I saw this over a Classic Rendezvous by a long time builder and designer. Although I do not agree that I desire or ever want a carbon bike, he brings up some good points in regards to what drives the bicycle industry. Read on.
I have been reluctant to comment on the CR thread about bicycle frames made using steel. I have not read every single comment. Some folks seem to think that the best steel frames from the CR period ride better than current state of the art bikes made using CF. Also that because we are not racing then we don't need the last little bit of advantage. While both these statements can be argued let me take a devil's advocate position. If only real racers bought the bikes back in the CR period then you guys would not be riding them now, there would not be enough and the price would be high. After being on this list for some time I have come to the conclusion that low cost is one of the most important features to the CR listers. No problem at all with this, but back in the day real bike nuts bought the high end bikes for full retail price. Some of these bikes were bought just to show off or get on the bike bandwagon and then put in the basement never to be
ridden again. So mostly these old steel frame bikes are available now for modest cost. The very best steel bikes from the CR period ride very well. I know something about this as I spent my whole career building and designing bike frames. After around 100 years of development the very best steel bike frames defined what a bike should feel like. As a frame designer you better know what you're doing if you attempt to change even a small detail let alone the frame material. I was at the forefront of change in bicycle frame design. This happened right at the time of CR list cutoff, so I cannot talk about it here. But I can talk about why steel is not viable for the current bike industry.
Now I know you guys seem to think anything to do with marketing is BS. I am an engineer so like to think logic would be the best way to decide how to buy anything, but we all know this is not very realistic. All bikes since they were invented were sold using marketing, all the bikes you guys ride, all the bikes sold now. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it has to be this way. As I mentioned earlier, if folks who did not need the best racing bike back in the 1970's did not buy them you would not have them now. The bike industry is very, very competitive. Let me try to explain what happened to the market for serious bicycles at the end of the steel period. Steel bike frames were highly developed at the end of 1970's and the best frames all used tubing from about 3 companies. So one could look at these frames as a commodity. Not a very healthy place for a bike maker to be in once most people have a bike. One way around this is to sell a large
volume of bikes and get good pricing on the materials and parts, then sell bikes on price. Raleigh for instance, but high volume and high quality don't go together very well. The other way is how I did it, hand built custom frames with a fanatic attention to detail. Trouble with this is how much work it takes compared with how much the customer is willing to spend. So here is where marketing comes in. As a small builder I learned quite a lot about bike design, and what makes a bike feel good. But one frame a week is not going to change the world of bikes. So I teamed up with a genius marketing guy, Mike Sinyard. I took my steel frame designs to the general market, the frames made in Japan to keep the price to the end user down. Bikes worked very well, but because end users generally don't know a good ride from adam not much in the way of impact in the market. It is hard to market a bike if the marketing department does not have an angle. This angle
should always have a real technical advantage, in my opinion anyway. The key point is you have to have a successful company (selling lot's of bikes and making profit) in order to keep making good bikes. Because steel frames all use similar tubing there is not very much one can do to differentiate other than the BS like lug cutouts and fancy decals. Colnago for instance. As a technical guy this path does not interest me all. Making real improvements in the bicycle is what I have always been trying to do. If one can make these changes and prove it with tests, it gives the marking guys something to work with. Very difficult this path. Changing to a different frame material is full of pitfalls. I have always pushed this angle based on sound theories, and keeping to the forefront the feel based on the best steel bike frames. I think there is some misunderstanding from some on this list that all CF frames are all lumped into the same group. The engineering
for most steel frame bikes is in the tubing, as long as one builds frames with tubes from a good company with reasonable skill the bike will work fine. With carbon this in not true.CFframes are vastly more difficult to both design and build than steel. For various reasons it takes a team of real engineers and large amounts of capital along with the best marketing to do correctly. The small maker cannot do this, really only a few companies ca ... n. Even if steel frame could be made to work as well (you have to believe me but they cannot), a bike company would be rolling a large stone up hill to sell very many these days. Steel bikes do have a few advantages. Very low cost, although with so few makers building them harder to find quality. If you don't care about weight they are very strong. Small volume niche bikes are easy to do, not much capital or tooling required. All these reasons are negatives for marketing though. If a small company starts selling an
interesting volume then it is very easy to knock the bike off and undersell it.
I am a perfectionist and love fine tools. I am not a racer and in fact do not deserve to ride the latest racing bike. But wow! My new bike is in every way the best bike I have ever ridden. There is no disadvantage at all, except for the cost. Does it not make sense to support (as in buying new bikes) the people who are making the very best bikes right now? Or at least not come down on what is happening with bike design as marketing BS?
