Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Suspension losses
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:19:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <vm4hko$24it3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vlcoil$n7o7$1@dont-email.me>
 <dva1ojp9dah7npllc8qmukmndqih94sbtj@4ax.com> <vlqs89$3b77g$3@dont-email.me>
 <7ee2ojpq2b75m6gsd5svace02b19qassrk@4ax.com>
 <beh2ojhsarrl8p37i446fenvlm4sa4tac8@4ax.com> <vlsfta$a60l$1@dont-email.me>
 <led5oj98n5et2ocr2tgvdlp2683c3qe41l@4ax.com> <vlv3dq$r4s1$8@dont-email.me>
 <cn38ojd35canqdv4pq2sqrgo4pcuupsh3p@4ax.com> <vm1sds$1g6ul$1@dont-email.me>
 <gps9oj9j428a2i8rf8ope35464dcuv5ffb@4ax.com> <vm3iem$1sl3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <ndjaoj5n5nu30b23hsk75idtgldqtk4oue@4ax.com>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 03:20:09 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e7f49fbc69f7909868c31ff9bc5d2fe4";
	logging-data="2247587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1ojPH4K+sLKBPKxsH6w/2YFlKa8QUNBA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G+kQQ1JsBUvxvGjhNdPZuJRm4KQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ndjaoj5n5nu30b23hsk75idtgldqtk4oue@4ax.com>
Bytes: 6874

On 1/13/2025 2:48 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
> Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>>
>>>> As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw
>>>> it away."
>>>
>>> A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many
>>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
>>> lifetime.  Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
>>> innovation means change.  There are technical limits. So far, I haven't
>>> heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40
>>> years, as you ask for.  To be precise, I don't know of any that I would
>>> like to use or that I would risk using.
>>
>> I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
>> consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
>> and occasionally a chainring.
> 
> That way, any bicycle qualifies. 

I agree! Or at least, I agree about most bikes. That's one of the things 
I love about bicycling in general, compared to (say) automobiles.

> There is essentially no part of a  bicycle that isn't "consumable".  

I disagree. I don't expect to ever wear out the frame, fork, handlebars, 
stem, seatpost, hubs, pedals, front derailleur, and maybe not the rear 
derailleur. I may someday wear out the bottle dynamo on that bike (it's 
decades old) but maybe not.

There were items I changed out of preference (like the original downtube 
shifters) but it wasn't because they were worn out. Those would have 
lasted forever.

Admittedly, there's an apocryphal tale about someone owning an ancient, 
ancient hatchet - sometimes it's been told as George Washington's, or 
Abe Lincoln's, or a great-great-great-grandfather's. Is it the same 
hatchet, even though it's handle was replaced five times and its head 
twice? :-)  A more classical version of that question regards the Ship 
of Theseus, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

>> I've made some equipment substitutions
>> (saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
>> equipment is exceptionally durable.
> 
> That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally
> durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
> reason.

Nope, I covered this above. And the shifters and brake levers on my 
"utility" Raleigh, formerly for commuting, now for shopping, are far 
older. Mid 1970s, still working fine.

> So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
> need his bicycle anymore?

One reason is in 1986 when I bought this bike, there was no such thing 
as a 40 year old Cannondale touring bike.

> That some people like you have the time, space and energy
> to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal
> conditions doesn't prove the opposite.  That is not an argument against
> repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not
> talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.

I promise to let you know if this bike ever exceeds its "useful life." 
(We might ask Andrew the age of his fixed gear bike.)

>>> Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't
>>> outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
>>
>> I guess we'll see, eventually.
> 
> If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
> way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
> like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that.  So just let
> people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
> the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.

Oh, I'm very happy to do that! :-)  I've been a Late Adopter of many 
technologies. I was rather amazed at myself when I bought the EV.

>> About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd
>> read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it.
>> I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
>> button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for
>> "Listen to radio" etc.
>>
>> It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the
>> devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
>> "power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
>> device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
>> some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
>> arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
>> and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
>> help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
>> into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)...
 >
> Knowing neither your universal control, nor
> anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
> is causing that problem.  

It's a Logitech Harmony 650, bought in 2019. I kept my pages of 
frustrated notes from trying to set it up. They're interesting to read 
through. It doesn't matter, though. I'm getting along with it now, 
partly be ignoring what's supposed to be a lot of its capabilities.

-- 
- Frank Krygowski