Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for shim anchored w/JB Weld?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 29 Jan 2007 11:02:45 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"I have some good news and some bad news:
>
> The good news is that your RD is very well made and will last a
>lifetime.
>
> The bad news is that your RD is a Campy NR."

LOL

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 29 Jan 2007 11:35:52 -0800, "ddog" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My preference is 531 or nothing. I think it is that good for my body
>size and it feels superb on the road.


This is the sort of older is better stuff that I have to laugh at. I
never had 531 but I had Columbus SL back in the day, and it was great.
And now I've got bikes with 853 and carbon fiber and both ride great.
I can't tell the difference among them and the Columbus frame other
than weight and some difference due to size

They all appear quite durable.

Bikes aren't magic. 531 was clearly good stuff, but you're boxing
yourself into a hole about enjoying the bike.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 28, 3:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Westphal" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Gitane Tour de France is my favorite rain bike. ...
>
> In terms of comparison to modern stuff, well, your frame is going to be
> "good enough." There are many modern frames (in many materials) that
> either weigh less, are more durable, or both. But don't let that stop
> you. the differences are not great.
>
> It also must be said that a Gitane Tour de France was pretty much the
> nicest frame Gitane made at the time, and must qualify as one of the top
> production frames of the era. In other words, that's as good as it got.
>
> As good as it got, if my crude web research amounts to anything, was
> that a Peugeot PX-10 frame (checked because I was more sure of finding
> the numbers) weighed about 4 pounds, 4 ounces. That's about 1900 grams.
> Let's make a fair guess that your Gitane is close to that weight.
>
> Nashbar sells an aluminum road frame that weighs 4.1 pounds in a 54 cm
> size. List is $150, though it's cheaper at the moment. That frame, by
> modern standards, is oddly heavy: Nashbar sells a cyclocross frame for
> $50 more that weighs notably less.
>
> Surly sells a 4130 welded steel road frame (Pacer) that weighs even more
> (2020 g quoted weight), but again, not a pricey frame, and Surly makes a
> point of selling solidly built steel frames.
>
> Andrew Muzi has frequently cited current nice steel frames as being
> built to about 3.5 pounds.
>
> High-end racing frames are routinely quoted at 1300g or less; virtually
> every racy bike maker is now touting a top model with a sub-1000g weight
> (virtually all in carbon fibre, with a few Ti and Al or multi-material
> frames). Scott, Cervelo, Cannondale, et cetera. Litespeed says its
> Ghisallo model weighs 770g in a size medium (though that bike also seems
> to be unusually flexible).
>
> So compared to high end frames of today, the Gitane probably weighs
> nearly twice as much, and maybe three times as much as the bleeding
> edge. Compared to the best steel frames of today, it weighs about
> 200-400g more.
>
> I shouldn't speculate, but my guess is that a modern carbon frame
> weighing about half what the Gitane does would usually be stiffer and
> stronger than the Tour de France.
>
> So yes, the old stuff isn't bad, but the new stuff is better.

It all depends on what the meaning of "is better" is.
As you say, newer frames are frequently lighter, and
perhaps a little better joined, although the weight difference
isn't that important for most uses, including Sunday riding
and some fattie-master racing. On the other hand,
of the bikes you mentioned, only the Nashbar cross frame
(which I think is ugly) and the Surly are likely to fit
tires larger than about 700x25, much less fenders.
And the previous poster did mention that the Gitane
was his rainy-day bike.

IMO, the more important advances since the "old stuff"
are not in frames but in components: non-breaky stuff,
gear clusters that shift easier, better (sometimes) spokes
and rims, cassette hubs. I would say that the three most
significant advances are the LED blinkie, clipless pedals,
and lycra shorts (disclosure: I wasn't around for the
wool-short era). All of these are of course compatible
with a Gitane Tour de France.

Ben

 

[ddog]

When I start debating with about 1/2 dozen mechanics at LBS about 531
frames, and I start
winning on points, they always break down in unison, "Life time
guarantee,
Life time guarantee".

