Tom,
ZING!! Ouch, a Shimano fan. I'll pass on debating component company allegiances, thank you. Not a big fan of worms, canned or otherwise. Personally I'd be inclined towards frogs before I looked to the East. Besides, we're fans of the "old stuff", are we not?
Brian Baylis La Mesa, CA Also, I won't tangle with anyone I haven't met in person; you never know, we actually might like each other.
>
> Brian Baylis wrote:The industry has been all about marketing ever since Shimano put the pedal to the metal.
>
> Dalton wrote: Ever since they provided a good alternative to Campy with the 7400 group?
>
> Brian Baylis wrote: They (the industry) should have stopped at the 7 speed cassette period in my opinion. From there it's been all about who comes out with the next higher number of cogs and how many times they can use the words "carbon fiber and titanium" while pitching their groups, and then jamming it down everyone's throat.
>
> Yes, Campy has definitely way out-Shimanoed Shimano, particularly by going to 10 speed. Worse still, they did it right after going to 9, instead of milking the 9-speed cow for a while. Maybe it's good because it was such a pathetic reaction that Shimano would look petty by trying to go further.
>
> As for Ti and carbon silliness, that's a Campy thing. Shimano is the more conservative company. Sad, huh?
>
> Tom Dalton
>
> Bethlehem, PA
>
>
>
> "The industry must survive so that many will have jobs; but what's next, electronic shifting???? ;-)!
>
> Chuck et all,
>
> Just a little something for us commoners to think about when considering
> the issue of weight. The pros make their living by winning or losing.
> EVERYTHING is important under those circumstances. But we, unlike Lance
> and the boys, have to PAY for our equiptment. We also expect to own the
> bike for a long period of time, which these guys don't. If the bike
> makes it through the season, and they sometimes don't, they couldn't
> care less. There's another one to take it's place, free! People in that
> position can afford to obsess over miniscule amounts of weight because
> it's skin off of someone elses' behind. If you are a modern racer and
> expect to think and act like the big dogs; the notion leaves as soon as
> you have to pay for everything that doesn't work or brakes in short
> order. Racing ain't cheap, uless you're a trackie; then you might get by
> with a pair or two of tires per season. No one seems overly concerned
> about weight at the track under most circumstances. Old bikes do the
> trick quite well at the velodrome. Any wonder why I raced the track for
> my last few seasons? The insanity of yearly component changes etc. is
> practically not there.
>
> My feeling is if you race or like to ride that way then get one bike for
> that and spend the rest of your cake on classic stuff that is actually
> more practical to own from my view. It will also maintain it's value
> over the years whereas your modern bike is already a loss right out the
> door.
>
> I gave up in disgust with the "bike industry" when 10 speed cassettes
> became a reality. Sure, if you race then you are driven to "keep up with
> the Jones"; but what about the rest of us? The industry has been all
> about marketing ever since Shimano put the pedal to the metal. They (the
> industry) should have stopped at the 7 speed cassette period in my
> opinion. From there it's been all about who comes out with the next
> higher number of cogs and how many times they can use the words "carbon
> fiber and titanium" while pitching their groups, and then jamming it
> down everyone's throat. The industry must survive so that many will have
> jobs; but what's next, electronic shifting???? ;-)!
>
> I like the bicycle mainly because it is a simple and effecient machine
> that is designed to work in harmony with the human being at the
> controls. When the components become so complex, incompatable, and non
> user servicable and shortlived as they are rapidly becomming; I lose
> interest in them. Might as well have a motorcycle or a car at that
> point. For the bike industry to have come to this is inescapble; but it
> doesn't mean I have to follow along or even like it. If others choose to
> keep pace with the madness then be my guest; it's simply no longer for
> me. I grow more fond of the old ways each passing day. Not on account of
> nostalgia, I'm not really into that; it's only because I like things
> simple and easy to work on. There isn't any bike part I couldn't work on
> if I wanted to; but what's the point when so much good stuff is still at
> hand to use? Modern bikes deserve modern parts. I can even see building
> a classic frame for modern parts, the best of both worlds if you see it
> that way; but I won't be building anything for myself for modern parts.
> Hard to explain, but I just don't like the stuff. If someone wants to
> send me a free modern group to try and change my mind I'll gladly beat
> it up for them; it might even change my mind a little bit. One thing for
> sure though, I will not buy a modern group for myself ever again.
>
> Becomming obsessed with weight as a common man seems a bit over the top
> to me. Not that I pass judgment on those who like to carry on so, but
> I'll pass on it myself. I know what weight conscienceness is all about;
> I used to be a time trialer in my early days. It's fun to a point if one
> has a purpose. But to do it to keep pace with your "friends" is what the
> marketing types want from you; not that there's anything wrong with
> that. For you, not for me. I know "the industry" does not benifit from
> our interest in vintage stuff; to damn bad! My priorities are directed
> elsewhere.
>
> Brian Baylis
> La Mesa, CA
>
> Anyone have a topic that is not a hotpotato? UMMMMMMM.......donuts.
> >
> > Like I said, "Counts? Lance Armstrong is certainly concerned over it
> > and thinks it does." Maybe you should be asking Lance why he feels that way.
> >
> > Chuck Schmidt
> > SoPas, SoCal
> >
> > "Steven L. Sheffield" wrote:
> > >
> > > Joseba Beloki's Team ONCE Giant weighed less than Lance's Trek 5900.
> > >
> > > So why didn't Beloki win the Tour?
> > >
> > > Hmm ... those ounces must not have made that much of a difference.
> > >
> > > --------
> > > On
> > > Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:17:25 -0700 Chuck Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich Rose wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Chuck Schmidt wrote, in part:
> > > >
> > > > "Modern bicycles are all about weight, which is just
> > > > one of the reasons lug steel construction is moot. And with modern
> > > > bicycles (we are talking about racing bicycles I assume) 3 oz count."
> > > >
> > > > My response: Really?? 3 oz. of non-rotational weight counts? As in the
> > > > difference between winning & loosing?
> > > > Richard (non-believer) Rose
> > >
> > > Yes, if you are talking about the top racing bikes in the TdF peloton
> > > (and that's what I talking about) 3 oz., rotational, non-rotational, is
> > > obsessed over.
> > >
> > > Counts? Lance Armstrong is certainly concerned over it and thinks it does.
> > >
> > > Chuck Schmidt
> > > SoPas, SoCal
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Steven L. Sheffield
> > > stevens at veloworks dot com
> > > veloworks at mac dot com
> > > aitch tea tee pea colon double-slash double-ewe double-you double-yew dot veloworks dot com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! News - Today's headlines