Changing Groupset Make

A Muzi

> A Muzi wrote:
> <snip for clarity>
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/srk.html

jim beam wrote:
> genius!

Thanks. If one man laughs it was worthwhile.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

jim beam

A Muzi wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> JG wrote:
>>> Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
>>> generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
>>> when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
>>> put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
>>> designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
>>> mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
>>> sealed bottom brackets.
>>> Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
>>> you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
>>> you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
>>> wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> actually, the question is why some of these parts are needed in the
>> first place.
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/...shift_mech.jpeg
>>
>>
>> this is a known and frequent failure - and it's a design issue because
>> of the stress riser where the break happens. it shouldn't happen and
>> it would take about 5 minutes to re-design so it never recurred.
>>
>> yes, you'll see lots of stories of broken shimano shift mechanisms,
>> but personally, i've never experienced one*. i've experienced two of
>> the above, and i dropped campy because of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> * the design error imo is that the "up" and "down" shift levers are
>> not only close, but both move in the same direction - i believe all
>> problems therefore stem from people accidentally pushing both levers
>> at the same time, and if they don't get the shift they want, they just
>> keep on pushing until something gives. should the shifters be
>> redesigned to allow for "mistakes" like this? perhaps. but used with
>> dexterity, shimano shifters will just keep on going - unlike campy
>> where their design means breakage is inevitable, regardless of usage.
>>
>
> re: Campagnolo
> Uh, that piece has been carbon for years now. You may know something
> about that material; failure rate has vaporized. The carbon carrier with
> springs is cheaper than a gear cable set.

that's good to know - i guess. but it's a fudge to throw an exotic
material at a design "error".


>
> re:Shimano
> Are you basically saying 'blame the rider'? That was your criticism of
> Jobst's comments three hours before you wrote this.

you have another explanation? i don't since the mechanism has no
obvious flaws [other than lever proximity as said before]. the
materials used are good. any machine can be broken by ignorance and
brute force. and you can be sure the person bringing it into the shop
isn't going to admit their error if they think they can get something
replaced.

jobst's shimmy "theory" neither adequately explains nor properly cures -
blaming the rider for a serious condition like that, one that is
potentially life threatening in extremis, is b.s. "shivering"? that's
a joke - it doesn't explain the same phenomenon in motorcycles or even
some old types of car. both of the latter have been cured by addressing
stiffness and dynamics. as indeed have a lot of modern bicycles. all
my oversize tube aluminum frames simply refuse to shimmy. that's not
exactly coincidence.