5 ms·

I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bot

I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.

grogenaut 8y ago
The problem is like 0.2% of cyclists actually race but it's about 95% of marketing.
- Joeri 8y ago
  And arguably, if the goal is to get a workout, an easier ride just means you’ll have to cycle longer to reach your goal.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    Counterpoint: for me, buying an easier (in my case: much lighter) bike, was the difference between deciding to ride or to not ride at all. I don't think I'm alone in that.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      You're definitely not wrong. I can (and have) ridden my cyclocross bike for hours, which I have no desire of attempting on a Citibike, what I was using before I bought my own bike.
      - grogenaut 8y ago
        Sure but to you and go: you don't need to spend 10k to get a bike that meets those needs. Anything in the 1-2k range (eg laptop) prices is a very very nice bike. Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in. I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)
        CydeWeys 8y ago
        Yeah, and I definitely didn't spend close to that much on it. It would still hurt me to have to replace it though, hence my preference for not locking it up outside. My point was more that, based on how I use it, it could've been a $10K bike. I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.
  - _Wintermute 8y ago
    Or just cycle faster on a better/lighter bike.
- DenisM 8y ago
  Marketing is addressing the audience members not as what they are, but as what they aspire to be.
asdkhadsj 8y ago
Moreover, the example of "In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered." - who cares? I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc. Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter. Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  >Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.
mikestew 8y ago
Every ounce and second counts. Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure. IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.
cultus 8y ago
I am a former racer (cat 2). Every ounce does not count in amateur bike races, because such differences are dwarfed by differences in fitness. Significant figures. Aero drag matters a lot, and most of that is from the rider. Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.

grogenaut 8y ago

The problem is like 0.2% of cyclists actually race but it's about 95% of marketing.

Joeri 8y ago
And arguably, if the goal is to get a workout, an easier ride just means you’ll have to cycle longer to reach your goal.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  Counterpoint: for me, buying an easier (in my case: much lighter) bike, was the difference between deciding to ride or to not ride at all. I don't think I'm alone in that.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    You're definitely not wrong. I can (and have) ridden my cyclocross bike for hours, which I have no desire of attempting on a Citibike, what I was using before I bought my own bike.
    - grogenaut 8y ago
      Sure but to you and go: you don't need to spend 10k to get a bike that meets those needs. Anything in the 1-2k range (eg laptop) prices is a very very nice bike. Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in. I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)
      - CydeWeys 8y ago
        Yeah, and I definitely didn't spend close to that much on it. It would still hurt me to have to replace it though, hence my preference for not locking it up outside. My point was more that, based on how I use it, it could've been a $10K bike. I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.
- _Wintermute 8y ago
  Or just cycle faster on a better/lighter bike.
DenisM 8y ago
Marketing is addressing the audience members not as what they are, but as what they aspire to be.

asdkhadsj 8y ago

Moreover, the example of "In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered." - who cares? I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc. Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter. Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.

gameswithgo 8y ago
>Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.

mikestew 8y ago

Every ounce and second counts. Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure. IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.

cultus 8y ago

I am a former racer (cat 2). Every ounce does not count in amateur bike races, because such differences are dwarfed by differences in fitness. Significant figures. Aero drag matters a lot, and most of that is from the rider. Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.