From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: Re: top five innovations
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:29:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.xtmnj+j.tomk
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep4.025055.13033@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> harry@cv.hp.com (Harry Phinney) writes:
>
>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.

You will have to forgive me since I haven't the original articles and
am trying to work from memory. I am reasonably sure that the original
article I read discussed the person that did the research as a 
physiologist of some sort. I seem to remember that he was a teacher
or some such -- perhaps a university professor. I assumed that the 
person's name on the article you were talking about was the same.

I am sure that had I read that the 'research' was done by someone
with a marketing degree I would have pretty much discounted any
subsequent results without varification.

>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.

Most medical authorities would agree that peak joint torque is
a pretty good indicator of stress on this rather difficult joint.
Especially since most cycling injuries relate to this area.

>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.

This was exactly my point Harry. Shimano isn't a 'bad' company
because they have sold bad products any more than Ford
is a 'bad' company because of the Edsel. Biopace was of no harm
to the market that it was directed to. It was a distinguishing feature
for Shimano and because _you_ don't agree with them (nor I for that
matter) doesn't make their product bAd for the market
.
>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.

The shop foreman for Keith Bontrager is a friend of mine. Since he can
get lots of parts for free he has used practically every brake he could
find, from hydraulics to every cantilever, including Scott SE's. His
opinion is substantially different from yours. He concluded that 
Shimano XTR with the servo wave levers were the best he tried.

>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.

I have tried brake pads from these aftermarket manufacturers since
they were so highly touted in various magazines. I detected no
difference between these pads and the DiaCompe's I replaced. And
they didn't fit as well so I returned to the DiaCompe pads.

I have always fround Shimano brake pads better designed for their
use than after market pieces.
>
>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.

I wonder if you can still get parts for the first auto air conditioners?
>
>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?

Campi? Campagnolo never was nor meant to be a mass marketed group. It
was suppose to be for the most discriminating customer only. There is
a _large_ diffeence between a mass marketed item and a limited production
item.
>
>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.

This is so far out of date I don't know what to say about it. today
you have a far better chance of twisting your HG chain and
destroying from cranking it through the rings sideways than to
have it break. Yes, they did break -- two years ago before changes
in the design of the chain were made. And everyone I talked to
prefered the occassional broken chain in order to receive the
much better shifting. You could always buy Suntour -- why didn't
people?

As I said, commercial companies are neither good nor bad. They have
good products and bad products and the market decides which is which.
If a company regularly puts bad parts out they soon disappear and
that is the proof of what was proper and what wasn't.

Shimano controls 80% of the componentd market according to 
the several magazine articles recently. That is proof positive that
they are proving a significant product to their customers.
>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles