Jerry Moos wrote:
> I doubt that Campagnolo would have survived had they not been able to sell
top of the
> line products to American buyers whose abilites would have been as well
> served by lesser equipment.
I disagree, I believe it was the American market that is most responsible of any market in the world for all of the bad times experienced by Campagnolo. It was the US market that allowed the attrocity which are mountain bikes become accepted as standard fare for beginning cyclists. This has done more to keep people away from cycling than anything else in my opinion. The less people becoming hooked on cycling as youngsters means that fewer will develop into serious cyclists which have always been the market for Campagnolo. The US and supposed 'expert' gurus like Frank Berto have also done the darndest to devalue the durability, quality and rebuildability of components that were Campagnolo hallmarks. Try and find older versions of those Suntour and Shimano derailleurs that were so highy lauded by Berto's ilk back in the 70's and 80's. It is not a question of 'mojo' but of real durability. The US is also much more inclined to follow trends and styles than Europe. If you look at the dark periods in Campagnolo's history, you will always see that the biggest percentage drop was in the US. Their place in Europe has always remained relatively stable and strong. It would be interesting to know exactly what percentage of world Campagnolo sales were ensured by the US. Perhaps we can find out some numbers for 1960, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000. What the US market does 'better' than anywhere else is buying the top-of-the-line models. Instead of Valentino or Gran Sport, they will gravitate to a full Record gruppo.
I suppose that I have written enough controversial statements above to get some response.
Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ
---