Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:51:54 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Let's stick to the bicycle topic. Simplex sowed its own death with
> >the Prestige derailleurs. Simple as that.
>
> So you admit that it's not the superior product that wins and you
> admit that it's a marketing image that won.

Desperate much?

The massively inferior Simplex Prestige derailleur tainted all of
Simplex's products and doomed the company- one of the consequences of
making an inferior product. I remember yanking off hundreds of those
POS derailleurs off bikes into the 80s and replacing them back in my
wrenching days. Lots of bikes came with Prestige derailleurs; no bikes
came spec'd with SLJ derailleurs at any bike shop I worked at from
1976-1985. The Prestige was such a crappy product that no one wanted to
touch the SLJ; the SLJ also lost out because while it was better than
Campy, it was inferior to Sun Tour. Sun Tour and then Shimano were the
standard.

Simplex Prestige derailleurs were spec'd on many bikes and they were a
nightmare. As a result, the SLJ derailleurs were spec'd on few. At the
same time, Sun Tour came along with a superior product to Campy,
Shimano, Simplex, Huret, etc. and pretty much dominated the market.
They screwed up in several ways (see Frank Berto's "Sunset for Sun
Tour") especially with indexing, and when the lost patent protection on
the slant parallelogram derailleur they were rapidly supplanted in the
market by Shimano. Shimano did a much better job of developing indexed
shifting with some key improvements to the Sun Tour design, as well as
packaging their products to benefit modern assembly line manufacturing
(addressing multiple markets simultaneously).

Failing to keep up with the times nearly put Campagnolo out of business,
until Campy finally came to their senses and developed good indexing and
adopted the slant parallelogram. They were like the GM of bicycling,
resisting change and technological improvement and ultimately paying a
steep price. Campy also had to learn to accommodate the needs of
manufacturers if they wanted to keep any of the OEM market. Their
success was marginal as Shimano still clobbers Campy at all levels of
the market.

> You just lost your argument.

If "winning" the "argument" is important to you, by all means believe
that you have won. Your grasp of bicycle history is little better than
your understanding of market forces. You've missed the point and the
obvious facts time and time again, but there's nothing I can do to help
that. Further discussion is a waste of energy.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:44:18 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Tim McNamara wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing. But
> >> OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
> >> product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
> >> CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs....
> >
> >There is a small, but oh so vocal; group that claims the LP is the
> >best consumer medium for sound reproduction. They are more rabid in
> >the defense of the LP's sound quality than jim beam is of the
> >durability of pre-built Mavic wheels. Consider yourself warned.
>
> Vinyl is vastly better than cassette or 8-track, not as convenient as CD but
> comparable if not better in sound quality. All of that pales compared to reel
> to
> reel tape. That's the real medium for audio enjoyment.
>
> Ron

I'll see your reel-to-reel and raise you 192 khz 24-bit samples direct
from the hard drive they were mixed on, played through studio monitors
if you must, but in-ear monitors for best price-performance.

The irony, of course, is that DVD-A and SACD arrived, with their
all-but-indisputable best-ever consumer audio experience, just in time
to disappear into a sea of indifference as people started choosing
lossy-compressed audio as their preferred medium.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:23:55 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:28:53 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not
>>>>>>>>> a new
>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>
>>>>>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was
>>>>>>>> it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>>
>>>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>>>>>> bead!
>>
>>>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead
>>>>>> tires on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic
>>>>>> E were a new 21mm _application_.
>>>>>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing
>>>>>> the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable
>>>>>> 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground technically.
>>>>>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride
>>>>>> are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true
>>>>>> 'clincher', those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire in
>>>>> the last 50 years that was using it?
>>
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became
>>>> our 1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge.
>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>> with respect, they look more like "we gotta roll the edge to remove the
>>> sharpness, and can't roll it outwards 'cos of the brake, so we'll roll
>>> it inwards where it's out of sight" to me. the extent of the roll
>>> varied from rim to rim. and the tires of that era weren't hooked to
>>> take advantage of it either afaict. what the elan/mod e system did was
>>> define a specific standard for the hooking interface on both the rim and
>>> tire
>>
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> The cheaper ones of my youth were literally one thickness of steel,
>>>> lipped over crudely at the tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of styling
>>>> and degree, not of concept.
>>>> Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side
>>>> when Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that market
>>>> segment until Elan.
>>>> Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on a
>>>> 1950s Huffy steel rim.
>>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>> a 700c hook bead tire will mount on a 700c non-hooked rim too.
>>
>>Man, that was a real search!
>>
>>Here's the 1972 Chicago Cycle Supply catalog page for Goodyear tires:
>>
>>Note the lower left "Lightweight Tires" are supplied for both
>>straight-side and hook bead rims. The "Eagle 134" is made in 1-3/4 size
>>only for straight-side rims.
>
>Dear Andrew,
>
>From a 1946 Schwinn catalog: "Rims: New Schwinn hook bead type."
>
>http://www.trfindley.com/flschwinn_1941_1950/1946_05.jpg
>
>***
>
>From a 1939 Schwinn catalog: "SCHWINN STEEL RIM: New design, light and
>strong, drop center, Schwinn hook bead type, 26x1&1/4". For use with
>Schwinn Zephyr tires only."
>
>http://www.trfindley.com/flschwinn_1893_1940/1939_17.jpg
>
>***
>
>Lots more Schwinn catalogs:
>
>http://www.trfindley.com/pg_schwinn_cats.htm
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

And over on nostalgic.net . . .

***

From a 1937 Firestone bike tire ad: "Fit straight side or hook type
rims."

http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/187.htm

***

From the upper left of a 1938 Firestone bike tire ad: "Designed to fit
either straight side or hook type rims." [A bit boastful.]

http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/194.htm

***

From the lower right of a 1939 Firestone bicycle tire ad: "Fits
straight side and hook type rims." [Now the tire just fits, no
boasting about design.]

http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/473.htm

***

From the lower left a 1940 Firestone bike tire ad: "Fits hook type or
straight side rims." [This year, they cunningly reversed the
phrasing.]

http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/196.htm

***

From a 1937 National Dayton bicycle catalog: "Rims: chromium hook
type."

http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/441.htm

***

A 1954 Evans-Colson catalog showing a hook-bead rim:

http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/482.htm

***

Just for the hell of it (no mention of hook bead) . . .

"Rims: Choice of Lobdell cement type armored rims, rock maple enclosed
in chromimum steel, or enameled all steel clincher type rims."

The 1930 Hawthorne bike ad goes on to explain that the same bike with
the all-steel clinchers costs $41, while the rock-maple tubular rim
armored with chrome steel is only $37. (The wooden rim had a

http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/ScannedLit/1930+Hawthorne+Page+1.jpg

Here's a 1936 diagram and description of the armored Lobdell wooden
rim:

http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/676.htm

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[dvt]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dvt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:

>>> The "market" that the conservatives love so dearly does indeed
>>> eventually manage to find the best products for the job.... Because
>>> they offer no significant superior benefits and have major
>>> drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the
>>> market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted their
>>> thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.

>> If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which have
>> too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say that your
>> theory is flawed.

> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I have
> been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.

I rode with a LBS owner this weekend, after the conversation quoted
above. He referred to his shop as "Hybrid Central" and explained that
the largest-selling style of bike is the hybrid by a wide margin.
Hybrids often have long chain stays and space for wide tyres, and they
are commonly used as road-going bikes.

I think I was wrong in saying that most "modern bike frames... have too
little tyre clearance and too short chainstays." Perhaps market forces
are choosing a more sensible bike design than I thought. I would prefer
to see them with caliper brakes and drop bars, but you can't have it all.

Before Chalo airs his flat bar crusade, I'll share my little story... I
switched my commuter bike (~8 miles/day round trip) to a flat bar a few
months ago. I dislike it -- it's uncomfortable all the time. It hurts my
hands if I ride it too much. I find myself putting my thumbs above the
bar to alleviate some of the discomfort, and now that I've been
watching, I see lots of other flat bar riders do the same. When I get
some time this fall/winter, I'll go back to the drop bars.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, dvt <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dvt
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> >>> The "market" that the conservatives love so dearly does indeed
> >>> eventually manage to find the best products for the job....
> >>> Because they offer no significant superior benefits and have
> >>> major drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment
> >>> of the market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted
> >>> their thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
>
> >> If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which
> >> have too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say
> >> that your theory is flawed.
>
> > Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> > chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I
> > have been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
>
> I rode with a LBS owner this weekend, after the conversation quoted
> above. He referred to his shop as "Hybrid Central" and explained that
> the largest-selling style of bike is the hybrid by a wide margin.
> Hybrids often have long chain stays and space for wide tyres, and
> they are commonly used as road-going bikes.
>
> I think I was wrong in saying that most "modern bike frames... have
> too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays." Perhaps market
> forces are choosing a more sensible bike design than I thought. I
> would prefer to see them with caliper brakes and drop bars, but you
> can't have it all.

Good points. I tend to look at the bicycling world through the lens of
my preferences and the type of products I use, which does not include
hybrids. I therefore hadn't even thought of them and was only thinking
about road (racing) bikes, which resulted in my not even thinking twice
about your comments. But of course hybrids and mountain bikes have lots
of clearance for wide tires and in many cases fenders, too.

> Before Chalo airs his flat bar crusade, I'll share my little story...
> I switched my commuter bike (~8 miles/day round trip) to a flat bar a
> few months ago. I dislike it -- it's uncomfortable all the time. It
> hurts my hands if I ride it too much. I find myself putting my thumbs
> above the bar to alleviate some of the discomfort, and now that I've
> been watching, I see lots of other flat bar riders do the same. When
> I get some time this fall/winter, I'll go back to the drop bars.

I agree 100%. IMHO flat bars are torture devices not handlebars. My
hands start to go numb within a couple of blocks on flat bars.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jul 29, 10:19 pm, "Kerry Montgomery" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 10:03 am, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > - on why Americans buy stupid motor vehicles -
>
> >> I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over
> >> normal
> >> cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for
> >> me. I
> >> haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
>
> > This is partially what got us where we are today. Some buy an
> > Expedition to see over all the Explorers, than others buy Excursions
> > to see over all the Expeditions. And then come the Hummers.....
>
> > So it goes. :-(
>
> And then comes this:http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/112_news040921_inational...
> Kerry-


Good Gawd!!! It "outHummers" a Hummer! Is there no end to this utter
stupidity?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jul 29, 10:25 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> If the products are of equal efficacy, then it doesn't matter which
> >>> one they buy. Any of them are the "best" product. In those cases,
> >>> market forces have driven the manufacturers to producing products
> >>> that are basically a level playing field. People make their
> >>> decision based on the range of products readily available to them;
> >>> few people have time to research and compare and to methodically
> >>> winnow down the field to one or two prime candidates. They've got
> >>> jobs and kids and other things to do, so they get as close as they
> >>> can. Over time, though, there is a strong tendency to
> >>> self-correction in the market. It's basically a Darwinian process.
> >> Darwinian? Maybe in days of yore, no longer.
> > still me <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Explain to me why Fram oil filters are #1 in the market, when they
> >> are known to those who do research on the subject to be the worst
> >> design? Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most
> >> business class servers. Tell me why we weren't using 64-bit Alpha
> >> chips years ago when they clearly blew the doors off Intel's legacy
> >> handicapped 32 bit offerings? Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy
> >> a Hummer (if you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to
> >> before answering that question).
>
> >> Or here's a biker one for you: Tell me why all those guys were
> >> running Campy derailleurs when the Simplex Super LJ blew it away,
> >> even winning the TDF shortly after its introduction?
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > Let's stick to the bicycle topic. Simplex sowed its own death with the
> > Prestige derailleurs. Simple as that. And SunTour blew Simplex's SLJ
> > out of the water. The end result there is instructive- due to a series
> > of business missteps, SunTour went the way of the dodo, but its superior
> > derailleur design lives on, adopted by Campagnolo and Shimano.
>
> Yes that is what happened. Suntour's Slant Parallelogram gave better
> shifting with less manufacturing cost at every level. As with Hummers,
> some riders were happy that you knew they spent more for their Record
> than you did for your Suntour.

The rationale I heard most often was:"The Suntour might shift better
when it's new, but my Campy NR will last forever". Crappy shifting
forever, what a bargain!


>
> Both Shimano and Campagnolo incorporate Lucien Juy's Simplex dual-spring
> design and the Suntour Slant Paralellogram to this very day.
>

And the incorporation of *both* dual-spring pivots and a slant
parallelogram are what makes modern RDs what they are. IMO, Simplex
tends to get short shrift in this.

 

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:06 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:42 -0400, RonSonic
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
>>cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
>>haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
>
>That figures - you strike me as the type of person who wants a big
>vehicle, other road users be damned.

My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any definition.
It is taller than normal cars. I like that. I also like that what little space
there is in it is a good fit for the things I carry. I rarely haul more than one
other person and I can carry either enough bikes and gear for a day or enough
amplifier and guitar for a night or enough repairs to make a pickup and delivery
worthwhile. It doesn't burn much gas for a brick shaped object and has been
reliable for me.

As for the escalation described by another, I don't feel any need to have
something larger. I also don't feel bad about it being called an SUV nor am I
bothered by the trial lawyers trying to create a revenue stream.

If you choose to drive something in which you are uncomfortable then you have
chosen your own damnation. One does not need a big car or truck to drive like a
jerk and inconvenience others. I have neither the large vehicle nor the bad
attitude. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for your problems in traffic.

Ron

 

[Clive George]

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

> My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any
> definition.

Say what?

How does it compare in size and weight to say a golf - a medium size car?
How about to a little car?

I suspect the answer is it is big. Not necessarily huge, but big.

cheers,
clive

 

[* * Chas]

"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:17:39 -0700, Camilo <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Jul 25, 7:15 am, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure
> > propellor-head
> > > >> foolishness. ...
> > > >
> > > >I like the visual, but am wondering if propellorhead refers to
> > > >aeronautical engineers or buys wearing beanies with propellors on
the
> > > >top?
> > >
> > > Boys wearing beanies with propellors on the top - antiquated slang
for
> > what'd
> > > now be an uber-dork.
> > >
> > > Ron
> >
> > Computer geeks.....
>
> Knew a guy whose company business card gave his title as
>
> Chief Propellor Head
>
> --
> Michael Press

I had one card that said: "Greetings, I'm the SOB from the main office
with ALL the answers" and another that gave my title as "Tool Pimp".

Chas.

 

[still me]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:46:36 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I agree 100%. IMHO flat bars are torture devices not handlebars. My
>hands start to go numb within a couple of blocks on flat bars.

I'm starting to agree with that. I set up a vintage bike with suitably
vintage flat bars for my short afternoon exercise jaunts. Numbness is
already a problem. I like the feel otherwise when riding, but it may
return to drops very soon.

 

[still me]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:28:10 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> You just lost your argument.
>
>If "winning" the "argument" is important to you, by all means believe
>that you have won. Your grasp of bicycle history is little better than
>your understanding of market forces. You've missed the point and the
>obvious facts time and time again, but there's nothing I can do to help
>that. Further discussion is a waste of energy.

You've missed the point. I understand bicycling history in that period
well enough, despite your cheap insults concerning that and your self
centered view that only your facts matter.

The point is, as you admit, that (almost) no one bought Simplex due to
company image, despite a superior product. Portions of their design
ideas appeared later adopted by others with better marketing and
better image and became main stream.

It's not all about the technology, and the technologically superior
product does not always win. It's about selling the product, and
Simplex lost. There are lots of examples of superior products losing
out to better image and sales.

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:49:03 +0100, "Clive George" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any
>> definition.
>
>Say what?
>
>How does it compare in size and weight to say a golf - a medium size car?
>How about to a little car?

A Golf is not a medium sized car. A more reasonable comparison would be a Ford
Taurus, it weighs no more is not as wide or long, but is taller. Roughly 65
inches wide, and 13' long according to my tape measure. A Golf will not carry a
Marshall half-stack and guitars and kit. So it really isn't much of a
comparison. Here's a representative specimen:
http://autopixx.de/bilder/autopixx-de-1163847623-92.jpg They don't all end up
that way, but enough of them to get people talking.

Okay, maybe a Golf is medium sized in your neighborhood. I just saw your email
address.

>I suspect the answer is it is big. Not necessarily huge, but big.

Hmmm, now we're down to some strict usage problems here. Perhaps by some
definitions it is indeed "big." I will choose to stand by the statement though
and insist that may phrasing is accurate within reasonable rhetorical limits.

>
>cheers,
>clive

Cheers,
Ron

 

[still me]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:48:53 -0000, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Because you had to buy the hardware from DEC, while Unix
>turned out to be adaptable to several different platforms.

But that was just an architectural question. "The" chip to use and the
architecture of it was an open war for a long time. DEC was ahead
quite a few times. Companies could have built on DEC's architecture
and licensed their software. It was clearly superior. But, this proves
the point. DEC didn't know **** about selling or business.
Technological superiority, marketing incompetence.

Same goes for "Macs". I don't know that they are far superior, I do
know they are at least equal to MS-Windows. Yet MS dominates that
market. Why? Technological superiority of MS-Windows? No way. But,
regardless of the reason (lots of theories), MS and Intel won the war
despite technology that wasn't as good.

 

[still me]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:12:28 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>For that matter, why buy new clothing when thrift stores sell at $2 to
>$10 per garment? To some that's a bargain, to others unacceptable.
>
>These are much more complex questions than you imply.

The point exactly! Technological superiority is not the "one" deciding
factor!

>p.s. in my quick, low car I can't see over much at all. Still like it.

Me too. I just swear at all the idiots driving SUV's when they're in
front of me and pass them when I have the chance (still getting better
mileage than them whilst opening the throttle wide).

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:06 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:42 -0400, RonSonic
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look
> >>over normal cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in
> >>vehicle choice for me. I haven't owned a short car in over 20 years
> >>and simply won't again.
> >
> >That figures - you strike me as the type of person who wants a big
> >vehicle, other road users be damned.
>
> My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any
> definition. It is taller than normal cars. I like that. I also like
> that what little space there is in it is a good fit for the things I
> carry. I rarely haul more than one other person and I can carry
> either enough bikes and gear for a day or enough amplifier and guitar
> for a night or enough repairs to make a pickup and delivery
> worthwhile. It doesn't burn much gas for a brick shaped object and
> has been reliable for me.

I had one of those 1988-2001. While what you say about its utility was
also true for me, it was the worst POS lemon of a vehicle I have ever
owned. It cost me $13,000 to buy new and I think I paid damn near that
much in repairs over the years.

Being a cheap *******, I have owned three cars in 29 years. A 1981
Plymouth Arrow mini-pickup (cheap but well-made and very reliable,
except it was horrible in the snow), the 1988 Bronco II (lemon but good
in the snow) and a 1990 Volvo 240 (bought used in 2001). The latter is
the best car I have ever owned and I fully expect to get 250,000-300,000
miles out of it.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by
> > any definition.
>
> Say what?
>
> How does it compare in size and weight to say a golf - a medium size
> car? How about to a little car?
>
> I suspect the answer is it is big. Not necessarily huge, but big.

Mine fit in a standard US "compact car" parking space with no problems.
It was not as long than my Volvo 240- which in its day was considered a
medium size car in the US. The Bronco II was not quite as much of a
land yacht as most SUVs, but still posed the problem of restricting the
line of sight for following drivers. I was rear-ended several times in
the Bronco II and never in any other vehicle. Note there was the Bronco
and the Bronco II, the latter being a smaller vehicle than the former.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Bronco_II

The wheelbase was 94 inches (2.39 m) and width was 68 inches (7.73 m).

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:46:36 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I agree 100%. IMHO flat bars are torture devices not handlebars.
> >My hands start to go numb within a couple of blocks on flat bars.
>
> I'm starting to agree with that. I set up a vintage bike with
> suitably vintage flat bars for my short afternoon exercise jaunts.
> Numbness is already a problem. I like the feel otherwise when riding,
> but it may return to drops very soon.

I dunno why it happens. It's been consistent since I bought my first
mountain bike (a Mongoose with those bullhorn bars). I'm not sure if
it's just that I am so adapted to road bars that the position change
just causes problems, or if the hand position impinges nerves, or what.
Is it some change in position that affects my cervical disk problem
causing numbness? Is it that flat bars put more pressure on the nerve
to my little and ring fingers that's worse than with drop bars?

I know people who can't stand drop bars and love flat bars. It's a good
thing that there are options! That also reflects on something left
unmentioned in our earlier discussion, which is that it is possible that
there may not be a single "best" product to triumph in the market.
What's best for me may not be what's best for someone else. In those
cases you see multimodal distributions.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:28:10 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> You just lost your argument.
> >
> >If "winning" the "argument" is important to you, by all means
> >believe that you have won. Your grasp of bicycle history is little
> >better than your understanding of market forces. You've missed the
> >point and the obvious facts time and time again, but there's nothing
> >I can do to help that. Further discussion is a waste of energy.
>
> You've missed the point. I understand bicycling history in that
> period well enough, despite your cheap insults concerning that and
> your self centered view that only your facts matter.
>
> The point is, as you admit, that (almost) no one bought Simplex due
> to company image, despite a superior product. Portions of their
> design ideas appeared later adopted by others with better marketing
> and better image and became main stream.

My point must not have been as clear as I thought. The reason that the
Simplex SLJ didn't get spec'd on US bikes had nothing to do with its
superiority vis a vis Campy. The bleedover of the incredible
inferiority of the Prestige derailleur was certainly one contributor,
and one that might have been overcome, but the Simplex killer was the
rise of the Sun Tour slant parallelogram derailleur which was
technologically superior. Sun Tour dominated the OEM market because its
products were better. That's what killed Simplex in the US market.
Without Sun Tour the SLJ might have stood a chance but we'll never know.

FWIW, in the last two years of its mainstream life cycle, Sun Tour also
adopted the spring loaded upper pivot design for its rear derailleurs.
I believe but am not completely certain that they followed Shimano's
lead in this. Campy resisted adopting both the spring loaded upper
pivot as well as the slant parallelogram for a surprisingly long time.

> It's not all about the technology, and the technologically superior
> product does not always win. It's about selling the product, and
> Simplex lost. There are lots of examples of superior products losing
> out to better image and sales.

But Simplex did not lose out to an inferior product (Campy). It lost
out to a superior product (Sun Tour). Indeed, the rise of superior
quality Japanese bicycles severely damaged European bike and component
manufacturers in the US market. Simplex, Huret, Peugeot, Motobecane and
Campy were all on the ropes in just a couple of years and Raleigh just a
few years later- only its sheer size protected it for a while. Ross,
Huffy and Schwinn all ended up succumbing over time.

FWIW, we may be talking at a bit of cross purposes. I am not asserting
that the market always chooses the most technologically superior
product, unless that superiority is head and shoulders above its
competition. I am asserting that the market chooses the best product
for its needs (and because needs are not uniform, there may be a
multimodal distribution in the buying pattern; also needs change over
time). There are multiple parameters for "best" including utility,
price, availability, applicability to needs, etc. Mountain bike A may
be technologically superior to road bike B, but if you're going to race
crits you're going to buy road bike B.

I am also not asserting that the market is instantaneous in selecting
the best product. It might take 10 years for the market to winnow out
the inferior products, and of course inferior products can be improved.

I am also not asserting that the market is immune to the effects of
marketing. Marketing has a measurable effect but generally a temporary
one. The market is also prone to fads, which typically wear off rapidly
but can be very lucrative if exploited well.

None of this explains the sales of Britney Spears CDs. On that topic I
would have to admit defeat!

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 30, 12:59 pm, still me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:48:53 -0000, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Because you had to buy the hardware from DEC, while Unix
> >turned out to be adaptable to several different platforms.
>
> But that was just an architectural question. "The" chip to use and the
> architecture of it was an open war for a long time. DEC was ahead
> quite a few times. Companies could have built on DEC's architecture
> and licensed their software. It was clearly superior. But, this proves
> the point. DEC didn't know **** about selling or business.
> Technological superiority, marketing incompetence.

It wasn't clearly superior to everybody. I mean,
it's not like the BSD Unix sales force outwrestled
the DEC VMS sales force, yet people bought VAXes
and ran BSD on them. That's my point - there's not
always a consensus on "clearly superior."

> Same goes for "Macs". I don't know that they are far superior, I do
> know they are at least equal to MS-Windows. Yet MS dominates that
> market. Why? Technological superiority of MS-Windows? No way. But,
> regardless of the reason (lots of theories), MS and Intel won the war
> despite technology that wasn't as good.

Well, you won't get any defense of MS from me.
Though back when Windows 9x was young, Macs were
more expensive, and MacOS was not yet OS X (which
is "clearly superior" to previous Mac OS, and IMHO
to Windows). MS and Intel won for a number of a
reasons, and price was one. There are still
alternatives, though; Mac and Unix/Linux have not
gone the way of Simplex or Betamax, for very good
reasons.

Anyway, did you know that one of the chief architects
of Windows NT was a VMS guru? If you shift IBM by
one letter, you get HAL from 2001, everybody knows
that. But if you shift VMS by one letter, you get WNT.
I always wondered about that.

Ben