If memory serves me right, Bicycling Magazine in the 1970's did a piece on crank failure looking at a sampling of failed arms. If I recall, there were a lot of broken stronglites (near the pedal). Its all kinda fuzzy, but I'd be carefull about getting overly optimistic about the longevity of high model Stronglite cranks. I believe the main offender was the 49D. Mike Kone
At 05:54 PM 4/20/01 -0400, Moos, Jerry wrote:
>I've never seen a Stronglight cracked at the spider like a Campy NR. They
>did occasionally seize up on the axle and could not be removed without
>extensive damage - I've experienced that myself. They did also sometimes
>crack at the pedal hole, but I'll bet new cranks do that too, as the pedal
>thread is a big-time stress riser on any crank.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jerry Moos
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bicycle Classics inc [mailto:bikevint@tiac.net]
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:15 PM
>To: Moos, Jerry; 'walter skrzypek'; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: RE: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>
>
>A few comments on Jerry's comments.
>
>Stronglite cranks, I believe, were known for breaking - in fact, my guess
>is that serious racers would probably break more Stronglite than Campy mile
>for mile. I just have that in memory from somewhere.
>
>New frames can do things that older ones can't. A current builder can do
>things with oversize tubing that that they couldn't with the available
>tubing 20 years ago. You can still make a gorgeous lugged frame with
>oversize tubes - but finding nifty lugs is tricky. Note that some British
>and French builders (i.e Rene Herse) were using oversize tubes in the 50's
>if not earlier. Unfortunatly, there just wasn't much tube and lug
>availability in the non-standard sizes a long time ago. Some builders
>would simply manufacture their own lugs and bb shells. With the
>availability of modern steel alloys, it is possible to use thinner wall
>sections today and create bikes with both more comfort and quickness - the
>performance frontier has shifted out.
>
>While threadless headsets seem ugly and less functional, they do have the
>advantage of being really quick to change. Some can be flipped around for
>very significant changes in rise in only a moment. Many riders cannot find
>that their optimal position might change over a season - and threadless
>stems offer much easier changes in reach than threaded ones provide.
>Again, the threadless ahead type stem is nothing new - a varient of that
>can be seen on ebay right now - a Daudon ahead type stem that works on
>1950's French bikes!
>
>Ergo type shifting is hardly necessary, but it is fun. Compatibility
>issues as Jerry says really do stink. If one looks back in the Data book
>there are two or three efforts by the early 1950's for integrated brake
>lever and shifter systems (one in the book shows a brake lever, shifter,
>and bell all in one unit for a handicapped rider - as a friend says - "BUT
>EVEN TODAY SHIMANO DOESN'T HAVE THE BELL!" Ergo I think is a nice
>contribution for some bikes - but it is why over hyped.
>
>Jerry hits it right on with wheel weight. If someone in 1970 was to say
>that hubs would have 10 cogs on them and that rims would be 140 grams
>heavier they'd be called a nut. It is nuts. We've had manufacturers of
>high-tech wheels tell us its nuts. We've had "founders" of cutting edge
>titanium frame companies tell us its nuts.
>
>Why does this crazy wheel thing persist? I think it has to do with the
>demise of tubulars. From observation, you can't make a clincher rim that
>weighs much under 400g hold up, but you can make a sub 300g tubular rim
>that is somewhat well behaved. If nobody rides tubulars, than let the rim
>weights go to $@(#. Oh well, tubulars still rule!
>
>Mike Kone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 09:04 AM 4/20/01 -0400, Moos, Jerry wrote:
>>I think this has been discussed before several times, but here is my
>>opinion, FWIW:
>>
>>Frames: New frames are lighter, but much uglier, lack eyelets or clearance
>>for racks or mudguards, the typical TIGed ones can't be repaired, and the
>>aluminum ones don't last nearly as long as the old steel ones. Old is
>>better.
>>
>>Wheels: The one component where weight matters the most, the rim, is now
>>much heavier in order to withstand the greater dish of a 10 speed rear.
>Old
>>is better.
>>
>>Shifters and Derailleurs: Modern marketing hype at its worst. This year's
>>Campy is not only incompatible with Shimano, but also with last year's
>>Campy. Can you say "planned obsolesence"? No compatibility, no
>>interchangeability, damn few replacement parts. The user must buy a new
>>drivetrain when one part wears out - marketing Nirvana. Easier to shift
>for
>>an absolute novice, but hardly worth the tradeoffs. Old is better.
>>
>>Bars & stems: New bars are probably stronger, though uglier. Stems,
>>especially threadless, have very little height adjustment and many don't
>>come shorter than 100mm. Old stems are better, new bars are better if you
>>don't care about appearence.
>>
>>Cranks: New cranks don't crack like old Campy, but neither did old
>>Stronglight. The new cranks aren't even too ugly, though they do all look
>>alike. Grant Petersen's "Q-factor" theory aside, I'd say cranks are a
>>tossup.
>>
>>Pedals: Clipless pedals are more efficient, but less versatile. They also
>>can malfunction. Anyone watch Paris-Roubaix on OLN on Easter and see the
>>Telecom rider Wesemans trying to stay in the lead break with a pedal that
>>kept releasing every km or two because of mud? With toe clips he might
>have
>>won the race. New is better if you never get off the bike in the middle of
>>a ride or encounter mud, otherwise I vote for old.
>>
>>Brakes: OK, no one is all bad. Modern dual pivots do stop better, let's
>>face it. New is better.
>>
>>Tires: Modern clinchers are sturdier for a given weight and don't blow off
>>rims like some old ones. Kevlar belts really do work for rough or
>>debris-strewn roads. Yeah, handmade silk sewups have a better feel, but
>for
>>99% of riders, new is better. I don't care for the neon colors, but some
>>new tires are available in black.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Jerry Moos
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: walter skrzypek [mailto:wspokes1@hotmail.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:04 PM
>>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>Subject: Re: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>>
>>
>>
>>I was born into cycling into the new-age(1989). No Classic introduction.
>>BUT, once I started riding the current bikes and always being able to get
>>the newest and nicest from the folks shop. I started checking out the older
>
>>classics and took a few for a ride. I was amazed at the difference. I agree
>
>>there are some newer things I favor and have nothing against. But on the
>>classic side, I favor many more items. I also have to make a note that with
>
>>the advent of 8,9, and 10 speeds. I guarentee that you will whizz through
>>cassettes and chains many times faster than with the older freewheels. We
>>are now in a business market where companies need to sell more to stay
>>alive, just as well as come up with new technology so that they continue to
>
>>attract the many new users and techno-weenies out there. They try to push
>>new stuff out all the time...so that the technos can have there fix. The
>>bike companies understand that when technology changes, the demand for the
>>new will also increase and the people want more...so they continue to buy.
>>As the present stock market is also showing, there does come a time when
>>things will come to a plateau. I do not believe the newer equipment is made
>
>>for the long haul. It is not made to last. After all the companies want us
>>to go and upgrade when the item begins to fatigue and show wear. I know my
>8
>>
>>speed cassettes in top shape don't hold a candle to the older freewheels
>>when it comes to durability. Of course there are always exceptions. I
>>actually got into classics when I caught myself going to the bike shows and
>
>>beginning to roll my eyes at half the newer stuff I was seeing. I found
>>myself surrounded by these generation X'ers and other industry gurus who
>>oooooo and ahhhhhh at everything they peered at as I searched for the
>>reliable and found nothing. This is where the desire to expand upon my
>>knowledge of the classics was born. So therefore I guess in that effect,
>the
>>
>>new stuff does sometimes stem a better appreciation for the classics.
>>Because we desire for those lost days of simplicity. Like I said, I am not
>a
>>
>>retro grouch by any means, I find the silver lining among the new clouds
>but
>>
>>I learn to appreciate the old much more also.
>>
>>enjoy the day
>>Walt Skrzypek
>>Falls Creek, Pa
>>
>>>From: Brandon Ives <monkey37@bluemarble.net>
>>>To: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
>>>CC: Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>>Subject: Re: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:29:23 -0500 (EST)
>>>
>>>Sory but I'll have to side with Dave on this one. Tom, Dave and I are old
>>>industry people and he has been doing it twice as long as I have so I can
>>>say we've known hundreds, maybe thousands, of shop folk. Most shop people
>>>who aren't in it
>>>for the pro deal ride stuff that they bought at a pro deal a few years
>>>before. Almost every shop has someone like most of the list members who
>>>ride the old stuff because it appeals to them. I'll put money that if you
>>>surveyed all the shops with more than 8 people working in them the numbers
>>>would be as follows. This only concerns "riding" bikes, not ones on the
>>>collections.
>>>60% would be on MTB's
>>>30% would be on some kind of newish road bike, no more than 5 years old.
>>>5% on high-zoot racing machines
>>>5% on something classic
>>>
>>>enjoy,
>>>Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
>>>
>>>"Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would
>>>get done." Gil Scott-Heron
>>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Tom Dalton wrote:
>>>
>>> > >>>>There are reasons that men and women working in
>>> > bike stores ride older equipment, or the older forms
>>> > of newer stuff--familiarity in some cases sure doesn't
>>> > breed greater endearment.
>>> >
>>> > In general, I'd say shop employees are about the most
>>> > likely people to have the latest stuff. An alarming
>>> > number of shop employees are relatively new to riding
>>> > and are on their first or second bike. Often they
>>> > jump on a new bike during their first year (read
>>> > "summer") of employment, thrilled by getting new stuff
>>> > at or below cost. The folks riding the old stuff are
>>> > usually the people who have been around the longest
>>> > amnd have gotten over the "stuff at cost" issue.
>>> > These people are also often so sick of bikes that they
>>> > no longer ride. In any case, I think that you might
>>> > be confusing the ideal of a shop employee
>>> > (knowledgeable, experienced, enthusiastic rider) with
>>> > the average reality (inexperienced newbie mountain
>>> > biker).
>>> >
>>> > >>>>>>I'll go out on a potentially offensive limb here
>>> > and say that the folks who really, truly know the most
>>> > about bikes are often the biggest skeptics about new
>>> > modes of equipment.
>>> >
>>> > I think the people who know the most are the people
>>> > who ride the most, and these people usually ride what
>>> > is avaiable until they wear it out. Then they replace
>>> > it with the current equivalent. Are the new gizmos
>>> > worse than the old gizmos? Rarely. Are they about
>>> > the same? Sometimes. But the general trend is toward
>>> > improving the equipment. Is some of that improvement
>>> > totally unnecessary and driven by marketing concerns?
>>> > Sure, but the top end gear is developed for use by
>>> > racers and is developed with their input. If a
>>> > product doesn't work they or their mechanics will
>>> > reject it. Sounds starry-eyed, but based on what you
>>> > see pros riding, there is ample reason to believe it.
>>> > Of course I've shifted the arguement toward what works
>>> > best for elite riders, but I'll say that most of what
>>> > benefits them benefits riders at far lower levels.
>>> >
>>> > >>>>I'll bet one gent on this list who has a
>>> > magnificent collection of old and new rigs rides the
>>> > old stuff often because it can need working on less
>>> > often!
>>> >
>>> > The new suff does not violate the laws of physics. In
>>> > order for modern drivetrains to do what they do (shift
>>> > among 9 or 10 cogs, near-flawlessly, in or out of the
>>> > saddle, with hand on the bars) the drivetrain needs to
>>> > be clean and precisely adjusted. Given precise initial
>>> > setup and some routine cleaning, the stuff requires
>>> > little other maintenance. The decreased need to
>>> > overhaul hubs, bbs and headsets probably offsets any
>>> > added drivtrain cleaning requirements.
>>> >
>>> > Tom Dalton
>>> >
>>> > --- Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com> wrote:
>>> > > I used to work at a large bike store that sold the
>>> > > products of an, ah,
>>> > > empire of multiple bike brands. Under different
>>> > > names the companies sold us
>>> > > steel, aluminum, and carbon fiber bikes. The
>>> > > defects in the carbon and
>>> > > aluminum frames outnumbered the problems in steel
>>> > > bikes by at least ten to
>>> > > one. There is a lot of merchandise on the market
>>> > > that is lighter and more
>>> > > fashionable but just doesn't get down and do the job
>>> > > as well as some older
>>> > > items. There are reasons that men and women working
>>> > > in bike stores ride
>>> > > older equipment, or the older forms of newer
>>> > > stuff--familiarity in some
>>> > > cases sure doesn't breed greater endearment.
>>> > > I'll go out on a potentially offensive limb here and
>>> > > say that the folks who
>>> > > really, truly know the most about bikes are often
>>> > > the biggest skeptics about
>>> > > new modes of equipment. I'll bet one gent on this
>>> > > list who has a
>>> > > magnificent collection of old and new rigs rides the
>>> > > old stuff often because
>>> > > it can need working on less often!
>>> > >
>>> > > David Feldman
>>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > > From: "garth libre" <rabbitman@mindspring.com>
>>> > > To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>>> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:25 PM
>>> > > Subject: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Intrigued by this submission, I thought I would
>>> > > offer my response: Clipless
>>> > > pedals are a definite plus, but they were available
>>> > > in the mid 80's.
>>> > > Aluminum frames were available at that time too, but
>>> > > they are substantially
>>> > > cheaper now - However, in general, I do not find
>>> > > them to be better, just
>>> > > different. (Lighter with a discomfort price).
>>> > > Seatposts have not improved at
>>> > > all. Hubs have not improved, and I absolutely fail
>>> > > to see how threadless
>>> > > headsets or integral whatever are better. Stems
>>> > > allow you to swap handlebars
>>> > > easily, but are so ugly that they are like a visit
>>> > > from Frankenstein. Tires
>>> > > may or may not be an improvement; My memory should
>>> > > not be trusted on this
>>> > > one. I swear that shifting seems about the same.
>>> > > Braking is the same.
>>> > > Shifting from the drops: Are we fooling ourselves on
>>> > > this one? I have no
>>> > > trouble shifting in a race situation with downtube
>>> > > shifters. My rhythm is
>>> > > not thrown off, except if I need to shift in a turn.
>>> > > This is the one point
>>> > > that might have to be considered some kind of an
>>> > > improvement. However, my
>>> > > track training teaches me that one is often better
>>> > > off staying in one gear
>>> > > anyway, and certainly in a training situation,
>>> > > single gear training without
>>> > > freewheeling is hard to beat. So many road riders,
>>> > > in my area, are such poor
>>> > > riders with such high tech equipment, that I dare
>>> > > say that I do not feel
>>> > > intimidated with my downtube shifters and elegant
>>> > > lugged steel frame.
>>> > > Overall for function: Modern aluminum Sti bike
>>> > > scores an 8, 80's premium
>>> > > tubing, downtube- shifted bike scores an 8. For
>>> > > beauty: Modern bike scores a
>>> > > 4, 80's premium tubing lugged classic scores a 9.
>>> > > Sorry, I give it to the
>>> > > Classic, the Aluminum bike is the "weakest link".
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Classicrendezvous mailing list
>>> > > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>> > >
>>> > http://www.bikelist.org/
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Classicrendezvous mailing list
>>> > > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>> > >
>>> > http://www.bikelist.org/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > __________________________________________________
>>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>>> > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
>>> > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
>>> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>> > http://www.bikelist.org/
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>>>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous