<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message news:4bcb991f-714d-4c8a-bbdb-79a2b5eef1d8@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Yes, but those who know what Dura-Ace is, often care
about which racer uses what. "Win on Sunday, sell on
Monday" - ask a retailer, or read the people who post to
Usenet about, for ex., how many times Campy or Shimano
has won the Tour (as if Campy or Shimano could
win a Tour by themselves).
You only have to realize that it was the winning at races that made Shimano since Suntour had a definite advertising advantage before that. Mountain biking grew Shimano to the point where they could really compete in road groups and then moving into sponsoring grand tour teams made a HUGE difference in Shimano sales.
Before US Postal, Shimano was hardly used in the peloton. Now it is probably the majority despite the fact that Campy is repairable and Shimano really isn't.
<phs123@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b90627f7-0aef-45e8-8ad3-30aff97a0e4f@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 12 Aug., 17:52, "andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
His record was voided because
the position looked unusual.
Exactly. And to avoid such silly postures the UCI made rule changes. I
am not aware that any of his records where voided, I think that UCI
only changed the rules for future events
Unfortunately not. If they'd just done that I wouldn't be complaining. They actually invented new rules on the day in response to seeing his bike. The wikipedia article you refer to also mentions them changing the rules but not telling anybody.
I think you are wrong about saying that only Obree's position was
unusual. His custom bike with its broad single blade fork etc would
also be considered UCI illegal today just like Moser's hour record
Boardman's bike too - his was monoblade before Obree started on it IIRC. Mike Burrows is the man beind both of those - Obree made his own frames originally and they used normal 2-sided stuff.
I've got sympathy for the idea of regulating equipment - eg the current setup for the hour record is at least nominally sensible. However I don't have sympathy for the way the UCI conducted themselves on the way to that decision.
On 2008-08-12, phs123@gmail.com <phs123@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 Aug., 19:42, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip about how UCI only regulates UCI events]
That's all fine and dandy if you want to be the sole participant in the
PHS123 World Championships. But recognition of such is rather (justifiably)
scarce.
That was my point. Obree could do whatever he pleased outside UCI
regulated events, but if he wanted to get the fame and recognition for
participating in a UCI regulated event he should follow the UCI rules
like them or not. The UCI probably weren't prepared for so many
assaults on the rule book as Obree made but even today with a much
more detailed rule book silly stuff like aero shoe covers slips under
the radar.
I thought (based on that film) that he was careful to follow the rules with his innovative bike. Then they changed the rules and he designed another innovative bike that went faster under the new rules. Then they changed them again.
That's all fair enough, although in the film the UCI were portrayed as the bad guys deliberately not telling him in time about the changed rules. I can't comment on the facts of that. But Obree deserves a lot of credit regardless.
They should have called the film "It is about the bike".
...His custom bike with its broad single blade fork...
What is a single blade fork?
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
No. 3 (red) is in the living room and No. 6 (light purple) is in the bedroom.
[1] A gdanielsism.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
It is standard procedure that UCI officials inspects the bikes before
a race to catch cheaters; if the bike is too light, there are fairings
on the wheels, the saddle is too much forward etc. the bike won't be
allowed until it has become race legal again.
I think it was stated pretty clearly that the rule changes were
exactly about not allowing Obree's special positions like the
"Superman". Of course Obree would try to interpret the rules so they
still allowed his special position since he was unable to break any
records without it, but the UCI disagreed about his interpretation.
Was it a fair interpretation? I don't know, but it does seem to be
consistent with the intent of the rule changes.
