<>Chuck Schmidt wrote: When I look over the tops of my rose colored glasses at my Cinelli Bivalents I can clearly see that the concept and the execution of that concept are poor. And have found that other owners of Bivalents share my opinion that they are stupid! <snip> +++++++++++++++++ I disagree. Politely, but firmly, with one of Chuck's assertions, namely that the concept of the BiValents was "stupid." It actually had major potential advantages for racing teams: (1) Front and rear being the same cuts down on spares to be carried. (2) Rear wheel changes are much faster, since you don't have to shift up to the high gear: the freewheel stays with the frame instead of coming off with the wheel. (3) For the same reason, each rider can choose a freewheel to suit himself without multiplying the number of spare wheels to be carried. (4) Since you don't have to shift to the outside sprocket to remove the wheel, the bike is in the correct gear when the new wheel is installed.
Having said that, it is my understanding that two factors prevented widespread acceptance: (1) They were much more costly than Campy. (2) As Chuck notes, execution was not perfect. I understand that the spline set to hub body connection often failed on the early (3-piece) series. One of my best friends converted 3 of his 4 Bivalent wheels to Univalent (front only) that way in the space of a couple of years, but he was young and strong. One can imagine the bad Karma when racers get hard-earned DNFs because of hub failures - not to mention the potential for real pain.
I've used bivalents for years, and love them despite the quirks. Indeed, at Cirque I bought Mike Kone's remaining stash of spare freewheels and parts. They will not go to e-bay, but will be available at reasonable cost to CR members and others to keep their stuff going, and to complete wheel sets.
Finally, another point worth remembering: those were hardly times of enormous innovation in the racing bike industry. In this context, I think that the BiValent and the later HelicoMatic are important as efforts to move past some real technical problems. In particular, they both eliminate the really stupid freewheel puller and the hassle it signifies for that system. After 40 years of carefully using anti-sieze on my own wheels, and despite all my care to hold tool to freewheel with the skewer, I still occasionally butcher a notch. And waste time. This was a dumb design, in my humble opinion, but it carried forward for decades in the market.
harvey sachs mcLean va (who has never knowingly ridden a Helicomatic, but certainly has one in the collection of artifacts)