|Litespeeds are so Damn Nice!!!!!!!||M1A1|
Oct 29, 2001 6:54 AM
|Regardless what the sentiment is on this board about these bikes, I must say that I just checked out the new line at their website and they are simply the most innovative frame maker on the market.
The only people that criticize are those who don't own one of them. I have one for years and the bike is flawless. The new line makes me want to buy one of each. The Ultimate looks awesome, the Classic looks great with new decals, the Tuscany is looking nice with the integrated headset and the Ghiasallo is freakishly light and the aluminum frames look interesting.
They are worth every penny and if you can wait until the end of the year sales you can ride one for less than expensive steel and aluminum and they will last longer.
If you are a cycling enthusiast like myself, then you will appreciate innovation and design progress of any bicycle company. To criticize them for being gimmicky or "sell outs', then you probably resisted power windows and door locks in your car.
Go and check them out and buy one if yo can. They take a beating and hold up so well.
|Despite my usual position,||TJeanloz|
Oct 29, 2001 7:10 AM
|I don't really think of Litespeed's 2002 line as particularly innovative. Everything they've done is basically a keeping up with the industry move. Pairing titanium with carbon was done by Seven in 1998 (Odonata). Integrated headsets were all the rage last year, even in Litespeed's Merlin line. Compact frames are nothing new.
I don't think that the new Litespeeds are really 'gimmicky' but I don't see them as really innovative- they've just adapted to the last few years of industry-wide innovation.
Despite it all, I do think that the 2002 Litespeeds have finally given Litespeed customers something to be really excited about. The 2001 line was really just a cosmetic makeover of the 2000 line, but now they really have something to talk about for 2002, and I think their sales will reflect that.
|why do people defend or promote their bikes?||Dog|
Oct 29, 2001 7:48 AM
|Let me say first that I do the same thing.
But, what makes people want to defend or promote their bikes? If they truly offered an advantage, wouldn't you want to keep it a secret to beat the competition? (I realize not everyone is competing, though). Even if not competing, doesn't higher demand for a product usually drive up the price? Why not want something unique, or at least less prevalent, like a fancy custom?
Just curious. While Litespeeds may well be good bikes, why the need to promote or defend them?
BTW, I think the differences among bikes are way over blown. Yes, some are higher quality, and have different ride properties, but they mostly are very esoteric and minor differences, IMO. Nonetheless, we tend to talk about the differences as if we are comparing a Ford Pinto and a Porsche 911.
Now to your post.
I don't like integrated headsets. I had one on my 2001 Bianchi. I'd prefer the tried and true, and fairly universally changeable, standard pressed in headsets. I hope the industry avoids the temptation to go with these sometimes proprietary setups just because they are fads.
It is interesting that Litespeed is going to make aluminum bikes. I'd like to know why. Just to get more market share? What about their raison d'etre? Isn't it to make fine Ti bike frames?
For those Ti bike makers which are incorporating carbon stays (and a carbon seat tube, as well, on the Odanata, I think), why? Why not just make the whole darn bike out of carbon? If the properties of carbon are advantageous in the stays, why not the other tubes? Just curious.
Oct 29, 2001 8:00 AM
|The answer to any 'why does -insert bike manufacturer- do something' is always because they believe it will help them sell bikes.
As per the integrated HS- I totally agree with you. The old method worked pretty well, and the integrated system doesn't seem to offer any real advantage. But it does look cool, and if that sells bikes, the manufacturers will do it.
As per the Litespeed move to aluminum, there are a few reasons. First, they want to hit a lower price point, so racers can ride a Litespeed for cheaper than the Tuscany (the Arenberg isn't really a race machine). Second, they want to position the brand as a high-end, all-encompassing bicycle line, not just the king of the Ti jungle.
As far as the carbon in the seatstays, I think they do it because people want it. I think it looks neat. I'd buy it. And that's what they're planning on. In terms of performance benefit- I don't think there is a big one.
It is really interesting to see how the parent company is positioning the brands they own- Litespeed as the all around high-end brand, Merlin as the boutique ti brand, Tomac as the boutique MTB brand, QR as the boutique Tri brand. I think their marketing machine can make it all work.
|why do people defend or promote their bikes?||digger|
Oct 29, 2001 8:04 AM
|same reason people post silly pictures of themselves and descriptions of their exploits both on and off the bike.|
|It's human nature, and other thoughts...||Elefantino|
Oct 29, 2001 8:05 AM
|We want others to embrace what we embrace, thereby validating our own opinions and, by association, ourselves. We've all done it.
As for integrated headsets, why in the world would engineers put ball bearings in a position to wear on the headset? There are some integrated headsets that incorporate an "inside" cup, which makes sense. But the others? I'd hate like hell to have a wonky ball bearing ruin my frame!
I hope they are a fad, too.
|In this case||mickey-mac|
Oct 29, 2001 8:06 AM
|I have a feeling it's an old friend who seems to be obsessed with Litespeed.|
|In this case||she|
Oct 29, 2001 8:21 AM
|do her name start with "L" and end in "r" with a "azyride" in the middle?|
|No comment. (nm)||mickey-mac|
Oct 29, 2001 8:25 AM
|beats the $hit out of me!||dzrider|
Oct 29, 2001 8:13 AM
|It all sounds like "My dog's better than your dog." I can tell you why I like my bikes and, if anybody asks, I can tell them what I didn't like about some bikes I have tested. It doesn't feel necessary to trash the company that made them. It seems foolish to convince riders who like bikes that I don't of their bad judgement, lack of knowledge, or horrendous taste.
As for innovation I want lots of companies trying all kinds of new ideas. Grail bikes, beam bikes, new materials, truss frames, seats shaped like cow horns should all be tried. In another ten years I'll probably get a case of bike lust and would be pleased to find a bike I like even more than my Lyon.
|I'll defend only if...||Dave Hickey|
Oct 29, 2001 8:20 AM
|I'll defend my bike only if someone asks for advise and a poster starts to bash it even though they don't own one. I don't promote unless advise is asked for.|
|Why? Because....||Len J|
Oct 29, 2001 8:25 AM
|we as humans have a genetic need to belong to groups. It's a survival mechanism. There is safety in groups. On some level, we need that safety & approval. When our "group" is attacked, we instinctivly defend. This is true with any group we identify with, wether it be class, race, sex, religion, socio-economic, country, city, etc. There have been libraries of books written on this aspect of the human condition. The other interesting thing about this is that the response is so instinctual that sometimes we don't even realize that it is the root cause of our behavior. How many times have you been in a discussion (fact based) where you realized later that the intensity (emotion based) of your response was disproportiante to the topic? Chances are that either your "group" was threatened, or your position in that "group" wAs threatened.
It's an interesting dynamic. I am constantly amazed at how many different ways it manifests itself in my life.
Oct 29, 2001 12:02 PM
|...and this smacks of social identity theory. When we belong to a group, as Len states, we will defend that group when it comes under attack. This is especially true when the group we belong to is an important part of our social identity (e.g., cyclists, sports teams, etc.). Even when groups are created on some trivial basis, such as "you were all born in the month of january" or "you all have hazel eyes," the preference for one's own ingroup is quite powerful.|
|this one might have more to do with the Litespeed thing (nm)||ET|
Oct 29, 2001 11:03 AM
|cognitive dissonance||Duane Gran|
Oct 29, 2001 12:17 PM
|Psychologists have a term (cognitive dissonance) for when we promote or demote an idea because of our bias. I need to assert that my bike was a good choice because I dumped a lot of money into it. Surely I'm of above average intelligence and made the better choice, especially if it costs a lot.
I'm guilty of it. I used to take on any contrary opinion of Trek bikes or carbon components. Every once in a while I chime in, but I'll admit the need to assert the sense of my riding choice. I just hate it when someone talks trash about my bike or components, so I understand where the Litespeed folks are coming from.
|i had one and sold it||colker|
Oct 29, 2001 8:03 AM
|didn't like the handling. it was a mountain bike...|
|big bucks||just wonderin'|
Oct 29, 2001 9:54 AM
|Tried one. Like it but to much $$$$$$ for my pockets. Would have bought if my pockets could have afforded.|
|Okay.........sure, I guess.||JS|
Oct 29, 2001 10:16 AM
Oct 29, 2001 11:44 AM
|> The only people that criticize are those who don't own one of them. |
Ahh, that would be most of us. You don't need to own the bike to make an evaluation. In fact owning one can get in the way of being objective - mentally you're fairly comitted. Sure they're a decent bike, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and rider). It takes more than new decals to sway many of us.
This really sounds like marketing hype from someone inside the company.
|Do you work for the company? (nm)||Erik W|
Oct 29, 2001 3:53 PM
|this looks like SPAM||CT1|
Oct 29, 2001 4:49 PM
|Damn.... take this somewhere else!