I've never seen a Stronglight cracked at the spider like a Campy NR. They did occasionally seize up on the axle and could not be removed without extensive damage - I've experienced that myself. They did also sometimes crack at the pedal hole, but I'll bet new cranks do that too, as the pedal thread is a big-time stress riser on any crank.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
-----Original Message----- From: Bicycle Classics inc [mailto:bikevint@tiac.net] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:15 PM To: Moos, Jerry; 'walter skrzypek'; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: RE: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
A few comments on Jerry's comments.
Stronglite cranks, I believe, were known for breaking - in fact, my guess is that serious racers would probably break more Stronglite than Campy mile for mile. I just have that in memory from somewhere.
New frames can do things that older ones can't. A current builder can do things with oversize tubing that that they couldn't with the available tubing 20 years ago. You can still make a gorgeous lugged frame with oversize tubes - but finding nifty lugs is tricky. Note that some British and French builders (i.e Rene Herse) were using oversize tubes in the 50's if not earlier. Unfortunatly, there just wasn't much tube and lug availability in the non-standard sizes a long time ago. Some builders would simply manufacture their own lugs and bb shells. With the availability of modern steel alloys, it is possible to use thinner wall sections today and create bikes with both more comfort and quickness - the performance frontier has shifted out.
While threadless headsets seem ugly and less functional, they do have the advantage of being really quick to change. Some can be flipped around for very significant changes in rise in only a moment. Many riders cannot find that their optimal position might change over a season - and threadless stems offer much easier changes in reach than threaded ones provide. Again, the threadless ahead type stem is nothing new - a varient of that can be seen on ebay right now - a Daudon ahead type stem that works on 1950's French bikes!
Ergo type shifting is hardly necessary, but it is fun. Compatibility issues as Jerry says really do stink. If one looks back in the Data book there are two or three efforts by the early 1950's for integrated brake lever and shifter systems (one in the book shows a brake lever, shifter, and bell all in one unit for a handicapped rider - as a friend says - "BUT EVEN TODAY SHIMANO DOESN'T HAVE THE BELL!" Ergo I think is a nice contribution for some bikes - but it is why over hyped.
Jerry hits it right on with wheel weight. If someone in 1970 was to say that hubs would have 10 cogs on them and that rims would be 140 grams heavier they'd be called a nut. It is nuts. We've had manufacturers of high-tech wheels tell us its nuts. We've had "founders" of cutting edge titanium frame companies tell us its nuts.
Why does this crazy wheel thing persist? I think it has to do with the demise of tubulars. From observation, you can't make a clincher rim that weighs much under 400g hold up, but you can make a sub 300g tubular rim that is somewhat well behaved. If nobody rides tubulars, than let the rim weights go to $@(#. Oh well, tubulars still rule!
Mike Kone
At 09:04 AM 4/20/01 -0400, Moos, Jerry wrote:
>I think this has been discussed before several times, but here is my
>opinion, FWIW:
>
>Frames: New frames are lighter, but much uglier, lack eyelets or clearance
>for racks or mudguards, the typical TIGed ones can't be repaired, and the
>aluminum ones don't last nearly as long as the old steel ones. Old is
>better.
>
>Wheels: The one component where weight matters the most, the rim, is now
>much heavier in order to withstand the greater dish of a 10 speed rear.
Old
>is better.
>
>Shifters and Derailleurs: Modern marketing hype at its worst. This year's
>Campy is not only incompatible with Shimano, but also with last year's
>Campy. Can you say "planned obsolesence"? No compatibility, no
>interchangeability, damn few replacement parts. The user must buy a new
>drivetrain when one part wears out - marketing Nirvana. Easier to shift
for
>an absolute novice, but hardly worth the tradeoffs. Old is better.
>
>Bars & stems: New bars are probably stronger, though uglier. Stems,
>especially threadless, have very little height adjustment and many don't
>come shorter than 100mm. Old stems are better, new bars are better if you
>don't care about appearence.
>
>Cranks: New cranks don't crack like old Campy, but neither did old
>Stronglight. The new cranks aren't even too ugly, though they do all look
>alike. Grant Petersen's "Q-factor" theory aside, I'd say cranks are a
>tossup.
>
>Pedals: Clipless pedals are more efficient, but less versatile. They also
>can malfunction. Anyone watch Paris-Roubaix on OLN on Easter and see the
>Telecom rider Wesemans trying to stay in the lead break with a pedal that
>kept releasing every km or two because of mud? With toe clips he might
have
>won the race. New is better if you never get off the bike in the middle of
>a ride or encounter mud, otherwise I vote for old.
>
>Brakes: OK, no one is all bad. Modern dual pivots do stop better, let's
>face it. New is better.
>
>Tires: Modern clinchers are sturdier for a given weight and don't blow off
>rims like some old ones. Kevlar belts really do work for rough or
>debris-strewn roads. Yeah, handmade silk sewups have a better feel, but
for
>99% of riders, new is better. I don't care for the neon colors, but some
>new tires are available in black.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jerry Moos
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: walter skrzypek [mailto:wspokes1@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:04 PM
>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: Re: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>
>
>
>I was born into cycling into the new-age(1989). No Classic introduction.
>BUT, once I started riding the current bikes and always being able to get
>the newest and nicest from the folks shop. I started checking out the older
>classics and took a few for a ride. I was amazed at the difference. I agree
>there are some newer things I favor and have nothing against. But on the
>classic side, I favor many more items. I also have to make a note that with
>the advent of 8,9, and 10 speeds. I guarentee that you will whizz through
>cassettes and chains many times faster than with the older freewheels. We
>are now in a business market where companies need to sell more to stay
>alive, just as well as come up with new technology so that they continue to
>attract the many new users and techno-weenies out there. They try to push
>new stuff out all the time...so that the technos can have there fix. The
>bike companies understand that when technology changes, the demand for the
>new will also increase and the people want more...so they continue to buy.
>As the present stock market is also showing, there does come a time when
>things will come to a plateau. I do not believe the newer equipment is made
>for the long haul. It is not made to last. After all the companies want us
>to go and upgrade when the item begins to fatigue and show wear. I know my
8
>
>speed cassettes in top shape don't hold a candle to the older freewheels
>when it comes to durability. Of course there are always exceptions. I
>actually got into classics when I caught myself going to the bike shows and
>beginning to roll my eyes at half the newer stuff I was seeing. I found
>myself surrounded by these generation X'ers and other industry gurus who
>oooooo and ahhhhhh at everything they peered at as I searched for the
>reliable and found nothing. This is where the desire to expand upon my
>knowledge of the classics was born. So therefore I guess in that effect,
the
>
>new stuff does sometimes stem a better appreciation for the classics.
>Because we desire for those lost days of simplicity. Like I said, I am not
a
>
>retro grouch by any means, I find the silver lining among the new clouds
but
>
>I learn to appreciate the old much more also.
>
>enjoy the day
>Walt Skrzypek
>Falls Creek, Pa
>
>>From: Brandon Ives <monkey37@bluemarble.net>
>>To: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
>>CC: Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>Subject: Re: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:29:23 -0500 (EST)
>>
>>Sory but I'll have to side with Dave on this one. Tom, Dave and I are old
>>industry people and he has been doing it twice as long as I have so I can
>>say we've known hundreds, maybe thousands, of shop folk. Most shop people
>>who aren't in it
>>for the pro deal ride stuff that they bought at a pro deal a few years
>>before. Almost every shop has someone like most of the list members who
>>ride the old stuff because it appeals to them. I'll put money that if you
>>surveyed all the shops with more than 8 people working in them the numbers
>>would be as follows. This only concerns "riding" bikes, not ones on the
>>collections.
>>60% would be on MTB's
>>30% would be on some kind of newish road bike, no more than 5 years old.
>>5% on high-zoot racing machines
>>5% on something classic
>>
>>enjoy,
>>Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
>>
>>"Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would
>>get done." Gil Scott-Heron
>>
>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Tom Dalton wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>There are reasons that men and women working in
>> > bike stores ride older equipment, or the older forms
>> > of newer stuff--familiarity in some cases sure doesn't
>> > breed greater endearment.
>> >
>> > In general, I'd say shop employees are about the most
>> > likely people to have the latest stuff. An alarming
>> > number of shop employees are relatively new to riding
>> > and are on their first or second bike. Often they
>> > jump on a new bike during their first year (read
>> > "summer") of employment, thrilled by getting new stuff
>> > at or below cost. The folks riding the old stuff are
>> > usually the people who have been around the longest
>> > amnd have gotten over the "stuff at cost" issue.
>> > These people are also often so sick of bikes that they
>> > no longer ride. In any case, I think that you might
>> > be confusing the ideal of a shop employee
>> > (knowledgeable, experienced, enthusiastic rider) with
>> > the average reality (inexperienced newbie mountain
>> > biker).
>> >
>> > >>>>>>I'll go out on a potentially offensive limb here
>> > and say that the folks who really, truly know the most
>> > about bikes are often the biggest skeptics about new
>> > modes of equipment.
>> >
>> > I think the people who know the most are the people
>> > who ride the most, and these people usually ride what
>> > is avaiable until they wear it out. Then they replace
>> > it with the current equivalent. Are the new gizmos
>> > worse than the old gizmos? Rarely. Are they about
>> > the same? Sometimes. But the general trend is toward
>> > improving the equipment. Is some of that improvement
>> > totally unnecessary and driven by marketing concerns?
