the middle way (or why i admire dario, ben and TK)

[Climb01742]

(CAVEAT: to make a point, the following post contains some generalizations. generalizations, by their nature, are (if well-crafted) broadly accurate, but can be nit-picked. and can sound judgmental. i honestly don't wish to mischaracterize any position or to pass judgment. i'm just trying to express something. so if i offend anymore, i don't mean to, so i'll apologize here and now.)

on this forum, two points of view are expressed fairly often. for sake of a philosophical discussion, let's call one "the traditionalists" and call the other "the modernists". traditonalists , quite rightly, sing the praises of lugged steel and steel forks. the modernists, equally rightly, sing the praises of carbon, some alu and saving grams. as the threads and posts get more heated, the positions sometimes harden and it can feel like it's got to be one or the other. and we can get a bit nasty.

but there is a middle way, i think. there is a group of builders (and this is certainly only a partial list) who seem both capable and inclined to search out true progress without ever following the hype or the fads. in essence, they separate the wheat from the chaff.

dario pegoretti is one. he builds in both steel and alu. only rarely uses lugs. seems to dig tig. he uses carbon forks and seatposts. but he won't do carbon seatstays or compact geo's, nor ti or full carbon. his steels ride almost like alu, and his alu's ride almost like steels. and he seeks inventive ways to stiffen steel without adding weight. his frames aren't light but they're fast.

ben and kelly are too (two?). they do lugged steel, tig welded steel, ti and carbon ti combo's. they'll explore the hors. and pivoted carbon STs. and they're willing to put the ottrott on a serious gram-counting diet. and something tells me there's gotta be something new brewin' in their noggins.

tom kellog is another. he'll go on record to say that compact geo frames perform differently from flat TT frames. he'll sing the praises of lugs and sing the praises of ti, and somehow can carry two tunes perfectly well at once.

my point is, maybe it isn't either/or. there is progress, there are new things that work, but there are also new things that don't work, and some "progress" is just hype dressed up in some really fancy carbon clothes.

interestingly, i think our views on these subjects say as much about us as they do about the builders. speaking for myself, i love trying to think up new things. so i gravitate to those builders who do too. that doesn't make it right, by any means. it just makes it the flavor i like.

i'm guilty of being extreme in my opinions at times. which ain't cool or terribly smart. looking at the bulders i admire, they don't seem extreme in their opinions. they seem open, curious, but discerning and when appropriate, discriminating. keeping the wheat. and leaving the chaff for, well, apparently trek forks. :beer:

[e-RICHIE]

my reading skills suck, and after three tries i'm still
not certain i get the point here. for instance, why is
"lugs" an issue here? using them constitutes a joining
process, not a statement about the past or about "tradition".
builders join pipes; some weld, others don't. one method
is not superior to another. furthermore, each has it's own
aesthetic. with regard to the other points about materials
and frame shapes; people make these choices based on
market trends more than any other reason. if they want a
"share", then they go with the trend. that, my friend, is the
cliff's notes version. personally, i think the only thing that
matters in the current market is "weight"; folks want to say
their bicycle is 15.4 pounds, no matter what it looks like, what
it's made of, or how it rides.

[Big Dan]

yeah, yeah...what e-RICHIE said...............

also remember to listen to the coach....... :D

[dbrk]

i'm guilty of being extreme in my opinions at times. which ain't cool or terribly smart. looking at the bulders i admire, they don't seem extreme in their opinions. they seem open, curious, but discerning and when appropriate, discriminating. keeping the wheat. and leaving the chaff for, well, apparently trek forks.

I'll jump and say that first I am guilty of the extreme positions and don't find Climb particularly so.

But there is another issue here altogether and that is that all of the builders you cite come from the tradition of "race" bikes. In American we know, and apparently care very little, about other styles of "road biking." When we say "road bikes" we mean this _tradition_ of building and styles much more than we consider that there is more than one way to fit, ride, and style a bicycle. Dario is as much a "race tradition" builder as the great Americans you cite and GREAT THEY ARE!! So no one mistake me, please.

However, [this is the part where I get feisty...and I should just SHUT UP and go away and ride my dowdy ol'audax bikes...], when I see race bike builders build "touring" bikes, I see designs that are clearly not from the traditions of audax fit or design, nothing like the notions expressed by Rebour and executed by Herse, Singer, Mariposa, and others. Those Frenchies didn't use headtube extensions, compact designs, or spacers and riser stems to accomplish their fits and they certainly didn't look to have more than a fist full of seatpost, etc. In short, just for extremism and argument's sake, these are _different_ designs and they are meant for riding in all weathers, on all roads, day or night, and without support, for long, long distances and so nothing like race bikes, as such.

Bikes that are meant more for comfort than for "fast rides," "club rides," call it what you want---what I mean are bikes that for all intents and purposes look like race bikes, like, say Climb's bikes, are wonderful bikes. But they are are not "middle way" bikes that achieve their goals from some less extreme position of race bikes, they are bikes built in the race bike tradition to be a tad more comfortable or whatever but they are CLEARLY in that race bike tradition. They are race bikes _rather_ than in the audax bike tradition which would change the look, the fit, the purpose, the parts, everything. EVERYTHING about the American and Euro-racing tradition is about race bikes and to do something different is either to be misunderstood or called "retro" or some such nonsense. But here is the most radical point (and ya'll and throw me off for saying so...):

I have not seen ONE BIKE, not one example, from any of the builders that Climb mentions who builds a true audax bike, at least not aesthetically (because there is more than one way to achieve the same points of contact). I have seen their bikes. You can talk "Rapid Tour" or examples of their "touring" bikes and, well, these are not in the same tradition as the audax styles and designs of the French and Brits or the Japanese (look at my Jitensha, for example).

Bikes are designed to ride in certain ways and there are almost no unrideable bikes---a commendation of bicycles rather than designers. But what we don't see from the VAST MAJORITY of builders of bikes ridden in the U.S. (or even Italy, etc.) are designs from other traditions such as audax. What we see are adapted designs of race bikes. A publication like VBQ or Le Randonneur makes this perfectly plain.

So, in reply to Climb, I don't see these builders as middle way-ers. I see them adapting race designs to semi-comfort riding but not participating in more than one cycling design tradition.

dbrk

[Climb01742]

douglas, you are a wonderful example that expertise and equability (and i'll throw in equanimity) can gloriously co-exist. you are correct about your "middle way" comment in a far broader sense than i meant mine. i was balancing two different poles. your poles are broader, more inclusive, and exhibit more knowledge than i have. my poles were more about this forum. your poles are inclusive of the full width of cycling. in our ways, i believe we both might be correct? or at least can have a civil, open-minded discussion about it. your grace and manners and equability in discussing things is rare indeed.

[davids]

dbrk,

What climb said... I started to write a response to your message, but felt it was coming off as a criticism of your comments, so I stopped. I greatly appreciate your perspective, even if I want to ride racing (style) bikes myself. I am grateful to know that there's a bigger biking world out there. Perhaps someday I'll explore it, and your gentle education will be the reason I even know it exists.

e-RICHIE,

I can't believe that differences in materials cannot - do not - translate into differences in frame feel. I don't dispute that fashion and marketing drive a great deal of the biking product we see, but Al, Fe, Ti, and Carbon Fiber each have innate characteristics that can be exploited in frame design. There's something more than hype behind our understandings of material characteristics, even if there's also a ton of snake oil.

[Sandy]

Perhaps my reading skills suck too, but I understood the points made by Climb quite clearly, whereas, I don't hardly understand the reaction and comments of e-RICHIE at all. No where do I see in Climb's post that he is making an issue about lugs at all. It seems as if he is trying to tell why he likes the build and design philosophy and direction of Dario, Ben, and Tom.

I think e-RICHIE you seemed to have acted too sensitively, plain and simple, in my humble opinion. You seemed to focus on your method of joining tubes, whereas Climb certainly did not. I agree with you that marketing trends certainly play a major part in determining bicycle purchases, but your comment "...that the only thing that matters in the current market is "weight"... " makes little sense to me. If that were the case, R.Sachs, Serotta, and Kellogg would all be or would go out of business, without a doubt. Certainly the trend for many is to produce lighter bikes to help in competing in the market place, but to say that weight is the single criterion seems like a far fetch to me.

