Stevan wrote:
> That is a debatable value judgment, not a fact. Despite some quirky
products,
> Tullio's contribution to cycling dwarfs Frank's.
What contribution has Frank Berto made to cycling?
> I have Berto's book and
> appreciate it, but Frank is not the ultimate authority.
I too have the book 'The Dancing Chain' and find it to be a very valuable
resource, however it should be pointed out that Frank Berto's role in this
book was that of co-author with Raymond Henry and Ron Shepherd. The whole
concept and the largest part of the background work was seemingly launched
by the Australian Ron Shepherd. The third co-author, Raymond Henry, took
much of the information already collected previously for another book to be
added into this new book. It should also be noted that the book is actually
made up of two distinct parts, with Ron and Frank each being responsible for
one part each. The first of the two parts was contributed by Ron. Raymond
Henry contributed in an important way to both parts when there was specific
discussion of France. While still in Italy, I translated a good part of the
book dealing with Italy and shared it with my 'older' collector friends (of
which many are now well into their 80's and with more than 70 years of
lightweight riding, racing and collecting) While they did come across the
occasional point that they did not agree with in Ron's part of the book, as
a whole they stated that they could only support the historical validity of
the book. The second, and therefore more recent part was not as readily
accepted by these old-timers. They found an incredibly large number of
inconsistencies and errors in the parts dealing with Italy. My own
experience also reflected this same feeling that the 'Berto' part was far
less accurately edited and researched. It was also far more based on
personal observations and beliefs rather than hard fact. Having worked for
Dow Jones/The Wall Street Journal as my first job out of college, I know
that such opinionated writing does not make for terribly valid historical
reporting. I have therefore always accepted Berto's writing as merely the
beliefs of a rather opinionated person. My personal read on 'reality' is
that Frank Berto was indeed one of the first people to attempt to rationally
quantify the functioning of bicycle components. In the way he concentrated
almost solely on mechanical properties, I feel he lost touch with the
greater truth of how these components were actually used in everyday life.
> He and a number of
> his associates actively dislike Campagnolo products. I met them at the
Velo
> Sport 40th anniversary party and their dislike of Campagnolo products
> approaches religious fervor. They are certainly allowed their preferences
and
> are free to not use Campagnolo parts, however, my own experience of over
30
> years of using the stuff is the exact opposite of theirs.
I feel that anybody who blindly believes that one or another of the major high-end component makers is always best or always worse is simply unrealistic. Almost all of my bikes have a mix of component makers. With regards to pre-index, hence list time-specific, Campagnolo/Shimano componentry, my personal experience has shown an advantage for Campagnolo in hubs, pedals, brakes and derailleurs (for durability alone as I find both to shift acceptably well) and for Shimano in headsets, chainsets and seatposts. In the post list-specific period, I feel that both have had their periods and areas of superiority and that much of the difference to be found are more personal preference than anything else.
I guess that this comment has undoubtedly opened a can of worms, but then to be able to form your own informed opinions, any good journalist will tell you that you must first know both sides of the story.
Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ
---