Jerry,
I'm glad that I was of help to you in making your point, because whatever that point was is still totally unclear to me. How can it be that, "the net change in the competition is zero," when using integrated shifting means that, "the level of skill required is decreased," while the competition itself, "is about rider strength and skill, or should be." Seriously, think about what you're saying.
I agree with your initial and primary point that that integrated shifting is probably not in the top 20 innovations in terms of it's impact on the nature of cycling competition. That is, I agree with this if we take a broad view and look beyond the bike itself, and consider the support methods, training, doppage, radios, computers, heart rate monitors... you name it, it has probably had a bigger impact than STI. Looking only at the bike, the levers obviously move way up the list.
After you made the point that STI has had little (actually you later said zero, which I strongly disagree with) impact on the competition, you went on to detail how you, "doubt the integrated levers make much difference at all, except maybe in the sprint, where one might loose speed when shifting one's weight a bit to reach a DT lever." Might loose speed while shifting one's weight a bit????!?!?!?!?! Have you ever tried changing gears at full crank, with guys all around you, possibly bumping into you, all at nearly 40 mph? Now, how about we add to all this scenario that you are also out of the saddle? If you're shifting this late in the game, your goose is probably cooked, but with STI, you can at least make the shift without sitting down and shooting backward thorough the wheels. Seriously, to assert that STI, might possibly help "a little" when shifting during a sprint is nonsense. If you had meant to say that for all the obvious major advantages of STI, it has little impact on the overall competition once everyone has it, then that is what you should have said. But, that's what I said. You said, "integrated levers (probably don't) make much difference at all," and cited erroneous details about the allegedly small difference between two systems that are actually very different. Why are you even making points about the differences between SIS and STI if your argument that STI has little impact on the overall competition is predicated on everyone having the same system? Those are points you make when you're arguing that SIS is not really a big disadvantage when you're racing against someone with STI. That sure seemed to be your point. You never said that you were speaking of equally-equipped riders, other than ambiguously implying it at the end of your statement, AFTER making arguments applicable to comparison of unlike systems.
I absolutely did not make your point for you. I made my point, and you can't now claim it as your own.
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA USA
Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote: You make my point perfectly for me. That each rider shifts as well as the other 200 in the pack is exactly why the levers have no effect. Everyone shifts more easily by the same amount, and the net change in the competition is zero. All that happens is that the level of skill required is decreased. The same is true in Formula 1, but the difference, in my opinion, is that Formula 1 is as much about technology as it is about driver skill, while cycling, IMHO is about rider strength and skill, or should be.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX
Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I mean are we supposed to believe that top pros are too uncoordinated to take their hands off the bars to shift gears? Particularly since DT indexed shifting was available some years before integrated levers, so one could still get a positive gear selection before the integrated levers. I doubt the integrated levers make much difference at all, except maybe in the sprint, where one might loose speed when shifting one's weight a bit to reach a DT lever. Even there, it's not clear that the modern levers actually changed the outcome, as they may just increase the sprint speeds of all the sprinters more or less equally.
Jerry,
Frankly, I think a truly good F-1 driver could win the next event with a 5 speed crashbox, don't you? Are we to believe that those guys are too uncoordinated to shift without electropneumatic clutches and paddle-controlled gear changing?
For starters, I think you need to try riding a modern bike, just once, while trying to keep an open mind. Once you've actually ridden, say, a properly tuned Dura Ace 10- quipped bike, say for a week or so, then you can tell us all how crappy the shifting is, and how it was of no benefit relative to....oh, how about a Simplex 5 speed setup?
Who ever said pros are too uncoordinated to use downtube SIS... or friction... of Cambio Corsa for that matter? These systems were all used at one time. But, to use an outmoded system when everyine else has a comparitvely better system would just be a stupid choice, in competition. Pros don't need STI to shift, they just need it to shift as frequently, quickly and accurately as the other 200 guys in the pack.
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA USA
Most of these have indeed changed the race, though whether for better or worse is highly debatable. But in my view integrated brake/shift levers aren't even in the top 20.
I mean are we supposed to believe that top pros are too uncoordinated to take their hands off the bars to shift gears? Particularly since DT indexed shifting was available some years before integrated levers, so one could still get a positive gear selection before the integrated levers. I doubt the integrated levers make much difference at all, except maybe in the sprint, where one might loose speed when shifting one's weight a bit to reach a DT lever. Even there, it's not clear that the modern levers actually changed the outcome, as they may just increase the sprint speeds of all the sprinters more or less equally.
I note that SRAM is one of the Versus advertisers with ads for their latest drive train, including of course integrated levers. I suspect inclusion of integrated levers at #2 is just flagrant sucking up to the sponsors. Obviously, even Phil Liggett is not above such grovelling, since he dutifully reads the promos for Professional Bull Riding, as if he actually gave a damn about that so-called sport.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX, where I didn't bother to attend the recent annual rodeo, which no doubt included bull riding
"kyle-chrisbrooks@earthlink.net" <kyle-chrisbrooks@earthlink.net> wrote: I saw that segment during the Versus TV Tour coverage, and I wondered what other people thought of the list of the "top 5 innovations" in the Tour (and racing in general, I suppose). The list was as follows: 5 - rider/team car race radios 4 - clipless pedals 3 - team "follow" cars 2 - integrated brake/shift levers 1 - the derailluer
Now, Bobke's misinformation about the derailluer's invention aside -- what did people think of this list? I don't have a big quibble with the derailluer listed as #1. I'm sure all of us love derailluers -- vintage, on-topic, or otherwise. But what about some of the others? Integrated brake/shift levers? Clipless pedals? Nice inventions, both, but have they really improved racing? Made the racers faster? Made the bikes that much better? Hmmm. . .
I'm getting into some off-topic stuff here - but one item I really take issue with is the inclusing of team car race radios. How Phil Ligget could even read this list on the air makes me chuckle, since he's commented several times in the past couple years how he thinks these radios have ruined racing and should be eliminated (granted, I doubt Phil came up with the list, or was even asked for input on its content).
Then, the question is, what "innovations" would you put on the list instead? Lightweight steel alloy tubing (such as 531)? Aluminum components? Now I'm getting into some really off-topic possibilities - but what about carbon fiber? (17 lb bikes WITHOUT drilling the bike to the brink of failure?) Aerodynamics? (remember LeMond beating Fignon in the final time trial of the '89 tour?).
Just wondering if anyone had some thoughts on it.
Kyle Brooks Akron, OH
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom Dalton
> To: Classic Rendezvous ; Jan Heine
> Date: 7/20/2007 10:00:30 AM
> Subject: [CR]history rewritten on Versus TV
>
> During last night's TdF coverage on versus, there was a tiny morsel of
vintage bike content. In a brief segment about equipment innovations there
were a couple of shots of what appeared to be an old Molteni team bike,
with SR equipment. It was pretty thrashed and used to represent that
arcahic old friction shifting with it's 1st gen SR rear der and knobbly
shifters. To their credit, Versus identified derailleur gears as the most
significant technological chane to hit the Tour during it's history
(pharmaceuticals aside, I suppose). Seems like a good choice to me anyway.
Then I had to shudder just a bit, when Bob Roll attributed the invention of
the derailleur to Tullio Campagnolo. Now, as far as I'm concened, Tullio
invented the light bulb, the Diesel engine, and the integrated circuit, but
I'm pretty sure he did not invent the derailleur. In fact, I'm pretty sure
that he did not even invent the parallelogram body that Campagnolo first
used on the GS. It's my
> understanding that there is some Juy guy who can take credit for some
major invention related to derailleurs, though having not yet read "the
book," my knowledge is very spotty.
>
> Can someone with more credibility that me (that's a pretty open set of
folks) please shoot Bobke an email at Versus TV and set him straight? Jan,
you're the first person to come to my mind on this one.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, PA USA
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web
links.
>
> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
--------------------------------- Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!