Is newer always worse?

[Sandy]

This is said respectfully and I hope it is read that way:

Lugged steel bikes are wonderful. Steel forks are great. Tubulars ride remakably well. Non-sloping traditional designed bikes are often superb. Down tube friction shifters and older Campy groups certainly may give stunning performance. Steel as a material makes superior bikes. Toe clips work just fine....

But I wonder if some of us think that almost nothing that is new in the bicycle world is any good, at least as compared to that which existed in the past.

Does STI shifting suck? Are Campy and Shimano 10 speed groups worthless? Is carbon a lousy material to use to make bicycles? Are all carbon forks bad? Are multi-material bikes a step backwards? Are people who like light carbon bikes dumb? Is the newly designed Dura-Ace crankset a useless change? Are setback seatposts stupid? Are the newer helmet and shoe designs simply a waste? Are modern fit systems just a gimmick?

Doesn't innovation exist? Isn't bicycling an ever evolving industry? Don't technology, experience, insight, and foresight help produce better bikes, tires, components,... Things improve. Even bicycles.

Certainly a great deal of the changes in bicycle production have been driven by a need to be able to keep up with the competition, thus sometimes producing what will work and sell, not what is necessarily the best. But I feel as if some of us think that most or all of the changes that are occurring are almost a step backwards.


Side Stepping Sandy

[jerk]

the jerk's new pink dogma fp with ada wheels and an ax-lightness saddle and an oval concepts round handlebar and a 150mm newton stem and 177.5 record cranks and dugast silk tubular tires and record carbon all over it is going to kill every other bike in the world.

so will the jerk's tournesol

so will the jerk's sachs

so does the jerk's emma.

jerk

[eddief]

and Sandy I know you have. This is an interesting cross section of bike enthusiasts and in the group, as evidenced by the seatpost thread, there is a wide range of opinions. Obviously some are more opinionated and outspoken than others. I for one, for instance, have 3 bikes with STI and one with downtube shifters. The most opinionated on the board could not get me to believe that downtube has one thing to offer me over STI. My downtube bike is my travel bike and the only reason it has those shifters is to make it easier to pack and put back together.

And then I can't think of one good reason to go up from 9 to 10 speed, because 9 is where I mostly started my enthusiasm--Or what the heck is the advantage threadless yada yada yada.

[Argos]

Sandy,
good post. Sometimes we need to all step back and take a breath. Remember what we all love is really more then the bike (no cheeesy Lance Pun intended)

Jerk,
PICS? PLEASE? Sounds really hot!

[jerk]

it's not here yet. a few months, and they'll be picks. either this or the sachs will be the race bike next season. we'll see which one gets here first. either way, the ble emma made for the jerk will be getting bumped around alot this year too.

jerk

[vaxn8r]

Sandy, I don't know why but some feel threatened by those who ride non-ferrous bikes, or who like Shimano, or wear lycra, or use clinchers... I don't get it because it certainly does not go both ways. Most of us that ride the newer stuff still like the traditional stuff too. Never understood quite why this is.

[jerk]

clinchers aren't new. they just suck.

jerk

[Len J]

clinchers aren't new. they just suck.

jerk

and I thought you were finally going to say what you felt?

Len

[Serpico]

Sandy, I don't think the view is "newer is always worse", but rather "newer isn't necesarily better".

Seems like innovation has hit a wall in road cycling (mtb is a completely different story). A lot of the "innovation" in the cycling industry seems to consist of making things lighter--quantitative, not qualitative progress.

A lot of the things that others consider not "older", "classic", "vintage" etc.. are not, imho. Lugged steel bikes are plenty modern as far as I'm concerned. Brooks saddles are modern, wool apparel is modern, 32 spoke wheels are modern. I think the problem is when people start doing exotic things where it isn't needed, and I think many on this forum are skeptical of "solutions" for problems that don't exist. Again, I don't think this is at all reactionary, or "retro grouch"--it's simply a healthy skepticism.

I look forward to owning a carbon frame in the future, as well as some lugged steel. I have a B17, and would like to try out a Fizik Aliante. I have 32 spk wheels (very well built with some SWEET hubs :D ), but I'd really like to try high-zoot Zipps in the future or possibly ADAs or Lightweights.

