[CR]@jerry moos: you HAVE to be kidding. You are, right?

Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PY-10

From: "Charles Andrews" <chasds@mindspring.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:38:19 -0700
Subject: [CR]@jerry moos: you HAVE to be kidding. You are, right?

Jerry 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.
> ***********

When you say things like this, you display a completely lack of understanding of what it means to compete in an athletic event. Or to compete in anything.

Ideally, the technology is *transparent.* In a perfect competition, the technology required for that competition would be utterly transparent. It would not get in the way of the athlete in any way. We should be measuring the strength and skill of a rider *as racer* not as technology manipulator.

When you make an argument like this, you argue for the flint-axe over the razor blade. It's ridiculous Jerry, and you should know better.

Not to mention the fact that it's very likely numerous bad crashes in mass sprints have been avoided in the last 10 years in countless races because of Ergo shifting.

I love my friction bikes. But were I racing today, I'd be Ergo all the way, and glad to have it..and not just because everyone else has it, Jerry. But because it lets me go faster, and it doesn't get in my way. It stays out of my way.

I know you enjoy the contrarian position Jerry. But it gets a little old after awhile. It really does.

Charles Andrews
Los Angeles