Good news first, I was finally able to throw a little money at my airline problem, and I will now not be faced with a month in Florida -- and I thank my lucky stars for that! Of course, I didn't manage to get this done before throwing my phone across the room in a fit of frustration. It happens.
Bad news, it seems my latest essay on Embrocation ruffled some feathers (or, the powers that be were afraid that it might), and as such, it was pulled from the website after only a brief online appearance.
Fortunately for you and I, the Embrocation powers that be do not run this blog, so I'm simply going to post the essay here, for your reading enjoyment. In an ironic twist of fate, Embrocation publisher and webmaster, James Morrison, who is a good friend of mine, as well as a fellow Empire State Game champion, cyclist competing in many of the same events, and all-around good guy, happens to be staying on my futon at the moment.
And yes, it was James who made the decision to kill the essay. I'm not going to hold it against him -- he has a business to run, and I have a history of pissing off advertisers. But I do believe in what I wrote, and I'd like to share it with you. Incidentally, James wasn't supposed to be sleeping on my futon, at least not tonight, but he's been stranded by the massive snow storm that's burying huge swathes of the country, but going out of its way to avoid anyone who might actually want it -- such as those of us in the north country. It seems that winter has gone south for the winter.
Anyhow, it was banned from the magazine, but presented here for your reading pleasure:
Bicycle "technology" and you
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Good news, Bad news, and a banned essay
I’m going to hit you with some jargon.
FACT, IMP, R-Flow, OCLV, OCLV2, TCC, Smartwall, S.A.V.E., Megadrive, HSG, H-Net, Force Optimized Construction.
Recognize any of that?
Chances are, if you ride a mass-produced racing bike purchased in the last five years, you’ve got one of those acronyms, or a similar one, tattooed somewhere on your ride. Got carbon-soled shoes? You can probably find some acronyms there too.
Ever wonder what those things mean? Here’s the answer: Not a damn thing.
Sure, if you make a habit of studying the glossy marketing catalogues put out by bicycles companies and proudly displayed at bike shops you’ll probably be able to find whatever contrived acronyms the manufacturers have come up with to create hyperbolic marketing slogans, which are then pasted all over their cookie-cutter bicycles.
Listen, it’s not that I don’t love modern bikes. I really do, believe me. If I didn’t, I’d feel awfully foolish for owning as many bikes as I do.
It’s just that I hate seeing bicycle consumers getting bogged down in all the marketing, because the bottom line is that the latest carbon-fiber wonder bike produced by a premium brand is created by an identical process to the bargain-brand bike sold through online retailers. The only difference? Your Scattantte has got fewer acronyms, and therefore a smaller corporate team associated with its marketing, and therefore a smaller price tag. Plus, Performance hasn’t yet got a team in the Tour de France, and we all know how much that costs.
So, am I going to ditch my up-market Scott (NEXT, IMP, etc…) for a no-brand steed? No, I’m getting a Cannondale (SI, Hollowgram, etc…), but that has more to do with a sponsor affiliation than anything else. Besides, my Cannondale can be fairly easily slotted into the “workhorse” category, with relatively little marketing bull shit attached to it, at least when compared so some of the higher-tech rides out there.
I’ve been telling myself that by racing in 2010 on low-frills, all-aluminum bike, while the spin-meisters are pushing carbon brings me a little above the marketing: I’m riding a bike designed and sold for a specific function: being a light, stiff race platform. It doesn’t need a lot of jargon to get there, and the marketers know that the people who want a bike like that don’t need lots of acronyms to convince them that it’s the right ride for them.
But the sad thing is that the typical bike consumer probably does need such slogans to help them differentiate a Trek from a Specialized from a Felt, etc… But why? Aren’t ride characteristics a much more important measure to consider when looking at these bikes?
Well, despite what certain cyclists may try to say over at the Serotta forum, most casual cyclists – which is to say, most of your run-of-the-mill bicycle consumers – wouldn’t know a Serotta from a Scattante is they were to ride the two bikes blindfolded. Hell, I don’t think I’d be able to tell the difference either, and I ride a lot.
It’s OK. You should still pick out the bike that makes you feel good riding, even if that premium-brand label on the down tube is doing nothing but adding $1,000 to the price tag on a similarly-equipped no-brand bike that was produced on the same assembly line. If cyclists are to take one lesson from the recent (and silly) legal wrangling surrounding the 33rd America’s Cup, it is that you cannot put a price on speed. Even though all those labels and acronyms don’t actually cause a physical change to make you go faster, if you feel faster, you probably are.
But if I see you, I’ll expect a full recitation on the meaning of all those acronyms, including the “science” behind them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ha. I love my CAAD9 CX bike. But it doesn't have any crabon or fancy acronyms.
I thought you were riding a fancy plastic champ sys frame next year?
Champion Systems will be racing on Cannondales in 2010.
So no specialized s-works for you huh? Isnt that what I heard you saying you were going to buy on our last ride? (well and only ride really)
A lot has changed since then!
Interesting article, Bernstein. There's definitely a lot of truth in your words... at the end of the day what matter is how the bike feels to you, right? This is a problem that is being dealt with across the gamut of every product imaginable, not only in cycling but in general. Thanks for being up front in the article, I think it's a good thing to hear. Maybe pay a little credence though too... every once, in a while there is some pretty amazing technology that is put into an acronym that does change things.
Andrew, while it is true that much of the jargon is simply created for marketing purchases, different companies do actually apply different techniques to create their frames. That's why each brand can have a different feel, because of the way that particular bike was constructed. The way the tubes are connected (or molded together) can play into the weight and stiffness of a carbon frame. Likewise, the shaping of the tubing on an aluminum frame can determine stress distributions and tolerances as well as vibration dampening.
While it may seem like jargon/bullshit to you, there is in fact a lot of engineering that goes into how top of the line bikes are made.
Lastly, I will admit that sometimes you pay for a name (time, look) the overwhelming majority of the time you do in fact get what you pay for, regardless of how inflated the price may be.
I dunno. Sure, there is alot of marketing in the bicycle industry- sometimes more marketing that engineering. However, without companies making innovations, we would still be all riding steel lugged frames. The budget no-name frames are just copies of existing, proven technology. The leaders are always making improvements to their products, and of course this technology trickles down to less expensive imitations.
There is much more to carbon fiber layup then sticking some carbon fiber and epoxy in a mold that looks like a bike frame and throwing it in the autoclave for a few hours. The processes and designs different companies use are certainly similar, but there are cost-affecting variations that will change the final product.
Cervelo and Zipp are two examples of cycling companies that are innovators with a tremendous amount of money invested in R&D. And the consumer pays for it. There is no doubt though, that these two companies (certainly among others) have made bikes faster in the past 15 years. Is that a bad thing? If everyone was buying house brands there would be no money to make sweet bikes.
I am certainly practical and frugal with my cycling purchases and buy things on performance vs. cost basis, so don't get me wrong... Most performance benefits are over-hyped, but still all these acronyms represent the ability of the cycling community to support a general advancement of cycling technology.
-Tim from RPI, still riding a Cannondale Advanced Aluminum Design "CAAD4" frame.
Post a Comment