From: harry@cv.hp.com (Harry Phinney)
Subject: Re: top five innovations
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:50:55 GMT


tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: In article <1992Sep3.194251.8768@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> harry@cv.hp.com (Harry Phinney) writes:
: >There's no need to infer what statistics were used in the development.
: >Their research was published in Bike Tech Volume 2, Number 4 dated
: >August, 1983.
: 
: That's interesting, but doesn't negate other articles.Especially when
: additional information available from interviews was present. I believe
: the articel in Bicycling (But who knows -- maybe it was Cycling or BG)
: mentioned the lower cadence that Dr. Okajima used.

When did he receive his doctorate?  The last citation I read listed a
Masters in marketing as his highest degree.  I do not know what lower
degree(s) he holds.  As I stated, their published research results made
no reference to any design cadence, nor any maximum intended cadence,
and their advertising efforts at the time clearly targeted "performance"
oriented riders.

: After you write that joint loading appear to be lower in the tests
: documented, you claim that it is _opinion_ that Biopace has any
: effect on performance?

They demonstrated no affect on performance.  Performance on the bike is
not derived from peak joint torque.  There is no evidence of any
correlation of peak joint torque to _anything_, including injuries.  The
(skimpy) data also showed much greater rates of change in joint torque
_with_ Biopace.  Is this an advantage or disadvantage?  Also, they did not
measure joint torque directly, but rather measured the pedal forces and
leg segment accelerations to derive this.  They had lab equipment up the
wazoo involved, but didn't bother to measure VO2, or the results didn't
warrant publication - i.e.  Biopace doesn't help.  Also, their published
paper included _no_ information on the variances involved in the
measurements, and it is quite possible that the presented data showed no
significant difference.  It is also quite possible that the most
impressive individual graphs were presented.  Again, their paper
disclosed so little information that it was impossible to draw any
conclusions whatsoever.  If that was indeed the extent of the research
upon which they based the product then they didn't give a good god damn
about its efficacy in improving the rider's efficiency.

: What do you do that is so
: perfect that you can critisize a company that has almost single-
: handedly redesigned an entire industry?

I accept daily criticism of the work that I have done and continue to
do.  That is part of producing products which people use.  As I stated
in my previous posting, Shimano has produced some very fine products.
My point was that they have also produced some true junk.  Just because
Shimano says something is great, and they have _research_ to prove it,
doesn't make it so.  I have yet to see _any_ evidence showing a
performance advantage for Biopace, and yet that was the central claim
which Shimano made.  They didn't publish ads saying "Buy a Shimano
equipped bike with Biopace because it's new, different, and funky!"
They claimed it improved a rider's performance on the bike.  Their
published research showed absolutely nothing of the sort, and involved
testing far more complex than VO2 tests.  The VO2 tests would
definitively show whether Biopace provided a more efficient transmission
of human energy.

: it's pretty difficult to argue with improved braking systems,

Like their old disk brake.  That was a real winner.  I wonder if you can
still get pads for it.  I have yet to find any brakes that will stop my
single (i.e.  not tandem) bike faster than my old Campy Record
sidepulls.  In any case, the pads and rims make a far greater difference
in the stopping power than do the calipers or levers.  Other
manufacturers such as Mathauser, Modolo, and Aztec/Kool-Stop have done
far more to advance this technology than has Shimano.

: accurate index shifting,

They produced and sold (i.e. took people's money for) at least two
earlier "indexed" shifting systems which were abysmal.  I wonder if
you can still get parts for the old push-pull Positron shifters.

: mass produced cold forgings,

Shimano merely mastered the marketing of this "feature", not the
widespread use of it as a manufacturing process.  Do you think Campy and
Sugino crank arms were machined from billet?  Or perhaps cast?  Or grown
as single crystals?

STI,

I'll certainly admit I use and like it a lot.  Again, Shimano has indeed
produced some fine products.

: hyperglide

Which shifts better than any other system on the market, but which
utilizes chains which are notorious for breaking and require special
assembly supplies, tools, and techniques.

: and even Biopace (-- I'msure you have noted several writers talking
: about their preference for Biopace.)

I can find several people who prefer "triathlon" bikes with 80 degree
seat tube angles, Harris bikes with lever-drive cranks, or IRD 220 mm
cranks.  It doesn't mean I want anything to do with the products.  Nor
does it mean that the products are better for the average rider, or in
any way improve the rider's efficiency.  If a product doesn't improve
a rider's efficiency, then don't claim that it does.  It's perfectly
fine if people want to use it, but it should not be sold on the basis
of bogus unsupported speculation of what it might do.

Harry Phinney   harry@hp-pcd.cv.hp.com