Mr. Sachs- I guess my post means that you won't be producing a bike for me, any time soon. I actually asked you about building me a bike, several years ago, but the wait was 18 months at that time. I had a life expectancy issue at my age. :)

Sachless Serotta Sandy

[Kirk Pacenti]

When will you guys get it? The bicycle business is exactly that. It's all about growing sales and market share. You want to sell 2,000+ (12,000 for ABG) units a year? I'm here to tell you, in today's market place, your not going to do it with any single material! What is so hard to understand about that?

:confused:

[e-RICHIE]

(snipped):
"
I can't believe that differences in materials cannot - do not - translate into differences in frame feel."


what are these differences? who's feeling them? is there
a baseline test that "shows" what occurs on like-designed
frames? furthermore, can one really discern these differences
after rubber, wheels, and the myriad of bar/stem/saddle
choices are assembled on said frame?

it's not that i'd steadfastly disagree that the characteristics
don't exist; my p.o.v. is that they're trumped up for marketing
reasons. (that was another generalization.).

[Sandy]

I should add that the reason I like both Ben Serotta and Tom Kellogg has nothing to do with their bikes. In my limited experience with each, I have found them to be special people- Highly successful at what they do while simultaneously being very humble, sincere, open, friendly, and geuinely helpful individuals.


Sandy

[e-RICHIE]

snipped:
" If that were the case, R.Sachs, Serotta, and Kellogg would all be or would go out of business, without a doubt."



let me clarify it for you: the names you named are NOT in
the bicycle industry. if you added up the output of these
guys, it might total 3,000, most of that - thanks to serotta.
these are MINUTE numbers in the scheme of things and
we are NOT affected by the market and industry trends.
we live and exist outside of those lines.
(that was another generalization.).

[Andreu]

Am I having a flashback?

[Sandy]

Now what you said makes perfect sense to me. Sales growth and market share. As Specialized use to say (and maybe still does) "Innovate or Die". Certainly in order to exist in businees (and bicycling is a business), one (normally) cannot stagnate. Differerent companies try to evolve and successfully compete and exist by choosing their unique directional mode.

Sandy

[Andreu]

Which E-Richie alluded to in his original note.

[dbrk]

But what's interesting to me is that because the bike industry BigBoys (particularly them, but smaller outfits too) have to sell stuff they have taken the "materials approach" rather than try to sell folks different styles of riding. To wit, we see essentially the "same" model in different material forms or with certain aesthetic changes (say, lugs vs. TIG). So if you have a steel race bike you think that a "different" bike is a titanium or carbon or mixed media bike. My point is that these are only marginal differences---materials are waaaay behind other considerations of design that would create some significance. If a company built "race bikes" in different materials it might create a whole'nother (love that...btw) sales and marketing pitch by trying to sell weekend recreationalists a _different style_ of bike. To wit, say you are Climb and you have great examples of bikes in steel, ti, and carbon, all "race" bikes. Why not try to sell Climb on the virtues and _experiential differences_ of riding, say, 650B. Sure, Climb may know and love race bikes but there is no reason why he couldn't learn to love audax or roughstuffing. Why bike companies don't do this is likely complex but at least part of the reason is that the vast majority in America don't even know there are other ways to ride---all such stuff is considered Phred and hybrid and that sort of dismissive nonsense (rooted in their own ignorance of these different sorts of adventure and country bike riding notions). Why NOT sell different styles rather than just different iterations of the same thing in different materials? Imagine.

dbrk

[Sandy]

My intent was to put that very point in my post, but I mistakenly left it out. I totally agree with you there. You are in certain ways very unique in that it really does not matter what the the "big boys" do in the industry. Trek and R.Sachs are 2 very different worlds, mutually exclusive, with very different agendas and focus. Trek needs to innovate and evolve, change, compete and make enough money to pay the zillion people who work for Trek. You have your own niche. You don't need to change or innovate at all, at least hopefully. You singlehandedy (little smaller payroll than Trek's, I assume) produce lugged steel bicycles that are simply awesomely done, in a very time inefficient manner. You are producing creations that are masterfully done, with a resultant bicycle that is both a piece of art and a superbly riding bicycle. Most of us here realize that. Most of the mass users of bikes don't care. You survive because of your somewhat unique talent and your very low overhead. There is only one way that you will ever build a bike. It takes as long as it takes, period.

