From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Bike engineers
Date: 25 Aug 1998 20:02:02 GMT

Marc (no name) writes:

> I'm a mechanical engineer and I'd like to get a job in the bike
> industry.  Are there any engineers out there who work or have worked
> for bike companies?  Can you give me any advice about the experience
> and knowledge required by bike companies?  Any info would be
> appreciated.

I don't think you want to do that unless you want to beat your head
against a wall.  The bike industry is low tech and is driven by fads,
personal quirks and marketing.  Very little engineering is done,
partly because there is no money and partly because the business is
driven by people stuck in a depressing morass of "poor" people who
under-sell eachother until they go out of business.  This makes it
hard for even those companies that have solid concepts to compete.
Most people don't stick with bicycling long enough to see this
constant come-and-go of companies and products.  Bike shows are full
of them and most should not be there.  Take Alenax, FiberFlight, etc.

Don't do it except as an avocation.  Besides, you'll be totally alone
with no other engineers to discuss designs and problems to be solved.
Unless you have plenty of experience this would be daunting.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Bike engineers
Date: 25 Aug 1998 22:55:10 GMT

Coloman (who?) writes:

>> I don't think you want to do that unless you want to beat your head
>> against a wall.  The bike industry is low tech and is driven by fads,
>> personal quirks and marketing.  Very little engineering is done,
>> partly because there is no money and partly because the business is
>> driven by people stuck in a depressing morass of "poor" people who
>> under-sell each other until they go out of business.  This makes it
>> hard for even those companies that have solid concepts to compete.
>> Most people don't stick with bicycling long enough to see this
>> constant come-and-go of companies and products.  Bike shows are full
>> of them and most should not be there.  Take Alenax, FiberFlight, etc.

>> Don't do it except as an avocation.  Besides, you'll be totally alone
>> with no other engineers to discuss designs and problems to be solved.
>> Unless you have plenty of experience this would be daunting.

> Can you tell us what experience you've had in the bike industry? I
> know about your one book but that's it, because I have the same
> interest as Marc.

I have been involved in the design of Avocet products and know
engineers that worked there.  They can tell horror stories of some of
the other places they worked, and I can tell you about the faulty
"designs" that have reached the market.  Avocet is not without its
failures, such as the late introduction of their first speedometer by
more than a year, the poor weather proofing of some of their
instruments and drive train hardware that should probably not have
reached the market because Ofmega, the manufacturer never tested the
stuff.

Classic blunders are visible in Shimano and Campagnolo that bring out
new products that have major failings or are even technically flawed
from the start.  The Campagnolo Delta brake is one of these.  It has a
variable mechanical advantage that changes with brake pad wear and
braking hand force.  This is a first principal of brakes, that they be
linear.  Campagnolo was not aware of that or the fragility of the
mechanism that was heavier than any commercial caliper brake.  It also
had so little tire clearance that the arch inside showed wear marks
from road grit.  The new Shimano 7400BB seems to have major problems
although I cannot find enough shops that have any experience with it
to assemble any statistically valid opinion.  It doesn't look good
just by inspection.

Not long ago Specialized furnished grey Umma Gumma tires to the
American racing team in Europe having never tested them and not having
anyone on the staff that knew carbon black is used in tires for
durability and wet traction.  The riders crashed the first time they
used them in the wet, which is most of the time.  Carbon black is in
fact what Goodyear discovered and made him a tire leader in a field
that already had plenty of competitors.  Those of us that rode
tubulars in antiquity, recall that TT tires were not black to reduce
rolling resistance, but that in the rain they were a definite crash.
We did not work at Specialized.

In contrast, I am amazed that some of the advances made ever happened,
such as the compound plain/ball head bearings that Shimano sells now.
It took someone at Shimano to recognize the superiority of this
arrangement for them to adopt it from the outfit that developed it.
It was not a Shimano invention as I heard it.  It suggests that they
understood the nature of head bearing failures, something not obvious
to most engineers here on the net or elsewhere (see FAQ).

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: Careers in the bike industry
Date: 29 Oct 1998 16:51:05 GMT

Danny Loo writes:

> I'm a recent grad from Mechanical Engineering who loves bikes and
> cycling.  I'm a roadie and a bit of an off-roadie.  I'm trying to
> find a career in the cycling industry.  I have experience in
> manufacturing and know how to use CAD software.  I've applied to
> Specialized and Cannondale with no luck.  Does anyone know how I can
> get my foot in the door?  I live in Canada but am ready, willing and
> able to relocate!  This is the career I am looking for - to be part
> of and surrounded by bikes and bike stuff!

I don't think this is such a hot idea.  The bicycle industry is not
very high tech in that most of it is marketing.  The technical
innovations are few and are made on a thin margin of expense on the
product line.  You see all sorts of ill designed products annually at
the international bicycle trade shows that can be recognized as
failures by competent engineers, of which few are employed by the
industry, mainly because they cost too much.

R&D in the bicycle industry is mostly low tech and under funded.  Few
exceptions exist and these spots are full with people who do it for
reasons other than getting rich.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Careers in the bike industry
Date: 29 Oct 1998 21:39:40 GMT

anonymous writes:

>> I don't think this is such a hot idea.  The bicycle industry is not
>> very high tech in that most of it is marketing.  The technical

> Always your opinion.  The technical aspect is just what you make it.

What do you mean by "always your opinion"?  The sentence begins with
"I don't think..." who else's thoughts do you believe this refers to?

>> innovations are few and are made on a thin margin of expense on the
>> product line.  You see all sorts of ill designed products annually at
>> the international bicycle trade shows that can be recognized as
>> failures by competent engineers, of which few are employed by the
>> industry, mainly because they cost too much.

> Maybe this is really the point.  We need some aggressive designing
> of products which provide true leaps of innovation.  Your not going
> to get that unless you let fresh minds into the field.  Don't waste
> years of schooling on something so useless as bicycle products!!!!

Whether you need "aggressive design" or not has no effect on the state
of the bicycle industry.  It is what it is and has survived in its
present state for some time, marketing being the heavy side.  The
majority of money that bicyclist spend encourages that market and
whose products are mostly without merit, things the public discards
after short as soon as the next gizmo becomes popular.  More and more
gears, titanium, carbon fiber, and a raft of other expensive features
that make people FEEL GOOD.  Meanwhile durable products are displaced
from the market.

>> R&D in the bicycle industry is mostly low tech and under funded.
>> Few exceptions exist and these spots are full with people who do it
>> for reasons other than getting rich.

> True, its under funded.  Still, let him try the field.  He can
> always leave to pursue another career where is talents are
> appreciated and paid for.

That isn't a good resume` for the next assignment.  I have been in the
bicycle business avocationally for many years and am dismayed at the
state of the art.  One could say the public gets what it deserves for
flocking to the marketing ploys of each new wonder product.
Meanwhile those who enjoy bicycling and ride much, cannot find useful
durable products any more.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Fixed vrs. Floating Cleat Position
Date: 31 Jan 2001 17:00:14 GMT

Phillip Farber writes:

> So at what point in time did bicycle technology reach the pinnacle
> of perfection after which "convenient maintainable hardware" was
> driven out and became a thing of the past?  1990? 1970? 1960? 1935?

There is no single point but rather a continuum.  Mechanical and
material design and quality is generally improving while the
usefulness is declining.  Typically in wheels, if you damaged a rim
you could buy most any brand of rim with the same number of holes and
rebuild.  Not only are the rims not sold, but bicycle shops cannot
rebuild most of the wheels that are offered today, this requiring
special tools and abilities.

Integrated brake/shift levers are expensive and complex to be
impractical to repair.  Just buy a new assembly.  Gear clusters, in
the pursuit of simplified shifting no longer have individually
replaceable sprockets and these sprockets are asymmetric, have side
cuts that leave less than a mm of tooth face, some of which are
vestigial due to ramps.  All this wears out many time faster than
prior sprockets.

Chains no longer have full pin and sleeve links in pursuit of light
weight, so they wear out five times as fast as earlier chains.

Brake mechanical advantage (ME) has been increased for the avocational
rider who could not stop adequately with prior brakes (4:1 ME).  These
higher ME brakes require such close spacing to the rim that they drag
when climbing hills.  Hence, racers open their QR on long climbs.
Besides, they must be of the dual pivot design for auto centering,
which makes one of the caliper arms have large cosine error that
swings the pad up into the tire as it wears.  Subsequently pads with
little depth were offered so they could not wear so far.

Along with these brake changes came the short reach caliper that has
so little tire clearance that one cannot reasonably ride on dirt roads
without the wheel becoming clogged.  Along with this, frame clearance
was reduced to the same kind of spacing so that a wheel with a slight
wobble will chafe a tire to failure.


> Isn't it really the case and lots of convenient maintainable
> hardware is still available and, in addition, quite a bit of new,
> certainly less easily maintained, is also now available?

The maintainable and interchangeable is fading fast.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Fixed vrs. Floating Cleat Position
Date: 1 Feb 2001 01:01:14 GMT

Sheldon Brown writes:

> For somebody who learned on down-tube shifters, they're not a
> problem, but for a typical first-time road bike buyer, perhaps a
> reformed mountain biker, the idea of having to take your hands off
> the bars to shift seems truly bizarre, and absolutely unacceptable.

Yes, I know.  When I ask whether some guys bike rides straight
no-hands, I get an odd look and "I never ride no-hands, thats
dangerous."  Where have all the bikies gone, long long ago.  As my
riding pals retire, I begin to feel lonely remembering the old days
when we rode bike for fun instead of as a safety and exercise ritual.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Fixed vrs. Floating Cleat Position
Date: 1 Feb 2001 00:19:43 GMT

Brewster fd? writes:

>> Integrated brake/shift levers are expensive and complex to be
>> impractical to repair.  Just buy a new assembly.>

> I agree with most of what you are saying, however, I have to disagree
> somewhat with the above statement.  Yes, integrated shifters are
> expensive.  Yes, Shimano STI shifters are impractical to repair.

Not only are they expensive, complex, and heavy, they are unnecessary.
I often ride behind folks for awhile and notice that they are shifting
every few hundred meters if the gradient changes ever so slightly.
They play their derailleurs as though there were an optimal engine RPM
that they are maintaining, all the while riding at an optionally
undemanding pace.  That's the reason I can observe them before politely
saying hello as I ride by.

The belief that one must constantly shift gears and that this has some
intrinsic value for the spark plugs or piston rings, or crank bearings
is a driving force behind much of this stuff.  Sure, it's a
convenience to be able to shift on a climb while standing but it isn't
necessary for 99.44% of people who swear by it.  They imagine the
importance of their bicycling as they emulate Lance, furtively looking
over their shoulder for an imagined chase group.  Get off it.  This is
killing bicycling for those of us who like to ride without a support
crew on longer rides.

> However, if you take a look at Campy Ergo levers, you will see it is
> neither impractical nor expensive to repair.  All parts are readily
> available through most LBS or mail order places (e.g., Branford
> Bikes, Peter Chisolm, Sheldon Brown, Third Hand, Excel Sports,
> etc.)and reasonably priced.  Further, there are many sources on the
> internet on how to rebuild/take apart the Campy Ergo lever, see:

> http://www.greatoutdoors.com/velonews/newsstand/techroom/levers.html
> http://www.campyonly.com/howto/ergo_rebuild.html
> http://www.campyonly.com/howto/ergotech.html

As this points out, you can't go to the local bicycle shop and get
what you need.  I'm not so hot about mail ordering parts when I am on
the road somewhere and want to fix my bicycle.  In the past I could
drop in on a bicycle shop and get everyday hardware, like bearing
balls or a 36 hole rim when a rear wheel cot damaged.  The old
argument that most people don't know which way to turn a screw is
getting more true with every day under these circumstances.  I still
know how, but the opportunity to do so is slipping away.

I don't think I want to mess with esoteric tools and parts on a
weekend ride somewhere in the Santa Cruz mountains on Gazos Creek,
Purissima Creek, or Last Chance Rd.  It's not a nice Sunday walk from
the Forest of Nisene Marks to Palo Alto (100km).  My downtube shifters
work just fine and have never had a problem in crashes or otherwise.
I'm sure people can create a scenario where I need more than a 6-speed
freewheel but I won't believe it because I've ridden just fine with
5-speeds for most of my life and on many tours of the Alps.

This sounds a lot like people who can't imagine life without TV or a
cell phone.  Simpler times may be just around the corner, at least for
a lot of folks according to the news.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: best road hubs?
Date: 17 Mar 2001 23:27:54 GMT

Chao-hui writes:

> When Shimano came on the scene, quick release was pretty well
> accepted.  During the period when both Shimano and Campy were major
> players, many more ideas first originated at Shimano and
> subsequently copied by Campy than the other way around.  In fact, I
> would be hard pressed to come up with even one single innovation
> that originated with Campy and went onto Shimano during the last 20
> year.

Don't overlook that Campagnolo "died" along with Tullio and that it
took them a long time to realize that they were on a dead course with
their products.  Ever since they have been playing catch-up with some
degree of nationalism helping their cause.  We don't know what might
have been the result if Tullio had taken care of succession as Enzo
Ferrari did, or at least Fiat's Giovanni Agnelli, who made sure the
void was properly filled.  At Campagnolo, there was no one at home, so
to speak, for years after Tullio.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Does Conti Ultra Gatorskin road tire resist sidewall cuts?
Date: 9 Apr 2001 16:59:18 GMT

Andrew Rakeman writes:

>> There are a bunch of ad men somewhere in the USA who cook up these
>> names, be that "Axial-pro", "Armadillo", or "Gatorskin", all of
>> which can be enhanced by "ultra" or adding allusions to Kevlar,
>> carbon fiber, or titanium.  Fortunately for the marketeers, there
>> seem to be enough people with money to burn that buy this stuff.
>> Meanwhile, useful tires with solid carbon black smooth tread are
>> ignored for all the pseudo reasons one can imagine.

> Don't forget to add "FasGrip" and "MultiGrip" to that list.

FasGrip is one of the silliest.  You can imagine what I had to say
about that when it suddenly appeared as the name of the tires that I
worked so hard get made and to be void of hype.  At least we got the
tires if not a reasonable name.

> As long as everyone can realize that they are there just for
> marketing reasons, I have no problem with people naming their
> products.  I think it makes it a little bit more fun than just
> having product numbers.

I don't like to be sucked into that mode by having to ask for the
product with such a self serving name.  Fortunately I can buy Avocet
tires without having to repeat the inane label.  Give me some "Avocet
Road 20's" will do.

> If someone was selling a long wearing, steel beaded, carbon black,
> tan sidewall, 25mm wide, slick tire for $20, I'd still buy it if it
> were called xg2335-9783, El Puk-o, or Super Ultra Grip-o-matic
> Speedy Pro.

That's easy because such a name would be an obvious spoof, but saying
"Axial Pro" is a bit more embarrassing, the tire being neither "axial"
or "pro" although by implication it might be.

> I think names are the least of the problem.

I think they spend more time on a clever name than a good product, so
to me it is a problem.  Besides, some customers are truly snowed by
the name, judging from the enthusiasm with which they say it in the
store.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: Helmut Springer <nospamford@faveve.uni-stuttgart.de>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Does Conti Ultra Gatorskin road tire resist sidewall cuts?
Date: 9 Apr 2001 17:41:30 GMT

Jobst Brandt <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> so to me it is a problem.  Besides, some customers are truly
> snowed by the name, judging from the enthusiasm with which they
> say it in the store.

I couldn't help laughing when reading 'FeC alloy' on the steel rails
of a saddle recently *sigh*

--
MfG/best regards, helmut springer

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Crank Arm Length Survey
Date: 9 Jun 2001 03:04:10 GMT

John Dacey writes:

>> "Crank Arm Length"

>> Stop talking pidgin bicyclese, it Crank Length.

> Why browbeat folks for using the same terminology that the major
> manufacturers (Campy, Shimano et al) do to describe their own
> products?  A casual read through any of their current catalogues and
> websites will get you references to cranksets, crank arms and
> crankarms aplenty.

That happens because these are foreign companies who have learned that
translating their own manuals into English with a phrase book is bad
for business.  You may recall the early Japanese or German manuals.  I
even got a job at Porsche in Stuttgart to rewrite their Shop Manual in
the 1960's.

So whom can you get to do this kind of work for the bicycle business?
Bike geeks from some magazine that isn't making it.  These guys speak
the worst bicyclese driving the intelligence level of bike talk down
at an accelerated rate.

>> You won't find "crank arm" anywhere but in bicyclese.  It's not an
>> English word.  A crank IS an arm by definition.

> "Bicyclese" probably isn't in Webster's either, but apparently that
> hasn't stopped you from using it.  It may be that "crankarm" (and its
> inelegant variations) is thought by you to be redundant; but what
> possible harm comes from further distinguishing the "arm" part from
> the crank as a whole that may also include a chainring? In any case,
> just the fact that "crankarm" is in such common usage should confer it
> with the status of being "a word", even if you won't let it be scored
> in Scrabble.

It's like all the other redundancies and dodges by illiterate folk.
Get off the roadway instead of road, stairway instead of stairs,
marketplace instead of market, impact instead of effect or affect, and
a long list of *set combinations like trainset, a train being a set of
cars and propulsion means.


> Bike shop since 1983
> Online catalog of track equipment since 1996

I understand why you take this personally, being in the bicycle jargon
business yourself.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Campagnolo Lover = Mac Addict?
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <CpuP9.57584$Ik.1877189@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 03:58:26 GMT

David L. Johnson writes:

>> [Shimano] Having changed up bottom bracket cups, freehubs for
>> freewheels, crank/BB interfaces, created three different SPD
>> standards, and reinvented the boutique wheel, I suspect Shimano
>> must again turn its eyes towards the pedal/crank interface.

> These "successes" point out the market strategy that is the real
> problem.  For one, they did not invent sealed bottom-brackets (that
> was Phil Wood), nor freehubs (SunTour?), nor splined bottom
> brackets.

I think that "invented" is a fuzzy word in this context because most
of this stuff was invented in the infancy of the bicycle in the 19th
century and fell by the wayside for lack of a suitable market,
manufacturing capabilities and follow-through technical guidance.  As
I have often mentioned, bicycle engineers (the leading technology of
the time) quickly moved on to motor vehicles and shortly thereafter to
aircraft.  In each instance leaving their inventions in ill equipped
hands, mostly draftsmen who had no engineering education or skills
other than to make neat drawings.

Phil Wood's sealed BB was a misnomer of major proportions because he
took common rubber lip sealed electric motor bearings, designed to
prevent continuous air intrusion into bearing grease from centrifugal
circulation.  These bearings could not seal water other than initial
splashes and were not designed to do so.  Two disparate fluids (oil
and water) cannot be separated reliably from each other by a single
seal lip.  This rests on the axiom that "the seal that doesn't leak,
leaks" meaning that the contained fluid must weep to protect the seal
lip from running dry and "burning".  Since there is oil on the inside
and water on the outside, they mix under the lip making an emulsion.
Thereafter this mixture dries out leaving a dry capillary gap.  You
will find no motor vehicle with such a seal because they don't work.

> The fact that they introduced 3 different SPD standards --
> incompatible ones, no less -- indicates the real strategy.  The idea
> is to "require" you to replace as much as possible as often as
> possible.  Try to find 110/74 cranks, or chainrings for them.  Even
> 94/56 cranks are getting hard to find; soon we will see the end of
> square-taper bottom brackets.  Until the next round of innovation.

Shimano may have engineers but they don't have enough contact with
users and particularly racers who are also good engineers, a rare
combination to find.  Much of what they design is well thought out but
misses the problem or just bursts out in a new direction that on its
face seems fine to management and other observers.

There are marketing reasons for change in BB spindles, cranks and
chainring BC's driven by ever lower gears for MTB's and more frequent
disassembly for mud removal.  However, what I find telling is that
pedal eye failures in cranks is ignored even though the issue has been
identified, the solution found and tested, and Shimano made aware of
it.  This supports my contention that their engineers are not demanding
users who can recognize this design concept that has been commonly
used in the automotive industry for a long time.

Shimano is only marginally better than the competition but the edge is
theirs for now.  It reminds me of the F1 race car business before big
money entered.  Not much basic research and practical design work was
done until big money began to flow.  Cam design, valves, ignition,
cooling, combustion chambers and myriad other ancient problems were
suddenly solved.

Not 20 years ago, adjusting and grinding valves was a regular chore,
chassis lube on the grease rack was common at most filling stations,
points and plugs needed regular replacement and oil changed every 1000
miles or so.  Most people are not aware that these improvements came
from racing, mainly big money F1.  We are lucky in that respect.  I
recall when 100000 miles was a lifetime for many cars.  Today most
cars never have work on the engine or transmission in that distance,
much less valves and valve lifters.

Unfortunately, I don't see such an influx of funds or high quality
engineering re-entering bicycling any time soon, so we are stuck with
uncoordinated hit and miss incremental technical advances.  The ten
million dollar bicycle designed for the Los Angeles Olympics was a
wasteful diversion because it addressed no real problems and was based
on the fallacious thinking that such a bicycle could give an American
rider and advantage, something that is prohibited in the basic UCI
rule of unfair advantage (no equipment that offers an advantage,
however legal, can be used in racing if other competitors cannot equip
themselves likewise).  This aspect of the effort was never addressed
by the media or the bicycling press in particular... as if they didn't
see this sham for what it was.  It was a self aggrandizing event for
the proponents of the project, the sacred cows of US bicycle science.

Who's on first???

Jobst Brandt  <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>  Palo Alto CA

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Mechanical engineers in bike industry
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <5Ldrd.8676$_3.104489@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:44:17 GMT

Mike Vers writes:

> As a student in mechanical engineering, a lover of all things
> bicycle related, an avid cyclist and an ex-bike messenger, I have
> often wondered whether mechanical engineers are employed in the bike
> industry.

> I've done a little research on this issue in the past, and I didn't
> come up with a very positive answer at the time.  My initial
> research suggested that for the most part, bicycle frame and
> component design is conducted mostly by non-engineers.  Although
> this didn't altogether surprise me, I imagine that companies with as
> much clout as Shimano and Campy, for instance, would employ
> mechanical engineers.  Surely there must be others!  Am I mislead?

> The overall purpose of this post is to start a discussion on the
> possible career avenues for a (soon-to-be) mech engineer who would
> love nothing more than to employ his engineering skills in the bike
> industry in some way or form.

You need to make a living and the bicycle industry is mainly a
marketing business and rarely a technical one.  Most of the equipment
at the top of the market is fluff and plays on the wishful thinking of
bicyclists who think they will become or be recognized as a great
"gladiator" as out athletic heroes are.  The equipment has little to
do with athletic success and more to do with "my stuff is more exotic
than yours" attitude. $100+ plastic sun glasses that look asinine are
probably the most visible aspect of high tech bicycling.

Ride bike and enjoy it while following an engineering career.  I have
had many interesting challenges and successes in various mechanical
engineering jobs, none related to bicycles.  That doesn't mean you
cannot have an influence, but don't put your career into it unless you
have a special venue to do so.  Some of the best, like Tom Ritchey,
are not engineering school graduates but came up as bicycle racers who
built their own equipment.  If you read about his work, you'll see it
isn't easy in a world of Campagnolo, Shimano, Trek, and many more.
Even they are in many cases beholden to marketing powers.

Take for instance BB design.  Only Shimano seems to recognize the
weakness of the whole assembly in crank attachment, bearing
reliability and material problems.  Meanwhile they wander through a
maze of possibilities and mechanical nightmares.  There are real
problems in that assembly that are not being addressed by others and
Shimano is still kicking at it.  Pedal attachment is still an
untouched subject.  Note how long the threadless steertube has taken
to arrive.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html

Typically, the annual InterBike trade show reveals what has been
achieved in the last year or so and there isn't much, even though it's
a huge trade show, this year bigger than ever.  I saw no conspicuous
advances this year.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Mechanical engineers in bike industry
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <y6srd.8795$_3.105014@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 23:05:02 GMT

Mike Vers writes:

>> Ride bike and enjoy it while following an engineering career.  I
>> have had many interesting challenges and successes in various
>> mechanical engineering jobs, none related to bicycles.

> I entirely hear you.  On the other hand, I haven't *entirely* given
> up the prospect of working in a bike company of some sort.  Perhaps
> this is a utopic vision.

>> That doesn't mean you cannot have an influence, but don't put your
>> career into it unless you have a special venue to do so.

> Good advice.  I don't think I'd make a "career" out of it, but a few
> years spent in the industry might prove to be an interesting
> experience.  That's been my view.

As you see, I have some connections with the business and was able to
influence Avocet to market slicks, I designed their first speedometer,
their tensiometer, patented the altimeter altitude accumulator, and
they printed my book on wheels.  None of this produced any real income
but it was fun.

>> Take for instance BB design.  Only Shimano seems to recognize the
>> weakness of the whole assembly in crank attachment, bearing
>> reliability and material problems.

> I have noticed that Shimano seem to be one of the few
> bicycle-related companies who show clear signs of engineering
> work/analysis/approach in their product line.  It's not just a
> trial-and-error development approach or worse, development based on
> esthetics.  There seems to be an actual analytic approach to their
> component development.  I talked to a Shimano rep at a bike show
> last year and he informed me that pretty much all the engineering
> was coming out of Japan.

Well, you see that Shimano spends more time on hollow cranks than they
did on attaching them to the spindle, a sore subject to many users.
The Octalink spline had a major failing that we have discussed here
often.  Had they hired and listened to mechanical engineers that
understand this sort of thing, they would not have gone through those
iterations.  On the other hand, they do better than other component
manufacturers.

Although it isn't my favorite task, testifying for the bicycle
business in frivolous damage/injury cases has brought in money.  There
seem to be almost no "experts" who understand the clues to failure on
bicycles and how a riders fall.  Therefore, all sorts of BS claims are
made against the bicycle on the basis that most people (juries)
believe bicycling is dangerous and inscrutably complex.  It has been
possible in every case fro me to assess and clearly explain what parts
of the claims are fabrications.  I have not yet seen a case in which
the male bicyclist wasn't lying through his teeth, so to speak... but
it wasn't readily obvious to others involved, especially when there
are so called expert witnesses who will testify to support anything a
plaintiff claims.

>> Typically, the annual InterBike trade show reveals what has been
>> achieved in the last year or so and there isn't much, even though
>> it's a huge trade show, this year bigger than ever.  I saw no
>> conspicuous advances this year.

> lolll... I bet you saw a lot of silly marketing and gimmickry
> though.  "Let's use carbon everywhere we possibly can... it doesn't
> matter whether it makes functional sense or not, it'll sell."

And of course the customers can't wait to throw out their previous
hot item for a new one, so they can be first kid on the block to have
one.

> I'll take the opportunity to congratulate you on the wonderful book
> that is "The Bicycle Wheel".  Every mech eng/cycling enthusiast
> should have one :D

Thanks for the kind assessment,

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Mechanical engineers in bike industry
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <52wrd.8819$_3.105328@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 03:33:21 GMT

Jay Beattie writes:

>>>> Ride bike and enjoy it while following an engineering career.  I
>>>> have had many interesting challenges and successes in various
>>>> mechanical engineering jobs, none related to bicycles.

>>> I entirely hear you.  On the other hand, I haven't *entirely*
>>> given up the prospect of working in a bike company of some sort.
>>> Perhaps this is a utopic vision.

>>>> That doesn't mean you cannot have an influence, but don't put
>>>> your career into it unless you have a special venue to do so.

>>> Good advice.  I don't think I'd make a "career" out of it, but a
>>> few years spent in the industry might prove to be an interesting
>>> experience.  That's been my view.

>> As you see, I have some connections with the business and was able
>> to influence Avocet to market slicks, I designed their first
>> speedometer, their tensiometer, patented the altimeter altitude
>> accumulator, and they printed my book on wheels.  None of this
>> produced any real income but it was fun.

> What do you consider real income?  Sheesh.  The Avocet Cyclometer
> dominated the market in the early 80s.  If you did not make money
> licensing or selling that design, then you need[ed] a better
> attorney!

Avocet didn't get rich on it either and never had the resources to
implement many of the features I had designed.  I never saw a cent of
that but I didn't expect any either.  The guys who own the show are
working hard to get that fixed, but meanwhile we are just friends.
The name of the company and their logo was an idea I had from a
linoleum block print I made of a flying Avocet in 1973 (a Christmas
card).  Much the same, when Tom Ritchey built me a bicycle, I wanted a
real logo on it so I drew up the head badge and downtube you see today.

> I know a guy in Los Gatos who got rich putting a rock in a box with
> some shredded paper and calling it a pet.  That is not nearly as
> cool as a Cyclometer -- or even slick tires.

I got the slick tires because I wanted to get away from inane mini car
treads that reduced performance and wear life.  It was a selfish idea
that worked for me.  I think today most high performance tires are
slick but tread patterns keep sneaking back in tiny bits (grooves).
We rode on slick tubulars from Clement for many years.  Tires on which
micro tread had soon worn smooth.

The bicycle industry is made of myth and lore.  Just recall the horror
of exposing the workings of a wire spoked wheel.  The reviews the book
got were awful...  written by my good friend Rick Hjertberg for
Bicycling magazine.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Mechanical engineers in bike industry
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <0nwrd.8823$_3.105378@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 03:55:40 GMT

Tom Sherman writes:

>> What do you consider real income?  Sheesh.  The Avocet Cyclometer
>> dominated the market in the early 80s.  If you did not make money
>> licensing or selling that design, then you need[ed] a better
>> attorney!...

> If someone is interested in making "real money", they should avoid
> going into engineering, as it is one of the more poorly compensated
> fields (on a per hour basis) relative to education.

That sounds a bit harsh in the aesthetics department.  There is more
to life than money, as long as you have enough to be comfortable.  The
big issue for me is to do something for which I have more talent than
other things.  I have always been a mechanical engineer from early
youth.  Machines and mechanisms were obvious to me as was the thought
that went into their design.  In that light, I was well rewarded in my
career with achieving great results and seeing interesting places on
the way.

There isn't much extra money in the bicycle industry and where else
could I get someone to build me a speedometer for my bicycle and an
altimeter that worked.  That along with good tires and a book
publisher for an unwanted subject.

If your compass is primarily oriented to money, then you could be
missing a large part of life.  The world has enough smartasses who can
hold down a job for which they have little talent.  We run into them
often and wonder how they stay employed.  This scenario goes to the
highest places.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org