RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Bike Psych(25 posts)

Bike PsychMikeC
Sep 19, 2001 5:15 AM
It's always interesting to see messages from those who passionately either love or hate certain bikes. However, I'm not sure I've ever seen a message from a
b current owner
of a specific bike who has decided that it's junk.
So here's my question. Are bikes so subjective or individual that one person's junk is another's treasure,
b or
do we rationalize away problems once we own something,
b or
do some people just feel the need to reinforce their own decisions by trashing those who have opted for something else?
All three? Something else entirely?
(Yes, I do have an personal interest. Seven shipped my new Odonata yesterday!)
My friend's feelings about...RhodyRider
Sep 19, 2001 5:39 AM
...his Trek 1000 that he bought new in May have changed rather dramatically. He knew it was a VERY entry-level bike, but he bought it thinking it would suffice for a few seasons and really liked it - at first. Now, in September, after a lot of miles, he is sick of the bike and really wants a higher-end steed. He has upgraded the wheels on this bike, and is thinking of upgrading the components over winter. But he realizes that even these investments will not change the rather crude ride characteristics of the frameset. So yeah, you could say he is a current owner who now dislikes his bike.
Reminds Me of Cognitive DissonancePsyDoc
Sep 19, 2001 6:19 AM
The key assumption of the theory is that dissonance is psychologically uncomfortable and people are motivated to reduce this discomfort. Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory can be used to explain our decisions to chose one product (e.g., Colnago, Merlin, Moots, DeRosa, Seven, Serotta, etc.) or person over another. For example, Brehm (1956) asked female students to evaluate several small appliances as part of a supposed study on consumer preferences. After they had rated the toaster, a coffee pot, a radio, and other products, they were told they could choose one as payment for being in the experiment. Some had to choose from two appliances they had found equally desirable (or perhaps a Merlin and Serotta)--a dissonance invoking dilemma. After they had made their choice, they were asked to evaluate the products one more time. Not surprisingly, the women evaluated the product they had chosen much more positively than the item they had rejected.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...Leon Festinger...
thougt you were talkin 'bout Sonic Youth 'til i read your postSpiritual Haiku
Sep 19, 2001 6:25 AM
uh huh, you said "dissonance".
Reminds Me of Cognitive Dissonanceharlett
Sep 19, 2001 6:50 AM
SENTIMENT PRECEDES REASON

this is by far the most common form of thinking. In this mode of thinking, a sentiment is chosen first from competing sentiments, then hypotheses are formed to "rationalize" this sentiment. The individual seeks facts and ideas which justifies the sentiments.
sentiment justifies reason...of course this most often occurs in males
Reminds Me of Cognitive Dissonancegail
Sep 19, 2001 10:02 AM
LOL--You go girl.... We defend our sentiments sometimes without reason. My bike is a means to an end for me. I just need it to perform the tasks I have "thought" to give it.
re: Bike PsychBig Wheel
Sep 19, 2001 6:22 AM
My passion for my Serotta is shaped by all three.

I never expected my first road bike purchase be this expensive. I still rationalize it as a long-term investment, while I continue to climb out of the financial hole I dug myself into. Going with a custom-build does has its advantages, though, especially when you're six-five, 230.

Trashing other bikes is a losing game. All that matters is that someone enjoys whatever (s)he is riding.

peace.
maybe what it means...Dog
Sep 19, 2001 7:06 AM
If nearly everyone likes the bike they buy, maybe that really means that nearly all bikes are very good, and there are very few significant differences among them. Analyize the true differences between, say, a Litespeed Ultimate, a Colnago C40, and a Sachs. I would bet that, given close to correct fit, anyone could be happy with any one of them, or among hundreds of other bikes.

We argue about and defend very subtle, esoteric differences of bikes. If we'd back off and view our discussions from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about them, they likely would not even recognize the differences, short of color.

So, everyone is happy because all bikes are good. My hypothesis.

Doug
maybe what it means...zzz
Sep 19, 2001 10:40 AM
You are absolutely correct. Hey listen my daughter has a Schwinn Super Sport that I know is your exact size. Why don't you trade her your colnago for it.
My theoryMel Erickson
Sep 19, 2001 7:22 AM
Call it Mel's Muse. Bikes are so good these days (even entry level) and differences are so small it's almost impossible to be truly dissatisfied (doesn't include defective products). Therefore your observation that there are few current owners who think their's is junk would be more than rationalization.

The second factor at work is the Jones Factor. We always want to think whatever we have is better than our "neighbors". This reinforces our own observations about how smart we are!

Since these are my own unpsychological observations I could post a picture of myself to legitimize them but I don't have one in digital format. And I'm not smart enough to figure it out anyway.
re: All of the above plusdzrider
Sep 19, 2001 7:51 AM
Belieiving that I have the absolute best bike I can afford helps protect me from the financial threat of wanting a better one.
good luckterry_b
Sep 19, 2001 8:11 AM
That strategy hasn't worked for me - being a compulsive tinkerer there's always another frame material, component, whatever. With that psychology it isn't about acheving the ultimate ride, it's about variety up to the point of financial constraint. I think the other posts are right - beyond a certain dollar value there are few tangible improvements and all the bikes achieve a state of "goodness and likeability." Personally I think that dollar value hovers around 2 grand. Others may disagree. However, if you have an inquisitive mind and money is no object, there is probably no such thing as the "absolute best bike." The escalation however can slow down once you have one steel, one carbon, one Ti, one aluminum and (at least) one multi-material all with a near perfect fit and top shelf components. Then it's time to go custom or take up Polo (a slightly more elitist passtime) as there is an infinately larger variation in the performance of individual horses.
STOP WITH ALL THE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALWHOFU(KINCARES
Sep 19, 2001 9:55 AM
BULLSH#$ ABOUT USELESS THEORIES OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT BIKE ONE RIDES. IT IS A RIDICULOUSLY STUPID DISCUSSION AND JUST A VENUE FOR PRETENTIOUS MORONS TO EXERT THEIR "PERCEIVED" INTELLECUAL ABILITIES.
LIKE MOST THEORIES, THEY HAVE NO BASIS IN THE REAL WORLD OR WITH REAL WORLD PROBLEMS AND ARE SIMPLY USELESS RAMBLINGS OF HALF A$$ PROFESSORS OR THEORISTS SITTING IN IVORY TOWERS WHO NEVER ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED ANY THING OF REAL VALUE IN THEIR LIVES.
I DISAGREE WITH YOU ALL ON THE POINT THAT PEOPLE TEND TO ALWAYS JUSTIFY THEIR PURCHASES. IF THIS WERE THE CASE, PEOPLE WOULD STILL BE DRIVING YUGOS. IF A BIKE OR ANY PRODUCT FOR THAT MATTER IS INFERIOR AND OVERPRICED, IT WILL NOT BE SUSTAINED BY THE CONSUMER MARKET. I HAVE SPENT BIG MONEY ON CARS THAT I FOUND TO BE TOTAL PIECES OF SH$% AND I AM NOT ALONE IN GIVING AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF PRODUCTS WE CONSUME.
THE CONSISTENT ARGUMENTS ON THIS BOARD ABOUT A BIKE'S QUALITY (ESPECIALLY LITESPEED)AND THE IMAGINED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIGH END BIKES ARE BASELESS AND RETARDED. ESPECIALLY COMING FROM MOST OF THE HACKS ON THIS BOARD WHO AREN'T PROFESSIONAL CYCLISTS AND WHO ARE RIDING BIKES THAT FAR EXCEED THEIR NEEDS AND ABILITIES. WHAT MOST PEOPLE RIDE IS BASED PRIMARILY ON WHAT ONE IS ABLE TO AFFORD AND NOT THE SKILLS/ABLITIES/NEEDS OF THE RIDER.
RIDE ANY BIKE YOU CAN GET YOUR HANDS ON AND BE GLAD YOU LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THIS TRIVIAL BULLSH$$ ARGUMENT IS ALL YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT.
SHUT UP LAZYRIDER!!!...
Sep 19, 2001 10:09 AM
NM
so many capital letters, so little content of valueterry_b
Sep 19, 2001 10:11 AM
"Caps Lock" stuck?

Isn't trivial conversation what internet message boards are all about?

If you don't like trivial, try www.real-important-stuff.com instead. I'm sure everyone there will agree with you that the people on this board don't have anything serious in their lives to worry about.
Whoa>>>think VALIUMzzz
Sep 19, 2001 10:24 AM
With that attitude the world would be a pretty quiet place nmMel Erickson
Sep 19, 2001 11:25 AM
not quiet enough (without the Lithium) nmDog
Sep 19, 2001 11:29 AM
Thank you for making it a less bland day *S*harlett
Sep 19, 2001 11:55 AM
"There's one in every crowd." (nm)Jon
Sep 19, 2001 12:43 PM
...*S*...<nm>harlett
Sep 19, 2001 1:25 PM
What does "S" mean? nmSpinchick
Sep 19, 2001 1:35 PM
...*S*..= SMILEharlett
Sep 19, 2001 1:40 PM
Oh, DUH. Thanks. :-) nmSpinchick
Sep 19, 2001 1:42 PM
STOP WITH ALL THE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALguido
Sep 19, 2001 1:09 PM
I agree, basically. I've re-built several cheap road bikes and am always amazed at how well they ride--for the next several days. Cheap stuff never holds up very long, but pedaling along balancing on two rubber cushions is the same sensation whether on a Colnago or a Huffy. Riders tend to fall in love with whatever they're riding because the bike becomes an extension of the body.