Leading makers of 'production' carbon fiber road frames

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

goodboyr
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

I'm not "bent out of shape". I do find it amusing that you post what to you are self evident facts, and then declare that no one should bother to respond............perfect for a discussion forum!

User avatar
phatphuk
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:39 pm

by phatphuk

Nowhere in any of my posts did I say nor imply anything like "do not bother to respond". But whenever I share something using as few words as possible and when I put it as simply as I could possibly put it; and then somebody responds by twisting my words or puts words in my mouth, then I am the one who will not respond.

If you don't understand something I've shared and you would like a clarification, then just ask for a clarification. Or is it the case that you think that the only way to get someone to elaborate on something is for you to respond with a defensive tone in your post?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



goodboyr
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

Geez, I did ask you several questions a few posts back........you just didn't answer them.

User avatar
phatphuk
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:39 pm

by phatphuk

goodboyr wrote:"Geez, I did ask you several questions a few posts back........you just didn't answer them."

goodboyr wrote:"...so, one question for you..."

Actually, you asked two questions...
goodboyr wrote:"...why do you trust the National Geographic Channel?..."

Because my default setting is trust ;)

goodboyr wrote:"...aren't they putting on that show to get advertising and sponsors...?"

You do know that The National Geographic Society is a non-profit organization. Right?

Based on that, I would be surprised if their ultimate goal was to get advertising and sponsors. I guess that's just a necessary means to an end for NPOs. My guess is that their ultimate goal in putting on that show to educate people and to encourage scientific thought. That guess is based on what I presumed their goal has been for more than a century. But in order to fund that effort they have paid sponsors. Do you get the difference? It might be too subtle but there is a difference.

goodboyr wrote:"...So in essence, these bike companies can't be trusted, they are operating sophisticated marketing schemes and all the technical stuff they publish and is the basis for most of the discussions on these forums and others is BS..."


That one is not a question. That is a conclusion. YOUR conclusion. And I guess it is based on your comprehension of the aforementioned tools marketers use to ply their trade.

To fill in any gaps you might have in your comprehension of the art and science of marketing would take this thread wildly off topic (the reason I didn't go into any detail in the first place). But if you are really interested, I defer to the links you probably overlooked in my earlier post...

Expert Fallacy
Priming
The Decoy Effect
Choice Blindness
Last edited by phatphuk on Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

goodboyr
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

The National Geographic Channel is 50% owned by Fox News...............

User avatar
Kayrehn
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:06 pm

by Kayrehn

This discussion have really went sideways - a discussion in logical fallacies shouldn't dominate a thread with the above title...

User avatar
rmerka
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: Austin, TX

by rmerka

Son of b..ch! Now I know why I'm always wanting that after ride smoke.
Image

FWIW, I've worked with and for several NPO's and there is absolutely nothing more noble about them than For-profits. Sometimes it's much less so. In the end it's always about $'s that fund big salaries for the execs, you just don't make a profit for shareholders that's all. I always find that argument specious at best.

Edit: NOW, it's gone sideways :D

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

Shall we vote on who was convinced to make a purchase based on the following: marketing, product-of-your-environment, self-research, budget?
What made you get that specific brand? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bi ... _companies
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

User avatar
rmerka
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: Austin, TX

by rmerka

I bought the bikes I own for the sole reason that I thought they looked cool. Is that a good enough reason?

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

rmerka wrote:I bought the bikes I own for the sole reason that I thought they looked cool. Is that a good enough reason?


Actually you are not the first Cervelo owner stated that. Cervelo got aesthetic down, that's for sure, up to 2013? Now they slap those over-sized decal, loud & proud. Human brain is very complex, we judge a lot based on looks, otherwise we wouldn't be attracted to hot girlfriends, mistresses and wives, right? :wink:
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

User avatar
rmerka
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: Austin, TX

by rmerka

I fully agree on the complexity and the difficulty of understanding what makes each of do the things we do. I reckon that it's not just Cervelo owners that purchase the bikes they do primarily based on looks but those that buy Treks, Colnagos, "S", Canyons and on and on. Trying to justify our decisions by ignoring that fact, we end up with % stiffer, more aero, etc. as reasons why. That being said I'm very happy with my bikes. They do in fact ride better and are faster than bikes I've owned in the past. They are stiffer and more aero and indeed faster. That's a good thing! but being honest with myself it's not the reason I purchased them to begin with.

Edit: And yes the initial attraction is usually based on looks for the ladies for too :D

User avatar
rmerka
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: Austin, TX

by rmerka

On a similar note, here's a question: Given the choice, would you ride a mediocre bike that made you look super cool or would you ride a substantially better bike if it made you look like a turd?

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

rmerka wrote:On a similar note, here's a question: Given the choice, would you ride a mediocre bike that made you look super cool or would you ride a substantially better bike if it made you look like a turd?


From my perspective, bikes don't attract as much attention (super cool) from the side as much as proper fit jersey, bib, helmet, shoes and socks. Some dress like clowns behind fine S-Works, Cervelo's, Trek's, etc. If you can afford these fine bikes, please dress appropriately based on your physical fit. I'm no fashion police by any means...
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

My judging criteria is based upon how believable and substantiated marketing claims by bike companies are.

This is completely down to independent third party (either magazines, individuals, etc).

This includes John Cobb and others doing windtunnel work, magazines like Velonews and Tour, individuals using Chung method or velodrome testing and heck, even competitor's testing (Trek's data shows Cervelo's P5 to do quite well against their Speed Concept in the latest whitepaper).

In the end, it doesn't matter if the method is not identical, if everyone starts saying the same thing, isn't it more believable that it actually may be true?

For example, Cannondale has always stated that their Evo weighed 695 grams. I have not seen a single one in consumer's hands that has hit sub 700.

In fact, things like weight have at least the same chance of marketing influence as aero. Paint/no paint, derailleur hangars or not, cage bolts, seatpost binder, bb, headset etc. These weights get stated in so many different ways, for different sizes of bike.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

I don't think the issue is the wind-tunnel tests but rather if the pursuit of being the lightest and most aero is resulting in more frame failures. Numerous responders have brought up forks, bottom brackets and seat stay issues. The independent testing is not looking at this.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply