Who invented dual-pivot brakes?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Jeff, May 31, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:39:24 GMT, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> spat out his venom thus:

    >
    >> It has only one feature and that is a higher mechanical advantage. The short arm on the offset
    >> pivot has significant cosine error (foreshortening caused by angular motion. A conventional side
    >> pull brake operating at less than 5 degrees has less than 4% vertical motion of the pad from new
    >> to worn to the metal. No other mechanical lever brake can be operated for the life of the pad
    >> without adjustment.
    >
    >That generalization has been invalidated by the move to thinner pads! It also doesn't apply to
    >centerpulls used with angled rims, nor to various brake types used with rims with a tall braking
    >surface, such as the (yuck!) Weinmann concave.

    Ouch! I believe the Concave was an outstanding rim - strong and durable -- they made for an
    excellent wheel. Why do you dis them?

    - --
    Anthony Leverock
     


  2. I casually referred to:

    >>...the (yuck!) Weinmann concave [rim].

    Anthony Leverock wrote:

    > Ouch! I believe the Concave was an outstanding rim - strong and durable -- they made for an
    > excellent wheel. Why do you dis them?

    Ugly, heavy, anti-aerodynamic, and, most of all, incompatible with my favorite spoke wrench! Also,
    they often had rather poorly finished joints.

    Sheldon "Liked The 210" Brown +------------------------------------------------------+
    | It were not best that we should all think alike; | it is difference of opinion that makes
    | horse-races. | -- Mark Twain |
    +------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
    Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
    http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
     
  3. On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:04:55 -0400, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> explained:

    >
    >>>...the (yuck!) Weinmann concave [rim].
    >
    >Anthony Leverock wrote:
    >
    >> Ouch! I believe the Concave was an outstanding rim - strong and durable -- they made for an
    >> excellent wheel. Why do you dis them?
    >
    >Ugly, heavy, anti-aerodynamic, and, most of all, incompatible with my favorite spoke wrench! Also,
    >they often had rather poorly finished joints.

    Heheh, pishposh regarding the ugly and non-aerodynamic comments, and I haven't seen a pooly finished
    joint on one, but I am going on memory from about 20 years ago - the rims I have (still in service!)
    look very fine. However, your point is well taken on the spoke wrench issue. I cannot use a VAR
    spoke wrench on a Concave when it is matched with normal length nipples.(the wings rub on the rim).
    Of course, there are plenty of other wrenches out there to fall back to when working on one.

    Heavy - hmm, yes a bit, but as I said very durable and strong.

    - --
    Anthony (Into The Concave) Leverock
     
  4. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Sheldon Brown writes:
    >
    > >> It has only one feature and that is a higher mechanical
    advantage.
    > >> The short arm on the offset pivot has significant
    cosine error
    > >> (foreshortening caused by angular motion. A
    conventional side pull
    > >> brake operating at less than 5 degrees has less than 4%
    vertical
    > >> motion of the pad from new to worn to the metal. No
    other
    > >> mechanical lever brake can be operated for the life of
    the pad
    > >> without adjustment.
    >
    > > That generalization has been invalidated by the move to
    thinner
    > > pads! It also doesn't apply to centerpulls used with
    angled rims,
    > > nor to various brake types used with rims with a tall
    braking
    > > surface, such as the (yuck!) Weinmann concave.
    >
    > There is no rim surface that will negate cosine error.
    Pad thickness
    > only comes into play to make pads wear out so fast that
    they need to
    > be replaced often, thereby keeping the angular change
    close to zero.
    > That is a stupid solution and it does nothing for
    cantilever and
    > V-brakes that have large cosine error.
    >
    > >> The pad position on my old Campagnolo brakes never need adjustment. Only cable slack from pad
    > >> wear need be
    taken up and it
    > >> can do that as well.
    >
    > > This feature is certainly of some value, but it isn't
    overwhelming. Not
    > > all cyclists have as strong hands as you do, and some of
    us with weak
    > > hands find old Campagnolo sidepulls highly
    unsatisfactory.
    >
    > It is important if you use the brakes on long descents, in
    the Alps in
    > the rain, for instance. I can imagine this happening n
    the great tour
    > races, TdF, GdI, TdS and others. Just because most
    Americans don't
    > ride such courses, straying that far from their bicycle
    mechanic,
    > doesn't justify such an unnecessary built in error.
    >
    > By the way, current dual-pivot brakes can lock up a front
    wheel if it
    > gets knocked a couple of centimeters out of true, such as
    a 24-spoke
    > wheel in which a spoke breaks on a descent. The Dual
    pivot brake
    > cannot follow an untrue wheel as single pivot brakes have
    done on
    > purpose for many years. I am not amused and fortunately
    have hands
    > strong enough to raise the rear wheel on descents if I
    need to brake
    > that hard.

    My hands are not particularly strong and I have no problem with good single pivots. However, many of
    them are (or were) not good. The problems I've most encountered are bad pads, flexy calipers, flexy
    levers, sloppy lever pivots, sloppy cable installations with badly seated housings, etc. Maybe older
    cable housings compressed a bit too, I don't know.

    A couple of years ago I had an old bike with Superbe Pro brakes. Whe I rode it home, I almost shot
    through a couple of stop signs. But once I rebuilt the brakes with new pads and cables it was fine.
    I've ridden a friend's bike a lot in the Santa Monica Mts., descending those steep hills above
    Malibu. This bike has mid-90s Campy Mirage single pivots. No problem -- the brakes are excellent.
    Descending these same hills years ago on an early 90s MTB with stock Shimano canti brakes, I had to
    stop periodically to rest my aching forearms.

    Dual pivots definately have more leverage, but I don't think it's a big deal. It's kind of like
    machined sidewalls -- a "solution" a bike salesman can point to, that resonates instantly with the
    buyer. No more sloppy rim joints that cause the brakes to hang up. Of course the real problem was
    poor rim quality, not design. Brakes are similar. The real problem was shoddy parts and setup on the
    old bikes everyone remembers, not design.

    IMO, if single pivots were simply as well made and adjusted as most dual pivots are now, and
    equipped with good pads, most people would find them perfectly adequate.

    Matt O.
     
  5. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    "Anthony Leverock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:39:24 GMT, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> spat out his
    > venom thus:
    > >> It has only one feature and that is a higher mechanical advantage. The short arm on the offset
    > >> pivot has significant cosine error (foreshortening caused by angular motion. A conventional
    > >> side pull brake operating at less than 5 degrees has less than 4% vertical motion of the pad
    > >> from new to worn to the metal. No other mechanical lever brake can be operated for the life of
    > >> the pad without adjustment.
    > >
    > >That generalization has been invalidated by the move to thinner pads! It also doesn't apply to
    > >centerpulls used with angled rims, nor to various brake types used with rims with a tall braking
    > >surface, such as the (yuck!) Weinmann concave.
    >
    > Ouch! I believe the Concave was an outstanding rim - strong and durable -- they made for an
    > excellent wheel. Why do you dis them?

    They are so Soviet! Heavy, big, ugly and the seams are lumpy. And they came out in an era of
    actually _good_ beautiful rims at the same price.

    --
    Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
     
  6. Whitfit

    Whitfit Guest

    [email protected] wrote in message news:<vjBCa.18764 Besides, the migration of pad
    contact into the tire
    > (aka cosine error) is a major hazard for people unclear on the concept because it causes blowouts.
    > Cantilevers, in contrast, "pop under" the rim with wear and do not return, leaving the bicycle
    > with no brake.
    >

    Just curious- In all of my years using cantilevers (okay, not many,I'm still a young'un, but at
    least 10 years) I have never experienced this problem, even with some riding in those famed French
    mountains on a touring bike. Has anyone had it happen to them? I've seen department store bikes
    which are close, but I think most of that was because of poor adjustment. Any experience out there?

    Whitfit.
     
  7. On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:13:27 -0500, "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Ouch! I believe the Concave was an outstanding rim - strong and durable -- they made for an
    >> excellent wheel. Why do you dis them?
    >
    >They are so Soviet! Heavy, big, ugly and the seams are lumpy. And they came out in an era of
    >actually _good_ beautiful rims at the same price.

