I ran a shimmed seatpost for years without a slip. Shims, when properly designed and fitted work fine.
Unified component standards!!!
- Thread starter stgil888
- Start date
I just want to use my damn socket set on my bike.
hubs are my pet peeve. every company should make hubs that are convertible between 10-12/9-20 and make spacers for 135-150.
Hadley does this, and they are ungodly expensive. I could own one of each rear standard for the cost of a hadley.
Also, ringle did the spacer thing, super frikkin annoying.
Spacers on a 135mm hub to make it 150mm negate the advantages of the wider hub standard. Spacers work fine for some applications (under compression beneath a stem) but they only work marginally in others (behind and aftermarket car wheel to compensate for offset).
word, gheesh man bb's are out of control!!!!!!!!!!
i would liek to see 2 chain lines wide for 150 and narrow for 135.
all bb/s and cranks to fit on one of those two groups.
if you build a wide bike put a 150 rear on it!
yep, you loose wide flanges and dishless wheels.
we the bicycle community that runs disc brakes are taking a huge
hit in wheel stiffness.
i think we need a new front 120x20 standard. it would be a huge
undertaking but dished wheels are not engineered, that are just
made to work.
from this thread
With all the talk lately about hub width and how it affects wheel stiffness -- especially bcd's contention that 100mm is insufficient for FR/DH on 29ers -- I decided to run some numbers.
The results were surprising. But they confirmed what I suspected, and what bcd is determining empirically.
Here are the assumptions I used. Please correct me if any of them are wrong.
-The stiffness provided by spokes is proportional to the sine of the angle that the spokes make with the rim.
-I assume the wheel is undished.
-All my numbers are relative. "How stiff is stiff?" Well, that depends on what spokes and what rim you use.
-All my numbers are hand-measured and therefore approximate.
First, the standard: a 26" wheel with non-disc XT hub. ~230mm hub to rim, ~70mm hub flange spacing. Spoke stiffness: 0.1504. 100% of the standard.
And now, the bad news.
26" wheel with Laserdisc DH disc hub (~55mm flange spacing), 110mm * 20mm thru axle: 78.9% of standard
We lose over 20% of our stiffness by going to discs.
29" wheel (~260mm hub to rim) with Laserdisc DH disc hub: 69.9% of standard
We lose another 13% by going 29 vs. 26. The 26" XT non-disc wheel is 40% stiffer than our 29" disc wheel! No wonder we keep destroying our expensive wheels!
So what happens if we use wider hubs? bcd suggests and has made a 120mm hub, 10mm wider than standard:
29" wheel, bcd's 120mm DH disc hub (65mm flange spacing): 82.45% of standard
So we're not losing to the 26" disc crowd anymore. But we're still not as stiff as my five-year-old 26" XC hardtail. Or even a ROAD BIKE. This ugly fact should embarrass the hell out of whoever first made disc hubs and forks.
29" (700c) wheel, non-disc hub, ~70mm flange spacing: 88.68% of standard
How wide do we have to go just to catch up with my old hardtail?
26" wheel, hypothetical 125mm disc (~70mm flange spacing): 100% of standard
29" wheel, hypothetical 135mm disc (~80mm flange spacing): 101.07% of standard.
So if we settle on 135mm as the new standard, we can claw our way back to where we were in 1988.
News flash! Apparently the 20" front wheel of my recumbent can kick everyone's ass. Despite years of suspensionless urban riding that quickly destroyed my headset, I've never had to true the cheap Alex rims.
You can also ask the BMXicans about 20" wheels and the abuse they take.
20" (406mm) wheel, 165mm flange to rim distance, 70mm Deore non-disc hub: 137.93% of standard
Wouldn't it be nice to have a wheel that was as tough as the one on my girly-man recumbent? How wide would the hub have to be?
29" wheel, hypothetical 165mm disc (~110mm flange spacing): 137.57% of standard
So there we are. Do we want to stop tacoing wheels? Do we want to run lighter rims and decrease rotating mass? Then 165mm x 20mm is the new 100mm.
i have been running 29's a you can really feel how narrow front
110x20 hubs are with them.
Hmm,
Maybe some custom crowns on a usd fork, some special hubs...
Not too hard.
Iiiiiinteresting.
Maybe some custom crowns on a usd fork, some special hubs...
Not too hard.
Iiiiiinteresting.
If the disc rotor spacing was done correctly, someone could make a prototype of this using an old Shiver without too much hassle. Can one get spokes long enough to build such a wheel?
This reminds me of Seismic hubs (from Double Down). They were huge, but by using bigger hubs, they used shorter spokes and essentially allowed you to build a 24 or 26" wheel with angles similar to a 20" wheel. Has anyone on here ever used one?
This reminds me of Seismic hubs (from Double Down). They were huge, but by using bigger hubs, they used shorter spokes and essentially allowed you to build a 24 or 26" wheel with angles similar to a 20" wheel. Has anyone on here ever used one?
last year i used a white brothers inverted with 120 spacing.
custom hub built from a ss 135 rear shell. had no problem
with flex at all. worked great.
i also use a ss 135 rear 5 speed dishless hub.
Looks awesome. Would be harder to do with a fork with cast lowers...
The rear hub set up is particularly interesting. Dishless is a big improvement, and fitting a rotor, a few cogs and a spoke flanges together in 135mm of width is a real achievement. I'd rather use a 68/73mm BB and 135mm rear wheel than the 83/150 I have now, but it seems hard to do without some awkward dishing.
The rear hub set up is particularly interesting. Dishless is a big improvement, and fitting a rotor, a few cogs and a spoke flanges together in 135mm of width is a real achievement. I'd rather use a 68/73mm BB and 135mm rear wheel than the 83/150 I have now, but it seems hard to do without some awkward dishing.
In regards to my original complaint about seatposts, I just got two Thomson Elites off ebay, one in 30.9 and one in 31.6 to do some preliminary investigating. The hypothesis thus far seems to be that a fatter pipe with thinner walls is the way to go as far as seatposts are concerned.
I have a 27.2 Thomson rolling around somewhere, and will dig it up to continue the comparison. To keep it simple I am going to try to stick with one brand and model of post, because it would be too arduous to account for other factors.
One thing I can see already with the 31.6 is that it can get pinched down at the seatpost collar very easily. This has never been a problem for me with a 27.2mm post. Given aluminum's limited fatigue resistance, deflection and deformation at a critical junction (right above the seatpost collar) could be a very dangerous thing.
Does anyone know why so many seatposts have thicker walls on their front and back ends (in cross section). It would seem to me that the majority of load that seat posts contend with is in the front-to-back axis, with backwards bending load encountered during seated riding and hard landings, and forward load when a bike tumbles so that the rear of the seat lands first, pushing the seatpost towards the handlebars and top tube.
I have a 27.2 Thomson rolling around somewhere, and will dig it up to continue the comparison. To keep it simple I am going to try to stick with one brand and model of post, because it would be too arduous to account for other factors.
One thing I can see already with the 31.6 is that it can get pinched down at the seatpost collar very easily. This has never been a problem for me with a 27.2mm post. Given aluminum's limited fatigue resistance, deflection and deformation at a critical junction (right above the seatpost collar) could be a very dangerous thing.
Does anyone know why so many seatposts have thicker walls on their front and back ends (in cross section). It would seem to me that the majority of load that seat posts contend with is in the front-to-back axis, with backwards bending load encountered during seated riding and hard landings, and forward load when a bike tumbles so that the rear of the seat lands first, pushing the seatpost towards the handlebars and top tube.
Just so you know, risse makes 120x20mm hubs standard for their forks. They actually work really well, and are dirtcheap.
It's true. I had a Risse wide front hub for two years, and it was fine.
L
LFB
Guest
Woah!!! Unless you're installing longer lugs, using spacers is a bad idea. Additionally, many OE wheels are hub-centric, and when you use spacers, it puts a greater load on the lugs instead of the hubs. Most aftermarket wheels are also lug-centric rather than hub-centric (although some are available in hub-centric sizes).
I wouldn't use spacers w/o converting the hubs to stud and nut. However, it is done with stock lugs...
And that explains some of the wheels you see bouncing down the road without a car attached.
And that explains some of the wheels you see bouncing down the road without a car attached.
I think this is good!
I can see maybe not having 1 standard but have atleast 2-3 choices to make in some cases. I know that 135mm is the norm for rear end spacing, and 150 is becomming more and more of an option. You kill 2 birds with one stone because you're able to get a wider rear end & build a dishless wheel for strength. On the other end you do need a different BB. Somethings will always have a variance to them like the BB. Alot of it is for chainline issues. Plus depending on the frame you might need those few extra MM's for clearence etc...
There's nothing I really think is that non-standard. Headsets/stems/bars/pedals/seatposts all have an option or 2. And most are either one or the other. How hard is it to choose? 1 1/8 or 1.5, 50 or 70mm lenght, 31.8 or 25.4? My biggest gripe though is the small parts of brake systems. There's Avid/Hayes/Magura/Formula/Hope etc.....and all run different small parts. That's what drives me nuts. You gotta run one system all the way or not at all. If you have Avid on one bike, Hayes on the other you end up with all sorts of little widgets to each set. That drives me nuts.
But other wise I don't see a need to really standardize anything. Things like bars will go to that 31.8 route because their weight vs strength are there. Seatposts on the other hand there is a standard. Thomson
Somethings are just too stupid and simple to try and find a standard.
I can see maybe not having 1 standard but have atleast 2-3 choices to make in some cases. I know that 135mm is the norm for rear end spacing, and 150 is becomming more and more of an option. You kill 2 birds with one stone because you're able to get a wider rear end & build a dishless wheel for strength. On the other end you do need a different BB. Somethings will always have a variance to them like the BB. Alot of it is for chainline issues. Plus depending on the frame you might need those few extra MM's for clearence etc...
There's nothing I really think is that non-standard. Headsets/stems/bars/pedals/seatposts all have an option or 2. And most are either one or the other. How hard is it to choose? 1 1/8 or 1.5, 50 or 70mm lenght, 31.8 or 25.4? My biggest gripe though is the small parts of brake systems. There's Avid/Hayes/Magura/Formula/Hope etc.....and all run different small parts. That's what drives me nuts. You gotta run one system all the way or not at all. If you have Avid on one bike, Hayes on the other you end up with all sorts of little widgets to each set. That drives me nuts.
But other wise I don't see a need to really standardize anything. Things like bars will go to that 31.8 route because their weight vs strength are there. Seatposts on the other hand there is a standard. Thomson
Somethings are just too stupid and simple to try and find a standard.
As far as I understand, 31.8mm bars not stronger. One of the enginerd types was posting about them awhile ago.But other wise I don't see a need to really standardize anything. Things like bars will go to that 31.8 route because their weight vs strength are there. Seatposts on the other hand there is a standard. Thomson
Brakes could definitely benefit from standardization.
To make another auto analogy, you can use Stoptech or Brembo calipers with your stock lines and master cylinder. You can't use Avid or Magura calipers with your Hayes lever and lines.
Some of this has to do with the size, scale of manufacture and inherent flexibility (read low performance standards) of car parts vs. bike parts, and some has to do with manufacturer's planning and arrogance.
Standardized brake line fittings would be a boon for riders. Tear or crush your rear brake line on the last run? No problem pick up a Goodridge rear line at the LBS at the base of the hill and get back on the lift after a 10 minute bleed job.
The way it works now is: crush your line, limp down to the base of the hill, pack your gear away after one or two runs, drive home, unload gear, go online, find appropriate replacement part, wait two weeks for it to be packed and ship, install it.
Often, if you have a less common brand, say Magura or Hope, you have to order a replacement part from far away. If I were one of the little(r) manufacturers, I would copy Hayes or Avid's parts for better interoperability, assuming that the big guys' stuff is not entirely detrimental to the performance of their product.
Seeing how Avid Code calipers can be successfully actuated by their Juicy Ultimate levers leads me to believe that, with the right fittings, there is more interchangeability in hydraulic discs than we currently believe. With the proper adapters, I bet Hayes levers could squeeze Avid calipers and vice versa. Using a syringe and no caliper, it would be possible to test each lever body/system to determine how much fluid it displaces during a full cycle (lever at rest away from bar through lever on bar).
I am going to re-build my Hayes Mags this weekend and can try to test this.
Speaking of small parts, does Hayes offer a specific rebuild kit for their G1 calipers?
To make another auto analogy, you can use Stoptech or Brembo calipers with your stock lines and master cylinder. You can't use Avid or Magura calipers with your Hayes lever and lines.
Some of this has to do with the size, scale of manufacture and inherent flexibility (read low performance standards) of car parts vs. bike parts, and some has to do with manufacturer's planning and arrogance.
Standardized brake line fittings would be a boon for riders. Tear or crush your rear brake line on the last run? No problem pick up a Goodridge rear line at the LBS at the base of the hill and get back on the lift after a 10 minute bleed job.
The way it works now is: crush your line, limp down to the base of the hill, pack your gear away after one or two runs, drive home, unload gear, go online, find appropriate replacement part, wait two weeks for it to be packed and ship, install it.
Often, if you have a less common brand, say Magura or Hope, you have to order a replacement part from far away. If I were one of the little(r) manufacturers, I would copy Hayes or Avid's parts for better interoperability, assuming that the big guys' stuff is not entirely detrimental to the performance of their product.
Seeing how Avid Code calipers can be successfully actuated by their Juicy Ultimate levers leads me to believe that, with the right fittings, there is more interchangeability in hydraulic discs than we currently believe. With the proper adapters, I bet Hayes levers could squeeze Avid calipers and vice versa. Using a syringe and no caliper, it would be possible to test each lever body/system to determine how much fluid it displaces during a full cycle (lever at rest away from bar through lever on bar).
I am going to re-build my Hayes Mags this weekend and can try to test this.
Speaking of small parts, does Hayes offer a specific rebuild kit for their G1 calipers?
31.8mm bars can be stronger, but at the cost of being heavier. Because bicycle handlebars encounter more crushing force than anything else, a smaller OD with thicker walls offers much more cross-sectional compression resistance to deformation than a 31.8mm OD tube with thinner walls to achieve the same weight.
31.8mm bars can be stiffer at the same weight, but that means thinner walls all the way around, and much less resistance to being crushed at the stem, levers, ends...etc. If your bar and stem were one piece, a thinner walled design with a greater overall diamater might be preferable (look at many road bikes).
You took the words right outta my mouth.
on quick little side not, i saw a guy a few weekends ago run 4pot XTs with hayes mag levers and lines, i found quite interesting. He said they performed without any hassles
Bicyclist, I like how you think!
This is very interesting. I wonder what type of fluid he was running? Four-piston XT's were Grimecas I believe, and they used mineral oil. Hayes levers are designed to work with DOT fluid.
L
LFB
Guest
Well, of course they can bolt right up...Because you have to order the specific caliper to fit your vehicle! They are not a universal fit! Just like Thomson seat posts; you have to order the post for your frame, and it will fit perfectly. And if you chew one of your nice Brembo rotors, good luck finding one, unless your Brembo dealer has one specifically for your vehicle. I'm sorry, but your reference to aftermarket brakes makes just the opposite point that you are trying to make. The auto brake industry is far worse when it comes to industry-wide univeral standards than the bicycle industry.
Most BBKs use the same caliper and rotor but with different rotor hats (centers) and caliper adapters. No different than bicycles except that bikes use one piece rotors for the most part. If the same were true of bikes, I could buy an Avid Code caliper and rotor and hook them up to my Hayes lever body and ride away. As some have pointed out, with a little tinkering this may be possible, but it is certainly not easy.
i imagine he would have run mineral oil, as it is not corrosive hence it probably didnt destroy any of the DOT 4 seals in the Hayes lever
Are DOT systems backwards compatible with mineral oil ones? I was under the impression that a system designed for one could not handle the other--but that might just be propaganda.
31.6mm Thomson arrived today. And, just like I feared, it is very easy to crush it at the seat tube collar. 30.9 should arrive soon. Hopefully I'll cut some small cross-section pieces with a cutoff saw to take pictures.
31.6mm Thomson arrived today. And, just like I feared, it is very easy to crush it at the seat tube collar. 30.9 should arrive soon. Hopefully I'll cut some small cross-section pieces with a cutoff saw to take pictures.
Not sure. It would be total speculation for me to comment on that!
I have both Thomson seatposts now and will be getting on to the preliminary measurements this weekend.
I have both Thomson seatposts now and will be getting on to the preliminary measurements this weekend.
OK. After comparing both the 31.6mm Thomson and the 30.9, I think that 30.9mm is a better size.
Weight: negligible difference, would have to test more posts of different brands and more Thomsons to account for material fluctuations.
