Cycling UK Forum

Before we’re completely done, I’d like to hear someone try to make a non-practical argument for preferring simplicity in their bicycle. Even though, as I have stated, I think simplicity still retains important practical advantages.

dlv13 wrote:

Duh,

really is this a appropriate way to start a response to someone elses opinion :roll

I can understand your feelongs as it's typical to be frightened or at least suspicious of anything not seen before.
BUT this is the only semi-integrated headset you've seen, so you don;t really have elements to judge.

NO,, how dare you suggest that i am frightened or suspicious of new things , on what do you base that ? that i am criticising components that DO NOT DO THEIR JOB
now i would never suggest that i am a expert on things cycling but it must be about 50 years since i first threw a leg over a bike saddle and like many on this forum seen changes over the years many improvements especially in the braking dept , but when changes start to appear like your integrated headset which give me a problem that i have never experienced before even riding a bike with a cracked head tube , why change something that works for something that does not ? a question i asked in my thread which you do not seem to answer except to brag about all the expensive bikes you have seen that also have this same dubious technology ....

Let me say again "duh!" as an expression for the obvious that you cannot see.
In fact, you ARE frightened and suspicious of anything new, even radial laced wheels are a "why, why, why" for you.
No hard feelings man, but you need to open your eyes and see how things are. Because nobody is saying that "this or that" is actually enforced, but is an option that you can or you cannot have. In life is good to have a choice.

This thing about the headset is blatant of some attitude of the "ultra-conservative cyclist": a different thing is immediately blamed as "useless", "no need for that" (hey, is just an option you can have), "today's fashion", "emperor's new clothes", and so on.
This not only greatly misses the fact that those are options and as such not compulsory, but also carries within a truly disrespectful attitude in regards of other people's work.
I'll try to explain this briefly: you have a type of headset you never seen before, there is a problem, you cannot understand what exactly the problem is, you cannot compare to a working one ----> you blame it as "IT DOESN'T WORK", thus saying that dozens of engineers cannot do their work and have put on the road one million of bicycles that do not work.

In a nutshell, is very much like "I don't know how it's done and how it works, but I'm sure is wrong! I am the only one that is right amongst dozens of people that are wrong".
My comment to this:

My advice is that you understand how soemthing works, you try it and compare it, then say if it works or not.
In fact, a semi integrated headset is actually easier to manufacture in the beginning, and to keep right for the end user. What you have there is a poorly manufactured part, it doesn't matter what is the design: it's a slop fit and for this reason it won't work.
The biggest problem I see here, is not the headset, but that you won't admit it. It would be so easy and so more effective to bring back that bike where you bought it and ask for your money back!

Samuel D wrote:Before we’re completely done, I’d like to hear someone try to make a non-practical argument for preferring simplicity in their bicycle. Even though, as I have stated, I think simplicity still retains important practical advantages.

It depends on what one wants.
As I said, is good to have a choice, though this adds options that are seen irritating by some.

Quite frankly, I am very happy with single-speed bikes. They are simple, reliable, easy to keep up.
But if you add gears...

reohn2 wrote:

Gattonero wrote:

pwa wrote:Sunday, and lots of people will be out on their bikes today, braving the iffy weather. And whether they are on Pashleys or Moultons, or on fancy carbon jobs with electronic gears, they are all cyclists enjoying the wind on their faces. In a sense, whatever they are riding they are sharing something and, I think, not "losing the plot". If cycling is about the activity rather than the weapon of choice.

Even this discussion about what constitutes a good bike is a cycling tradition as old as the hills. Everything has changed but nothing has changed.

I think this can wrap it up!

+1 though I prefer a 31 page argument to a 2 page one

"I'd like a 31 page argument please"
"no you wouldn't"
etc etc etc

My point is really that if you are so sure that you need all the latest ('grotesquely overcomplicated' as Samuel described), gear when you go for a nice little ride, maybe you are not doing it because you are getting the wind in your face, etc, maybe you have lost sight of that.

