Re: [CR]JRA (Just Riding Around)

(Example: Humor:John Pergolizzi)

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:40:06 -0500
From: "gabriel l romeu" <romeug@comcast.net>
To: Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca>
Subject: Re: [CR]JRA (Just Riding Around)
References: <59D6E530-C880-4605-AE46-2C8BF6D3E731@earthlink.net> <458AA105.2040904@ody.ca> <458B22DE.7080301@comcast.net> <458BFE90.40605@ody.ca>
In-Reply-To: <458BFE90.40605@ody.ca>
cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

>>> 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,

agreed.

this
> advancement also allows the more casual rider ease of shifting and henc e
> the appeal of the bikes,

I really don't think that the casual rider even considers the ease of shifting, just the fact that there are the possibilities of doing it just the same as before. there were the options of bar end, drop or stem shifters and a bit of marketing directed to the stem, but pretty much everybody learned how to use them then as now- some with far better

dexterity than others, then as now.

but the advantage comes at the expense of
> complexity, weight, price and reduced durability.

I cannot agree with this either. there were some really cheap bikes described as 'lightweight' that came in the 100.- 120. US dollar range (late 60's early 70's) that were far less durable and required far more repairs than what i see today in my LBS even in the cheapest categories.

I really do not know how the value compares with todays monies, but I have seen far lighter bikes with current drivetrains, some really complex drivetrains of the past, very durable contemporary and vintage drivetrains (and the opposite) again, then as now.


>
> As a point of reference, I consider an automobile driver who cannot
> operate a manual transmission "less skilled".

i don't. it is a fairly simple mechanical motion that takes little bit of time to learn, but once acquired it is embedded done with no thinking, instinctual instead of a skill. there are far more refined actions in driving that would reflect skill. I remember a ton of unskilled drivers when automatic was a costly option, does not seem any different than today. In fact, a lot of nascars are automatic i believe (as if i know anything

about nascar...)

In the same way, the skillset is not how you switch the gearing, but rather the pedaling conditions where a particular gear is applied. That

is where real finesse occurs, then as now. IMHO, a skilled operator in any discipline is not the ability to do repetitive movements after practice, but rather applying these skills acquired to a variety of circumstances. In bicycling, it may be riding in a group, maintaining control in a variety of terrain or traffic circumstances- a condition i find occasionally with the messengers in NYC, some of the tri and road riders here. has very little to do with equipment, just how they apply it to different circumstances. anybody can learn the different methods to shift given time, to get well

skilled requires time and more importantly conscientiousness.
> 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 o f
> use modifications in increasing the market share of of this type of
> bicycle.

and properly so, most of the people around here use them on roads. The road in front of my house the inappropriate market ploy, IMHO, is the selling of SUVs (mountain bikes) for road use. What I would like to see

are manufacturers producing some sort of bike appropriate to transport goods, perhaps to change the social paradigm of doing a small shop and quick errand in the car. Chris, from Velo Orange has the right idea of producing a raddoneur that could fulfill this function admirably, but at

this time his marketing reach is not extensive enough to effect such a change. Also, there are a lot of functionalities that would have to improve such as safe 'parking' spots.


> 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.

how is that changed since the late 60's? It has never been that difficult to shift then as now. What do you propose would be a better bike for the road riders around here?
> 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.

Ahhhh, so the problem is with the collectors market, now i understand....gabriel

--
gabriel l romeu
chesterfield, nj, usa
± http://studiofurniture.com Ø http://journalphoto.org ±