    Well, OK. I guess you and Sheldon won't be joining the Concave fan club :) As far as looks, well, I
    appreciate their interesting looks as well as other rims of that time, so your point is well taken.
    However, as far as weight goes, that doesn't matter much, really - I guess it depends on the type of
    riding you used them for. For commuting they were an outstanding rim (especially the narrower
    Concave) and for touring, the wide Concave was excellent. They made for a durable wheel, able to
    take a great deal of abuse. As far as the bulge is concerned...point noted.

    - --
    Anthony Leverock
     
  8. Jobst Brandt

    Jobst Brandt Guest

    whitfit what? writes secretively:

    >> (aka cosine error) is a major hazard for people unclear on the concept because it causes blowouts
    >> [on centerpulls]. Cantilevers, in contrast, "pop under" the rim with wear and do not return,
    >> leaving the bicycle with no brake.

    > Just curious- In all of my years using cantilevers (okay, not many, I'm still a young'un, but at
    > least 10 years) I have never experienced this problem, even with some riding in those famed
    > French mountains on a touring bike. Has anyone had it happen to them? I've seen department store
    > bikes which are close, but I think most of that was because of poor adjustment. Any experience
    > out there?

    If you start with new pads in the retracted position, visually trace the arc of motion making a
    circle about the pivot point, you'll see that the path of the pad can sweep past the lower edge of
    the rim without wearing through anything but brake pad material. In dirty wet conditions, this much
    wear eaisly occurs. I have seen brake pads pop under in this manner. I have also seen pads on
    centerpulls touching the tire above the rim.

    Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA
     
  9. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    [email protected] (whitfit) wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > Besides, the migration of pad contact into the tire (aka cosine error) is a major hazard for
    > > people unclear on the concept because it causes blowouts. Cantilevers, in contrast, "pop under"
    > > the rim with wear and do not return, leaving the bicycle with no brake.
    >
    > Just curious- In all of my years using cantilevers (okay, not many,I'm still a young'un, but at
    > least 10 years) I have never experienced this problem, even with some riding in those famed
    > French mountains on a touring bike. Has anyone had it happen to them? I've seen department store
    > bikes which are close, but I think most of that was because of poor adjustment. Any experience
    > out there?

    Yes, this used to happen; it has happened to me, fortunately not causing me to crash in the process.

    The problem was (is?) that many rim sidewalls slope inward (I remember specifically some
    almost-triangular Matrix Iso-C ATB rims from once upon a time). Mount a narrow rim with
    inward-sloping sidewalls in a frame or fork with widely spaced canti bosses, and it's often
    difficult to set up the brakes to where the pads won't dive at least partway down the rim in a
    hard stop.

    Wider rims help, as do concave rim sidewalls and brake booster arches.

    Chalo Colina
     
  10. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

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

    > [email protected] (whitfit) wrote:
    >
    > > [email protected] wrote:
    > > > Besides, the migration of pad contact into the tire (aka cosine error) is a major hazard for
    > > > people
    unclear on the concept
    > > > because it causes blowouts. Cantilevers, in contrast,
    "pop under" the
    > > > rim with wear and do not return, leaving the bicycle
    with no brake.
    > >
    > > Just curious- In all of my years using cantilevers
    (okay, not
    > > many,I'm still a young'un, but at least 10 years) I have
    never
    > > experienced this problem, even with some riding in those
    famed French
    > > mountains on a touring bike. Has anyone had it happen
    to them? I've
    > > seen department store bikes which are close, but I think
    most of that
    > > was because of poor adjustment. Any experience out
    there?
    >
    > Yes, this used to happen; it has happened to me,
    fortunately not
    > causing me to crash in the process.
    >
    > The problem was (is?) that many rim sidewalls slope inward
    (I remember
    > specifically some almost-triangular Matrix Iso-C ATB rims
    from once
    > upon a time). Mount a narrow rim with inward-sloping
    sidewalls in a
    > frame or fork with widely spaced canti bosses, and it's
    often
    > difficult to set up the brakes to where the pads won't
    dive at least
    > partway down the rim in a hard stop.
    >
    > Wider rims help, as do concave rim sidewalls and brake
    booster arches.

    I don't know about concave sidewalls -- they seem like a bad idea. What's really helped is taller
    sidewalls. Older common MTB rims like the Mavic 231 had really short sidewalls that were barely big
    enough for a brake pad. If the pad was the slightest bit misadjusted or overly worn, it could hit
    the tire, or dive below the rim.

    Back in those days, the first thing I'd do is ditch the stock Shimano straddle setup, and run the
    cantilevers as vertical as possible, with the pad posts as close to 90 degrees as possible. Another
    reason V-brakes have been successful is that they've kept this geometry.

    Matt O.
     
  11. Matt O'Toole wrote:

    > I don't know about concave sidewalls -- they seem like a bad idea. What's really helped is taller
    > sidewalls. Older common MTB rims like the Mavic 231 had really short sidewalls that were barely
    > big enough for a brake pad. If the pad was the slightest bit misadjusted or overly worn, it could
    > hit the tire, or dive below the rim.

    This problem is particularly exacerbated when wide tires overhang the edges of narrow rims.

    > Back in those days, the first thing I'd do is ditch the stock Shimano straddle setup, and run the
    > cantilevers as vertical as possible, with the pad posts as close to 90 degrees as possible.

    That's not a good idea. It drastically reduces the mechanical advantage of the brake, and it doesn
    do anything to solve the arc-swing problem, because the brake shoe is still hitting the same rim,
    and rotating around the same pivot point.

    > Another reason V-brakes have been successful is that they've kept this geometry.

    That's comparing apples and locomotives.

    See: http://sheldonbrown.com/cantilever-geometry.html

    Sheldon "Keep 'Em Wide" Brown +------------------------------------------------+
    | An infallible method of conciliating a tiger | is to allow oneself to be devoured. | --Konrad
    | Adenauer |
    +------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
    617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
    http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
     
  12. Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    > Mike S-<< Just like the "Bullseye" cranks that Shimano is bringing out this year for
    > D/A and XTR...
    >
    > And altho I sometimes 'like' to slam shimano for some of what they do, they are responsible for
    > many improvemnets that have brought people back to bikes and kept them there, like lever mounted
    > click shifting. Tremendous improvers, not inventors tho.

    This seems to mirror a common stereotype for Japanese industry and product design. And like most
    stereotypes, it is really just thinly veiled racism.

    When you get right down to it, Shimano has done a hell of a better job at inventing new component
    designs than your favorite component company (Campagnolo) has in the last twenty years.

    In the past decade or two most of Campagnolo's "new" ideas have been complete dogs (can anyone say
    Synchro shifting or Delta brakes), and their best efforts have simply been copies of Shimano designs
    (dual pivot brakes, two pivot slant parallelogram derailleurs, sprockets with shifting ramps,
    chainrings with shifting pins, etc.) or variations on a Shimano theme (cassette freehubs, dual
    control shifters, clipless pedals).

    So, if you want to label Shimano as simply design improvers, you'd have to label Campagnolo as
    design plagarizers.

    Mark McMaster [email protected]
     
  13. I thought it was SunTour who "invented" the slant paralelogram rear design, not Shimano.

    Am I wrong?

    Mark Gordon Noblesville "Mark McMaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    > > Mike S-<< Just like the "Bullseye" cranks that Shimano is bringing out
    this
    > > year for
    > > D/A and XTR...
    > >
    > > And altho I sometimes 'like' to slam shimano for some of what they do,
    they are
    > > responsible for many improvemnets that have brought people back to bikes
    and
    > > kept them there, like lever mounted click shifting. Tremendous
    improvers, not
    > > inventors tho.
    >
    > This seems to mirror a common stereotype for Japanese industry and product design. And like most
    > stereotypes, it is really just thinly veiled racism.
    >
    > When you get right down to it, Shimano has done a hell of a better job at inventing new component
    > designs than your favorite component company (Campagnolo) has in the last twenty years.
    >
    > In the past decade or two most of Campagnolo's "new" ideas have been complete dogs (can anyone say
    > Synchro shifting or Delta brakes), and their best efforts have simply been copies of Shimano
    > designs (dual pivot brakes, two pivot slant parallelogram derailleurs, sprockets with shifting
    > ramps, chainrings with shifting pins, etc.) or variations on a Shimano theme (cassette freehubs,
    > dual control shifters, clipless pedals).
    >
    > So, if you want to label Shimano as simply design improvers, you'd have to label Campagnolo as
    > design plagarizers.
    >
    > Mark McMaster [email protected]
     
  14. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Mark-<< This seems to mirror a common stereotype for Japanese industry and product design. And
    > like most stereotypes, it is really just thinly veiled racism.
    >
    > oh please......
    >
    >
    > << When you get right down to it, Shimano has done a hell of a better job at inventing new
    > component designs than your favorite component company (Campagnolo) has in the last twenty years.
    >
    > As I have stated but they didn't 'invent' the rear der or shifter or crankset or brakeset, they
    > improved on an existing design...
    >
    > And looking at shimano in 1982, well they didn't really start improving the
    MTB
    > setup until about 1985/6...
    >
    >
    > << So, if you want to label Shimano as simply design improvers, you'd have to label Campagnolo as
    > design plagarizers.
    >
    > And I do. I guess that sound is the point zooming over your head.
    >
    > Campagnolo has had some current small designs that are unique and quite good, like QR at the lever
    > but they are copiers extrodinaire, I have never said they weren't but Mr shimano didn't 'invent'
    > the quick relase hub, Mr Campagnolo
    did,
    > etc.
    >
    > The Japanese, taught by Mr Drucker, have evolved into some of the the best business men and one of
    > the most innoivative industrial bases in existence(watch out for Korea tho). They have the ability
    > to see a design, improve it and then market it quickly. The car industry is the best example. BUT
    > saying that they improve but not invent is hardly racist, it is just the way it is. In may ways,
    > all of industry is lke this, everywhere. Whan was the last really large 'invention'???

    Things might (and do) appear this way to the casual oberver but I can assure you it's not the case.
    Japan and Japanese companies are full of incredible inventors and innovators. Honda is, and always
    has been, at the forefront of automotive engineering. Look at their success in F1 racing, their
    innovative and successful engine designs, their very elegant hybrid drivetrains, and most of all,
    their ability to bring these projects to the showroom within 18 months of inception. Wow. This is
    not mere tweaking, but innovation at a level and pace only dreamed of in Detroit or Munich. Look at
    companies like Sony and Panasonic, who have, for the last 40 years, designed and defined every new
    electronic gadget that has come along, from the transistor radios of the 60s, to the Walkmans of the
    80s, to the cell phones of today. Who is inventing and developing the new LCD and plasma TVs? Not
    Americans... Look at NTT DoCoMo, and all the weird and wonderful things Japanese kids do with their
    cell phones. Look at their fashion, their food, their pop culture. These people are cutting edge.

    Getting back to bikes, look at all the interesting designs they have in Japan -- comfort bikes,
    commuter bikes, folders. Not all of them are winners, but the Japanese are the ones with the vision
    and guts to break the mold and try something new.

    But perhaps it's unfair to use the bike industry as an example anyway. After all, bikes are
    incredibly simple machines. No genius required.

    Matt O.
     
  15. Fintone Qbassi wrote:
    > I thought it was SunTour who "invented" the slant paralelogram rear design, not Shimano.

    Indeed they did, and were quick to patent it. Their first derailleur with this feature appeared in
    1964, and Shimano did not adopt it until the patent expired. However, the Shimano derailleur had an
    additional feature not found on the Suntour version - dual spring pivots. The original Suntour slant
    parallelogram derailleurs had a fixed upper pivot (they added an active top pivot spring only
    later). (Historical note: Simplex patented the first dual spring pivot derailleur in 1944. Shimano
    started using dual spring pivots in 1967).

    By the time Campagnolo started making derailleurs with their current configuration, they were
    basically functional copies of Shimano derailleurs.

    Mark McMaster [email protected]

    > "Mark McMaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    >>
    >>>Mike S-<< Just like the "Bullseye" cranks that Shimano is bringing out
    >>
    > this
    >
    >>>year for
    >>>D/A and XTR...
    >>>
    >>>And altho I sometimes 'like' to slam shimano for some of what they do,
    >>
    > they are
    >
    >>>responsible for many improvemnets that have brought people back to bikes
    >>
    > and
    >
    >>>kept them there, like lever mounted click shifting. Tremendous
    >>
    > improvers, not
    >
    >>>inventors tho.
    >>
    >>This seems to mirror a common stereotype for Japanese industry and product design. And like most
    >>stereotypes, it is really just thinly veiled racism.
    >>
    >>When you get right down to it, Shimano has done a hell of a better job at inventing new component
    >>designs than your favorite component company (Campagnolo) has in the last twenty years.
    >>
    >>In the past decade or two most of Campagnolo's "new" ideas have been complete dogs (can anyone say
    >>Synchro shifting or Delta brakes), and their best efforts have simply been copies of Shimano
    >>designs (dual pivot brakes, two pivot slant parallelogram derailleurs, sprockets with shifting
    >>ramps, chainrings with shifting pins, etc.) or variations on a Shimano theme (cassette freehubs,
    >>dual control shifters, clipless pedals).
    >>
    >>So, if you want to label Shimano as simply design improvers, you'd have to label Campagnolo as
    >>design plagarizers.
    >>
    >>Mark McMaster [email protected]
    >>
    >
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    (Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:

    > Mark McMaster wrote:
    >
    > >In the past decade or two most of Campagnolo's "new" ideas have been complete dogs (can anyone
    > >say Synchro shifting or Delta brakes),
    > No, but I can say rally touring derailer (satisfied, Sheldon?)
    > >and their best efforts have simply been copies of Shimano designs (dual pivot brakes, two pivot
    > >slant parallelogram derailleurs,
    > Funny, I thought that Sun Tour came up with the slant paralell design...?
    > >sprockets with shifting ramps,
    > Which severly limit customized gearing, and, IMHO, perfom little better than UniGlide does.

    Your opinion is yours, but believing that Hyperglide isn't a vast improvement over Uniglide belies
    my own experience with both systems.

    I have two friction-shift bikes, one a Uniglide (twist-tooth) bike I've had since new, the other
    retrofitted with a Hyperglide 6v freewheel replacing the SunTour (no-Glide?) original.

    The shifting quality vastly better on the Hyperglide, so much that I hardly miss indexing on
    that bike.

    > Not knockin' Shimano totaly, but they have come up with a few lemons themselves.

    Yes, but they balanced out Positron and 10 mm chain by introducing really good indexing and
    great shifting.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  17. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    > > > Mike S-<< Just like the "Bullseye" cranks that Shimano is bringing out this year for D/A and
    > > > XTR...

    > > Qui si parla Campagnolo, perhaps flippantly wrote maybe before
    thinking about it very much:
    > > > And altho I sometimes 'like' to slam shimano for some of what they do,
    > they are
    > > > responsible for many improvemnets that have brought people back to
    bikes
    > and
    > > > kept them there, like lever mounted click shifting. Tremendous
    improvers, not
    > > > inventors tho.

    > "Mark McMaster" <[email protected]> perspicaciously wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > This seems to mirror a common stereotype for Japanese industry and product design. And like most
    > > stereotypes, it is really just thinly veiled racism.
    > >
    > > When you get right down to it, Shimano has done a hell of a better job at inventing new
    > > component designs than your favorite component company (Campagnolo) has in the last twenty
    > > years.
    -snip examples- ". . . two pivot slant parallelogram rear derailleurs. . .

    > > So, if you want to label Shimano as simply design improvers, you'd have to label Campagnolo as
    > > design plagarizers.

    "Fintone Qbassi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I thought it was SunTour who "invented" the slant paralelogram rear
    design,
    > not Shimano. Am I wrong?

    You're right. The slant parallelogram was Maeda Industries (SunTour) and the currently-used balanced
    dual pivot spring concept was by Lucien Juy ( Simplex).

    But I recall a trade show where Shimano's new slant parallelogram rear derailleurs were all under
    wraps the first day because one of the relevant patents expired at midnight that evening. AFAIK
    Shimano produced the first modern derailleur with both designs together which is nearly ubiquitous
    nowadays - everything from Alivio and SunRace to Record ( OK, neither Tourney, Sugino, ZAP nor ESP,
    but still).

    But I think this is getting a bit silly. Shimano has producd some impressively clever true
    innovation as have many others. They have also proudly debuted crap that was quietly dropped the
    next season, as has Campagnolo. Is there a point here? I doubt it.

    --
    Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
     
  18. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    Mark McMaster <[email protected]> wrote:

    > When you get right down to it, Shimano has done a hell of a better job at inventing new component
    > designs than your favorite component company (Campagnolo) has in the last twenty years.
    >
    > In the past decade or two most of Campagnolo's "new" ideas have been complete dogs (can anyone
    > say Synchro shifting or Delta brakes), and their best efforts have simply been copies of
    > Shimano designs

    Some of the things brought to market by Shimano and not copied by Campagnolo:

    Biopace-- nah, too easy; not dumb enough to really count. How about:

    AX pedals Positron 10mm pitch chain, rings, sprockets lollipop straddle cables front freewheel 2mm
    cables/6mm housing automatic shifting stamped-on, non-replaceable cassette freehub bodies riveted
    chainrings 4-arm cranks top swing front derailleurs cast-plastic-over-steel cranks, brakes, levers,
    pedals... "anti-lock", anti-stop brakes
    130mm/92mm cranks

    Along with plenty of dumb stuff that Campy _did_ copy: 7sp shifters that won't work w/6sp, 8sp that
    won't shift 7, 9sp that won't shift 8. One-time-use chain links. Powdercoated components.

    I could go on, but why? For every genuine engineering development that Shimano have offered the
    market, there is an assortment of pointless geegaws that never should have seen the light of day.
    They have such a prolific history making stupid junk to answer nonexistent questions that Campagnolo
    have not a prayer of catching up in that regard.

    Chalo Colina

    P.S. Campy parts are overpriced and weak, too.
     
  19. On 07 Jun 2003 14:00:44 GMT, [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:

    >The car industry is the best example. BUT saying that they improve but not invent is hardly racist,
    >it is just the way it is. In may ways, all of industry is lke this, everywhere. Whan was the last
    >really large 'invention'???

    So everything is just improvements and nobody's really innovating anything? Mr Bell Labs (of
    transistor and other fame) and the boys at ARPA and Tim Berners-Lee (of the internet and thw world
    wide web fame, respectively) might want a word.

    Jasper (I could go closer to today, but it's harder to see which particular invention will impact
    our future lives most)
     
  20. On 10 Jun 2003 12:57:40 GMT, [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:

    >jasper-<< So everything is just improvements and nobody's really innovating anything?
    >
    >'Everything' and 'nobody' and 'anything' are big words..

    So why use them? ('All of industry' and 'everywhere' being the ones that you used)

    > Most things these days seem to be improvments on existing designs, not geniune inventions.
    > The auto was just an improvement of the horse drawn cart, but the internal combustion engine
    > was an invention, IMO.

    If you wanna go that way, the IC engine is basically just an improvement on the steam engine, except
    using chemical explosions for pressure rather than externally generated steam. The differences
    between a twostroke, fourstroke or diesel internal combustion are no larger than the difference
    between any of them and a modern steam engine or a Wankel rotary engine. And a primitive steam
    engine was first invented by the ancient greeks several centuries before Christ. For that matter,
    Volta in the 16th century invented lead/copper-acid batteries, but saying there have been no
    inventions in the field of batteries since then, as everything is just improvements on that design,
    is stupid.

    When you look at the world your way, it has to be a sad, sad place where nobody can ever think of
    anything new.

    Jasper
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...