Conference noted::bicycle

Gee Dave, a lot of the stuff you mentioned was around lots earlier than 
the early 80's - I remember versions of most of it from the early 70's,
altho I didn't see anything I'd really compare to indexed shifting...

Anyway, take heart, most of the stuff in today's catalogs will be 
antiques in 20 years --- "Gee, are those Scott bars? I've *heard* of 
them, are these real or reproductions??? And SIS shifters? Grandpa 
used'ta talk 'bout these ALL the time, said they was quite the rage in 
his day..."
                              ken

Dave, 

As a relatively new cyclist (started in '87) I feel the need to make a
couple of comments.

>>While I was looking through some of my old bike catalogs dating back to 
>>the early '80s, I began to feel sad.  Sad because the bikes in the early 
>>'80s were so much better than the bikes today.

Is this really true, or were they just "simpler"?  In the early 80's and
late 70's, I could work on my cars, but with today's technology,  the
only time I open the hood to my Turbo Subaru is to add windshield washer
fluid.  

>>We didn't have Positron (indexed) (SIS) shifting.  Positron shifting 
>>was for the Kiddy bikes. 

Manly men may still prefer to use friction shifting, but give me indexed
shifting in the Colorado mountains any day. (Boy, I wish I had Hyperglide
on my road bike! :-) )  

>>further more, we didn't have adult sized BMX bikes (Mountain Bikes).

Have you ever ridden one?  Most fun I've had with my clothes on!

>>I don't know if all this new stuff is suppose to attract more people into 
>>biking, or just confuse them.  Will it make better bikers out of them or 
>>just make them look "Awsome".

I wonder if Greg Lemond could have won the final stage of last years
TDF with conventional handle bars?

Just a comment on the new components introduced in the last few years.
I've been trying to get my extremely unathletic wife to try biking for
a couple of years now.  With the introduction of Hyperglide and Rapid
Fire shifting, I think this is the summer that it'll happen.  I don't
see the innovations as necessarily bad, although I do see the down
side for those who don't like the new Shimano shifters: It seems that
every ATB that has Shimano components will have RF shifters.  People ought
to have a choice, but when did they ever ask us?   Cycling technology is
getting to be a lot like the computer industry; if you buy now, whatever
you  get will probably be obsolete in six months.  ( I should know, I 
bought my mountain bike as a model close out only to find out that the
new model had Hyperglide.

Don't take these comments personally, I don't intend them that way. I just
wanted to comment from the perspective of a new convert.  


Patrick

    
    Ah, Dave, a man after my own retro heart.  All those goodies you named
    were highly-marketed foofaraw that the bicycle industry of the '80s and
    90's hyped in order to boost sagging sales.  It's the kind of thing the
    auto makers used to do in the '50s, in order to permit their customers
    to feel inadequate owning last year's model.
    
    You'll recall the bicycle industry was in a severe slump by the early
    '80s.  Everyone who wanted a bike had one- some even spending good money-
    well over $200.  The baby boomers were aging, and didn't have so much
    time to ride, and the bikes they already owned would probably last a
    lifetime.  Then the saviour of the bike industry arrived- the Mountain
    Bike.  Now the industry could justify (in the customer's mind) the
    necessity of owning yet another bike.  The sales figures of this (not
    so new) design flourished, and many many people who will never slip a
    mountain slope on one bought 'em.  
    
    The other big development was the upscale bike- no longer would a 2 or
    300 dollar bike do.  Now the norm outstripped inflation, and the 1000
    dollar bike seemed poorly.  What did all this new exotic technology do?
    Make the bike go a little teensy eensy bit faster?
    
    So here's what I don't understand:  If the purpose of a bike is good
    exercise and a fun ride while doing so (which it is for the vast, vast 
    majority of owners), then making it easier to ride means that you get less
    of a workout for the time expended.  This means that the entire process is
    less efficient.  So for maximum efficiency in your bicycling exercise,
    get a cruiser.  For maximum speed and comfort in your bicycling exercise,
    get a car.
    
    	Dave

     Re; SIS...Gee, I had one of those on the first "English" bicycle
         I owned (circa) 1960-61. Remember the 3 speed handle bar
         mounted, lever action Sturmey-Archer's? Definitely "clicked"
         into gear and the adjustment had to right on or you'd be
         talking a few octaves higher than usual....
    
         Let's not forget the designer sunglasses, color coordinated
        brake hoods, computers, aero-bottle cages... Okay, okay. I'll
        admit to being a techno-junkie (to a degree). 
    
         Questioning the "advances" made during the decade for the 
        recreational rider is probably not worth debating. However,
        there is definitely merit to a great many advances when we
        consider an 8 second margin after a 2k+ race (barring all of
        tactics of course). Some of the stuff is foolish (I don't like
        or see a need for SIS - don't hurt me :-)) I have personal ex-
        perience with aero bars (they do make a difference) and some other
        stuff. Weight should be a consideration for all riders (not to
        mention durability). I still remember my Schwinn Varsity (what
        a tank! But that sucker could crush Volkswagons)
    
         Good subject... Gee I wish I still had that Varsity....
    
          Chip

    Yikes!  This is the kind of progressive thinking that keeps DEC on top
    of the high tech market.

    So things were really so much better 10 years ago?  I know it's only an
    opinion but I think it's way off the mark.  I think the change is the
    signs of a vital and innovative market.  Unfortunately in such a market
    there will be products that come out that are of dubious value or
    improvements.  I also don't like to pay the price of some of the new
    products.

    It's interesting to note that my list of true improvements would
    include many of the items that you call fads or gadgets:

        Mountain bike - they are more than an old Schwinn with gears.
        Indexed shifting - what's wrong with perfect shifts?  What's the
                status of owning a Campy that shifts like crap?  You can
                always use your indexed system in friction mode, you would
                be the only one who did, but it's your right.
        Clipless pedals - This debate is over, right?  Unless you like
                metal toe clips cutting into your big toe and straps
                cutting off the circulation to your feet.
        High performance clinchers - 10 years ago there was no comparison,
                today the performance is VERY close to tubulars with a huge 
                advantage in maintenance/ease of use going to clinchers
                (unfortunately there isn't as much of a price difference
                any more).
                Also rims of both type are far stronger today.
        Non-steel frames - OK, this one is a good candidate for debate. 
                The only thing that bothers me in this debate is the
                steel-people who argue that steel is the only way to go but
                have never owned or even ridden an aluminum or composite
                bike.  There are a lot of foods that my 3 year old hates,
                she's never tried them, but she just knows the hate them.
        Gel seats - Now here's a rare exception, they don't cost any more
                than a "normal" seat.  I own one.  There might not be a big
                difference but I like it.
        Aero break levers - they look better, work just as well and don't
                cost any more.
        
    OK, enough, I'm getting tired of this.  All I'm trying to say is this
    "life was so much better back then" opinion is not shared by all.

    As someone who survived the obsessions with low-weight components, and
    then the craze for aero parts in the 'seventies, I think the basic
    premise of the base note is wrong.  Remember titanium seatpost bolts,
    drilled-out chainrings, and aluminium spoke nipples?  How about "aero"
    frames, cranks, and shift levers?  Things are hardly any more complex
    or more frivolous than they ever were -- only the fads have changed.

    
    	I've seen pictures of Eddie Merckx (sp?) on a bike with drilled
    out components.

	When I started racing in the 60's, you were nobody unless you 
had your (single) Weimann brake lever drilled up its length and also in 
the hood !!  People also fixed toeclips with 1 bolt to save weight, and 
carried 8 inch pumps (if they took a spare tub!). However, remember Ray
Booty's 100 mile straight-out record (3 hours 28 odd) was done on a
Sturmey, with a top of about 98....  and in the days when there was little
traffic to suck you along......  and no-one knew about scientific
training........ etc...

	Which brings me to another point - motivation.  How many of 
these performances were achieved because the guy thought his bike was 
the best, and how much was really due to the equipment ?  G�rard Ru�'s 
recent TT performance in the TdMed is a case in point, he used a 
conventional machine, no weirdo bars, no disc wheels, but he was 
motivated !!

	Another pet theory - ask yourself how many current racers suffer 
from knee pains - ask yourself what gears they use and are they 
commensurate with the higher speeds ?  The great Roi Rene (Vietto) was 
quoting as saying that a 54 x 12 gear was for pedalling at 100 kph...
(probably a bit over the top but you get the idea !!)

Robin

    
    Re .0:
    
    Sorry, here's another who's unsympathetic to your views. Technological
    change in the 80s has been fast, and almost entirely for the better.
    
    Indexed shifting is a world apart from Shimano's old Positron, and I
    wouldn't be without it. It completely frees the cyclist from all the
    old bugbears of chains that jam when you backpedal, gears that change
    when you put the pressure on, and bottom gears that you can't get into
    just when you most need them. Aero brake levers are hardly more
    difficult to install or maintain that conventional brakes and keep the
    cables in better condition. And I can assure you that ATBs were a
    godsend to the cycle industry.
    
    Regarding someone's later comment that more efficient bikes make you
    work less hard, not so! You work at the same level but go faster, and
    encouraged by this you try even harder.
    
    
    Rod

    I think it is general agreement that components today make cycling
    "easier".  However, all the discussion has been around those parts
    that are felt by human touch.  Has technology increase the durability
    of equipment?  I have taken a number of these fancy looking cranksets
    apart today and have seen bottom brackets that are far from high grade
    steel.  If you take your average component set, ie Shimano 105, and
    put 20,000-30,000 miles on it, what condition will the internals be?
    How long will the chainrings last?  
    
    For those shopping for a long term investment, look at the equipment
    you can't see.
    
    steve
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE: .-1    Durability and robustness do count for something!
    
    	       What we've seen from some the foregoing replies is
    	       that new markets have gone hand-in-hand with new
    	       technology.  Some new markets (ATB/mountain bikes)
    	       demand a certain degree of ruggedness.  Others - 
    	       luxus-priced bikes that don't necessarily get ridden
    	       many miles over their lifetime, don't demand the durability,
    	       I guess.  Aspects such as glitz and ease-of-use predominate.
    
    	       My own newest bike, by the way, has held up quite well,
    	       so I can't complain.  It's fairly traditional (CrMo SLX
    	       and "old-fashioned" C-Record) though.  It's been (crossed
    	       fingers!) very trouble-free - low annoyance-factor so far.
    
    	       I think Marketing and Technology provide their own pushes
    	       these days (since 1910?) ... and that's not all bad.  The
    	       shake-out from some of the "gimmickry" and "glitz" may be
    	       good solid value in the years to come.
    
    	-john

    Well, I think I fall into the toy junkie category too.  My wife
    periodically laughs at my enthusiasm for doo-dads.  But, I like my
    toys.  Some people may not like having a computer on their bike, but I
    like seeing how far, how fast, what average, how long I've been out
    riding.  It helps motivate me.
    
    I think some of the "advances" are probably junk, but many others have
    been very advantageous.  My wife finally, last summer, dumped her
    Schwinn Suburban for a Peugot.  She climbed on it and couldn't believe
    how much easier it rode, how responsive it was, and how nice the
    indexed shifting was.  I think the big advances from when I last was
    looking at bike equipment in the mid-late 70's are:
    
    Better brakes and rims - the old side-pulls or center-pulls weren't
    NEARLY as smooth as the brakes now.  I've got Ultegra side-pulls on my
    bike and there is NO comparison to the old Weinmanns or Shimano
    center-pulls we used to use.  The brake pads and rims also seem better
    to me.  Alloy rims were around 15 years ago, but it seemed like you
    only saw them on very high-end bikes.  Now, even bikes in the $300
    range have decent rims and good brakes.
    
    Kevlar belted tires - don't know when these started coming out, but
    I've got a set of Schwinn VR kevlars and they are GREAT.  Where I had 4
    flats in the first 2 months of last summer, I haven't had a single flat
    in over 800 miles on these.  And I ride through the same areas (or will
    once spring gets here again).
    
    Light-weight helmets - I NEVER saw anybody with a helmet in the 70s. 
    Now, with the lightweight helmets they are easy to use and comfortable. 
    I see a lot of people wearing them and whether its a fad or not, it has
    to make things a little safer.
    
    ATB - For good or bad, these things have gotten a TON of people onto
    bikes that didn't ride before.  My wife's bike started out as an ATB
    that she had them put street tires on since she has NO intention of
    ever going cross-country.  If these bikes could get her back on wheels
    then as far as I'm concerned they're a good thing.
    
    Indexed shifting - I love this.  With practice and concentration I
    could usually shift adequately before, but now you don't have to
    concentrate on the shifting, you can just enjoy the ride.  
    
    And when they come out with the equivalent of rapid-fire for the street
    bikes (I've heard mid-summer from the local shop) I'm going to look at
    THAT too!  I'd love not to have to remove my hand from the brake hoods
    to shift!
    
    D