>> > Sure, but the top end gear is developed for use by
>> > racers and is developed with their input. If a
>> > product doesn't work they or their mechanics will
>> > reject it. Sounds starry-eyed, but based on what you
>> > see pros riding, there is ample reason to believe it.
>> > Of course I've shifted the arguement toward what works
>> > best for elite riders, but I'll say that most of what
>> > benefits them benefits riders at far lower levels.
>> >
>> > >>>>I'll bet one gent on this list who has a
>> > magnificent collection of old and new rigs rides the
>> > old stuff often because it can need working on less
>> > often!
>> >
>> > The new suff does not violate the laws of physics. In
>> > order for modern drivetrains to do what they do (shift
>> > among 9 or 10 cogs, near-flawlessly, in or out of the
>> > saddle, with hand on the bars) the drivetrain needs to
>> > be clean and precisely adjusted. Given precise initial
>> > setup and some routine cleaning, the stuff requires
>> > little other maintenance. The decreased need to
>> > overhaul hubs, bbs and headsets probably offsets any
>> > added drivtrain cleaning requirements.
>> >
>> > Tom Dalton
>> >
>> > --- Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com> wrote:
>> > > I used to work at a large bike store that sold the
>> > > products of an, ah,
>> > > empire of multiple bike brands. Under different
>> > > names the companies sold us
>> > > steel, aluminum, and carbon fiber bikes. The
>> > > defects in the carbon and
>> > > aluminum frames outnumbered the problems in steel
>> > > bikes by at least ten to
>> > > one. There is a lot of merchandise on the market
>> > > that is lighter and more
>> > > fashionable but just doesn't get down and do the job
>> > > as well as some older
>> > > items. There are reasons that men and women working
>> > > in bike stores ride
>> > > older equipment, or the older forms of newer
>> > > stuff--familiarity in some
>> > > cases sure doesn't breed greater endearment.
>> > > I'll go out on a potentially offensive limb here and
>> > > say that the folks who
>> > > really, truly know the most about bikes are often
>> > > the biggest skeptics about
>> > > new modes of equipment. I'll bet one gent on this
>> > > list who has a
>> > > magnificent collection of old and new rigs rides the
>> > > old stuff often because
>> > > it can need working on less often!
>> > >
>> > > David Feldman
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: "garth libre" <rabbitman@mindspring.com>
>> > > To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:25 PM
>> > > Subject: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Intrigued by this submission, I thought I would
>> > > offer my response: Clipless
>> > > pedals are a definite plus, but they were available
>> > > in the mid 80's.
>> > > Aluminum frames were available at that time too, but
>> > > they are substantially
>> > > cheaper now - However, in general, I do not find
>> > > them to be better, just
>> > > different. (Lighter with a discomfort price).
>> > > Seatposts have not improved at
>> > > all. Hubs have not improved, and I absolutely fail
>> > > to see how threadless
>> > > headsets or integral whatever are better. Stems
>> > > allow you to swap handlebars
>> > > easily, but are so ugly that they are like a visit
>> > > from Frankenstein. Tires
>> > > may or may not be an improvement; My memory should
>> > > not be trusted on this
>> > > one. I swear that shifting seems about the same.
>> > > Braking is the same.
>> > > Shifting from the drops: Are we fooling ourselves on
>> > > this one? I have no
>> > > trouble shifting in a race situation with downtube
>> > > shifters. My rhythm is
>> > > not thrown off, except if I need to shift in a turn.
>> > > This is the one point
>> > > that might have to be considered some kind of an
>> > > improvement. However, my
>> > > track training teaches me that one is often better
>> > > off staying in one gear
>> > > anyway, and certainly in a training situation,
>> > > single gear training without
>> > > freewheeling is hard to beat. So many road riders,
>> > > in my area, are such poor
>> > > riders with such high tech equipment, that I dare
>> > > say that I do not feel
>> > > intimidated with my downtube shifters and elegant
>> > > lugged steel frame.
>> > > Overall for function: Modern aluminum Sti bike
>> > > scores an 8, 80's premium
>> > > tubing, downtube- shifted bike scores an 8. For
>> > > beauty: Modern bike scores a
>> > > 4, 80's premium tubing lugged classic scores a 9.
>> > > Sorry, I give it to the
>> > > Classic, the Aluminum bike is the "weakest link".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Classicrendezvous mailing list
>> > > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> > >
>> > http://www.bikelist.org/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Classicrendezvous mailing list
>> > > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> > >
>> > http://www.bikelist.org/
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
>> > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
>> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> > http://www.bikelist.org/
>> >
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>
>
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/