|   Theory on technology... | binary visions
Dec 9, 2001 8:43 AM | | I have this theory. Most people don't agree with me, but I stick by it, and wanted to see what all of you who hang out in this forum think.
First off, let me say that I'm a technology geek. I love the latest/lightest/fastest thing out for mountain biking. Shimano Flight-Deck that estimates pedal cadence? Awesome. Scandium tubing that was once used for missle technology? Cool. Disc brakes? One of the greatest inventions in mountain biking history. I play with computers, and stereo equipment. So, nobody respond to this and tell me I don't appreciate technology.
I don't think, despite all the technological advances we've made, that technology truely makes things "better". Technology does a lot of things. It makes things smaller. It makes things faster. It makes things lighter. It makes them simpler, more durable, stronger, more reliable, more useful, and global. Newer alloys, better production processes, faster computers, newer springs, and better shock control technologies have made mountain biking all of those things. We go faster, over longer distances, off of bigger cliffs, on lighter bikes, for less money than we ever have before.
BUT: it hasn't made mountain biking any "better". Just different. For every one of you who has gone out and bought the latest, sweetest full-boinger with carbon/Ti bits draped all over it, there's a kid who rolls his eyes as he sits astride his fully rigid aluminum steed, with its snappy handling and light weight, at only $399; and maintinance free to boot! Those who invest in their Ti frames love their bikes, but for every one of them, there's a guy somewhere who loves the sweet ride his steel bike gives him, with its bombproof reliability. Every person who has bought a set of Hayes fully hydraulic disc brakes, and has upgraded their hubs, rims, and maybe even fork to do it, is laughed at by a woman who still loves her maintinance free center pulls, which cost $29.99 to replace the pair of 'em if they ever break.
So, here's my point: Those of you who love your old bikes, who don't like the latest gadgets and alloys, feel comforted in the fact that biking hasn't gotten any "better" because of these new inventions. But don't laugh at the guy astride the latest bike with lockout, rebound/compression dampening, and disc brakes. He, too, feels comforted, because he loves the latest and greatest innovations, and he has suited his riding style to take advantage of them.
Despite my addiction to technology, I recognize all of this. I can see why nothing has actually "improved". We don't need this new technology, we change our riding styles because it's available. Years ago, some of these downhill courses would have seemed completely insane, yet now we have Sport level racers using them. It's just a matter of taking advantage of what's available. And one day, I'd like to own a fine, steel bike, with a pure aluminum drivetrain/cockpit. But damn, a set of those RaceFace NeXT LP's and Ti bottom bracket, maybe a set of MonkeyLite's with an Easton Mg60 magnesium stem, and (of course) a FlightDeck computer, on my friend's Straight-Six.. that'd be sweet! |
| Ignorance is Bliss... | Matno
Dec 9, 2001 9:01 AM | | Sure there are plenty of people out there who are perfectly happy on their cheap, heavy bikes. Their bikes do what they want them to. For those of us who actually mountain bike, technology does make a difference. In fact, since I switched to full suspension, biking has gotten so much better that I ride more and have much better skills than I used to. Was my old, heavy hardtail bad? No. I loved it. Is my newer, lighter full-suspension rig better. Absolutely! 100 times better! |
| re: Ignorance is Bliss... | Jeffro
Dec 9, 2001 2:37 PM | | "For those of us who actually mountain bike."
I am one of those people out there a cheap, heavy bike compared to yours. Never really questioned myself on weather(sp?) or not is was an actual mountain biker. Guess others haven't either, it is already set that i am not a actual mountain biker. That kinda blows, i've been living in some sort of a dream on all those rides. I always looked at the sport as one where you push yourself farther and push the limits of your bike farther. I can now see though that it is all about pushing the technology further so that you can sit on top of your technology and point which way it should go. I don't hate new technology, nor am bitter agianst people who can afford it. Just don't think that you are any more of a "real" mountain biker because of it. Luckily i am going through school now, so I still have an open mind that can be taught what an actual mountain biker is, and make some money someday. With that money, i will buy a new bike, the latest skis, a car that runs more, etc. Then I can go X mph faster at all those and be a actual participant. I bet you are a actual lover who gets it done x minutes faster than me too, right? |
| no you're not better | eggman
Dec 10, 2001 9:52 AM | | since switching to a FS your skills have not gotten better. FS requires less skills because you can just blast through everything. you will be going faster but not because your skills have increased but because you don't have to be as concerned with picking the cleanest line. i also ride full suspension because it is more fun but it definately requires less skill to go fast. |
| Depends on your definition of "better".... | Tom Collins
Dec 9, 2001 9:11 AM | | Sure, my parents aren't going to have their riding experience improved a set of lightweight wheels or an air fork. But if you're a racer, then faster=better. And lighter weight=faster. There can be no question that technology has made racers faster and better.
You prove this point when you say "Years ago, some of these downhill courses would have seemed completely insane, yet now we have Sport level racers using them". Mountain biking is all about doing harder terrain faster and cleaner. That's the point. Well, for a lot of people it is. For those people, faster and harder is better, and technology makes their riding faster, cleaner, and therefore better.
I have a fully rigid mtb that I don't ride much. I took it out the other day and man, my ass got kicked. I wasn't nearly as fast in rough sections as I am on a fully or a hardtail. There is no question that my other bikes are better. For me, being able to go faster with greater ease equates to better. It's all about pushing the envelope.
But, when it comes to posers who just want an SUV ornament, or something to ride around the paved bike trails, obviously you're 100% correct. |
| no, you're wrong about this one | binary visions
Dec 9, 2001 1:34 PM | | "Better" does not have a variable definition, only a variable point of refrence. Better refers to something that has been improved, no questions asked. For you, perhaps, you ride "better" with your full suspension. Great, happy for you. However, it all depends on what you use your bike for. For some people, a hardtail IS better. Even for a lot of racers, a hardtail works better. Not only has technology not improved things for "posers" who want a SUV ornament, or people who ride on paved trails, technology has not even improved things for the people who live to ride. What still gives the best ride quality? Steel - not a high tech metal alloy like Scandium. A coil spring is still the most plush type of fork you can buy - even though technology has brought you elastomers and air chambers.
You've missed my point. My whole point was that for SOME people, high-tech = better. But it all depends on what you use your bike for, and not even racers agree on the "best" of anything. I know a guy who rides a '93 Schwinn Outlook. It's still got center pull brakes, a rigid fork, and toe clips. Not only is he the best bike mechanic I've ever met, we used to go riding with some Expert class racers, and he'd kick their asses every time, regardless of the terrain. Maybe he would have been faster on a FS bike, but the point is that technology wasn't for him, and didn't make anything "better". He felt that it put him out of touch with the ground underneath the bike, and didn't hold a line as well.
Thinking something is "better" is a matter of your point of view, not of the definition of the word. |
| Huh? You spin words.... | fred³
Dec 9, 2001 2:49 PM | | and the only thing you got right was that not everyone benefits from a technological change. Your mistake was in assuming technology made things "better". As in improved, easier to use, and you assumed an advancement meant better. Nyet! Nope, uh-uh. What technology can do is give you choices.
Some folks still play lp's. Know what they are? :-) They think that cd's are terrible and ruin the sound of a good musician.
At another point we have technology giving us electric lights and fabulous advances in medicine(and of course your boob tube and stereos). Many other things too, but do they make things better. Depends if you like pain and death when it comes to medicine. The rest is icing on the cake.
fred3 |
| re: Huh? You spin words.... | binary visions
Dec 9, 2001 3:11 PM | | Eh, that response post was done in a hurry and I didn't re-read it to make sure it made sense. I kinda bungled some of the wording. :-)
However, wait a sec. Speaking of spinning words, where do you get the impression that *I* assume technology makes things better, or improved? Isn't that the point of the post? And that's probably a good summary of my first post: technology doesn't make things better, it only gives choices.
