I tend to agree, although I prefer the aesthetics of NR or Stronglight/Simplex to C Record. A matter of taste, and there wasn't a tremendous difference in performance. As I said before, for me the pinnacle was when we developed light reliable clincher wheels and derailers that would handle serious climbing gears. The bikes then would do everything it was reasonable to expect of them.
I suppose the issue with componentry is where to mark the crucial point when the "advancements" extract too high a cost from the rider. 8 speed cogs with the concomitant 130 mm rear ends and indexed shifting mark the end of the golden years for me. New aero wheel designs are rapidly rising on my list, too.
Now it pains me to admit it, but Ergo does have it's uses. Great on a tandem where letting go of the bars is risky. And does everyone agree that brake lever shifting is an advantage for the serious racer? I seem to recall Davis Phinney saying the ability to shift to a bigger gear half way through the sprint safely with Ergo was the most significant equipment change he experienced in his carreer. A person with friction shift DT levers would be at a disadvantage. And if you like to ride with the most modern gear, ain't nothing wrong with that (but what are you doing on this list?:>) But I resent having my choices restricted when I consider the new tech a step backwards.
There is a cost in complexity, weight, expense and reliability to the new stuff. The last time I looked (and it's been a while since I saw DT shifters featured by a retailer or a catalog), there was almost a 200 gram penalty in the brake lever/shifter combos as compared to regular levers and shifters. And you had to spend more for the heavier gear! Who was the US road racer at the Sydney Olympics who dropped out because she flatted, and her replacement wheel wouldn't index? There was no friction option that would have kept her in the race. Unless you are a serious racer, I question whether the ergo-STI stuff is "better" considered as a whole. Not to mention the planned obsolescence. Tried to buy Shimano 8 speed STI shifters lately? And how reliable will 20 spoke wheels be on long rides? If you potato chip a wheel, can you jump up and down on the rim to reflatten it, do a rough true, flip open the infinite quick release on your campy brakes and ride her home? Heck, with the mega spoke tension on those boys, how soon before some one gets skewered by a broken spoke?
But I try to not be a reactionary retro grouch. If new tech improves the riding experience, then use it. Helmets are much better now than 20 years ago. Has anyone else noticed remarkably improved performance from bar end shifters when used with no-flex STI cable housings? I had abandoned bar cons years ago because of the mushy shifting with the spriral steel housings: now I'm planning to convert several of my classic bikes over after getting a set of Dia Tech pods from Rivendell and fitting my touring rig with "do it yerself" bar cons (and yes, my growing girth and sore back that makes it harder to bend down to the down tube shifters is a factor :>).
And I'm sure there are more innovations out there after 1980 that improve riding w/o compromising the integrity/reliability of a bike. But it's the unnecessary complexity that I feel the "industry" is trying to force upon me that makes me even more adamant about riding my "old fashioned" bikes. Friction forever!
Tom Adams, in Kansas City
> Man, of course, is used in the human context, not the gender context. :)
>
> I believe most on this list would probably agree that the pinnacle of the
> vintage lightweight era frame-wise is the hand-crafted, lugged frame
> (despite the fact that the nuances of that can also be debated, probably
> forever). So that leaves the components. Of course, in this area, there
> are probably a lot of opinions that are influenced more by individual
bias,
> preference and taste than other factors. That said, I have to agree with
> Wes and Tom (sorry Chuck) that the original C-Record components are the
> pinnacle (described by Webster as the highest point of development or
> achievement) of the lightweight era, component-wise. I've always wondered
> why so many discussions end with Super Record. Is it the Campy time-line
> thing? Or the ethereal 1985 cut-off date (sorry Dale)? C-Record was the
> evolution of Campy's then-current component development, just prior to
what
> might be described as the RE-development era, which sort of started the
> process all over again with somewhat new and different directions
(indexing
> et al). Of course, Campy didn't really get serious about indexing until
> they made the move to the slant-parallelogram derailleur design sometime
> later. The C-Record "Doppler" shifters were definitely the pinnacle of
> friction shifter development. The C-Record component group, as a whole,
> with Cobalto brakes, those great shifters (were they a year later?), that
> beautiful shield-engraved rear derailleur, aero or non-aero cable routing
> and integrated crankarm/chainring mounting bolt, was simply the high
point -
> pinnacle - of that development phase. Yes, there were some flaws - I'm
> talking about the group as a coordinated, functional entity. It was the
> best all-around group of components (functionally, ergonomically,
visually)
> I had experienced at the time (and I don't think I'm alone). Indeed, I
> played with Campy's indexing system, as well as Shimano's (theirs worked,
> Campy's didn't, at least not to my satisfaction), and lots of other bits
and
> pieces (many small gems there too), but I primarily rode that early Campy
> C-Record stuff through all that. Worked great, looked great, was easy to
> service and was reliable, at least for me (and a lot of others, it seems).
> Didn't really make any change until I finally tried Campy's Ergo system
> (that's right, blasphemy, but I'm never going back, not on what I ride
> everyday). Anyway, I have to go with the early C-Record-as-pinnacle flow,
> and I'll try and bring something so-equipped to the Cirque for
> contemplation.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
>
> I guess that's more then two cents worth.....
>
> Wayne Bingham