But a sign above main counter says, "We do NOT WARRANTY Stupidity".
Still haven't figured that one out. Maybe its hitting a pothole
directly. I'll ask next time.
I just keep hearing it repeated constantly. Their margin in not great,
so they depend on volume
since its the busiest LBS I've seen near Bradenton beach on the Gulf.
But if they paid
for cracked frames, they would go under. Maybe the sign helps out, but
losing customers
that crack frames even if they do pay warranty. What a hassle.

Probably not much difference as mentioned before, but 531 frames last,
repair, bend, last, ...
THEY LAST TOO LONG!

So if you are not buying original Chinese bike, when the frame cracks,
its on your dime, and
it still may be "if you were stupid - ???".
I hope you didn't crack a bone while it happened either. Who are you
going to sue?
The Big Boss Man in China? GW Bush said he has no worries about
warranty, pollution,
or healthcare, so...

Steel is Real, Baby, Steel is Real!

And what about the guys saying AL handlebars don't last. What about AL
tig welded frames and PLASTIC (or
carbon, lol). One mechanic recently bought $2500 carbon frame at LBS.
Owner is FL State Champ, so all
the mechanics have real nice bikes and ride several 20-30 mile rides
per week in groups with customers.
Every one of them have a(t least one) Fuji. And they showed me a Steel
Fuji which was NICE for $800 or $900.
Would rather have the frame and put other than Tiagra level components
on it: when mine wears out

So... if someone is happy, that's all that really matters.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:46:13 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

> IMO, the more important advances since the "old stuff"
> are not in frames but in components: non-breaky stuff,
> gear clusters that shift easier,

I think the ramps&pins stuff is overrated. Plain gears shifted fine.

> better (sometimes) spokes
> and rims, cassette hubs. I would say that the three most
> significant advances are the LED blinkie, clipless pedals,
> and lycra shorts (disclosure: I wasn't around for the
> wool-short era).

I was, and lycra shorts (along with non-real chamois) are a definite
advance. Clipless pedals rank up there, too. I'd say that the
shifter/brake combos also rank up there.

--

David L. Johnson

I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our
educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely,
if not entirely, the use of textbooks -- Thomas Edison, 1922

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:40:14 -0800, Donald Gillies wrote:

> [email protected] writes:
>
>>I'm kind of disbelieving of the weights being quoted in this thread
>>about 1970s lugged steel frame weights. I have a 1995 Waterford
>>1200. Reynolds 753. 58cm c-top. Short point lugs. It weighs 4
>>pounds even. Fork, Reynolds 531, is 1.5 pounds. The tubing used in
>>my frame is many levels above the heavy gauge steel used in the 1970s
>>frames.
>

I agree with this. My 531 frame is a pound more than yours, and my
Columbus (Cinelli) fork is what yours is or more. Both from 1969/1970.

--

David L. Johnson

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you
that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein

 

[John Thompson]

On 2007-01-29, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm kind of disbelieving of the weights being quoted in this thread
> about 1970s lugged steel frame weights. I have a 1995 Waterford
> 1200. Reynolds 753. 58cm c-top. Short point lugs. It weighs 4
> pounds even. Fork, Reynolds 531, is 1.5 pounds. The tubing used in
> my frame is many levels above the heavy gauge steel used in the 1970s
> frames. Unless you happened to ride for a Raleigh sponsored
> professional team and were issued a Reynolds 753 frame. I find it a
> bit hard to believe factory built sort of mass market lugged steel
> bikes using Reynolds 531 or other steels were the same or just a few
> ounces more than a Reynolds 753 frame made 20 years later. I think
> there has been considerable reduction in wall thickness over the past
> two decades. Forks should weigh about the same. My weights are from
> a digital postal scale at the office where I used to work. I'm
> assuming it was fairly accurate since postage is very weight
> dependent.

Checking my old product brochures I see Reynolds states the weight of an
uncut 753 (Race aka "road") tubeset as 1800gm; 531 "Professional" (a
fairly uncommon set) as 1900gm; and 531 "Competition" (the most common
set for race bikes) as 2050 grams. So "a few ounces" difference
between otherwise identical frames from each material appears to be
quite plausible.

--

John ([email protected])

 

[John Thompson]

On 2007-01-29, * * Chas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Some of these frames had the bad steering tubes - the threaded tube that
> goes into the fork crown, If you changed out the fork then there's no
> problem.
>
> Some Peugeots had sleeved steering tubes too.
>
> BTW, you can tell if the fork has a sleeve in the steering tube by looking
> into the underside of the fork crown where the front brake bolt goes
> through the crown. These sleeves usually had a visible split inside the
> tube.

Lots of old-timers would jam a piece of broomstick into the steer tube
to bolster it a bit.

--

John ([email protected])

 

[John Thompson]

On 2007-01-29, Donald Gillies <[email protected]> wrote:

> By the way, was the equipment bad because it was old or because it was
> french ?? Anyone can make bad equipment, and it seems that the french
> were some of the very best at making it.

The French were both very innovative and prolific with bike parts.
There's plenty of memorable junk, but some real jewels as well. C.f.
Simplex Retrofriction shift levers and Super LJ derailleurs, Stronglight
needle bearing headsets and Ti bottom brackets, TA pedals and cranks
(be quiet back there!), Huret Jubilee/Success/Duopar derailleurs,
etc.

> Point taken, however, if you restrict your attentiont to old french
> stuff, old stuff is bad. My point, however, is that if you omit old
> french stuff, old stuff is good, is probably equally valid.
^^^^^

Change that to "junk" and I'll agree with you...

--

John ([email protected])

 

[A Muzi]

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> A pothole big enough to flatten two tires and wreck a rim? How many
>>> spare rims do you carry on your rides?
>> Less than one. But there are plenty of potholes big enough to do that
>> kind of damage. But we tend to have a pretty good freeze-thaw cycle in
>> these parts, so we get lots of potholes. All it takes is a moment's
>> inattention or riding in a paceline with less-than-helpful riders to
>> whack one.

Doug Taylor wrote:
> For the record, I am a northeasterner and have to admit that I have
> pinch flatted more than once in pacelines when less
> than-helpful-riders failed to point out pot holes. But hitting one
> deep enough and hard enough to break a bar, flat both front and rear
> tires, AND bend a rim is an unlikely confluence of events.
> Have YOU ever heard of cracking a carbon bar without a crash?

As many are 'installation errors'; crushed bar in an inappropriate stem.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

>>> <snip>
>>>>> I'm not sure where you got your specs on frame weights but production
>>> pro
>>>>> model lugged steel road bike frames from the 1970s weighed in between
>>> 5 to
>>>>> 6 1/2 Lbs.
>>>> I think Ryan was speaking of frame sans fork. As a reality check, I
>>>> just weighed a ca. 1975 Motobecane Grand Jubile frame, 57cm ST, c-to-
>>>> c. 531 butted main tubes and "run-of production" stays. It's 4lbs
>>>> 12oz, and there were surely somewhat lighter frames of that size at
>>>> that time.My '69 Frejus, 56cm, bare frame is about 5 pounds, and it was a fairly
>> light bike in its day (maybe Masi was lighter, but not by much). The fork
>> was another pound and a half or 2.

>>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I assume you are including the fork in the figures you give(?). If so,
>>>> that 5 pounder must be a real small frame made of 531C or something
>>>> similar.

>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> That makes sense (what he was referring too) but I come from the old
>>> school of thinking about "framesets" - a frame and fork

> "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No. I don't think there were 5 pound frame+fork combinations from that
>> period. Steel forks are pretty massive objects.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> I'm pretty skeptical, too. Even in a very small size, made of the
> lightest tubeset of the day. Perhaps **Chas can provide an example??

Mid-seventies saw the Columbus thin 'TreDeci" pursuit tube, Ishiwata
Alpha .015 (3.3lb before lugs crown, ends) and Tange's Ultralight frame
system with thinned lugs and hollow pressed crown - all outlying data
points in the 'stupid-light' realm. The material hadn't evolved enough
to support such thin sections reliably. 753 was a good start but 853
made it reasonable for everyman to own a sub-4 lb frame.

Most race framesets were 5.5 to 6.5 lbs frame and fork. Note French
Reynolds has a larger top tube but is smaller on all the other tubes and
small frames used thinner tube too so the range is wide. . .
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

>> By the way, was the equipment bad because it was old or because it was
>> french ?? Anyone can make bad equipment, and it seems that the french
>> were some of the very best at making it.
>>
>> Point taken, however, if you restrict your attentiont to old french
>> stuff, old stuff is bad. My point, however, is that if you omit old
>> french stuff, old stuff is good, is probably equally valid.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> It wasn't just French product, although that certainly was the source of
> most of the bikes sold here during the bike boom years of the 70s. English
> frames were often pretty nasty things; Dawes Galaxies were known for their
> broken chainstays and, curiously, GB handlebars were often seen bent
> (although I don't recall seeing them break, but perhaps seeing them bent
> served as sufficient warning to the customer and they were replaced before
> that happened; the French product offered no such warning).
>
> I had a Bob Jackson whose rear brake bridge snapped off, and it was not an
> uncommon issue at that time. Nor a particularly pleasant one! Fortunately,
> mine developed quite a buzzing sound, so I found it before the other side
> came apart as well. Upon repairing it and seeing what it looked like without
> paint, there was little wonder why it broke off; there was virtually no
> brazing material whatsoever.
>
> Look, we just want to keep you alive so some of us have a nice,
> well-mannered guy to argue with. Especially one of those guys who actually
> uses a real name on the Internet. :>)


We all have those stories. And we received frames regularly which were
unsafe to ride with visible defects. Certainly current frame quality is
higher overall, return rates are as low as they have ever been!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

> On 29 Jan 2007 11:35:52 -0800, "ddog" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My preference is 531 or nothing. I think it is that good for my body
>> size and it feels superb on the road.


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> This is the sort of older is better stuff that I have to laugh at. I
> never had 531 but I had Columbus SL back in the day, and it was great.
> And now I've got bikes with 853 and carbon fiber and both ride great.
> I can't tell the difference among them and the Columbus frame other
> than weight and some difference due to size
> They all appear quite durable.
> Bikes aren't magic. 531 was clearly good stuff, but you're boxing
> yourself into a hole about enjoying the bike.

Well said! I'd look at fit, style/geometry, workmanship, finish and
material together. Hard to say one factor is more important than
another. . .

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[* * Chas]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> It all depends on what the meaning of "is better" is.
> As you say, newer frames are frequently lighter, and
> perhaps a little better joined, although the weight difference
> isn't that important for most uses, including Sunday riding
> and some fattie-master racing. On the other hand,
> of the bikes you mentioned, only the Nashbar cross frame
> (which I think is ugly) and the Surly are likely to fit
> tires larger than about 700x25, much less fenders.
> And the previous poster did mention that the Gitane
> was his rainy-day bike.
>
> IMO, the more important advances since the "old stuff"
> are not in frames but in components: non-breaky stuff,
> gear clusters that shift easier, better (sometimes) spokes
> and rims, cassette hubs. I would say that the three most
> significant advances are the LED blinkie, clipless pedals,
> and lycra shorts (disclosure: I wasn't around for the
> wool-short era). All of these are of course compatible
> with a Gitane Tour de France.
>
> Ben
>

As long as the Lycra shorts aren't pink!

One advantage of Lycra over wool, moths don't like it. They got to my last
pair of vintage Sergals.

Chas.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 6:33 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:46:13 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > gear clusters that shift easier

> I think the ramps&pins stuff is overrated. Plain gears shifted fine.

Yes and no. They shifted ok with good friction shifters.
That was partly because we all developed an unconscious
sense for how much to very-slightly-overshift. If you try
to use indexed shifters with unprofiled cogs, it's just
too finicky - it you adjust it to down shift ok, it won't
up shift. I'm talking about really unprofiled cogs here,
not something like Shimano twist-tooth Uniglide, which
didn't have ramps and pins but shifts fine.

The profiled or twist teeth also make it easier to shift
under load. In the Not-So-Much-Bad-As-Differently-Good
old days, that wasn't a huge issue because it was hard
to shift without letting up a little with downtube shifters,
so it didn't matter that your Atom freewheel had its claws
sunk deep into your chain under load.
But with these newfangled bar mounted shifters (now
almost 20 years old, and thumbies are even older)
you can shift while still pounding the pedals, and there
the shaped teeth help. A minor point. I would certainly
take LED lights if I had to choose only this, or that.

> > better (sometimes) spokes
> > and rims, cassette hubs. I would say that the three most
> > significant advances are the LED blinkie, clipless pedals,
> > and lycra shorts (disclosure: I wasn't around for the
> > wool-short era).
> I was, and lycra shorts (along with non-real chamois) are a definite
> advance. Clipless pedals rank up there, too. I'd say that the
> shifter/brake combos also rank up there.
>

 

[* * Chas]

This site has Reynolds, Columbus, Tange & Ishiwata brochures from the 80s
and 90s.

http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/index.html

Most bicycle tubing looses considerable strength after brazing.

Reynolds 753 tubing is heat treated to make it about 60% stronger than 531
in the unbrazed condition. This allows the use of tubes with thinner wall
thickness without sacrificing frame strength. This has nothing to do with
stiffness or rigidity on frames with like sized tubing. It concerns the
fatigue resistance of thin wall tubing.

A properly brazed 753 frame is probably about 30-40% more fatigue
resistant than a comparable 531 frame. 753 is very sensitive to
overheating that's why Reynolds limited the availability to approved
builders.

The newer air hardening 853 and similar tubing overcome a lot of
overheating problems.

Theoretically all steel tubes of the same shape, size and wall thickness
no matter what the alloy should make bikes that ride and handle the same.
A 1018 carbon steel frame will just be a lot less fatigue resistant than a
high alloy steel frame. Plain carbon steel tubing used in bicycles has
about 1/2 the strength of alloy tubes, that's why the wall thickness is up
to 3 times greater than alloy tubes.

I've seen tensile and yield strength figures for different steels that are
all over the place so I don't put much stock in these claims.

During the 1970s Columbus was the only tubing maker that had a full line
of standardized tube sets: PL & PS for track, SL & SP for road bikes. You
could special order 14mm, 16mm or double taper seat stays and heavy gage
PS track tubing was available with 7/8" or 1" round chainstays and fork
blades.

Reynolds sold several different boxed sets of tubes including a 531SL set
that had the then new continental oval shape fork blades similar to
Columbus blades. Most larger builders ordered Reynolds tubes to their
preference.

About 15 years ago I built myself a Reynolds 531 lugged frame 700c
"mountain bike" using 1.1mm x .9mm main tubes and heavy gage forks and
stays. These were old standard diameter "tandem gage" tubes that I bought
for a tandem that I never built. The frame is 19.5" with a sloping top
tube and a heavy Raleigh Pro style fork crown. The frame and fork weigh
about 7 Lbs.

Chas.

"Donald Gillies" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> This is the article I was looking for :
>
>
http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=classicrendezvous.10104.0736.eml
>
> The butting profiles of 531ST, 531C, 653, and 753R, are all very
> similar. We're talking about 0.1 mm over a butted section of tubes
> that is maybe 50-100 mm including both ends of a 600mm tube, so we are
> talking 10% * (8%-16%) = very small differences, e.g. 150 grams over
> the entire tubeset, less than 10%.
>
> The rest of the difference in a 753 frameset will be the extra effort
> that the builder applies to lighten up the frame, e.g. bottom bracket
> cutouts, rear dropout drillium (raleigh team pro), special 'mini'
> lugs, lightened seatstay caps and a complete set of braze-ons, etc.
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA

 

[* * Chas]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
<snip>
> >No. I don't think there were 5 pound frame+fork combinations from that
> > period. Steel forks are pretty massive objects.
> >
>
> I'm pretty skeptical, too. Even in a very small size, made of the
> lightest tubeset of the day. Perhaps **Chas can provide an example??
>
One of the guys who worked in our shop had an early 70s Belgian Libertas
team TT frame made from Reynolds 531SL including the then new continental
oval fork blades. It was 55cm and everything was lightened. I think that
the frame weight under 5 Lbs. with the fork.

He weighed about 125 Lbs. and got the bike down to about 16 Lbs. with 24
or 28 spoke Hi-E hubs and rims, 250gm Seta Criteriums, Mailliard alloy
freewheel plus lots of titanium and drillium. He commuted to the shop15
mile each way every day.

We never fussed too much about frame weight. We were more interested in
the overall weight. Under 22 Lbs. was good, under 19 Lbs. was.....

I had a 16 Lb. Teledyne Titan for 1 day and decided it wasn't for me.

Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:40:14 -0800, Donald Gillies wrote:
>
> > [email protected] writes:
> >
> >>I'm kind of disbelieving of the weights being quoted in this thread
> >>about 1970s lugged steel frame weights. I have a 1995 Waterford
> >>1200. Reynolds 753. 58cm c-top. Short point lugs. It weighs 4
> >>pounds even. Fork, Reynolds 531, is 1.5 pounds. The tubing used in
> >>my frame is many levels above the heavy gauge steel used in the 1970s
> >>frames.
> >
>
> I agree with this. My 531 frame is a pound more than yours, and my
> Columbus (Cinelli) fork is what yours is or more. Both from 1969/1970.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson

Most Cinellis of that era were made from Columbus SP tubing. I lusted for
a Cinelli for years. We took in a nice frame my size as a trade in. I
grabbed it up and threw on a NR grupo. I rode it for one day, put a price
tag on it and hung it up for sale. It was way too stiff for my riding
preferences.

Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

"John Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2007-01-29, * * Chas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some of these frames had the bad steering tubes - the threaded tube
that
> > goes into the fork crown, If you changed out the fork then there's no
> > problem.
> >
> > Some Peugeots had sleeved steering tubes too.
> >
> > BTW, you can tell if the fork has a sleeve in the steering tube by
looking
> > into the underside of the fork crown where the front brake bolt goes
> > through the crown. These sleeves usually had a visible split inside
the
> > tube.
>
> Lots of old-timers would jam a piece of broomstick into the steer tube
> to bolster it a bit.
>
> --
>
> John ([email protected])

I thought it was to keep the dirt out.

Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On Jan 29, 6:33 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:46:13 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > > gear clusters that shift easier
>
> > I think the ramps&pins stuff is overrated. Plain gears shifted fine.
>
> Yes and no. They shifted ok with good friction shifters.
> That was partly because we all developed an unconscious
> sense for how much to very-slightly-overshift. If you try
> to use indexed shifters with unprofiled cogs, it's just
> too finicky - it you adjust it to down shift ok, it won't
> up shift. I'm talking about really unprofiled cogs here,
> not something like Shimano twist-tooth Uniglide, which
> didn't have ramps and pins but shifts fine.
>
> The profiled or twist teeth also make it easier to shift
> under load. In the Not-So-Much-Bad-As-Differently-Good
> old days, that wasn't a huge issue because it was hard
> to shift without letting up a little with downtube shifters,
> so it didn't matter that your Atom freewheel had its claws
> sunk deep into your chain under load.
> But with these newfangled bar mounted shifters (now
> almost 20 years old, and thumbies are even older)
> you can shift while still pounding the pedals, and there
> the shaped teeth help. A minor point. I would certainly
> take LED lights if I had to choose only this, or that.
>
> > > better (sometimes) spokes
> > > and rims, cassette hubs. I would say that the three most
> > > significant advances are the LED blinkie, clipless pedals,
> > > and lycra shorts (disclosure: I wasn't around for the
> > > wool-short era).
> > I was, and lycra shorts (along with non-real chamois) are a definite
> > advance. Clipless pedals rank up there, too. I'd say that the
> > shifter/brake combos also rank up there.
> >
>

I took out my newly assembled 1975 Raleigh Pro yesterday for it's maiden
ride. I forgot how terrible Campy NR derailleurs are (unless you running a
13-18 corncob freewheel). I switched to Shimano and Suntour 30+ years ago.
This is my first all Campy bike since 1981.

Chas.