Quote:
Originally Posted by BumbleBeeDave
snip...snip...
No matter what the bike looks like to you or I, I don't think I have the right to call the geometry "goofy" no matter what it looks like if it's undeniably right for the individual who is riding it . . . and fuzzalow I'm not citing that word to take a slam at you.
...snip...snip...Just because it doesn't look like the bike you would ride doesn't mean it's wrong.
Admittedly, there probably were situations where the fitter screwed up. but I would wager heavily that those were the exception rather than the rule.
BBD
|
As an implicit slammer I mean to reply constructively. My point was and remains this: when Serotta effectively turned over bike design to the fitters (no matter how many otherwise-unable-to-ride riders got
their bike, at least two things happened. First, the brand lost identity--- they were Serotta
Competition Bicycles--- and it gained identity, one associated with custom bikes that produced odd results. I would say "goofy" (because that would be true) but not to offend my pal Dave here. So the veritable dentist bikes (all due apologies to dentists) no matter how much ridden caused a lost connection to the segment of the market that the S-
Competitive Bicycles no longer met. Serotta went down the path of
your bike instead of
their bike and
far worse the
fitter's notion of the bike. What happened to
Serotta's bike? (This was my criticism of Mr Serotta's blog, i.e., he has kept with still more of a very bad idea.) So why buy a Serotta next to any euro-brand---well only if you have special needs because the your-bike model is not about people who can fit on those charts since those folks can ride a
competition bicycle. Now add to this the cost of these customs and you have, voila, the injured-dentist bicycle market (with further apologies for using "dentist" as a euphemism but someone has to take the rap.)
So one can argue that lots of folks got on a road bike who would otherwise not ride to which I say that's just not a model for a competitive road bike at all. Further, turning fit over to some "expert" is total crap, which I have said before. Serotta had it right back when they sponsored, and where they failed was in keeping their racing heritage foremost with sponsorship (however small)
and insisting that
OUR bike is better for you and maybe just sending people elsewhere if they need the bars waaaaay up thar. (I'd be happy to make honest suggestions since I have NO objection to any fit that lets people be comfortable and ride!) My point was simple: Serotta just signed on to a slew of bad ideas about building bicycles, fitting bicycles, and in effect wholly losing their place among Competitive bicycles. I'm old, slow, and still think 99% of everyone could easily ride a road bike off the race chart if they rode more (and maybe ate less). Special needs folks need the special needs bicycle: Serotta may have been that bike but what percentage does that leave you with? Oh, right, 1% of the market.