Now can I at least buy a R.Sachs water bottle??? :) :)

Sandy

[e-RICHIE]

at the next Hands-Across-America.

xoxoxoxoxos
e-RICHIE

[flydhest]

e-richie,

will you be starting the chorus of Kumbaya?

[Kirk Pacenti]

dbrk,

Sure, the industry does that...
Am I the only one on this list that also rides an extreme "hucking" bike? :p

[Andreu]

I have absolutely no hidden agenda in this whatsoever but I suspect E-Richie and innovates more than we know. I once worked in the Scotch Whisky Industry (hic!) and it is perceived as a very traditional and conservative industry but there is alot of innovation in that sector.
A

[Sandy]

Alot of drinking too.


Alot of scotch whisky drinking.


Alot more drinking than innovating.


Alot more scotch whisky drinking than innovating.


Alot more drinking than most anything.


Alot more scotch whisky drinking than most anything.


Maybe a little innovating while drinking. :)



Scotch@Soda Serotta Sandy

[Andreu]

whisky helps me to innovate! (but not too much...burp...wouldn't want to give the impression I was a drunkard or anything ..hic)
A

[bcm119]

Okay, I'll bite...whats your favorite single malt?

[Andreu]

It would have to be a Macallan but over 12 years old. Anything young is too sulphury for my tastes but the older stuff (like 18 years) is nectar. I like some of the mildly smokey ones too - Laphroaig (15 yrs or older) being a particular favourite.
A

[SPOKE]

here's a couple examples of some innoviation from the likes of e-Richie and Serotta: e-Richie (along with some help from Kirk P i think) developed a couple lugsets that match up very well with the "newer" oversized steel tube sets that are available. they even built a new fork crown that even a "weight weenie" would love. now even Serotta is using oversized head tube lugs on the CSi. i don't think Serotta really cares to build steel forks any more but it's very difficult to knock their carbon forks.

think about this....... my new e-Richie w/ steel fork weighs 18.5lbs with speedplay X2 pedals, DT clincher wheels and Campy Record 10spd and a Stroika saddle. i could spend a bit more and get the bike to about 17lbs.
(my new CSi will be in the similar weight range as the Sachs.) but best of all is with this parts selection currently on the bike i can ride it day in a day out and not worry about a part or frame failure.

don't for a second think that just because these custom builders use steel and lugs that they don't innoviate. they actually continue to refine the standard bearer.....STEEL.

[bcm119]

It would have to be a Macallan but over 12 years old. Anything young is too sulphury for my tastes but the older stuff (like 18 years) is nectar. I like some of the mildly smokey ones too - Laphroaig (15 yrs or older) being a particular favourite.
A

Laphroaig 15 is my all time favorite, but lately I've really been enjoying the Ardbeg 10. Can't wait to try their 17 year old.

Sorry for the tangent.

[chrisroph]

My spectrum steel made in 1987 weighs under 20 lbs with steel fork, nitto built all steel ritchey quill stem, chorus 10 kit, op 32 clincher wheels, si max flite saddle, thomson post, ie nothing at all light, but it rides like a dream. With the 28 ssc's, its 1/2 lb or so lighter.

[dbrk]

I received this press release from a pal of mine...pass the Laphroaig.

dbrk
who cannot absent himself from any group of people who love single malts which are the scotch equivalents of lugged steel...



CHESTER, CT (April 1, 2005): Noted framebuilder Richard Sachs announced today
that effectively immediately, he will be outsourcing all production of Richard
Sachs bicycle frames to Giant Bicycles, Inc. of Taiwan.

