I think the lack of finish on the Campagnolo bar end shift lever was because within a year or two of them being introduced (1951 intro) Campagnolo added the rubber covers.
Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal
Stevan Thomas wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/15/03 11:04:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> monkeylad@mac.com writes:
>
> > Add me to that list too. I wouldn't be surprised if Campagnolo made them
> > poorly on purpose to make people go back to downtube shifters. Someone
> > mentioned a bunch of modifications you could do to the shifters to make
> > them work better. I've done most of them at one time or another and they do
> > help. I prefer to judge parts in their unmodified state since most parts
> > can be made better with some modification.
> >
>
> I know you're kidding! Everyone knows that Campy made their "levers for
> handlebars" BEFORE they made downtube levers. I'm not sure when exactly that
> was, but I think it was 1949 or 1950, and the design has been unchanged since
> (until they made the 8 speed ones). There is a principle here: simple
> mechanism = complicated set up, complicated mechanism = simple set up. The
> Campy parts couldn't be simpler. If you don't do the complicated set up,
> they'll stink. The SunTour bar control is a complicated part (just try to buy
> spare parts) that installs easily and works very well for those who like
> them. Sometimes it's just preference. However, the Campagnolo controls are
> not poorly made. That original question had to do with how the forging flash
> was ground off the levers and that they didn't look as "finished" as the
> average Campy part.
> Remembering that Tullio was a working "Team Mechanic", the switch to downtube
> levers likely had a lot more to do with the amount of work it took to care
> for a Team's worth of bikes.
> Favorite part that doesn't require modification? OMAS bottom bracket! Super
> reliable and works great with Campy cranks.
> Stevan Thomas
> Alameda, CA