Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
> Maybe 753 is yet another great example of why competition equipment
> should often not be marketed to the general public. Professional
> athletes usually do not care about durability, so long as the
> equipment lasts to the end of the day's event, and don't care at all
> if the equipment can be repaired so long as the sponsor is able to
> just supply another new one. I think someone recently cited the
> comment attributed to Colin Chapman that a race car that didn't fall
> apart 50 yards after passing the finish line had been overdesigned.
> Production machines, be they bicycles or sports cars, should have a
> different set of design criteria which includes durability and ease
> of repair.
>
> Unfortunately a significant segment of the public has a mentality of
> having to have what the pros use, even when that is totally
> unsuitable for the consumer's actual use. And quite obviously many
> Marketing departments not only exploit that mentality but actively
> attempt to instill that mentality in the public.
Good points, but it's curious because now the tables seem to have been turned: bikes that consumers can buy off the shelf can be considerably more exotic than those used in professional racing, due to the rules and regulations in professional events:
http://blog.wired.com/
--
-John Thompson (john@os2.dhs.org)
Appleton WI USA