R
Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
Thanks,
JB
obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
Thanks,
JB
Campy Record Ergo 10 - Triple?
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
A
Artoi
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
Absolutely. I am using a pair of Chorus version for this. 3-4 clicks per
shift with lots of room for trimming.
--
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
Absolutely. I am using a pair of Chorus version for this. 3-4 clicks per
shift with lots of room for trimming.
--
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
> Thanks,
> JB
ALL left side ERGO has been double AND triple compatible since it's
first day...way back in late 1991.
> Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
> Thanks,
> JB
ALL left side ERGO has been double AND triple compatible since it's
first day...way back in late 1991.
R
[email protected] wrote:
> Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
> Thanks,
> JB
Another Shimano concept detrimental to cycling. The idea of front
shifters being specific to double or triple cranksets like STI. One
has to wonder if anyone at Shimano has ever ridden a bicycle. And due
to Shimano's domination of factory bikes (Trek, Cannondale, Giant,
Specialized) the unknowledgable bicycle buyer thinks Shimano's bizarre
methods apply to component makers that understand bicycles.
> Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
> Thanks,
> JB
Another Shimano concept detrimental to cycling. The idea of front
shifters being specific to double or triple cranksets like STI. One
has to wonder if anyone at Shimano has ever ridden a bicycle. And due
to Shimano's domination of factory bikes (Trek, Cannondale, Giant,
Specialized) the unknowledgable bicycle buyer thinks Shimano's bizarre
methods apply to component makers that understand bicycles.
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> > obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
> > Thanks,
> > JB
>
> Another Shimano concept detrimental to cycling. The idea of front
> shifters being specific to double or triple cranksets like STI.
Not just "specific to double or triple cranksets" (in many cases), but
also fussy about the exact FD, chainring combo, etc. It's very
annoying.
> One
> has to wonder if anyone at Shimano has ever ridden a bicycle. And due
> to Shimano's domination of factory bikes (Trek, Cannondale, Giant,
> Specialized) the unknowledgable bicycle buyer thinks Shimano's bizarre
> methods apply to component makers that understand bicycles.
Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Are Campy Record Ergo 10 shifters triple ring compatible? Probably an
> > obvious answer but figured I'd ask.
> > Thanks,
> > JB
>
> Another Shimano concept detrimental to cycling. The idea of front
> shifters being specific to double or triple cranksets like STI.
Not just "specific to double or triple cranksets" (in many cases), but
also fussy about the exact FD, chainring combo, etc. It's very
annoying.
> One
> has to wonder if anyone at Shimano has ever ridden a bicycle. And due
> to Shimano's domination of factory bikes (Trek, Cannondale, Giant,
> Specialized) the unknowledgable bicycle buyer thinks Shimano's bizarre
> methods apply to component makers that understand bicycles.
Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
D
D'ohBoy
Guest
OB wrote:
> Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
specific to indexed front shifting.
DohBoy
> Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
specific to indexed front shifting.
DohBoy
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
D'ohBoy wrote:
> OB wrote:
>
> > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
>
> Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> specific to indexed front shifting.
>
>
Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
of the RD).
FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
a problem (especially on doubles).
> OB wrote:
>
> > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
>
> Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> specific to indexed front shifting.
>
>
Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
of the RD).
FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
a problem (especially on doubles).
D
Doug B.
Guest
To that point, does Shimano make a non indexed left brifter?
On 27 Oct 2006 13:03:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>D'ohBoy wrote:
>> OB wrote:
>>
>> > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
>> > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
>> > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
>> > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
>>
>> Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
>> specific to indexed front shifting.
>>
>>
>
>Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
>being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
>front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
>of the RD).
>
>FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
>a problem (especially on doubles).
Doug B.
On 27 Oct 2006 13:03:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>D'ohBoy wrote:
>> OB wrote:
>>
>> > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
>> > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
>> > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
>> > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
>>
>> Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
>> specific to indexed front shifting.
>>
>>
>
>Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
>being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
>front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
>of the RD).
>
>FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
>a problem (especially on doubles).
Doug B.
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
Doug B. wrote:
> To that point, does Shimano make a non indexed left brifter?
No.
>
> On 27 Oct 2006 13:03:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >D'ohBoy wrote:
> >> OB wrote:
> >>
> >> > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> >> > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> >> > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> >> > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> >>
> >> Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> >> specific to indexed front shifting.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> >being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> >front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> >of the RD).
> >
> >FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> >a problem (especially on doubles).
> Doug B.
> To that point, does Shimano make a non indexed left brifter?
No.
>
> On 27 Oct 2006 13:03:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >D'ohBoy wrote:
> >> OB wrote:
> >>
> >> > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> >> > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> >> > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> >> > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> >>
> >> Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> >> specific to indexed front shifting.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> >being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> >front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> >of the RD).
> >
> >FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> >a problem (especially on doubles).
> Doug B.
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > OB wrote:
> >
> > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> >
> > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > specific to indexed front shifting.
> >
> >
>
> Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> of the RD).
>
> FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> a problem (especially on doubles).
I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
I know, I know, Campag has done some things like this as well, like not
being able to put a 9s cogset onto a 8s hub, but convertible,
rebuildable levers, triple left ERGO, all RDs working with any
shifter... Campag, being smaller, seem to be more user friendly.
When I was flying USN fighters, we always said it would be nice if the
engineers talked to pilots before they designed these A/C. General
Dynamics did with the F-16, and what a wonderful A/C that was to fly,
very user friendly...I think they have comtinued with the follow-on
A/C, hope so but, I think shimano pought to talk to cyclists a bit more
when they come up with things like XTR integrated, backfire plus
shifters and RDs.
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > OB wrote:
> >
> > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> >
> > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > specific to indexed front shifting.
> >
> >
>
> Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> of the RD).
>
> FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> a problem (especially on doubles).
I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
I know, I know, Campag has done some things like this as well, like not
being able to put a 9s cogset onto a 8s hub, but convertible,
rebuildable levers, triple left ERGO, all RDs working with any
shifter... Campag, being smaller, seem to be more user friendly.
When I was flying USN fighters, we always said it would be nice if the
engineers talked to pilots before they designed these A/C. General
Dynamics did with the F-16, and what a wonderful A/C that was to fly,
very user friendly...I think they have comtinued with the follow-on
A/C, hope so but, I think shimano pought to talk to cyclists a bit more
when they come up with things like XTR integrated, backfire plus
shifters and RDs.
J
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > OB wrote:
> > >
> > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > >
> > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > of the RD).
> >
> > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > a problem (especially on doubles).
>
> I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
Japanese, anti European prejudice?
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > OB wrote:
> > >
> > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > >
> > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > of the RD).
> >
> > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > a problem (especially on doubles).
>
> I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
Japanese, anti European prejudice?
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
M
Michael Warner
Guest
On 28 Oct 2006 20:02:56 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> Japanese, anti European prejudice?
Nah. The backlash against pointless, cosmetic bits of carbon fibre
Can't wait until some SRAM zealots turn up.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
> If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> Japanese, anti European prejudice?
Nah. The backlash against pointless, cosmetic bits of carbon fibre
Can't wait until some SRAM zealots turn up.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > OB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > of the RD).
> > >
> > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> >
> > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
>
> Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
>
> If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> Japanese, anti European prejudice?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
in Europe-you?) Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/honda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
one.
now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'bemt and go ride.....
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > OB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > of the RD).
> > >
> > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> >
> > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
>
> Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
>
> If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> Japanese, anti European prejudice?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
in Europe-you?) Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/honda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
one.
now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'bemt and go ride.....
J
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > of the RD).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > >
> > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> >
> > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> >
> > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>
> Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> in Europe-you?)
Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
interpret the English language differently.
> Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
products because they are European, and predujice towards others
because they are Japanese.
> Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> one.
If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
your choice.
> now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
[1] S. Brown spelling.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > of the RD).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > >
> > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> >
> > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> >
> > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>
> Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> in Europe-you?)
Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
interpret the English language differently.
> Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
products because they are European, and predujice towards others
because they are Japanese.
> Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> one.
If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
your choice.
> now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
[1] S. Brown spelling.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > > of the RD).
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > > >
> > > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> > >
> > > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> > >
> > > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> >
> > Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> > shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> > that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> > in Europe-you?)
>
> Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
> often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
> interpret the English language differently.
>
> > Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> > of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
>
> Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
> products because they are European, and predujice towards others
> because they are Japanese.
>
> > Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> > one.
>
> If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
> your choice.
>
> > now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
>
> If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
> shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
> my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
>
> To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
shimano and it's gigantic market in the very low end, something I have
little to do with, does not translate to the $195 DA 10s cogset, the
$450 STI set or the $500 new XTR crank.
>
> If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
> Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
Campagnolo, like many manufacturers, choose their market. Campagnolo
has chosen to be road and higher end, not the everything to everybike
that shimano is. They are NOT Toyota, don't want to be. They are NOT
Seiko, they are Rolex/Tudor. As for 'better product at lower price', I
say Centaur is a much better product at a lower price than Ultegra,
Chorus is a much better product at a lower price than DA....BUT so much
goes into buying decisions, I'll bet you have a non-Mac computer too.
OBTW-look for the DA FD compatibility thread...along with ohhh so many
shimano takes the low road thread...like the cart HS, with a larger
stack height...
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > > of the RD).
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > > >
> > > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> > >
> > > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> > >
> > > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> >
> > Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> > shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> > that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> > in Europe-you?)
>
> Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
> often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
> interpret the English language differently.
>
> > Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> > of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
>
> Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
> products because they are European, and predujice towards others
> because they are Japanese.
>
> > Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> > one.
>
> If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
> your choice.
>
> > now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
>
> If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
> shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
> my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
>
> To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
shimano and it's gigantic market in the very low end, something I have
little to do with, does not translate to the $195 DA 10s cogset, the
$450 STI set or the $500 new XTR crank.
>
> If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
> Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
Campagnolo, like many manufacturers, choose their market. Campagnolo
has chosen to be road and higher end, not the everything to everybike
that shimano is. They are NOT Toyota, don't want to be. They are NOT
Seiko, they are Rolex/Tudor. As for 'better product at lower price', I
say Centaur is a much better product at a lower price than Ultegra,
Chorus is a much better product at a lower price than DA....BUT so much
goes into buying decisions, I'll bet you have a non-Mac computer too.
OBTW-look for the DA FD compatibility thread...along with ohhh so many
shimano takes the low road thread...like the cart HS, with a larger
stack height...
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > > > of the RD).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > > > >
> > > > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > > > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> > > >
> > > > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > > > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> > >
> > > Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> > > shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> > > that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> > > in Europe-you?)
> >
> > Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
> > often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
> > interpret the English language differently.
> >
> > > Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> > > of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
> >
> > Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
> > products because they are European, and predujice towards others
> > because they are Japanese.
> >
> > > Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> > > one.
> >
> > If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
> > your choice.
> >
> > > now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
> >
> > If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
> > shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
> > my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
> >
> > To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> > factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> > purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
>
> shimano and it's gigantic market in the very low end, something I have
> little to do with, does not translate to the $195 DA 10s cogset, the
> $450 STI set or the $500 new XTR crank.
> >
> > If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> > largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> > would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
> > Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> > new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
>
> Campagnolo, like many manufacturers, choose their market. Campagnolo
> has chosen to be road and higher end, not the everything to everybike
> that shimano is. They are NOT Toyota, don't want to be. They are NOT
> Seiko, they are Rolex/Tudor. As for 'better product at lower price', I
> say Centaur is a much better product at a lower price than Ultegra,
> Chorus is a much better product at a lower price than DA....BUT so much
> goes into buying decisions, I'll bet you have a non-Mac computer too.
>
> OBTW-look for the DA FD compatibility thread...along with ohhh so many
> shimano takes the low road thread...like the cart HS, with a larger
> stack height...
And let's not forget the "standards" that Shimano has created and later
abandoned, leaving their customers high and dry; Dyna-Drive cranks and
pedals come quickly to mind, and we're seeing the process in action
with Octalink. And, as the icing on the cake, these new standards were
almost always a "solution in search of a problem".
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > > > of the RD).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > > > >
> > > > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > > > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> > > >
> > > > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > > > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> > >
> > > Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> > > shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> > > that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> > > in Europe-you?)
> >
> > Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
> > often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
> > interpret the English language differently.
> >
> > > Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> > > of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
> >
> > Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
> > products because they are European, and predujice towards others
> > because they are Japanese.
> >
> > > Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> > > one.
> >
> > If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
> > your choice.
> >
> > > now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
> >
> > If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
> > shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
> > my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
> >
> > To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> > factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> > purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
>
> shimano and it's gigantic market in the very low end, something I have
> little to do with, does not translate to the $195 DA 10s cogset, the
> $450 STI set or the $500 new XTR crank.
> >
> > If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> > largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> > would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
> > Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> > new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
>
> Campagnolo, like many manufacturers, choose their market. Campagnolo
> has chosen to be road and higher end, not the everything to everybike
> that shimano is. They are NOT Toyota, don't want to be. They are NOT
> Seiko, they are Rolex/Tudor. As for 'better product at lower price', I
> say Centaur is a much better product at a lower price than Ultegra,
> Chorus is a much better product at a lower price than DA....BUT so much
> goes into buying decisions, I'll bet you have a non-Mac computer too.
>
> OBTW-look for the DA FD compatibility thread...along with ohhh so many
> shimano takes the low road thread...like the cart HS, with a larger
> stack height...
And let's not forget the "standards" that Shimano has created and later
abandoned, leaving their customers high and dry; Dyna-Drive cranks and
pedals come quickly to mind, and we're seeing the process in action
with Octalink. And, as the icing on the cake, these new standards were
almost always a "solution in search of a problem".
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > OB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > of the RD).
> > >
> > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> >
> > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
>
> Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
>
> If Shimano is so bad,
Neither Peter Chisholm nor I have said Shimano is "bad".
> what did they come to dominate the market?
The major innovation of reliable indexed shifting, relentless marketing
(New! New! New! 8Speed! 9Speed! 10Speed! etc, etc.) and a long history
of questionable business practices.
> Pro
> Japanese, anti European prejudice?
>
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > OB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > of the RD).
> > >
> > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> >
> > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
>
> Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
>
> If Shimano is so bad,
Neither Peter Chisholm nor I have said Shimano is "bad".
> what did they come to dominate the market?
The major innovation of reliable indexed shifting, relentless marketing
(New! New! New! 8Speed! 9Speed! 10Speed! etc, etc.) and a long history
of questionable business practices.
> Pro
> Japanese, anti European prejudice?
>
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > > of the RD).
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > > >
> > > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> > >
> > > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> > >
> > > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> >
> > Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> > shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> > that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> > in Europe-you?)
>
> Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
> often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
> interpret the English language differently.
>
> > Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> > of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
>
> Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
> products because they are European, and predujice towards others
> because they are Japanese.
>
> > Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> > one.
>
> If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
> your choice.
>
> > now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
>
> If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
> shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
> my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
>
> To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
>
> If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> would they have lost so much market share to Shimano?
Shimano didn't get their dominate market share at the expense of Campy,
they took the market share away from Suntour. As late as the middle
1980s, Suntour equipped bikes were as common as Shimano equipped bikes
are today.
> (Not to mention
> Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
>
Again, Shimano took this market away from Suntour, not Campy.
> [1] S. Brown spelling.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > > of the RD).
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > > >
> > > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> > >
> > > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> > >
> > > If Shimano is so bad, what did they come to dominate the market? Pro
> > > Japanese, anti European prejudice?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> >
> > Tell ya what Tom, first, don't put words in my mouth..I didn't say
> > shimano was 'bad', nor did I mention any kind of pro this or anti
> > that(altho I did live in Japan for 3 years,and have spent a lot of time
> > in Europe-you?)
>
> Well Peter, your post was a negative rant towards Shimano (or as you
> often write, "shimaNo"). If that was not your intention, we obviously
> interpret the English language differently.
>
> > Second, if you wish to slam everything I say, because
> > of our disagreement on 'bents, I will return the favor.
>
> Completely unrelated. I just observe much snobbery towards certain
> products because they are European, and predujice towards others
> because they are Japanese.
>
> > Ya know, Toyota/Seiko/Nikon/[H]onda dominates as well, but I wouldn't buy
> > one.
>
> If you wish to avoid the better product at the lower price, this is
> your choice.
>
> > now, be a nice boy get on your shimano equipped 'be[n]t and go ride.....
>
> If I eliminate the ones with Phil Wood hubs and/or SRAM chains,
> shifters, brakes and derailers [1], I have nothing left to ride except
> my all Shimano Trek 6000 ATB.
>
> To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
>
> If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> would they have lost so much market share to Shimano?
Shimano didn't get their dominate market share at the expense of Campy,
they took the market share away from Suntour. As late as the middle
1980s, Suntour equipped bikes were as common as Shimano equipped bikes
are today.
> (Not to mention
> Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
>
Again, Shimano took this market away from Suntour, not Campy.
> [1] S. Brown spelling.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
J
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > of the RD).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > >
> > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> >
> > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> >
> > If Shimano is so bad,
>
> Neither Peter Chisholm nor I have said Shimano is "bad".
>
>
> > what did they come to dominate the market?
>
> The major innovation of reliable indexed shifting, relentless marketing
> (New! New! New! 8Speed! 9Speed! 10Speed! etc, etc.) and a long history
> of questionable business practices.
The introduction of 10-speed cassettes for road use was from
Campagnolo, not Shimano.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > D'ohBoy wrote:
> > > > > OB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Make no mistake, Shimano does understand bicycles and, more
> > > > > > importantly, the bicycle *market*. To the uninitiated, indexed front
> > > > > > shifting can seem "magical". And most of these folks neither know nor
> > > > > > care about the limitations imposed by indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harumph. These are limits imposed by Shimano's implementation, not
> > > > > specific to indexed front shifting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some, perhaps, are due to Shimano's implementation. Others, such as
> > > > being fussy about the design of the FD seem to be inherent in indexed
> > > > front shifting (just a indexed rear shifting is fussy about the design
> > > > of the RD).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, IMO, indexed front shifting is a case of a solution in search of
> > > > a problem (especially on doubles).
> > >
> > > I can only imagine how nasty this thread is going to get but...this
> > > thread is the problem that I have with shimano. They are gigantic, they
> > > create 'standards' and their size dictates the market. Their arrogance
> > > means they see the market as theirs to manipulate, and they don't
> > > really care if the gear they design and produce is the best for the
> > > cyclist or not. They view their ideas the 'best', and anything else is
> > > inferior, regardless if it works or not. Double only STI, octalink,
> > > SPD-R, cart HS that were a bigger stack height than ball
> > > bearing(rendering a whole bunch of forks obsolete), 7400 DA that was
> > > compatible only with itself, hyperglide, not compatible with uniglide,
> > > now 10s only onto 7800 hubs and wheels...etc.
> >
> > Yeah, what company was responsible for all the new road bikes having an
> > unnecessary 10th gear in the back anyhow?
> >
> > If Shimano is so bad,
>
> Neither Peter Chisholm nor I have said Shimano is "bad".
>
>
> > what did they come to dominate the market?
>
> The major innovation of reliable indexed shifting, relentless marketing
> (New! New! New! 8Speed! 9Speed! 10Speed! etc, etc.) and a long history
> of questionable business practices.
The introduction of 10-speed cassettes for road use was from
Campagnolo, not Shimano.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
J
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > ...
> > To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> > factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> > purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
>
> shimano and it's gigantic market in the very low end, something I have
> little to do with, does not translate to the $195 DA 10s cogset, the
> $450 STI set or the $500 new XTR crank.
Since it is a free market, if these components are overpriced, Shimano
will have to lower prices to maintain sales volume or accept reduced
sales.
Meanwhile, at the reasonable level of the quality market (e.g.
Deore/LX); we can get durable, quality parts for reasonable prices due
to Shimano's market share.
> > If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> > largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> > would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
> > Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> > new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
>
> Campagnolo, like many manufacturers, choose their market. Campagnolo
> has chosen to be road and higher end, not the everything to everybike
> that shimano is. They are NOT Toyota, don't want to be. They are NOT
> Seiko, they are Rolex/Tudor. As for 'better product at lower price', I
> say Centaur is a much better product at a lower price than Ultegra,
> Chorus is a much better product at a lower price than DA....BUT so much
> goes into buying decisions, I'll bet you have a non-Mac computer too.
If Campagnolo does not want to seriously pursue the OEM market that is
their choice. Shimano has made decisions based on the primary customers
- if these decisions were wrong, Shimano would be punished in the free
market by loose sales.
As for the Mac, it may be a better OS in isolation, but for people who
need to be compatible with the software used by most businesses, there
is little choice but to deal with micro$oft.
> OBTW-look for the DA FD compatibility thread...along with ohhh so many
> shimano takes the low road thread...like the cart HS, with a larger
> stack height...
Shimano is far from the only party in the history of the bicycle
industry to introduce incompatibility.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > ...
> > To get back to the point - is Shimano designing components for easier
> > factory assembly, and therefore lower prices to the complete bicycle
> > purchasers (for a given quality) a bad thing?
>
> shimano and it's gigantic market in the very low end, something I have
> little to do with, does not translate to the $195 DA 10s cogset, the
> $450 STI set or the $500 new XTR crank.
Since it is a free market, if these components are overpriced, Shimano
will have to lower prices to maintain sales volume or accept reduced
sales.
Meanwhile, at the reasonable level of the quality market (e.g.
Deore/LX); we can get durable, quality parts for reasonable prices due
to Shimano's market share.
> > If Campagnolo had made a similar effort to meet the needs of the
> > largest consumer of bicycle components, the bicycle manufacturers,
> > would they have lost so much market share to Shimano? (Not to mention
> > Shimano's much greater commitment to the ATB market, whose dominance of
> > new bicycle sales will run to the better part of two decades)?
>
> Campagnolo, like many manufacturers, choose their market. Campagnolo
> has chosen to be road and higher end, not the everything to everybike
> that shimano is. They are NOT Toyota, don't want to be. They are NOT
> Seiko, they are Rolex/Tudor. As for 'better product at lower price', I
> say Centaur is a much better product at a lower price than Ultegra,
> Chorus is a much better product at a lower price than DA....BUT so much
> goes into buying decisions, I'll bet you have a non-Mac computer too.
If Campagnolo does not want to seriously pursue the OEM market that is
their choice. Shimano has made decisions based on the primary customers
- if these decisions were wrong, Shimano would be punished in the free
market by loose sales.
As for the Mac, it may be a better OS in isolation, but for people who
need to be compatible with the software used by most businesses, there
is little choice but to deal with micro$oft.
> OBTW-look for the DA FD compatibility thread...along with ohhh so many
> shimano takes the low road thread...like the cart HS, with a larger
> stack height...
Shimano is far from the only party in the history of the bicycle
industry to introduce incompatibility.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Similar threads
