Perception vs. reality

[rice rocket]

This is an interesting topic. I came across it shopping for headphone amplifiers, but basically it draws into question many things about perception vs reality and how biases created through marketing and pricing, which colors your experience for better or worse.

The obvious parallel is to the wine industry, where there have been a number of blind taste tests that reveal that price and how much you like it are almost inversely related.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html

This being a bicycle forum, the obvious parallel is to bicycles. Are bikes good because people tell us they're good?

:help:

[EricEstlund]

Bikes are good because we tell ourselves they are good. Everything else is just noise.

PS- If you found a no BS pocket amp that will hold up to shop abuse, shoot me an email.

[buldogge]

I would grab one of the Vivid V1s or one of the ebay specials from the DAC The Destroyer dude...

-Mark in St. Louis

Bikes are good because we tell ourselves they are good. Everything else is just noise.

PS- If you found a no BS pocket amp that will hold up to shop abuse, shoot me an email.

[Jaq]

Are bikes good because people tell us they're good?

Depends on the people who are doing the telling, and the people who are doing the listening. To a naive customer walking into a store and talking to a charismatic salesperson, that 12,000 dollar Trek (http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/race_performance/domane_6_series/p1_domane_6_9_radioshack_nissan_trek_edition/#) is the greatest bike ever built - especially if the person buys it and has to spend the next few years rationalizing his or her purchase. But if you're a person of reasonable intellect and maturity, then once you're engaged in anything for a while, you start to develop your BS detector. Get into cycling, stay involved, and you learn who to trust, what's a fad, and that Rapha is nice stuff sold by gasbags.

The four fastest Paris-Roubaix runs were 1964 and before (this year's was #5). Differences in routes/conditions aside, think of all the tech that's come and gone in the intervening 50 years; none of it's so much "better" that it's led to those old records being quashed long ago. I'm not advocating a return to wool shorts, bare heads, and toe-clips; just take everything with a grain of salt.

As dad said, "believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see."

[Chance]

This being a bicycle forum, the obvious parallel is to bicycles. Are bikes good because people tell us they're good?

Mostly when we perceive the person telling us they are good knows more about the subject than someone else who says the opposite.

[chismog]

Are bikes good because people tell us they're good?

:help:

Have been thinking about this a lot lately. If you listened to the marketing and did "scientific analysis" (whatever that entails) you would expect that the lightest, most highly engineered bike would be the "best". In fact, I suspect it is simply the lightest, most highly engineered bike.

I haven't quite hit on exactly what makes me like a bike more or less than another, but I know the ones I like the best have a lot more to do with how they ride (handling, comfort, sturdiness, etc) than anything else. And those qualities seem dependent on things like fit, geometry, and how big a tire I can put in it vs how highly engineered the bike is. I like a light bike, but I ride carbon and steel on a regular basis and as long as they're within a water bottle of each other it just doesn't seem to matter very much.

The current industry standard of halo bikes and 40% more compliant vertically and squeezable top tubes just leaves me scratching my head as to what is really "better".

Bottom line, bikes are being marketed and sold on characteristics that can be measured. At the end of the day, what makes a great bike for a particular person maybe cannot be so easily measured.

[dustyrider]

This perception vs. reality topic is fun. I like to ask questions and I've always wondered what makes people choose a specific color to describe what they are seeing. An example would be: Some people look at the ocean and call it blue, heck look at a map. Others look at it and say it's a blue green, and still others will describe it as some other color in between. Obviously it depends on which ocean, or part, you're looking at, since I've seen black, blue, green, and even red waves before, but you can't forget the white breaks either.

Basically it's all in the viewers mind right?

I know Penn and Teller did a segment on there show BS, along these lines. Basically they take cheap microwaveable meals, and $5 bottles of wine, and serve it to people who believe they are eating at a 5 star restaurant. The folks, of course, love the food and claim it's the best ever. I'm pretty sure they did the same thing with fast food and asked people to rate how healthy the meal they just ate was. Same deal, people thought of the food as being healthier because it didn't come from a fast food place, when in fact it had, and was in no way healthier.

When I went to Johnson and Wales culinary arts school they taught us that 90% of customer's satisfaction about the food being served comes in the form of the food's presentation, in other words their perceptions tell them how good the food actually is.

So, I don't know, is it all just perception?
Is beauty truly in the eye of the beholder?

I think yes and no, because; I see things people covet that I myself wouldn't take if given, and I myself covet things that people I know wouldn't take if given. But, personally I've had some dam fine meals in the greasiest, can I get a clean fork please, restaurants.....

And now something we all agree on; it's time for a ride!

[oliver1850]

I started reading Stereo Review in high school. I remember Julian Hirsch arguing that quality amplifiers had no inherent individual "sound", which was a different approach than other publications had. He figured that if he couldn't measure a quality or hear it in blind testing with statistically significant repetition, it wasn't there. It's harder to take the same approach with bikes, because it's harder to do blind testing. When Bicycle Guide blind tested 7 identically painted and sized Mondonico frames made from different Columbus tubesets, the results were inconclusive at best. One rider couldn't perceive any difference between the $460 Aelle frame and the $1275 EL-OS. Maybe not a truly scientific test, but I like to keep it in mind when evaluating anything bike.

[Bob Loblaw]

Only part of perception is reality. The rest of perception is expectations, basically what you think about what you are about to see/hear/feel/ride, desire (what you want it to be) and imagination.

BL

[Liberace]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Watch the Poppy Crum portion. It's very interesting and starts at 5:25 in.

[Louis]

The obvious parallel is to the wine industry, where there have been a number of blind taste tests that reveal that price and how much you like it are almost inversely related.

And, of course, in tests where fake "prices" were known to the test subjects, they tended to prefer the more "expensive" options.

Having said that, even though I'm no beer expert, I can tell the difference between Bud and Chimay, and the later has a much more interesting taste. However, they are both better when you're enjoying them in a pleasant, relaxing atmosphere.

[chismog]

Oh my. That IS interesting.

There was a little hill where he made us suffer, Sad Satan.

And, Satan... Poppy is a pretty cute neuroscientist. :rolleyes:

[sandyrs]

This is an interesting topic. It seems like most bike-related "blind taste tests" are based on the frame; does anyone know of any such tests for components? I'm specifically thinking of thinks like crank stiffness, shift quality, etc. that are constantly referred to in standard reviews but don't seem to boil down to a single metric (much like how "good" a bike is).

[martinrjensen]

unfortunately, I think there is more truth to this then most people will want to admit. I also think that this is such a deep subject with most people really not understanding it, that most people won't even realize it is happening to them. We are so innundated by advertizing of all sorts, it's almost impossible that it wouldn't have a pretty great effect on our decisions. Exceptions exist of course.This is an interesting topic. I came across it shopping for headphone amplifiers, but basically it draws into question many things about perception vs reality and how biases created through marketing and pricing, which colors your experience for better or worse.

The obvious parallel is to the wine industry, where there have been a number of blind taste tests that reveal that price and how much you like it are almost inversely related.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html

This being a bicycle forum, the obvious parallel is to bicycles. Are bikes good because people tell us they're good?

:help:

[rounder]

I started reading Stereo Review in high school. I remember Julian Hirsch arguing that quality amplifiers had no inherent individual "sound", which was a different approach than other publications had. He figured that if he couldn't measure a quality or hear it in blind testing with statistically significant repetition, it wasn't there. It's harder to take the same approach with bikes, because it's harder to do blind testing. When Bicycle Guide blind tested 7 identically painted and sized Mondonico frames made from different Columbus tubesets, the results were inconclusive at best. One rider couldn't perceive any difference between the $460 Aelle frame and the $1275 EL-OS. Maybe not a truly scientific test, but I like to keep it in mind when evaluating anything bike.

I think it is the same issue whether it is related to good amplifiers/speakers or bikes. You can listen to different sets of amplifeiers/ speakers and say that one sounds better than the rest. Who cares which one provides more warmth...more clarity, etc, I think...to me, which one is better is based on the music. Lots of times the good music comes from a time when there was no hifi...that does not make it bad music.

Same for frames. Assuming that we are not talking about racing. I believe that best ride comes from a combination of geometry/fit and bike fab. Who cares what the bike is made of and color, if you cannot ride the thing. Likewise, if the bike fits great and is well designed (according to you), who cares what it is made of.

[rounder]

I started reading Stereo Review in high school. I remember Julian Hirsch arguing that quality amplifiers had no inherent individual "sound", which was a different approach than other publications had. He figured that if he couldn't measure a quality or hear it in blind testing with statistically significant repetition, it wasn't there. It's harder to take the same approach with bikes, because it's harder to do blind testing. When Bicycle Guide blind tested 7 identically painted and sized Mondonico frames made from different Columbus tubesets, the results were inconclusive at best. One rider couldn't perceive any difference between the $460 Aelle frame and the $1275 EL-OS. Maybe not a truly scientific test, but I like to keep it in mind when evaluating anything bike.

I think it is the same issue whether it is related to good amplifiers/speakers or bikes. You can listen to different sets of amplifeiers/ speakers and say that one sounds better than the rest. Who cares which one provides more warmth...more clarity, etc, I think...to me, which one is better is based on the music. Lots of times the good music comes from a time when there was no hifi...that does not make it bad music.

Same for frames. Assuming that we are not talking about racing. I believe that best ride comes from a combination of geometry/fit and bike fab. Who cares what the bike is made of and color, if you cannot ride the thing. Likewise, if the bike fits great and is well designed (according to you), who cares what it is made of.

[Ti Designs]

unfortunately, I think there is more truth to this then most people will want to admit. I also think that this is such a deep subject with most people really not understanding it, that most people won't even realize it is happening to them. We are so innundated by advertizing of all sorts, it's almost impossible that it wouldn't have a pretty great effect on our decisions. Exceptions exist of course.


I've spent most of my life trying to figure out why or how my thought process is so different than most. There's a memory transfer function that I lack, which changes how I see the world. When most people hear or see something they remember what it was and what order it came in. I don't. I have what I've come to undrestand as a very complex version of ADD. When I shift focus, all the data that I kept from the previous function is lost. Driving and looking for street numbers is like waking up behind the wheel of a moving car over and over again. It's become more and more frustrating because everything these days is going to a user interface that assumes memory transfer. Smart phones - I can't use them. They make the assumption you know what application you're using because you know how you got there. I can't even use the new point of sale system at my own shop. People think it's the just a learning curve, they say things like "you'll get better at it". I'm 47, I have my own phone number written down in my wallet just in case I need it - it's never going to change.

A little over 10 years ago I started a project to understand how people store things in memory and how that's used. I built a tree structure representation, started to load it with my own observations, then started to draw conclusions based on people's responses. What I found was that memory is very accurate in some ways, not at all in others. Trust is something you use as a filter when adding information to the database, but there seems to be no such filter when extracting data. This has long been an area of interest to me, as I lack trust in anything stored in my own memory. The best example of this is a common thing that people do - take riding a bike as a fitting example for this form. Almost everybody thinks their natural ability makes them good at it. I can't make such an assumption, which is why I'm always working at it.

Social media in recent years has helped me build my database faster than I ever could before. It's helped me understand the levels within the database and how there is often confusion with nodes along the same level. For example, the term "vintage" in guitar sales can tie a buyer's perceptions of past instruments to what's being sold. Creating confusion on a nodal level doesn't have to make any sense (which would explain most ads) because it's not about the reality. My conclusions in all of this have pointed to the fact that people are programmable, which scares the hell out of me...

So, despite all the advertising and hype, I'm still riding a 6 year old titanium bike with 9-speed parts. I work in a shop, I've taken out extended test rides on dozens of bikes, I see no reason to replace what I have. 9-speed is better than 10 or 11, it lasts longer, it's less picky about adjustment, and the extra gear or two offers nothing. I'm probably not the worst rider here, even with my old, slow bike. Think about it...

[Chance]

I'm probably not the worst rider here, even with my old, slow bike. Think about it...

Is that based on perception or reality?;)

[Chance]

Let's not rule out the fact that sometimes our perception of something being better is because it actually is better.

[Ti Designs]

Is that based on perception or reality?

Yes.

[witcombusa]

[QUOTE=Ti Designs;1119581
So, despite all the advertising and hype, I'm still riding a 6 year old titanium bike with 9-speed parts. I work in a shop, I've taken out extended test rides on dozens of bikes, I see no reason to replace what I have. 9-speed is better than 10 or 11, it lasts longer, it's less picky about adjustment, and the extra gear or two offers nothing. I'm probably not the worst rider here, even with my old, slow bike. Think about it...[/QUOTE]


6 year old titanium with 9sd is cutting edge in my book :banana:

[biker72]

So, despite all the advertising and hype, I'm still riding a 6 year old titanium bike with 9-speed parts. I work in a shop, I've taken out extended test rides on dozens of bikes, I see no reason to replace what I have. 9-speed is better than 10 or 11, it lasts longer, it's less picky about adjustment, and the extra gear or two offers nothing. I'm probably not the worst rider here, even with my old, slow bike. Think about it...

I rode a new Trek Domane 6 Series Team Edition earlier this week where I work. Nice bike but $12k???? You've got to be kidding. I see framesets being sold for $5k+??? My three bikes collectively aren't worth $5k....:)

[singlecross]

I was introduced to the concept through the "Chivas Regal Effect". To paraphrase it... Chivas Regal was a pretty cheap and obscure scotch whiskey. When the dad died and left the business to the kids they classed up the label graphic, doubled the price, and sold twice as much. Same scotch. Smart kids.

In my experience of owning a small cafe', the same effect can be applied. But the most important thing is customer service... in the summer when I am most busy I am always at the register. I make the best espresso drinks but am doing more to help my business by providing clear, confident, friendly customer service at the register. My customers may get a mediocre espresso drink made by a summer high school kid, but with great customer service from me at the register they come back day after day. The flip side is getting a great espresso drink from the owner but terrible customer service from a clueless hung-over high school kid and they'll never come back.

I have never understood bike shop owners who hang out and hide back in the repair shop... be the face of the business with your customers. I can't tell you how many bike shops I have walked out of after my first interaction was with a high school kid who didn't know s*it.

My .02

singlecross

[oldpotatoe]

Have been thinking about this a lot lately. If you listened to the marketing and did "scientific analysis" (whatever that entails) you would expect that the lightest, most highly engineered bike would be the "best". In fact, I suspect it is simply the lightest, most highly engineered bike.

I haven't quite hit on exactly what makes me like a bike more or less than another, but I know the ones I like the best have a lot more to do with how they ride (handling, comfort, sturdiness, etc) than anything else. And those qualities seem dependent on things like fit, geometry, and how big a tire I can put in it vs how highly engineered the bike is. I like a light bike, but I ride carbon and steel on a regular basis and as long as they're within a water bottle of each other it just doesn't seem to matter very much.

The current industry standard of halo bikes and 40% more compliant vertically and squeezable top tubes just leaves me scratching my head as to what is really "better".

Bottom line, bikes are being marketed and sold on characteristics that can be measured. At the end of the day, what makes a great bike for a particular person maybe cannot be so easily measured.

Only 2 things can be measured..weight and price. Other things, like ride characteristics and 'beauty' are subjective. Even wind tunnel testing is suspect, once you put different shaped people on the thing.

Getting on a more aero bicycle will not automatically make you faster in the same race or course, in spite of what the marketeers say.

[jischr]

I know my Colnago Dream is a better bike than my Gitane Super Corsa. Why? It's got a killer art deco paint job with a little biker dude painted on the top tube. I know the paint alone makes me go 2 mph faster on the flats, OK, maybe 1 mph faster. But as far as ride quality, the only reason I bought a used aluminum frame was that the steel one started flexing while standing which resulted in chain rub on the derailleur. My roads range from dead smooth to total crap. My perception is the Nag is smoother, but its probably because I look down, see the biker dude on the top tube, and smile thinking some middle aged Italian guys spent hours doing assembly line custom painting on a beautiful mediterranean day while wasted on wine.

[esldude]

Oh this is interesting stuff for sure. In a number of areas where blind tests and pertinent measurements are possible you end up with a firestorm. People who just know despite all evidence that something is so, and knowing in their gut aren't going to change. Instead they question the veracity of the science or the testing behind it. In some ways bikes are better off not being amenable to such testing.

Part of what makes bikes so endlessly interesting is that riding a bike is only a dynamically stable system. So many small factors interact in a myriad of ways. I can ride in a car and compare my experience to you riding in the same car. A bike? No way. None of us are absolutely identical in body composition, flexibility, strength etc. Two different people riding the same bike is two completely different set of circumstances to create that dynamic stability of a moving two wheeled vehicle. So for the most part biking will remain much more subjective.

And yet, sure improvements are oversold. I still have a lower end Motobecane Mirage bike I purchased in 1980. Last year I rode my best fastest bike over a dead level loop for one hour. Did it late in the day when winds died down. Alternated with the old Mirage the next day. Kept alternating that way for two weeks. End result.....I was right at one mph faster on average with the newer bike. I even figured out likely why that was. The old bike has 6 cogs the newer one 9. I was riding in a gear on the old bike where the next gear up was just a bit tall, and the one I used was more spinning than I liked. The new bike geared very close to optimum it so happened. My guess is with a bit longer to acclimate to the extra spinning there would be even less difference.

Now the new bike was faster. It also is more lively with a nicer feel. I simple feel better riding it. The brifters are nicer than downtube friction shifting. Brakes are much better than back in the day. Still, beyond those creature comforts, the basic form factor of a bike hasn't changed. The extra gearing may be the only real performance improvement in terms of speed.

Of course the bad news is I am 3 mph or so slower than I used to be on the old Mirage, and that was over a course with hills, not level like the test loop. That has nothing to do with bike design. We need some of these improvements done genetically. Another carbon technology if you will. I want to get treatments that give me the power and endurance of a 20 year old again. Safe treatments though, not stuff like the various doping that goes on.

[TPetsch]

I know a bike is good when I don't think about it or any part of it.

For me a bike needs to be an extension of my body, I want a frame/fork to not feel like it's flexing, even though I know it is to some extent. I want shifts to be quick and precise, I want the handling to be drama free. And I want to be some what comfortable on it.

Problem is when your 6'5'', 220 you need to pay ($) a little more to get all these aspects to come together in one package.

[Rueda Tropical]

The four fastest Paris-Roubaix runs were 1964 and before (this year's was #5). Differences in routes/conditions aside, think of all the tech that's come and gone in the intervening 50 years; none of it's so much "better" that it's led to those old records being quashed long ago.

Seems the new tech at this years Roubaix was fatter lower pressure tires, longer chain stays and longer wheelbases and frames and forks with more vertical flex. Sounds like 1964 technology to me.