"I've been spending too much time in the shop, and not enough time rolling in
the mud with Spencer", says Sachs, from his Chester, CT home. "Tony Lo has
assured me that the high quality to which my clients have become accustomed
shall not suffer."

"There will be some changes in the manner in which Richard Sachs frames are
manufactured, however," adds Lo.

It is not known at this time whether the first Giant-built frames will be of
TIG-welded ultra-light aluminium, or carbon-fibre, but Sachs expects that the
Discovery Channel cycling team will be making a mid-season jump from Trek to
his new frames.

"During the last few years, we have seen a lot of success with the T-Mobile
team riding our frames," says Tony Lo, "but we know that most Americans
wouldn't be caught dead riding something so obviously made in Taiwan. By
taking the Richard Sachs name, we hope that the cachet normally reserved for
invdivually handbuilt frames will carry over to mass production."

"If all goes well," Lo adds, "we hope to offer Richard Sachs frames
through
finer retail establishments in the near future. We already have a committment
for 100,000 bicycles from the Kresge and Walton companies."

[e-RICHIE]

not that there's anything wrong with that...

[djg]

[QUOTE=dbrk


CHESTER, CT (April 1, 2005): Noted framebuilder Richard Sachs announced today
that effectively immediately, he will be outsourcing all production of Richard
Sachs bicycle frames to Giant Bicycles, Inc. of Taiwan.
[/QUOTE]

So, are they going to knock these out in eleven minutes per unit and then warehouse them for a couple of years prior to delivery to protect the brand?

I'll have a bit of that Laphroig now please.

[Kirk Pacenti]

But what's interesting to me is that because the bike industry BigBoys (particularly them, but smaller outfits too) have to sell stuff they have taken the "materials approach" rather than try to sell folks different styles of riding. To wit, we see essentially the "same" model in different material forms or with certain aesthetic changes (say, lugs vs. TIG). So if you have a steel race bike you think that a "different" bike is a titanium or carbon or mixed media bike. My point is that these are only marginal differences---materials are waaaay behind other considerations of design that would create some significance. If a company built "race bikes" in different materials it might create a whole'nother (love that...btw) sales and marketing pitch by trying to sell weekend recreationalists a _different style_ of bike. To wit, say you are Climb and you have great examples of bikes in steel, ti, and carbon, all "race" bikes. Why not try to sell Climb on the virtues and _experiential differences_ of riding, say, 650B. Sure, Climb may know and love race bikes but there is no reason why he couldn't learn to love audax or roughstuffing. Why bike companies don't do this is likely complex but at least part of the reason is that the vast majority in America don't even know there are other ways to ride---all such stuff is considered Phred and hybrid and that sort of dismissive nonsense (rooted in their own ignorance of these different sorts of adventure and country bike riding notions). Why NOT sell different styles rather than just different iterations of the same thing in different materials? Imagine.

dbrk

Douglas,

I know my earlier "hucking" bike quip was flippant, but, I have put some real thought into this very topic.I have thought about it for a long time actually, but still have not crystallized those thoughts into any firm conclusions. My thinking goes something like this;

Some bike companies may be victims of their own success when it comes to branching out into different types of bicycles. For instance, a company may become very well known for making road racing bikes. That same company may also make awesome MTB's (kinda like Serotta). But for one reason or another they never take off and eventually the company stops making them. The same is true of MTB companies who make road bikes, like Santa Cruz for instance. They stopped making road bikes years ago. Or tandem companies who start making singles...remember Santana's ill fated line of single bikes? (neither does anyone else) :p

Now, I don't know if this is because Serotta's loyal customers generally do not ride mtb's...OR, mtb riders think of Serotta as a "road bike" company and they [serotta] can't possibly know what makes a good MTB. (?) I really don't know.

The other thing (and probably closer to the truth) is EDUCATION. I think in general, is is far too difficult and expensive to educate customers to different styles of "road" bikes. The average consumer just can't see the difference, or benefit of one bike over another.

It is FAR easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The most tangible being "light weight" and "high tech", or some variation/ combination of the two. How much longer would it take a sales person to educate a customer to the fact that a "audax' bike is really what they need, than just to say "feel this 16lb bike, this is what Lance rides" and make the sale? I really don't have any answers to this but certainly needs to be addressed industry wide.

