Angel, does this mean the 1994 Rock Shox used in P-R had a remote lock out on the bars like the model shown on the page linked to the page you posted?
If so, perhaps that is what Gilbert D-L meant when he was quoted that he locked them out, maybe he meant on the smooth sections only. Seems a bit hard to believe that Gan would use a fork, which as Poli says, added significant weight, yet not take the benefit on the cobbled sections, just because Lemonde had a commercial relationship with Rock Shox.
Poli suggests that builders soon learned to use forks with more rake, exactly as they had done on bad roads in the first 50 to 75 years of cycle racing, as a better solution than the Rock Shox. And I feel sure Jan is also right, as he writes in the current BQ, that they also began using widers tires at lower pressure. Rather ironic that the best solution was not new technology, but a return to the technology that had been used for most of a century.
Of course Colnago, who was still supplying I think more than one P-R team with lugged steel frames at the time, used the straight, albeit steel, Precisa fork. Not very classic, and I think many of us regard it as ugly. Or maybe more classic than we think. With all the bicycle innovations in the later 19th and early 20th century, I'd wager there were at least a couple of bikes made with forks that were straight, but whose line was not parallel to the steering tube. In theory, one should be able to design a Precisa fork with exactly the same trail as a given curved fork, and I suppose the steering might be the same, the bike not caring if the path taken from point A to point B is a straight line or a curve. Now I would think that the Precisa would inherently damp road shock less well than a curved fork of the same trail and tubing gauge, but I have nothing but intuition to base that one, so maybe that is wrong. I wonder if Colnago increased the "offset angle" between the steerer axis and the fork blades, the equivalent of increasing the rake, on the forks used in P-R to eliminate the need for front suspension.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA
> From: Angel Garcia <veronaman@gmail.com>
> Subject: [CR] duclos-lasalle and RockShox, now Eddy Merckx bike
> To: "CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 8:22 AM
> I asked Eros Poli to tell me about
> his experience of riding a RockShox
> equipped Eddy Merckx in P-R when he was on the GAN team. He
> replied: "We
> used the RockShox because it served to damp the vibrations
> on the pavè, on
> the smooth road portions we closed it to zero and it became
> rigid. It
> was much too heavy and did not give great advantages. They
> were replaced
> with forks with more inclination to the front which damped
> and tracked
> better, also they responded better to attacks on the
> pavè or from a curve."
>
> I have placed a photo of Eros riding that bike on my blog:
> http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.com/
> You can click on the photo to enlarge it.
>
> Angel Garcia
> Long valley, NJ
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Freek Faro <khun.freek@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR] duclos-lasalle and RockShox
> To: ternst <ternst1@cox.net>
> Cc: classicrendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>,
> Marie Autrey <
> ridingrabbit@earthlink.net>
>
>
> So now I've pulled out the July 1994 issue of Petersen's
> Bicycle Guide,
> where the main article is 'Special section: Suspension
> Bikes for Roadies!'.
> And another one: Prototype peek: Paris Roubaix spy camera
> shots,
> Duclos-Lasalle's Lemond.
> And more: Riding impressions: Team Motorola Eddy
> Merckx/RockShox.
>
> Sigh .... OK, I'm gonna post some excerpts from those
> articles later.
>
> What I remember form the top off my head, is that they just
> took a normal
> steel frame and stuck a RockShox contration, which is
> obviously a lot
> longer. Now I may be over-sensitive, but that would alter
> geometry and
> handling quite a bit! And not in the right directyion I
> assume.
>
> Freek Faro
> Rotterdam Netherlands
>
> 2009/9/26 ternst <ternst1@cox.net>
>
> > I was thinking about the shock forks.
> > I also remember the guys saying that they didn't work
> real well, too
> > awkward to adjust, and too much power loss on hills
> and when out of seat.
> > I also remember them being blocked out and not used.
> > All of you should remember that bike riders are
> lemmings, and the pros the
> > worst. Like a heard of buffalo the indians drove over
> the cliff.
> > The "peloton" thinking D-L/S had this secret weapon
> and therefore won, had
> > to have it.
> > It seemed to die a natural death after that.
> > Remember also we're talking a long time ago and the
> equipment was nowhere
> > near today's technology.
> > Keep in mind also that if weight offsets results the
> guys would be using
> it
> > exclusively today.
> > It obviously doesn't meet muster and is not part of
> today's equipment
> > package for those guys
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marie Autrey"
> <
> > ridingrabbit@earthlink.net>
> > To: "classicrendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 2:31 AM
> > Subject: [CR] duclos-lasalle and RockShox
> >
> >
> > I'm far away from my magazine
> archive, so somebody else will have to
> >> verify (or disprove) this.
> >>
> >> I recall an interview with Duclos-LaSalle in
> Winning shortly after his
> >> second P-R win, in which he said that riding the
> sprung forks was a nod
> to
> >> one of LeMond's many sponsors, and that he rode
> with the 'boing' locked
> out.
> >>
> >> That might explain why they disappeared after two
> years. Legislation may
> >> have had nothing to do with it
> >>
> >> Marie Autrey
> >> Water Island, US VIrgin Islands, where only an
> optimist goes in hurricane
> >> season
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> --
> You may enjoy reading my blog:
> http://www.italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.com