Please let me jump into the debate between Mssrs. Heine and Maasland, as one who owns and occasionally uses both the BiValent wheels and the dread M71 Widowmaker pedals.
SM wrote:
>>To properly understand the advantage of one single interchangeable
>>wheel for either front or rear, you should ride in a team car when
>>you see your rider signalling a flat tire. A mechanic can get out of
>>the car with one free hand and a clear mind because he does not have
>>to grab the 'correct' or multiple wheels. The mechanic's free hand
>>is already sufficiently important to make the design worthwhile.
>
to which JH responded:
Don't you think all those concerns could have been overcome - if not then, at least today with so much superior technology - if the advantages were real?
and I will expound:
A couple of weeks I predicted the re-emergence of bilaminate with
laser-cut or water-cut CAD-based tools, and was informed (with wonderful
examples) that it is here now (at least as art, if not in the execution
I think will come). Today I will predict that rear wheel design will
change again, and that the BiValen concept is one contender. It can be
made to include the fundamental advantage of the cassette - right
bearing nearer the drop-out, and has many other advantages besides
front-rear interchange. To me, the most important is that I can change
wheels or tires in back much more easily, w/o the need to shift to the
small sprocket. For some racing teams, this would save time. It would
also make life easier by allowing each rider his/her choice of rear cog
sizes, w/o requiring extra wheels on the team car.
>You
>>can get out of the car more quickly. The clear mind also allows the
>>mechanic to concentrate solely on the repair at hand. For every
>>second spent waiting on the side of the road, the rider must spend
>>twice as long on the road riding with higher energy expenditure. It
>>should also be pointed out that for any riders in a break that has
>>less than 45 seconds of clearance from the peloton, as well as those
>>riders in 'chase' groups caught between the lead group and peloton,
>>they are generally only served by a motorcycle support vehicle that
>>cannot carry 10 wheels. The major problems with the Bivalent hubs
>>were: considerable extra costs of the hubs, extra weight,
>>reliability problems and no widespread desire to try something
>>unproven. Cino apparently got the Italian national team to ride on
>>them but it was apparently not a resounding success.
>>
>>--
>>Steven Maasland
>>Moorestown, NJ
>
>
JH asks:
Also, why are Cinelli Bivalent hubs sought after by collectors around
the globe, yet the much more innovative clipless pedals go dirt-cheap
and hardly anybody wants them?
to which I respond: The bivalents are a great product with some flaws. The pedals are a flawed product with some virtues. My understanding is that the major problem with the BiValents was reliability of the early models. Racers will not long stand for freewheeling in both directions, as when the joint between the hub and its splines failed. Once the word gets around, recovery may be difficult, even if the later design had no problems. The system is so elegant and so much fun that I use it and compensate in two ways: being old and weak, and not using large FW cogs which could overtorque the joint. In contrast, the pedals are a stupid design, and the stupidity is shared by both models I have. Each has a strong positive (and non-adjustable) lock-in. Each must be disengaged by pushing in a plastic lever on the outside of the pedal. This is a pretty awkward reach while lying on your side. It would be more awkward if the plastic sheared off while you slid along... Might be ok on the track, but not a great idea in a pack. BTW, and this is not Cinelli's fault, one reason I ride them so seldom is that I've fallen with them, even when riding with the locks disengaged. It seems that getting out of the darned things requires roughly the opposite ankle action of abandoning your (off-topic) clipless pedals. One wrong reflex and I was on my side - and w/o my shoe.
Don't you think all those concerns could have been overcome - if not then, at least today with so much superior technology - if the advantages were real? Cost - no problem for pro racers. Weight - how much, and I am sure you could get that down. Herse used "moyeux a broche" on their 7 kg bikes in the technical trials, so they must have been light. Reliability problems - could those be ironed out? Unwillingness to try something new - clearly, racers have, over time, tried new things when they thought it was worth while. Otherwise, they'd still race on Campy NR or wooden draisennes! (Or maybe Cino didn't pay enough to convince the riders that the hubs were worth trying?)
JH also muses (as I am wont to do): I have no idea, but one wonders with a product that is the answer to a question nobody has asked...<snip> Without any first-hand knowledge, I can only speculate. Does anybody know more?
HS speaks now: Jan, I commend to you the books of Henry Petroski, who establishes over and over that advances come from dissatisfaction. It is not beyond me to think that Cinelli saw a problem (slow wheel changes, hard to equip teams, etc, all noted by Steve M.) and tried to build a better mouse trap. But, this may veer off-topic.
harvey sachs
McLean VA