RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Record vs. Dura Ace(19 posts)

Record vs. Dura Acegtx
Jan 16, 2002 8:30 AM
This needs some editing/proofing, but I thought some people might enjoy it or find it useful. Maybe everyone has already seen it...

http://www.totalbike.com/articles/Campy-Shimano.html
re: Record vs. Dura AceJimP
Jan 16, 2002 9:12 AM
The article states that DuraAce can only downshift one cog at time - This was fixed at least for the 2000 edition that I have. I can downshift 1, 2, or 3 cogs depending on how far I rotate the lever. This is important on an upshift of the front derailleur. Makes me wonder when this was written.
re: Record vs. Dura Acegtx
Jan 16, 2002 9:29 AM
looks like the middle of last year. I admit I didn't read it very closely.

http://www.totalbike.com/forums/retreive/discuss_discuss/994234081/1010505843/990047651/
Symantics,TJeanloz
Jan 16, 2002 9:43 AM
Your point is one of symantics, if you think of downshifting as moving to an easier gear, than you can do up to three at a time. If you think of downshifting as moving 'down' the cassette, you can only go one at a time.

I'd say that in the bike industry, "down" and "up" shifting refer to the direction that the chain is going on the cassette: so a move from a 23 to a 21 is a "down" shift.
Symantics it isbikedodger
Jan 16, 2002 10:32 AM
This is confusing to a lot of new cyclists. The front shifter needs to move the chain to the smaller ring to make pedaling easier, while the rear shifter needs to move the chain to a bigger cog to make the pedaling easier. Most people are used to downshifting a car to get into an easier gear and your use of "down" as going into a smaller cog would be counterintuitive to many. By the same token, saying "up" to mean put the chain on a smaller cog would also be confusing.

Mike
Semanticssimstress
Jan 16, 2002 10:38 AM
I'd say that in the bike industry, "down" and "up" shifting refer to the direction that the chain is going on the cassette: so a move from a 23 to a 21 is a "down" shift.


I agree this is a semantic, and probably academic, issue. I use "downshift" and "upshift" in the logical sense, not the physical sense. Kinda like driving a 5-speed car - downshift for a lower drive ratio and higher revs, upshift for a taller ratio. It works for me.
That's why I refer to shifting to larger/smaller cogs [nm]PdxMark
Jan 16, 2002 11:34 AM
shifting down = easier gearDog
Jan 16, 2002 1:31 PM
I have always thought of shifting down as going to an easier gear, which is much clearer in car -- down equals lower gear number.

But, as you said, it's less ambiguous on a bike to refer to the cog or ring size, or simply as something like "shift to an easier gear." Everyone knows what easier is.

Dog
That's "semantics" sonny! Guess you were a business major (nm)English Teacher
Jan 16, 2002 11:23 AM
Where is the subject of your second sentence?Dog
Jan 16, 2002 11:30 AM
Plus, there needs to be a comma after "semantics" in the first sentence. Also, you have no punctuation after the second sentence.

I can't believe an "English Teacher" would be so careless.

Live by the sword...

All in jest :-)
Dog
Ugh, I can't believe I did that...TJeanloz
Jan 16, 2002 1:11 PM
I suppose that's my penance for being around computers for too long. And yes, I know the company is spelled Symantec.
good to see some old fashioned unbiased journalism these days...collinsc
Jan 16, 2002 11:58 AM
"They started an extensive market research (just as they are doing right now), and they found that the people that was thinking to spend more money in bicycles were yuppies and not hard core bike junkies. Yuppies wanted something looking expensive and techie, but easy to use. The SIS (Shimano Index System ) was the solution. "

yeah, i get the point...record is for hard core bike enthusiasts...hard core bike enthusiasts that can afford $800 crank sets.
bike junkiesgtx
Jan 16, 2002 12:39 PM
man, that quote needs some serious editing...

I think the quote is referring to 1985, when Shimano came out with the 7 speed DA group. At first, no hardcore rider would get near the stuff (even though people had complained for years about Campy shifting). I had a friend who got the DA on a team Miyata and he got non-stop abuse--from me, too. The standard line was "I know how to shift." By 1990 everyone I knew was riding DA (myslef included). Both Campy and Suntour had a hard time because Shimano had a patent on the floating upper jockey wheel which made their index shifting much better. Also, the DA stuff was priced right. People used to break Campy crank arms and axles, and Shimano fixed those problems. The DA brakes were more powerful, too. In hindsight, Campy probably should have reacted in a more conservative manner, instead they started coming out with weird, annoying stuff that didn't work too well like the Delta brakes--or remember the rear der on the Croce D'Aune group with the little connector rod thingy? I don't think Campy really started to recover until the mid-90s. Now the choice between Shimano and Campy is basically a fashion statement.
6 speedgtx
Jan 16, 2002 12:44 PM
I think maybe that group in 1985 was actually 6 speed. I can't remember if the cassette setup came out that year or the following. The one thing I kept using from Campy was the hubs--I'm too light to break axles.
It needs deleting!cyclequip
Jan 17, 2002 1:19 AM
If, as the 'objective' reviewer concedes, both gruppos outperform the abilities of most of the riders out there, if not all, and races are won with both, then the article is exposed as another biased justification for choice or preference. It reads just like that, too. If there was an obvious 'leader', in the big wide world of pro sport, everyone would be using it for the obvious advantages. Patently not so.
It needs deleting!koala
Jan 17, 2002 7:59 PM
I dont agree with the statement that if there was an obvious leader..... professional bike racers ride what they are paid to ride, period.
It needs deleting!mackgoo
Jan 17, 2002 10:21 PM
Teams rely on sponsor money. The riders ride the sponsors equipment.
Grow up!cyclequip
Jan 18, 2002 6:00 AM
This tired response gets trotted out all the time - "pro's are paid to ride what they're given". Do you honestly believe if there was an obvious 'best' that all the people doing this for a living wouldn't be using it, simply because of their supposed sponsor? If so, then why did riders like Indurain, LeMond, Merckx and even Armstrong ALL MAKE USE OF PREFERRED EQUIPMENT INSTEAD OF THEIR SPONSOR ISSUE??? This even goes for the whole Postal squad in '99.
And the same goes for Tiger Woods and Martina Navratilova in their respective fields.
Try another one.
That's only mildly true...TJeanloz
Jan 18, 2002 10:09 AM
You've pointed out exceptions to the rule. Superstars (Armstrong, Indurain, LeMond) can use whatever they want. Lesser-knowns ride whatever they get. On any team, the domestiques ride the standard team issue, the superstars might deviate from that. A domestique who refuses to use a sponsor's product will likely be sacked, a superstar just gets a shoulder shrug.