I wonder how much marketing targets the confirmation bias that we all have. We’ve been told all kinds of things like stiffer is better that we are now told was wrong. The engineer at Peak Torque will tell you that frame compliance is almost entirely up to the seat post. Frame material is a very small part of it. I’ve ridden all the main materials over the years. I remember when I bought a Klein I was told it was a very harsh riding machine. Never noticed. I did notice that it broke. There might be a vibration transference difference between materials that I think I’ve felt between a carbon road bike and aluminum one. Someone tested bar compliance a while back with a machine that added a set amount of weight to the bars while clamped rigidly. Some bars flexed more. No surprise but perhaps if they’d added weight to a bar, mounted to a fork with enough air for a person that weighed as much as the test amount on a wheel with 25psi in a 2.5 tire the results would have been different. How much of our confirmation bias tells us that the $250 carbon bar is way better. Or that our $75 aluminum bar is just as good. I think it’s pretty healthy to look at new and improved marketing with a jaundiced eye. Boost is stronger and stiffer than that non boost wheel that stays in true on the flexible rear suspension system. I think most of us have been sucked in by Greg marketing and bought something that was "less than ideal". Like those carbon fibre rotors I bought a while back. Stupid. Lighter with more modulation and the brake has the same power. Sure the "brake" has the same power but the pads and rotors have disturbingly shitty grip. The circular logic is something else at times. This is better. Why? Because it’s more efficient. Why is this more efficient? Because it’s better. These days I want to see some reasoned science and numbers to support ideas that would change my built in biases.
Sept. 22, 2022, 2:26 p.m. - Andy Eunson
I wonder how much marketing targets the confirmation bias that we all have. We’ve been told all kinds of things like stiffer is better that we are now told was wrong. The engineer at Peak Torque will tell you that frame compliance is almost entirely up to the seat post. Frame material is a very small part of it. I’ve ridden all the main materials over the years. I remember when I bought a Klein I was told it was a very harsh riding machine. Never noticed. I did notice that it broke. There might be a vibration transference difference between materials that I think I’ve felt between a carbon road bike and aluminum one. Someone tested bar compliance a while back with a machine that added a set amount of weight to the bars while clamped rigidly. Some bars flexed more. No surprise but perhaps if they’d added weight to a bar, mounted to a fork with enough air for a person that weighed as much as the test amount on a wheel with 25psi in a 2.5 tire the results would have been different. How much of our confirmation bias tells us that the $250 carbon bar is way better. Or that our $75 aluminum bar is just as good. I think it’s pretty healthy to look at new and improved marketing with a jaundiced eye. Boost is stronger and stiffer than that non boost wheel that stays in true on the flexible rear suspension system. I think most of us have been sucked in by Greg marketing and bought something that was "less than ideal". Like those carbon fibre rotors I bought a while back. Stupid. Lighter with more modulation and the brake has the same power. Sure the "brake" has the same power but the pads and rotors have disturbingly shitty grip. The circular logic is something else at times. This is better. Why? Because it’s more efficient. Why is this more efficient? Because it’s better. These days I want to see some reasoned science and numbers to support ideas that would change my built in biases.