Bob,
Sorry for the confusion. The initial question was old vs. new (see the header)... If the quesion is "derailleurs vs. hub gears," I would have taken your word for it. As the Poly de Chanteloup showed, an old Cyclo derailleur seems to be able to beat an SA hub on a hilly circuit any time. (Of course, I don't know whether SA sponsored as good a bunch of racers as the French teams...)
Consider that the slight letting up to shift an "ancient" derailleur system lets your muscles recover a little, so the minuscule disadvantage matters even less.
The note that the postulated 2-second difference on 100 km was insignificant was taken from recent big Tours (France, Italy, etc.), where time trials rarely were decided by that little - let alone the overall victory. I don't know about club time trials in Britain. Around here, time trials rarely are 100 km long. On a 10 km TT, gaps may indeed be as small as 2 seconds between riders, but there are many fewer shifts, too, so the disadvantage might only amount to 0.2 seconds.
I still hold that Lance, on Eddy's bike with Campy NR, Columbus or Reynolds 531 tubing, etc. (of course sized for Lance, not Eddy), would have won the Tour with the same margins as he did now. And that despite the added weight, and despite the fact that the NR shifts much less precisely than many of the early derailleurs, so it sort of is a worst-case scenario.
I firmly believe advances in racing speed stem from shorter stages, better training and, most importantly, "medical" advances. The latter may include nutrition, but other factors are more important! (I know, Lance isn't doping, it's OT, let's not start another flame war here, but the latest Tour was much faster even than the EPO years, and it's not because there were tailwinds all the way.)
When I still raced, until 1999, on a Columbus SL, Campy SR bike against the then-modern 9-speed STI and Ergo on ti and carbon frames, there didn't seem to be a disadvantage to my equipment, except on downhills where my light weight and smallish gears (13 or 12 cog) vs. 11 was a handicap. I never noticed myself falling back on uphills with each shift (and I considered hills my specialty). That the SR derailleur wouldn't shift well into the smallest cog is a different matter - but fortunately, on downhills, you have a bit of leeway. Of course, I only was a Cat. 2, not in the same class as Lance et al., and back then, the modern wonders rarely were more than 2 or 3 lbs. lighter than my "old wonder." Maybe technology has advanced a lot with the changeover from 9 to 10-speed, and with the introduction of carbon rear derailleurs and "outboard" bottom bracket bearings. But that is OT as well.
--
Jan Heine, Seattle
Editor/Publisher
Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
http://www.mindspring.com/
Jan wrote ;
> Beyond derailleurs, I disagree with Bob that modern systems provide
> an advantage over old ones. Sure, a shift may take a split-second
> longer with a non-ramped freewheel, but in practice, that isn't a
> concern. Maybe in a time trial, where you could shave 2 seconds over
> 100 km - even that not enough to determine the outcome.
By all means Jan, disagree if you must, but I wasn't comparing derailleur systems, as what I actually wrote and was speaking about was ;
---- I'm not questioning your ability, but it is hard to believe you could beat a modern Shimano (and others) indexed systems that have the ability to go up down the block in about as much time as an S-A takes to shift from L to N... Not a reflection on you, just quite a few decades of progress. Certainly in comparison with the "vague" action of the pre & immediate post-war derailleur systems the S-A might be "Instantaneous", but against a modern 10 or less indexed ? or better still the pinnacle of indexing, the 8-speed Dura-Ace mmm... I have my doubts. ----
The comparison I was making was between S-A hubs and modern derailleur gear systems particularly in a head-to-head S-A vs Technowonder 30-speed glue and plastic wundabike. And I guess you've not done too many time trials, as less than a 2 second advantage over any distance can mean the difference between winning and losing a major tour, let alone taking the fastest time at a club time trial. Any little advantage helps no matter how seemingly "insignificant".
Bob Reid
Stonehaven
Scotland