Plus Ca Change...

[thelawnet]

I think it's fair comment to say that the majority of posters (especially in this section Bikes & bits) are a pretty rarified bunch, vis a vis people who ride touring bikes. This is after all just the alter ego of the CTC. The clue is in the title! So, if you use numbers as a guide probably represent a fairly small percentage of the bike buying (and regular bike riding) public.

If any proof of this were needed take a walk round your local bike shop, or Evans/Halfords or trawl a site like Wiggle and you'll be lucky to find a single touring specific bike on offer. 99% of the bikes will be multi geared, thin tyres, carbon framed and priced £600 and above.

This is false. I went to Evans yesterday. I am not sure what your point is about 'multi gears' but most bikes certainly did not have carbon frames.

You can argue on the head of a pin (and many do) about the usefulness of such developments, but you can't easily dismiss the effectiveness to the general cycling population and increase in 'bums on saddles' in recent years, which I say would not be possible if the bicycle had not evolved.

So, new forum member or indeed new cyclist don't be scared or cowed in this section by the constant decrying of new tech and carbon frames and wheels and everything (r)evolutionary. Bikes and cycling is a glorious melange of users, technology and applications. This forum should be viewed down the lens as an outpouring of a very specific, albeit minority view of cycling, from its fair to say the 1%.

And its worth reminding the 1% that you don't increase your membership and /or the popularity of cycling by shouting at the 99% your antiquated or fixed 'preferences' for one particular niche of the sport.

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but this a shot across the bows: its not in the spirit of the cycling I grew up with to be so critical of anything new or indeed useful to a new cycling generation bamboozled by choice. Choice is everywhere, it simply didn't exist in the 70's of you wanted a good frame it was 531, good kit you bought Campagnolo. It was simple.

Effective for what? Carbon frames & wheels are useless rubbish unless you are an expert cyclist wanting to shave seconds off your times. For normal 'general population' they are terrible, garbage. I was out of the country for a year when I came back I noticed my car had not been washed for the whole year by my wife, and neither had her bike - clearly carbon that will snap if you overtighten a bolt is useless to such people. Carbon cannot cope with careless handling, it is garbage unsuitable for anyone other than cycling nerds.

I went out on my 23mm racing bike yesterday, very carefully but a few hundred metres from home missed a small pothole & blew out the front tyre. Not to mention the lack of mudguards meaning it needs an immediate wash despite not to my mind going through any mud. It is extremely poorly suited to the generalised task of cycling. I can do the same roads on my cargo bike and get no punctures, cover the same roads, perhaps stop in a shop and pick up some Christmas presents or whatever, not get muddy, etc.

The fact that people are told to buy racing bikes when they are completely useless for most people's purposes, encouraged to buy slightly lighter components despite being 10kg overweight themselves, etc. shows you how poorly the cycle industry and its plethora of shiny baubles actually functions for normal people.

[foxyrider]

I think it's fair comment to say that the majority of posters (especially in this section Bikes & bits) are a pretty rarified bunch, vis a vis people who ride touring bikes. This is after all just the alter ego of the CTC. The clue is in the title! So, if you use numbers as a guide probably represent a fairly small percentage of the bike buying (and regular bike riding) public.

If any proof of this were needed take a walk round your local bike shop, or Evans/Halfords or trawl a site like Wiggle and you'll be lucky to find a single touring specific bike on offer. 99% of the bikes will be multi geared, thin tyres, carbon framed and priced £600 and above.

So, it would apposite to suggest to new members or people new to cycling not to take too seriously the critique of modern bikes and 21st century cycling technologies around here. Think pinch of salt.

I'm not 'comparing' a 1970's middle of the road bike to a modern ride, I'm simply stating that when I look at the two in direct context I do find that the only real similarities and things that have gone unchanged are the brake cables and the chain. Even both of these have evolved, but not in the same exponential way as say braking, indexed shifting or tyre technology.

You can argue on the head of a pin (and many do) about the usefulness of such developments, but you can't easily dismiss the effectiveness to the general cycling population and increase in 'bums on saddles' in recent years, which I say would not be possible if the bicycle had not evolved.

So, new forum member or indeed new cyclist don't be scared or cowed in this section by the constant decrying of new tech and carbon frames and wheels and everything (r)evolutionary. Bikes and cycling is a glorious melange of users, technology and applications. This forum should be viewed down the lens as an outpouring of a very specific, albeit minority view of cycling, from its fair to say the 1%.

And its worth reminding the 1% that you don't increase your membership and /or the popularity of cycling by shouting at the 99% your antiquated or fixed 'preferences' for one particular niche of the sport.

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but this a shot across the bows: its not in the spirit of the cycling I grew up with to be so critical of anything new or indeed useful to a new cycling generation bamboozled by choice. Choice is everywhere, it simply didn't exist in the 70's of you wanted a good frame it was 531, good kit you bought Campagnolo. It was simple.

Rather than batter the daylights out of tech and new developments you 'just don't like' would it not be 100% more productive to argue the pros and cons of what's available and help people (especially new cyclists) navigate their way to a best choice bike or piece of kit for a best choice cycling activity?

There's a barrage of criticism and negative consequence on this section which is not helping anyone. It may feed your ego to be 'right' all of the time but you are turning away new users and the 99% of those who do not ride touring bikes, but commute or exclusively ride sportive, or who race, or the indeed the spoiled for choice mamils out there. Buying a bike now is a very confusing exercise.

This is becoming a purposeful exclusion, whereas it should be a purposely inclusive forum.

I also think that a copy and paste dissection of this post and/or critique is fundamentally unhelpful. Rather take a look at your own posts and reflect for a moment are they genuinely useful to the 99%? You are broadcasting your views (albeit to a fairly small audience) but if you want to increase your chances of success of this organisation and cycling in general, think twice before you go off on a halcyon days pursuit of luddite proportion, and think on, put the needs (mostly sage advice) of your readers first.

+1

Have to say you've nailed it there

[David9694]

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but this a shot across the bows: its not in the spirit of the cycling I grew up with to be so critical of anything new or indeed useful to a new cycling generation bamboozled by choice. Choice is everywhere, it simply didn't exist in the 70's of you wanted a good frame it was 531, good kit you bought Campagnolo. It was simple.

Number one battery manned and ready, communications tested. Target bearing red 290, range 1500, commence, commence, commence!

I’m always struck by some of the pro wheel builders’ websites - I won’t do this, don’t ask me to do that, I won’t use that manufacturer’s products and so on. I think the general message here is that there’s been a lot of hype and rubbish put out by manufacturers to part the gullible from their cash and if it does turn out to be junk, that won’t promote their cycling career. However, sell the guy the right bike, you won’t see him again for 10 years.

We live in a world where much of the innovation is powered by the needs of very specific disciplines who are prepared to upgrade and replace equipment every couple of years. Some of this helps “our” type of rider, some does not. I agree we should look at the pros and cons and report our experiences.

It’s quite hard for an average High Street shopper outside big cities to find a “decent” bike for fast day riding, year round commuting, or touring: the choice is a MTB or a race-oriented carbon bike, or maybe a flat barred town bike. I haven’t bought a complete production bike since 2007, and that was to replace one I got in 2005 that crashed. Nelson Audax, or Genesis Equilibrium frame, Cane Creek, Shimano 105, H+Son, SKS, Deda finishing kit, and you’ve got it made in my view. But you can’t buy them!

Just as dog owners will tell you he knows every word you say, so it is with bikes: sometimes it’s “come on let’s go”, other times every stroke seems like a drag. Gas pipe, 531 or 853, it happens.

[foxyrider]

I think it's fair comment to say that the majority of posters (especially in this section Bikes & bits) are a pretty rarified bunch, vis a vis people who ride touring bikes. This is after all just the alter ego of the CTC. The clue is in the title! So, if you use numbers as a guide probably represent a fairly small percentage of the bike buying (and regular bike riding) public.

If any proof of this were needed take a walk round your local bike shop, or Evans/Halfords or trawl a site like Wiggle and you'll be lucky to find a single touring specific bike on offer. 99% of the bikes will be multi geared, thin tyres, carbon framed and priced £600 and above.

This is false. I went to Evans yesterday. I am not sure what your point is about 'multi gears' but most bikes certainly did not have carbon frames.

You can argue on the head of a pin (and many do) about the usefulness of such developments, but you can't easily dismiss the effectiveness to the general cycling population and increase in 'bums on saddles' in recent years, which I say would not be possible if the bicycle had not evolved.

So, new forum member or indeed new cyclist don't be scared or cowed in this section by the constant decrying of new tech and carbon frames and wheels and everything (r)evolutionary. Bikes and cycling is a glorious melange of users, technology and applications. This forum should be viewed down the lens as an outpouring of a very specific, albeit minority view of cycling, from its fair to say the 1%.

And its worth reminding the 1% that you don't increase your membership and /or the popularity of cycling by shouting at the 99% your antiquated or fixed 'preferences' for one particular niche of the sport.

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but this a shot across the bows: its not in the spirit of the cycling I grew up with to be so critical of anything new or indeed useful to a new cycling generation bamboozled by choice. Choice is everywhere, it simply didn't exist in the 70's of you wanted a good frame it was 531, good kit you bought Campagnolo. It was simple.

Effective for what? Carbon frames & wheels are useless rubbish unless you are an expert cyclist wanting to shave seconds off your times. For normal 'general population' they are terrible, garbage. I was out of the country for a year when I came back I noticed my car had not been washed for the whole year by my wife, and neither had her bike. Carbon cannot cope with careless handling, it is garbage unsuitable for anyone other than cycling nerds.

I went out on my 23mm racing bike yesterday, very carefully but a few hundred metres from home missed a small pothole & blew out the front tyre. Not to mention the lack of mudguards meaning it needs an immediate wash despite not to my mind going through any mud. It is extremely poorly suited to the generalised task of cycling. I can do the same roads on my cargo bike and get no punctures, cover the same roads, perhaps stop in a shop and pick up some Christmas presents or whatever, not get muddy, etc.

The fact that people are told to buy racing bikes when they are completely useless for most people's purposes, encouraged to buy slightly lighter components despite being 10kg overweight themselves, etc. shows you how poorly the cycle industry and its plethora of shiny baubles actually functions for normal people.

Having worked in the trade for many years, most people are not told to buy racing bikes, in fact just the opposite is true. The purchase is consumer led, more times than I can count i've spent time with people explaining the merits of bike type a (which is suitable for their stated use) only for them to say ' but I want type b'. What am I going to do, not sell them type b because - think it's wrong for them? If they came in wanting to buy an all singing, all dancing road bike, that's their 'dream', it might not be appropriate but that has ever been the way of things.

[thelawnet]

Having worked in the trade for many years, most people are not told to buy racing bikes, in fact just the opposite is true. The purchase is consumer led, more times than I can count i've spent time with people explaining the merits of bike type a (which is suitable for their stated use) only for them to say ' but I want type b'. What am I going to do, not sell them type b because - think it's wrong for them? If they came in wanting to buy an all singing, all dancing road bike, that's their 'dream', it might not be appropriate but that has ever been the way of things.

I don't think it's right to say the purchase is consumer led. The purchase is led by marketing on levels outside the LBS. If you buy a racing bike online then that purchase has been led by something, it might not be the bloke in the shop, but it is various things like space-age materials, weight specs, youtube videos, pro cycling, etc.

I think there is a fashion cycle as well - for a long time bikes were trying to emulate 'mountain bikes', so you got some horrible lumps of metal that looked a bit like mountain bikes, for £100 or whatever. Now that trend is 'done', a racing bike looks more 'now' and people are going for that on some basis of 'I want one like that' based on images off TV or whatever.

Clearly, however, independent of considerations about which bike suits a new user, it's fair to say that the hypothetical neophyte does not need carbon bits on his bike so condemnation of this material here is perfectly fine.

[Canuk]

+1

Have to say you've nailed it there

Cheers Foxy. I think this section would be 110% more useful if the 1% thought more carefully about their posts when shouting to the 99% who are less knowledgeable about bike tech and cycling in general. If you have pet hates or aversion to modern technology, probably best to keep that to yourself and concentrate on the pros and cons and delivering sage advice rather than decrying anyone who doesn't happen to concur with your exact view of the bike world. Comments along the line of 'carbon frames are dangerous' are absolutely useless in a modern context. As is sniping.

That helps no one.

[pwa]

I remember choosing my Falcon Black Diamond some time around 1971. The thing that sold it to me was the colour. Purple. I liked purple. The bloke who ran the shop just stood by and let me choose. No discussion about gears or brakes or anything else.

People go into bike shops armed with their own image of what they want. That is a constant. They will be influenced by sporting and lifestyle images. That is a constant too. From Eddy Mercx to BMX and on to recent Tour glory, and all the Mtb stuff. People have their own yearnings that they express through their purchases. Nothing at all new in that.

[thelawnet]

+1

Have to say you've nailed it there

Cheers Foxy. I think this section would be 110% more useful if the 1% thought more carefully about their posts when shouting to the 99% who are less knowledgeable about bike tech and cycling in general. If you have pet hates or aversion to modern technology, probably best to keep that to yourself and concentrate on the pros and cons and delivering sage advice rather than decrying anyone who doesn't happen to concur with your exact view of the bike world. Comments along the line of 'carbon frames are dangerous' are absolutely useless in a modern context. As is sniping.

Not dangerous necessarily, just useless for people who aren't already bike nerds. In which case they are already in the 1%.

[Canuk]

I remember choosing my Falcon Black Diamond some time around 1971. The thing that sold it to me was the colour. Purple. I liked purple. The bloke who ran the shop just stood by and let me choose. No discussion about gears or brakes or anything else.

People go into bike shops armed with their own image of what they want. That is a constant. They will be influenced by sporting and lifestyle images. That is a constant too. From Eddy Mercx to BMX and on to recent Tour glory, and all the Mtb stuff. People have their own yearnings that they express through their purchases. Nothing at all new in that.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Marketing and lifestyle images have always been with us. In fact I think cyclists are more suggestible to this than even car owners. Nothing at all new in it. Carbon fibre is just the new MTB front suspension - a technical advance that was initially poo pooed by all and sundry and then in quick order accepted as an industry standard, must have piece of kit. Like I said upthread you are the 1% attempting to preach to the 99%, and that's not helping.

Like it or not the biggest part of regular organised cycling is now the Sportive. It has brought tens if not hundreds of thousands new cyclists onto the roads. Bikes specific to that branch don't need mudguards, or much in the way of luggage carrying ability. They need to be lightweight, efficient, safe and above all reliable.

I have a Cannondale Supersix which I use near exclusiveky for these type of events, with the minimum of maintenance is given me 20,000km of hassle free cycling. I couldn't imagine any other bike better suited to the task. The cycling world, and the types of cyclists have changed dramatically even in the last 5 years. If you want CUK to be a success you ultimately have to take that on board, address it, and think about what you post before you go off on one.

Which helps no one

[Samuel D]

This is the “Technical section”. Expect to see fact-based technical critique. Expect knowledgeable people to have opinions. If you don’t understand technology and don’t want to learn, what do you get out of participating?

There are enough places on the web to find sycophantic reviews of new products, repetition of cycling’s current tropes, and consumerism elevated to a lifestyle without this little forum adding to their number.

Also, a forum is for conversation. That means replying to questions that are posed to you – even if they’re hard or you don’t know the answer – and engaging with the subject at hand.

Ignoring all challenges and instead bringing up new topics at a faster rate than can be addressed does not constitute a conversation. That’s what personal blogs or their social-media equivalents are for.

[Brucey]

I agree with Samuel.

As for 'not seeing touring bikes for sale', don't make me laugh. The bike trade is constantly reinventing and repackaging the touring bike, hence

- hybrids
- trekking bikes
- expedition bikes
- randonneur bikes
- CX-lookalike (FauCX ) bikes
- gravel bikes
etc etc

Even so-called road bikes come with touring bike gearing these days; they are certainly not meant for any kind of real racing.

You don't 'need' mudguards because it of course never rains on sportives…..

The use of bikes that ape road-racing bikes for all kinds of training and touring is great for the bike trade; this stuff is often built a bit too light for the use it sees, it gets filthy, wears out, breaks, corrodes etc ten times faster than normal because the mudguards are either missing or just rubbish . 'Special' mudguards that cost plenty often don't fit or work properly and run so close to the tyres that they disappear into the workings with monotonous regularity.

Ker-ching!

cheers

[thelawnet]

You don't 'need' mudguards because it of course never rains on sportives…..

Didn't rain yesterday, still got muddy. It's almost as if England is a damp & muddy land.

[StephenW]

Marketing and lifestyle images have always been with us.
...
Which helps no one

I think that grumpy skepticism serves a very useful purpose! There are a whole host of marketing departments out there trying to convince people to buy their new stuff. This needs to be counterbalanced by an army of beardy engineers, who will cut through the marketing jibber-jabber and get down to the real physical principles, to see whether the new stuff really is any better or not.

[thelawnet]

Marketing and lifestyle images have always been with us.
...
Which helps no one

I think that grumpy skepticism serves a very useful purpose! There are a whole host of marketing departments out there trying to convince people to buy their new stuff. This needs to be counterbalanced by an army of beardy engineers, who will cut through the marketing jibber-jabber and get down to the real physical principles, to see whether the new stuff really is any better or not.

Indeed. We see every few years that the latest gubbins are in fact rubbish and a bad idea. Things like low normal derailleurs, dual control mtb shifters , fat bikes, Shimano airlines , history is littered with expensive rubbish, and it's more useful to call it out than to say that in fact 1*12 is a better solution than 3*9 for the average cyclist when it plainly is not , no matter how much money might be spent on developing and marketing it

[StephenW]

... for one particular niche of the sport.

To some people cycling is a sport, to others it is primarily a mode of transport. I suspect this is part of the reason behind the disagreement.

You can argue on the head of a pin (and many do) about the usefulness of such developments, but you can't easily dismiss the effectiveness to the general cycling population and increase in 'bums on saddles' in recent years, which I say would not be possible if the bicycle had not evolved.

There has been a notable increase in cycling for transport in some places in recent years, like in central London, but I don't think this has anything to do with improvements to bike design... Nationally mode share hasn't changed much I think. I guess you were talking about sporty cycling not transport.