Grant Peterson of Rivendell Bicycle Works is an interesting guy. There are many who find his approach to bikes (friction shifting, lugged steel frames, platform pedals, etc.) to be backward and "retrogrouch" in a world of electronic shifting Dura Ace and the latest in carbon fiber frames and wheels. If you don't follow the latest in bicycles, think of Grant as the guy who still drives his 1965 Ford pickup, fixes it himself and saves a ton of cash because he does not need a mechanic with a computer to tell him what is wrong with it when it breaks.
This week in the blog on the Rivendell site (http://rivbike.tumblr.com/) he talks about modern bicycle lights, and how some of the older lights may be superior in some ways to the newest and greatest. I don't know if I got Grant's point as he meant it, but what I hear him say is that sometimes just because it is new, does not necessarily make it better.
The first thing that comes to mind is Windows Vista. What was supposed to be the latest and greatest at the time, with more bells and whistles than its predecessor, but also a propensity to crash at the worst possible times, and asks for permission to do things more than my 14-year-old.
And with some things, why something was "improved" makes me shake my head. In one of his Rivendell Readers a few years back, Grant had an article about why chasing something "new and improved" does not always pay off. During the space race, NASA decided they needed a pen that could write in space, and spend millions of dollars on development of a pen that would write reliably in zero gravity. The Russians used pencils sad saved millions by going the low-tech way.
I'm not saying new technology should be avoided. The advances in medicine, being able to connect with anyone-anywhere-at any time, digital photographs (I wasted so much money on bad film shots), and other new technology I warmly embrace. But I am not going to buy something just because it is "new" any longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment