R
Ryan Cousineau
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:23 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> -snip much-
> > >>> Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>> I suppose all of you new
> > >>>>> bicyclists who bought bikes because of Lance don't realize maintenance
> > >>>>> on bicycles used to be a common thing.
> > >>>> You haven't been riding bike or working on bikes as long as I have,
> > >>>> Russell. Can the ********.
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> Really? Then why do you make comments about rebuilding Ergo as if it
> > >>> is some kind of unbelievable experience? If you truely have
> > >>> overhauled, maintained loose ball bearing bottom brackets, and
> > >>> headsets, and hubs then you would not even mention the fact you have
> > >>> to do maintenance on Ergo shifters once or twice a decade. Just
> > >>> normal maintenance like all of the other bearing/grease items on a
> > >>> bike. But new people to bikes who go for Shimano STI and Mavic
> > >>> cartridge bearing wheels have never maintained bikes. And would think
> > >>> overhauling Ergo shifters once or twice a decade is some kind of
> > >>> defect.
> > > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> And Russel isn't a pro mechanic AFAIK. I'm ready to race anyone, even
> > >> the otherworldly Bill Cotton. Me rebuilding a worn Ergo, other guy
> > >> rebuilding a worn DA STi.
> > >> We sell Ergo spring sets to regular guys who manage their rebuilds
> > >> without much trouble or prior experience. It just isn't rocket science.
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > Right, Andrew, it ain't rocket science. What it *is* is the much more
> > > frequent failure of a component category (shift levers) where failure
> > > once was exceedingly rare. IMO, it's representative of poor design and/
> > > or an overly complex component. YMMV.
> >
> > I think you're saying, 'Ergos may be pick of the litter but the field is
> > a bunch of dogs.'. OK, I can't say you are wrong about that.
>
> Yes, that's what I'm saying.
>
> >
> > If Modolo, SRAM, Shimano and Campagnolo can't/won't make an integrated
> > lever as dependable as a 1983 DA-6 SIS, why don't you just make one,
> > dominate the category and make a bazillion dollars?
> I'm not making that sorta claim. It's entirely possible, even likely,
> that failure is inherent in such a needlessly complex shift mechanism.
> If so, packaging such a device together with an inherently reliable
> device like a brake lever is kinda like packaging a VCR in the same
> chassis with a TV. Stupid. Especially stupid if the shift component is
> essentially unserviceable.
>
> IMO, with the possible exception of racing applications, brifters as
> we know them are entirely unnecessary. The recreational cyclist is
> better served with designs patterned after the old Suntour Command
> shifters or DT shifter adapters such as Kelly Takeoffs. Or Barends.
> And, "flat bar" users are certainly better served with good ol'
> thumbshifters. Again, YMMV.
Shimano sells barcons. Campy sells barcons. Endless numbers of cruddy
component companies (think Falcon and Microshift) sell DT shifters. The
used market is afloat in the things with any number of clicks from zero
to nine (nine makes ten, as I only ever remember after trying to find
the extra one on whatever shifter I'm playing with off of a bike).
No less a maker than Trek themselves (Their slogan: "Ignore Lance: it
was TOTALLY about the bike!") offers the Trek 520 with barcons. The
consumer is not bereft.
And yet.
Ask Mike Jacobusky how well the 520 sells. He mentioned it previously
(paraphrased: the biggest problem with selling it is the barcons...).
Do you know why people like brifters? They're fun! They're fun when
you're mock-sprinting against your friends, they're fun when you're
real-sprinting in a real race (by which I mean one in which first prize
is a box of Powerbars), and they're fun just to use from stoplight to
stoplight. Considering how "seriously" most "serious" bikes get used,
It's nice that they're fun.
As a value proposition, any new bike is a loser. The real deal is to buy
whatever "used ten times, then hung in the garage" bike you can find
most cheaply, probably something about two decades old these days.
Such a machine is no worse than the latest thing off the rack, and far
cheaper, reliability wise. A fanatical rider might change out the rear
wheel for a handbuilt freewheel wheel, And they might update the brakes
or derailers if deemed necessary. And then go ride.
I know this route: I ride a bike made before I was tall enough to ride
it, and I've ridden one older than me. They work. They're fine.
And yet I race on a bike with Veloce brifters, I CX on a bike with 105
brifters, and my underused MTB has XT triggers (9 speed for the road
bikes, and 8 speed for the MTB; cheap + used = happy me).
Heck, old rigid MTBs are both cheaper and tougher than old road bikes. I
picked a Univega with 7-speed trigger-shifter drivetrain (STX end to
end) out of the trash yesterday. It needs new shifter cable housings,
because the shifting isn't quite as crisp as I would like. I could
downgrade it to get more reliable shifters, but I don't think I will.
Trigger shifters reduce the brainload and increase the fun when riding
in traffic, and that's what the next user of that bike will do.
How reliable are modern drivetrains? Plenty reliable. And they're a lot
of fun.
What I hope I'm saying is that there are good reasons most riders opt
for push-button shifting, even when it means trading reliability. That's
because for most riders, they either won't reach the life limits of or
maintenance cycle of STI or Campy shifters, or they will happily pay the
upkeep to continue having fun (and, of course, the expense of that one
lost ride when the shifter craps out).
The good news is that you have not been pushed out of the market. New
lever shifters from both C and S are only a bike shop (or a web site)
away, and used ones are available from fine garage sales everywhere, as
well as less mercurial retail channels.
