hornedfrog wrote:prendrefeu wrote:...On the note of electronic vs. mechanical vs. hydraulic and WW-ism: what the heck is up with some of you?
You are riding a machine that is, if you're here on WeightWeenies, tuned and refined to maximize efficiency. This forum is known for promoting advanced knowledge of engineering, material use, and details in everything... Sure if you like the consistency of electronic, good for you, but why do you sh*t all over a system that will be lighter, reliable (ie, you are not dependent on an external power source to operate a bicycle), re-buildable, tunable, and will be virtually future proof with changing range of gears? Seriously?...
Can we over generalize this and apply it to the whole forum? People need to chill out, so much negativity on here lately. Its like people like to bicker and contemplate whats better for them and everyone else more than they like to actually ride their bike.
I think you're right and actually I share your views.
But I've been involved in projects very similar to his one too many times now not to see a pattern here:
- Ambitious company that wants to enter a new product category in order to grow.
- Product category/market with a high volume-knowledge-engineering threshold, populated by a small number of historical players, with wafer thin margins, complex value chains and standing on a mined field of patents that benefit no one but that companies feel the need to plough in order to maintain the status quo and protect their position.
- Technical solution that is more based in all the above than in a true technical benefit.
If finally Rotor's system can find a place in the market that would be great as it mean more offer, competition, etc. But all the cases I know that comply with the above pattern have been a failure.