I think this is true to an extent. But you are in an elite bracket of
riders, and have obvious innate abilities combined with a keen interest in
performance maximization as well as fun and comfort. When you say "But when
the gains come without penalties" it's not like speed is always free. I
know you've written that many of the equipment performance gains happen in
the final 5% zone, just like with the motor--ie, training and conditioning
the body. So there is the literal cost of lightweight frames that plane--to
get that 5% you are probably going to spend proportionally a lot more
money. (Ditto supple tires.)
The great majority of cyclists are not interested in performance as defined
by setting goals, or beating one's times, or racing. Many people use
bicycles as a means to an end (I know you do, to), and in that capacity can
have, arguably, just as much fun on a heavier bike not built for maximum
speed performance, but, for example, for maximum hauling and longevity at a
price point. And let's remember, speed is often an illusion, which is why
people on those skinny 100psi tires *think* they are going faster. To go
faster, I often ride at night. Sure, if all your optimizing gets you an
extra mile or two an hour, that makes a big difference on a 400k brevet.
But not so much on a 6-mile commute. Still beats walking by a few hours.
I have had my share of bicycles oriented to speed performance over the
years, the latest being a Lyons 650b, purchased after reading your review
in BQ. I like it. But these days--to be fair partly due to
circumstances--most of my riding is done on my Rivendell Clementine, which
is a blast to ride (but doesn't plane and is decidedly *not* fun to carry
up a couple flights of stairs.) I'm a big fan of Compass tires and I had
plans to upgrade to Switchbacks but I'm not sure how much I would notice
after the initial couple of rides--not for the riding I do with this bike,
anyway. Still, if only to satisfy my curiosity, and because BQ has turned
me into a bit of a tire snob, I am saving up!
I don't think it's anti-performance as much as not feeling the need to
chase every speed optimization. I think the majority of the bicycles in the
world don't need to be built to plane, and even if they were, this factor
would go unnoticed by 98% of non-elite, non- "enthusiast" riders. I am
currently working on a test to prove this statement ;^)
In any case, most future Compass customers will in all likelihood be
recruited from the pool of those very same wannabe racers that need to be
converted to fat tires, not the people who bought the gazillions of
relatively wide-tired comfort and mountain bikes that sit in the garage
because they are the equivalent of the majority of home exercise machines,
which end up functioning as clothes butlers. Those folks will stay in their
cars to the bitter end.
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 6:44:12 PM UTC-4, Jan Heine wrote:
>
>
> It's easy to confound "anti-attitude" with "anti-performance", but I think
> that is a mistake. Cycling is fun in part because of its speed. Otherwise,
> we could be walking. That doesn't mean that we should prioritize speed over
> everything else – comfort and fun are more important. But when the gains
> come without penalties, such as wide supple tires – faster, more
> comfortable and more puncture-resistant – or frames that get in sync with
> your pedal strokes ("planing") – lighter, more fun at any power output –
> then it makes sense to embrace them.
>
> Jan Heine
> Editor
> Bicycle Quarterly
> www.bikequarterly.com
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
