Re: [CR]NYT article - Clueless in Manhattan

> The NYT article recently discussed has clearly provided good
> fodder for the list. As I read it, and the subsequent
> responses, I had some trouble keeping the positive attitude
> that several kind list members suggested we all should keep.
> Yes, it is a free country. Yes, people can spend what they
> want on what they want. Yes, it certainly shouldn’t cause me
> any duress. Right? Some have suggested that the bikes
> purchased today and cast aside tomorrow will be cheap
> collectibles for us to enjoy the day after that. Well,
> that’s one way to look at it, and I won’t belabor the whole
> argument about how modern bikes somehow differ fundamentally
> from our beloved “classics,” primarily because I don’t think
> it is true. But on the matter of potential collectability,
> something germane to the list topic, I personally have little
> hope for such bikes. There are two major problems with
> today’s $10,000+ bikes from a future collecting standpoint.
> The first is that these bikes are
> uniquely the toys of well-heeled neophytes. How many people
> on Sevens, or even Serottas are serious riders, let alone
> accomplished racers? Who wants to collect the cast offs of
> the clueless rich when there are real race bikes out there?
> Several U.S. builders have found their audience, and it is
> limited to the trendy over-privileged, those who never stop
> to think that the most expensive and best are not necessarily
> one and the same. I think it is telling that the bikes
> discussed in the article, Gurus and Serottas in particular,
> are more dear than the bikes of the world’s best competitive
> cyclists. Shouldn’t it set of an alarm at some point that
> your bike costs two or three times as much as Lance’s, or
> Ivan’s? Doesn’t that suggest that the point of diminishing
> returns has been passed? And to what advantage? Certainly
> neither performance nor craftsmanship is appreciably
> enhanced. I think what’s added is exclusivity, but it is an
> exclusivity supported by price alone.
> “Yes, it’s nice, but do you have anything more expensive?”
> The new golf indeed!
>
> I’ll throw this out as an open question: When did the most
> expensive racing bikes become too “good” for actual racers?
> It seems to me that this transition might be the historical
> center of mass for the list, but now that lugged steel has
> been relegated to an “old school” niche, we celebrate all of
> it without arguing about which bikes are “too much of a good
> thing.” Specifically, look at the California Masis
> (again!?!?). These were bikes that most racers would have
> been pretty happy to use, and I don’t imagine too many guys
> thought they were “too nice.” I also suspect that while some
> may have been sold as rich man’s toys, most were used for
> hard riding. Then that whole generation of U.S. builders
> took it a step further, and a step further after that, and
> soon the best racing bikes were way beyond the means of most
> guys in their physical prime. I know about the historical
> examples of cycling finery, such as the constructeur bikes,
> but it strikes me as uniquely
> American to make the best racing bikes too “good” for the
> best racers.
>
> The second problem I see with many, though not all,
> ultra-pricey modern bikes is that they are custom geometries.
> Now, some of them are probably just fine for use by a
> variety of able-bodied riders, but I’ve seen some Serottas
> and Sevens that are just laughable. These are “racing” bikes
> designed around the bodies of guys who are barely fit to ride
> and utterly unfit to race. When I see a Serotta Otterrot
> with an ultra short top tube and extendo head tube my first
> response is not that I’d love to own that fine piece of
> performance machinery; my first response is to laugh. I
> think that custom bike companies are a little cynical these
> days, knowingly selling high-performance material for
> low-performance applications, but I can’t say that I blame
> them any more than I blame Porsche for making the Cayenne.
> What better way to profit than to meet the demands of those
> who are at once ignorant and wealthy.
>
> What supports a market in $10,000+ boutique bikes is the
> fact that in our society the lines have blurred between what
> you own and what you are. If you own a $10,000 bike, many
> people will mistake you for a serious cyclist, or at least a
> connoisseur of bikes, and they may even admire you for it.
> It will at least get their attention, “like when I drove a
> Porsche,” as the one guy said. On the buyer’s part, he might
> mistake the spending of money for the gaining of knowledge
> and experience. It makes perfect sense that there is so much
> emphasis on “having a bike fit to you,” in this business.
> One can’t correctly select his own equipment if he hasn’t
> learned the hard way what works and what doesn’t. In fact, I
> have directly observed that paying Cadence hundreds of
> dollars to help you spec out a $12,000 Serrotta doesn’t
> ensure that the bike’s fit will be anything close to optimal.
> The fitter himself may be unqualified, but more
> significantly you need to ride any bike and
> adjust it yourself, refining your skills/fitness and
> equipment iteratively as you progress. No amount of cash and
> mid-brow Cognac will give you good position, and it certainly
> won’t make you a good cyclist.
>
> So, why all the angst on my part? Good question.
> Insecurity I suppose. I just don’t want my interests
> mistaken for their interests. For those of us who understand
> good bikes, it’s a little annoying to have what “they” do
> mistaken for what “we” do. It’s the same in a lot of
> hobbies. People who are into music and its in-home
> reproduction, and who might spend $10,000 or more on a stereo
> are routinely faced with being compared to a young
> professional with a “kickass surround sound system.” A guy
> who races a mid 80’s BMW M3 Evo2 will be grouped together
> with a dentist who drives a 2005 M3 convertible with
> automatic. “Yeah, by brother in law drives an M3, flashy and
> expensive cars those.”
>
> To each his own certainly applies, and if we were all
> judged as individuals we’d have no cause for concern, but we
> do live in a world in which many people think a phrase like
> “Wall Street types” has some actual meaning.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Still looking for a connection between wealth and
> sophistication in
> Bethlehem, PA, USA
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls with Yahoo!
> Messenger with Voice.
>
> _______________________________________________
>

____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index