Fear and loathing: V only Monday

[Too Tall]

Dancing for dinner.
Selling
Rep your brand
Getting paid

You all know the old saw " We are all in sales" which used in this case not in with pejoritive pretext is what many of us do. Specifically, I speak of the folks in our bicycle industry myself included.

By and large the dance is a delight. We get to mansplain', except Megan of course, our passions to a mostly willing audience. We see the things we make used well, shared, resold, passed on talked about endlessly.

How sweet is that?

The next dance is for you sweetheart.

Put a quarter in the juke and boogie til you puke - Rootboy Slim

[bigbill]

I'm not in the bike industry, I'm merely an enabler. I live and ride in an isolated small town that has about a dozen riders. With the exception of a guy who rides a Super Prodigy, everyone is on a Trek, Pinarello (1 guy), or Specialized. All carbon. Most riders get a new bike every 2-3 years because they want the latest and greatest (according to advertising). On the nights I go out as the rabbit on the BLE or GT or Serotta or MX Leader, I usually end up getting caught by the turnaround and riding back in the pack. I don't get dropped even after riding solo into the wind for 15-18 miles. I can move up and back in the pack, dive corners, and hit whatever gear I want.

Back in the day, you bought a frame and the LBS would order a grouppo that included hubs. The mechanic would lace up the hubs to something Mavic, Wolber, Ambrosio, etc. You'd ride that frame and group, maybe with a periodic upgrade on your parts. The investment was the frame, parts were consumable. I rode a red and black Raleigh 753 with NR then Mavic SSC then after getting the rear cold set, Dura Ace 8 SIS. As a Luddite, I kept that same philosophy with the bikes I have now. The BLE is 11 years old, I got it from SoCalSteve in 2006. It is on its second group and that second group is 8 years old. I keep thinking about a new group, like 4 arm Chorus but it keeps working fine. The Serotta is the newest of the bunch at 7 years old.

To my point, we've reached the point of disposable bikes for the majority of the cycling world. We want the latest and greatest with electronic shifting with more gears than before. We could buy the electronic shifting and upgrade our existing rides but we wouldn't have the 800 gram carbon frame that we need to climb that hill faster or the sweet carbon wheels so we can't really stop that well on the descent. But we have disc brakes for that. I local riding a 15 pound bike asked me what my BLE weighed and I told him I was not sure, probably 19 or so pounds as it sat. He made a comment that it was kind of heavy but my point to him was "if I was 160 pounds at 6'1", I'd be concerned about the weight of my bike". I just like the way it rides.

[Toddykins]

To my point, we've reached the point of disposable bikes for the majority of the cycling world. We want the latest and greatest with electronic shifting with more gears than before. We could buy the electronic shifting and upgrade our existing rides but we wouldn't have the 800 gram carbon frame that we need to climb that hill faster or the sweet carbon wheels so we can't really stop that well on the descent. But we have disc brakes for that. I local riding a 15 pound bike asked me what my BLE weighed and I told him I was not sure, probably 19 or so pounds as it sat. He made a comment that it was kind of heavy but my point to him was "if I was 160 pounds at 6'1", I'd be concerned about the weight of my bike". I just like the way it rides.

I apologize for veering off topic - But I think you are really missing the point. I will use my mountain bike as an example. I rode back in the 90s and picked up mountain biking again a few years ago. I had great fun then and I am sure if I was riding my ancient Gary Fisher with mag 21, I would have fun again. However, there is no question that my Epic 29er with RS1/XTR Di2 functions better in every respect. I am sure your BLE is a beautiful bike. However, bikes/components from the early 2000s overall do not function/perform as well as more modern ones of comparable range, with a few very specific exceptions as regards elements of frame design and components. I think this is much closer to fact than marketing spin. I think people are wilfully deceiving themselves when they romanticise a lot of older technology. Leaving aside issues of artisan goods vs mass produced, I have enough cycling experience to know that the cantilever brakes on that mountain bike just didn't work very well and that much of the equipment of that era was more difficult to maintain and was not durable.

It is great that you take pleasure in showing up those whippersnappers on your bikes, but all that means is that you have superior fitness. The equipment choices will have an impact, but not enough to overcome the difference in fitness. It is great that you don't think it is necessary to have a lighter bike at your weight, but all that says is you don't place a high value on the (very modest) benefits from weight savings of a lighter frame as portion of total rider/bike weight. Personally, I see no reason not to work on my fitness and ride tech that can make me faster or otherwise enhance my enjoyment of the ride. I have never understood why people suggest that these are mutually exclusive. Ultimately, what this comes down to is perceptions on value which will vary by individual.

[David Tollefson]

I haven't been in the game long enough to see my craft resold, but there is so much sweetness in the process. It's little things. Like my daughter asking to ride her bike. Like the guy who stopped by my booth at the Oregon Handmade show last October with tears in his eyes, seeing my bike with my daughter's bike (matching paint) and telling me "that is just f^#$ing ART, man." Conversations with people who "get" it. Passing the "test" when some one starts asking questions...

There are people who don't get it, and that's fine. I remember an "oh, yeah" moment at a party when a lady was aghast at my answer when she asked how much my bikes cost (the ones I was riding at the time). I then said "think of it as my bass boat." Then the lightbulb went on and she knowingly nodded and smiled.

[sk_tle]

The first rides on a new bike are always wonderful and the bike feel superfast. Then you get used to it and the rides feel no better than they were with the previous bike. It become more a question of the route, fitness level and company. The same doesn't necessarily happen if you ride back a much older bike. It may just feel heavy and slow.

People shouldn't feel forced to "upgrade" but there is nothing wrong with feeling excited to try new parts/techs. Being nostalgic however is a often big mistake.

[colker]

I apologize for veering off topic - But I think you are really missing the point. I will use my mountain bike as an example. I rode back in the 90s and picked up mountain biking again a few years ago. I had great fun then and I am sure if I was riding my ancient Gary Fisher with mag 21, I would have fun again. However, there is no question that my Epic 29er with RS1/XTR Di2 functions better in every respect. I am sure your BLE is a beautiful bike. However, bikes/components from the early 2000s overall do not function/perform as well as more modern ones of comparable range, with a few very specific exceptions as regards elements of frame design and components. I think this is much closer to fact than marketing spin. I think people are wilfully deceiving themselves when they romanticise a lot of older technology. Leaving aside issues of artisan goods vs mass produced, I have enough cycling experience to know that the cantilever brakes on that mountain bike just didn't work very well and that much of the equipment of that era was more difficult to maintain and was not durable.

It is great that you take pleasure in showing up those whippersnappers on your bikes, but all that means is that you have superior fitness. The equipment choices will have an impact, but not enough to overcome the difference in fitness. It is great that you don't think it is necessary to have a lighter bike at your weight, but all that says is you don't place a high value on the (very modest) benefits from weight savings of a lighter frame as portion of total rider/bike weight. Personally, I see no reason not to work on my fitness and ride tech that can make me faster or otherwise enhance my enjoyment of the ride. I have never understood why people suggest that these are mutually exclusive. Ultimately, what this comes down to is perceptions on value which will vary by individual.

You should not compare mountain and road bikes., technology x performance wise.
A full suspension 27.5+ is way more capable and will ride terrain an old Fat Chance from 1993 won't...
Now put a rider on a 1993 x 2016 pinarello climbing and descending and it's about the rider, not the bike.

[colker]

The first rides on a new bike are always wonderful and the bike feel superfast. Then you get used to it and the rides feel no better than they were with the previous bike. It become more a question of the route, fitness level and company. The same doesn't necessarily happen if you ride back a much older bike. It may just feel heavy and slow.

People shouldn't feel forced to "upgrade" but there is nothing wrong with feeling excited to try new parts/techs. Being nostalgic however is a often big mistake.

NOt to mention the next big thing is a 650B randonneur that wants to be a Rene Herse.
The game changer is always the wheels and tires.

[EricKeller]

there are very few jobs that don't involve sales to some extent. If you don't like sales, getting a Ph.D. and trying to do research might not be the best career path. Because you have to pitch ideas constantly.

[sk_tle]

NOt to mention the next big thing is a 650B randonneur that wants to be a Rene Herse.
The game changer is always the wheels and tires.