Stiffness: 30.9mm wins. More on this later, but all my seats' rails start to bend before the posts.
Strength/Durability: the 30.9mm Thomson beats out the 31.6 because the 31.6 starts deforming at the seatpost collar before bending throughout the exposed length of the tube becomes an issue. Much like others speculated. Without thicker walls or different material, the 31.6 is too fat a can with too thin walls.
Weight: negligible difference, would have to test more posts of different brands and more Thomsons to account for material fluctuations.
Stiffness: 30.9mm wins. More on this later, but all my seats' rails start to bend before the posts.
Strength/Durability: the 30.9mm Thomson beats out the 31.6 because the 31.6 starts deforming at the seatpost collar before bending throughout the exposed length of the tube becomes an issue. Much like others speculated. Without thicker walls or different material, the 31.6 is too fat a can with too thin walls.
dude you are such an industry apologist it's not even funny.
a perhaps illuminating anecdote:
When i was having my frame made i had to make a decision about seatpost diameter. I sure as nuts didn't expect to have to make such a silly decision. This was tricky for a number of reasons. The reynolds 853 tubing is made with three inside diameters, 27.2, 30.0, 31.6. technically the ideal would have been the 30, but because it isn't widely adopted among frames not many companies make posts to fit. Most annoying was that the post, or more specifically seat/post system i wanted to use is not made in that size. So you're thinking why not go for the next size up? Well you'd be surprised how little overlap there is between brands of seatpost, on my short list were various brands that would be completely excluded depending on my choice of seat tube, which is totally **** luck. Reynolds is not the one to blame, really.
one factor, if anyone is interested, in the weird ass sizes of seatposts is due to most tubing being in imperial units based on fractions. If you go and buy some tubing anywhere in the world, for the sake of argument 4130 steel, it will come in several sizes based on its outside diameter and represented in decimals that correspond to some nice round fractions, the commonest sizes are 1", 1 1/8", 1 3/8", 1 3/4" you get the picture. These are often given as decimals. Almost all tubing follows a standard range of wall thicknesses given as decimals which correspond to the first three decimal places in imperial of the equivalent measure in metric- eg; 0.035 is really .9mm but you won't find much tubing listed as .9mm except as butt specifications from say Columbus or Dedaccai. Which brings us to another point. The bicycle industry is basically metric by default so when having tubes made and given the chance a company is likely to specify dimensions in clean round metric numbers, which is fine in a sense, but coming back to the seat posts, since tubes are manufactured by O.D. the I.D. of your new metric seatube with fancy butting or whatever is going to vary from the I.D.s found in the usual suspects of imperial based tubes, which means nobody already makes a seatpost for your awesome new product yet since most bikes via hook or crook ahve imperial based tubes. But because so many companies have tried this **** out they are now out there but with no particular trend since each company has its own percieved demands per model hence different wall thickness per tube size. Now of course we've got so many options that if you engineer it how you feel like and come up with a certain diameter you just pick the closest size and sell your own post with the bike.
Hydro small parts. il a raison lui. he's got a point. with cable brakes everybody's standard, while there are variations in housing fashion you can always use whatever housing with whatever cable with whatever brake, but with hydros you need a certain collection of fittings per brand and model that isn't quite analogous to the little barrel adjusters and noodles on a cable actuated brake, especially since with cable discs you still have bags of easy interoperability. And yes grimecas run d.o.t. 4
When I first broke into cycling in the 80's, 27.2 was the most common size of seatpost, but 26.8, 27.0, and 25.0 were also common sizes. This had to do more with many different framebuilders across Europe and Asia. There was also English, Italian, French, and Swiss threaded bb's too!
After the change from hundreds of small road builders to fewer but much larger manufacturing companies like Trek, these companies have been able to commit to standards which everyone has to follow, like the English BB threading.
But take Cannondale's BB30 standard, which Specialized and I believe Scott will be using for their carbon bikes. The outboard bb's are a decent fix to the pipe spindle, but a bigger bb shell is the solution.
Is it a bad idea to introduce another standard? The Hollowgram crankset/bb has been lighter than Dura-Ace and XTR.
Sometimes it makes no sense to change standards, like Maverick's 24mm or Specialized 25mm hubs. But is Foes 30mm axle a bad idea? Does 10 extra mm give you an improvement in fork stiffness?
The seatposts are another good question. And given the limited testcase of a Thomson post, yeah, both sizes are good enough. But if you pick other materials for posts and frames, I think different sizes are appropriate.
Standards make it easier but there are advantages to doing it differently. I am still waiting for road to adopt 135mm hub spacing.
After the change from hundreds of small road builders to fewer but much larger manufacturing companies like Trek, these companies have been able to commit to standards which everyone has to follow, like the English BB threading.
But take Cannondale's BB30 standard, which Specialized and I believe Scott will be using for their carbon bikes. The outboard bb's are a decent fix to the pipe spindle, but a bigger bb shell is the solution.
Is it a bad idea to introduce another standard? The Hollowgram crankset/bb has been lighter than Dura-Ace and XTR.
Sometimes it makes no sense to change standards, like Maverick's 24mm or Specialized 25mm hubs. But is Foes 30mm axle a bad idea? Does 10 extra mm give you an improvement in fork stiffness?
The seatposts are another good question. And given the limited testcase of a Thomson post, yeah, both sizes are good enough. But if you pick other materials for posts and frames, I think different sizes are appropriate.
Standards make it easier but there are advantages to doing it differently. I am still waiting for road to adopt 135mm hub spacing.
Great posts, guys.
Yes, different standards can benefit material advances and changes.
Bottom brackets/cranksets could really benefit. The current standard of bearings and spindle through the skinny BB tube is probably not the best way to do it.
I spent some time this weekend comparing a Race Face X-Type DH crankset to a Profile crankset. I am going to run the profile crankset on my bike this season. I don't think the design is better at all, but the execution is.
Because they're limited by old-fashioned bottom bracket shells, external bearing BB's can only use a single row of balls on each side to maintain a decent chainline and stay narrow enough. When one ball on one side becomes compromised, the whole system goes down. Yes, the same thing could happen on a system with more bearings if you had a catastrophic meltdown, but with the Profile system, there are four bearings.
A fat Ti hollow-pipe spindle with Profile-style splines mated to a carbon crank with hardened steel (or Ti) inserts all spinning on ceramic hybrid bearings would be better, but is not currently practical.
The problem with many of these advances that move away from existing standards is that they're not very practical--or, more specifically, their ratio of performance advantage to practicality lost is too low for most consumers.
Yes, different standards can benefit material advances and changes.
Bottom brackets/cranksets could really benefit. The current standard of bearings and spindle through the skinny BB tube is probably not the best way to do it.
I spent some time this weekend comparing a Race Face X-Type DH crankset to a Profile crankset. I am going to run the profile crankset on my bike this season. I don't think the design is better at all, but the execution is.
Because they're limited by old-fashioned bottom bracket shells, external bearing BB's can only use a single row of balls on each side to maintain a decent chainline and stay narrow enough. When one ball on one side becomes compromised, the whole system goes down. Yes, the same thing could happen on a system with more bearings if you had a catastrophic meltdown, but with the Profile system, there are four bearings.
A fat Ti hollow-pipe spindle with Profile-style splines mated to a carbon crank with hardened steel (or Ti) inserts all spinning on ceramic hybrid bearings would be better, but is not currently practical.
The problem with many of these advances that move away from existing standards is that they're not very practical--or, more specifically, their ratio of performance advantage to practicality lost is too low for most consumers.
Someone seems to have made an X-Type 3-piece set up using some mismatched BB bits. Has anyone heard of this? Tried it with any success?
for the most part, the mtb industry is invariably niche. prices alone will direct you to that conclusion. standardization is a sensible market practise when there is production large enough to do away with having to cater to different production variables. while the service sector of an industry may be customer oriented, the manufacturing bit is not, no matter what a modern business text book will tell you.
the fact is, in a niche market product differentiation plays a big role. and while an educated buyer may be aware that most claimed differences may or may not offer said advantage, it is in a company's interest to be able to work with variables so as to market a claimed advantage. after all, the educated buyer is also intelligent enough to recognise that, to a certain extent, marketing is just that- marketing.
also, because differentiation is important, that factor alone does away with any advantage that standardization may have. standardizing part specs may be advantageous to the consumer, but i doubt it offers much advantage to a manufacturer. simply because of the fact it restricts a marketing perspective and scope for differentiation. production is simply not large enough in the high end mtb industry to have to worry about catering to different production variables.
futhermore, for the most part, consolidated production usually leads to either quality loss or an exponential increase of capital being directed towards quality control.
anyway. i am not an expert biker or anything, and from a buyer's perspective i sure would love to not having to buy different parts every time i buy a new frame, but, well, i dont know, i also think it makes the whole buying a bike experience a little more interesting. keeps me more involved. i am not sure if you get what i am saying, but, having to think about part compatability etc while buying a new frame is surely more involving than, for instance, just buying a whole damn new car.
mountain biking is a wonderful thing because, besides the fun factor on the trail, it is also a very personal experience. buying a frame, matching parts, sure it can be a pain, but thats what keeps it personal. i surely do not want a corporate, here-is-the-package-we-offer-take-it-or-leave-it feel when i buy a bike man. yknow? you end up paying a little more money this way, but that also means fewer folks on the trails. the last thing i want is having to deal with a traffic jam on the trails too.
my two cents, probably incorrigibly insensible, but eh, i'm beginning to get used to my own shortcomings
the fact is, in a niche market product differentiation plays a big role. and while an educated buyer may be aware that most claimed differences may or may not offer said advantage, it is in a company's interest to be able to work with variables so as to market a claimed advantage. after all, the educated buyer is also intelligent enough to recognise that, to a certain extent, marketing is just that- marketing.
also, because differentiation is important, that factor alone does away with any advantage that standardization may have. standardizing part specs may be advantageous to the consumer, but i doubt it offers much advantage to a manufacturer. simply because of the fact it restricts a marketing perspective and scope for differentiation. production is simply not large enough in the high end mtb industry to have to worry about catering to different production variables.
futhermore, for the most part, consolidated production usually leads to either quality loss or an exponential increase of capital being directed towards quality control.
anyway. i am not an expert biker or anything, and from a buyer's perspective i sure would love to not having to buy different parts every time i buy a new frame, but, well, i dont know, i also think it makes the whole buying a bike experience a little more interesting. keeps me more involved. i am not sure if you get what i am saying, but, having to think about part compatability etc while buying a new frame is surely more involving than, for instance, just buying a whole damn new car.
mountain biking is a wonderful thing because, besides the fun factor on the trail, it is also a very personal experience. buying a frame, matching parts, sure it can be a pain, but thats what keeps it personal. i surely do not want a corporate, here-is-the-package-we-offer-take-it-or-leave-it feel when i buy a bike man. yknow? you end up paying a little more money this way, but that also means fewer folks on the trails. the last thing i want is having to deal with a traffic jam on the trails too.
my two cents, probably incorrigibly insensible, but eh, i'm beginning to get used to my own shortcomings
the bb bearing cups are interchangeable between race face & shimano
some here ran an fsa gravity crankset on shimano bearings aswell
No...I do not personally know about airplane avionics, but car wheels and computer parts have tons of variety. Specs on different bolt patterns for cars. There are about a trillion different types of RAM for computers some of which are incompatible if you are building a computer. Or there is AGP, PCI, PCI-x PCI-e, etc for standers to plug expansion cards into motherboards. I could go on, but my point is I'm in an arguementative mood and many other industries are just as fragmented.
I do think it would be great if bicycle manufacturers moved towards less standards for things.
yes but the point is it is much easier to get car parts when u need it. Although they may have the non-standard stuff, they have the inventory and distribution network to support it. If i bend a rotor, need new brake lines for my hope m4 i either A. order it from jenson or something and wait 4-5 days, or B. order it through a shop and hope they are putting in a QBP order within a day or so and i'll get it in 3 days. The bike industry doesn't have the infrastructrure to justify the many standards or lack thereof. Shops don't have enough inventory, and there isn't any "next day" distributers (well not at any reasonable cost).
Agreed. If there were more bikes on the road (or trail as the case may be) it might be possible to get away with so many size variations for parts, like Gemini2k (and others) mention in other product categories. However, that's not the case. Bicycle product manufacturers are not uniquely to blame, car parts are pretty much the same story. If you want a set of coil-overs for your sedan, you might have to order them from 1,000 miles away. Same for many aftermarket parts, but not for disposable service items like brake pads, oil and clutch components.