Re: [CR]NYT article - Clueless in Manhattan

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Chater-Lea)

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:20:07 -0800 (PST)
From: "Fred Rafael Rednor" <fred_rednor@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]NYT article - Clueless in Manhattan
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <20061114164541.58939.qmail@web50401.mail.yahoo.com>


Is Gus Hall a secret member of the CR list? I thought he was dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall

To keep this on-topic, I'll state that when I went to school in Manhattan, the famous Stuyvesant Bicycle Shop, the offices of the American Communist Part and the socialist oriented Jefferson Book Shop were all in the same neighborhood. You could visit them all in the same day - and I did many several ocassions.

So after stating my bona fides as a sympathizer with "the people"... please, please, please can we drop this topic. It's at the point where people are merely asserting their values as being superior to those of people.
     Warmest regards to everyone,
     Fred "scion of the Second International"
     Rafael Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)


--- Tom Dalton wrote:


> 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