So what's the problem?
--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:23 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> -snip much-
> > >>> Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>> I suppose all of you new
> > >>>>> bicyclists who bought bikes because of Lance don't realize maintenance
> > >>>>> on bicycles used to be a common thing.
> > >>>> You haven't been riding bike or working on bikes as long as I have,
> > >>>> Russell. Can the ********.
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> Really? Then why do you make comments about rebuilding Ergo as if it
> > >>> is some kind of unbelievable experience? If you truely have
> > >>> overhauled, maintained loose ball bearing bottom brackets, and
> > >>> headsets, and hubs then you would not even mention the fact you have
> > >>> to do maintenance on Ergo shifters once or twice a decade. Just
> > >>> normal maintenance like all of the other bearing/grease items on a
> > >>> bike. But new people to bikes who go for Shimano STI and Mavic
> > >>> cartridge bearing wheels have never maintained bikes. And would think
> > >>> overhauling Ergo shifters once or twice a decade is some kind of
> > >>> defect.
> > > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> And Russel isn't a pro mechanic AFAIK. I'm ready to race anyone, even
> > >> the otherworldly Bill Cotton. Me rebuilding a worn Ergo, other guy
> > >> rebuilding a worn DA STi.
> > >> We sell Ergo spring sets to regular guys who manage their rebuilds
> > >> without much trouble or prior experience. It just isn't rocket science.
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > Right, Andrew, it ain't rocket science. What it *is* is the much more
> > > frequent failure of a component category (shift levers) where failure
> > > once was exceedingly rare. IMO, it's representative of poor design and/
> > > or an overly complex component. YMMV.
> >
> > I think you're saying, 'Ergos may be pick of the litter but the field is
> > a bunch of dogs.'. OK, I can't say you are wrong about that.
>
> Yes, that's what I'm saying.
>
> >
> > If Modolo, SRAM, Shimano and Campagnolo can't/won't make an integrated
> > lever as dependable as a 1983 DA-6 SIS, why don't you just make one,
> > dominate the category and make a bazillion dollars?
> I'm not making that sorta claim. It's entirely possible, even likely,
> that failure is inherent in such a needlessly complex shift mechanism.
> If so, packaging such a device together with an inherently reliable
> device like a brake lever is kinda like packaging a VCR in the same
> chassis with a TV. Stupid. Especially stupid if the shift component is
> essentially unserviceable.
>
> IMO, with the possible exception of racing applications, brifters as
> we know them are entirely unnecessary. The recreational cyclist is
> better served with designs patterned after the old Suntour Command
> shifters or DT shifter adapters such as Kelly Takeoffs. Or Barends.
> And, "flat bar" users are certainly better served with good ol'
> thumbshifters. Again, YMMV.
Shimano sells barcons. Campy sells barcons. Endless numbers of cruddy
component companies (think Falcon and Microshift) sell DT shifters. The
used market is afloat in the things with any number of clicks from zero
to nine (nine makes ten, as I only ever remember after trying to find
the extra one on whatever shifter I'm playing with off of a bike).
No less a maker than Trek themselves (Their slogan: "Ignore Lance: it
was TOTALLY about the bike!") offers the Trek 520 with barcons. The
consumer is not bereft.
And yet.
Ask Mike Jacobusky how well the 520 sells. He mentioned it previously
(paraphrased: the biggest problem with selling it is the barcons...).
Do you know why people like brifters? They're fun! They're fun when
you're mock-sprinting against your friends, they're fun when you're
real-sprinting in a real race (by which I mean one in which first prize
is a box of Powerbars), and they're fun just to use from stoplight to
stoplight. Considering how "seriously" most "serious" bikes get used,
It's nice that they're fun.
As a value proposition, any new bike is a loser. The real deal is to buy
whatever "used ten times, then hung in the garage" bike you can find
most cheaply, probably something about two decades old these days.
Such a machine is no worse than the latest thing off the rack, and far
cheaper, reliability wise. A fanatical rider might change out the rear
wheel for a handbuilt freewheel wheel, And they might update the brakes
or derailers if deemed necessary. And then go ride.
I know this route: I ride a bike made before I was tall enough to ride
it, and I've ridden one older than me. They work. They're fine.
And yet I race on a bike with Veloce brifters, I CX on a bike with 105
brifters, and my underused MTB has XT triggers (9 speed for the road
bikes, and 8 speed for the MTB; cheap + used = happy me).
Heck, old rigid MTBs are both cheaper and tougher than old road bikes. I
picked a Univega with 7-speed trigger-shifter drivetrain (STX end to
end) out of the trash yesterday. It needs new shifter cable housings,
because the shifting isn't quite as crisp as I would like. I could
downgrade it to get more reliable shifters, but I don't think I will.
Trigger shifters reduce the brainload and increase the fun when riding
in traffic, and that's what the next user of that bike will do.
How reliable are modern drivetrains? Plenty reliable. And they're a lot
of fun.
What I hope I'm saying is that there are good reasons most riders opt
for push-button shifting, even when it means trading reliability. That's
because for most riders, they either won't reach the life limits of or
maintenance cycle of STI or Campy shifters, or they will happily pay the
upkeep to continue having fun (and, of course, the expense of that one
lost ride when the shifter craps out).
The good news is that you have not been pushed out of the market. New
lever shifters from both C and S are only a bike shop (or a web site)
away, and used ones are available from fine garage sales everywhere, as
well as less mercurial retail channels.
So what's the problem?
--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos