Re: [CR]JRA (Just Riding Around) and 'progress'

(Example: Framebuilders)

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:15:11 +0100
From: "Freek Faro" <khun.freek@gmail.com>
To: "Marcus Coles" <marcoles@ody.ca>
Subject: Re: [CR]JRA (Just Riding Around) and 'progress'
cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

My take on the so-called 'evolution' in bicycles. When I started racing around 1980, I considered it an accomplished skill (one of the skills of course) to be able to shift a gear correctly while at full speed in the pack, in a Dutch criterium, on those brick roads with potholes. And preferably without looking down to check. I'd rather avoid doing it (let my legs take care of the acceleration) of course, but sometimes you just had to. I never used index shifting, even when it was available (available on my gear levers as I found out by looking closely!), I never used Ergo or STI until recently. I believe it makes you much more aware of riding in exactly the right gear, while at the same time let your legs have that 'souplesse' that's so important. The other accomplished skill was getting into the quill pedals after the startgun had sounded. It's the flipping-the-pedal-and-shoving-the-shoe-in motion. I never got that going very well; it's not all that nice to start in the front row, and go into the first corner as one of the last riders! So I was glad with clip-in pedals. I think STi, Ergo, etc., takes some of that skill away from cycling, but hey, that's progress! And the skills I mentioned, they never go away; even when JRA, as i've been doing for the past 10 years.

Freek 'conservative at heart' Faro Rotterdam Netherlands

2006/12/22, Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca>:
>
> gabriel l romeu wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I think a lot of (not all) so called technical advancements from
> >> suicide levers onward are to appeal to a broader group of less
> >> skilled riders, good for manufacturers, simpler riders need more
> >> complex bikes.
> >
> >
> > I have never observed this. I have seen brilliance in riding using
> > all technology within any sub discipline of bicycling. There are
> > contemporary mechanisms that are exquisite in their own rite that
> > complement the brilliance of earlier designs.
> > It is all good. the diversity is what makes it interesting...
> I was not referring to bicycling in general, but in the context of this
> list, racing and road sports oriented lightweights.
> You will note I said a "lot of (not all)" referring to technical
> advancements.
>
> For example, the current crop of indexed drivetrain components offer an
> indisputable advantage in competition as they can shift under load, this
> advancement also allows the more casual rider ease of shifting and hence
> the appeal of the bikes, but the advantage comes at the expense of
> complexity, weight, price and reduced durability.
>
> As a point of reference, I consider an automobile driver who cannot
> operate a manual transmission "less skilled".
> The "simple" part probably should have had a smiling, winking emoticon
> ;-) as I was grinning as I wrote it.
>
> The bicycle generally referred to as a "road bike" was not and is not
> intended as a general use bicycle.
> Manufacturers IMO have tried and succeeded through marketing and ease of
> use modifications in increasing the market share of of this type of
> bicycle.
> IMHO the number of riders truly suited to such bikes, racers and sports
> oriented enthusiasts, has probably not changed much over the years and
> much like the bike boom of the early 1970's we are again seeing riders
> who would be better served by other bikes riding the wrong bike.
> The difference this time is they can shift.
>
> I expect in thirty years there will be another batch of low mileage,
> "garage queens" for collectors, but this time they will have to worry
> about the various polymers comprising components and in some cases the
> bicycle as a whole having gone "crispy" rather than just the brake
> hoods, tires or the occasional Simplex Prestige.
>
> Marcus Coles
> London, Ontario, Canada.