As I recall, Obree's original bike and original record were accepted by the UCI in 1993. Then in early 1994, I believe shortly after Moser made his attempt, the UCI made it's rule changes (something to the effect that the only points of support for the body could be the hands, butt, and feet) in May, 1994. I say that because after Moser's attempt www.bikelane.com/bikepics/moser.jpg I was able to borrow and use his bike. I used it for a EDS Cup race in Ft Lauderdale FL in April of that year. In May while I was in Europe racing, I went to a World Cup race in Bassano del Grappa, just an hour or so drive from Moser's hometown and bike HQ in Trentino. I went to his shop (and saw his big wheel bike http://www.marca.com/perico/perico/consejos/bicicleta/Moser85.jpg when he tried to break the record in Stuttgart in 1985). There was a framebuilder there who had a slight variation of the Obree bike where you rested your shoulders on your hands. He encouraged me to try it and I did use it during some warmup sessions of the World Cup, but used my conventional bike (with aerobar) in the competition. Later that year at the world championships, Obree, knowing that there were issues with the bike/position took the start but was disqualified for using his position. He had to know that he was doing so in defiance and in all likelihood would be disqualified. Regardless, Ian Emmerson, the president of the British Cycling Federation was apoplectic over it all. I think most people felt that they had seen the last of Obree on the world stage. But over the winter of 1994/95 he developed the Superman position, with which he he won the world pursuit championship in 1995. This time people were more accepting of Obree's creativity, to the degree that not only Boardman, but the Italians used it in the 1996 Olympics and world championships.
But you also have to recognize that Obree's path was not only different in bike design, he also trained differently. He did not train conventionally, he trained with much less mileage and much higher intensity than tradition dictated. That (and his brief pro road career with Le Groupement) did nothing more to endear him politically with the powers that be.
Anyway there was nothing special about it, several well known pro
riders like Jan Ullrich, Bjarne Riis and Floyd Landis have tried to
have their bikes or position declared illegal on the starting line by
UCI officials.
Cite, please.
All I have seen says that Obree was warned beforehand anytime the UCI
found his bicycle or position against the rules. All Obree had to do
was make his bike and position UCI legal and he wouldn't have any
problems. Of course, that also meant he didn't have any advantage
anymore so he couldn't beat the hour record etc, but that is how the
game is.
He complied with the rules and won. The UCI changed the rules. He complied with the rules again and won again. Then they changed the rules again. And they made even more "special" rules for one single event: the hour record.
I've got sympathy for the idea of regulating equipment - eg the current
setup for the hour record is at least nominally sensible. However I don't
have sympathy for the way the UCI conducted themselves on the way to that
decision.
Well, it takes two to tango and I really don't think that Obree
conducted himself so well either since he openly mocked UCI, its rules
and officials, like presenting the bike with training wheels on etc.
It is of course "fun" when the plucky little guy sticks it to the
boring suits, but my point is that when constantly challenging the UCI
then he shouldn't whine too if UCI came to see him as a rule bending
cheater and expected the worst from his side.
There was much about the film that was inaccurate, but written the wary it was to create a "more interesting" story. As I had not heard the training wheels story before seeing the film, I question it's legitimacy. However, as I mentioned above, Obree did go into the 1994 worlds knowing that he was defying the rule changes and apparently willing to sacrifice his opportunity to defend his championship.
But one could easily say that the UCI mocked Obree as well.
Carl Sundquist 13 August 2008 06:48:15 [ permanent link ]
"Woland99" <woland99@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2807fcc4-3446-4706-a7dc-0ebb0d5bdff3@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
100% agree. In the movie when UCI official tells Obree that "all
components must be available on open market" and when Obree counters
that custom designed bikes cost million to develop and they sold for
thousands he is told that "yes - but if you have thousands you can
go to shop and buy them".
That is another partial after-effect of Obree.
The UCI now has a rule that all equipment innovations must be submitted to them for review and acceptance in June in order to be used for competition the following year.
Carl Sundquist 13 August 2008 07:30:37 [ permanent link ]
<phs123@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5bbf3843-1763-4253-8080-1b821673cda2@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 12 Aug., 19:42, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip about how UCI only regulates UCI events]
That's all fine and dandy if you want to be the sole participant in the
PHS123 World Championships. But recognition of such is rather
(justifiably)
scarce.
That was my point. Obree could do whatever he pleased outside UCI
regulated events, but if he wanted to get the
fame and recognition for participating in a UCI regulated event he
should follow the UCI rules like them or not.
He did follow them. The UCI did not like what they saw, so they changed the rules. Then he followed the new rules. The UCI did not like what they saw, so they changed the rules.
Whoosh yourself. I do think that Tom Sherman is smart enough to put on
his pants in the morning without verbal assistance, so he knew exactly
what I meant. He only pretends to be naive and is willfully
obstructing communication. He is of course wrong about the word
"fork"'s etymological or lexicographic content having anything to do
with its semantic, but that is a common mistake called "pedantry". So
I of coursed answered what he wrote, not what he meant. What Tom
Sherman was slyly referring to is the semantic impossibility of a fork
for anything else than eating of course.
Giggle - you still haven't got it. He's referring to the fact it isn't a fork any more, since monoblades don't fork. Nothing to do with eating utensils.
In article <b90627f7-0aef-45e8-8ad3-30aff97a0e4f@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, phs123@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Aug., 17:52, "andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
His record was voided because the position looked unusual.
Exactly. And to avoid such silly postures the UCI made rule changes.
Capriciously and arbitrarily. Had Greg Lemond, Miguel Indurain, etc. ridden in that position, the UCI would not have said boo. Their real complaint was about the rider's pedigree; the bike and the position were just an excuse.
I am not aware that any of his records where voided, I think that UCI
only changed the rules for future events The UCI did that so that the
sport road racing didn't turn into a geek show.
The hour record doesn't occur on the roads. It is not "sport road racing." And in case you haven't noticed, "sport road racing" has been a geek show for years.
Don't expect that the TdF, P-R og P-N will allow such silliness even
though UCI don't regulate those races anymore. The point is that the
sports fans, the fans that shows up or turn on the TV to watch the
races etc, don't care at all for some geeky new position.
Most sports fans don't care one way or the other.
I think you are wrong about saying that only Obree's position was
unusual. His custom bike with its broad single blade fork etc would
also be considered UCI illegal today just like Moser's hour record
This argument has become circular. Obree's position is illegal today for the reasons of which you've already been informed. What you seem to be not noticing is that there is little agreement with you among the cycling fans with whom you are talking, yet you continue to attempt the argument from authority.
In article <8a3e2680-dad0-42cb-8bd5-ba88c65eff9f@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, phs123@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 Aug., 06:12, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
Obree's positions were irrelevant and inapplicable to road racing.
No it wasn't. Since the position(s) gave an aero-advantage riders
would start to use it at ITT's besides for WC events. So soon after
there would be a lot of riders in silly positions, and that was
exactly what the UCI didn't want to happen.
You better believe that sports fans show up, turn on the TV, or
eagerly read to see new equipment.
No they don't.
You know this how?
Sure a tiny, tiny segment of equipment nerds cares about the
equipment used,
Every bike enthusiast and every bike racer, for example. Every bike racing magazine, for another. Every bikes racing Web site for yet another example. If nobody cares, magazines and Web sites would not waste their time putting in the time to research and write the stories. All told this tiny, tiny segment is probably millions of people.
but the vast majority don't even know what brand of bicycle their
favorite riders uses. The fans care about the riders and the races.
I think that many fans- as I mentioned in another post- really don't care much about the equipment. They are interested in the human drama. By the same token, they don't care if the bikes are advanced, either. The entire peloton could do the Tour TTs on Obree-style bikes and these fans wouldn't care.
TdF is front page stuff every day in the country I live in, but I
have never seen equipment mentioned unless it was in broad general
terms like N.N:'s had a wheel failure. I know people who have
followed cycling for decades and while they can easily recall a
spectacular race 15 years ago, they wouldn't know what Dura-Ace was.
Sure, and there are also millions of fans who do know and care. You happen to be talking with a bunch of them in this discussion (it is rec.bicycles.tech after all), so this is a line of argument that will gain no traction here.
Whoosh yourself. I do think that Tom Sherman is smart enough to put on
his pants in the morning without verbal assistance, so he knew exactly
what I meant. He only pretends to be naive and is willfully
obstructing communication. He is of course wrong about the word
"fork"'s etymological or lexicographic content having anything to do
with its semantic, but that is a common mistake called "pedantry". So
I of coursed answered what he wrote, not what he meant. What Tom
Sherman was slyly referring to is the semantic impossibility of a fork
for anything else than eating of course.
Giggle - you still haven't got it. He's referring to the fact it isn't a
fork any more, since monoblades don't fork. Nothing to do with eating
utensils.
HOT DOG! WE HAVE A WEINER!
