Oh, no. Ive done it again. An overly long, overly detailed reply to one of Gregs posts. Greg, this is not intended as an attack. Some of your ideas are interesting, and inspire me to think about stuff and write.
Tom D. wrote: Bob, 9-speed Ace has been around since 96 IIRC, and the new Record group rolled out in 1995, though there have been annual changes, as is now standard for Campy. Six or seven years is a long time. Under an elite/pro rider, a season or two is all that can be expected of this stuff, as was the case with NR/SR stuff.
Greg wrote: Six or seven years is definitely *not* a long time in terms of major bicycle component durability IMHO!
I think that you missed my point. My point was that the 6 or 7 years that the current top-end groups, each of which featured a new crankset incidentally, is sufficient time to demonstrate that these groups are at least comparably reliable to what came before. It has been enough time to confirm that these are solid groups with sufficient reliability to meet the demands of athletic competition and the demands of the marketplace, and that these groups are not delicate relative to the older stuff, as Bob had suggested. Six or seven years was enough time for Shimano to decide that the sharp edges of the 7700 crankarm were a problem and that easing the edges and rolling out the 7701 was warranted. So I maintain that from a field verification standpoint, 6-7 years is a long time.
It seems that the point you are making is that 6-7 years, under the referenced conditions (elite/pro use), is not a long time relative to the total expected life of major components if the lifespan is defined by the point of failure. This may be, but use to failure is not consistent with typical use, in my experience, and I will go so far as to say that failure is not reasonable determinant of the lifespan of parts for which failure is not a safe option. But mileage, stress cycles, and so forth aside, consider the general visual condition of a crankset that has been used daily for six years. Thats a crank with lots of lost anodizing, nicks, and dents on perhaps its sixth set of rings. Even if it isnt cracked, is it something you want on your bike? Is it something that any performance-mined rider would want to use?
Greg wrote: 20 - 40,000 miles (based on your 1-2 year figure) under a pro-level rider should do less damage to a set of cranks than the same amount of miles from an equivalently-powerful amateur (the pro should have a more consistent and smooth cadence and power delivery - less load fluctuation).
I think the distinction you draw regarding pedaling style may be a bit of a reach. Like I suggested earlier, I think things other than number and magnitude of cycles are at play where real-world durability is concerned. However, Im reluctant to accept that one such difference is some fundamental difference variation in pedaling style between pros and elites. Ill speculate that if one bothered to quantify load fluctuation, pro and elite riders would be near the top of the distribution when the population is all cyclists, but if you were to look at just pros/and elites, I doubt you would find some sort of bimodal distribution. I think that beyond a certain relatively low experience level, riders have their pedaling style pretty much set, and that the differences among individuals are far greater than the differences between the means for pro and elite groups.
Greg wrote: The Campy Record cranks that many say are so crappy have been around since 1958 - that's forty-four years, or nearly seven times as long.... The vast majority of 'em still ain't broken yet!
I, for one, never said they were crappy. I love those cranks. They are beautiful, the Platonic Form of a crankset. A gorgeous piece of alloy where all that isnt a crankset is cut away (except that little web ;-). To me, they are the essence of a crankset, but thats certainly due to historical circumstance. In any case, they were always the default standard, were widely available, and they worked. How well? Well enough. In general, by the time they broke, they were pretty beat up. Naturally there were exceptions. Of course, if the vast majority still arent broken, it may reflect that fact that the vast majority are no longer ridden and many have been tossed for reasons other than breakage.
Greg wrote: What's the predicted useful life of the glue in carbon-fiber cranks if they're exposed to Southern California levels of Ulraviolet light exposure eight hours a day? Five years? Ten?
Even five years sounds like a long time, but I have no idea. Those are $800 cranks that will be yesterdays news relatively soon, whether or not they are still intact.
Greg wrote: As far as the machined aluminum cranks that are out there on the market are concerned - intuitively, a crank arm CNC'ed from raw aluminum will likely not be as strong or durable as an equivalent-section forged aluminum one - think about it for a moment. Do racing engine manufacturers use CNC'ed crankshafts? No - they are forged. Same goes for the crankshafts of 18,000 horsepower diesel ship engines.
I hear you there, no need for comparisons. Forged-to-shape is obviously preferable. (As an aside, the local BMW dealer told us that, displacement aside, the 328 was better than the 323, but couldnt give any specific examples. My girlfriend went on-line at work and came home telling me she wanted a forged crankshaft, not cast. Then she asked what the difference was.)
