Yikes

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm said:

This-http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/dauphine_li...

Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
their money.

Quoted message said:

plus tubeless road tires and road bikes with disc brakes...When
trekspecializedgiant makes them mainstream, I quit the bike biz....

If tubeless road tires offered a significant rolling resistance
advantage, they would be worthwhile; otherwise no.

Disc brakes are nice in the rain and great for riding in the snow -
stopping power with snow/ice covered rims is miserable. Not chewing up
rims with grit during braking is also a very pleasant feature.

For fair weather only road riders [1], disc brakes are silly, due to
the extra cost, weight and complexity.

Quoted message said:

I am so happy with my Merckx...works everyday(gotta cheak the
battery!!-nope), easy, simple, stable...21 pounds of joy. I see why
guys that wrench on Lexus' and BMW 700 series drive Datsun 510s and
[BMW] 2002 tiis

The simplicity of the older cars is an attraction. Too bad there is
not a market for a small, lightweight sport sedan with manual steering
and brakes, but the advantages of modern emissions controls [2],
materials and suspension design. Around here, all the 1970's cars are
either collector items never driven in winter or are riddled with
terminal corrosion.

[1] An exception for small-wheel bikes ridden in mountainous terrain,
where the smaller heat dissipation area compared to larger wheel bikes
would make tire blow-off a major concern.
[2] Added complexity for sure, but the exhaust having lower HC, CO and
NOx levels than the ambient air is must in urban settings.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Johnny Sunset said:

Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
their money.

I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

That could be a big advantage in racing.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
their money.

I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

That could be a big advantage in racing.

Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Johnny Sunset said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
their money.

I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

That could be a big advantage in racing.

Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:44:35 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
> their money.
I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

That could be a big advantage in racing.

Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

no, just that we should effectively espouse communism. equality
brothers! strength through mediocrity!

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

This-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/dauphine_libere_207

plus tubeless road tires and road bikes with disc brakes...When
trekspecializedgiant makes them mainstream, I quit the bike biz....

I like the idea of tubeless tires if they work well. They're a boon on
motorcycles. Once we had to struggle with tire removal / replacement
when we had a flat. Now we just plug, inflate and ride home with plenty
of safety margin until we can replace the tire.

As to disk brakes, well, why not? Again, I'm unfamiliar with the pros
and cons of these on road bicycles, but they seem to work fine on off
road bikes.

Do you have some sort of specific objections to these changes or is this
just the latest round of retro grouch talking?

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:44:35 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
>their money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That could be a big advantage in racing.

Quoted message said:

Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

No.

Show up to a road race, in a series that follows the UCI regulations
of what a bicycle is, on a Y-frame or Softride and see how far you
get. If bicycles that have the same relationship between the locations
of the saddle, bottom bracket and handlebars are banned just because
they are not traditional diamond frames, why should expensive
electronic shifting systems be allowed?

Either allow a free for all with the only rule being the rider has to
supply all the power during the race, or make rules that produce
reasonable bicycles at reasonable prices. Especially at the amateur
level, do it make sense to allow the guy who would have finished sixth
on ability buy his way to first?

Would electronic shifting improve the racing experience to a degree
that would make it worth the cost?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Comrade jim beam said:

Comrade John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:03:49 -0700, Comrad Johnny Sunset wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 17, 9:57 am, Comrade John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:44:35 -0700, Comrad Johnny Sunset wrote:
>> Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
>> their money.
> I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
> not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
> conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
> handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That could be a big advantage in racing.
Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

Quoted message said:

So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

no, just that we should effectively espouse communism. equality
brothers! strength through mediocrity!

Hey, communism is just one big party! 😉

--
Comrade Tom - People's Republic of Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

Johnny Sunset said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

On Jun 17, 9:57 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:44:35 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>> Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
>> their money.
> I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
> not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
> conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
> handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.
> That could be a big advantage in racing.
Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

No.

Show up to a road race, in a series that follows the UCI regulations
of what a bicycle is, on a Y-frame or Softride and see how far you
get. If bicycles that have the same relationship between the locations
of the saddle, bottom bracket and handlebars are banned just because
they are not traditional diamond frames, why should expensive
electronic shifting systems be allowed?

Either allow a free for all with the only rule being the rider has to
supply all the power during the race, or make rules that produce
reasonable bicycles at reasonable prices. Especially at the amateur
level, do it make sense to allow the guy who would have finished sixth
on ability buy his way to first?

this is nascar vs. f1. f1 contributes massively to the state of the
art. nascar doesn't contribute a damned thing, but all nascar comrade
competitors have an even playing field of mediocre [censored].

Quoted message said:

Would electronic shifting improve the racing experience to a degree
that would make it worth the cost?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam said:

Johnny Sunset said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:03:49 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:57 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:44:35 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>> Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
>>> their money.
>> I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
>> not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
>> conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
>> handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.
>> That could be a big advantage in racing.
> Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
> Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
> development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
> there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
> subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
> keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.
So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

Quoted message said:

No.

Quoted message said:

Show up to a road race, in a series that follows the UCI regulations
of what a bicycle is, on a Y-frame or Softride and see how far you
get. If bicycles that have the same relationship between the locations
of the saddle, bottom bracket and handlebars are banned just because
they are not traditional diamond frames, why should expensive
electronic shifting systems be allowed?

Quoted message said:

Either allow a free for all with the only rule being the rider has to
supply all the power during the race, or make rules that produce
reasonable bicycles at reasonable prices. Especially at the amateur
level, do it make sense to allow the guy who would have finished sixth
on ability buy his way to first?

this is nascar vs. f1. f1 contributes massively to the state of the
art. nascar doesn't contribute a damned thing, but all nascar comrade
competitors have an even playing field of mediocre [censored].

Bubba in his pick-em-truck will run you over for dissin' NA$CAR (sic).

F1 advances technology, but it has been almost half a century since a
great driver had any chance of winning unless he had one of the few
superior cars. There have been several seasons in the last 25 years
where only two drivers on the same team had a realistic shot at
winning the championship, and in most seasons only two or three teams
are competitive.

Amateur level bicycle racing should be about having fun [1], not who
has the biggest wallet.

[1] Except for the rare, young participant who has a realistic chance
of becoming a professional.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

"Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

On Jun 17, 9:57 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:44:35 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >their money.

Quoted message said:

> I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
> not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
> conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
> handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

Quoted message said:

> That could be a big advantage in racing.

Quoted message said:

Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

No.

Show up to a road race, in a series that follows the UCI regulations
of what a bicycle is, on a Y-frame or Softride and see how far you
get. If bicycles that have the same relationship between the locations
of the saddle, bottom bracket and handlebars are banned just because
they are not traditional diamond frames, why should expensive
electronic shifting systems be allowed?

Either allow a free for all with the only rule being the rider has to
supply all the power during the race, or make rules that produce
reasonable bicycles at reasonable prices. Especially at the amateur
level, do it make sense to allow the guy who would have finished sixth
on ability buy his way to first?

Would electronic shifting improve the racing experience to a degree
that would make it worth the cost?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Why bother having a rider on the bike, they just add weight. We could then
build bikes made of Aerogel that would only weigh a kilo or two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

Chas.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

This-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/dauphine_libere_207

plus tubeless road tires and road bikes with disc brakes...When
trekspecializedgiant makes them mainstream, I quit the bike biz....

I expect those will go the way of that compressed air shifting system
Shimano trotted out a decade ago. Nobody wants to be stuck in 53-11 at
the bottom of a climb because their battery went flat.

As for the discs, I don't see the point on normal road bikes but I'd
love to have them on a winter commuter. Having to wait for the ice
to melt off your rims before you get any braking at all is not fun.

Johnny Sunset said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

On Jun 17, 9:57 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:44:35 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >Electronic shifting on bicycles is a gimmick to separate fools from
> >their money.

Quoted message said:

> I'm unlikely to buy it until it becomes hyper-reliable, which might
> not be for many years, but there is a big advantage to the stuff --
> conceivably you can have shifting buttons on several places on the
> handlebars so the rider need not move the hands at all to shift.

Quoted message said:

> That could be a big advantage in racing.

Quoted message said:

Only if some riders have multiple shift actuators, and others don't.
Since the major sanctioning organizations wish to limit technological
development to keep racing a competition of riders and not bicycles,
there is no reason to allow electronic shifting; particularly if one
subscribes to Jobst Brandt's opinion that standardization is good to
keep costs down at the lower levels of racing.

So you're saying that everything that works better for racing is a
gimmick to separate fools from their money, since the federations
could/should ban the product?

No.

Show up to a road race, in a series that follows the UCI regulations
of what a bicycle is, on a Y-frame or Softride and see how far you
get. If bicycles that have the same relationship between the locations
of the saddle, bottom bracket and handlebars are banned just because
they are not traditional diamond frames, why should expensive
electronic shifting systems be allowed?

I don't know why, but they are. So we race within the rules.

Quoted message said:

Either allow a free for all with the only rule being the rider has to
supply all the power during the race, or make rules that produce
reasonable bicycles at reasonable prices. Especially at the amateur
level, do it make sense to allow the guy who would have finished sixth
on ability buy his way to first?

Would electronic shifting improve the racing experience to a degree
that would make it worth the cost?

Not now. Twenty or thirty years from now, probably yes. The cost
will be reasonable and it'll be good stuff.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Paul Cassel said:

Quoted message said:

This:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/dauphine_libere_207

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

plus tubeless road tires and road bikes with disc brakes... When
trekspecializedgiant makes them mainstream, I quit the bike biz...

Quoted message said:

I like the idea of tubeless tires if they work well. They're a boon
on motorcycles. Once we had to struggle with tire removal or
replacement when we had a flat. Now we just plug, inflate and ride
home with plenty of safety margin until we can replace the tire.

I think there is a relationship that is not apparent between motor
vehicle tires and bicycle tires. The wall and tread of motor vehicle
tires in about ten times that of a good 25mm diameter bicycle tire and
the stress (inflation pressure) on that thin casing and the flexing it
withstands on normal road roughness (coarse chip seal) makes "plug,
inflate and ride" unlikely on the average. I don't think we will see
a reliable tubeless tire flat-fix in the near future for that reason.

Quoted message said:

As to disk brakes, well, why not? Again, I'm unfamiliar with the
pros and cons of these on road bicycles, but they seem to work fine
on off road bikes.

I think weight considerations and wheel replacement will block that
from occurring as well.

Quoted message said:

Do you have some sort of specific objections to these changes or is
this just the latest round of retro grouch talking?

I don't see the tubeless tire coming, but disk brakes could if the
industry got together on disk dimensions. Of course that would take a
bit of convincing to the weight conscious who spend inordinate sums of
money on saving a few grams.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

I don't see the tubeless tire coming, but disk brakes could if the
industry got together on disk dimensions. Of course that would take a
bit of convincing to the weight conscious who spend inordinate sums of
money on saving a few grams.

I can easily lock up the wheels on my road bike with its rim brakes.
What would be the point of having even stronger ones?

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Michael Warner said:

Quoted message said:

I don't see the tubeless tire coming, but disk brakes could if the
industry got together on disk dimensions. Of course that would take a
bit of convincing to the weight conscious who spend inordinate sums of
money on saving a few grams.

I can easily lock up the wheels on my road bike with its rim brakes.
What would be the point of having even stronger ones?

Dear Michael,

One advantage of disk brakes over rim calipers is that the rims don't
heat up on impressive descents, leading to potential clincher blow-off
and tubular glue-melt. RBT posters occasionally complain about both
disasters.

Another disk advantage is that the pads chew up the rotor, not the
rim, and the rotor is much higher above the gritty rain water, so
there's less damage. RBT posters occasionally complain about ruining
rims on a single rainy Alpine descent.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

plus tubeless road tires and road bikes with disc brakes...When
trekspecializedgiant makes them mainstream, I quit the bike biz....

I am so happy with my Merckx...works everyday(gotta cheak the
battery!!-nope), easy, simple, stable...21 pounds of joy. I see why
guys that wrench on Lexus' and BMW 700 series drive Datsun 510s and
2002 tiis

---------------
I cup my hand around the top of Shimano shifters so I won't be able to
see the LCD screen
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/photos/2007/tech/features/dauphine_l
ibere_207/Ronny_Schulzs_Gerolsteiner_S-Works_Tarmac_SL_indicator_screen

Quoted message said:

Would electronic shifting improve the racing experience to a degree
that would make it worth the cost?

There's a great fear, within the managers of the major teams, that the
riders might revolt (as a few already have) and refuse to ride with radios
in their ears, telling them what to do. It is for that reason that
electronic shifting, as well as other planned means to control the bike, are
being created. Control of the functions can be over-ridden remotely by the
team car, as required. In addition, the system can be hot-wired to provide a
healthy jolt to the cyclist (in the event he doesn't follow orders). This is
much easier to hide than the previously-worked-on system involving
remotely-activated needles that would come up through the saddle.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

email hidden said:

Paul Cassel writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As to disk brakes, well, why not? Again, I'm unfamiliar with the
pros and cons of these on road bicycles, but they seem to work fine
on off road bikes.

I think weight considerations and wheel replacement will block that
from occurring as well.

Are you referring to the cost of a new disc wheel, or the difficulty of
removing and installing the wheel? If the latter, it's no problem. Disc
brakes make wheel removal and installation marginally easier on mountain
bikes, and I see no reason why things would be any different on road
bikes.

Somebody (Sheldon?) has said that front disc brakes and rigid forks
don't go well together because the fork must be made stiffer to resist
the force of the brake. If so, that's significant. So is the fact that
rear discs don't play well with racks and fenders if you put the
caliper on the seatstay like it's usually done.