S
Sandy
Guest
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.
[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.