Campy: Lower Gears for Extremely Sporadic Use



Dans le message de news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a
réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>
>>> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the
>>> same sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously
>>> believes then lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a
>>> 45-21, regardless of how steep the hill is.

>
>> Since 1968, Campagnolo's inner ring was 42t. After 1986, the
>> standard Campagnolo low chainring was 39t. Still is for Campagnolo
>> race bikes. In this new century, most new Campagnolo equipped bikes
>> are 50-34 with a 12~25. Some are 30-40-53 with a 29 low rear. You
>> might get out more, look at new things a bit.

>
> There are good reasons for not going to smaller CW both for whom they
> are made and what it does for chains. Campagnolo started with a
> tradition from old man Tullio to supply professional racers with good
> reliable competition equipment. That was before the day of the "me
> too" generation that wanted to look like racers and spent large sums
> on equipment that had an appearance of professionalism.
>
> The current riders spend several times for a bicycle than racing
> bicycle of yore cost. At the same time they are unable to operate the
> classic Silca plastic frame fit tire pump, switching to mini pumps
> that require endless strokes. They demanded ever more gears and that
> they can be shifted under load while not letting go of the bars at the
> flip of a finger.
>
> 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.
>
> Jobst Brandt


Not amused, just special. So very special. It's a wonder you aren't the
king of the cycling industry. I just don't understand how they fail to
appreciate your genius.
 
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
 
>[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...


> 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, [email protected] 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/2008/03/31/080331fa_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
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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 [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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
 
On May 3, 8:46 pm, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


Numismatically speaking, you are of course correct but the real reason
the SBA dollar didn't fly was because it had a woman's picture on it.

Not only a woman, but a ****-disturbing feminazi.

Cowardice applying abundantly, of course.

Later, the same fate, as depicted on the Simpsons, for the Sacejawea
one-dollar coin. --D-y
 
On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.


[snip]

Dear Chalo,

No, I was thinking of the ~38 mm Eisenhower dollar, which strikes me
as being only a "little bigger" than the ~24 mm quarter, just enough
for me to call it "bulky and inconvenient":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Dollar

But you're right--$20 of silver dollars is more than most people would
carry in their pocket, and the Kennedy half dollar fits my "little
bigger than a quarter" description better than the Eisenhower dollar,
even though I'm not sure that the Kennedy half dollar is big enough to
qualify for the "bulky and inconvenient" part of my description.

The various sizes and details can be found in the links at the bottom
of any Wiki article on U.S. coins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_dollar

old silver $'s: 38.1 mm
Eisenhower: 38.1 mm

Franklin &
Kennedy halves: 30.61 mm

Susan B. $ : 26.5 mm
Saca-blah $ : 26.5 mm

quarter : 24.26 mm

All this numismatic fuss reminds me of the 50-cent roll of New Zealand
pennies that was given to me years ago with the explanation that they
worked as dimes in many US pay-phones for long-distance calls.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
> 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.


Chalo wrote:
> 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.


Good points all, but the urban myth is that Congress mandated a woman on
a coin and the Mint said "you want a girl dollar? we'll make you a girl
dollar", that process retching up a piece designed to fail. That theory
would seem to apply to the later Ms Ugly Dollar too.

For gifts to children of associates in Japan I buy silver Liberty
dollars. Worn copies are relatively cheap and just beautiful, hefty,
confidence inspiring in a way the later ones are not. Hard to find much
beautiful 'made in USA' for kids. Liberty Dollars are art unto themselves.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 
Andrew Muzi wrote:
> ...
> For gifts to children of associates in Japan I buy silver Liberty
> dollars. Worn copies are relatively cheap and just beautiful, hefty,
> confidence inspiring in a way the later ones are not. Hard to find much
> beautiful 'made in USA' for kids....


Hard to find much of anything made in the USA anymore. Around here,
losses are mounting in what remained in manufacturing after the huge
de-industrialization of the early 1980's.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
A Muzi wrote:
>
> For gifts to children of associates in Japan I buy silver Liberty
> dollars. Worn copies are relatively cheap and just beautiful, hefty,
> confidence inspiring in a way the later ones are not. Hard to find much
> beautiful 'made in USA' for kids. Liberty Dollars are art unto themselves.


That's a great gift idea for furriners. Vintage silver dollars evince
a mighty, confident, quality-conscious America that hasn't shown its
face for a long, long time. It's a nice thing to commemorate, given
that an old coin by itself doesn't dish up pesky reminders of Jim
Crow, robber barons, buffalo skinners, Sinclair's _the Jungle_, or the
Heathen Chinee. And so forth.

My favorite is the Morgan dollar from the late 1800s. What a swell
coin.

I have noticed that the relief on US coinage seems to get shallower
and shallower all the time. 1967 quarters seem like craftwork of
antiquity compared to the new state quarters. The new coins are flat
enough to befit a game token from Chuck E. Cheese's. The new nickels
look like Jefferson 2008 presidential campaign tchotchkes-- if only he
were in the running this year!

Chalo
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 3, 8:46 pm, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.

>
> Numismatically speaking, you are of course correct but the real reason
> the SBA dollar didn't fly was because it had a woman's picture on it.
>
> Not only a woman, but a ****-disturbing feminazi.
>
> Cowardice applying abundantly, of course.
>
> Later, the same fate, as depicted on the Simpsons, for the Sacejawea
> one-dollar coin.


It is almost as if the project were undermined from the start.
Gnawwwwwww!

--
Michael Press
 
In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

>
> Chalo wrote:
> > 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.

>
> Good points all, but the urban myth is that Congress mandated a woman on
> a coin and the Mint said "you want a girl dollar? we'll make you a girl
> dollar", that process retching up a piece designed to fail. That theory
> would seem to apply to the later Ms Ugly Dollar too.
>
> For gifts to children of associates in Japan I buy silver Liberty
> dollars. Worn copies are relatively cheap and just beautiful, hefty,
> confidence inspiring in a way the later ones are not. Hard to find much
> beautiful 'made in USA' for kids. Liberty Dollars are art unto themselves.


The silver dollar goes all the way back to a 1516 silver strike
in Joachimstahl in the current Czech Republic. (50 N, 13 E).
Silver coins were minted there and were known as Joachim thalers.
Silver coins of approximately the same size were minted
by many countries. dahl (= dale = valley) -> thaler -> dollar.

--
Michael Press
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:

> $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.


But weighs more and can't be used for emergency tyre repair. (Not that
I'm advocating low-denomination banknotes in general, but this *is*
r.b.tech.)
 
On 04 May 2008 12:07:32 +0300, [email protected] (A R:nen)
wrote:

>"Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> $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.

>
>But weighs more and can't be used for emergency tyre repair. (Not that
>I'm advocating low-denomination banknotes in general, but this *is*
>r.b.tech.)


Dear O,

To be fair, you could use a coin as a screwdriver if you could find a
big slotted screw on your bicycle. (Perhaps a dust cap or a down-tube
friction shifter? Or maybe to make an emergency call if you could find
an increasingly rare pay phone?)

Clive's scheme for carrying imaginary $2 and $5 US coins requires
everyone else to carry ones to make change for me (or for me to spend
either $2 or $5 for stuff that I want to pay only a dollar for).

Coins may work well for Clive, but paper bills became much more
convenient for me years ago. (Some people use coin machines routinely,
but the parking meters that used to eat my change vanished long ago in
my neck of the woods, and I never had much use for vending machines.)

That's why I had a $5 bill and seven $1 bills handy, folded
conveniently next to the twenties that I carry anyway--all paper, no
coins.

The few coins that I do get in change (or pick up from the floors of
grocery stores and the college parking lot) spiral down this yellow
plastic toy, which I bought years ago (with accumulated change) after
seeing its big brother at the Salt Lake City Zoo:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2rr3sc8.jpg

They still sell my yellow spiral wishing-well:
http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/toy/index.html

The $25 price suggests that, for many people, change is entertainment.

Anyway, to take the large-denomination coin argument to its logical
extreme, why not do away with paper money altogether and issue $10,
$20, $50, and $100 coins, all made from almost worthless metal?

After all, coins are cheaper to make than bills because they last so
much longer, and some people argue that carrying coins is wonderfully
easier than putting notes into wallets.

A) Coins smaller than clumsy old silver dollars are too easy to lose.
Losing a quarter is no problem, which is why you find them lying
around parking lots. Losing a $20 coin is quite a different matter.

B) Intrinsically worthless coins are much, much easier to counterfeit
than bills.

C) Lots of people hate to carry coins in their pockets.

D) Heck, lots of people hate to carry cash. The coin versus cash
argument grows increasingly academic. Just as cash replaced coins for
serious amounts long ago, so are credit cards increasingly replacing
paper money.

Those seven $1 bills and single $5 bill have been in my wallet for
months now, unused, just like the twenties next to them. The turnover
rate in my wallet is so low that I had to look just now to make sure
that I haven't got any old small-portrait twenties.

It's a little like spare tubes and spokes. Some riders who grew up
patching flats now find that their spare tubes have cracked with age
and folding when they finally suffer a flat tire, and most riders quit
carrying spare spokes a long time ago.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel