It finally happened-On Velonews.com

  • Thread starter Qui si parla Campagnolo
  • Start date



In article <[email protected]>,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Cannondale system 6..carbon front with an ALUMINUM rear....yikes,
> > design run amok..

>
> "My own impressions
> I found in my brief time on the new bike that there is a huge contrast
> between the stiffness of the front end and the bottom bracket, and the
> smooth ride the rear end provides. This seems to me, to be a
> combination that any rider could appreciate, whether they are a paid
> professional or a weekend warrior. "


sounds great, but i'd like a few random zertz inserts
stuck in the tubes before i'd consider it.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:37:22 GMT, Werehatrack
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Jun 2006 06:06:59 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >[OP quoting an article]
> >>"My own impressions
> >>I found in my brief time on the new bike that there is a huge contrast
> >>between the stiffness of the front end and the bottom bracket, and the
> >>smooth ride the rear end provides. This seems to me, to be a
> >>combination that any rider could appreciate, whether they are a paid
> >>professional or a weekend warrior. "
> >>
> >>Straight from the likes of Bicycling...

> >
> >ISTR hearing that in successive issues of that mag, two different
> >reviewers attributed diametrically opposite characteristics to
> >aluminum frames in general. I've always just assumed that their
> >writers don't understand the concept of "it's the design and the
> >execution, not the materials."

>
> Remember, if the bike is expensive, then it's "plush." If it's
> inexpensive, then it's "whippy." If the bike is expensive, then it's
> "responsive." If it's inexpensive it's "harsh."
>


By Jove, I think he's got it! ;-)
 
John Forrest Tomlinson said:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:37:22 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2006 06:06:59 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[OP quoting an article]
>>"My own impressions
>>I found in my brief time on the new bike that there is a huge contrast
>>between the stiffness of the front end and the bottom bracket, and the
>>smooth ride the rear end provides. This seems to me, to be a
>>combination that any rider could appreciate, whether they are a paid
>>professional or a weekend warrior. "
>>
>>Straight from the likes of Bicycling...

>
>ISTR hearing that in successive issues of that mag, two different
>reviewers attributed diametrically opposite characteristics to
>aluminum frames in general. I've always just assumed that their
>writers don't understand the concept of "it's the design and the
>execution, not the materials."


Remember, if the bike is expensive, then it's "plush." If it's
inexpensive, then it's "whippy." If the bike is expensive, then it's
"responsive." If it's inexpensive it's "harsh."

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
I'm stealing that for a signature line, that is the whole bike magazine review process condensed to two sentences.
 
[Trimmed]
>> *-Remember, if the bike is expensive, then it's "plush." If it's-*
>> *-inexpensive, then it's "whippy." If the bike is expensive, then
>> it's-*
>> *-"responsive." If it's inexpensive it's "harsh."-*
>>
>> JT
>>
>> ****************************
>> Remove "remove" to reply
>> Visit 'http://www.jt10000.com' (http://www.jt10000.com/)
>> ****************************

> I'm stealing that for a signature line, that is the whole bike magazine
> review process condensed to two sentences.
>
>
> --
> waxbytes
>


It certainly is! And expensive ones fit YOU better because the the reviewer
always seems to 'find it easy to get comfortable' in the 'well proprtioned
cockpit' etc. I wonder why frames come in different sizes really.

By the way, I remember in the late 80's a first UK review of a Cannondale
MTB suggesting that aluminium was far more shock-absorbing than steel.

Keep the advertisers happy!

Skippy
E&OE
 
"H. Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Cannondale system 6..carbon front with an ALUMINUM rear....yikes,
>> > design run amok..

>>
>> "My own impressions
>> I found in my brief time on the new bike that there is a huge contrast
>> between the stiffness of the front end and the bottom bracket, and the
>> smooth ride the rear end provides. This seems to me, to be a
>> combination that any rider could appreciate, whether they are a paid
>> professional or a weekend warrior. "

>
> sounds great, but i'd like a few random zertz inserts
> stuck in the tubes before i'd consider it.


I'm not going to defend Speccy for putting the rubbery bits in frames, but I
have not long bought a Roubaix and it is jolly comfy to ride. I did do an
extended (2 hours each) road test using the same wheels and saddle against
another carbon bike set up as near identical as possible. You can't really
do a blind test with these things and I am deeply sceptical about Zertz.
The Roubaix was more pleasant to ride. It's a real mile eater. All I need
is some silly wheels, these DA/CXP33/DT 3x 28/32 are just soooooo heavy.
Has anyone seen a good magazine review.....?

After the Hincapie Incident, how long until Trek bring out the shiny new
Steel-Steerer(tm) as the next big thing? That's not a dig, just a thought
on how the marketing department might turn it around.

Keep the advertisers happy!


Skippy
E&OE
 
D'ohBoy wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > "My own impressions
> > I found in my brief time on the new bike that there is a huge contrast
> > between the stiffness of the front end and the bottom bracket, and the
> > smooth ride the rear end provides. This seems to me, to be a
> > combination that any rider could appreciate, whether they are a paid
> > professional or a weekend warrior. "
> >
> > Straight from the likes of Bicycling...

>
> Okay, Peter, we hear you. But have you ridden it ;-) ?
>
> D'ohBoy


Guy from a cannondale shop, that comes in for our 'FAC' at the shop has
and gee, it's a bike, nothing that either brings tears of joy or pain
to his eyes...expensive tho, but next thing you know it's gonna
be.......


NEW way to hook high tech tubes together, using a mysterious sand cast
method of making small elegant fixtures, and low heat to connect mitred
tubes together....

Knew the goofy market was eventually going to go to a carbon front and
aluminum rear, already done carbon rear....
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > First it was aluminum with carbon seat stays, then aluminum with carbon
> > rear ends, then titanium and steel with carbon back ends and then
> > titanium lugs with carbon plugs....now...
> >
> > Cannondale system 6..carbon front with an ALUMINUM rear....yikes,
> > design run amok..
> >
> > And the gent that reported and rode it talked about how 'smooth' the
> > aluminum rear end is(???)...and a propriatary headset, crank(?) great
> > ideas....I guess they don't remember Fisher, Merlin, Schwinn
> > propriatary, now non existant stuff....if it's new, it must be good,
> > right???

>
>
> Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. ;-)


The guy that works on the next stand says that all the time...I'm just
getting more reasons to say, "F_ck it I quit"...I say that when disc
wheels are standard on road bikes I'm done but when Campag stops making
hubs, or when road bike tires are all tubeless, or when there are no
more rims to be had.......
 

>
> I don't either but as the bike biz, the makers all scurry for the 'next
> new thing'...I thougt titanium with carbon plugs was the last stupid
> thing I would see...>geee take a frame that rides like a dream, isn't
> that expensive, and lasts forever and make the ride the same, and not
> last forever and then make it more expensive......"gotta have
> one!!"..or plastic plugs in the tubes, or whatever.....
>
> I can't even spell golf but I'll bet that 'game' is the same....


I know where you are coming from: You are a sensible LBS and cringe at
the stupid sales lingo. Rightly so! For me it's just a grin and a
shrug. In fact the more outrageous claims are worthy of a good laugh:)
 
Tuschinski wrote:
> >
> > I don't either but as the bike biz, the makers all scurry for the 'next
> > new thing'...I thougt titanium with carbon plugs was the last stupid
> > thing I would see...>geee take a frame that rides like a dream, isn't
> > that expensive, and lasts forever and make the ride the same, and not
> > last forever and then make it more expensive......"gotta have
> > one!!"..or plastic plugs in the tubes, or whatever.....
> >
> > I can't even spell golf but I'll bet that 'game' is the same....

>
> I know where you are coming from: You are a sensible LBS and cringe at
> the stupid sales lingo. Rightly so! For me it's just a grin and a
> shrug. In fact the more outrageous claims are worthy of a good laugh:)


Yeah, the marketing/sales claims can be funny....until you see, first
hand, someone victimized by the BS. Case in point: met a rider while
volunteering on a charity ride a couple of years ago. Riding an
aluminum bike, Shimano 8SP double drivetrain. Ride is on a hilly
course, he's getting older, having a hard time going up. I suggest he
visit his LBS, ask about getting lower gears (bigger [28-30T] rear
cogs, or, best idea, going to a triple) for next year. Long story
short: he goes to the shop, they tell him his bike is an antique, no
sense in modifying it for lower gears, just a waste of money. They sell
him a full carbon bike, BUT, tell him this bike is *so much lighter*,
he won't need the triple version, or even a 28-30T rear, he'll just
float up the hills. So, last year, there he is, with a new wunderbike,
still having a struggle "going up". Fact is, he would have been far
better served (and alot less "light in the wallet") if he converted his
extant bike to a triple.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Tuschinski wrote:
>>> I don't either but as the bike biz, the makers all scurry for the 'next
>>> new thing'...I thougt titanium with carbon plugs was the last stupid
>>> thing I would see...>geee take a frame that rides like a dream, isn't
>>> that expensive, and lasts forever and make the ride the same, and not
>>> last forever and then make it more expensive......"gotta have
>>> one!!"..or plastic plugs in the tubes, or whatever.....
>>>
>>> I can't even spell golf but I'll bet that 'game' is the same....

>> I know where you are coming from: You are a sensible LBS and cringe at
>> the stupid sales lingo. Rightly so! For me it's just a grin and a
>> shrug. In fact the more outrageous claims are worthy of a good laugh:)

>
> Yeah, the marketing/sales claims can be funny....until you see, first
> hand, someone victimized by the BS. Case in point: met a rider while
> volunteering on a charity ride a couple of years ago. Riding an
> aluminum bike, Shimano 8SP double drivetrain. Ride is on a hilly
> course, he's getting older, having a hard time going up. I suggest he
> visit his LBS, ask about getting lower gears (bigger [28-30T] rear
> cogs, or, best idea, going to a triple) for next year. Long story
> short: he goes to the shop, they tell him his bike is an antique, no
> sense in modifying it for lower gears, just a waste of money. They sell
> him a full carbon bike, BUT, tell him this bike is *so much lighter*,
> he won't need the triple version, or even a 28-30T rear, he'll just
> float up the hills. So, last year, there he is, with a new wunderbike,
> still having a struggle "going up". Fact is, he would have been far
> better served (and alot less "light in the wallet") if he converted his
> extant bike to a triple.
>


Or maybe if he got fit. You know, one should also mention to these
people that low gears are no substitute for fitness. The truth is, it
takes more energy overall to climb a hill slowly in the granny than to
slug it out in a larger gear. Of course, fast twitch muscle fatigue is
an issue, but that's solved by training.

Most of my customers that complain of over-gearing could improve their
lot by simply riding more.

And let's not forget about perceived exertion vs real exertion. Lots of
folks can't do it because it's in their heads that a certain level of
exertion is uncomfortable and, therefore, impossible. What was old
boy's HR as he struggled up the hill? Did he really *need* lower gears?


Robin (if Jobst can do it in a 47x24, I can with 39x23) Hubert
 
Robin Hubert wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Tuschinski wrote:
> >>> I don't either but as the bike biz, the makers all scurry for the 'next
> >>> new thing'...I thougt titanium with carbon plugs was the last stupid
> >>> thing I would see...>geee take a frame that rides like a dream, isn't
> >>> that expensive, and lasts forever and make the ride the same, and not
> >>> last forever and then make it more expensive......"gotta have
> >>> one!!"..or plastic plugs in the tubes, or whatever.....
> >>>
> >>> I can't even spell golf but I'll bet that 'game' is the same....
> >> I know where you are coming from: You are a sensible LBS and cringe at
> >> the stupid sales lingo. Rightly so! For me it's just a grin and a
> >> shrug. In fact the more outrageous claims are worthy of a good laugh:)

> >
> > Yeah, the marketing/sales claims can be funny....until you see, first
> > hand, someone victimized by the BS. Case in point: met a rider while
> > volunteering on a charity ride a couple of years ago. Riding an
> > aluminum bike, Shimano 8SP double drivetrain. Ride is on a hilly
> > course, he's getting older, having a hard time going up. I suggest he
> > visit his LBS, ask about getting lower gears (bigger [28-30T] rear
> > cogs, or, best idea, going to a triple) for next year. Long story
> > short: he goes to the shop, they tell him his bike is an antique, no
> > sense in modifying it for lower gears, just a waste of money. They sell
> > him a full carbon bike, BUT, tell him this bike is *so much lighter*,
> > he won't need the triple version, or even a 28-30T rear, he'll just
> > float up the hills. So, last year, there he is, with a new wunderbike,
> > still having a struggle "going up". Fact is, he would have been far
> > better served (and alot less "light in the wallet") if he converted his
> > extant bike to a triple.
> >

>
> Or maybe if he got fit. You know, one should also mention to these
> people that low gears are no substitute for fitness. The truth is, it
> takes more energy overall to climb a hill slowly in the granny than to
> slug it out in a larger gear. Of course, fast twitch muscle fatigue is
> an issue, but that's solved by training.
>
> Most of my customers that complain of over-gearing could improve their
> lot by simply riding more.
>
> And let's not forget about perceived exertion vs real exertion. Lots of
> folks can't do it because it's in their heads that a certain level of
> exertion is uncomfortable and, therefore, impossible. What was old
> boy's HR as he struggled up the hill? Did he really *need* lower gears?
>


Yah, sure, Robin....

Point is, he went to them with a "problem", seeking a solution. They
took his $$ , but didn't solve the problem. Get it?
 
Robin Hubert wrote:

>
> Most of my customers that complain of over-gearing could improve their
> lot by simply riding more.
>

Most of your customers who complain about anything would complain less
if they rode more.

-paul
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

>
> I don't either but as the bike biz, the makers all scurry for the 'next
> new thing'...I thougt titanium with carbon plugs was the last stupid
> thing I would see...>geee take a frame that rides like a dream, isn't
> that expensive, and lasts forever and make the ride the same, and not
> last forever and then make it more expensive......"gotta have
> one!!"..or plastic plugs in the tubes, or whatever.....
>
> I can't even spell golf but I'll bet that 'game' is the same....
>


Sounds like the same problem as the gun manufacturers have. If you got a
..308 as a child, you have a rifle you can pass on to your grandchildren
and really don't need another for anything, but then, where would the
manufacturers be? So they come up with the idea that long cartridges are
the best, then short fat ones, then in the middle ones and that cycle
goes on and on. The idea that a long cartridge will kill an elk more
humanely than a short fat one (or the other way around) is silly in the
extreme, yet that's the essence of new gun sales.

You're in an industry where a well engineered product will last a
lifetime. What will you do after the first sale of that lifetime if not
make it seem obsolete? After all, it's not worn out.

-paul
 
"Paul Cassel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't either but as the bike biz, the makers all scurry for the 'next
>> new thing'...I thougt titanium with carbon plugs was the last stupid
>> thing I would see...>geee take a frame that rides like a dream, isn't
>> that expensive, and lasts forever and make the ride the same, and not
>> last forever and then make it more expensive......"gotta have
>> one!!"..or plastic plugs in the tubes, or whatever.....
>>
>> I can't even spell golf but I'll bet that 'game' is the same....
>>

>
> Sounds like the same problem as the gun manufacturers have. If you got a
> .308 as a child, you have a rifle you can pass on to your grandchildren
> and really don't need another for anything, but then, where would the
> manufacturers be? So they come up with the idea that long cartridges are
> the best, then short fat ones, then in the middle ones and that cycle goes
> on and on. The idea that a long cartridge will kill an elk more humanely
> than a short fat one (or the other way around) is silly in the extreme,
> yet that's the essence of new gun sales.
>
> You're in an industry where a well engineered product will last a
> lifetime. What will you do after the first sale of that lifetime if not
> make it seem obsolete? After all, it's not worn out.
>
> -paul


Welcome to the consumer economy. Everyone needs an engineering/science
degree to enjoy marketing messages these days. My favourites are cosmetics
ads. Here comes the science bit!

Skippy
E&OE
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Remember, if the bike is expensive, then it's "plush." If it's
>inexpensive, then it's "whippy." If the bike is expensive, then it's
>"responsive." If it's inexpensive it's "harsh."


Coool.

For those who are looking for the ultimate magic carpet ride from
their bike, Habanero Cycles is now offering the option of paying three
times the list price for our frames. While this will still result in
less plushness than many high-end frames (since it's still less
expensive), our accounting staff is hard at work on the ulimate
weapon. Same frame at TEN times the price!

We're going to have cycling magazines do an A/B/C ride report on the
three of them as soon as I can figure out how the test riders can tell
how much each of the identical bikes cost when they're riding them.

Mark "sounds like a win/win to me" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $7950 ti frame, soon
 
Robin Hubert wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Tuschinski wrote:
> >>> I don't either but as the bike biz, the makers all scurry for the 'next
> >>> new thing'...I thougt titanium with carbon plugs was the last stupid
> >>> thing I would see...>geee take a frame that rides like a dream, isn't
> >>> that expensive, and lasts forever and make the ride the same, and not
> >>> last forever and then make it more expensive......"gotta have
> >>> one!!"..or plastic plugs in the tubes, or whatever.....
> >>>
> >>> I can't even spell golf but I'll bet that 'game' is the same....
> >> I know where you are coming from: You are a sensible LBS and cringe at
> >> the stupid sales lingo. Rightly so! For me it's just a grin and a
> >> shrug. In fact the more outrageous claims are worthy of a good laugh:)

> >
> > Yeah, the marketing/sales claims can be funny....until you see, first
> > hand, someone victimized by the BS. Case in point: met a rider while
> > volunteering on a charity ride a couple of years ago. Riding an
> > aluminum bike, Shimano 8SP double drivetrain. Ride is on a hilly
> > course, he's getting older, having a hard time going up. I suggest he
> > visit his LBS, ask about getting lower gears (bigger [28-30T] rear
> > cogs, or, best idea, going to a triple) for next year. Long story
> > short: he goes to the shop, they tell him his bike is an antique, no
> > sense in modifying it for lower gears, just a waste of money. They sell
> > him a full carbon bike, BUT, tell him this bike is *so much lighter*,
> > he won't need the triple version, or even a 28-30T rear, he'll just
> > float up the hills. So, last year, there he is, with a new wunderbike,
> > still having a struggle "going up". Fact is, he would have been far
> > better served (and alot less "light in the wallet") if he converted his
> > extant bike to a triple.
> >

>
> Or maybe if he got fit. You know, one should also mention to these
> people that low gears are no substitute for fitness. The truth is, it
> takes more energy overall to climb a hill slowly in the granny than to
> slug it out in a larger gear. Of course, fast twitch muscle fatigue is
> an issue, but that's solved by training.
>
> Most of my customers that complain of over-gearing could improve their
> lot by simply riding more.
>
> And let's not forget about perceived exertion vs real exertion. Lots of
> folks can't do it because it's in their heads that a certain level of
> exertion is uncomfortable and, therefore, impossible. What was old
> boy's HR as he struggled up the hill? Did he really *need* lower gears?
>
>
> Robin (if Jobst can do it in a 47x24, I can with 39x23) Hubert


I guess you haven't been in a
Trek/Specialized/Giant/Felt/Cervelo/cannondale shop lately. It's all
about buying fitness and speed...no stinkin riding for me, just slap
down my AMEX and I'll be able to get up that hill. If it weren't so
true, it WOULD be funny. Robin, wander into a bike shop, make like the
'haven't ridden for years, have a Pinarello and want to ride more' type
guy, even say you love the ride of the Pinarello...see what the sales
clones say.
 
Robin Hubert wrote:

<snip>

Really? I would be very surprised if going 80 rpm isn't more efficient
than 50-60 rpm uphill. Now I am a racer, so maybe that is why anything
under 80 feels akward, but I'm curious about this.

I do remember there is a crzy Belgian who rides up a col with INSANE
gears as he says that is most efficient (54-11 or something as
horrendous like that), but I always thought that was just plain idiocy^^
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Remember, if the bike is expensive, then it's "plush." If it's
>>inexpensive, then it's "whippy." If the bike is expensive, then it's
>>"responsive." If it's inexpensive it's "harsh."

>
>
> Coool.
>
> For those who are looking for the ultimate magic carpet ride from
> their bike, Habanero Cycles is now offering the option of paying three
> times the list price for our frames. While this will still result in
> less plushness than many high-end frames (since it's still less
> expensive), our accounting staff is hard at work on the ulimate
> weapon. Same frame at TEN times the price!
>
> We're going to have cycling magazines do an A/B/C ride report on the
> three of them as soon as I can figure out how the test riders can tell
> how much each of the identical bikes cost when they're riding them.


That's easy, you TELL them. If they are particulary daft, have the
price silk-screened on the stem.

Mark "donate my consulting fee to the bicycle charity of your choice"
 
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:50:44 GMT, Robin Hubert <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>Or maybe if he got fit. You know, one should also mention to these
>people that low gears are no substitute for fitness. The truth is, it
>takes more energy overall to climb a hill slowly in the granny than to
>slug it out in a larger gear. Of course, fast twitch muscle fatigue is
>an issue, but that's solved by training.
>


Only in cycling is gravity no longer a conservative field...
 
Tuschinski wrote:
> Robin Hubert wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Really? I would be very surprised if going 80 rpm isn't more efficient
> than 50-60 rpm uphill. Now I am a racer, so maybe that is why anything
> under 80 feels akward, but I'm curious about this.
>
> I do remember there is a crzy Belgian who rides up a col with INSANE
> gears as he says that is most efficient (54-11 or something as
> horrendous like that), but I always thought that was just plain idiocy^^
>


It takes more energy to spin your legs faster than slower, so add that
effort to the overall load of moving your bike at a given speed on any
slope. Whether it's more "efficient" or not, I don't know, but it does
take more energy, all else being equal.


Robin Hubert