RE: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?

(Example: Framebuilding:Technology)

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 17:44:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: "John Joseph Taglia" <jtagli1@uic.edu>
To: "Moos, Jerry" <jmoos@urc.com>
Cc: "'Bicycle Classics inc'" <bikevint@tiac.net>, "'walter skrzypek'" <wspokes1@hotmail.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: RE: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
In-Reply-To: <ABC4A5183996D411BF92000629EEABAD36627E@mail-server.urc.com>


Or more handsome than a 93.

Regards,

John Taglia On a norrowed comp[uter because mine broke, Chicago, cloudy mi 70's

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Moos, Jerry wrote:
> I haven't put a lot of miles on 49D's, but the original model 93 arms are
> still on the LeJeune I bought in 1973. I'm not sure any new crank would be
> more durable than the mod 93.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bicycle Classics inc [mailto:bikevint@tiac.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 6:40 AM
> To: Moos, Jerry; Moos, Jerry; 'walter skrzypek';
> classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: RE: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>
>
> If memory serves me right, Bicycling Magazine in the 1970's did a piece on
> crank failure looking at a sampling of failed arms. If I recall, there
> were a lot of broken stronglites (near the pedal). Its all kinda fuzzy, but
> I'd be carefull about getting overly optimistic about the longevity of high
> model Stronglite cranks. I believe the main offender was the 49D. Mike Kone
>
>
>
>
> At 05:54 PM 4/20/01 -0400, Moos, Jerry wrote:
> >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/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > Classicrendezvous mailing list
> >>> > > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> >>> > >
> >>> > http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > __________________________________________________
> >>> > 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/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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/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/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous