Wow, where to start here.
My thinking is that Campagnolo went down hill after the old man died. Also, Mike Sinyard was for sure the largest seller of Campagnolo in the world when I went to work there in 1982. So the USA market was very important to Campi from the mid '70's.
I went to Italy many times in the '80's and got to meet with Valentino at the factory. I don't agree that Frank Berto gave Campagnolo their problems. Far from it, they needed someone to push them. One time I went to see the factory, I got to go everywhere. Two things stood out for me. 1) I saw no real R & D. I think Tulio was so strong no one else was allowed to follow him. Valentino did not have an easy time as his son. OK guy, but no passion. 2) No CNC machines at all. Brand new factory, but no modern tools. One fabrication detail that they were really proud of was how the pedals were put together. A big strong guy with a hammer and punch put the pedal side plates on by hitting the rivet! No way would Shimano even dream of doing this kind of thing.
No, I think the attitude was of arrogance. When we (Specialized, their largest customer) gave some feedback about how something they made could be improved Campi just ignored the advice. "We are the center of the world and no one can tell us about the bicycle". Shimano at the time had maybe 200 top engineers in R & D. They did not have this kind of problem of not listening to the customer either.
Sure the NR/SR parts are the best for the time they were made. But they could have been improved. If Shimano had not pushed the envelope of road bike part design we would not have the wonderful parts both companies make today.
Jim Merz Bainbridge Is. WA
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of The Maaslands Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:07 AM To: Classic Rendezvous Subject: [CR]Campagnolo survival
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
---