Greg wrote: Again, I think folks have a ton of 20/20 hindsight regarding vintage bicycle part design. We all enjoy being armchair quarterbacks, but you can't re-design something in the 1970s while sitting in the 21st Century (well, at least not without a time machine...).
Yep. I hoard stuff because it was special in its day. Maybe Specialized cranks were better in 1983, but they sure werent what I was lusting after while pouring over the Nashbar catalog in math class.
The new bikes are often worn as a fashion statement, and changed frequently, along with the jersey, shorts, helmet, accessories, SUV, etc. This is because many of the "new age" roadies come from a motorcycle/MTB background, where spending big bucks often to "upgrade" your ride/equipment is considered part of the game.
I agree about the MTB thing, and Id add that tri-guys have contributed to this attitude. I think there are larger trends at play too. There is bigger money in road cycling now, bigger budgets for the team, more money from TV, more money spent by sponsors. But over and above all that, I think there is something different in the demographics of serious cyclists in the US. They are getting older, so they have more money. Of course, the young ones are gen-Y extreme sports types for whom owning the gear is the same as actually doing the sport. I dunno what it really is, but I keep thinking about it. My girlfriend tells be that the generalization accepted by marketing people is that Boomers are more experience focused than younger consumers. They would rather pay to go on a vacation than buy a new car. So, maybe its the younger riders who are supporting the equipment mania.
Nothing inherently wrong with that; the Marketing folks have a field day with it, but it is certainly unnecessary, and encourages the spread of our growing "throw-away" society (e.g. frames / components that only need to "last one or two years").
Ill accept the ill effects of our throw away society as they apply to bikes. If it keeps people riding for fun rather than ATVing through old-growth forests, if it keeps people excited about riding to work, if it helps make a small part of the population healthier, than Ill accept some energy and environmental costs for recycling, manufacture, etc. I know I shouldnt look at bikes in isolation, and that the whole throw-away attitude is problematic, but I think the really scary part is the way we throw away clean soil/air/water, non-renewable fuel, open space, etc. to support a car-based society. Then again, its my job to help oil companies comply with environmental regs at the least possible cash outlay. Who am I to talk? Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA
GPVB1@cs.com wrote:Tom D. wrote:
> Bob, 9-speed Ace has been around since 96 IIRC, and the new Record group
> rolled out in 1995, though there have been annual changes, as is now
> standard for Campy. Six or seven years is a long time. Under an elite/pro
> rider, a season or two is all that can be expected of this stuff, as was
> the case with NR/SR stuff.
>
>
Tom:
Six or seven years is definitely *not* a long time in terms of major bicycle component durability IMHO! 20 - 40,000 miles (based on your 1-2 year figure) under a pro-level rider should do less damage to a set of cranks than the same amount of miles from an equivalently-powerful amateur (the pro should have a more consistent and smooth cadence and power delivery - less load fluctuation).
The Campy Record cranks that many say are so crappy have been around since 1958 - that's forty-four years, or nearly seven times as long.... The vast majority of 'em still ain't broken yet!
What's the predicted useful life of the glue in carbon-fiber cranks if they're exposed to Southern California levels of Ulraviolet light exposure eight hours a day? Five years? Ten?
As far as the machined aluminum cranks that are out there on the market are concerned - intuitively, a crank arm CNC'ed from raw aluminum will likely not be as strong or durable as an equivalent-section forged aluminum one - think about it for a moment..... Do racing engine manufacturers use CNC'ed crankshafts? No - they are forged. Same goes for the crankshafts of 18,000 horsepower diesel ship engines.
Again, I think folks have a ton of 20/20 hindsight regarding vintage bicycle part design. We all enjoy being armchair quarterbacks, but you can't re-design something in the 1970s while sitting in the 21st Century (well, at least not without a time machine...).
The new bikes are often worn as a fashion statement, and changed frequently, along with the jersey, shorts, helmet, accessories, SUV, etc. This is because many of the "new age" roadies come from a motorcycle/MTB background, where spending big bucks often to "upgrade" your ride/equipment is considered part of the game. Nothing inherently wrong with that; the Marketing folks have a field day with it, but it is certainly unnecessary, and encourages the spread of our growing "throw-away" society (e.g. frames / components that only need to "last one or two years").
Cheers,
Greg "No user-serviceable parts inside" Parker A2 MI USA Where we are "Recycling old Campy parts for a better tomorrow"
(heeheehee.......)
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes