Ride Lugged

From a recent Campy ad in Bicycle Retailer:

Campagnolo components are designed to interface exclusively with the Campagnolo drivetrain…Every component works in perfect sycronism with the others…Replacing just one component makes the whole thing shift like shit…I, er…here it really is…
Replacing just one component means losing the perfect coupling of the parts (isnt that incest?) the fluid and silent shifting, and the superior performance of a complete Campy drivetrain.

what assholes… This is exactly the kind of retarded product development we dont need. What if I dont want my parts to be black and plastic? I have to downgrade to Centuar, the only Campy group that can’t be reconsituted into a Patagonia Fleece…
-James

Maybe some of you are looking at this page and thinking, goddamn get a new subject. Well, ok, give me one, asshole. In the mean time, I did some research on dead horses, and how to flog them, and came up with the following solutions.

Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount and walk. However, we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buy a stronger whip.

2. Change riders.

3. Say things like, “This is the way we have always have ridden this horse.”

4. Appoint a committee to study the horse.

5. Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

6. Rewrite the standards for dead horse performance.

9. Compare the state of dead horses in today’s environment.

10. Change the requirements, declaring that, “This horse is not dead.

12. Harness several dead horses together to increase speed and pulling power.

13. Declare that, “No horse is too dead to beat.”

17. Declare the horse is “better, faster, and cheaper” dead.

On that retarded note, I declare there are many ways to keep talking about one thing, but only if other people chime in, so I’m not a blithering withering monologue loving fuckface. Comprende? -James

This is a BTP rear mech, out of Germany. Its plastic, and weighs 125 grams, and costs 720 dollars. It has no guarentee, but they warn that its highly suspetible to crashes.

This is the Huret Jubilee rear mech, over 30 years old, lighter, and in mint condition, less than a third of the cost. And it looks better. Those toothless pulleys are dope.

So I scored these mafacs at the swap for cheap, 10 bucks for both wheels. In terms of modern style, they seem damn rudimentary, even for 10 dollars. But they have tons of leverage, you can adjust them using no tools whatsoever, and they use traditional canti pads, which are thick and last forever. Set up is a bit of a hassle, but setting up Pauls is a hassle to, just of a different sort. You use a hammer and crecent wrench on the Mafacs, and a 14mm cone and 5mm allen on the Pauls. That being said, once the Mafacs are bent into shape, they never have to be fucked with again, while the Pauls have to be fucked with everytime you change the pads, which will be often, cause they use thin v-brake pads. Which are more expensive. The Mafacs also pivot on brass bushings, which I am a big fan of, as they need little to no maintenance.

All that being said, I do like the Pauls, and I’m glad he’s making them. I think they are the best looking modern canti on the market. Or should I say best looking contemporary canti…whatever. So as to the weight, the Mafacs are all steel, with all steel and brass hardware, and no allen fittings at all, so super crude. They still only weigh 20 grams more than the Pauls. I did some stupid math and figure they could be lighter than the Pauls if you switched all the bolts to ti, and they would still cost under what one Paul would cost at wholesale.

I’ve often wondered how the early 80s, known primarily for bad hair, bad clothing, bad music (with some exceptions) and bad drugs, could be responsible for the pinnacle of the production bicycle. Never before or since has the market supported and excepted a bicycle with such beauty, simplicity and usefulness, not to mention a bicycle with such supreme longevity that many are still being ridden in thier inital format. Add all this to the fact that early 80s bikes were affordable, and we are left in a state of dull shock. What happened? When did bike makers start making bikes that were next to useless and disposable in a matter of a few years, if not a single season. I know a few cyclocrossers and roadies who would insist on a new bike every season. Unfortunately these “old” bikes are more or less relegated to the scrap heap, because the racer believes, maybe rightly, that they need every last advantage to win, which means a new bike with new lighter bits every season. Ironically, on a side note, the french have been making 15lbs bikes for 40 years, many of which are still ridden hundreds of miles every year. 15 lbs is still the benchmark for a light bike, so even with all this ti and carbon disposable crap, no one has bettered the French on the subject of light bikes that stay ridable through time.

Case in point, the Huret Jubilee rear mech. Its gobs lighter than even the lightest, most tuned Campy Record Carbon. And it looks better. What gives? You’d think with computers and all that they could make a lighter mech, but no. Whats that say? I dont have an answer yet…
As you might be able to asertain, I ramble so bear with me. I wrote a bunch of notes on this article, but I havent even looked at them yet. Ok, I looked. They make some sense too. Who knew.

Ok the first reason is an economic one. The yen was low and the dollar high in the early 80s, so Japanese craftsmanship was cheap, which led to affordable jems like this Miyata. Shimano had gotten over copying Campy stuff, but that was ok cause thier early 80s designs were still nice and had a good finish. Suntour was making the best shifting rear mechs out there, with their slant parallelogram rear mech, and Sugino was (and still does) making strong, light cranks that were dirt cheap. All this meant that technology was reaching a point where it was still ascetically pleasing but more functional and affordable than it had ever been. Technology like hollow forged cranks, index shifting, and all that stuff we think of today as being new, racer technology, had been around on french touring bikes for 35 years or more, but only with the Japanese mastery of this technology was it made availible to a wider audience. Ironically the french makers who had been pioneers were now being supersceded by high quality overseas copycats, who were not only copying old ideas, but making drastic inroads at improvement.

This will be continued and made more convoluted later, its lunch time. -James

No crazy news, just a good ride that smelled good and was slow and painless and I got alot of thinking done which is always good. Rained at the tail end but I was almost home, so my undies stayed dry. Thats whats really important you know. I’ve resolved to try to ride every single day is halfway ok out. And maybe sometimes when its kinda halfway really bad out. I’ll try to get my recent essay draft up, kinda expounds on a few things, mainly why bikes reached thier pinnacle in the early 80s, and why no one seems to be able to make a bike as good as a miyata 800 dollar touring bike for any amount of money, in terms of production bikes. Custom doesnt count for this argument. Why cant trek or specialized make a bike that will be an icon of practicality and usefulness and still be a blast to ride? They did it all through the early 80s, have they just forgotten how? I dont think so. I think its all about money. Its not even about racing or lightweight, as I will debunk later, but its about money, and that makes me sick. -james

When to Hagerstown last nite, ate a lot of crepes, looked at weather forcast this morning: rain. Fry an egg and ride anyway… Report back on how it goes. I’ve got an interesting article on old stuff vs new stuff, and I’ve even researched it, to an extent. So maybe I’ll have time to put that up today. -James

The following is from an essay I wrote on the state of modern art, but i think it applies to cycling components as well. Here we see Campy rear mechs from various time periods, with unfortunate predicatable results.

A viewer simply cannot be allowed to look and think about the technology behind the art. The technology should be irrelevant in this respect, a means to an end, not an end about the means. If something is well crafted and it can be reasonably improved upon by technology, so be it. Paul Pilzner, noted author and lecturer, said technology is “a better way to do something.” But all too often contemporary art uses it for the sake of using it. Technology is dated the moment it is created, and therefore it can never have a timeless aspect. Traditionally oriented art becomes better with time, mainly because most new things lack craft and workmanship, so they become useless or irrelevant with time, therefore increasing the psychological value of well made art. Please take the time to read Starmer’s take on the issue, and my rebuttal. -Johnson

Amazing lighting that day. …remind me about my illegal music mailing scheme, i think it would be dopish.

So I want to start a section on who rides what and why. Possible catagories include, cantis, lugs, steel, carbon, old wacky 90s bits, saddles, and so on. I want whoever it is to back it up somehow, not scientifically or anything, but with how they came to that conclusion, and why should we care? I will liberally sprinkle nasty or complimentary invective at my leisure.

Also want keep all two of you informed on local doings, including events and general muckery.

Also Also want to drum up some interest in Mel ( thats Mrs Johnson to you ) and I’s projects, ala touring bags and musettes and waxing stuff and backpacking gear and all that. So, soonish I’ll try to post some of that buisness. Have to recharge the camera and all