Why is Shimano so hated by some?

[Evan Evans]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Donald Gillies) writes:
>
> > [email protected] (Evan Evans) writes:
> >
> >> What's wrong with Shimano?
> >
> > 1. They killed Suntour.
>
> Not exactly. Read Frank Berto's "Sunset for Sun Tour."
>
> > 2. They only make throwaway items.
> > 3. They hadn't won a tour de france in decades until Lance/TREK.
>
> They had never won a Tour de France until Armstrong's first victory, IIRC.
>
> > 4. Their approach to components is like Borg to humans.
>
> Huh?

Ok. Im convinced!!!! When my Tiagra shifters ****-out im going Chorus!! My moutain bike go's on ebay
tonight so i can get money for Record OR !
>
> > 7. Mr. Shimano was never a bicycist, so far as anyone knows. Just a so-so industrialist.
>
> Which has what to do with anything?

 

[Al Frost]

[email protected] (Evan Evans) wrote in news:[email protected]:

> As a frequent visitor to this group. I've noticed that there are a few posters who use this as a
> platform to steer people against the use of Shimano components. What's wrong with Shimano?

Being a long time (since NR) Campy user and only use Shimano (sparingly) on my mtbs I'm surprised
that no one has mentioned Shimano's increasing use of incompatable designs. Shimano has continued to
push changes in many areas in the name of innovation, AFAICT. Some of these changes may be
considered improvements and some are purely to force the consumer to buy more Shimano. A perfect
example are Shimano's bottom brackets. We have two different spined spindles that only fit specific
cranks and are not compatable with ISIS splines. As if that wasn't enough Shimano is now selling us
integral bottom brackets with their cranks. At least one can still buy (for the moment) Shimano disk
brakes with 6-bolt rotors so we don't have to buy their wheelsets. Although, you have to look hard
to find a vendor that carries the 6-bolt rotor brakesets.

I guess in a nutshell I'm not fond of Shimano to two reasons. 1. Their attempts to force feed
components to consumers. (If they could figure out a way to make all the components of a gruppo work
only as a gruppo they would.) 2. Design change for sake of change forcing obsolesence. (In the long
term this is a flawed business model IMHO but hey it solves the parts support and longevity
problems.)

ALF

 

[Bruni]

Al frost's post is onto substance. Even before the dubious patented splined BB'S, Shimano shortened
spindles to such an extent that everyone had to retool away from face and hook spanner designs as
103mm was tooshort. Too short also describes a fork cut for a Shimano headset when trying to fit
another brand. A pattern? Remember the weak rear der. return springs that were designed to frustrate
Sram users? It is one thing to compete fairly, but screwing your customers to sell more product? Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 Al Frost <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Evan Evans) wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > As a frequent visitor to this group. I've noticed that there are a few posters who use this as a
> > platform to steer people against the use of Shimano components. What's wrong with Shimano?
>
>
>
> Being a long time (since NR) Campy user and only use Shimano (sparingly) on my mtbs I'm surprised
> that no one has mentioned Shimano's increasing use of incompatable designs. Shimano has continued
> to push changes in many areas in the name of innovation, AFAICT. Some of these changes may be
> considered improvements and some are purely to force the consumer to buy more Shimano. A perfect
> example are Shimano's bottom brackets. We have two different spined spindles that only fit
> specific cranks and are not compatable with ISIS splines. As if that wasn't enough Shimano is now
> selling us integral bottom brackets with their cranks. At least one can still buy (for the moment)
> Shimano disk brakes with 6-bolt rotors so we don't have to buy their wheelsets. Although, you have
> to look hard to find a vendor that carries the 6-bolt rotor brakesets.
>
> I guess in a nutshell I'm not fond of Shimano to two reasons. 1. Their attempts to force feed
> components to consumers. (If they could figure out a way to make all the components of a gruppo
> work only as a gruppo they would.) 2. Design change for sake of change forcing obsolesence. (In
> the long term this is a flawed business model IMHO but hey it solves the parts support and
> longevity problems.)
>
> ALF

 

[Bruce Jackson]

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

> Where is Linux? I would like to see some free bike products ;-)

Have you priced Red Hat Advanced Server? "Free" in free software does not mean the same thing as the
"free" in free beer.
--
Bruce Jackson - Sr. Systems Programmer -- DMSP, a M/A/R/C Group Company

 

[Chalo]

Tuschinski <[email protected]> wrote:

> On the quality/durability:
>
> I am riding 10 spd Chorus, and the gears sure get out of whack (=slight friction) more easy than
> my old 7 speed Ultegra. This is understandable, the tolerances are just that much smaller. Now my
> question: will 10 speed wear out a lot faster, or is the difference with my old kit small?

