Block user

Recent

Ktron RichardCunningham's article
Jan 17, 2019 at 14:35
Jan 17, 2019
Field Test: 3 Full Suspension Mountain Bikes Under $3000
@coffeepoop42069: I run a 30t chainring and find that's perfectly fine. Likewise, very rarely find myself maxing out on the 11t.
Ktron RichardCunningham's article
Jan 17, 2019 at 14:32
Jan 17, 2019
Field Test: 3 Full Suspension Mountain Bikes Under $3000
@islandforlife: That 49t sounds like a hell of a step-up on a 11-42. The last gap would be a 36-49 right? Which is worse than Shimano's bodgey 11-46 which goes 36-46. Sunrace 11-46 cassette is far better from the perspective of gear intervals.
Ktron mikelevy's article
Jan 8, 2019 at 13:45
Jan 8, 2019
Review: Unno's Dash is Ultra-Exotic, Ultra-Efficient, & Ultra-Expensive
@Will-narayan: Ha! I'd argue the market is perfectly adapted to humans as that is precisely what a market does, controlled or otherwise. It just reflects the behaviour of humans. In terms of adapting to the environment, humans need to do that - the market is just a reflection of what humans do. I'm of the view that the market is highly similar to the natural environment. It's deeply inter-connected and interdependent and totally indifferent to the state of our existence. It doesn't owe anyone a comfortable existence. Economics/markets/money is ultimately a study of natural phenomena as none of it has any value until you connect it to the real world. The natural environmental is just as often ugly as it is beautiful and is ultimately beyond the control of humans. Technology/efficiency growth. Is it minor? I mean much of what you're saying has seen the mass market become a rapacious beast I'd argue results from technology improvements which enabled massive increases in efficiency and productive capacity. Eg. Fossil fuels I don't think I'm "right" or even have a view on how things are going to turn out. My issue is the frequent view that the "system" or the "market" is the problem that needs to be fixed when per above, its humans that need to adapt to the environment. It is interesting in this respect as until very recent times, economic development was seen primarily in financial terms whereas now, the concept of a "social license" is becoming increasingly widespread and development is also being assessed on social and environmental terms. Will be interesting to see how things turn out.
Ktron mikelevy's article
Jan 7, 2019 at 19:59
Jan 7, 2019
Review: Unno's Dash is Ultra-Exotic, Ultra-Efficient, & Ultra-Expensive
@Will-narayan: Per above, I agree labour costs are a major driver to the location of global manufacturing centres. But again, I emphasise they're not the only consideration which overrides all others. Another point you're missing is resource allocation, which relates to comparative advantage. Just because product x> is capable of being produced locally doesn't mean it should be produced if those same resources can be used more productively elsewhere, even if it is more expensive to import product x> from somewhere else. Other issues come into it of course (such as risk), but in simple economic terms that is so. I'm not playing on words, I'm merely responding to your words which in your first posts are so poorly written it took numerous re-reads to get the jist of, let alone understand and respond to your true intention or thinking. I note your writing has remarkably improved in the last couple of posts from the first 2 so thank you for that. What's your point? That the world is built on fossil fuels and cheaper foreign labour and if you took these things away away everything would be more expensive and the mass market would contract? Well duh. But differences in labour costs and key technology within and across economies has existed throughout human existence and will continue to be so. There has always been cheaper labour and technology fundamental to the productive capacity of an economy and if you alter this at any point in time it would have the same effect. So what's your drama? The liveable wage? Something else? The fallacy that economic growth is dependent on ever increasing and unsustainable resource consumption and population growth is common, pervasive and I don't think trivial or theoretical at all. Especially in the context we're talking about here in respect of climate change and global sustainability, which requires some incredibly hard decision making with potentially mammoth consequences. You're certainly right that growth is frequently associated with both of those factors but I think by not including technology/efficiency growth you disregard a very material factor and so play further into that fallacy. Global survival depends on our ability to reduce our demands on natural resources and contain population growth, but that doesn't mean we have to pull the handbrake on technology/economic development. I didn't say nuclear power was the permanent and be-all solution, or 100% of it. But it is certainly necessary for us to kick the can far enough down the road to allow time to figure out better energy sources. As you pointed out above, the time frame we're working with is understood to be quite short, 2050 at best. Renewable energy and energy storage technology is not nearly where it needs to be to solve that equation, even under the most optimistic scenarios of technology advancement and energy system conversion (and who knows if that equation is even solvable). The consequences of failing are understood to be catastrophic. That is not a risk profile worth taking that sort of bet on. Hence why expansion of nuclear energy generation HAS to be a key component of reducing fossil fuel reliance. There is plenty of uranium to fuel that scenario. Anyway, we're starting to get a fair way off the point of your initial post, which was to do with what the cost or a comparative carbon frame would be if manufactured in an advanced economy. I can certainly agree it would be higher than a low labour cost economy, obviously as if that weren't so that wouldn't be the current state of play. But I'd certainly argue it wouldn't be anything like the cost of Unno's frame if optimised for mass market consumption.
Ktron mikelevy's article
Jan 7, 2019 at 16:58
Jan 7, 2019
Review: Unno's Dash is Ultra-Exotic, Ultra-Efficient, & Ultra-Expensive
@Will-narayan: Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. You're minimising comparative advantage to labour only and ignoring other benefits of trade such as access to new products. Whilst labour is a major cost component to the production of anything it isn't the only cost, and trade facilitates the availability of products not otherwise available in your region. The rationale to trade stands irrespective of labour costs. Mass market exists irrespective of trade. Sure, you constrain the size of your market and increase your costs but it still exists within your economy. Again, you're taking one side of the argument without applying it to the other. If you're not allowing trade to enable your access to cheaper foreign labour, you're not competing with it either. Growth isn't dependent on either increased resource use or population growth. All you need for economic growth is an increase in efficiency. If you produce more with the same amount of resources (eg. less wastage, better technology) you have economic growth. We already have an energy source which is plenty efficient and produces zero green house gas emissions. Nuclear. Sure, it has its own risks but these are very well understood and capable of being effectively managed/mitigated whilst guaranteeing a large and reliable source of energy until something better comes along. It's certainly far better than pinning all our hopes on "magical" advancements in renewable energy and energy storage within the limited time frames you describe.
Ktron mikelevy's article
Jan 7, 2019 at 15:38
Jan 7, 2019
Review: Unno's Dash is Ultra-Exotic, Ultra-Efficient, & Ultra-Expensive
@Will-narayan: It's also pretty fallacious to focus on energy costs for one part of the supply chain whilst ignoring it everywhere else. Saying fossil fuels enable transport whilst ignoring that they enable manufacturing in the first place is nonsense analysis.
Ktron mikelevy's article
Jan 7, 2019 at 14:37
Jan 7, 2019
Review: Unno's Dash is Ultra-Exotic, Ultra-Efficient, & Ultra-Expensive
@Will-narayan: So many compounded "ifs" and an over focus on fossil energy and labour costs. You seem to forget trade existed pre-industrialisation and the key vessels that facilitated such trade, sail boats. Not to mention the fact that Unno isn't attempting to be a locally made, mass market brand but is deliberately a low-volume, high cost boutique manufacturer. They're not attempting to pump out thousands of frames at maximum efficiency but instead take their sweet time carefully handcrafting a handful of bikes. Fossil fuels are a major feature of energy systems globally, irrespective of the developed stage of the economy. What you're really attempting to compare is the cost of producing in low-labour cost economies with that of technologically advanced but high-cost economies. And in that respect, the market has answered that question for you. It is most efficient to put your supply chain in the regions most effective at undertaking the work. That is, design and engineer in the high-cost economy, manufacture in the low cost economy and do what you can to advance the technology of manufacturing.
Ktron mikelevy's article
Jan 7, 2019 at 12:50
Jan 7, 2019
Review: Unno's Dash is Ultra-Exotic, Ultra-Efficient, & Ultra-Expensive
@mhoshal: this x100. Not much is truly unique about it at all.
Jan 3, 2019 at 17:24
Jan 3, 2019
Ktron brianpark's article
Jan 2, 2019 at 13:35
Jan 2, 2019
5 Riding Resolutions for 2019
@rezrov: spot on. It's only as green as you let it be.
Load more...
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.041814
Mobile Version of Website