
people that have used a product for < 6 months, which isn't a good test
of durability.

On the other hand, if you want to buy a pretty mainstream product that's
a few years old (i.e. Ultegra components from 2002), you might get a
good idea of their reliability from field reports. If you want something
new and less common, you're outta luck.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Jasper Janssen said:

Ah yes, 'those people' have a sense of entitlement and just want to suck
off the government teat.

I call [censored]. Racist and/or classist [censored], at that.

So quick to call racist. Why not throw in hate monger too? I am citing
what ACTUALLY occured. Try reading my post next time before pulling some
knee jerk liberal epithet.

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

C.J.Patten said:

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you discern durability for your application before you try it? How
do you determine durability if your sample size is one?

Quoted message said:

There will always be early adopters - the trail blazers who beta test
technology for us.

Those early-adopters are far fewer than the majority of "us".
It's up the rest of us to do our homework, Google, mtbr.com and so on to
find out what's [censored] and what's not.

Those tools are pretty weak, IMO. None of them tell you if a product is
suitable for the way /you/ use it. And most of the mtbr reviews are from
people that have used a product for < 6 months, which isn't a good test of
durability.

On the other hand, if you want to buy a pretty mainstream product that's a
few years old (i.e. Ultegra components from 2002), you might get a good
idea of their reliability from field reports. If you want something new
and less common, you're outta luck.

My point has been lost here.

It's up to each person to determine if a product is suitable to their
intended use using whatever research tools are necessary.

The problem is, ego and ingrained consumerism guide more purchase decisions
than rationality. As long as that happens, manufacturers will get away with
producing garbage because people will buy it.

It doesn't take 3 years to determine something is just poorly designed.
Durable is another matter altogether. If something is garbage from the
get-go, it may last forever but it won't ever stop sucking.

Don't buy stuff that sucks.

C.J.Patten said:

It doesn't take 3 years to determine something is just poorly designed.
Durable is another matter altogether. If something is garbage from the
get-go, it may last forever but it won't ever stop sucking.

I get your point now. I thought the entire discussion was about
durability. I think you can see where I got that idea if you read the
original comment that triggered this discussion:

Jasper Janssen said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

Jasper talks about "making things that last less long." I think he was
talking about durability. You were talking about poor product design,
not durability.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu