I mean, look. I get it. Possibly-planned-obsolescence is shitty.
But ride a bike from 2018. And 2013. And 2008. And 2003. Are we going to pretend that bikes aren't better in like every measurable way, beyond the smile factor? And thinking a bike is anything other than a heavily depreciating asset is silly, IMO. An asset that's going to depreciate to zero, and whether that's because of fatigue life (I fear for ancient 1 1/4" steerer tubes... to paraphrase the wise words of a friend, if a bike part can vote you shouldn't be riding it off pavement), lack of available repair parts, or wear and tear, the end effect is the same: value = 0.
Without experimentation to drive evolution, we'd all be riding rigid bikes without drivetrains or brakes (accuse me of hyperbole all you want, but everything on your bike was an experiment at some point). That's the nature of evolution; some branches of the tree die entirely (Hammerschmidt), and some continue to evolve and get replaced (headtube, BB sizing). I don't think those are 'needless'; they all either got us closer to the current, arguably better, solution or taught engineers and consumers it was an evolutionary dead end. Notable exceptions in your examples: Fox's CTD, which was just an engineering fail, and DUB, which may be a new standard I have issues with, but IS backwards compatible. And plus tires are still here, we've just gone back to what we used to do, and are labeling tires with a size, and not a marketing term.
Mountain biking is a luxury. Is 12 speeds any more necessary than 8? Well, no. But it sure is nice - and given that NONE of this is necessary.... Maybe it solves a problem no one asked about, but I mean, did anyone really think not having the ability to roll around on rocks and roots and dirt in the forest for pure leisure was a problem that needed to be solved?
\[comment to long.... split it\]
Nov. 2, 2018, 9:53 a.m. - Cooper Quinn
I mean, look. I get it. Possibly-planned-obsolescence is shitty. But ride a bike from 2018. And 2013. And 2008. And 2003. Are we going to pretend that bikes aren't better in like every measurable way, beyond the smile factor? And thinking a bike is anything other than a heavily depreciating asset is silly, IMO. An asset that's going to depreciate to zero, and whether that's because of fatigue life (I fear for ancient 1 1/4" steerer tubes... to paraphrase the wise words of a friend, if a bike part can vote you shouldn't be riding it off pavement), lack of available repair parts, or wear and tear, the end effect is the same: value = 0. Without experimentation to drive evolution, we'd all be riding rigid bikes without drivetrains or brakes (accuse me of hyperbole all you want, but everything on your bike was an experiment at some point). That's the nature of evolution; some branches of the tree die entirely (Hammerschmidt), and some continue to evolve and get replaced (headtube, BB sizing). I don't think those are 'needless'; they all either got us closer to the current, arguably better, solution or taught engineers and consumers it was an evolutionary dead end. Notable exceptions in your examples: Fox's CTD, which was just an engineering fail, and DUB, which may be a new standard I have issues with, but IS backwards compatible. And plus tires are still here, we've just gone back to what we used to do, and are labeling tires with a size, and not a marketing term. Mountain biking is a luxury. Is 12 speeds any more necessary than 8? Well, no. But it sure is nice - and given that NONE of this is necessary.... Maybe it solves a problem no one asked about, but I mean, did anyone really think not having the ability to roll around on rocks and roots and dirt in the forest for pure leisure was a problem that needed to be solved? \[comment to long.... split it\]