Yikes

This-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ine_libere_207

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

On Jun 17, 8:43 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?



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

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
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?



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

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
This-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ine_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?

On Jun 17, 10:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
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?

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

On Jun 17, 10:43 am, Comrade jim beam wrote:
Comrade John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:03:49 -0700, Comrad Johnny Sunset wrote:

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.

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!

Hey, communism is just one big party!

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

Johnny Sunset wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
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?

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 crap.


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