When I wrote my first response, I was less than 3 meters away from a bicycle that has a single leg (i.e. mono-strut or mono-blade) connecting the front wheel hub to the steerer tube.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
On 13 Aug., 06:12, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
Obree's positions were irrelevant and inapplicable to road racing.
No it wasn't. Since the position(s) gave an aero-advantage riders
would start to use it at ITT's besides for WC events. So soon after
there would be a lot of riders in silly positions, and that was
exactly what the UCI didn't want to happen.
You better believe that sports fans show up, turn on the TV, or eagerly read
to see new equipment.
No they don't. Sure a tiny, tiny segment of equipment nerds cares
about the equipment used, but the vast majority don't even know what
brand of bicycle their favorite riders uses....
Not in the US. Trek sold a LOT of US Postal Team replica bikes just so people could "ride what Lance rides".
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:28:02 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
[someone else wrote]
Obree was also a guy who speculated in rules to gain advantages.
Let say that IBAF or whoever make the rules for baseball games,
had forgotten to include a rule forbidding all hydraulically
power assisted baseball bats with integrated laser guided
targeting system. I am sure a batter with such a device could
break every batting record in existence, but I am sure that
neither the fans nor IBAF would think it had anything to do with
baseball. If there actually is a baseball rule forbidding such
devices, one can be sure that the baseball equivalent to Obree
once tried to gain an advantage with a power assisted bat.
[snip]
I have expanded those arguments for you, since you seem to have
difficulty with pithiness. In the paragraph about the baseball bats,
you were wandering far afield in the wilds of hyperbole and non
sequiturs.
Dear Tim,
Where were you people raised? Bats are not a matter for such triflers as the UCI.
Thus it was laid down as the tenth commandment of the rules of Major League Baseball, all that need be known concerning bats:
1.10
(a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 2 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
[Round shall the bat be, smooth and no more than within a quarter inch of the evil three-inch width. Of one piece shall the bat be, of solid wood--not drilled, not corked, not loaded with paraffin, nor hammered withal with nails, not grooved, not flattened, not hollowed, . Nor shall the bat rise up to within more than half a foot of a full four feet, lest ye be smitten for overweening arrogance and pride.]
[A Gnostic gospel adds that cursed shall they be who use maple, which splinters, instead of noble hickory--what, do we have to spell _everything_ out for you rubes? But for right now, we'll just let blasphemy be its own reward.]
NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.
[Yes, apparently we _do_ have to spell everything out. No plywood, no carbon fiber, no glued-together particle board--one piece of solid wood, got it?]
(b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.
[Curved shall the cup be, smooth and pleasing to the umpire's fingers, and at least as wide, but no deeper than his thumbnail. We had to put in the obvious, lest some smartass claim that an 18-inch deep "cup" half an inch wide just happened to fill up with cork.]
(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
[Verily, those not manly enough to grasp the bare wood of the bat shall not expose more than a foot and a half of their shame to the public, lest the eyes of the fans burn--this means you, George Brett!]
NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.
[Okay, now that Billy Martin is dead, we can admit that maybe we went a little far with George and the pine tar--that _was_ a home run, after all.]
(d) No colored bat may be used in a professional game unless approved by the Rules Committee.
[This is a baseball game, not a bordello, a cricus, or a bicycle race.]
[And lo, Ruth saw that a heavy bat filled the hearts of pitchers with fear, but in these degenerate days much lighter bats are used, and steroids, and all manner of shameful things, including outfield gloves that could be used as butterfly nets, for crying out loud!]
[Cursed shall any batter be--not just out, but out of the game and even worse--if . . .]
6.06 (d) He uses or attempts to use a bat that, in the umpire s judgment, has been altered or tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction on the baseball. This includes, bats that are filled, flat-surfaced, nailed, hollowed, grooved or covered with a substance such as paraffin, wax, etc.
No advancement on the bases will be allowed and any out or outs made during a play shall stand.
In addition to being called out, the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by his League President.
[Indeed, so evil is tampering with a bat that just bringing one to the plate is the same as doing it . . .]
Rule 6.06(d) Comment: A batter shall be deemed to have used or attempted to use an illegal bat if he brings such a bat into the batter s box.
[So forget the standard claim that you accidentally picked a corked bat out of the rack and it must have been someone else's bat.]
Nor were infielders nor pitchers nor base runners nor groundskeepers any better than they should be, for their sins are as well known as the sins of those who swing the lumber:
Carl Sundquist 14 August 2008 16:39:33 [ permanent link ]
<phs123@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8a3e2680-dad0-42cb-8bd5-ba88c65eff9f@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 13 Aug., 06:12, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
You better believe that sports fans show up, turn on the TV, or eagerly
read
to see new equipment.
No they don't. Sure a tiny, tiny segment of equipment nerds cares
about the equipment used, but the vast majority don't even know what
brand of bicycle their favorite riders uses.
If that is the case, then every bike and component manufacturer has been wasting their money by sponsoring cycling teams.
It was Moser's record that Obree broke, and Moser and Obree collaborated on a bike for Moser to try to retake the record. Later Moser became the first chairman of the Cyclistes Professionels AssociИs. Why would he be selected for such a position if he was in favor of such silly things that others are opposed to?
Ryan Cousineau 14 August 2008 17:22:41 [ permanent link ]
In article <8b95452a-aabb-4ccf-9897-a1067521593a@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, phs123@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Sherman skrev:
Not in the US. Trek sold a LOT of US Postal Team replica bikes just so
people could "ride what Lance rides".
I am sure that a lot of Americans knows about Armstrong, but I am also
sure that only a tiny fraction of these actually follow cycling to any
degree.
So just because people buys LA replica bikes doesn't mean they
actually watch any road races. Likewise, just because people doesn't
buy Trek bikes doesn't mean that they didn't follow LA. In fact I
believe that most Americans following LA didn't own a road bike
themselves.
Certainly true, but not that many Lance Armstrong fans would have to buy a Trek road bike in order for Trek to sell what (in the bike industry) would look like a LOT of road bikes.
For the most part, a marketing or sponsorship promotion by the producer of a reasonably mature product (ie, barring another invention as clever as reliable indexed shifting, few are going to start thinking of their current road bike as hopelessly outmoded) is going to be about influencing buying decisions at the margins, and taking market share.
Lance probably was responsible for making the US road-bike market bigger than it once was, but he probably helped make Trek market share a few points higher than it once was.
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:22:41 +0100, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:
For the most part, a marketing or sponsorship promotion by the producer
of a reasonably mature product (ie, barring another invention as clever
as reliable indexed shifting, few are going to start thinking of their
current road bike as hopelessly outmoded) is going to be about
influencing buying decisions at the margins, and taking market share.
I'm beginning to wonder if a variation of the Obree Mark 1 position might make sense on a fast road (non-racing) bike. Think of a high and narrow 'blade' fairing deflecting the wind fron chest and thighs.
And yes, it is not unusual that bikes or positions are found to be UCI
illegal. Notice how the rulebook says that the cyclo-computer
shouldn't be included in the total weight of the bicycle, that is
explicit mentioned since riders tried to include it.
Regarding the latter: The Landis case was quite recent, but try to
google "landis praying mantis uci" and some links will show up.
Regarding Riis/Ullrich, I believe it was the 1996 or 1997 TdF. They
had fairings on their wheels which was illegal according to UCI, so
they banned the bikes/wheels until the fairings were taken of. The
rule for that can be found in the UCI road racing rule book.
And what does any of that have to do with Obree? Ullrich, Riis, and Landis' situations were in violation of existing rules. That was not the case with Obree. With the exception of the '94 Worlds, Obree was in compliance with the rules.
And in another post you wrote: "Well, I don't know what went on at that UCI meeting that allowed TT bars at UCI TT's. Perhaps it was a mistake, perhaps a big bribe who knows for sure. However I guess that it was a compromise; I know several people who can race at tremendous speed while resting their underarm/elbow at the handlebar near the stem. You sometimes also see pro-riders in that position at races. In effect they mimic aero bars without the advantage of brakes. I am sure that that riding position was known at the time and since the position is very aero-dynamic even without bars some people would start to use it at TT's, so by allowing aero bars as a compromise there would be fewer accidents since the riders could reach for the brake faster."
So you claim that there was likely a bribe or a compromise to get to UCI to approve aerobars. Therefore, the fundamental difference between aerobars and Obree's bike has to do with bribery or bargaining, not silliness.
P.S. As I said before, no one used the "aerobar position" before aerobars came on the market, so likely would not do so today or the rules probably would bot allow it. If te UCI had ruled against aerobars, they would have ruled against a simulated aerobar position.
"... so by allowing aero bars as a compromise there would be fewer accidents since the riders could reach for the brake faster." Faster than what else?
Yes, but those who know what Dura-Ace is, often care
about which racer uses what. "Win on Sunday, sell on
Monday" - ask a retailer, or read the people who post to
Usenet about, for ex., how many times Campy or Shimano
has won the Tour (as if Campy or Shimano could
win a Tour by themselves).
You only have to realize that it was the winning at races that made
Shimano since Suntour had a definite advertising advantage before that.
Mountain biking grew Shimano to the point where they could really
compete in road groups and then moving into sponsoring grand tour teams
made a HUGE difference in Shimano sales.
Before US Postal, Shimano was hardly used in the peloton. Now it is
probably the majority despite the fact that Campy is repairable and
Shimano really isn't.
The repair issue ONLY applies to brifters.
As for the professional peloton, I doubt anyone is riding rebuilt Campy brifters. Of course, next year every professional with Campy will have new 11-speed equipment.
For non-professional riders, Shimano has become more common since it is overwhelming preferred over Campy in the OEM market. I would not be surprised to see SRAM overtake Campy in the OEM road market in the near future.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
Yes, but those who know what Dura-Ace is, often care
about which racer uses what. "Win on Sunday, sell on
Monday" - ask a retailer, or read the people who post to
Usenet about, for ex., how many times Campy or Shimano
has won the Tour (as if Campy or Shimano could
win a Tour by themselves).
You only have to realize that it was the winning at races that made Shimano
since Suntour had a definite advertising advantage before that. Mountain
biking grew Shimano to the point where they could really compete in road
groups and then moving into sponsoring grand tour teams made a HUGE
difference in Shimano sales.
I think you're considerably underestimating the effect of Shimano's technical innovations on its sales figures, notably indexing.
Before US Postal, Shimano was hardly used in the peloton. Now it is probably
the majority despite the fact that Campy is repairable and Shimano really
isn't.
Equipment at the pro level is almost entirely a matter of sponsorship budgets. The only ProTour (RIP) team I'm aware of that cops to paying for parts is CSC, and they do it because they have lucrative sponsorships with component makers (FSA?) that don't make shifters but do make cranks, for example.
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:22:41 +0100, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the most part, a marketing or sponsorship promotion by the producer
of a reasonably mature product (ie, barring another invention as clever
as reliable indexed shifting, few are going to start thinking of their
current road bike as hopelessly outmoded) is going to be about
influencing buying decisions at the margins, and taking market share.
I'm beginning to wonder if a variation of the Obree Mark 1 position might
make sense on a fast road (non-racing) bike. Think of a high and narrow
'blade' fairing deflecting the wind fron chest and thighs.
The short answer is that in situations where being a bit faster matters,
such things are generally banned.
And in situations where being a bit faster doesn't matter, having a
fairing means you're risking wind-assisted steering.
I have ridden fully faired in 50 kph winds with gusts to 75 kph without problems.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
Ryan Cousineau 15 August 2008 20:55:00 [ permanent link ]
In article <158dbb4a-ceb8-4a8b-8eef-823e97cf3fa1@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, phs123@gmail.com wrote:
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org skrev:
[cross-post to r.b.r. removed]
[snip: bad netiqutte to x-post]
Not at all. Mr. Sundquist is far more qualified to discuss
pursuiting than anybody else in rec.bicycles.racing.
However, rec.bicycles.*, like bike racing, is a spectator
sport as well as a recreational activity. Obree, Obree's
position, the UCI, and telling Sundquist about the track
are all very much on topic for rbr. And it's an rbr tradition
(ever since our John Hansen told our Shaun Wallace to
try riding a fixed gear). Welcome.
Well, it doesn't matter whether this thread also is on topic for
another separate newsgroup. In my experience cross-posting is a bad
idea, especially when someone suddenly decides to cross-post in the
middle of a thread. The newcomers usually miss the entire context.
At the risk of spoiling Ben's fun, I'm going to explain the joke:
Carl Sundquist not only rode the Obree-designed "Moser" bike with the Mantis setup, he has also won multiple national pursuit (basically, the same discipline in which Obree had his greatest success, and absolutely germane to a discussion of Obree's bikes) titles, and has palmares from the Worlds and Olympics, too.
The previous incident referred to (Hansen/Wallace) involved a naive gentleman suggesting to a different world-class trackie that he didn't know anything about fixed-gear bicycles.
Sorry, I'm a bit of a spoilsport,
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Well, it doesn't matter whether this thread also is on topic for
another separate newsgroup. In my experience cross-posting is a bad
idea, especially when someone suddenly decides to cross-post in the
middle of a thread. The newcomers usually miss the entire context.
...
butbutbut [1], cross-posting leads to better flame wars.
[1] A gdanielsism.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
Rather than go through the humiliating business of drawing an arrow pointing at how much of his seat Landis isn't using, the UCI covered the whole ugly affair up with some talk about drugs.
Why can the Japanese build better cars in US factories with US workers
than US companies in US factories with US workers?
Part of the answer to that question is that the Japanese were benefitting
from almost 40 years of government control and direction of their industry.
They also benefitted from the work of Demming on QC.
The short answer, however, is MITI. (aka "Japan Inc.")
How much influence did MITI have on the US "transplant" operations?
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
"Barry Harmon" <johnfrum@optonline.net> wrote in message news:Xns9AFEEC85F250johnfrumoptonlinenet@209.197.15.254...
Why can the Japanese build better cars in US factories with US workers
than US companies in US factories with US workers?
Part of the answer to that question is that the Japanese were benefitting
from almost 40 years of government control and direction of their
industry.
They also benefitted from the work of Demming on QC.
The short answer, however, is MITI. (aka "Japan Inc.")
Actually the answer is that the Japanese car companies in the USA don't have worker's unions like the American companies do. That means that management has a great deal more control over the workers and can fire them a great deal easier than American companies can.
Have any of you actually been in a car plant before?
American car company managers cannot talk to workers the way that Japanese car company managers do. In the US companies the workers would be on a picket line in a minute for a slightly off-color remark about one worker's inactivity. In the Japanese plant you do what they tell you to do or you're out of there.
In France all the workers have all sorts of protections. In a French company in the USA you discover that they are some of the foulest managers possible (not that there aren't great exceptions but in general) who wouldn't give an American worker any of the rights that the laws of France give every French worker unless forced to do so by law. And in case you missed it - there ain't many laws concerning workers here.
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in news:g8fqqt$g1s$1@registered.motzarella.org:
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
So why were the Japanese smart enough to pick up on Deming's ideas
long before the Ivy League MBAs?
I can't speak about the rest of the world, but the ammunition industry has used statistical quality control for decades to certify both the components and the finished product. All government ammunition (at least small arms ammunition) is (or was when I was making it) subject to 100% inspection for all dimensions and weight.
For components during manufacture, take a sample. If they are all in spec, the lot passes. If there is a defect, take another sample. If that sample passes, the lot passes. If the retest flunks, the lot is sent for individual testing.
The limits are determined by Bayesian methods.
Neat, eh?
DuPont developed a methodology called preventive maintenance in the 1940s. You keep track of the mean time between failure for a machine. When you reach a percentage of the time, you take the machine out of service and overhaul it. This allows the company to schedule overhauls, which means that all the parts are on hand, the machine shop time is scheduled and the production is routed to other machines.
<dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message news:9cc93be4-7878-4317-b9aa-3e2853d443c1@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 10:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
"Barry Harmon" <johnf...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why can the Japanese build better cars in US factories with US
workers
than US companies in US factories with US workers?
Part of the answer to that question is that the Japanese were
benefitting
from almost 40 years of government control and direction of their
industry.
They also benefitted from the work of Demming on QC.
The short answer, however, is MITI. (aka "Japan Inc.")
Actually the answer is that the Japanese car companies in the USA don't
have
worker's unions like the American companies do. That means that
management
has a great deal more control over the workers and can fire them a great
deal easier than American companies can.
Bash the unions, bash the liberals wherever they are suspected.
So describing the effects of unions is now bashing? No matter what you think this is still the case.
He is regarded as having had more impact upon Japanese manufacturing
and business than any other individual not of Japanese heritage.
Despite being considered something of a hero in Japan, he was only
beginning to win widespread recognition in the U.S. at the time of his
death. [2]
Deming did NOTHING that dozens of othres hadn't suggested for years. He was one who wrote a book about it.
Judging from your posting you never bothered to read Deming's book. One of his statements was something along the lines that "competition is evil" and that everyone should work together for the betterment of business.
Espressopithecus 20 August 2008 23:55:29 [ permanent link ]
In article <fqydnezJ9PsmuzHVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@earthlink.com>, cyclintom@yahoo. says...
Judging from your posting you never bothered to read Deming's book. One of
his statements was something along the lines that "competition is evil" and
that everyone should work together for the betterment of business.
I used to think competition was universally good. But then I attended a seminar put on by a very successful (and rich) businessman (who was previously a professor of management at Cornell). He said the best business has a product or service that costs little to produce, is worth a lot of money to its customers, and has no competitors. Suddenly, I realized how evil competition can be.
But seriously, competition *isn't* great for business owners, and can sometimes be the pits for employees. It transfers money from the business owner and the employees to the customers' pockets. And businesses in which everyone works together for the betterment of the business *are* good for employees and the business owner. Hell, they're often even good for the customers!
<dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message news:cad6eaf4-fddd-4809-b685-87ce35ad22aa@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 20, 9:14 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
So describing the effects of unions is now bashing? No matter what you
think
this is still the case.
"Effects of unions"... effects of unions... let's see here: work
conditions-- safety, long and short term; 40 hr work week (humane at-
work requirements), child labor, plus benefits incl. pensions.
Unions accomplished some marvelous things. And then after doing that they grew fat and smart-assed about their powers. One of the unions I belonged to would go out on strike in a second to protect an illegal alien worker but wouldn't support a smart woman union member who had seniority over a dumb male worker who got promoted ahead of her.
The unions kept pounding companies even after it was plain that such tactics would destroy the companies that were the fortune for all. Have you EVER been to the rust belt? There is STILL 30% or more unemployment there and while I was there working on medical instruments the Steelworkers Union had "organized" the people cleaning motels and were on strike! The motel owners simply took care of it themselves and left the workers penniless out in the picket line.
The bottom line is that when the unions have intelligent goals they're fine. When they have nothing more than slash and burn tactics for no good reason that "I want MORE" they become nothing more than crap.
Deming did NOTHING that dozens of othres hadn't suggested for years. He
was
one who wrote a book about it.
He's the one who went to Japan.
Japan came to him. As I stated he was the one who wrote a book that triggered the Japanese revival. Deming was not saying anything that others weren't. He simply had better advertising. This is NOT knocking him by the way. I'm simply saying that he was not unique in concept, only in practice.
Judging from your posting you never bothered to read Deming's book. One
of
his statements was something along the lines that "competition is evil"
and
that everyone should work together for the betterment of business.
Uh-oh!!! KINDNESS TO WORKERS!!!! Deming was a COMMIE!!!
It would probably make a whole lot more sense to you if you understood the real differences between the US and Japan. Instead you believe that it is the mean American industrialist who is the cause of it all. Fact is that it happens to be a mutual problem between management and the unions.
When I worked for BART I was continuously harassed and threatened with firing. Not from the management - from the Union. For one thing - you had to stand in line with your timecard and couldn't punch in until the hour on the dot. Understand - you couldn't punch in ONE minute early. Then 15 seconds after the hour the punch time turned from blue to red. If you had red three times in a row you were fired even though you were 16 seconds after the starting time AND you were in a line with 20 other men. That was entirely union.
In most of Japan the "unions" are owned and operated by the companies! So perhaps you ought to understand the massive differences between here and there before you start telling us how Deming would improve things here.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
