Airsporter1st wrote:Its a funny old world isn't it? All this talk about snobbery and yet the only snobbery to be found in the above thread is of the inverse variety.
Okay, I'll take the bait. There is such a pile of inverted snobbery in this thread its hard to stomach. According to some Rohloff and S&S couplings are 'practical' and desirable things, virtually indispensable. According to some...
So let's price up this dream build.. Brian Rourke 953 Rohloff compatible frame £1900. S&S gubbins upgrade £600, Rohloff about £1000. Let's get ac carbon chain and chain ring £200, do away with the 80's gripshift with a Rohbox and some Dura Ace shifters £500. Decent wheelsbuild £300, finishing kit to match with disc braking £800. Plus bags, racks and suitably plush hub dynamo lightning: no change out of £6K. Of course that's 'crazy' how could ANYONE want spend that much on a BICYCLE?
Of course all of this esoteric stuff = GOOD
A carbon bike for half the price, with disc braking heavy duty , virtually indestructible carbon wheels and wireless shifting = BAD
This thread is symptomatic of all inverted bike snobs attempting to condescend and dictate to everyone else who might have an opinion. And hell mend you are dumb enougj to disagree with. Its really not on.
Like was said upthread. There's a good reason why a £500,000 house is better and more desirable than a £50k house. Quality of build and workmanship, longevity and able to hold is value in practical and economic terms.
I think you'll find that Rohloff and S&S couplings anathema to the vast majority of cyclists who spend £1k plus on a bike. There's such a thing as variety, and what suits a peronal need and preference. The mass market is not something to be poo-pooed. Its where the innovation most of us take for granted comes from. STI gearing, cassette hubs, disc braking, tubeless tyres, lightweight tubing, frame design. The list goes and on. Yet the same snobs brand club cyclists who invest in it as 'thick and unimaginative'.
Inverted snobbery indeed.