Cheers,

[jerk]

Why NOT sell different styles rather than just different iterations of the same thing in different materials?


because the people designing the bikes can't even define trail. they can follow trends, market those trends but they're not going to force the market anywhere....ten years of serotta trained "fitters" putting technomic stems on serotta race bikes and trek finally develops the pilot series of bikes.....racing bikes are not audax bikes but the big three porbably don't have one person on their pay roll who even knows what an audax bike is. the fact that their racing bikes are competitive at all is a result of their involvement with professional athletes who demanded a competitive product. rememeber the garbage that the first american teams showed up in europe with? rememeber those 75degree seat angles and 5cm bb drops? or how about saeco throwing away all their cannondales and writing a very large check to some guy named ugo during the first years of sponsorship? they sort of get it finally, the new cannondales, treks and giants and specializeds are fine race bikes and aren't causing anyone to lose any races.....but it took a while. it should have taken the two and half hours it takes to read the C.O.N.I. manual but the jerk digresses.....if bikes for real people become the next big thing expect the big comapnies to be a little late to the game not early....

jerk

[csb]

e-nichie

[jerk]

huh?

[Ti Designs]

i think the only thing that
matters in the current market is "weight"; folks want to say
their bicycle is 15.4 pounds, no matter what it looks like, what
it's made of, or how it rides.

Weight? Oh, about 18 months...


I have absolutely no hidden agenda in this whatsoever but I suspect E-Richie and innovates more than we know. I once worked in the Scotch Whisky Industry (hic!) and it is perceived as a very traditional and conservative industry but there is alot of innovation in that sector.
A

But the innovation doesn't show up for at least 12 years. What do folks in the scotch whisky industry do to pass the time???

[jerk]

Weight? Oh, about 18 months...




But the innovation doesn't show up for at least 12 years. What do folks in the scotch whisky industry do to pass the time???


what do you think they do? beat their wives and drink....mrs. jerk is a scott so here it's really more about husband beating.
jerk

[Climb01742]

i don't think the "problem" (if there is one) is with "the bicycle industry". we're using that phrase the way republicans use "the liberal media" or (ouch) "senators from massachusetts". :rolleyes:

the responsibility lies with us, the riders. in some very loose, abstract way there may be a "bicycle industry", but from my POV what there really is a bunch of folks who build things. it's up to us to find them and support them. to understand what's true and what's BS.

a personal example. before i rode a pegoretti, i believed weight was a huge factor in going fast. after riding a fina and a marcelo, which ain't flyweights by any means, i now know that in the right hands, weight ain't so important. personally i think its a factor, but one of many.

so it was up to me to learn.

douglas, you are a great example that despite what appears in most bike shops, a person of passion and knowledge can find the bikes he loves. and through your civilized, personable and unfailingly good-natured advocacy, you're educating others. you've intrigued me. case in point, through your posts in the past, i checked out rivendell. haven't bought a bike yet, but i have bought nitto noodle bars (which are great) and one of their great wool sweater-things (which as they say in their catalog, i'm tempted to wear every day.) i now look forward to their catalog coming and to reading grant's take on things. it's educating me and openning my eyes.

there are loads of examples like that, i think. my god, richie's wait-list is three years long. sasha's is growing too. david kirk is able to build cool bendy frames out in montana.

true, none of this is easy. but what business that tries to go off the beaten path and follow a set of personal principles does have it easy? i could rail and belly-ache all day about "the evil ad industry" with its foot on my poor little throat, not understanding my vision. and that would be utter BS. i'm just a guy trying to follow my dream. if i succeed or fail, it won't be because of what some "industry" did. it'll be because of what i did, or didn't, do.

anyone who tries to go their own way -- be it bikes, ads, a restaurant, a book, a small bike shop, open their own law or medical office, any kind of business of their own -- is gonna face obstacles. you gotta find customers who share your off-the-beaten-path values. the "industry" owes us nothing. moaning about the "industry" is pointless and self-indulgent. it's the path we chose.