Take the sport of golf; there are, I am told, more inventions concerning golf that result in patent applications than any other single subject. Yet the R&A rules mandate simple shapes for clubs and clubheads, limits on coefficients of restitution etc, effectively banning all kinds of gizmos. As in cycling, the equipment manufacturers would like to innovate further (purely to sell more gear) and are resisted by the rule makers who see a real danger that their sport is in danger of disappearing up its own fundament (or turning into an unrecognisable joke) if they let free rein to it. You can gauge how this battle has been going in that in the last 15-20 years, all competition golf courses have had (at vast expense, in some cases to the ruination of a prized extant layout) to be lengthened by about 10%, because the rule-makers arguably allowed too much scope for equipment development. It is easy to measure 'development success' in (say) drivers by measuring the distance and dispersion of shots hit by a golfing robot. But it is arguably pointless development because you are playing other golfers in competition, who will soon equip themselves similarly if there is any real advantage, or the technology gets banned. As in cycling the kind of equipment that really works well for professionals is not the same as that which works for an amateur anyway, but that doesn't stop amateurs from wanting it, even though it offers no advantage or is even detrimental in some way. [ BTW In some enlightened golf clubs, they have a few competitions a year that remove the emphasis on equipment and put it back onto the golfer's skill by restricting the number and/or type of clubs that are used.] I hope that this analogy parallels the world of cycling closely enough that it has made it clear what some of the problems really are.

I won't say that "Di2 has ruined cycle sport" but I will say that a good many racers have been denied their chance of victory and races skewed by its many malfunctions. At an amateur/hobby level I see folk who spend all their time worrying about their 'grotesque overcomplications' rather than something simpler like some decent training or simply looking at the scenery...

[edit; BTW if you think that "I don't know how it works so I am innately suspicious of it", you couldn't be more wrong; I know exactly how it works and it is on that basis that I form my views..... ]

cheers

The opening title was "Cycling as a whole".
You have just used golf as a comparison but all the restrictions in golf and the whole reason for those restrictions is because of the sport/competition/fairness of the game.
If you just want to knock a ball around and into a hole, then anything goes.

Same for cycling as a whole.

Now if we have a problem with cycling as a sport dominating cycling as a whole, then that is a rather different debate. Bringing up golf illustrates the case of what happens when your activity is nothing more than a competition. Also the concerns are about that somebody may be getting an advantage, rather than that their equipment's benefit is all hype. If it was the latter, who would care?

my concern is not that folk 'are getting an advantage' so much as they think they are and therefore are prepared to spend more (about double) on equipment that is probably less well suited to their true needs.

I don't think this is good for cycling 'as a whole' and to some extent it almost certainly distracts/deprives cyclists from the simple pleasures of riding a bike.

Drawing a parallel with golf again, with some clubs you can feel when you have hit the ball perfectly, without having to even see the ball fly through the air. With other clubs that 'help the poorer golfer' you could have hit the ball well or badly and you would have to look at where the balls goes to be sure. This arguably helps not the game and not the golfer, in the long term, yet is regarded as a useful thing by the equipment makers. The influence of 'improved equipment' on the game is not even benign; it is arguably counterproductive.

I suspect the same thing to be true in some respects for cycling; certainly I do not think that the main thrust of 'new equipment developments' is well aimed; it smacks all too much of folk doing stuff because they could rather than really because they should....

cheers

Brucey
Its electromic shifting for me everytime

and to some extent it almost certainly distracts/deprives cyclists from the simple pleasures of riding a bike.

I think many are happy enough.
I am sure that those who like progress for progress's sake will point out that all the new stuff that detracts is just bad stuff, rather than a fault of technological progress.

A clear example of that would be cheap suspension forks ruining many a cheap bike, yet quality suspension forks enhancing really rough riding. Just as they did for motorcycles.

Apologies if this is repeating something from an earlier post but this thread is a bit like cycling AS Brucey see it. Its got over complicated and no longer serves its original purpose
However what seems to be missing is that for almost everyone cycling is fun. For many of use using flash new kit is fun. We all have our biases. I fail to see the need for hi tech mobile phones. In fact I struggle to see a need for any mobile phones. Survived without them. So what if things took longer.
I run a basic SS rim braked bike. Discs would be better as they as easier to maintain and make the rims last longer but that would mean a new frame. I also run an 11 speed, hydro braked Ti road bike. I like the tech. I like to buy something new. Yes , much cycling kit offers little gain but what about the fun of the researching, buying, fitting and playing?

to some extent it almost certainly distracts/deprives cyclists from the simple pleasures of riding a bike.

Hmm. I'm not sure why you think it does. At the end of the day, you are riding a bike. Let's face it. There are quite a lot of people who ride classic bikes from an earlier era. The appeal is the exact opposite. retro rather than techno. But they are concentrating (or at least have an interest in) the machine itself rather than what it does. Are you saying tht this distracts them from the pure cycling experience?

Stories alert:-
Story 1
I used to ride with a chap who had to eat at the same set time everyday,8am,12noon 6pm,and claimed it played havoc with his stomach if he didn't eat within 10 or 15 minutes of those times.During a discussion about his 'problem' I asked him what he did when the clocks went back or forward,he looked at me with incredulity,so I asked if his eating changed to 7/9am,11am 1pm,5/6pm,he simply said it remained the same,I pointed out the anomaly and that his 'problem' was all in the mind

Story 2
I used to ride with another chap who bought a pair of Gomitalia high end open tubulars despite me and others telling him they were too flimsy,and he insisted pumping them up to 120psi even though he was a small light guy(and an incredible climber BTW).Anyway the rear one promply expoded on a sunny day outside a cafe(frightened the life out of a few people )So for a week or two he was riding around with a Conti on the rear until he decided what to do.
I asked him what were his tyre plansq, he said with a perfectly honest and straight face without a hint of a joke or irony,and I'll never forget it "I'll have to do something soon as I can feel the fromt wheel wanting to go faster than the rear"

Story 3
In the 80's I worked with a chap who bought a brand new Rover 3.5ltr and was really happy with it,until it was stolen,I think the terrm is "gutted"
After a day or two the police rang him andmtold him the car had been recovered and was at the police station for him to collect.
A couple of days later I asked him if he'd picked it up and if there was any damage,his rely was yes he'd picked it up and no there was no damage but he told me he'd have to sell it,(this was a 3 month old car), as he "didn't know where it had been,or what they'd been doing in it".
I advised him if he was unsure about it,to take it in to the dealer tell them what had happened and ask them to give it a good check over for damage and a good valeting and clean inside and out.
He said "I could do all that but it'll never be the same"
I remember saying to him I was glad for him someone hadnt burgled his house,as he'd have to move
He sold the car.
Psychology.........

Ellieb wrote: Are you saying tht this distracts them from the pure cycling experience?

people get distracted by all kinds of things. I regularly see pedestrians (and increasing cyclists too) who are so intent on what is going on in their mobile phone that they are not looking where they are going any more.

It even happens if it is your job not to be distracted by technology and you are amongst the best at doing what you do; just today two F1 drivers collided with one another on the warm down lap and one of them commented that "he may have not been looking where he was going because he was too intent on putting the car into the right mode" or words to that effect. In other words he was too busy looking at some poxy little screen and pushing buttons instead of where he was going.....

My view is that there are very many cyclist's handlebars that look like the sales display at Curry's and that yes this crap does distract you from the simple pleasures of cycling whilst you are doing it, as well as the rest of the time when you are busy making sure that the gizmos are 'still working', not getting left behind, stolen, or that their batteries don't go flat.

Folk feel most at one with technology when you can use it in a seamless way; maybe for some folk Di2 works like that. But the daft thing is that changing gear is not complicated or strenuous; it is a simple skill that can be easily learned and becomes something that you do without thinking. It is a lot easier than many other skills like balancing upright on a bicycle or even opening a door or something. Yet we mostly don't (yet... ) feel the need for motorised electronic gizmos for those purposes, do we...?

meic wrote: A clear example of that would be cheap suspension forks ruining many a cheap bike, yet quality suspension forks enhancing really rough riding. Just as they did for motorcycles.

cheap suspension forks are a good example of exactly what I mean. Such fripperies entice folk into buying a £99 'mountain bike' and the resultant machine is such a heap of rubbish that it soon appears at a recycling depot near you. Fact is that you can build a simple bike and sell it for about the same price and it will be a far better machine than the 'MTB' even though it has a rigid frame and perhaps only one gear. But folk buy the gizmo-laden MTB because they think 'more is better'. Well it isn't; more is more trouble, more weight, more crap to not work right in the first place and more to go wrong.

You can make the exact same argument at any price point; you can choose between 'quality' (see Pirsig) and 'features' at any price point and like a load of gullible fools folk tend to gravitate towards 'features' because 'more is better'...."hey look, this one goes to eleven...."...duh.....

Think about it; if more (say) gears were really 'always better' then today there would be no single-speed bikes sold at all and the three-speed hub would be a footnote in history. As it is they are still making millions of simple IGHs every year and singlespeed bikes are commonplace; both are preferred by many who could easily choose otherwise.

Such folk might see past the hype and consider that the benefits offered by something more complicated are outweighed by the attendant downsides. Or they might just see 'quality' -of the bike and the experience of riding it- in ways that gizmo-cravers obviously don't.

ps. your stories made me chuckle, R2...

cheers

Samuel D wrote:Before we’re completely done, I’d like to hear someone try to make a non-practical argument for preferring simplicity in their bicycle. Even though, as I have stated, I think simplicity still retains important practical advantages.

Its just a bike. Its a tool for going places and perhaps carrying stuff to and fro. But in doing so you get to see the world from a slightly different prospective and perhaps leaves you with more happy feelings and memories than if you drove, or took the bus. Looking back at all the cycle trips and tours I've taken, its not about the equipment I used which i remember, it's the company of people I rode with, the weather and the destination which are important.

There's no rational argument for the bicycle to be more complicated. If I wanted to get there faster (performance being the cited reason for most bicycle developments\ complications) I would have chosen another form of transport. If I wanted to travel on something insanely complicated I would have borrowed my friend's super bike. Apparently it has a brain which adjusts throttle control, back and back wheel traction which stops you wheeling the bike in 1,2 and 3 gear, and this is before we speak about abs..

There's a line in a film called 'fight club' where the anti hero says something like 'I started to wonder what designs of Swedish produced furniture best reflected my personality', and I wonder if that's not true of some people and the cycle components they use. Its like simply questioning why they've chosen x or y component is suddenly seen as some sort of character examination, or perhaps even some sort of an attack on their ego. Like those times when you've over taken a really expensive car on your bike, as its sat in a traffic queue, the driver of which now feels the need to over take you at whatever cost.

Which is silly if you think about it.

They're just bikes. Tools, machines, whatever. They're not gods. Whether they've got one gear or hub gears or derailleurs isn't as important as You, the people in your life, nor the care or love that you receive and give in return. Bikes are like a teensy part of life. Its not the other way around. However it seems to me the more complicated you make them, the large chunk of our mind or spirit they seem to possess. What you own ends up owning you.

Brucey wrote:.

You can make the exact same argument at any price point; you can choose between 'quality' (see Pirsig) and 'features' at any price point and like a load of gullible fools folk tend to gravitate towards 'features' because 'more is better'...."hey look, this one goes to eleven...."...duh.....

+1
Pirsig should be compulsory reading for teenagers

your stories made me chuckle, R2...

cheers

Glad I made someone happy if only briefly

cycle tramp wrote:...

There's a line in a film called 'fight club' where the anti hero says something like 'I started to wonder what designs of Swedish produced furniture best reflected my personality', and I wonder if that's not true of some people and the cycle components they use. Its like simply questioning why they've chosen x or y component is suddenly seen as some sort of character examination, or perhaps even some sort of an attack on their ego.........

Which is silly if you think about it.

They're just bikes. Tools, machines, whatever. They're not gods. Whether they've got one gear or hub gears or derailleurs isn't as important as You, the people in your life, nor the care or love that you receive and give in return. Bikes are like a teensy part of life. Its not the other way around. However it seems to me the more complicated you make them, the large chunk of our mind or spirit they seem to possess. What you own ends up owning you.

Oh! well said and so right.
For so many it becomes, 'you are what you have'