amediasatex wrote:round and round in circles we go...
Everything has upsides and downsides, pros and cons, where that fits on your personal spectrum of 'worth it' is very much personal and a combination of your expectations and capabilities.
The thing I find a bit unsettling in this thread isn't the different viewpoints, not even the slightly stubborn reluctance to acknowledge that other people might want different things, no, it's the instance that people with opposing viewpoints are wrong, and in some cases some pretty disparaging words have been thrown about (gullible, fool, naive etc.) and I find it quite unpleasant if I'm honest.
Contributors from both extremes have put forward their personal justifications for certain bits of kit, the pitfalls they perceive and the things they like, and that's just it, some of the pitfalls might be a deal-breaker for person X, where as for person Y it's not even a mild worry, that doesn't make either of them wrong, it just means they're different people with different requirements.
The truth of the matter is that the range of kit available these days is so wide that it does cater for almost every need, and very little is actually imposed upon you without there being an alternative. Even those lamenting the loss of certain kinds of bike and/or kit would have to grudgingly accept that actually it's not lost at all, it's still available if you want it, and even if the 'mainstream' market doesn't cater for you that doesn't mean the mainstream is wrong, it just means you're not mainstream...for example this whole STI debate, they've not become ubiquitous due to some conspiracy, they've become ubiquitous because the average person riding a bike finds them to perform adequately to their needs and offer benefits over alternatives. The long distance tourer, or roughstuffer are not the mainstream market.
disclaimer...
yes I have bikes with STI, and ergos, and downtube, and bar end, and SS/fixed, derailleurs and IGH, disc and rim brakes, thin tyres and fat tyres, drop bars and flat, 1,3,5,8,9,10 and 11 speed, made form steel, aluminium, (not Ti any more) and carbon, and you know what....they're ALL good, and they ALL have pros and cons.
I don't feel hoodwinked or duped, or gullible or anything, I simply ride the bikes I want to ride with the features that are important to me. anything I find lacking enough to really be a problem gets passed by, and anything that I find really offers something good might spread to my other bikes too.
In summary, I like riding bikes, and I think we have it pretty good really...
IMO this post misses the point of the thread,which is to sort out which is true progress and which is smoke and mirrors.
Well designed and well made stuff endures in that individual pieces of kit lasts and works year in year out,it doesn't need to be redesigned for the sake of it.
Take STI's as and example,they were made very well indeed initially,ergonomically they were great the 7,8and 9sp versions lasted a loonnngggg time indeed,due to sound engineering.But over the past two decades they've been cheapened as the cost rose since 10 and 11sp came on the scene.We now have STI's with much reduced lifespan,.
As they change shape and colour from year to year and bury the 'washing lines' under the bar tape,since that design change I keep reading and hearing of STI failures after quite short lifespans,it's not progress but built in failure.
I think the two camps we fall into come from wanting good reliable kit that lasts is supported by spares availability and the Oh well hears an opportunity to 'upgrade'
,either could be viewed as positive or negativ,but the latter leads me to think where does this end.IMO the sweet spot passed us by and we're now well into electronic throw away world where something's old when the next new shine trinket is launched by manufacturer's,I gave an example of the iPhone up thread,where if yours is more than a couple of years old you're stuffed coz Apple don't support it any longer,bike kit's going the same way.