it's not up to an "industry" to help us succeed or fail. it's up to customers to find their own "paths". interestingly, this site has, i bet, helped a whole bunch of us to learn more and find customers for a lot of off-the-beaten-path builders of stuff.

what was it that scribbler from avon said...the fault dear brutus...we are the architects of our future, not some "industry". everything else is belly-aching. as my little league coach used to say, suck it up. rub some dirt on it. walk it off. :beer:

[cs124]

because the people designing the bikes can't even define trail.

most of the people riding those bikes don't know what trail is either, but they are not going fast enough for it to really matter.

similarly, the average weekend warrior _might_ be more comfortable on an audax bike but he'll be lucky to do 5 hours a week on the bike, he doesn't need the upright positioned low speed stability of a bike designed for riding 18 hours straight, (the last 3 with your eyes closed)

if a rider really thinks about what he needs in a bike he'll find his way onto a suitable machine, if he believes the hype and buys a bike based of glossy adverts, we'll, ain't your problem, you probably can't help him anyway.

Now, get out there and ride.

[Ray]

I have not seen ONE BIKE, not one example, from any of the builders that Climb mentions who builds a true audax bike, at least not aesthetically (because there is more than one way to achieve the same points of contact). I have seen their bikes. You can talk "Rapid Tour" or examples of their "touring" bikes and, well, these are not in the same tradition as the audax styles and designs of the French and Brits or the Japanese (look at my Jitensha, for example).

Sorry to jump in late here - been laid up with the flu and can barely think straight even now.

Why should mainstream manufacturers build a line of true Audax bikes, when the market for true audax bikes is so infintesimally small? A lot of them build bikes that they sell as "comfort road bikes" that tend to have longer chainstays, more relaxed angles, higher bars, etc (see the Specialized Sequoia, Lemond Sarthe, and I know Giant and Trek make similar models). Some even fit long reach brakes, so should be fenderable. I think this probably is enough to deal with the market of folks who don't want true race bikes, but probably aren't going to be riding anything longer than 40-50 miles at a time anyway and don't need all of the features of an audax bike.

I think most folks who buy road bikes actually WANT race bikes - they PLAN on going really really fast and a race bike is a good animal for that. The reality of how they end up riding may be very different, but that's what they want when they go in and it's not all because of marketing. But, again, most of them aren't going to be riding more than 40-50 miles at a time, if that, so a bike that isn't transcendently stable and comfortable isn't really all that critical.

Folks who just want a casual bike for around the neighborhood or the local bike trail are probably better suited to a low end mtb or a hybrid anyway, and that market is well represented. At some point, I really don't think these big bike companies are that dumb - if they thought there was a significant market for true audax bikes, or even a market that could be developed, they'd be all over it. But a true audax rider probably has a pretty exacting idea of what he or she wants and it's readily available from a number of smaller builders.

Maybe things are roughly as they should be.

-Ray

[coylifut]

Isn't the cycling industry like many other mature industries?

You can go to Target and buy clothes
You can go to the department store or company stores and buy clothes (like the Gap or the Polo, Hilfiger...)
You can go to a boutique and spend a little more money on brands such as Zegna, Vestementa...
or you can go to a bespoke tailor on Saville Row

The cycling industry is no different. On the low end it's about volume. On the high end it's about differentiation through quality, function and style. Common throughout this strategy, absent the very top, is the attempt to stimulate replacement. Gotta say though, the bike I ride now functions better than the bike I rode 25 years ago.

I don't think I've seen a POV on this thread yet that I strongly disagree with. e-RICHIE's comment about weight isn't out of line. Check out http://weightweenies.starbike.com/ there's a lot of people fixated on weight or places like the above wouldn't exist. I'd love to see a world where people who toured the country side did so on "proper" Audax style bike instead of a bad manifestation of a race bike. However, at least in this country, we just don't have the tradition to guide new entrants in that direction.

I think Climb makes some good observations. He's simply pointing out that he believes the mentioned builders add value because they adopt materials and processes that make for nice riding bikes and reject those that don't.