I would expect 10-speed to last as long in relation to 7-speed as the ratio of their sprocket tooth
widths. (I doubt that manufacturers use harder steel for 10-speed than they did for 7-speed, though
this would make a difference.)

So if the tooth surface engaged by the chain roller is the same width, I would expect the same wear
life in the sprockets. Likewise, if it is only 2/3 as wide, I would expect 2/3 the sprocket life.

This assumes a chain in good condition, as a worn chain will acccelerate wear in other components. A
10-speed chain is significantly narrower than a 7-speed chain, so it will wear faster and require
more frequent replacement.

Chalo Colina

 

[Jim Beam]

> It is one thing to compete fairly, but screwing your customers to sell more product?

isn't that where the microsoft thread started? ;p

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 29 Nov 2003 17:08:27 -0800, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
>Having lost my favorite teeth to a Deore XT bottom bracket back when
<snip>
>I'll ride a wheelchair before I'll ride a Shimano crank or bottom bracket.

Apparently, you'll ride a wheelchair _after_ you'll ride a Shimano crank or BB, too.

>Chalo Colina
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Donald Gillies]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

>Don't get me wrong- I much prefer Campy on both aesthetic and ergonomic grounds- but that doesn't
>blind me to the fact that they have *not* been the most innovative company in cycling. They were
>tremendously innovative in their early days, and in the past 15 years have been so again, but in
>between was a long, long period of torpor and dullness. Shimano, OTOH, has steadily and I think
>wisely pursued a well thought-out approach to their business.

I like to use the french parts makers (simplex, maillard) as examples of companies that were the
most innovative, and also the worst business people. Simplex invented the parallelogram derailleur,
which was a larger step forward than Suntour's slant-parallelogram. And Simplex went bankrupt.
Maillard invented the freehub with their Helicomatic hubs. I guess that's why they failed
financially and were sold to SRAM. Sheesh.

- Don Gillies San Diego, CA

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:22:54 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>> of there in an hour. Your cost: $110. More economical (and cheaper) than replacing the whole
>> computer.
>
>Barely, when the new computer will come with a faster CPU, faster bus, newer software, bigger hard
>drive, improved peripheral

I didn't say it was more fun; but it was said that it's cheaper to replace the computer, and $110 is
a whole lot cheaper than any computers I saw advertised in the Sunday paper -- except the one that
comes free with a plasma tv at CompUSA.

>interfaces, etc. You might be able to replace the hard drive for a marginally smaller dollar
>figure, but you might very well get much better value out of just buying a new computer (note that
>this is in

I'll give you that; an inexpensive new computer is a better value than putting $110 into an old one.
Often, however, value is not as important as cheap; and sometimes the user doesn't want to learn a
new computer with a new version of windows and new software (and is unable to move all the old
software themselves).

>the Wintel world, Apples are usually more worthy of repair because of the premium cost of the
>things in the first place- and IMHO worth it as I've happily used 3 Apple computers in 17 years and
>have no plans to replace the current one, a Rev B iMac).

You silly apple-computer recumbent-bike hybrid-car weird-looking-house people... <G>
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:22:07 -0500, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>[email protected] says...
>> No, MS doesn't copy ideas, they just buy the company. They also don't refine the product so much
>> as they bloat it.
>
>Where do you think they got the idea for Windows, with mice as input devices? As far as I know,
>they never bought Xerox!

That was in the early days; we're comparing modern-day MS to modern-day Shimano...
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:55:24 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>your method. While your method might be quite accurate from the functionalist perspective, it would
>lead just about everybody to buying Shimano 105!

