Applying analyst’s comments on Apple iPad to saturated bicycling equipment

[RPS]

An analyst being interviewed on CNBC made an unusual yet interesting comment about the Apple iPad that made me wonder if the logic is partly applicable to bicycling and the equipment we use. The gist of the comment was that although the iPad was somewhere in the middle between an iPhone and laptop computer in function and capabilities, and can do some of both but neither completely, that in his opinion it would not be replacing either in large numbers. Rather buyers will see the iPad as a new need in addition to a phone and laptop. He said that in his mind arguing against the need for an iPad because it would have to replace either the phone or laptop would be like saying because a person owns a dishwasher and owns a car that he doesn’t need a refrigerator (can’t remember the exact appliances, but that was his point).

The thread about Campy triples possibly being phased out -- which has predictably turned into a triple vs. compact argument -- made me think of the analyst’s comments again in a bicycling light. Applied to cycling and cycling equipment, is it necessary or in our collective best interest to view equipment as one “or” the other being best or serving the same need? That seems to be the nature of our competitive society – to initially pit one against the other as if only one can win or succeed in the marketplace.

So what do you think? Are compacts different enough from triples and different enough from standard that there should be room for all? Obviously there is significant overlap between their function just like between the iPad and laptop and smart phones, but are the dissimilarities and hence distinctive advantages of each enough to warrant all three to exist?

[sc53]

Interesting analogy~both areas of consumption are on many people's "why on earth would you buy that???" list. I think there is a need and a use for ALL 3 kinds of cranksets, and indeed I have one of each on bikes at home. As for the iPad, I personally can't see the need, but I don't have an iPhone either. My MacBook Pro laptop combined with my iMac are fine for all my needs, at least at present. The iPhone is a cool gadget but I have Sprint not AT&T and don't want to switch, so I have a plain-Jane cell phone.

[MattTuck]

Interesting ideas. Think of cameras as an example. It seems to me that the current idea in cameras is either really small point and shoot or SLR type devices. Doesn't seem to be much middle ground.

Certainly, the idea in biking that you could put a mountain bike and a road bike together and crap out a hybrid is an attempt to have "the best of both worlds." In reality, a hybrid really doesn't perform well as a mountain bike OR a road bike.

For the people that just want to ride a bike, the hybrid is probably OK. For someone who wants to take it to the next level, it probably won't cut it.

As far as triple/standard/compact, there are atleast 3 key design parameters driving the products: gear range, gear selection within that range, and quality of shifting. Weight may be another parameter. Given that, if the compact can perform across the parameters as well as/better than a triple, or standard, then I am not sure that the others will last very long.

[Tobias]

On the other thread the first “comparative” comment was that with a compact and 12-29 you don’t need a triple. True for many but the same could have been said for doubles. With a compact and 11T cog we can just as easily say we don’t need a standard. Does that mean the compact will ultimately rule and the other two become obsolete? I doubt it since it’s not often product choices in free markets consolidate from three to one? Choices usually expand, don’t contract.

From a progression standpoint the standard was first, much like a computer/laptop. Then the triple came out for mountain and touring bikes which later found its way to road bikes. Compacts on road bikes would be analogous to the ipad …. the new kid on the block and fitting between the standard double and triple. And it’s an interesting comparison in a broader sense too since compacts were around a long time ago just like tablet computers but it took major OEMs to adopt them to be widely accepted. Maybe Apple will do the same for tablets that Shimano and Campy did for compacts. Sometimes it takes time to get things just right in the eyes of consumers.

Personally I don’t see tablets replacing computers or smart phones in large part any more than compacts replacing doubles or triples. In time compacts can be upgraded to do much of both better and therefore increase market share at the other two’s expense, but it can’t possibly do both as well in all applications. In my opinion we will have all three and variations of all three for some time ….. or until a new technology obsoletes chain and derailleur drives.

BTW, if I hadn't been able to fix my laptop when I dropped it I would be in line for an ipad.

[benb]

I was thinking the analogy would be better if you were talking about road bikes vs. mountain bikes. The iPad would be the cross bike.

[jlwdm]

We will have to see what happens with the ipad. It will probably need more features in future models.

The key to the Campagnolo article is that sales of triples are diminishing.

Jeff

[Tobias]

The key to the Campagnolo article is that sales of triples are diminishing.

Jeff
So are sales of automobiles. We have to be careful of what the data represents. Maybe most bike sales are down due to economy.

Beyond road/hybrid/MTB we can make other comparisons as well. First we had cars/wagons and then truck-based SUVs. Now we have a new breed of vehicle (much like hybrid bikes) that is in the middle. The car-based crossover is a good compromise between car/wagon and truck/SUV, and sales are relatively high and growing. The compact is the crossover, great for most driving needs but can't pull a 6,000 pound trailer very well. For that you still need the heavy duty truck-like triple. ;)

[Kevan]

I look at the triple crank as being like a laptop. It provides you all the options, but likely doesn’t perform best at the extremes. The standard crank is like the desktop, remaining as the powerhouse machine, with all sorts of high-quality peripherals attached to them (things like printers, speakers, and camera attachments you wouldn’t necessarily move around). The compact crank, I guess, it’s sort of like the smart phone, but I hesitate to suggest the compact has the same levels of sacrifice a phone has. Maybe it’s more like the iPad. With the compact crank, the rider might miss his 52/11 combo, but beyond that, there’s little else to complain about.

My dad visited us during the holidays and dropped off a laptop he wasn’t using. It now spends its time tucked-in along side the living room couch, ready for spontaneous use. We use it for surfing and tv connection, but nothing else. Beggars can’t be choosers, but this laptop is a beast in size and weight and is barely portable (HP…figures!). I can see where the iPad machine is going. Eventually, they might address the flash apps, camera, and peripheral stumbling blocks and then I can see this taking off, leaving the laptop in the dust.

[sc53]

With the compact crank, the rider might miss his 52/11 combo, but beyond that, there’s little else to complain about.
Have to disagree here; the constant shifting between big/little ring causes many complaints. If you're on flat terrain I guess this is not as big a deal, but on rolling terrain, one must constantly fiddle and shift the front rings to get in the correct gear.

[RPS]

My point was not to directly compare electronic gadgets to bicycles, but rather to question whether there is enough space for all three types of drives to coexist because they might meet diverse needs uniquely; or uniquely enough. And I agree that the hybrid bike and crossover car are better examples if direct comparison was the goal. Like compact cranks these two examples are compromises in the middle that do most things fairly well but aren’t ideal under many circumstances.

[RPS]

Have to disagree here; the constant shifting between big/little ring causes many complaints. If you're on flat terrain I guess this is not as big a deal, but on rolling terrain, one must constantly fiddle and shift the front rings to get in the correct gear.
+1

Thus far that's been the deal breaker for me. And I can't see using a wider-ratio cassette solely to avoid this problem.

[Pete Serotta]

I like triples but then I like the Ipad :banana:

I trull think the Ipad is the future of "cloud" computing and net books!

But then time will tell

[palincss]

So what do you think? Are compacts different enough from triples and different enough from standard that there should be room for all? Obviously there is significant overlap between their function just like between the iPad and laptop and smart phones, but are the dissimilarities and hence distinctive advantages of each enough to warrant all three to exist?

Yes, definitely. The analogy with the ipad/laptop works for me. The "compact" (to be specific, 110 BCD, 34/50 crank) can easily get you down to a 30" low gear, but it can't get you down to a 22" low gear, easily achieved with a 110/74 triple; that is a "heavy duty" use, and if you had a heavy duty computing task you certainly would choose the more powerful machine with the bigger keyboard and bigger screen over the 'pad.

