High standards? 137mm bcd ...

[frkl]

. . .I was put off by the amount of standards that demand other standards that demand other standards. I gave up, although the itch hasn't gone yet.

But, working on my 1978 Gazelle Semi Race, I found the SR crankset takes 137 bcd chainrings. Mmmmm, I haven't found anything suitable yet. Are we just begrudging the new and forgetting the past was not that different?

On this question in your original post, while there were always incompatible standards, i think one of the big differences is how components today are so tightly integrated with each other with standards (or actually non-standards). so precisely this cascade effect you describe. That i think is newer and increasing

When SRAM sued Shim to stop Shim's group spec'ing discounts/penalties, Shim used technical integration through proprietary and interlocking non-standards to accomplish the same thing that had become illegal to do with economics. It wasn't just Shim, of course but this is a good example of using tightly integrated components and non-standards to intentionally create this cascade, where if you choose one thing, the rest of the components are basically chosen for you through integration.

Back in the good old days, if you had a crank with an unusual bcd, that was the end of it, it didn't then mean you need to get the company's special bb, and then use their special chain on their special freewheel that could only be shifted with a specific derailleur and shifters which happened to be integrated into the brake levers, which in turn used a special cable diameter that meant certain brakes.

Or maybe I'm just grumpy today

 

[grantoury]

On this question in your original post, while there were always incompatible standards, i think one of the big differences is how components today are so tightly integrated with each other with standards (or actually non-standards). so precisely this cascade effect you describe. That i think is newer and increasing

When SRAM sued Shim to stop Shim's group spec'ing discounts/penalties, Shim used technical integration through proprietary and interlocking non-standards to accomplish the same thing that had become illegal to do with economics. It wasn't just Shim, of course but this is a good example of using tightly integrated components and non-standards to intentionally create this cascade, where if you choose one thing, the rest of the components are basically chosen for you through integration.

Back in the good old days, if you had a crank with an unusual bcd, that was the end of it, it didn't then mean you need to get the company's special bb, and then use their special chain on their special freewheel that could only be shifted with a specific derailleur and shifters which happened to be integrated into the brake levers, which in turn used a special cable diameter that meant certain brakes.

Or maybe I'm just grumpy today

I think it is cascading more than it used to, and I am convinced it has become an objective of the manufacturer. But on my less grumpy days, I think I should dive into the new stuff to see how it works. I suspect that once set up right and having become familiar with the workings, it will be perfectly enjoyable.

 

[frkl]

But on my less grumpy days, I think I should dive into the new stuff to see how it works.

I also admit that I complain a lot about today's bike tech, but I have never ridden a current road or mountain bike. So I can't really say for sure that it isn't actually better performing.

But it definitely doesn't look better, and it is definitely overly interconnected and proprietary. As to whether it performs better, my max speed is certainly not limited by my choice of technology so even if it objectively works better, I will still be slow.

 

[non-fixie]

What I don't like about modern stuff is that it is (very) expensive and also not particularly easy to work with. And a mental scar remaining from my youth is an intense dislike of battery-powered toys. 'Range anxiety' wasn't a thing back then, but but boy, did I suffer from it.

Old parts are generally cheap, well-engineered and well-documented. The latter means that, even taking the different standards into account, they can often be combined to one's heart's content.

The parts of my Robust cover a full century (the Lyotard Berthet pedal design dates back to the 1920's) and at least five countries of origin:

 

[Guinessisgoodforyou]

What I don't like about modern stuff is that it is (very) expensive and also not particularly easy to work with. And a mental scar remaining from my youth is an intense dislike of battery-powered toys. 'Range anxiety' wasn't a thing back then, but but boy, did I suffer from it.

Old parts are generally cheap, well-engineered and well-documented. The latter means that, even taking the different standards into account, they can often be combined to one's heart's content.

The parts of my Robust cover a full century (the Lyotard Berthet pedal design dates back to the 1920's) and at least five countries of origin:

Yes to everything.