Study: $90 wine tastes better than the same wine at $10

[BobT]

http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html?tag=nefd.pop

I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories. The
$350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde. The
same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc.. People spend a fortune to
save an ounce or two of weight on their bikes when the difference in
performance is imperceptable and they don't race anyway.

BobT

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 7:03*am, "BobT" <RobertLeeTaylor...@THISSuddenLink.net>
wrote:
> http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html?tag=nefd.pop
>
> I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories. The
> $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde. *The
> same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc..


Yep, more proof of the strength of the 'placebo effect' and the
unreliability of "sighted" evaluations, There's a good reason why
professional wine tastings are "blind".

I wonder how many people who wax poetic about that new, stiffer BB/
crank (etc., etc., etc., etc.) could tell the diff if they didn't know
what they were pedaling.

Google "blind frame test" for more.


> *People spend a fortune to
> save an ounce or two of weight on their bikes when the difference in
> performance is imperceptable and they don't race anyway.
>

It's all in (their) mind. ;-)

[Tim McNamara]

In article <478caf23$0$4035$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>,
"BobT" <RobertLeeTaylorCUT@THISSuddenLink.net> wrote:

> http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html?tag=nefd.pop
>
> I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their
> accessories. The $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better
> than the $70 sadde. The same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc.,
> etc.. People spend a fortune to save an ounce or two of weight on
> their bikes when the difference in performance is imperceptable and
> they don't race anyway.

Yeah but, you know, style points at the coffee shop. That's worth it,
right?

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories.
> The $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde.
> The same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc.. People spend a
> fortune to save an ounce or two of weight on their bikes when the
> difference in performance is imperceptable and they don't race anyway.
>
> BobT

Why do people bring up that somebody doesn't race as a reason for not having
high-end componentry? I haven't raced in eons, but I sure as heck can tell
the difference in feel between an 18 & 22 pound bike in normal riding. Yes,
it's true that the 18 pound bike isn't going to make the difference between
whether I finish a century or not. But neither does a car that won't
accelerate past 85 mean that I can't drive from San Francisco to Los Angeles
in 6 hours either... but it wouldn't, for me, be as enjoyable (if driving a
car at all can be considered enjoyable, so perhaps I should say less
painful).

Presently, the difference between a high-end bike and two-buck-chuck is a
lot more than just an ounce or two here & there. 16 pound road bikes are the
norm at $4k, vs 22 pounds for most sub-$1k bikes. The 4-to-1 differential
isn't as much as you'd see with wine, nor is it really much of a snob thing
either (one of the knocks against the Trek bikes I sell is that they don't
have much "snob" appeal anyway).

A wine afficianado will tell you there are things the differentiate a fine
wine from an also-ran that you have to develop a taste for. Things that will
go un-noticed by the casual observer. Bikes aren't like that. The
differences between the example I gave above will be noticed by someone with
just about any skill level. Whether it's a difference that's worth paying
for is another matter entirely, and something that can only be determined by
the individual. Nevertheless, I am often surprised at what people want to
spend money for (on a bike) vs where I think that money might make a more
noticable difference.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Leo Lichtman]

"Ozark Bicycle" wrote: (clip) I wonder how many people who wax poetic about
that new, stiffer BB/
crank (etc., etc., etc., etc.) could tell the diff if they didn't know
what they were pedaling. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or even get it backwards if they think they are using the other product.

[* * Chas]

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:3d72df15-ca4a-4590-8cbd-9d5bfdab2966@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 7:03 am, "BobT" <RobertLeeTaylor...@THISSuddenLink.net>
wrote:
> http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html?tag=nefd.pop
>
> I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories.
The
> $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde. The
> same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc..


"Yep, more proof of the strength of the 'placebo effect' and the
unreliability of "sighted" evaluations, There's a good reason why
professional wine tastings are "blind".

It's all in (their) mind. ;-)"

Years ago I took several bottles of wine to a "blind tasting". the
participants were supposed to be fairly sophisticated wine drinkers here
in NorCal. All of the bottles were bagged and numbered so no one could
tell the contents.

My contributions were a bottle of Night Train and a bottle of Mad Dog (MD
20/20).

Towards the end, the 15 or so participants were drinkin my wines down with
heart's delight. You would think that the flat Mad Dog bottle would have
been a give away that I brought ringers. ;-)

Monsieur Chas. - someiller

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 11:25*am, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" wrote: *(clip) I wonder how many people who wax poetic about
>
> that new, stiffer BB/
> crank (etc., etc., etc., etc.) could tell the diff if they didn't know
> what they were pedaling. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Or even get it backwards if they think they are using the other product.

Indeed, the "Blind Frame Test" seemed to prove that point; IIRC, the
testers actually 'preferred' the low cost Columbus Aelle tubed frame
to the more exotic versions.

[Scott]

On Jan 15, 12:26*pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:25*am, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ozark Bicycle" wrote: *(clip) I wonder how many people who wax poetic about
>
> > that new, stiffer BB/
> > crank (etc., etc., etc., etc.) could tell the diff if they didn't know
> > what they were pedaling. (clip)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Or even get it backwards if they think they are using the other product.
>
> Indeed, the "Blind Frame Test" seemed to prove that point; IIRC, the
> testers actually 'preferred' the low cost Columbus Aelle tubed frame
> to the more exotic versions.

The last "legitimate" test result I recall showed near unanimous
preference for Columbus Thron tubing among all the Columbus
offerings. Thron is a bit better than Aelle, more of an inexpensive
EL/OS rather than a low-level butted tubeset like Aelle, but your
point is well taken.

FWIW, I've recently switched over my cross, road, and fixie framesets
to stock Lemond frames made from True Temper Platinum OX. I didn't
see the need to go to a low end steel to save money since I got each
of these frames for less than $300. Each of these frames rides every
bit as well, for my money, as any exotic carbon fiber frame I've ever
ridden.

[BobT]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:wwajj.33310$4V6.16139@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net...
>> I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories.
>> The $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde.
>> The same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc.. People spend a
>> fortune to save an ounce or two of weight on their bikes when the
>> difference in performance is imperceptable and they don't race anyway.
>>
>> BobT
>
> Why do people bring up that somebody doesn't race as a reason for not
> having high-end componentry? I haven't raced in eons, but I sure as heck
> can tell the difference in feel between an 18 & 22 pound bike in normal
> riding. Yes, it's true that the 18 pound bike isn't going to make the
> difference between whether I finish a century or not. But neither does a
> car that won't accelerate past 85 mean that I can't drive from San
> Francisco to Los Angeles in 6 hours either... but it wouldn't, for me, be
> as enjoyable (if driving a car at all can be considered enjoyable, so
> perhaps I should say less painful).
>

If buying an 18 pound bike made me Miguel Indurain or gave me his VO2max and
buying the 22 pound bike left me with my slow, aging, overweight body that
figuratively can't accelerate over 85, then I would definitely spend way
more money for the 18 pound bike. I think it would really be fun to ride
like Big Mig (or Lance Armstrong if Trek bikes have enough snob appeal for
you as you note below). Unfortunately, that's not what happens when you buy
a $2000 set of boutique wheels instead of some $400 ones.

If going 0% faster on the flats and 2% faster up the hills makes it more
enjoyable to you, then go for it, spend the money. I've been there, done
that.

> Presently, the difference between a high-end bike and two-buck-chuck is a
> lot more than just an ounce or two here & there. 16 pound road bikes are
> the norm at $4k, vs 22 pounds for most sub-$1k bikes. The 4-to-1
> differential isn't as much as you'd see with wine, nor is it really much
> of a snob thing either (one of the knocks against the Trek bikes I sell is
> that they don't have much "snob" appeal anyway).
>

Yes, but the difference between $100 pedals with steel spindles and $300
pedals with titanium spindles is just ounces (probably grams would be the
more appropriate unit). Your comment about snob appeal reinforces my basic
point. That's what makes the "$90 wine" taste better.

> A wine afficianado will tell you there are things the differentiate a fine
> wine from an also-ran that you have to develop a taste for. Things that
> will go un-noticed by the casual observer. Bikes aren't like that. The
> differences between the example I gave above will be noticed by someone
> with just about any skill level.

I would speculate that if somehow you could ride bikes blindfolded or unable
to see the bikes, most people couldn't pick the "better" bike positioned on
the saddle. I wouldn't be suprised that if you could somehow make the $4k
bike to look like the $1k bike and vice versa, the average purchaser of a
$4K bike would pick the disguised $1k bike over the disguised $4k bike.

> Whether it's a difference that's worth paying for is another matter
> entirely, and something that can only be determined by the individual.
> Nevertheless, I am often surprised at what people want to spend money for
> (on a bike) vs where I think that money might make a more noticable
> difference.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>

I can see you definitely preferred the $90 wine! :^)

Please note, I am a hypocrite who owns a $4k carbon fiber racing bike.
However, I realize in retrospect, subsequently having learned more about
bicycles, that buying that bike was a somewhat silly, impractical purchase
for me, ymmv.

BobT

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jan 15, 5:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> > I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories.
> > The $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde.
> > The same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc.. People spend a
> > fortune to save an ounce or two of weight on their bikes when the
> > difference in performance is imperceptable and they don't race anyway.
>
> > BobT
>
> Why do people bring up that somebody doesn't race as a reason for not having
> high-end componentry? I haven't raced in eons, but I sure as heck can tell
> the difference in feel between an 18 & 22 pound bike in normal riding.

I wonder if you really could tell the difference if the bikes were
disguised, like the wine was. As others have mentioned, that's not
been the case in "blind" comparison tests of bikes.

Admittedly, AFAIK, those were comparing nearly identical steel
frames. But my bet is that the 18 vs 22 pound blind comparison would
simply require a little more disguising of bikes. That is, you might
have to hide the look of the wheels, the shape of the crank arms,
etc.

Another point on the wine test that started this all: Obviously,
there are people on this list who firmly believe in diminishing
returns on bike cost & specs, to the point where losing another pound,
or gaining a tiny bit of stiffness is negligible.

Surely there are people who feel the same about wine. Were they in
that wine test? I bet not!

- Frank Krygowski

[Werehatrack]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:33:00 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> may have said:


>Presently, the difference between a high-end bike and two-buck-chuck is a
>lot more than just an ounce or two here & there.

Even in the family pack, two-buck chuck roast seldom weighs more than
4 pounds. Of course, a high-end bike is entirely fat-free while
two-buck chuck will generally have a liberal layer of the stuff which
I would trim off, lightening it further. Even trimmed, however,
two-buck chuck has rigidity problems. Like all meats, two-buck chuck
is high in sodium, while the more common high-end bikes are high in
fiber, though not of dietary quality.

>16 pound road bikes are the
>norm at $4k, vs 22 pounds for most sub-$1k bikes.

22 for the range of $350 to $750, sliding down to 20 as you approach
$1K in the few cases that I've actually examined. Compare that to the
usder-18-lbs which my daughter's street bike came in at, using an
aluminum frame and collected components acquired over a period of six
months of shopping on eBay with a total expenditure of about $250.

>The 4-to-1 differential
>isn't as much as you'd see with wine, nor is it really much of a snob thing
>either (one of the knocks against the Trek bikes I sell is that they don't
>have much "snob" appeal anyway).

Snob appeal matters only to snobs. Snubbing snobs by intentionally
putting anti-snob-appeal stickers on a bike is, to me, much more
entertaining than trying to conform to their limited and unimaginative
set of norms.

>A wine afficianado will tell you there are things the differentiate a fine
>wine from an also-ran that you have to develop a taste for. Things that will
>go un-noticed by the casual observer.

Things that, in many cases, none of them can agree upon, and which are
difficult to objectively differentiate from hallucinations.

>Bikes aren't like that.

Well, in some cases, though in others I have seen claims made which
were pretty obvious cases of shiny-new syndrome.

>The differences between the example I gave above will be noticed by someone
>with just about any skill level.

Assuming that they *have* a skill level. In selling and giving away
the various used bikes that I've refurbished, I have discovered that
the average sub-punter can't readily tell the difference between
adequate and superb kit, and few can tell what frame material is in
use even when they've just lifted the bike off the ground with one or
both hands.

>Whether it's a difference that's worth paying
>for is another matter entirely, and something that can only be determined by
>the individual.

Entirely so.

>Nevertheless, I am often surprised at what people want to
>spend money for (on a bike) vs where I think that money might make a more
>noticable difference.

I used to make the same observation concerning automotive accessories
back in my days as a parts manager at a car dealership.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Please note, I am a hypocrite who owns a $4k carbon fiber racing bike.
> However, I realize in retrospect, subsequently having learned more about
> bicycles, that buying that bike was a somewhat silly, impractical purchase
> for me, ymmv.

Not to case on you, personally, but if you think you've got an exclusive on
being a hypocrite on rbt, you've got another thing coming! :>)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"BobT" <RobertLeeTaylorCUT@THISSuddenLink.net> wrote in message
news:478d8337$0$4053$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
> news:wwajj.33310$4V6.16139@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net...
>>> I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories.
>>> The $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde.
>>> The same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc.. People spend a
>>> fortune to save an ounce or two of weight on their bikes when the
>>> difference in performance is imperceptable and they don't race anyway.
>>>
>>> BobT
>>
>> Why do people bring up that somebody doesn't race as a reason for not
>> having high-end componentry? I haven't raced in eons, but I sure as heck
>> can tell the difference in feel between an 18 & 22 pound bike in normal
>> riding. Yes, it's true that the 18 pound bike isn't going to make the
>> difference between whether I finish a century or not. But neither does a
>> car that won't accelerate past 85 mean that I can't drive from San
>> Francisco to Los Angeles in 6 hours either... but it wouldn't, for me, be
>> as enjoyable (if driving a car at all can be considered enjoyable, so
>> perhaps I should say less painful).
>>
>
> If buying an 18 pound bike made me Miguel Indurain or gave me his VO2max
> and buying the 22 pound bike left me with my slow, aging, overweight body
> that figuratively can't accelerate over 85, then I would definitely spend
> way more money for the 18 pound bike. I think it would really be fun to
> ride like Big Mig (or Lance Armstrong if Trek bikes have enough snob
> appeal for you as you note below). Unfortunately, that's not what happens
> when you buy a $2000 set of boutique wheels instead of some $400 ones.
>
> If going 0% faster on the flats and 2% faster up the hills makes it more
> enjoyable to you, then go for it, spend the money. I've been there, done
> that.
>
>> Presently, the difference between a high-end bike and two-buck-chuck is a
>> lot more than just an ounce or two here & there. 16 pound road bikes are
>> the norm at $4k, vs 22 pounds for most sub-$1k bikes. The 4-to-1
>> differential isn't as much as you'd see with wine, nor is it really much
>> of a snob thing either (one of the knocks against the Trek bikes I sell
>> is that they don't have much "snob" appeal anyway).
>>
>
> Yes, but the difference between $100 pedals with steel spindles and $300
> pedals with titanium spindles is just ounces (probably grams would be the
> more appropriate unit). Your comment about snob appeal reinforces my basic
> point. That's what makes the "$90 wine" taste better.
>
>> A wine afficianado will tell you there are things the differentiate a
>> fine wine from an also-ran that you have to develop a taste for. Things
>> that will go un-noticed by the casual observer. Bikes aren't like that.
>> The differences between the example I gave above will be noticed by
>> someone with just about any skill level.
>
> I would speculate that if somehow you could ride bikes blindfolded or
> unable to see the bikes, most people couldn't pick the "better" bike
> positioned on the saddle. I wouldn't be suprised that if you could somehow
> make the $4k bike to look like the $1k bike and vice versa, the average
> purchaser of a $4K bike would pick the disguised $1k bike over the
> disguised $4k bike.
>
>> Whether it's a difference that's worth paying for is another matter
>> entirely, and something that can only be determined by the individual.
>> Nevertheless, I am often surprised at what people want to spend money for
>> (on a bike) vs where I think that money might make a more noticable
>> difference.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>
> I can see you definitely preferred the $90 wine! :^)
>
> Please note, I am a hypocrite who owns a $4k carbon fiber racing bike.
> However, I realize in retrospect, subsequently having learned more about
> bicycles, that buying that bike was a somewhat silly, impractical purchase
> for me, ymmv.
>
> BobT
>
>

[Jay Beattie]

On Jan 15, 8:08*pm, "BobT" <RobertLeeTaylor...@THISSuddenLink.net>
wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> news:wwajj.33310$4V6.16139@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I think this effect is very prominent in bicyles and their accessories.
> >> The $350 saddle is automatically perceived as better than the $70 sadde..
> >> The same goes for frames, stems, shorts, etc., etc.. *People spend a
> >> fortune to save an ounce or two of weight on their bikes when the
> >> difference in performance is imperceptable and they don't race anyway.
>
> >> BobT
>
> > Why do people bring up that somebody doesn't race as a reason for not
> > having high-end componentry? I haven't raced in eons, but I sure as heck
> > can tell the difference in feel between an 18 & 22 pound bike in normal
> > riding. Yes, it's true that the 18 pound bike isn't going to make the
> > difference between whether I finish a century or not. But neither does a
> > car that won't accelerate past 85 mean that I can't drive from San
> > Francisco to Los Angeles in 6 hours either... but it wouldn't, for me, be
> > as enjoyable (if driving a car at all can be considered enjoyable, so
> > perhaps I should say less painful).
>
> If buying an 18 pound bike made me Miguel Indurain or gave me his VO2max and
> buying the 22 pound bike left me with my slow, aging, overweight body that
> figuratively can't accelerate over 85, then I would definitely spend way
> more money for the 18 pound bike. *I think it would really be fun to ride
> like Big Mig (or Lance Armstrong if Trek bikes have enough snob appeal for
> you as you note below). *Unfortunately, that's not what happens when you buy
> a $2000 set of boutique wheels instead of some $400 ones.
>
> If going 0% faster on the flats and 2% faster up the hills makes it more
> enjoyable to you, then go for it, spend the money. I've been there, done
> that.
>
> > Presently, the difference between a high-end bike and two-buck-chuck is a
> > lot more than just an ounce or two here & there. 16 pound road bikes are
> > the norm at $4k, vs 22 pounds for most sub-$1k bikes. The 4-to-1
> > differential isn't as much as you'd see with wine, nor is it really much
> > of a snob thing either (one of the knocks against the Trek bikes I sell is
> > that they don't have much "snob" appeal anyway).
>
> Yes, but the difference between $100 pedals with steel spindles and $300
> pedals with titanium spindles is just ounces (probably grams would be the
> more appropriate unit). Your comment about snob appeal reinforces my basic
> point. *That's what makes the "$90 wine" taste better.
>
> > A wine afficianado will tell you there are things the differentiate a fine
> > wine from an also-ran that you have to develop a taste for. Things that
> > will go un-noticed by the casual observer. Bikes aren't like that. The
> > differences between the example I gave above will be noticed by someone
> > with just about any skill level.
>
> I would speculate that if somehow you could ride bikes blindfolded or unable
> to see the bikes, most people couldn't pick the "better" bike positioned on
> the saddle. I wouldn't be suprised that if you could somehow make the $4k
> bike to look like the $1k bike and vice versa, the average purchaser of a
> $4K bike would pick the disguised $1k bike over the disguised $4k bike.
>
> > Whether it's a difference that's worth paying for is another matter
> > entirely, and something that can only be determined by the individual.
> > Nevertheless, I am often surprised at what people want to spend money for
> > (on a bike) vs where I think that money might make a more noticable
> > difference.
>
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> I can see you definitely preferred the $90 wine! :^)
>
> Please note, I am a hypocrite who owns a $4k carbon fiber racing bike.
> However, I realize in retrospect, subsequently having learned more about
> bicycles, that buying that bike was a somewhat silly, impractical purchase
> for me, ymmv.

I think all he is saying is that if you spend money on a light bike,
you get a light bike. In fact, in the high end OTC bicycle market,
there is a lot of cost-weight competition (for better or worse). The
$90 bottle of wine is more analogous to the subculture market of 650B
Rivendell, curley lugs, etc. -- where you get a 22lb bike with very
pedestrian components but abundant magic and mystery and a big price
tag. The kind of boat anchor steel frames I used to buy in the '70s
custom built for $250 are now going for ten times that. Add 20% for
Hetchins-esque lugs.

Now, with that said, I don't own a $4K CF bike and doubt that I will
get one any time soon (absent a lottery win, etc.) -- Jay Beattie.

[Leo Lichtman]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: (clip)you've got another thing coming! (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mike, the thread on malapropisms is in rec.bicycles.misc.

