The autoshifting of early Vitus frames was not only due to light weight, but also atrocious alignment on some early Vitus frames. I had a Motobecane-badged Vitus that I had to return due to bad alignment. ALAN aluminum frames were much better.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
> Tom & All,
>
> I remember in 1986, I wanted an aluminum bike and would have loved to buy
a
> Klein, but you are so correct! The Kleins were mega bucks more expensive
> than "C-Dales." I was fortunate to be living in South Carolina at the
time
> and would drive up to Wilmington NC to visit 4 Wheeler Dealer, where Trek,
> Cannondale, Vitus and I forget what else (no Kleins however) was sold. I
> would spend hours on test rides, hating the ride of Cannondales, the most
> brutal ride I can remember (I have not ridden CAAD 4's & 5's & 6's!!).
The
> Treks were much less so, but lacked feel. I settled on a Vitus, and while
it
> was fine on the flat lands of Coastal Carolina, when I returned to the
> mountains of the Northeast, some good old fashioned climbing out of the
> saddle produced "auto shifts!!" Of course, the knowledgeable staff @ 4WD,
> warned that I was a bit heavy @170# for the Vitus!!
>
> Up in this part of the country (upstate NY) I see more Cannondales, Treks
and
> Serottas than anything else............
>
> Your comment about bicycle weight (frame weight really) reminds me of what
> Keith Bontrager used to say: "most of the weight people need to lose is
not
> in the frame!!"
>
> Also, Grant Petersen's analysis of total weight vs. frame weight
differences
> is enlightening as well, where the difference in a frame weighing 2.7# &
one
> at 5.0# may be 50-54%, adding all the equipment and a 180# rider brings
the
> total weight difference to something like 2-4%.
>
> Time to go wheel out a 30 yr old "boat anchor!!!"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chuck Brooks
> Malta, NY