You are wrong, the next big thing on the road is 28+. Average height of people in developped countries has raised since the times of René Herse. Maybe we'll even see a return of the 700A wheel size in a decade or so.

[e-RICHIE]

I'm with Thomas atmo.

Being nostalgic however is a often big mistake.

[Toddykins]

You should not compare mountain and road bikes., technology x performance wise.
A full suspension 27.5+ is way more capable and will ride terrain an old Fat Chance from 1993 won't...
Now put a rider on a 1993 x 2016 pinarello climbing and descending and it's about the rider, not the bike.

I made a mountain bike comparison so as to not make it personal.

Having ridden vintage road racing bikes and more modern ones, I am surprised you feel that way. That 1993 pinarello really shifts and brakes as efficiently? It really transfers power, handles and is as comfortable as the newer one?

Since you are consistent proponent of older tech, I know trying to reason with you will not overcome your emotional attachment to older bikes.

I am ok with that, everyone has different preferences. What I am not ok with is the condescension that often accompanies this conversation, as if choosing to use newer technology is somehow inferior. That is ridiculous, ride what you want and can afford.

[colker]

I made a mountain bike comparison so as to not make it personal.

Having ridden vintage road racing bikes and more modern ones, I am surprised you feel that way. That 1993 pinarello really shifts and brakes as efficiently? It really transfers power, handles and is as comfortable as the newer one?

Since you are consistent proponent of older tech, I know trying to reason with you will not overcome your emotional attachment to older bikes.

I am ok with that, everyone has different preferences. What I am not ok with is the condescension that often accompanies this conversation, as if choosing to use newer technology is somehow inferior. That is ridiculous, ride what you want and can afford.

You need a clue.
The thread is not about my charismatic self.. it's about bicycles.

[colker]

You are wrong, the next big thing on the road is 28+. Average height of people in developped countries has raised since the times of René Herse. Maybe we'll even see a return of the 700A wheel size in a decade or so.

It was 650B last year. it's the niche road market that's nostalgic. I ride on technology available. I am not searching for old rims and tires or old brakes. I don't even wear wool.

[edoz]

I should get better at selling and repping my brand. I've been building for 8 years and I don't even have t-shirts.

[bigbill]

I apologize for veering off topic - But I think you are really missing the point. I will use my mountain bike as an example. I rode back in the 90s and picked up mountain biking again a few years ago. I had great fun then and I am sure if I was riding my ancient Gary Fisher with mag 21, I would have fun again. However, there is no question that my Epic 29er with RS1/XTR Di2 functions better in every respect. I am sure your BLE is a beautiful bike. However, bikes/components from the early 2000s overall do not function/perform as well as more modern ones of comparable range, with a few very specific exceptions as regards elements of frame design and components. I think this is much closer to fact than marketing spin. I think people are wilfully deceiving themselves when they romanticise a lot of older technology. Leaving aside issues of artisan goods vs mass produced, I have enough cycling experience to know that the cantilever brakes on that mountain bike just didn't work very well and that much of the equipment of that era was more difficult to maintain and was not durable.

It is great that you take pleasure in showing up those whippersnappers on your bikes, but all that means is that you have superior fitness. The equipment choices will have an impact, but not enough to overcome the difference in fitness. It is great that you don't think it is necessary to have a lighter bike at your weight, but all that says is you don't place a high value on the (very modest) benefits from weight savings of a lighter frame as portion of total rider/bike weight. Personally, I see no reason not to work on my fitness and ride tech that can make me faster or otherwise enhance my enjoyment of the ride. I have never understood why people suggest that these are mutually exclusive. Ultimately, what this comes down to is perceptions on value which will vary by individual.

The BLE is a bike that is still made. The 8 year old parts are first generation Campy 11 and along the way I've replaced cassettes, chains, derailleur pulleys, UT bearings, etc. Mountain bikes are an exception, that is why I didn't mention them in my post. There is no comparison between a MTB from a decade ago to now, but MTB's are still in their infancy compared to road bikes. I am more fit and experienced than the other riders around here, I can play the rabbit on group rides because I was a good time trialist back in the day, I know to push hard on the hard parts and to recover on the easier parts, they haven't figured that out. I have a Ti Serotta that is much lighter than the BLE with almost the exact same parts, but when it comes down to putting wattage to the wheels in a fast group or sprint, I want the BLE. I'm not romanticizing old technology because what I ride is still current. Even the steel GT's from the 90's have 11 speed campy. My point is that marketing has us look at a bike as a unit, when it gets a few years old, you replace the whole thing. I upgrade or maintain with some replacement parts the groups I have on my bikes. 11 speed is as good as it gets for now, the only improvement I could do is EPS, but I don't see the need for it right now. The campy mechanical stuff works well.

[dgaddis]

Sales are weird. I'm an engineer at heart...I'm good with technical info, not the best people person, kinda socially awkward, certainly not a great salesman. But things I'm passionate about (bikes, wheels, etc), I can happily chat your ear off all day. But, most cyclists are kinda weird/socially awkward, so it works out anyhow.

Customers are, weird, for lack of a better term. Some folks come to me knowing exactly what they want and have an appropriate price range in mind. Some folks know what they want, but it's either inappropriate (1500g alloy 29er wheelset for a 220lbs rider) or their price range isn't realistic (wheelset with King hubs for less than $500). Some have no idea what they want, they just know they have problems with their current wheels and they're looking for someone they can trust to put them on the right thing. Some people know what they want...but it's the wrong thing...wrong thing to me anyhow, I'm all about function > form. I built a guy who isn't that heavy and doesn't ride that hard a set of boat anchor DH-duty wheels because he HAD to have orange rims (he found some NOS older orange DH rims on ebay and he sent them to me...).

I do LOVE seeing wheels I built taking people on awesome journeys. That's the good stuff right there.

[Toddykins]

Fair enough - I guess I wasn't getting a good snapshot of your philosophy from the original post alone. Part of what I am arguing is that people often mistake going faster in spite of their equipment choices for going faster because of their choices.


Colker - In lieu of responding to your ad hominem argument, let me ask a more direct question. Does the groups on that 1993 pinarello outperform the latest dura ace di2? By any objective measure, I think the answer to that question is no. The di2 shifts quicker and more consistently under a broader range of conditions with less need for ongoing adjustment. Maybe the jury is out on longevity, but I doubt it.

[colker]

The BLE is a bike that is still made. The 8 year old parts are first generation Campy 11 and along the way I've replaced cassettes, chains, derailleur pulleys, UT bearings, etc. Mountain bikes are an exception, that is why I didn't mention them in my post. There is no comparison between a MTB from a decade ago to now, but MTB's are still in their infancy compared to road bikes. I am more fit and experienced than the other riders around here, I can play the rabbit on group rides because I was a good time trialist back in the day, I know to push hard on the hard parts and to recover on the easier parts, they haven't figured that out. I have a Ti Serotta that is much lighter than the BLE with almost the exact same parts, but when it comes down to putting wattage to the wheels in a fast group or sprint, I want the BLE. I'm not romanticizing old technology because what I ride is still current. Even the steel GT's from the 90's have 11 speed campy. My point is that marketing has us look at a bike as a unit, when it gets a few years old, you replace the whole thing. I upgrade or maintain with some replacement parts the groups I have on my bikes. 11 speed is as good as it gets for now, the only improvement I could do is EPS, but I don't see the need for it right now. The campy mechanical stuff works well.

Gearing is a bit better now. Wheels are lighter and stiffer. Discs can open the door to even lighter and stiffer wheels.. but is the big difference there yet?

[colker]

Colker - In lieu of responding to your ad hominem argument, let me ask a more direct question. Does the groups on that 1993 pinarello outperform the latest dura ace di2? By any objective measure, I think the answer to that question is no. The di2 shifts quicker and more consistently under a broader range of conditions with less need for ongoing adjustment. Maybe the jury is out on longevity, but I doubt it.

Get a clue #2> you made the personal attack and now you are playing victim. Leave the passive agressive BS out of forums, please.

[e-RICHIE]

Don't overthink it atmo.

You Must Be Able To Sell, Too | RICHARD SACHS CYCLES