Jim Merz
Big Sur CA
USA
I have been reluctant to comment on the CR thread about bicycle frames made using steel. I have not read every single comment. Some folks seem to think that the best steel frames from the CR period ride better than current state of the art bikes made using CF. Also that because we are not racing then we don't need the last little bit of advantage. While both these statements can be argued let me take a devil's advocate position. If only real racers bought the bikes back in the CR period then you guys would not be riding them now, there would not be enough and the price would be high. After being on this list for some time I have come to the conclusion that low cost is one of the most important features to the CR listers. No problem at all with this, but back in the day real bike nuts bought the high end bikes for full retail price. Some of these bikes were bought just to show off or get on the bike bandwagon and then put in the basement never to be
ridden again. So mostly these old steel frame bikes are available now for modest cost. The very best steel bikes from the CR period ride very well. I know something about this as I spent my whole career building and designing bike frames. After around 100 years of development the very best steel bike frames defined what a bike should feel like. As a frame designer you better know what you're doing if you attempt to change even a small detail let alone the frame material. I was at the forefront of change in bicycle frame design. This happened right at the time of CR list cutoff, so I cannot talk about it here. But I can talk about why steel is not viable for the current bike industry.
Now I know you guys seem to think anything to do with marketing is BS. I am an engineer so like to think logic would be the best way to decide how to buy anything, but we all know this is not very realistic. All bikes since they were invented were sold using marketing, all the bikes you guys ride, all the bikes sold now. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it has to be this way. As I mentioned earlier, if folks who did not need the best racing bike back in the 1970's did not buy them you would not have them now. The bike industry is very, very competitive. Let me try to explain what happened to the market for serious bicycles at the end of the steel period. Steel bike frames were highly developed at the end of 1970's and the best frames all used tubing from about 3 companies. So one could look at these frames as a commodity. Not a very healthy place for a bike maker to be in once most people have a bike. One way around this is to sell a large
volume of bikes and get good pricing on the materials and parts, then sell bikes on price. Raleigh for instance, but high volume and high quality don't go together very well. The other way is how I did it, hand built custom frames with a fanatic attention to detail. Trouble with this is how much work it takes compared with how much the customer is willing to spend. So here is where marketing comes in. As a small builder I learned quite a lot about bike design, and what makes a bike feel good. But one frame a week is not going to change the world of bikes. So I teamed up with a genius marketing guy, Mike Sinyard. I took my steel frame designs to the general market, the frames made in Japan to keep the price to the end user down. Bikes worked very well, but because end users generally don't know a good ride from adam not much in the way of impact in the market. It is hard to market a bike if the marketing department does not have an angle. This angle
should always have a real technical advantage, in my opinion anyway. The key point is you have to have a successful company (selling lot's of bikes and making profit) in order to keep making good bikes. Because steel frames all use similar tubing there is not very much one can do to differentiate other than the BS like lug cutouts and fancy decals. Colnago for instance. As a technical guy this path does not interest me all. Making real improvements in the bicycle is what I have always been trying to do. If one can make these changes and prove it with tests, it gives the marking guys something to work with. Very difficult this path. Changing to a different frame material is full of pitfalls. I have always pushed this angle based on sound theories, and keeping to the forefront the feel based on the best steel bike frames. I think there is some misunderstanding from some on this list that all CF frames are all lumped into the same group. The engineering
for most steel frame bikes is in the tubing, as long as one builds frames with tubes from a good company with reasonable skill the bike will work fine. With carbon this in not true.CFframes are vastly more difficult to both design and build than steel. For various reasons it takes a team of real engineers and large amounts of capital along with the best marketing to do correctly. The small maker cannot do this, really only a few companies ca ... n. Even if steel frame could be made to work as well (you have to believe me but they cannot), a bike company would be rolling a large stone up hill to sell very many these days. Steel bikes do have a few advantages. Very low cost, although with so few makers building them harder to find quality. If you don't care about weight they are very strong. Small volume niche bikes are easy to do, not much capital or tooling required. All these reasons are negatives for marketing though. If a small company starts selling an
interesting volume then it is very easy to knock the bike off and undersell it.
I am a perfectionist and love fine tools. I am not a racer and in fact do not deserve to ride the latest racing bike. But wow! My new bike is in every way the best bike I have ever ridden. There is no disadvantage at all, except for the cost. Does it not make sense to support (as in buying new bikes) the people who are making the very best bikes right now? Or at least not come down on what is happening with bike design as marketing BS?
Jim Merz
Big Sur CA
USA
.
