#!markdown
Oh good, I tricked you (someone) into engaging. Good points raised and bonus
points for the historical quote that, frankly, scares me a little bit. I
thought about it some more and of course a reviewer should cover it - at least
when it's relevant. Maybe I started to dig into that before by mentioning
obvious cases. Such as being a car reviewer and giving a Pontiac Aztec a once-
over: you're gonna mention it. Or the new 911. If you don't say something, you
might as well claim blindness, or total disinterest.
Bringing it back to bikes, and this bike, and some of my thoughts, because
this is about me and not you: I won't try to convince you why you should like
the look of the T-bolt, but I can stand up for it a little bit, even if it's
going to be backhanded.
On the one hand, I think Rocky has done a commendable job of forging a Design
ID and sticking to it. All of their dualies, save the Maiden, look similar.
From a brand/marketing perspective, that's good: "oh look, a Rocky". Customers
like that, shop owners like it, too.
On the other hand, part of what I like about them - the clean lines, the
simplicity - also is making them start to look a bit plain: "I can't tell an
Altitude apart from a Thunderbolt from a certain distance". But I still like
that simplicity - no excess. And no seat brace, which is a subtle way of
saying "our carbon tech rules". Now, that's a personal thing, but I think it's
worth mentioning because there's another brand that is in exactly the same
situation and it rhymes with Fanta Booze. Where Rockies look simple and
utilitarian, SC's are a sultrier - some like that, some don't. Treks and
Giants look similar across different models, too, but I don't have as much
trouble picking one out from its brothers and sisters. If you spot a proto
Rocky on the shore under a rider or PM, good luck figuring out what model it
is - that's an unintended benefit.
But calling the Thunderbolt's design 'phoned in' is not being fair. There's a
lot going on, and they've kept most of the cool details on the DL unless you
look closely. That, to me, is one way of accomplishing good design, whether or
not it works for you aesthetically or not.
Oh, hey, my bias: once upon a time I worked for Rocky, for two years. But that
was four or five years ago now, and I can assure anyone who is wondering that
I can be measured about them. I love the brand, and I (sometimes) loved my
time working there, and the bikes, and many of the people I worked with, but
it's pretty easy for me to disassociate myself from that now. Which reminds me
that I just saw a review in another online mag written by the guy that
designed the fucking bike himself and has since moved on to the media side.
How that is allowed to fly, I do not know. Where is the Charlie Sponsel
anonymous tip line when I need it?
April 25, 2016, 1:18 p.m. - Pete Roggeman
#!markdown Oh good, I tricked you (someone) into engaging. Good points raised and bonus points for the historical quote that, frankly, scares me a little bit. I thought about it some more and of course a reviewer should cover it - at least when it's relevant. Maybe I started to dig into that before by mentioning obvious cases. Such as being a car reviewer and giving a Pontiac Aztec a once- over: you're gonna mention it. Or the new 911. If you don't say something, you might as well claim blindness, or total disinterest. Bringing it back to bikes, and this bike, and some of my thoughts, because this is about me and not you: I won't try to convince you why you should like the look of the T-bolt, but I can stand up for it a little bit, even if it's going to be backhanded. On the one hand, I think Rocky has done a commendable job of forging a Design ID and sticking to it. All of their dualies, save the Maiden, look similar. From a brand/marketing perspective, that's good: "oh look, a Rocky". Customers like that, shop owners like it, too. On the other hand, part of what I like about them - the clean lines, the simplicity - also is making them start to look a bit plain: "I can't tell an Altitude apart from a Thunderbolt from a certain distance". But I still like that simplicity - no excess. And no seat brace, which is a subtle way of saying "our carbon tech rules". Now, that's a personal thing, but I think it's worth mentioning because there's another brand that is in exactly the same situation and it rhymes with Fanta Booze. Where Rockies look simple and utilitarian, SC's are a sultrier - some like that, some don't. Treks and Giants look similar across different models, too, but I don't have as much trouble picking one out from its brothers and sisters. If you spot a proto Rocky on the shore under a rider or PM, good luck figuring out what model it is - that's an unintended benefit. But calling the Thunderbolt's design 'phoned in' is not being fair. There's a lot going on, and they've kept most of the cool details on the DL unless you look closely. That, to me, is one way of accomplishing good design, whether or not it works for you aesthetically or not. Oh, hey, my bias: once upon a time I worked for Rocky, for two years. But that was four or five years ago now, and I can assure anyone who is wondering that I can be measured about them. I love the brand, and I (sometimes) loved my time working there, and the bikes, and many of the people I worked with, but it's pretty easy for me to disassociate myself from that now. Which reminds me that I just saw a review in another online mag written by the guy that designed the fucking bike himself and has since moved on to the media side. How that is allowed to fly, I do not know. Where is the Charlie Sponsel anonymous tip line when I need it?