Re: Subject: [CR]Significantly faster on a newer bike?...only in some

(Example: Bike Shops:R.E.W. Reynolds)

In-Reply-To: <042C45A6-ABE8-44C5-9735-E7A7A73CBF3A@earthlink.net>
References: <200708032301.l73N1ed2017056@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>
From: "Rachel & James Valiensi" <valiensi@mac.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: [CR]Significantly faster on a newer bike?...only in some
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:12:57 -0700
To: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
cc: CR RENDEZVOUS <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Hullo, One could replace all the ball bearings in a SR/NR group will ceramic balls. I bit of the best of both worlds. Cheers! On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Chuck Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Donald Gillies wrote:
>
>> Actually, most people are COMPLETELY WRONG about the drivetrain
>> losses. Today's $600 drivetrain can be built ONLY because they are
>> using high-friction sealed bearings in the hubs and the bottom
>> bracket, and usually, in the headset and pedals. The cup-and-cone
>> stuff from the 70's has lower friction when properly adjusted (even
>> vs. ceramic sealed bearings.) So there is reason to believe that if
>> you don't miss a shift, you will be FASTER on a vintage bike,
>> especially on the flats.
>>
>> However, as we all know, aerodynamics has the greatest impact on
>> performance above 20 mph, and in that area there has been little
>> progress as much of the losses are from the rider, not from the bike.
>> We'll have to wait for evolution to make improvements there.
>>
>> The one area where aerodynamic improvements are possible is in the
>> wheels, however, excluding monocoque wheels, I'd be surprised if
>> today's wheels are measurably better than retro 28h wheels.
>>
>> - Don Gillies
>> San Diego, CA, USA
>
>
> I believe you are COMPLETELY WRONG about bearings, aerodynamics and
> wheels Don.
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, CA USA