Heh...I'm happy with 105. Well, I would be if I had gotten it in a triple...
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Chris B .]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:44:49 GMT, Al Frost <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Evan Evans) wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> As a frequent visitor to this group. I've noticed that there are a few posters who use this as a
>> platform to steer people against the use of Shimano components. What's wrong with Shimano?

>Being a long time (since NR) Campy user and only use Shimano (sparingly) on my mtbs I'm surprised
>that no one has mentioned Shimano's increasing use of incompatable designs. Shimano has continued
>to push changes in many areas in the name of innovation, AFAICT. Some of these changes may be
>considered improvements and some are purely to force the consumer to buy more Shimano. A perfect
>example are Shimano's bottom brackets. We have two different spined spindles that only fit specific
>cranks and are not compatable with ISIS splines. As if that wasn't enough Shimano is now selling us
>integral bottom brackets with their cranks.

Up until this year, XT (ES71) bottom brackets could be used with LX cranks, and vice versa. I guess
a lot of weight weenies were combining the LX cranks with the XT bottom bracket (or people who
wanted the XT logo visible but wanted to save a few bucks where it didn't show did the opposite)
because they decided to change the LX cranks so that the ES-51 bottom bracket (121mm or 126mm) must
be used with them.

Look also at the 4-bolt cranks which again comes in two different bolt circle diameters (112/68 and
104/64 IIRC). Also, when they copied Suntour's Micro Drive and made their Hyperdrive BCD 94/58
instead of
94/56. The incompatible-with-anything-else inner bolt circle on the Dura-Ace triple.
Examples abound.

>At least one can still buy (for the moment) Shimano disk brakes with 6-bolt rotors so we don't have
>to buy their wheelsets. Although, you have to look hard to find a vendor that carries the 6-bolt
>rotor brakesets.

What I can't understand is how slapping the roter up against the hub's shell and affixing it with 6
small bolts became the International Standard. I reckon that having a spline on both the hub and
rotor and securing it with a lockring like the cassette/freehub is a superior design. Actually, what
I like *most* about Shimano are their hubs - my ancient 7-speed XTR hub still runs perfectly smooth
and probably will continue to for many years.

>I guess in a nutshell I'm not fond of Shimano to two reasons. 1. Their attempts to force feed
>components to consumers. (If they could figure out a way to make all the components of a gruppo
>work only as a gruppo they would.) 2. Design change for sake of change forcing obsolesence. (In the
>long term this is a flawed business model IMHO but hey it solves the parts support and longevity
>problems.)

I'm not sure what they're trying to prove with this. They have the OEM market sewn up which is what
really matters but they go to considerable effort to make life very difficult for the aftermarket
companies. Perhaps forcing the aftermarket guys to constantly retool in order to keep things
compatible is something they think is neccessary in order for them to keep control?

Still, I really can't resent Shimano too much after witnessing all the opportunities for a
competitor to gain a foothold and fail to do so (or even try to do so). Matt O'Toole made some good
points about this the last time this subject came up:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B2B0350B6

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 01 Dec 2003 14:06:00 GMT, [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
>oh please...a brake lever fatigue and snap???

I don't know if it was caused by fatigue or not, but the Peugeot I rescued and fixed up had a broken
brake lever. That was the way I found it, and I suppose it could have been broken in an accident. I
suspect that it was the last straw that caused the bike to be thrown away.

It's turned out to be a nice bike, fixed up. I wish I had mail ordered the components, because I
must have spent $150 at my LBS to fix it up to reasonable condition.

It was a holy Mafac lever.

>Peter Chisholm
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Benjamin Weiner]

Donald Gillies <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Evan Evans) writes:

> > What's wrong with Shimano?

> 1. They killed Suntour.
> 2. They only make throwaway items.
> 3. They hadn't won a tour de france in decades until Lance/TREK.

Several of these are wrong (IMO), but this is the wrongest. No component manufacturer has ever won a
Tour de France, nor will ever win a Tour de France. Bicycle races are won by humans and components
make damn little difference, which is one of the attractive features of the sport. I can think of
other sports/games which have become an engineering competition as much as anything else. That's
fine (engineers are competitive humans too) but it is nice to have a sport and pastime where buying
the latest high-dollar X gives you no discernible advantage, other than to conspicuously consume.

> 4. Their approach to components is like Borg to humans.

This is an ironic complaint, given the above.

> 5. They do not care about bicycle aesthetics (not since sante')
> 6. People who buy Shimano pay more over the long term to run their bikes because entire
> components / subsystems must be replaced to effect simple repairs.
> 7. Mr. Shimano was never a bicycist, so far as anyone knows. Just a so-so industrialist.

 

[Tim McNamara]

[email protected] (Chalo) writes:

> I would expect 10-speed to last as long in relation to 7-speed as the ratio of their sprocket
> tooth widths. (I doubt that manufacturers use harder steel for 10-speed than they did for 7-speed,
> though this would make a difference.)

As I would also expect; however, my 9 speed Campy Chorus cassette, with cogs that look appreciably
thinner than the 7 speed Sachs freewheels on most of my bikes, last about x3 as long than the
thicker Sachs cogs. The chromed Campy steel appears to have a much harder surface than the champagne
colored ones on the 7 speed freewheels.

 

[Tim McNamara]

jim beam <[email protected]> writes:

>> It is one thing to compete fairly, but screwing your customers to sell more product?
>
> isn't that where the microsoft thread started? ;p

Hee hee hee hee hee! :-D

 

[Tim McNamara]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:22:54 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>> ....Apples are usually more worthy of repair because of the premium cost of the things in the
>> first place- and IMHO worth it as I've happily used 3 Apple computers in 17 years and have no
>> plans to replace the current one, a Rev B iMac).
>
> You silly apple-computer recumbent-bike hybrid-car weird-looking-house people... <G>

Hey now! You missed Deadhead, VW bus and practically vegetarian. Sometimes I think you don't know me
at all... ;-)

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 30 Nov 2003 17:14:41 -0800, [email protected] (Donald Gillies) wrote:
>> What's wrong with Shimano?
>5. They do not care about bicycle aesthetics (not since sante')

I thought that a common complaint was that the only difference from one shimano part to the next was
a nicer finish, or that they concentrate on making parts shiny without changing anything functional
about them...

>- Don Gillies San Diego, CA
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Chris B .]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:12:55 -0500, "Bruni" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Al frost's post is onto substance. Even before the dubious patented splined BB'S, Shimano shortened
>spindles to such an extent that everyone had to retool away from face and hook spanner designs as
>103mm was tooshort. Too short also describes a fork cut for a Shimano headset when trying to fit
>another brand. A pattern? Remember the weak rear der. return springs that were designed to
>frustrate Sram users?

Yes, 'Light Action'.

I think that the cartridge bottom bracket is an improvement and I can't fault Shimano for pushing
it. I use the square taper type on all my bikes (LP27 for the rain bike, LX quality for the others
and for me, they last and last.

>It is one thing to compete fairly, but screwing your customers to sell more product? Tom

Shimano's customers are large companies, not Joe Commuter or Bill Tourer. As long as their
components are on 99% of new bicycles sold, nothing else matters.

 

[Jonesy]

[email protected] (Chalo) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

[snip]

> Shimano are not unique in their intentional decision not to serve all consumers-- they must be of
> the same philosophy as the folks who design most airplane and movie theater seating, or those who
> build basements with 6-1/2-foot ceilings. But I feel justified in calling all those people
> incompetent, inconsiderate, and irresponsible.

No, it is you who are those things for expecting me to pay twice as much for airline or movie
tickets such that things are designed to the
99.5th percentile. The fact that YOU don't fit in them does not imply that everyone else is of the
wrong size or shape.

Frankly, I've never had a problem with Shimano bits. But I don't weigh in to within spitting range
of 300 pounds. XT cranks and BBs work just fine for me, and have for some years now. That they do
not for you does not imply that they are no good, but just that they are not applicable in your
particular case. In fact, I suspect much of the bicycle consumer goods would not work for you,
including lightweight off-the-shelf wheelsets. Brakes too, I would guess.

You are not justified in calling designers names because they don't build to the very small minority
of folks who might not be a perfect match for their products. I don't want to pay extra money, or
carry around extra mass, just because the components don't work for you.
--
Jonesy