Campy: Lower Gears for Extremely Sporadic Use

Clive George wrote:

In the days of yore, Campagnolo gears with 39-52t in front and
13-24t in the rear were used to climb the toughest road courses in
the Alps. Today we see 53-11t and 26-26t combinations and
everything in between.

As special cranks to accept smaller than 39t CW were offered by
other manufacturers, chain durability became an issue, the
mechanical advantage and increased rider weight more than doubled
tensile loads on chains while chain-lines became more off axis with
increased number of front and rear sprockets.

I suspect that just as rims have become a common failure item,
chains and chainwheels will do likewise as Walter Mitty types take
over the market. I see that has occurred at Mavic and other
suppliers already.

I am not amused.

There's nothing Walter Mitty about low gears. Not all of us have
legs of steel - mere mortals are allowed to ride bikes in nice hilly
places too!

It's not about low gears but rather emulating Lance Armstrong and
using equipment sponsors pay him to use. I see riders grimacing as
though they were in a solo break in a professional race, having no
time to wave hello to an oncoming bicyclists on an otherwise empty
road... spinning a proper gear.

As the old saw goes: "Are we having fun yet?" This is a generation of
image rather than substance.

The bike I use in the Alps has 24 front, 32 at the back...

That's fine but don't expect sprockets to last long with a triple CW
in maximum cross-over.

Jobst Brandt

wrote in message
.. .

As the old saw goes: "Are we having fun yet?" This is a generation of
image rather than substance.

T'aint me. Most people I see on bikes seem to be having fun. This was also
the case on our recent visit to leftpondia.

The bike I use in the Alps has 24 front, 32 at the back...

That's fine but don't expect sprockets to last long with a triple CW
in maximum cross-over.

I don't use them like that - I'm not that dim. The 50/11 is for coming down
the other side. And it appears that the sprocket life is longer than ratchet
pawl life on our other bike - of course, having two people pushing doesn't
help either :-)

clive

On 02 May 2008 17:05:44 GMT, wrote:

[snip]

The current riders spend several times for a bicycle than racing
bicycle of yore cost.

[snip]

Dear Jobst,

Sometimes age creeps up on us so gradually that we don't notice it.

Dunno what year "yore" was, but you can get some idea of how things
have changed by plugging years and an amount into this comparative
cost calculator:
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

That page has a number of examples that explain some of the ways to
compare the value of a dollar in different eras.

If someone spent $250 for a bicycle in 1960, that calculator predicts
that they could have spent anywhere from $1421.64 to $6,573.57 in
2007.

Of course, back in 1960 no one could get a bike with modern gears,
tires, tubes, rims, spokes, threadless headsets, brake shoes, clipless
pedals, freehubs, cyclometers, and so on.

Frame choice was pretty much limited to steel.

Brake cables tended to stick out airily.

But you could get quick release axles.

It's human to cling to the past.

Heck, even in 1993 at least one book about bicycle wheels still
included its original 1981 discussion of the pros and cons of wooden
and wooden-filled rims.

:-)

The penny will eventually go the way of the half-cent piece. Google
for penny and useless, and you'll find endless articles. Here's a nice
one:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...31fa_fact_owen

It starts with the fellow who found a profitable copper "mine" until
the government forbade him to melt pennies and nickels for their
metal.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote in message
...

It starts with the fellow who found a profitable copper "mine" until
the government forbade him to melt pennies and nickels for their
metal.

It's why our 1p and 2p coins (worth about 2 and 4 cents) are made of steel
these days.

(Irritating USian currency annoyance no 3: nickels being smaller than dimes.
That's just barking. Comes below all notes looking the same, and no high
value coins in normal use though. Our smallest note is a fiver, ie about $10
US - means our wallets aren't stuffed with indistinguishable low-value green
paper...)

cheers,
cluve

On May 2, 6:38 pm, "Clive George" wrote:
wrote in message

...

It starts with the fellow who found a profitable copper "mine" until
the government forbade him to melt pennies and nickels for their
metal.

It's why our 1p and 2p coins (worth about 2 and 4 cents) are made of steel
these days.

(Irritating USian currency annoyance no 3: nickels being smaller than dimes.
That's just barking. Comes below all notes looking the same, and no high
value coins in normal use though. Our smallest note is a fiver, ie about $10
US - means our wallets aren't stuffed with indistinguishable low-value green
paper...)

cheers,
cluve

At least they're not all green anymore. New 20s are brownish-green,
new 10s are orange, and new 5s are purple.

New 50s are blue on one end and red on the other.

And for the last 30 years, the mint keeps pushing out small-diameter
dollar coins and we keep ignoring them.

Hank wrote:
On May 2, 6:38 pm, "Clive George" wrote:
wrote in message

...

It starts with the fellow who found a profitable copper "mine" until
the government forbade him to melt pennies and nickels for their
metal.
It's why our 1p and 2p coins (worth about 2 and 4 cents) are made of steel
these days.

(Irritating USian currency annoyance no 3: nickels being smaller than dimes.
That's just barking. Comes below all notes looking the same, and no high
value coins in normal use though. Our smallest note is a fiver, ie about $10
US - means our wallets aren't stuffed with indistinguishable low-value green
paper...)

cheers,
cluve

At least they're not all green anymore. New 20s are brownish-green,
new 10s are orange, and new 5s are purple.

New 50s are blue on one end and red on the other.

I get a hundred dollars of cash when I receive the occasional check, and
it lasts me for months.

And for the last 30 years, the mint keeps pushing out small-diameter
dollar coins and we keep ignoring them.

The USPS forces dollar coins on customers who buy stamps from vending
machines, when more than one dollar in change is due.

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

On Sat, 3 May 2008 02:38:40 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

It starts with the fellow who found a profitable copper "mine" until
the government forbade him to melt pennies and nickels for their
metal.

It's why our 1p and 2p coins (worth about 2 and 4 cents) are made of steel
these days.

(Irritating USian currency annoyance no 3: nickels being smaller than dimes.
That's just barking. Comes below all notes looking the same, and no high
value coins in normal use though. Our smallest note is a fiver, ie about $10
US - means our wallets aren't stuffed with indistinguishable low-value green
paper...)

cheers,
cluve

Dear Cluve,

If you read the article and browse about, you'll find out about why
the more ancient nickel is larger than the modern dime and replaced
the venerable half-dime--nickels were made mostly of copper back then,
just as they are today.

You'll also discover that US nickels are larger, not smaller, than
dimes.

As for setting the bar for paper money at the fiver or sawbuck level
and replacing them with coins . . .

Bills are slightly cheaper to print than coins are to mint.

That is, a dollar bill costs about 6~7 cents to print, versus 8~9
cents for minting a dollar coin. (Prices fluctuate according to the
cost of materials and how much anti-counterfeiting fuss goes into the
bill.)

But a metal coin lasts 20 to 25 times as long as a paper bill, so the
initial savings is illusory--in the long run, coins worth a dollar or
two are much cheaper than bills.

However, we have steadfastly refused to use modern dollar coins since
silver dollars vanished. The half-dollar hasn't fared much better.

This US dislike for higher-denomination coins is partly practical.

You dislike wallets stuffed with low-denomination bills, but we
dislike pockets stuffed with coins.

Right now my wallet has eight pieces of paper worth $12 that are
easier to carry than eight coins. I haven't carried coins in years and
would hate to leave the house wtih change jingling in my pockets.
Paper bills and plastic cards fit much more conveniently into wallets.

Your argument that coin size should increase with value also helps
explain the US resistance.

The small dollar coins with Susan B. and Saca-unspellable and
soon-to-come presidents look almost like quarters. I shudder at the
thought of standing behind little old ladies painstakingly picking
through their coin purses and separating quarters from dollars in the
checkout line.

Even the Eisenhower dollar was only a little bigger than a quarter,
just enough to be bulky and inconvenient. It was just the first in a
series of failed modern dollar-coin schemes.

In the US, all the new-and-improved-coin schemes within living memory
have ended up like the cheap, nutritious, well-advertised dog food
that didn't sell because the dogs just didn't like the way it tasted.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article 1JydndLQOervX4bVnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@plusnet,
"Clive George" wrote:

wrote in message
...

It starts with the fellow who found a profitable copper "mine" until
the government forbade him to melt pennies and nickels for their
metal.

It's why our 1p and 2p coins (worth about 2 and 4 cents) are made of steel
these days.

(Irritating USian currency annoyance no 3: nickels being smaller than dimes.
That's just barking. Comes below all notes looking the same, and no high
value coins in normal use though. Our smallest note is a fiver, ie about $10
US - means our wallets aren't stuffed with indistinguishable low-value green
paper...)

Did nickels get smaller than dimes while I was not looking?

Could be worse. I went to the Philippines in the 1990s, and while not
used by normal humans, I was given a few sentimo coins after a currency
exchange.

100 sentimos to the piso. At the time, the exchange rate was about 25
pisos to the CAD, so a piso was worth about 4/100 of a penny.

Today, the USD/Piso rate is about 1:42, and the sentimo is still
produced.

http://www.bohol.ph/article34.html

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

wrote in message
...

Dear Cluve,

oops :-)

If you read the article and browse about, you'll find out about why
the more ancient nickel is larger than the modern dime and replaced
the venerable half-dime--nickels were made mostly of copper back then,
just as they are today.

You'll also discover that US nickels are larger, not smaller, than
dimes.

Yeah, that's what I meant - it's just silly. Here, the 2p coin weighs twice
as much as the 1p, the 10p twice as much as the 5p and the 50p 2.5 times as
much as the 20p. I suspect the 2quid coin weighs twice as much as the one
quid.

This US dislike for higher-denomination coins is partly practical.

You dislike wallets stuffed with low-denomination bills, but we
dislike pockets stuffed with coins.

Right now my wallet has eight pieces of paper worth $12 that are
easier to carry than eight coins.

$12? So that's 3 coins worth. (3 2 quid coins, or more practically 2x$5 +
1x$2 if you had sensible coinage). Takes up less space in my wallet than 8
notes.

Your argument that coin size should increase with value also helps
explain the US resistance.

Eh? Or are you agreeing with me?

The small dollar coins with Susan B. and Saca-unspellable and
soon-to-come presidents look almost like quarters. I shudder at the
thought of standing behind little old ladies painstakingly picking
through their coin purses and separating quarters from dollars in the
checkout line.

If you had sensible coinage, the quarters would be easily distinguishable
from dollars.

Even the Eisenhower dollar was only a little bigger than a quarter,
just enough to be bulky and inconvenient. It was just the first in a
series of failed modern dollar-coin schemes.

In the US, all the new-and-improved-coin schemes within living memory
have ended up like the cheap, nutritious, well-advertised dog food
that didn't sell because the dogs just didn't like the way it tasted.

And probably because nobody had the guts to actually do it properly, and get
a decent complete set done from scratch.

I don't reckon it's politically feasible for this to happen, but it doesn't
stop the current system being irritating.

cheers,
clive

The redoubtable Carl Fogel wrote:

Even the Eisenhower dollar was only a little bigger than a quarter,
just enough to be bulky and inconvenient. It was just the first in a
series of failed modern dollar-coin schemes.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Kennedy 50-cent piece. The Eisenhower
dollar was a formidable piece of currency, at least the size of the
Liberty silver dollars of bygone days. Carrying $20 of Eisenhower
bucks would be likely to relieve you of your pants.

The principal failure of the Susan B. Anthony dollar was the design
cowardice that gave it an inscribed eleven-sided polygon that was easy
to miss because the coin had a round reeded edge. Since there is, to
my knowledge, no serious problem with unscrupulous merchants shaving
the edges of cupronickel coins, the reeded edge is just a sytlistic
throwback, the Ionian column of the numismatic world. If the design
committee in charge of solving that problem had the marbles to offer a
true eleven-sided coin, there would never have been any
misunderstanding what denomination one was dealing with. And the coin
could well have been a simple blank of solid nickel alloy, just like a
five-cent piece.

Chalo