Mike, et al:
What I remember about those light sew up rims is, they didn't hold up on anything but the smoothest roads and then only if the rider were a lightweight. I could ride Fiammes or Ergals now and get great durability out of them if I weighed 110 pounds, but I don't, nor do most of the rest of us. A 400 gram Mavic sewup available now is bullet proof and can be built with many fewer spokes with the obvious weight and aerodynamic advantages.
If you compare a Super Champion, Rigida, or MA-40 clincher from the '70's/'80's, you will find current clinchers are much lighter and stronger. The offset drilling of some of the newer rear rims also addresses the dish issues, although I will concede that an essentially flat wheel on the drive side makes me shudder.
Rick Chasteen, Kansas City
> 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/