In article <
[email protected]>, "Dave Mayer"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan: are you a Luddite? Of course 10, 11, 12 speed cogsets are necessary! Progress! 11 is one
> faster than 10. The ability to have X+1 cogs will definitely open up my wallet and make me buy!
>
> Not. In fact, Campy's switch to 10 speed made me abandon a long-term committment to the brand. I
> use Campy 8 and 9-speed shifters and rear derailleurs, but the rest of my drivetrain is now
> Shimano. The close cog spacing between Campy and Shimano 9-speed is a fortunate but I'm sure
> unintentional feature. Shimano will not duplicate this mistake when they go to their own version
> of 10-speed. Even 9-speed is wrong for mountain bikes. My favorite tech shop here says that their
> #1 requested upgrade is converting XT and XTR drivetrains to 8-speed. Why? better shift
> reliability under dirty conditions, and fewer missed and ghost shifts due to vibration.
>
> Seriously, is the bicycle industry so devoid of engineering-based innovation that it has to depend
> on a 4-year cycle of just adding another cog?
I'm waiting for the much-anticipated fourth front ring. But pity the poor bike industry: everything
works fairly well. The last interesting road innovation happened when STI was introduced (which I
think is a boon for criterium nerds like myself).
> Personally, I've jumped off this merry-go-round. When the industry comes up with a 10-speed
> internally-geared rear hub that weighs close to existing drivetrains, then I'll buy once more.
I wonder how much development time Shimano is putting into their Nexus stuff? I certainly would like
to see a reasonably priced competitor to the Rohloff 14-speed.
> Other so-called new stuff: Electronic shifting. What's the point? My drivetrains are so dialed-in
> and smooth that I couldn't be bothered with the cost and the complexity.
Amen, brother! Actually, I came up with some theories about electronic shifting, but I don't think
they'll use it for anything but making bicycles battery-dependent.
> Dura-Ace and Record triple cranksets? As if any Cat. riders will use these... If you need anything
> lower than a double with 39-28 gearing, then you shouldn't be riding a a $200+ crankset.
This, I have to call you on. There are probably some hillclimbs and brutal over-the-top races where
a triple is a reasonable choice. Several USPS riders used triples in the major stage races (Vuelta
Espana, Tour) last year. Hey, maybe with the 10v, they won't need to!
Also, Dura-Ace and Record are Acura NSX or Ferrari groups. Beautifully made, very functional, vastly
beyond the needs of almost any cyclist. I doubt that any rider outside of the Tour de France could
tell the performance difference between a bike with Dura-Ace and 105, and I'm sure there isn't a
Category rider around that could change their placing in a criterium with the difference between
Dura-Ace and Tiagra, and probably Sora. And the same goes for the Campy stuff.
But I'm sure there's some loaded tourist out there quite glad to have a triple on his all-Dura-Ace
bike, just as people commute in Ferraris. Perhaps these things make Tullio Campagnolo and Enzo
Ferrari turn in their graves, but what the customer wants....
For most Dura-Ace and Record riders, I'm sure it's really about being able to point at the bike and
say, "full Record gruppo," than it is about a performance benefit. And why not? If I was fabulously
wealthy and had a bike budget to match, I'd have a bike built up with all Record, too. I'm sure I'd
even love it. But right now I have a 105/Sora mutant with a carbon fork on a steel frame, and it's
not slowing me down a bit.
> > Sheesh. I have no strong feelings for any bike part maker, but is 10v so necessary?
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau,
[email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
--
Ryan Cousineau,
[email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club