I have to admit that although I am not an a scientist even I agree with what your BMW pal said & often giggle while readingXCProMD wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:48 pmFunny thing is Product is one the 4 P of marketing. But some brands have entirely twisted the approach to Product withe pseudo-scientific approach you talk about.
I was riding 2 weeks ago with a BMW aerodynamicist, an acquaintance of mine. According to him most of the cycling industry these days is embarrassing if not downright ridiculous.
Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
kgt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:20 amBrands hesitate to try new things or have their own ideas on construction and design, they just playing it safe, It was the signature of the designer that was important (Colnago, de Rosa, Pinarello, Somec, Rossin, Tommasini, Look, Klein etc.) and not the marketing department of the company, the white papers and all the BS scientism around it.
I genuinely don’t think you have any intent except to go on about how much better things were in the old days. Which is what people who remember the old days always want to go on about, regardless of the actual merits of new and old.
If you think all new bikes still look alike even though you accept they have noticeable differences, then you must be happy to agree that all old bikes used to look alike regardless of whether you could tell the difference.
If you think there are no design signatures anymore you’re just plain wrong. Can you not pick any BMC silhouette out of a lineup? Can you not recognise any generation of Dogma? Can’t you trace the lines running through every S5 and every R5 bike? Just because you stopped paying attention doesn’t mean it’s gone.
Like Cal said you kinda take something someone said then twist it to fit your over zealous opinion
What I did say was........
But that was not even close to the main point which went whooshOf course I agree & can tell frames have slight differences today but
Look agree to disagree if that is ok with you? If not....
Right, if you can tell they have slight differences then the differences are noticeable. Therefore you accept they have noticeable differences. You don’t disagree with that, right?
Really? Because you said “The point is These dropped seat stay carbon cookie cutter bikes all look alike ” and I’m directly addressing that. If you say they all look alike despite their myriad differences then you’re saying all old bikes looked alike despite the fact that you could tell the difference.But that was not even close to the main point which went whoosh
I’ve addressed the fingerprint thing multiple times now too, and you’ve ignored every one just so you can say ‘whoosh’ instead. Modern bikes still have fingerprints, and modern bike companies are still staffed by people who care about making nice bikes. You might like to sit their and feel all smug and superior as if you’re more dedicated to the art of bike design than the people who actually decided to spend their lives designing bikes, but I can guarantee you it’s not the case. They care too.
Goodnight Somebody needs a nap or a bike ride.
We are talking about bicycles here not world peace
That someone could have an opinion about how a bicycle looks or is designed that is different than yours really
bends you extremely out of shape doesn't it? The things you read into a simple post
Yeah, it was "4 P's" when I was in B-school but more recently Kotler's original P's (Product/Price/Promotion/Place) have been augmented by additional P's in some models: Performance, People, Process, Politics -- a quick Google turns up a bunch of others.
Mentioning only as it does frame (pun intended) the prior discussion.
My point was that going back to the pre-aluminum/titanium/carbon fibre/sloping top tube/straight fork days, the visual distinctive attributes between bikes from different manufacturers -- or then more often individual "builders" -- were often quite subtle. The tubes were generally coming from Columbus or Reynolds, so characteristics like the shape of the lugs or junction of the seat stays were among the few identifiers of the actual source of the frame. What really set them apart was Performance, which is why some top riders did go to another (non-sponsor) builder. And in the pre-Internet days, most of the time the general public were none the wiser. (Okay, we kind of knew that 7 Eleven really wasn't riding bikes from Huffy, but ....)
Nowadays it's near impossible for anyone, let's say from Ineos to show up on a Trek bike with Pinarello branding. Not gonna happen as I would say that there is probably more readily visible variation in the frames from different manufacturers. However, ironically these "different" bikes are sometimes (often?) coming from the same factories (People/Process).
Still, and what probably set off this discussion in the first place, as "aerodynamic" claims (Promotion) have started to really emerge as marketing selling points, different bike brands -- who are now more often sharing the same actual manufacturing facilities in search of Pricing efficiencies -- are perhaps not surprisingly becoming less distinctive in appearance. Yes, partly restricted by UCI regs, but if aerodynamics becomes the main concern another non-Marketing "P" I haven't mentioned yet, Physics, does not offer much wiggle room (yep, another intended pun) from a bike frame design aesthetic standpoint (?)
Of course I know I will go much, much faster on my soon-to-come C64 vs. my old Parlee Z3 because of the recessed well for the bottle cage on the downtube and the D-shaped seatpost!
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 5 Replies
- 1672 Views
Last post by Karvalo
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:26 am
- 157 Replies
- 15162 Views
Last post by SashaJoseph
Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:59 pm
- 14 Replies
- 2051 Views
Last post by kgt
Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:14 pm
- 20 Replies
- 7567 Views
Last post by TobinHatesYou
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:32 pm
- 1 Replies
- 128 Views
Last post by r3m
Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:07 pm