David,
There are certainly a lot of gray areas when it comes
to what is "new" and what is "retro" aren't there?
> The ride, and not the aesthetics, is why I still
> ride old stuff.
But is there anything intrinsic to the ride of older
bikes that isn't still available somewhere? I
currently ride normal-diameter. Lugged Reynold's and
Columbus bikes, and as far as I know I could buy
another tomorrow without having to buy a used bike or
pay for an NOS collectable. Ideally, I will retire
these nice steel bikes before they are ridden to death
and add them to the collection. Whatever I buy as a
replacement will hopefully be worthy of retirement to
the collection after several years also.
> I see how fast my customers grind through the vital
> parts of their bikes and
> can't ever again think that companies that design
> stuff so that it wears out
> ever faster are engaged in legitimate business.
The added demands on modern drivetrains do lead to shorter component life. To fit 9 cogs into (nearly) the space of 6, the cogs and chain are thinner and loads are not as well distributed. In order for people to shift while standing, HG and Exa systems are helpful, if not totally necessary, and yes, such cogs are not as durable. Wear on derailleurs and shifters is far less tolerable with indexing. Add the narrow spacing of post 7-speed gearing and the long cables of STI and any slop becomes a real headache.
Nevertheless, I don't think Shimano and Campy have conspired to build parts that wear out quickly. They are simply providing a level of performance that doesn't allow for durability in certain areas (cogs) and doesn't tolerate wear in others (shifters, derailleurs). (I submit that an NR rear would slop out way faster than a 7900 'Ace. We just never noticed because it wasn't a problem when using "normal-spaced" freewheels and downtube friction levers.) This new level of performance is also generally unnecessary and unrealized. I think the disservice by Shimano and Campy is that they don't continue to support 8-speed by making it available on lower lines where the added durability might be put to good use.
On the other hand, certain new components are clearly
more durable. Cartridge headsets, modern clincher
rims and tires, casette hub axles... My annual
toestrap replacemet bill has plummeted of late. Not
to mention those items that used to wear due to poor
installation (bottom brackets/headsets) or servicing
(hubs) that are now relatively idiot-proof and
maintenace free.
> Same with cosmetic replica race bikes with triple
> rings misnamed sport
> touring bikes--Trek does this one. I'm lucky, I
> don't sell new bikes or any
> whole bikes in my own business, and the last regular
> bike store I worked at
> let people like me loose on the sales floor.The
> result is that they sell a
> ton of Trek 520's and custom steel bikes--it comes
> not from being in the
> wealthiest city in the country but from actually
> listening to what customers
> want to do with the bike they're buying and
> explaining--in plain English,
> not in bike-geek--what different bikes do and how
> they do it.
You said it! There are very, very few knowledgable
and helpful people in bike shops these days. I mostly
run into gen-x'ers who's idea of a good ride involves
a ski lift. They usually know almost nothing about
bikes. Really, zip. But they look the part and move
the goods, I suppose. Good direction from
knowledgeable employees will send a very different
product out the door. It's easy for some kid to sell
a Trek MTB when that is what the shop is set up to
sell, and that is all he knows. To sell a good bike
that suits the rider you have to understand all the
options and be able to explain them. Once that's
done, customers often simply spend what it takes.
>I think some
> of the obsessing about old components gets a tad
> silly sometimes, but the
> older frame designs and ideas are right on the money
> for most recreational
> roadies' use. One company that's recently gotten
> religion on this in the
> right way is Schwinn; they have a series of bikes
> called "Super Sport" that
> use the sloping top tube idea to raise the
> handlebars instead of shrinking
> the whole frame, and they have resisted the
> threadless scam on a couple of
> models even equipping them with threadless stems.
> There is a lot of smart
> thinking in these bikes and the two Schwinn dealers
> in my town can't keep
> them in stock; customers are figuring it out.
>
The Schwinns sound interesting. As for the threadless
headsets, there are ceratinly some disadvantages, but
the reduced manufacturing costs, and assembly costs
are an advantage to the customer if they are reflected
in the bottom line. A tad lighter for the racers too.
I assume your objection is that bar height is so
much harder to set.
> Best
>
> David "not a Schwinn shareholder, honest" Feldman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
> To: "Diane Feldman" <feldmanbike@home.com>
> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 8:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [CR]RE: Frame
> size/saddle-height/handlebar height
>
>
> > David,
> > To characterize consumers as "suckers" simply
> because
> > they buy what is made available to them might be
> bit
> > unfair. Perhaps you are simply suggesting that
> the
> > bike industry (and the publications that are
> supported
> > by it) is not putting customers' needs first these
> > days. I would have to agree with that. But, I
> bet
> > it's a lot easier to point to Lance Armstrong's
> Trek,
> > say "it weighs 18 pounds and has 18 gears and he
> won
> > the Tour de France," than to say "you're old, over
> > weight, and you're no Lance Armstrong. Your
> > requirements are nothing like his. To obtain a
> > posture that your tired body is capable of
> > maintaining, you need a bigger frame. Given that
> you
> > don't have a personal mechanic or an unlimited
> supply
> > of chains and freewheels, and considering that you
> > don't know how to properly select your gears
> anyway,
> > you don't need 9-speed STI... "
> >
> > To be sure, significant forces in the bike
> industry
> > are selling customers gear that will ultimately
> hinder
> > their progress as riders and drive them away from
> the
> > sport. These are the companies that sold everyone
> > MTB's (yuk) and then fully-suspended MTB's
> > (double-uck) and now nobody is buying much of
> > anything. They didn't enjoy cycling, even after
> they
> > bought in to the $2000 Y-bike. They've moved on.
> Go
> > figure. The bike industry certainly shoots itself
> in
> > the foot now and again.
> >
> > Getting back to the poor consumer, how can we
> blame
> > him or her? Without significant experience, or
> honest
> > advice from someone with significant experience,
> he or
> > she is left to use what's most readily available.
> > This leads me to a certain gripe I have about
> > attitudes voiced by some CRer's and other Retro
> types:
> > Is it reasonable to expect that people will go
> out of
> > their way to track down out-of-production
> equipment to
> > "enhance" their riding experiece, when what most
> > people care about is the ride and not the
> asthetics,
> > history, nostalgia, etc. that drives us to our
> strange
> > pursuit? Really, if I'm going for any
> half-serious
> > ride I ain't packing friction shifting, toeclips,
> or
> > tubulars, be sure of that. The new stuff is
> simply
> > better. If I ever get back to the point where I'm
> > riding more than twice a week, I'll be 9-speed
> STI'ing
> > as soon as I can afford it. Aside from that fact
> that
> > such systems provide performance advantages over
> my
> > current 7-speed downtube system, I just don't want
> to
> > have to hunt down old style Campy axles and NOS
> > 7-speed freewheels when I inevitably need them. I
> > don't have the time or the money to use and
> maintain
> > collectable equipment. I'll save it for the
> ocasional
> > nostalgia ride.
> >
> > BTW- It was Rodale Press. Now it's Rodale Inc.
> Since
> > they fired everyone who actually rode a bike,
> Bicyling
> > has become a bigger rag than ever. I can't tell
> ad
> > from editorial anymore. But are they really a
> > significant influence on consumers? I think shop
> > employees and fellow riders have a lot more
> influence
> > here. Most people are smart enough to see
> Bicycling
> > for what it is.
> >
> > Tom Dalton
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com> wrote:
> > > And it's why most recreational riders are
> suckers if
> > > they let themselves get
> > > scammed into buying the newest types of road
> bikes
> > > by bike companies or
> > > Rodale Publishing!
> > > David Feldman
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Andrew & Merilee Gillis"
> > > <apgmaa@earthlink.net>
> > > To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:01 PM
> > > Subject: [CR]RE: Frame
> size/saddle-height/handlebar
> > > height
> > >
> > >
> > > > To all CR's:
> > > >
> > > > I want to thank Tom Dalton for his thorough
> and
> > > well reasoned coverage of
> > > > the issue of modern vs retro saddle height
> (and
> > > handlebar height). I only
> > > > want to add a few items to his list (IMHO):
> > > >
> > > > 1. My copy of Bernard Hinault's (& Claude
> > > Genzling's) book "Road Racing
> > > > Technique and Training" comments on pg 101
> > > (Climbing, seated back) :
> > > >
> > > > "The position for flat riding that we
> described
> > > earlier is also good for
> > > > climbing, especially because the saddle is
> high.
> > > If road riders used to
> > > > feel they had to raise their saddles for
> mountain
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/