It's all good :)

[Bradford]

What Vax said, squared.

[Fixed]

bro the old stuff was great the new stuff is great cheers :beer:

[e-RICHIE]

newer isn't worse, or better.
in cycling, when a new product is intro-ed (sti, clipless, deep dish
wheels,index shifting, 370 fewer grams, what-e-va), it's innovative
and also an advantage only until it's mainstream. then, the playing
field is once again even. the quality of manufacture these days
is so good that even an average store bought bicycle can get it
done. mid priced parts groups are race-worthy. it's all good. it
all works. the chi'chi-er stuff might be 2% lighter and it may last
a wee bit longer but one doesn't need professional level componentry
in order to ride efficiently - and i'm not necessarily thinking "racing".

i like nice stuff as much as the next guy, but we must agree that once
we all have it and use it, the operator is once again the only component
that makes a difference.

[Grant McLean]

The thing about "newer" is that it comes after "older".

What's the point of making the same thing over and over,
without ever changing it? Lots of "new" things are about
selling stuff to people who already own the "old", so
sometimes you have to be selective about what you
choose, not everything new is good, not every old idea
was bad.

-g

[gasman]

Sandy- Good post.
I can remember reading an author bemoaning all the new innovations and how he really wanted to preserve that which was worthy and elegant and really hated to see the new equipment coming out. He thought it there was just too much new zoot and that it was not any better and in fact worse than the old gear.

What he really was bemoaning was the use of derailleurs in the Tour de France in the 30's.

It just reminds me that while all that is new is not better some changes are good and fine and I like them.

I really like STI shifters compared to my old downtube friction shifters.

I like steel bikes but I also like carbon fiber bikes and bars.

I love clipless pedals compared to my old straps.

Just because something is new doesn't mean it is bad, it's just different.

I love looking at all the "old school" gear but I didn't always like it. I hated my Brooks Pro saddle. I never got comfortable on it even after 20 years of riding and lots of Proofide. I did love my old TA cranks and my treasured campy derailleur.When I ran tubulars I got so many flats it seemed I was always trying to repair yet another tire and cursing under my breath.So I stopped using them after several years and never looked back. (Although many on the board make me wonder if I should go back)

Enjoy the ride, express your opinion about old vs. new, but remember it is just your opinion, not fact.

[gasman]

The thing about "newer" is that it comes after "older".

What's the point of making the same thing over and over,
without ever changing it? Lots of "new" things are about
selling stuff to people who already own the "old", so
sometimes you have to be selective about what you
choose, not everything new is good, not every old idea
was bad.

-g

Well said.

[Ray]

Plenty of great stuff, old and new. The challenge, as always, is figuring out whats a real improvement and what's mostly marketing - seperating the wheat from the chaff, as it were. I ride ti and steel and love both of them. Someday I may spend more time on alu or carbon, but I don't feel any real need to do so today. Super light bikes may offer some advantage to racers, but a couple of pounds doesn't matter to me. I can see where carbon presents some interesting possibilities for a very finely tuned frame, but my frames ride so well I don't really care. I love STI/Ergo, but have friction barcons on one bike because they'll ALWAYS work and present no disadvantages except a slight one when out of the saddle. I like 9 speed but find 10 to be marketing overkill - when chains and cogs wear out THAT fast, that's a step backwards to me. I liked leather saddles more than plastic ones until the Aliante came along - that one was real progress to me. I ride clinchers, not because they're better than tubies, but because they're waaaay good enough and easier to deal with. I have traditional wheels and mildly chi-chi wheels and like 'em all. Clipless pedals were a great step forward, but I prefer flat pedals (friction!) and clips and straps for some applications. Carbon forks are wonderful, but the super-light ones that break more often than they should represent the cutting edge of insanity to me.

Etc, etc, etc....

-Ray

[Climb01742]

i believe sandy's point, though, wasn't a question about products...but about attitudes toward products. and i believe he has a valid point. interestingly, i'd wager that most of our attitudes in life towards things say more about us and our worldview than about those things.

[Ray]

i believe sandy's point, though, wasn't a question about products...but about attitudes toward products. and i believe he has a valid point. interestingly, i'd wager that most of our attitudes in life towards things say more about us and our worldview than about those things.
Couldn't agree more Climb, but I just went back and looked at a lot of the posts about products and I'd wager that most of them are there to illustrate our attitudes about products rather than just to comment on the products. That was certainly my intent. Essentially trying to say that I don't have anything AT ALL against new stuff (I like most of it, a LOT), but that I don't just accept everything new that comes down the pike either because some of it holds no advantage for my riding and some actually creates a real disadvantage.

-Ray

[OldDog]

Us cyclists are a variable, weird lot of folks. Fine folks though.

[1centaur]

I vote for everything on Sandy's list being an improvement, not just different, except for mixed material bikes, which are a step back from carbon fiber. Like saving 50 grams, each improvement may not be huge (except STI), but add them all up and it's like moving from 20 pound bikes to 16 pound bikes while retaining stiffness and compliance - much more fun for average riders.

I think the market is pretty good at voting on what's a real improvement and what's just a marketing gambit. From what I have seen here, Serotta forum posters are unusually strong, experienced riders who built their love of cycling on steel frames and clearly don't need all these innovations to continue to get what they grew to love out of the sport from it going forward. Put a thousand newish desert island dwellers on a CF bike with all the bells and whistles or a 20 pound steel bike with friction shifters and toe straps and ask for a vote 2 weeks of mixed terrain riding later (let's assume they know how to ride a bike) and I expect the preference to be overwhelming in one direction. Further, leave those people on the bikes for 7k miles a year and five years later they won't have changed their minds. In 20 years, I look forward to being viewed as a fuddy duddy who likes old school carbon.

[zank]

Interesting post, Sandy. I don't think newer is always worse. I think newer sometimes costs more than the benefit justifies though.

I judge a product's "worth" by a cost/benefit ratio. To me, I can't justify spending the extra money on an "innovative" product if an existing (or traditional or retro or whatever people want to call it) product suits me just fine. Handlebars jump into my head as a prime example. I love my Ritchey WCS Classic Al bar. It does everything I want it to do, it feels good, it is priced right, it is light...perfect for me. I will never consider spending an additional $100-$150 on a CF handlebar. What have I gained except bling factor? Slightly better ergonomics? Maybe. More shock absorption? Questionable. No where near the justification it would take for me to spend the money.

On the other hand, I don't want to go back to friction DT shifters on my primary bike. I love my Record 10-speed levers. In my mind, that kit is well worth the money. The new Dura-Ace is sweet too. Chorus, Centaur, Ultegra, and 105 are amazing kits for the given price tag of each. All of these kits build up to be light bikes without much effort. They shift great, the braking is super, and they last a long time. I consider technology in all of these component kits to have moved at a faster pace than the associated price increases of each over the years.

A lot of people look at my personal bikes and are certainly not taken aback by all of the cool parts. Nope. Full Campy, Ritchey WCS Al bar, stem, seatpost, Flite saddle, King headset, handbuilt wheels. Nothing Gucci. Boring by most people's standards. But jeez, my road bike built up to 17.5#, it is reliable, and my wife didn't kill me for spending way more than I needed to. How can I complain about that?

And, I love steel forks. I love taken corners quickly. I just haven't ridden a carbon fiber fork that feels as good to me as a steel fork. The closest was the Wound-Up. But, I like the look of a steel fork better. I will happily give up 200 grams over the lightest CF fork to have a fork that I think rides the best for my style of riding.

To hate technology for the sake of wishing it was the old days is silly to me. But, I am also glad that Nitto continues to make polished quill stems and polished seat posts.

[jeffg]

IMHO, we have a certain amountof luddite-sentiment on the forum.

On the other hand, cycling is a sport where you really trust your life to your equipment.

That is why parts that give up durability or safety for weight-savings are rightly lampooned on this site.

Also, what is good for the pros is not always good for us. A Ti Legend may not be the bike of choice for todays pros, but I would pick one over almost anything for any ride over 200 miles and especially as a bike I would travel with.

Almost all new stock bikes have BB drops less than 7cm, CS less than 41cm, and other things that make not as much sense to me.

[e-RICHIE]

That is why parts that give up durability or safety for weight-savings are rightly lampooned on this site.

it should be lampooned everywhere imho br cheers. :beer:



Howard Beale: I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad.
You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell,
'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it:
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

[jeffg]

it should be lampooned everywhere imho br cheers. :beer: [/B]

It certainly should be E-Ritchie. But to quote Jules, "I'd like that ... But we both know that *hit aint the truth."

[Kevan]

Sandy is older.
Kevan is newer.
Nope, newer is better.

[Serpico]

...

[huey]

I agree with what Zank said, with the exception of the whole carbon fork thing. I like carbon forks and seatposts, but I refuse to use a carbon bar. However, I haven't ridden a high quality steel frame and fork. Hopefully that will change by the end of the year.

:beer:

[vaxn8r]

i believe sandy's point, though, wasn't a question about products...but about attitudes toward products. and i believe he has a valid point. interestingly, i'd wager that most of our attitudes in life towards things say more about us and our worldview than about those things.
I agree, it's about attitude. When you repeatedly hear CF referred to as "plastic", lycra referred to as a "plastic" or "stink" or as a "costume", shimano as "ShimaNO", wearing mountain shoes on the road akin to wearing "combat boots"....I've heard all this stuff in recurring themes. It amounts to a disdain for other's choices and comes across as paternalistic and demeaning. Even when it's couched with one of these: :D

I do not see the reverse on this forum. Seems like those willing to try new or "non-traditional" equipment are more embracing of choice and respectful of other's opinions which very well may also reflect their "worldview".

[Brian Smith]

2 items in response to your good thread start, Sandy.

1. As Zank expounded upon, to some staunch traditionalists, it's not that change is categorically bad, it's that:
a) unwarranted change is unwarranted
b) sacrifices in the name of change are unwarranted

2. Retro was the new "new." Of course by now it is not, but it is still the "popular." This is in concordance with Vax's and Bradford's sentiment that even those who are into the sweeping changes can appreciate the antiques.



Of course to some, all change IS bad. For those, Sandy, I sympathize with what seems to be your consternation. They do, however, usually have nice and interesting bikestuff collections!

[e-RICHIE]

What's the point of making the same thing over and over...




a greed.
there'd be no market, commerce, or industry if nothing changed.

[bcm119]

This thread is all about adopting innovations, which is a much-studied social phenomena. Theres a theory by a someone Rogers called Innovation Diffusion, which among other things categorizes people's reaction to innovation. The categories are:

-Venturesome Innovators- willing to accept risks and sometimes regarded as oddballs.

-Respectable Early Adopters- regarded as role models.

-Deliberate Early Majority- willing to consider adoption only after peers have adopted.

-Skeptical Late Majority- overwhelming pressure from peers required before adoption occurs.

-Traditional Laggards- people oriented towards the past.

Its all a matter of our attitude, like Climb said. Details aside, we all have a general view towards new technology in bikes, and our views are influenced less by the technology itself than our world view. For example, carbon bikes and steel bikes can both be good. But we've all seen the results of laggards' and innovators' differences of opinion on this topic, and often theres something more personal that drives the arguments than facts.

ps. imho.

[Kevan]

steel, aluminum, Ti and carbon fiber in the use of bike building there has been innovation. Think about the different grades and shapings of material that have evolved, through innovation. Do you really think anyone here is going to state integrated shifting and braking was a badly thought out idea? Early versions might have been weak, but the current stuff has proven itself. No way is newer always worse. Of couse, innovation occasionally will take us down the wrong path; it has happened in the past, it's bound to do it again in the future. Will you and I choose the wrong path sometime down the line? Well, let's put it this way, who hasn't?

Do you treat all innovation with the same level of skepticism as you would say when buying a new camera, a dishwasher, a new car, a mouse trap? Likely not. We can't be all-knowing and certainly some purchases aren't worth too much analysis in the end. We expect the Green Giant to sell us a good frozen vegetable and we all know the typical wooden mouse trap is the solution. We take faith in product name and we measure the risk we're willing to assume trying something new everytime we pull something off the store counter.

[Sandy]

Thanks for the wonderful replies, great insight and content, and tremendous articulation of ideas. All the posts seem to be so well written. I am most impressed.


Old guy riding a new bike,


Sandy