Re: [CR]history rewritten on Versus TV (some Off-Topic material)


Example: Component Manufacturers:Chater-Lea

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:02:45 -0400
From: George Allen <jgallen@lexairinc.com>
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]history rewritten on Versus TV (some Off-Topic material)
References: <708429.43934.qm@web55907.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <708429.43934.qm@web55907.mail.re3.yahoo.com>


Just because everyone uses it, such as SIS or Ergo, doesn't lessen its impact on the sport. Quite the contrary, it would seem to buttress the argument for its importance. Look at the original top five list or any of the other suggestions for top five admission. They all are ubiquitous in the peloton. The fact that the entire peloton uses all these things and thus no one has an advantage can only serve to highlight their importance. It's obvious that the riders themselves would feel to be at a disadvantage without using:

5 - rider/team car race radios 4 - clipless pedals 3 - team "follow" cars 2 - integrated brake/shift levers 1 - the derailluer (modern, I assume)

I had never ridden anything but friction until June, 2006. Believe me, I was glad to have Ergo on my KOF Weigle during my series of brevets this summer. And toe straps, properly snugged down, had a tendency to cut off the circulation to my feet when I was younger. I love my older bikes and still ride them. I love them for their beauty. I love them for the technological advances they represented back then. I love some of them for the way they ride. I love them for being built by the hand of someone who cared about quality and craftsmanship. But if I'm racing or doing a 600 km brevet I'm probably leaving them at home. You all now have permission to throw rocks at me.

George "visits the dark side occasionally" Allen Lexington, KY

.

Tom Dalton wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> I'm glad that I was of help to you in making your point, because whateve r that point was is still totally unclear to me. How can it be that, "the net change in the competition is zero," when using integrated shifting mean s that, "the level of skill required is decreased," while the competition i tself, "is about rider strength and skill, or should be." Seriously, think
   about what you're saying.
>
> I agree with your initial and primary point that that integrated shiftin g is probably not in the top 20 innovations in terms of it's impact on the nature of cycling competition. That is, I agree with this if we take a bro ad view and look beyond the bike itself, and consider the support methods, training, doppage, radios, computers, heart rate monitors... you name it, i t has probably had a bigger impact than STI. Looking only at the bike, the
   levers obviously move way up the list.
>
> After you made the point that STI has had little (actually you later sai d zero, which I strongly disagree with) impact on the competition, you went
   on to detail how you, "doubt the integrated levers make much difference at
   all, except maybe in the sprint, where one might loose speed when shifting
   one's weight a bit to reach a DT lever." Might loose speed while shifting
   one's weight a bit????!?!?!?!?! Have you ever tried changing gears at ful l crank, with guys all around you, possibly bumping into you, all at nearly
   40 mph? Now, how about we add to all this scenario that you are also out of the saddle? If you're shifting this late in the game, your goose is pro bably cooked, but with STI, you can at least make the shift without sitting
   down and shooting backward thorough the wheels. Seriously, to assert that
   STI, might possibly help "a little" when shifting during a sprint is nonse nse. If you had meant to say that for all the obvious major advantages of
   STI, it has
> little impact on the overall competition once everyone has it, then that is what you should have said. But, that's what I said. You said, "integra ted levers (probably don't) make much difference at all," and cited erroneo us details about the allegedly small difference between two systems that ar e actually very different. Why are you even making points about the differ ences between SIS and STI if your argument that STI has little impact on th e overall competition is predicated on everyone having the same system? Th ose are points you make when you're arguing that SIS is not really a big di sadvantage when you're racing against someone with STI. That sure seemed t o be your point. You never said that you were speaking of equally-equipped
   riders, other than ambiguously implying it at the end of your statement, A FTER making arguments applicable to comparison of unlike systems.
>
> I absolutely did not make your point for you. I made my point, and you can't now claim it as your own.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, PA USA
>
>Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> You make my point perfectly for me. That each rider shifts as well as
   the other 200 in the pack is exactly why the levers have no effect. Every one shifts more easily by the same amount, and the net change in the compet ition is zero. All that happens is that the level of skill required is dec reased. The same is true in Formula 1, but the difference, in my opinion, is that Formula 1 is as much about technology as it is about driver skill, while cycling, IMHO is about rider strength and skill, or should be.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, TX
>
>Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I mean are we supposed to believe that top pros are too uncoordinated to
   take their hands off the bars to shift gears? Particularly since DT index ed shifting was available some years before integrated levers, so one could
   still get a positive gear selection before the integrated levers. I doubt
   the integrated levers make much difference at all, except maybe in the spr int, where one might loose speed when shifting one's weight a bit to reach a DT lever. Even there, it's not clear that the modern levers actually cha nged the outcome, as they may just increase the sprint speeds of all the sp rinters more or less equally.
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> Frankly, I think a truly good F-1 driver could win the next event with a
   5 speed crashbox, don't you? Are we to believe that those guys are too un coordinated to shift without electropneumatic clutches and paddle-controlle d gear changing?
>
>
> For starters, I think you need to try riding a modern bike, just once, w hile trying to keep an open mind. Once you've actually ridden, say, a prop erly tuned Dura Ace 10- quipped bike, say for a week or so, then you can te ll us all how crappy the shifting is, and how it was of no benefit relative
   to....oh, how about a Simplex 5 speed setup?
>
> Who ever said pros are too uncoordinated to use downtube SIS... or frict ion... of Cambio Corsa for that matter? These systems were all used at one
   time. But, to use an outmoded system when everyine else has a comparitvel y better system would just be a stupid choice, in competition. Pros don't need STI to shift, they just need it to shift as frequently, quickly and ac curately as the other 200 guys in the pack.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, PA USA
>
>
> Most of these have indeed changed the race, though whether for better or worse is highly debatable. But in my view integrated brake/shift levers
   aren't even in the top 20.
>
> I mean are we supposed to believe that top pros are too uncoordinated to
   take their hands off the bars to shift gears? Particularly since DT index ed shifting was available some years before integrated levers, so one could
   still get a positive gear selection before the integrated levers. I doubt
   the integrated levers make much difference at all, except maybe in the spr int, where one might loose speed when shifting one's weight a bit to reach a DT lever. Even there, it's not clear that the modern levers actually cha nged the outcome, as they may just increase the sprint speeds of all the sp rinters more or less equally.
>
> I note that SRAM is one of the Versus advertisers with ads for their lat est drive train, including of course integrated levers. I suspect inclusio n of integrated levers at #2 is just flagrant sucking up to the sponsors. Obviously, even Phil Liggett is not above such grovelling, since he dutiful ly reads the promos for Professional Bull Riding, as if he actually gave a damn about that so-called sport.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, TX, where I didn't bother to attend the recent annual rodeo,
   which no doubt included bull riding
>
>
>
>
>"kyle-chrisbrooks@earthlink.net" <kyle-chrisbrooks@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I saw that segment during the Versus TV Tour coverage, and I wondered wh at
>other people thought of the list of the "top 5 innovations" in the Tour
>(and racing in general, I suppose). The list was as follows:
>5 - rider/team car race radios
>4 - clipless pedals
>3 - team "follow" cars
>2 - integrated brake/shift levers
>1 - the derailluer
>
>Now, Bobke's misinformation about the derailluer's invention aside -- what
>did people think of this list? I don't have a big quibble with the
>derailluer listed as #1. I'm sure all of us love derailluers -- vintage,
>on-topic, or otherwise. But what about some of the others? Integrated
>brake/shift levers? Clipless pedals? Nice inventions, both, but have they
>really improved racing? Made the racers faster? Made the bikes that much
>better? Hmmm. . .
>
>I'm getting into some off-topic stuff here - but one item I really take
>issue with is the inclusing of team car race radios. How Phil Ligget could
>even read this list on the air makes me chuckle, since he's commented
>several times in the past couple years how he thinks these radios have
>ruined racing and should be eliminated (granted, I doubt Phil came up with
>the list, or was even asked for input on its content).
>
>Then, the question is, what "innovations" would you put on the list
>instead? Lightweight steel alloy tubing (such as 531)? Aluminum components?
>Now I'm getting into some really off-topic possibilities - but what about
>carbon fiber? (17 lb bikes WITHOUT drilling the bike to the brink of
>failure?) Aerodynamics? (remember LeMond beating Fignon in the final time
>trial of the '89 tour?).
>
>Just wondering if anyone had some thoughts on it.
>
>Kyle Brooks
>Akron, OH
>
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: Tom Dalton
>>To: Classic Rendezvous ; Jan Heine
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Date: 7/20/2007 10:00:30 AM
>>Subject: [CR]history rewritten on Versus TV
>>
>>During last night's TdF coverage on versus, there was a tiny morsel of
>>
>>
>vintage bike content. In a brief segment about equipment innovations there
>were a couple of shots of what appeared to be an old Molteni team bike,
>with SR equipment. It was pretty thrashed and used to represent that
>arcahic old friction shifting with it's 1st gen SR rear der and knobbly
>shifters. To their credit, Versus identified derailleur gears as the most
>significant technological chane to hit the Tour during it's history
>(pharmaceuticals aside, I suppose). Seems like a good choice to me anyway.
>Then I had to shudder just a bit, when Bob Roll attributed the invention of
>the derailleur to Tullio Campagnolo. Now, as far as I'm concened, Tullio
>invented the light bulb, the Diesel engine, and the integrated circuit, but
>I'm pretty sure he did not invent the derailleur. In fact, I'm pretty sure
>that he did not even invent the parallelogram body that Campagnolo first
>used on the GS. It's my
>
>
>>understanding that there is some Juy guy who can take credit for some
>>
>>
>major invention related to derailleurs, though having not yet read "the
>book," my knowledge is very spotty.
>
>
>>Can someone with more credibility that me (that's a pretty open set of
>>
>>
>folks) please shoot Bobke an email at Versus TV and set him straight? Jan,
>you're the first person to come to my mind on this one.
>
>
>>Tom Dalton
>>Bethlehem, PA USA
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web
>>
>>
>links.