Oh, pity cycling, for it has shot itself in the foot!

Here, in another thread, is Jobst Brandt on a too-short brake caliper:
"That sounds like a brake caliper designed for a short reach fork. I
recall when that became a new fad and most brake pads were too high.
The bicycle industry goes through these phases because they cannot
afford hiring good engineers who have experience in the subject. Most
of their people are old bicycle racers or mechanics, not engineers who
understand the workings (and failures) of components. I always
admired anonymously the man who designed all of Campagnolo's early
components and tools. The guy was a genius, but that's all gone now
along with Tullio."

This is more than merely the justified nostalgia of a longtime cyclist
for a golden age, it is a sad, sad, sad admission by a distinguished
cycling engineer that racing, which is *intended* to improve the
breed, and normally *presumed* to succeed, in fact not only does
nothing of the sort but is counterproductive. Note that the
conversation is about road bikes, which at least bear a resemblance to
bikes raced on the Tour de France and elsewhere.

If racing components are incompetently designed for road bikes, it
takes no great genius to conclude -- once again; I've said this
several times before -- that the very fact that competition drives
bike design is a virtual guarantee that cycling cannot grow out of its
present niche, cannot widen its appeal to the putterer, the commuter,
the city biker, the trekker, the comfort cyclist, the utility cyclist,
all of which appear, in the States at least, to be undeveloped
territory.

And now no less an authority than Jobst Brandt tells us that even
racing design is incompetent because it is done by racers.

Oh, pity cycling, for it has shot itself in the foot!

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

PS 2010 is turning out to be a good year for the truth to come out...

On Feb 18, 1:55 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

snip bloviating


This is more than merely the justified nostalgia of a longtime cyclist
for a golden age, it is a sad, sad, sad admission by a distinguished
cycling engineer that racing, which is *intended* to improve the
breed, and normally *presumed* to succeed, in fact not only does
nothing of the sort but is counterproductive.

dumbass

balance TLDR

Andre Jute wrote:

that the very fact that competition drives
bike design is a virtual guarantee that cycling cannot grow out of its
present niche, cannot widen its appeal to the putterer, the commuter,
the city biker, the trekker, the comfort cyclist, the utility cyclist,
all of which appear, in the States at least, to be undeveloped
territory.

How did competition drive, say, the NuVinci continuously variable drive,
or the GoCycle?

There's a lot more to cycling than what the local Chain Gang are on.
And AFAICT there are plenty of engineers designing stuff outside of
roadie components.

I own three bikes that have been widely admired by non-cyclists for
stepping outside of what they'd seen as the "cycling box": a Burrows 8
Freight, an HPVel Streetmachine and a Brompton. All designed and
tweaked by engineers with a history of innovation. None have anything
much to do with competitive cycling.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

The missed opportunity of the bicycle has little to do with racing or
recreational riding, and more to do with practical bikes that don't get
flats, don't require frequent adjustment, and are generic enough to become
an inexpensive commodity. It probably isn't something that a traditional
bike shop could even sell and stay in business.

The current bike, in virtually any style that we know of, simply requires
too much knowledge to maintain properly, and isn't reliable enough. It's not
a viable means of transportation for the average person. It's fine for
somebody who doesn't mind learning a bit about proper feeding and care, but
y'know, for the most part, a car just works. You don't think much about
them. We feel superior because we're cyclists, and our machines are
certainly more elegant, but the truth is, the fundamental simplicity of the
bicycle, as a basic means of transportation, has not been realized.

Not in the US anyway.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Feb 19, 5:47*am, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 18, 1:55 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

snip bloviating



This is more than merely the justified nostalgia of a longtime cyclist
for a golden age, it is a sad, sad, sad admission by a distinguished
cycling engineer that racing, which is *intended* to improve the
breed, and normally *presumed* to succeed, in fact not only does
nothing of the sort but is counterproductive.

dumbass

balance TLDR

Thank you for your contribution, Danno, which we found illuminating as
always with you. Perhaps you could let us know what it is supposed to
illuminate.

Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela

On 19 Feb, 23:27, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
The missed opportunity of the bicycle has little to do with racing or
recreational riding, and more to do with practical bikes that don't get
flats, don't require frequent adjustment, and are generic enough to become
an inexpensive commodity. It probably isn't something that a traditional
bike shop could even sell and stay in business.

The current bike, in virtually any style that we know of, simply requires
too much knowledge to maintain properly, and isn't reliable enough. It's not
a viable means of transportation for the average person. It's fine for
somebody who doesn't mind learning a bit about proper feeding and care, but
y'know, for the most part, a car just works. You don't think much about
them. We feel superior because we're cyclists, and our machines are
certainly more elegant, but the truth is, the fundamental simplicity of the
bicycle, as a basic means of transportation, has not been realized.

Not in the US anyway.

28" wheel Raleigh roadster and a can of puncture sealant.

On Feb 19, 9:37*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
that the very fact that competition drives
bike design is a virtual guarantee that cycling cannot grow out of its
present niche, cannot widen its appeal to the putterer, the commuter,
the city biker, the trekker, the comfort cyclist, the utility cyclist,
all of which appear, in the States at least, to be undeveloped
territory.

How did competition drive, say, the NuVinci continuously variable drive,
or the GoCycle?

I don't say there are no exceptions. You have picked on a good one.
(Not that I mean to approve of the NuVinci -- I preferred the Shimano
Di2 Cyber Nexus full auto. See my Trek Navigator
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html )

There's a lot more to cycling than what the local Chain Gang are on.
And AFAICT there are plenty of engineers designing stuff outside of
roadie components.

There are all these other niches. But in the States in particular, and
elsewhere in anglophone countries, the only bicycling with any large
following is pseudo-race road bikes. My argument is that ocncentration
on these keeps bicycling from becoming more generally accepted and
practised. The niches, for instances the one into which your Brompton
falls, are irrelevant to mass cycling on the Dutch or the Danish
model.

I own three bikes that have been widely admired by non-cyclists for
stepping outside of what they'd seen as the "cycling box":

Bingo! So you too have noticed there is a 'cycling box' that Everyman
finds objectionable and offputting.

a Burrows 8
Freight, an HPVel Streetmachine and a Brompton. *All designed and
tweaked by engineers with a history of innovation. *None have anything
much to do with competitive cycling.

Absolutely true, but none of them are currently in the mainstream of
general cycling anywhere that cycling is a mainstream activity.

We seem to be in agreement, though you know and can list convincing
mouse-nibbles out of my argument. I didn't claim it was a monolithic
argument. Without these innovations you list, and others, cycling
would be even more desperately dull to outsiders than it presently is.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
The missed opportunity of the bicycle has little to do with racing or
recreational riding, and more to do with practical bikes that don't get
flats, don't require frequent adjustment, and are generic enough to
become an inexpensive commodity. It probably isn't something that a
traditional bike shop could even sell and stay in business.

The current bike, in virtually any style that we know of, simply
requires too much knowledge to maintain properly, and isn't reliable
enough. It's not a viable means of transportation for the average
person. It's fine for somebody who doesn't mind learning a bit about
proper feeding and care, but y'know, for the most part, a car just
works. You don't think much about them. We feel superior because we're
cyclists, and our machines are certainly more elegant, but the truth is,
the fundamental simplicity of the bicycle, as a basic means of
transportation, has not been realized.

Not in the US anyway.


Unfortunately it's the same here in the UK.

A lot of car drivers rarely open the bonnet (hood) except maybe to put
some washer fluid in once in a while, rarely check tyre pressures, in
fact we just get in & go and once a year or so take it in for a service
(that's give-or-take how I treat our car anyway).

It should be like that with bicycles, and I can't see any reason why it
shouldn't. Except it just isn't.

The Dutch bicycle, having hub gears, fitted lights, drum or coaster
brakes, chainguard etc, comes close to it, but is hard to find here in
the UK.

I don't know much about Bixi, but if their bikes are going to be
reliable and easy to use, it might, just might, prompt people to ask for
the same reliability when they go in to the bikeshop to buy their own
bicycle.


--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

The missed opportunity of the bicycle has little to do with racing or
recreational riding, and more to do with practical bikes that don't
get flats, don't require frequent adjustment, and are generic enough
to become an inexpensive commodity. It probably isn't something that
a traditional bike shop could even sell and stay in business.

Sounds like what we used to call an "English racer" when I was a kid.
Of course, they were built out of gas pipe, had upright bars, a mattress
saddle, full fenders, chain guards and three speed hubs. You'd only
find them at a race under a bemused spectator.

The current bike, in virtually any style that we know of, simply
requires too much knowledge to maintain properly, and isn't reliable
enough. It's not a viable means of transportation for the average
person. It's fine for somebody who doesn't mind learning a bit about
proper feeding and care, but y'know, for the most part, a car just
works. You don't think much about them. We feel superior because
we're cyclists, and our machines are certainly more elegant, but the
truth is, the fundamental simplicity of the bicycle, as a basic means
of transportation, has not been realized.

Not in the US anyway.

Hence the "fixie," I think. At least in part hence.

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

On Feb 19, 3:37 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Feb 19, 5:47 am, Dan O wrote:

On Feb 18, 1:55 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

snip bloviating

This is more than merely the justified nostalgia of a longtime cyclist
for a golden age, it is a sad, sad, sad admission by a distinguished
cycling engineer that racing, which is *intended* to improve the
breed, and normally *presumed* to succeed, in fact not only does
nothing of the sort but is counterproductive.

dumbass

balance TLDR

Thank you for your contribution, Danno, which we found illuminating as
always with you. Perhaps you could let us know what it is supposed to
illuminate.


Racing is a contest to get somewhere first - simply that, nothing
more. It has little bearing on the vast majority of bicyclists.

And I did go back and read the "balance". As usual, you're pompously
blowing it out your ass when you don't know what you're talking
about. Bicycling in the US is a very diverse thing. Road racing type
bikes on the public roads are a fringe aspect.