We've all heard the declaration, "I know it when I see it". Most of us have probably used it, or some expression that means more or less the same thing. Nobody knows who first uttered it, but it's most often attributed to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in an obscenity case. He admitted he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. I'd love to know how he, or anyone else knows!;-)
(By the way: He decided that the work in question wasn't pornography.)
I think most people would respond in the same way as Justice Stewart if asked to define a "bicycle". Just about everybody agrees that it has two wheels. (That, after all, is the literal definition of the word.) I think most would also say that it has pedals, or is powered by human energy in some way or another.
Very few people, I believe, would define anything with a motor on it as a bicycle. Even fewer, I think, would say that a bicycle is powered by a rocket.
That makes the record held by Francois Gissy questionable, to say the least. His 263KPH (163MPH) ride is listed as the land speed record for a bicycle. At least one rider has reached 260 KPH with his own feet: He was paced by a racing car, but pedaled to his record nonetheless.
Time was, not long ago, when one "graduated" from riding a bicycle. In the US, that usually happened (and, sometimes, still happens) when someone gets his or her driver's license.
In much of the world, though, people have left their bicycles behind when they moved up on the socio-economic ladder--or when automobiles and petrol became more affordable. Some of the newly-affluent (or middle-class) have continued to cycle for recreation, but for the most part, new motorists distance themselves from motorless two-wheeled vehicles in much the same way they might try to get as far away from the slums and working-class districts in which they had been living.
The phenomenon I've just described happened with increasing frequency in Europe: It seemed that I saw fewer and fewer cyclists on each trip I took from 1980 until 2001. Lately, though, there's been a resurgence in cycling, mainly among young people,in northern European cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen. In the Danish capital, people who can easily afford the high auto and petrol prices choose to cycle because it's easier to navigate the city's traffic on two wheels, and because it's a way to de-stress.
We are also seeing people cycle because they can, though perhaps on a lesser scale, in some North American cities like Portland, San Francisco, New York and Montreal. However, in urban areas of emerging countries like China, the bicycle is still seen as something one escapes from, rather than on: In Beijing in particular, automobiles are signs of prosperity and two wheels spin in a cycle of downward mobility.
However, there are still parts of the world in which the bicycle can be a vehicle out of poverty, so to speak. One such place is East Africa, where New York-based Bicycles Against Poverty sells bicycles to local people on installment plans matched to their circumstances and conducts repair workshops, among other things.
The best part, though, is that BAP engages with local communities by buying bicycles from Roadmaster, a Ugandan manufacturer--and, best of all, training local staff to conduct workshops and in financial management. Bicycle distribution is determined by the answers received on applications; as the organization's website says, BAP "aims to strike a balance between an individual's need for a bicycle and their (sic) ability to pay for it".
It will be interesting to see where this model leads those who buy the bikes. One cause for optimism is that the BAP model seems to avoid the colonial paternalism of too many aid programs, which almost invariably leads to mismanagement and corruption. Will that lead local people to develop their own sustainable communities? Or will prosperity lead them away from the bicyles?
Yesterday I wrote about what may have been the most jewel-like bicycle component I ever rode: the Huret Jubilee rear derailleur.
Today I'm going to write about the part that might be a close second in the beauty contest. I mentioned them in yesterday's post: Simplex "retrofriction" levers--in particular, the "teardrop"-shaped ones.
Most retrofriction levers in that shape were made to fit brazed-on lever bosses. I rode with those levers on several of my bicycles, including the Colnago Arabesque and Miyata 912. The levers were also available in other configurations, including a "coke spoon" version made for Gipiemme.
Simplex also made the levers in other shapes and colors for Mavic, Galli and other component manufacturers. And, of course, there was the original version, which was usually attached to a clamp but was also available to fit braze-ons:
Although they all functioned in the same way, the Gipiemmes might have offered the best hand-feel. (I am only guessing, as I never tried them myself.) But whatever their shape, they offered the smoothest action of any lever I've ever used. That is because they had a spring-clutch mechanism on the inside that kept the lever from slipping (and, thus, the derailleur from shifting accidentally) but allowed a shift with a lighter touch than was needed for other levers.
Campagnolo and other friction levers, on the other hand, relied on nylon bushings and D-shaped screws to hold them in place--which made them more balky to shift. The ratcheted SunTour levers were like Simplex's retrofrictions in that they,too, stayed in place when they weren't shifted but were easy to shift. However, they had a clunkier feel and it was a bit harder to fine-tune shifts on them in much the same way that a one-bolt seatpost with notches is more difficult to adjust to exactly the right seat angle than one without notches, or a two-bolt post.
So, SunTour's "power" shifters tended (at least in my experience) to work better with wide-range slant-pantogaph derailleurs on which only the lower pivot was sprung like the SunTour's VGT or Cyclone GT. On the other hand, Simplex's more nuanced action seemed to work well with just about every derailleur, with narrow-range racing or wide-range touring gears. But they seemed especially well-suited to derailleurs that required smaller amounts of cable travel, such as the SunTour Cyclone S and Superbe, Campagnolo Record--and, of course, the Simplex Super LJ.
And, oh, yes, the Huret Jubilee. It and the retrofriction levers seemed to go together like croissants and coffee. The original Jubilee levers were made with a large drum that pulled too much cable for the Jubilee, which caused it to overshift. Later, Huret made a lever with a smaller drum that was intended for both the Jubilee and the titanium Success rear derailleur. But Huret's lever operated on friction, so Simplex's shifter was smoother.
If I were going to set up a bike with friction shifting, I'd definitely want the retrofriction levers. However, that would mean using no more than seven cogs in the rear: what made them so pleasant to use with derailleurs like the Jubilee is the small drum, which cuts down on the amount of cable the levers can wrap up. In other words, even pulling the lever all the way back probably won't get it to shift onto an 8th cog. (At least, it didn't on my bikes.)
But, of course, if I wanted to choose components purely on aesthetics, I would choose the Simplex retrofriction levers--and Huret Jubilee rear derailleur.