Even when it comes to medicine it's not all black and white. Surely, for the average patient technology has improved things. But look at the rediculous over-population problem we have! (note: I don't think we should kill off more people because of it, but anyone can see the problem exists) Or, look at the fact that we can keep people alive so long we had to develop "living wills", because we can keep people alive long past the point of them being able to tell us they don't want to be alive. |
| Maybe!!! | DM9
Dec 9, 2001 10:09 AM | | I guess it depends on what you want from mountain biking! I want to be able to bomb as fast as I humanly can down fire roads. Thats it. Sure rigid forks of the past would work fine no question, but my Manitou's give me 10mph more towards my dream!!!
DM |
| Straight from your own mouth... | BK
Dec 9, 2001 1:58 PM | | "Technology does a lot of things. It makes things smaller. It makes things faster. It makes things lighter. It makes them simpler, more durable, stronger, more reliable, more useful, and global. Newer alloys, better production processes, faster computers, newer springs, and better shock control technologies have made mountain biking all of those things. We go faster, over longer distances, off of bigger cliffs, on lighter bikes, for less money than we ever have before" = better.
BK |
| Technology comes in many different packages... | næstep
Dec 9, 2001 3:04 PM | | Yes and no, sometimes technology and the headaches that come with it obscure the simple fun we're trying to achieve, but that's only one tack.
Look at technology from these perspectives:
* The technology that has allowed Moots, Lightspeed and others to process and machine titanium so easily (and affordably?) making some of the most reliable and supple HT frames in existance lightweight, strong, and rust free. Better.
* The technology behind getting the processing of aluminum so inexpensive that we can buy $20 rims that are stronger, lighter, and more corrosion resistant than the steel rims that preceeded them. Better.
* Relatively young suspension technology that allows Answer to sell forks so reliable that the only regular maintenance involves a tiny oil grease injection port. Better.
* The technology of standardized design and machining that allows Shimano to make a $25 cartridge bottom bracket, involving no loose bearings, no chainline to fiddle with, and no finicky tightening adjustments. Better.
* The technology of advanced composites that allows Easton to make a precisely sized handlebar that is stronger, lighter and more damage resistant than any metal bar. Better.
* The technology of computer aided design that allows a company such as Rohloff to conceptualize, then produce, a derailleurless drivetrain so user-friendly, dependable and maintenance free at such a low cost (considering the small number produced). Better.
* The technology of electronics that allows my CatEye to tell me how far I've ridden, how long I've been going at it, and how many vertical feet I've climbed, with no greater hassle on my part than setting a watch. Better.
* The very basic technology behind linear pull brakes (that's technology?) that has made setup, pad adjustment and cable adjustment so dirt simple that working on center-pull cantis feels like a lesson in geometry. Same for my Avid cable disc. Better.
I'll be the first to admit that once the subject of rear suspension is breached, from soft-tail pivotless designs all the way up to the newest VPP designs, there exists some tradeoff when better gets tossed around. Pivots and rear shocks still tend to complicate matters. Same goes for a lot of bleeding-edge technology, but someone's got to run it through its paces, figure things out, and hopefully perfect it.
There comes a time when each of us says "STOP", wistfully thinking of simpler times and of getting back to the basics. But for me, the basics still involves a suspension fork and V brakes!
næstep |
| Circular logic man. | xerxes
Dec 9, 2001 8:44 PM | | You guys went on a tangent with "better". When the actual issue, as you state, is that nothing has "improved". Then you say that it depends on your relative point of view. You then use this logic to artfully dodge any opinion not in line with yours. If they say black, you move your point of view on your sliding scale and perfectly justified, now say white. Of course you are right, because you control the discussion with your sliding scale. I agree with your point, how can I not? My point is that things have gotten better/improved, but if you keep moving the point of reference it's impossible for me to prove it in your world. In my view, this makes your logic circular and invalid for this type of discussion. You are right, and wrong. I am not disagreeing with you, I just argue in a different manner I guess. |
| Technology has made MTB better, ie disc brakes..... | ibismojo
Dec 10, 2001 1:55 AM | | You mean to tell me that V-Brakes in pure muddy/wet conditions is somehow gonna save your ass from going off the side of a cliff cause you couldn't slow down? That's just flat out bs. Other things, yeah, you could probably get away with somehow not making mtb'ing any "better". But you can't deny Disc Brakes. It alone has made mountain biking "better" in muddy/wet conditions. |
| how are discs better? | toad
Dec 10, 2001 8:56 AM | | You say that discs are "better" in muddy/wet conditions. But how does that make them better overall? I don't see how spending $600+ (brakes,hubs,wheels,etc..) to "upgrade" is "better" than keeping my v-brakes! Which have always performed to my satisfaction requardless of conditions. In addition, this site used to have a "brakes" discussion page that was literally littered with questions and complaints about setting up disc systems to perform correctly. It made setting up v-brake sound like cakewalk. Also the cost of maintenance on discs for just the brake pads alone is a deterant for me. I could buy a few sets of v-brake pads for the price of one set of discs. As for performance, other than the mudy/wet argument I can't see any reason to switch from v-brake to disc. Discs are not "better" enough for me to justify the costs involved. |
| i never said disc was for everybody..... | ibismojo
Dec 11, 2001 4:22 AM | | it serves very well for a certain geographic area where the weather is predominately muddy and wet. i'm glad for you that you think your v-brakes do well in all conditions. but the sheer power of v-brakes will provide a safer ride in such conditions, which makes the mountain biking experience "better".
You keep arguing other facts that are not relevant to the argument. why bring in factors like setup, cost, value, etc...in? we're simply speaking of the performance of the disc brakes in general compared to v-brakes. shitty v-brakes are as much pain in the ass to setup and keep dailed in. |
| "but the sheer power of DISC BRAKES....." | ibismojo
Dec 11, 2001 4:23 AM | | is what i meant to say. |
| Umm...Wrong | KT
Dec 10, 2001 8:13 AM | | Technology has not made things or mountain biking, more simple (not 'simpler') or more reliable. It makes parts and the bike as a whole, more complicated and more prone to failure. The total of working parts has increased, not decreased. Technology (production/materials) may over time, make them more reliable than past models. Case in point-take a fully rigid SS and an FS geared bike. Which one do you think will require more maintenance and which one is more simple?
Also have to agree with the guy who pointed out your sliding scale of reference. Nice job. |
| adjectivally challenged | false grammarian
Dec 10, 2001 11:09 AM | | i more simple (not 'simpler')
Pardon me, good sir, but you are gravely mistaken. You may *prefer* the term "more simple," but the plain truth is that the word "simpler" is valid and is proper grammar.
Would you kindly share with us your rationale for saying that one may not use "simpler" but rather must use "more simple"?
Thank you. |
| Pardon me Mr. Simpleton | KT
Dec 10, 2001 11:58 AM | | You are right, I am wrong, just doesn't sound right. |
| Pronounciation is key... | xerxes
Dec 10, 2001 3:19 PM | | I think if you pronounce it with two syllables "sim-pler" instead of three "sim-ple-r", it would sound better to your ears. It does to me anyway (and that's how it's broken up in the dictionary). |
| smile | bmwatgt
Dec 10, 2001 8:19 PM | | I dont know about everyone else, but once I'm riding, i stop thinking about all the technology, and concentrate on the ride. I'm pretty sure that most of you are actually this way. You get out there and just get caught up in the ride; you dont think about the price of the parts on your bike or the maintnence time required when you get home. thats what this guy means. the experience is essentially the same, despite the technology. |
| |
