De Rosa 2020

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
corky
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: The Surrey Hills

by corky

I think WyndyMillas Saw Doctor is a Sarto .......

flying
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am

by flying

Stendhal wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:00 am
MontpierBike is right; bike frames were so similar as between pro name brand companies that you couldn't be sure whether the company whose name was on the bike even made it. There was entire sub-sector of the industry in which custom frame builders such as Dario Pagoretti or Cyfac actually built the bikes with more established companies' logos. For example, Laurent Fignon's "Raleigh" was a Cyfac; Andy Hampsten's "Huffy" was made by John Slawta (Land Shark).
Yes I also remember some rebranded due to rider preference frames, but...The reason we knew about these rebranded frames is because we spotted the differences
So yes we did know that the company whose name was on those frames did not make them :wink:

If instead all frames were so much alike then
#1 a rider would not have demanded another builders frame & :wink:

But as I said IMO many now have herd mentality & have moved to market driven high profit/low cost ($$$) creating what seems like plain vanilla look alike.

There are still some signatures visible I hope they do not all die off.
Nice to see someone push the envelope or not abandon something good just because marketing/cost.

by Weenie


User avatar
Stendhal
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:43 am
Location: Silicon Valley

by Stendhal

flying wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:16 pm
Stendhal wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:00 am
MontpierBike is right; bike frames were so similar as between pro name brand companies that you couldn't be sure whether the company whose name was on the bike even made it. There was entire sub-sector of the industry in which custom frame builders such as Dario Pagoretti or Cyfac actually built the bikes with more established companies' logos. For example, Laurent Fignon's "Raleigh" was a Cyfac; Andy Hampsten's "Huffy" was made by John Slawta (Land Shark).
Yes I also remember some rebranded due to rider preference frames, but...The reason we knew about these rebranded frames is because we spotted the differences
So yes we did know that the company whose name was on those frames did not make them :wink:

If instead all frames were so much alike then
#1 a rider would not have demanded another builders frame &
#2 I would not be mentioning how similar all brands have become :wink:

But as I said IMO many now have herd mentality & have moved to market driven high profit/low cost ($$$) creating what seems like plain vanilla look alike.

but there are still some signatures visible I hope they do not all die off. Nice to see someone push the envelope or not abandon something good just because others
say XYZ is now the future.
I wasn’t as dedicated a pro cycling fan back then (and there was practically no Internet to obtain the information we can get today), but years later I very much enjoy hearing about the secret master frame builders of the past. :thumbup: I even rode a modern Cyfac for a year.
Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL6 (6.39 kg), Cervelo Aspero (7.87)
Retired: LOW// mki, Pinarello Dogma F10 \ F8, Lapierre Pulsium, TIME Fluidity, Wilier Cento1 SR, Ridley Noah, Cyfac Cadence, Cervelo S2, R3, R5, Felt Z25, Klein Quantum, Cannondale 2.0

wingguy
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

flying wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:02 am
I did not think they could be substituted for each other ......

We could easily tell a Bottecchia from a Colnago

The point is These dropped seat stay carbon cookie cutter bikes all look alike & lack any real fingerprint from the builder
These yes as you said could probably be passed off as each other by changing decals & that is kind of sad
That’s all absolute bollocks, to be honest! :lol: If you can’t still tell the difference between any 2019 Bottechia and Colnago you’re probably legally blind. If you can’t tell the difference between a Tarmac and a Supersix you’ve probably never looked at one for more than 1 second at a time. Get into aero bikes and the differences in templates and detailing are absolutely staggering.

Bikes didn’t get more boring - you just got older. Spending hours poring over the finest details X vs Y frame is really, really geeky - and generally speaking being a geek is a young man’s game. Take your younger self and drop him into the current era and he’d be in seventh heaven figuring out all the yeh details and differences between modern frames. If you genuinely like bikes to be noticeably different to each other then this is a golden age.

flying
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am

by flying

wingguy wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:56 pm
Bikes didn’t get more boring - you just got older.
I would say bikes Did get more boring & yes I Did get older :thumbup:

We cant all be Peter Pan :wink:

Kidding aside.....Of course I agree & can tell frames have slight differences today but
I think you misunderstand what I am saying about a "builders fingerprint" but that is fine eh?

Opinions are good & would be even more boring if everyone thought the same as you...or I :beerchug:

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I’m with @flying on this. I am obsessed with the details that differentiate bikes, then and now. There are bikes I wouldn’t choose because of one detail that annoys me. And another detail on a different bike may catapult it to the top of my wish list. Aesthetically I happen to vastly prefer the look of the more traditional frames and really detest the look of dropped seat stays, yet totally get that some people love them. Many do not play well with rim brakes compared to the more traditional frames but that hardly matters if you’re only interested in discs. To each his own. To non bike people I bet you could place the most traditional of bikes with a level top tube, a seat cluster where all the tubes in that area intersect cleanly and efficiently etc., right next to a small sloping frame of today with radically dropped seatstays, disc brakes etc., and some non bike people would be hard pressed to point out even the obvious differences. “I dunno, they’re both bikes, with two wheels and handlebars”... ok, hopefully they would be able to spot some differences but I’m amazed even with bike people when faced with a bike they doesn’t look quite right, they don’t really know why... whereas I or many people on this forum could have a quick glance and produce a litany of things to change. It’s all about the degree of interest you have in checking out those differences. For many the interest just isn’t there. For others, it borders on the obsessive.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 7942
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

ΙΜΟ what happened is that marketing is much more important nowadays. Brands hesitate to try new things or have their own ideas on construction and design, they just playing it safe, following each other in order to sell and survive in a super competitive environment.
In the 1970s and 1980s, even in the 1990s, bike manufacturers were small, produced local, and could experiment more (considering the lack of technology and materials). 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.

So, the fact that we have so many materials (while we only used to have steel tubes) and, still, so many bikes look similar is a proof of how more reluctant and conservative bike manufacturers are.

Having said that, there is no doubt that we have many options today. Bikes do not seem more alike than they used to seem. But, if we think of what the possibilities today are in comparison to 30-40 years ago, the experimenting and innovation seem to lack.

wingguy
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

Calnago wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:46 am
I’m with @flying on this. I am obsessed with the details that differentiate bikes, then and now. There are bikes I wouldn’t choose because of one detail that annoys me. And another detail on a different bike may catapult it to the top of my wish list.

I’m amazed even with bike people when faced with a bike they doesn’t look quite right, they don’t really know why... whereas I or many people on this forum could have a quick glance and produce a litany of things to change. It’s all about the degree of interest you have in checking out those differences. For many the interest just isn’t there. For others, it borders on the obsessive.
How can you claim to be obsessed with the differences between bikes yet agree that all dropped stay frames look the same? Maybe you choose to be oblivious to modern design differences, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there, to a much greater degree than the ones you rave about.

wingguy
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

flying wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:53 am
Kidding aside.....Of course I agree & can tell frames have slight differences today
Ok, because you said your whole point was that they were all cookie cutter bikes that looked the same. They actually have massive differences and very often look nothing alike.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying about a "builders fingerprint" but that is fine eh?
What does it mean? Because if you strip the logos off and put a current and last gen Madone next to each other, you know they’re both Madones. Take a Super and SystemSix Frame, a Venge and Tarmac frame and anyone who’s never seen them before could tell you which two were from Company A and which were from Company B. Same with loads of other bikes. The bikes have identities.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

wingguy wrote:
Calnago wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:46 am
I’m with @flying on this. I am obsessed with the details that differentiate bikes, then and now. There are bikes I wouldn’t choose because of one detail that annoys me. And another detail on a different bike may catapult it to the top of my wish list.

I’m amazed even with bike people when faced with a bike they doesn’t look quite right, they don’t really know why... whereas I or many people on this forum could have a quick glance and produce a litany of things to change. It’s all about the degree of interest you have in checking out those differences. For many the interest just isn’t there. For others, it borders on the obsessive.
How can you claim to be obsessed with the differences between bikes yet agree that all dropped stay frames look the same? Maybe you choose to be oblivious to modern design differences, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there, to a much greater degree than the ones you rave about.
Hmmm... you quote me yet leave out the part where you somehow derived that I “agree that all dropped stay frames look the same”. Interesting. I had to go back to my post to see what I actually said since I’m quite sure I never agreed that they all “look the same”. So here’s what I actually said....

“Aesthetically I happen to vastly prefer the look of the more traditional frames and really detest the look of dropped seat stays, yet totally get that some people love them. “
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

XCProMD
Posts: 812
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Cantabria

by XCProMD

kgt wrote:ΙΜΟ what happened is that marketing is much more important nowadays. Brands hesitate to try new things or have their own ideas on construction and design, they just playing it safe, following each other in order to sell and survive in a super competitive environment.
In the 1970s and 1980s, even in the 1990s, bike manufacturers were small, produced local, and could experiment more (considering the lack of technology and materials). 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.

So, the fact that we have so many materials (while we only used to have steel tubes) and, still, so many bikes look similar is a proof of how more reluctant and conservative bike manufacturers are.

Having said that, there is no doubt that we have many options today. Bikes do not seem more alike than they used to seem. But, if we think of what the possibilities today are in comparison to 30-40 years ago, the experimenting and innovation seem to lack.
Funny 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.


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

wingguy
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

Calnago wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:19 pm
Hmmm... you quote me yet leave out the part where you somehow derived that I “agree that all dropped stay frames look the same”. Interesting. I had to go back to my post to see what I actually said since I’m quite sure I never agreed that they all “look the same”. So here’s what I actually said....
You said you were with Flying, and Flying specifically said that his point was that all dropped seat stay carbon bikes look the same.

I’ve assumed you both meant what you said. If you didn’t, and you’re not with Flying, then it’s simple enough to clarify.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ah I see, and yes, I’m with with what @flying was saying in principle throughout his post. I don’t think that’s too far a stretch to comprehend. It’s those kinds of semantics wars that have gotten you banned previously. Learn from the past.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

wingguy
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

Calnago wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:14 pm
Ah I see, and yes, I’m with with what @flying was saying in principle throughout his post. I don’t think that’s too far a stretch to comprehend.
So you do agree with his point?

So why are you getting bent out of shape when I point out that I don’t know why you think all drop stay frames look the same?

flying
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am

by flying

wingguy wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:22 am
They actually have massive differences and very often look nothing alike.
That is "your" opinion & that is fine :wink:
It is not mine & I think most reading my posts get the intent.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post