"Thank you for listening to my FRED talk."

[Rusty Nails]

If manufacturers concentrated on compatibility it would stifle innovation. We wouldn't have cotterless cranks because they don't fit non-cotterless spindles, neither would we have integrated headsets to give just two examples. And just because everything doesn't work with everything else it doesn't mean you can't renovate older bikes, it just takes a bit more effort putting them together.

Just look at any classic bike or car magazine and you will see the for sale columns full of models from the fifties and on that have been restored to full manufacturers spec. What people really mean when they say things were better in my day is that THEY were better in their day and they think that means everything else was too.

Innovation can still take place alongside simplicity and greater compatibility.
Comparing bikes with cars/motor bikes is comparing apples and pears. Bikes are very basic things that everyone from kids to pensioners can ride and work on…usually very cheaply. My modern car is miles better technically, fuel consumption and safety wise than the cars I had in the 1980/90s but that comes with a cost so that people no longer find it so easy to work on their own cars.

The cod psychology in your last sentence is rubbish. For a start what does a general term like better refer to? Bikes are certainly technically better than they were 30/40 years ago…as are just about any manufactured item. I refer to just one aspect of bikes which is their simplicity. The fact that I could ride faster many years ago is down to my deteriorating strength and fitness and nothing to do with my old bikes being better.

 

[matticus]

Innovation can still take place alongside simplicity and greater compatibility.
Comparing bikes with cars/motor bikes is comparing apples and pears. Bikes are very basic things that everyone from kids to pensioners can ride and work on…usually very cheaply.

Yes yes yes!!!

It suits the bike industry to sell us bikes that are more-and-more like cars.
It suits people not-so-much. (except for a small niche who love new toys and have the budget to buy bigger/better toys and to keep them maintained - sometimes by experts)

Meanwhile I do not see how road bike racing is made better by bikes that are more advanced than Coppi rode. If you turned off all the numbers, the racing would look exactly the same (possibly less dramatic now, as hardly anyone runs out of low gears on a long steep hill ! :P )
And if faster is king, innovation the necessary servant, please tell me why we're not racing recumbents?!?

 

[classic33]

Yes yes yes!!!

It suits the bike industry to sell us bikes that are more-and-more like cars.
It suits people not-so-much. (except for a small niche who love new toys and have the budget to buy bigger/better toys and to keep them maintained - sometimes by experts)

Meanwhile I do not see how road bike racing is made better by bikes that are more advanced than Coppi rode. If you turned off all the numbers, the racing would look exactly the same (possibly less dramatic now, as hardly anyone runs out of low gears on a long steep hill ! :P )
And if faster is king, innovation the necessary servant, please tell me why we're not racing recumbents?!?

Banned by UCI 90 years ago. Meaning the uptake was smaller when compared to a "standard" bike, remaining this way since.