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

Example: History

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:51:08 -0500
From: Mark Stonich <>
Subject: Re: [CR]@jerry moos: you HAVE to be kidding. You are, right?
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <007401c7cd58$a46d9690$6401a8c0@DELL>

If shifting during a sprint was difficult and/or rarely done prior to STI/Ergo, then wouldn't the advantage shift (pun not intended) from riders capable of producing good power over a wide RPM range to riders capable of producing greater power, but over a narrower rpm range?

At 7/23/2007 12:30 PM -0700, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
>Hmmm, I thought the original subject was innovations that have
>changed the Tour. Maybe others take it differently, but I took
>changing the Tour to mean to change who would win or could win as
>compared to before the innovation. Maybe not your own
>interpretation, but stiil very reasonable, I think.
> So derailleurs are a big deal as the body type that could excel
> pounding big gears over the Galibier and spinning furiously on the
> flats is much different that that could take advantage of more
> variable gearing. And the radios and team cars definitely remove
> the advantage of an craftly rider and substitute the advantage of a
> crafty manager. But SIS/Ergo doesn't really change the outcome
> except the the extent that some riders had previously been
> particularly adept at shifting while sprinting out of the saddle,
> or others had been particularly clumsy at it. Now maybe that is
> the case, but if so, you'd think it would have occasionally been
> mentioned by commentators. I mean, I've never read that one of the
> foundations of Merckx's greatness was that he was really good at
> shifting while riding out of the saddle. Maybe he was, but if it
> was that important, you'd think someone would have commented on it.
> You're right, I occasionally enjoy being the contrarian, but I
> don't see anything even remotely contrarian here.
> BTW, as to being contrarian, I just acquired a Masi frame from a
> CR member so I guess that finally makes me part of the CR mainstream.
> Regards,
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, TX
>Charles Andrews <> wrote:
> 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.
>one shifts more easily by the same amount, and the net change in the
>ition is zero. All that happens is that the level of skill required is
>reased. The same is true in Formula 1, but the difference, in my
>is that Formula 1 is as much about technology as it is about driver
>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