Mark Poore wrote:
> Thanks Chuck for old vs. new comparison of the Duquesne and Trek. It
> never ceases to amaze me, particularly with bikes, what might seem new
> and innovative had been thought of long ago.
Some years ago, when I was the editor of a technical journal, I occasionally would receive submitted papers that seemed to cover very fundamental material. I would always send these to the oldest reviewer I could find, and invariably he would reply that the same material was published in a paper that appeared decades ago.
One thing you can be absolutely sure of: if some purported technological improvement could have been conceived long ago, it was. And, if it's not in common use, there's probably a reason for it; most likely, it has some kind of flaw that may not be as obvious.
When a technological product (like, for example, the double-triangle bicycle frame) has been around for well over 100 years, it gets pretty well optimized. It reaches a point where all the good ideas have been thought of. The only real improvements come from the infusion of other technologies, such as materials. But that happens much more rarely than most people think, and the point of diminishing returns arrives very quickly. For example, the step from mild steel to, say, 531 is a big one, but from 531 to other alloys is much smaller.
Of course, if you can't create something that's better, you can always create something that's different. Then, you can call it a great improvement, hype it shamelessly, and sell it for big bucks. That doesn't happen with bicycles, though...
Steve Maas
Long Beach, California