[Leo Lichtman]

Am I nuts to spend money on a handsome gold 21-jewel pocket watch, when $3
quartz wrist watch actually keeps better time? If owning such a watch gives
me pleasure, why would owning a fine bicycle be different? Maybe pride of
ownership has more to do with this that performance.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jan 15, 11:39*pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> Am I nuts to spend money on a handsome gold 21-jewel pocket watch, when *$3
> quartz wrist watch actually keeps better time? *If owning such a watch gives
> me pleasure, why would owning a fine bicycle be different? *Maybe pride of
> ownership has more to do with this that performance.

I don't want to go down the slippery slope of what is beautiful and
what beauty is worth. My bikes stay beautiful for about a week of
riding in the PNW during the winter, so I have given that up as a
criteria for chosing a bike. As for watches, there is a resale market
and many appreciate over time. Not so with most bikes, high or low
tech. Any expensive watch may be a very smart investment. -- Jay
Beattie.

[BobT]

"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ixijj.438621$kj1.407277@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Am I nuts to spend money on a handsome gold 21-jewel pocket watch, when
> $3 quartz wrist watch actually keeps better time? If owning such a watch
> gives me pleasure, why would owning a fine bicycle be different? Maybe
> pride of ownership has more to do with this that performance.
>
I don't think you are nuts to spend money on anything that makes you happy.
If the aesthetic appeal of this handsome gold 21-jewel pocket watch gives
you pleasure, then that is great. But don't claim that is better at keeping
time accurately than my $29 timex when it isn't.

To give an imaginary example related to cycling, I would compare $100 pedals
with steel spindles to $300 pedals with titianium spindles. I don't think
most people that buy the $300 ti pedals are going after aesthetics. I think
they actually think that they will make them ride faster which is probably
silly especially if you aren't going after trophies or money where perhaps a
0.05% advantage might make a difference between first and second place..

If I were a clever marketer, I could take a pair of pedals visually
(aesthically) and functionally identical to my hypothetical $100 pedals,
dream up a campaign like "Everything Else is History", "undoubtably the
pinnacle of pedal performance", etc. etc. and sell them for $500 dollars.
People would actually perceive them as better just like the $10 wine with a
$90 label in the study. I'm not trying to pass judgement over whether this
phenomenon is good or bad. I just think it is interesting to see that
humans, who often see themselves as rational and objective (me included)
often demonstrate that they are not very rational or objective (me
included).

BobT

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Jay Beattie:
> My bikes stay beautiful for about a week of
>riding in the PNW during the winter, so I have given that up as a
>criteria for chosing a bike.

I tend to embrace it.

My favorite comment on my bread-and-butter bike (which cost
enough to feed an entire Bangladeshi village for at least six
months) was from my son-in-law-the-farmer (not a rider, but who
knows equipment in general) "Man, that thing looks beat to
****!".

Most un-favorite comment directed at my
POS-who'd-want-to-steal-it bike sitting on the rear rack of my
car - by some guy at a gas station - "Wow! Cool bike!"....
Damn... I guess it needs more duct tape.

--
PeteCresswell

[Leo Lichtman]

"Werehatrack" wrote : (clip) Even in the family pack, two-buck chuck roast
seldom weighs more than
> 4 pounds. Of course, a high-end bike is entirely fat-free while
> two-buck chuck will generally have a liberal layer of the stuff which
> I would trim off, lightening it further. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TIC, of course, but you need to know. Two buck Chuck is a popular cheap
WINE: the Charles Shaw label. It has no cholesterol, fat, or sodium, and,
in the bottle, is quite rigid. For the price of a high-end bike, you could
buy, maybe, a couple thousand bottles of Two-buck Chuck, but the weight
would make pedaling difficult. Peddling it might be easier.

[Leo Lichtman]

"BobT" wrote: I don't think you are nuts to spend money on anything that
makes you happy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think we agree, but I don't think the difference between a watch and a
pair of titanium-spindle pedals is a line--it is a gray area. You could say
that ownership of a pair of pedals, finely made of expensive material, makes
one happy. It isn't necessarily just esthetics. Esthetics cannot
differentiate between a solid gold necklace and a gold-filled one, but the
owner knows which he/she has. Let me ask this rhetorical question: would
you be happier with a genuine Rolex watch worth $3000, or a $100 knock-off
with a quartz movement, which actually keeps better time? Assuming they
look identical.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(clip) don't claim that is better at keeping
> time accurately than my $29 timex when it isn't.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I didn't claim that. In fact, my post mentioned a hypothetical $3 quartz
watch which keeps accurate time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(clip)I don't think most people that buy the $300 ti pedals are going after
aesthetics. I think
> they actually think that they will make them ride faster (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just as people who pay $90 for a bottle of wine may be convinced,
incorrectly, that the wine is actually better. And this makes them happy;
now we are back to your opening statement: "I don't think you are nuts to
spend money on anything that makes you happy." So, maybe money CAN buy
happiness.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jan 16, 6:19*pm, "BobT" <RobertLeeTaylor...@THISSuddenLink.net>
wrote:
> "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ixijj.438621$kj1.407277@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> Am I nuts to spend money on a handsome gold 21-jewel pocket watch, when
> > $3 quartz wrist watch actually keeps better time? *If owning such a watch
> > gives me pleasure, why would owning a fine bicycle be different? *Maybe
> > pride of ownership has more to do with this that performance.
>
> I don't think you are nuts to spend money on anything that makes you happy..
> If the aesthetic appeal of this handsome gold 21-jewel pocket watch *gives
> you pleasure, then that is great. *But don't claim that is better at keeping
> time accurately than my $29 timex when it isn't.
>
> To give an imaginary example related to cycling, I would compare $100 pedals
> with steel spindles to $300 pedals with titianium spindles. *I don't think
> most people that buy the $300 ti pedals are going after aesthetics. *I think
> they actually think that they will make them ride faster which is probably
> silly especially if you aren't going after trophies or money where perhaps a
> 0.05% advantage might make a difference between first and second place..
>
> If I were a clever marketer, I could take a pair of pedals visually
> (aesthically) and functionally identical to my hypothetical $100 pedals,
> dream up a campaign like "Everything Else is History", "undoubtably the
> pinnacle of pedal performance", etc. etc. and sell them for $500 dollars.
> People would actually perceive them as better just like the $10 wine with a
> $90 label in the study. I'm not trying to pass judgement over whether this
> phenomenon is good or bad. *I just think it is interesting to see that
> humans, who often see themselves as rational and objective (me included)
> often demonstrate that they are not very rational or objective (me
> included).

The $90 bottle of wine example will never quite fit because you can't
tell quality from looking at a wine bottle -- and most people don't
have the palate to tell from tasting. Plus, wine has no real
functional measures (weight, strength, etc). It is exactly the type
of product that lends itself to the placebo effect. Many people are
also afraid of admitting that they know nothing about expensive wine.

It would be much tougher to take a junk component, slap on a high
price tag and get people thinking that it is better than a component
of obviously higher quality (better fit or finish, weight, etc.).
This argument breaks down when the claim is that a component or
product is better for magical reasons that are not apparent or
measurable. The prime example is stereo equipment -- magical plugs,
treated metals, things that look like standard $1.98 outlets that have
been cryogenically treated to align the electrons in to harmonius
combinations that make sweet music.

Then there is aesthetic versus functional value. That is where you
get in to valuing beauty, which is a slippery slope. Beauty used to
be a big deal to me, and I had some really pretty custom frames twenty
or thirty years ago (and still have one hanging on the wall in my
basement), but nowadays, I am more interested in bulletproofosity than
beauty. -- Jay Beattie.

[Michael Press]

In article <IWzjj.141211$MJ6.77824@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> "BobT" wrote: I don't think you are nuts to spend money on anything that
> makes you happy.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think we agree, but I don't think the difference between a watch and a
> pair of titanium-spindle pedals is a line--it is a gray area. You could say
> that ownership of a pair of pedals, finely made of expensive material, makes
> one happy. It isn't necessarily just esthetics. Esthetics cannot
> differentiate between a solid gold necklace and a gold-filled one, but the
> owner knows which he/she has. Let me ask this rhetorical question: would
> you be happier with a genuine Rolex watch worth $3000, or a $100 knock-off
> with a quartz movement, which actually keeps better time? Assuming they
> look identical.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (clip) don't claim that is better at keeping
> > time accurately than my $29 timex when it isn't.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I didn't claim that. In fact, my post mentioned a hypothetical $3 quartz
> watch which keeps accurate time.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (clip)I don't think most people that buy the $300 ti pedals are going after
> aesthetics. I think
> > they actually think that they will make them ride faster (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Just as people who pay $90 for a bottle of wine may be convinced,
> incorrectly, that the wine is actually better. And this makes them happy;
> now we are back to your opening statement: "I don't think you are nuts to
> spend money on anything that makes you happy." So, maybe money CAN buy
> happiness.

Sometimes people can discriminate a particular characteristic
better than many others. Sometimes it is inherited, sometimes
learned. I notice slight scents and differences in scents
better than most. Here is test. Can you tell the real from
the imitation?

Exhibit A

Whenas in silks my Julia goes,
Then, then, methinks,how sweetly flows
That liquifaction of her clothes.

Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free,
O how that glittering taketh me!

Exhibit 1

When all in silk my Julia's dressed,
She flows along, be it confessed,
As if her clothes had deliquesced.

Next, if and when I her behold,
Her oscillations are so bold,
She glistens like a lump of gold.

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Press wrote:

> Sometimes people can discriminate a particular characteristic
> better than many others. Sometimes it is inherited, sometimes
> learned. I notice slight scents and differences in scents
> better than most. Here is test. Can you tell the real from
> the imitation?
>
> Exhibit A
>
> Whenas in silks my Julia goes,
> Then, then, methinks,how sweetly flows
> That liquifaction of her clothes.
>
> Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
> That brave vibration each way free,
> O how that glittering taketh me!
>
> Exhibit 1
>
> When all in silk my Julia's dressed,
> She flows along, be it confessed,
> As if her clothes had deliquesced.
>
> Next, if and when I her behold,
> Her oscillations are so bold,
> She glistens like a lump of gold.

Press is posting after drinking again. LOL

[Leo Lichtman]

"Michael Press" wrote:Can you tell the real from
> the imitation? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll stick my neck out and choose exhibit A.

Evidence: Exhibit A has words and rhythmic elements in it that would not be
used in a fake, because they would appear contrived.

"Deliquesced" sounds like a chemist writing poetry. "Lump" ain't poetic at
all.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <rubrum-C3F9BA.14541519012008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article
> <IWzjj.141211$MJ6.77824@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Just as people who pay $90 for a bottle of wine may be convinced,
> > incorrectly, that the wine is actually better. And this makes them
> > happy; now we are back to your opening statement: "I don't think
> > you are nuts to spend money on anything that makes you happy." So,
> > maybe money CAN buy happiness.

Temporarily.

> Sometimes people can discriminate a particular characteristic better
> than many others. Sometimes it is inherited, sometimes learned. I
> notice slight scents and differences in scents better than most.

There has been research into this sort of thing that shows that people
can quickly learn to make such distinctions through direct experience,
if they have normal perceptual systems. But, of course, some people
happen to have more sensitive senses biologically (20/10 vision versus
20/60, for example, or ears that pick up a wider range of sounds, and
maybe even noses that pick up more scents). The effects of expectation
and suggestion on perception are quite interesting, though, and that's
what was manipulated in the reference study.

> Here is test. Can you tell the real from the imitation?
>
> Exhibit A
>
> Whenas in silks my Julia goes,
> Then, then, methinks,how sweetly flows
> That liquifaction of her clothes.
>
> Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
> That brave vibration each way free,
> O how that glittering taketh me!
>
> Exhibit 1
>
> When all in silk my Julia's dressed,
> She flows along, be it confessed,
> As if her clothes had deliquesced.
>
> Next, if and when I her behold,
> Her oscillations are so bold,
> She glistens like a lump of gold.

Hopefully Exhibit A is the real thing, because Exhibit 1 has two left
iambs.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:tFykj.459696$kj1.122928@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Michael Press" wrote:Can you tell the real from
>> the imitation? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'll stick my neck out and choose exhibit A.
>
> Evidence: Exhibit A has words and rhythmic elements in it that would
> not be used in a fake, because they would appear contrived.
>
> "Deliquesced" sounds like a chemist writing poetry. "Lump" ain't
> poetic at all.

Back to the original OT :

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2e7a462-c56f-11dc-811a-0000779fd2ac.html

I especially like boot leather references....