[CR]Huret Jubilee weight

(Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor)

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
To: heine94@earthlink.net, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [CR]Huret Jubilee weight

I think we should bear in mind that the task laid before a vintage derailleur such as a Jubilee, or even a Super Record, is quite different from that presented to a modern derailleur. Shifting among 10 very closely spaced cogs, by way of a handlebar-mounted shifter, with the challeges that attend a much longer housing-to-cable interface, requires a very different derailleur. The body must be more rigid and more precise, a two-pivot setup is basically required, and the parallelogram must be more stiffly sprung. It's no coincidence that 2007's record setting lightweights use downtube friction levers, wide-spaced freewheels, and (possibly modified) Jubilee rear derailleurs. The fact is, asking less of the machine allows it to be lighter. I suggest to anyone who thinks that modern units are lighter because Shimano and Campy are not doing their homework, that they overhaul a recent top end unit like the 7700. I just finished this job, and I was reminded of all that was good about vintage Zeus, Campagnolo, ICS and Shimano, all within this modern Shimano unit. Cutouts and relieving galore, ti and aluminum hardware, a slick plastic chain guide.... The level of metal forming and final polish were amazing, by the way.

The job of shiftting amongst 10 cogs, from the bar, under load, is beyond what a rider can do "by feel" and beyond what an admirably light unit like the Jubilee would be able to do. I think we should praise the modern offerings for weighing as little as they do given that they shift among TWICE as many cogs, under a far greater range of conditions, faster and more reliably. We can argue all day about the necessity of 10 cogs, the issues of interchangability, durabilty, and performance in extreme conditions, but it's not fair to compare weights of parts that do very different jobs. That's like faulting a modern automobile brake system being heavy while disregarding the fact that this system includes ABS, some aspects of the traction and yaw control systems, and perhaps a self-drying feature integrated to the rain sensor in the windshield. We vintage folk eschew such widgets (rightly, imo), but let's not let it cloud our view of what constitutes appropriate component weights.

Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA USA

the greater length of it's implictly reduced acis simply a greater challenge than friction shifting among wide spaced cogs. Some of teh features required to allow a modern derailler to work its magic are intrinsically

Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net>

At 4:16 PM -0400 10/29/07, Stronglight49@aol.com wrote:
>I have a later (I think) model Jubilee which weighs 134.9 grams,
>Certainly surprised me!

Many old derailleurs were a lot lighter than current ones. I wonder whether it is for lack of trying by current makers... I guess all they need is to be lighter than last year's model. They probably want to leave room for future improvement.

From Bicycle Quarterly's articles "Riding with classic derailleurs", here are some weights. The dates are the introduction of the particular model we weighed. Unless mentioned, these are the short-cage versions.

- Huret Jubilee (1972) 137 g - Huret Jubilee long-cage (1973): 154 g - Cyclo touring, 4-speed, aluminum, long cage (1934?): 180 g - Simplex SLJ (1972): 182 g - Suntour Cyclone GT long-cage (1975): 188 g - Campagnolo Super Record, 2nd generation (1977?): 191 g - Campagnolo Nuovo Record (1967): 196 g - Shimano Ultegra 2005 model: 206 g - Nivex medium cage (1938): 235 g - Simplex Tour de France (with hanger, 1946): 240 g - Campagnolo Rally, long cage (1st version, 1974): 256 g - Huret Duopar titanium, long cage (1975): 252 g - Campagnolo Gran Sport (1952): 300 g - Campagnolo Record (1963): 328 g

As you can see, the modern derailleurs aren't all that light. Even the advertised weight for a Campagnolo Record with carbon pulley cage and titanium screws of 184 g is heavier than a 1930s Cyclo touring derailleur. The latest Dura-Ace is advertised at 180 g, and Sachs Force claims their derailleur weighs 174 g.

You also see that the difference between Super and Nuovo Record is almost insignificant. (I know that somebody, somewhere will argue that 5 grams over a whole Tour de France an make a difference of 200 m, enough to make a difference between winning and coming second!)

When you compare the weight of the pulleys of the old derailleurs with those of modern ones, you realize that the many of the old pulleys were quite heavy, because they used full ball bearings. A Jubilee with lightweight modern pulleys would be truly light. (However, modern pulleys don't fit, because Simplex and Huret used thicker screws to attach the pulleys.)

The Jubilee, by the way, shifts very well and is quite durable. Many users get 100,000+ miles out of them. I have one on my Alex Singer...

Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly 140 Lakeside Ave #C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.bikequarterly.com ------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:38:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> To: Daniel Gonzalez <dannyg1@mail.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]Huret Jubilee weight

The other pretender to title of lightest RD is the partly TI Zeus 2000. I have a couple of 2000 RD's, but I'm not inclined to remove them from bike to weigh them. Just from having held them and several Jubilees in my hand, I'd say the Jubilee is definitely lighter, although the 2000 is definitely really cool.

Regards,

Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com