Ok, so once again, I've added nothing to this discussion. I'm off to buy a carbon fiber fork for the Sachs cross bike I received last week. NOT.

[tch]

are really on-target, along with the pressure that comes from needing to sell bikes fast and simply.

My brother-in-law bought an expensive bike last year. He had ridden with me many times. We had talked about the importance of fit. We had discussed what type of riding he was going to do (weekend fast recreational rides). He visited several shops -- one of which convinced him that the aero-styled carbon tubed, light-weight, time-trial geometry bike he looked at was FAST, faster than anything else. He rode it for about 15 blocks and you know what -- it was fast. Then he went to my Serotta dealer and when they wouldn't endorse his choice of bike, called them pigs. Now he is riding this thing the first shop showed him. He has four spacers and a 80 mm stem with a +10 degree rise to make it fit -- sort of. He already dropped it once and broke a tube, repaired on warranty. He is happy. Ignorance is bliss.

Chalk up 1 pt. for intellectual simplicity and 0 pts for intelligence or education.

[Sandy]

I don't know what a POV. is. I certainly do believe that decreasing weights of bicycles, in particular road bicycles, is a priority of many bike manufacturers. But that is not what e-RICHIE said. He said that "...the only thing that matters in the current market is weight..." That implies uniqueness of goals, and that simply isn't the case at all. "Weight" (decreasing) is important, but so are many other goals. There certainly is a certain portion of cyclists who must have the lightest and newest in bicycles, but the masses of people who purchase bikes are certainly not, in my opinion, looking at only weight. Nor are the producers. Nor are most road cyclists. Weight may be important to some, but so are handling, responsiveness, ride quality, aesthetic, build design, build quality, stability,.....Even for the weight weenies.


Weightless in space, but certainly nowhere else,
Space Shuttle Sandy

[e-RICHIE]

Ssssssssssssssssssandy wrote (snipped):
" But that is not what e-RICHIE said. He said that "...the only thing that matters in the current market is weight..."



and my post started with these four words:
"these are my generalizations... "

[Sandy]

Understood. I will become for the remainder of the thread (if possible):


Seriously Silent Serotta Sandy

[Kevin]

Understood. I will become for the remainder of the thread (if possible):


Seriously Silent Serotta Sandy

I doubt that Sandy is ever serious or ever silent. :beer:

Kevin

[Sandy]

.

[e-RICHIE]

kumbaya

[dirtdigger88]

kumbaya

bless you! do you need a kleenex?

jason

[Darrell]

don't for a second think that just because these custom builders use steel and lugs that they don't innoviate. they actually continue to refine the standard bearer.....STEEL.
Go the "SLANT 6" :banana:

[Darrell]

Douglas,
It is FAR easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Cheers,
Just like commercial television

[Climb01742]

and every year, the number of people watching "commercial" tv falls. and every year, e-richie's waiting list grows longer. so there must be some discerning people out there someplace. there are people like tch's bro-in-law. and there are people who watch PBS and "curb your enthusiam" and buy vanillas and serottas and kirks and pegs.

using the "dumb masses" as a foil is, i believe, a cop out. there is idiotic behavior everywhere. and brilliant behavior in lots of places too. there is no "them". there is only "us". there may be a lot of mcdonald's and walmarts in the world where cheap and disposable rules. but there are a lot of members of this forum, too, for whom cheap and disposable don't cut it. thank heavens. :beer:

[e-RICHIE]

(snipped):
"thank heavens."



heavens?
cool!

[Climb01742]

yep, i counted. there's more than one. thank heavens. :rolleyes:

ps: of course, i count santa barbara and fenway park and v&t's pizza as some of the heavens.

[csb]

mint chip ice cream

[tch]

using the "dumb masses" as a foil is, i believe, a cop out. there is idiotic behavior everywhere. and brilliant behavior in lots of places too. there is no "them". there is only "us". :beer:

"We have met the enemy -- and they is us". Walt Kelley

[musgravecycles]

mint chip ice cream

Yes, Mint hoc chip ice cream is a small taste of Heaven on earth!!!! ;)

[cpg]

I'm more of a B&J's Chubby Hubby guy.

Curt