There's an ergonomics analogy as well. The biggest problem with the "compact" for non-elite users is the ergonomics of shifting in the cruising range. If you cruise on the level in still air in the 65-70 inch range, the compact will force a chainring shift with attendant up or down shift in the back of 3-4 sprockets as soon as the terrain slopes even a little. Elite riders probably cruise on the level at 80-85" if not higher, so for them there are 2 or 3 shifts on the big ring before they need to cross over.

With both the road and compact triple, it's possible to set it up so that your most frequently used gear is in the middle of the block, so you have several shifts you can make both up and down before you need to cross over. The ergonomic issues with the 'pad vs laptop would, of course, be with keyboard size and screen size.

[palincss]

Interesting ideas. Think of cameras as an example. It seems to me that the current idea in cameras is either really small point and shoot or SLR type devices. Doesn't seem to be much middle ground.


The "middle ground" might be cameras like the Panasonic DMC-LX3 (as small as a point and shoot, but capable of full manual operation, RAW, and superior image quality to most P&S) or the Micro Four Thirds cameras, which are significantly smaller than DSLRs but have large sensors, etc. In fact, Micro Four Thirds seems to be the Next Big Thing.

[Climb01742]

the mistake, i think, is viewing too many situations as zero sum games. one product's gain isn't always another product's equal loss.

i think the ipad will actually grow the market, particularly among the very young and the older audiences. beyond that, i think developers will create apps and uses for the ipad that don't now exist for phones and laptops. the market for the consumption of media/content will, i think, grow faster and in different ways than the market for the creation of media/content.

zero sum thinking is too linear oft times to capture the dynamic of progress.

[palincss]

The iPhone is a cool gadget but I have Sprint not AT&T and don't want to switch, so I have a plain-Jane cell phone.

I was waiting at the hardware desk at work a couple of years ago, when the iPhone first came out. A woman came up behind me in the queue, playing with her iPhone. I asked her how it was as a phone, since I had reservations about the form factor. I use a cell phone primarily so I'll have 911 on bike rides, and an iPhone seems too big to hold comfortably as a phone to me, and it's much bigger and heavier than I would care to carry with me on the bike.

She said she loved the iPhone. I asked, but how is it strictly as a phone? "Oh, it sucks. It's so bad I've stopped making voice calls and have switched entirely to text messaging. But I love the iPhone."

I still wonder about that.

[palincss]

From a progression standpoint the standard was first, much like a computer/laptop. Then the triple came out for mountain and touring bikes which later found its way to road bikes. Compacts on road bikes would be analogous to the ipad …. the new kid on the block and fitting between the standard double and triple.


Actually, that's very far from true. The first aluminum cotterless cranks were the Stronglight and the TA. They were introduced 80-90 years ago. Both have what is clearly a "compact" bolt circle, 50.4mm, actually substantially more compact than the 110 we call "compact" today.

[palincss]

I look at the triple crank as being like a laptop. It provides you all the options, but likely doesn’t perform best at the extremes. The standard crank is like the desktop, remaining as the powerhouse machine...

What could be more "extreme" than a 20-24 tooth granny mated up with a 32-36 tooth rear sprocket? That's your granny on a compact triple or a MTB triple. As for the opposite extreme, my tandem has a 110/74 triple with a 54T big ring, which when mated with a 12T small sprocket gives quite a huge top gear.

Seems to me the "standard" double falls short at both ends of the spectrum.

[Tobias]

the mistake, i think, is viewing too many situations as zero sum games. one product's gain isn't always another product's equal loss.

i think the ipad will actually grow the market, particularly among the very young and the older audiences. beyond that, i think developers will create apps and uses for the ipad that don't now exist for phones and laptops. the market for the consumption of media/content will, i think, grow faster and in different ways than the market for the creation of media/content.

zero sum thinking is too linear oft times to capture the dynamic of progress.
Very insightful Climb. You nailed it.