In article <
[email protected]>,
jim beam <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>If you look at the real reasons behind many so-called "advances"
> >>they all come back to being able to lower the production cost. As
> >>an after-thought the manufacturers will create reasons why the
> >>change is an "advance." Sometimes there is some advantage to the
> >>end user that falls out of the change, but often not.
> >
> > I think that there are many examples of changes done to facilitate
> > manufacturers which were belatedly heralded as improvements for
> > riders- cassette hubs, cartridge BBs, threadless headsets and
> > V-brakes all being examples.
>
> 1. cassette hubs [old shimano style at any rate] are better because
> they address the bearing load/axle fatigue issues.
Those problems were entirely fixable with freewheel hubs, as was shown
by Maxi-CAR, Phil Wood and Roger Durham (Bullseye). Eliminating the
"horizontal" dropout in favor of "vertical" dropouts provides better
support for the axle and significantly improves axle life even with
small, threaded axles. There are examples of that dating back to the
late 40s.
> 2. threadless headsets are an improvement as they eliminate stem
> wear.
Hmmm. In 40 years of being a bike nut and years of working in bike
shops, I've never ever seen a problem with "stem wear." What are you
referring to?
There are problems with the threadless design as it currently exists.
One is that the stem clamping force and the bearing preload force are
maintained with the same bolt(s)- the pinch bolt(s) on the stem. Once
the pinch bolt(s) is (are) tightened, the bearing adjustment bolt no
longer does anything useful. This means that in the event of a crash or
the bike getting knocked over and the bars being put out of alignment
with the wheel, you can't just twist them back. You have to readjust
the bearing preload as well. Separating the bearing preload and
clamping the stem to the steerer makes more sense. The old French
constructeur method of a threaded headset and a stem that clamped to an
insert brazed into the steerer was a better solution IMHO.
Both of those solutions, however, also have the problem of poor
adjustability of handlebar height. To adjust the height, you have to
replace the stem. Normally this is not a problem, assuming you know
your proper bike fit. I don't know about you but I rarely adjust the
height of my handlebars- after all these years I know where they belong.
However, a month ago I injured my lower back and did have to raise the
bars a bit to avoid aggravating my back. Nice to be able to do it in
two minutes without having to buy a new stem and adjust the fit by trial
and error (although Mark Hickey- nonscientist though he is in your eyes-
offers a helpful guide to fitting threadless stems which eliminates most
of the guesswork).
> 3. cartridge bb's are an improvement because they're more tolerant of
> misaligned bb shells and inability to adjust bearings properly.
The simple steps of facing the BB shell and chasing the threads
eliminate two of these problems. Learning to adjust preload for BB
bearings is simple, which eliminates the third. OTOH the tools (e.g.,
hook spanners and pin spanners) are less than optimal. Cartridge
bearings also come with the downside of smaller ball bearings and
shorter service life, not to mention being unable to be rebuilt and thus
more expensive over time. And finally the bearings are further inboard,
with also reduces bearing life ("solved" by developing "external"
bearings).
The real benefit is for bike manufacturers who get to skip one step
(facing the BB) and don't have to worry about precisely cutting threads.
It also makes TIG welding more practical, because that process distorts
the BB shell more than brazing did.
> 4. v.brakes are an improvement because they're less prone to cable
> fouling.
They come with significant downsides such as poor modulation and poor
tolerance for brake pad wear, as well as poor interoperability with
various brake levers.
All of the benefits that you cite are minimal. These technologies were
developed to solve problems for bike manufacturers, not for riders.
Benefits to the riders are accidental.
> another example would be oversize stems/handlebars. they offer
> /much/ better resistance to the bars rotating, something to which i'm
> prone. they should be better in fatigue too.
At 200-220 pounds, I've not had bars rotate in the stem in many years.
> > There are also many changes to facilitate manufacturing that
> > don't end up on the bike, like packaging of components to be more
> > efficient for bike factories to deal with.
> >
> > I don't think that primarily ergonomic changes like brifters fall
> > into the same category. Those didn't make bike manufacturing any
> > easier.
>
> but you agree that they improve the bike though, right?
No. I don't find these things to necessarily be an improvement. I
think that there are some circumstances where brifters are better (e.g.,
racing, people with arm mobility or balance problems, etc.) but I prefer
bar-end friction shifters by far. But we've already had *that* thread
ad nauseum. No need to go there again.