Re: [Classicrendezvous] Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality)

(Example: Framebuilding:Paint)

To: mbikealive@earthlink.net
Cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:37:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality)
From: "Richard M. Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>


marc... here's my explanation: without question, the 4/10 thing refers to wall thickness. just as my example of a butted SL tube could be stated: 9/10x6/10x9/10, (.09x.06x.09), OR a butted SP tube could be: 1.0x.07x1.0. to me, there is no dispute regarding what the aforementioned '4/10ths' means. what i do not agree with, having explained the above, is that colnago (or anyone then), was using any tubes, anyplace, that were .04mm in thickness, either as straight guage tubes, or as the center guage in butted tubes. in other words, those mexico specs say 4/10 record tubes (by the way, i have those catalogs here, too), but neither are they that guage, nor that tubing. i will agree that when the mexico model itself begat?? it's updates, it resembled it's predecessors less and less. i may appear cynical about this, but i'm not. i recall that all these changes occurred during the 70's at the height of the bike boom, when colnago was beginning the ramp up from frame shop to major bicycle industry player. few of his peers, then, notched it up at his rate of speed. i believe it all came down to presentation; prior to all this, all colnago had was the one model, the super. by the late 70's he (they) added the international, the mexico, the export, the mexico, the mexico oro, the neuvo mexico, frames with saronni decals, frames with de vlaeminck, those atrocious colners with the spade, rather than the club, logo.. my point is that the mexico model initially was a gussied up, updated version of the super, a model which had run its course, marketing-wise. eventually, the features i site in my last post...tube shapes, plating, graphics, etc., would more easily distinguish mexicos from supers. but this tie-in with the record tubing or the 4/10ths thing just doesn't cut it with me. i don't care what the catalogs say...all the descriptions say, 'specially hand made and refined finish...' too! and i didn't take that passage literally either. get ernie on the phone, that's the only way to get to 3rd base here...kinda' reminds me of woody allen in 'annie hall', when he mysteriously pulls marshall macluhan out of the wings to address some so-called expert on marshall macluhan who was popping off about the man while all involved in the scene were waiting for movie tickets. have i lost everyone here? e-RICHIE

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:56:12 -0700 Marc Boral <mbikealive@earthlink.net> writes:
>Chuck and Richard seem to be of the opinion that "4/10 Record" refers
>to the
>guage/thickness. However I do not see the logic. Record tubes are
>0.5 mm. for
>triangle tubes and all stays, and 0.8 for the head tube. How do you
>derive at the "4"
>in "4/10" pertaining to thickness? I was also told by Colnago that
>Record tubing was
>specked in only certain tubes on the frame, not throughout. So this
>is why I believe
>that "4/10" refers to how many Record tubes were used. Please submit
>your input,
>because I certainly do not want to share incorrect info.
>
>Marc Boral
>
>Chuck Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> "4/10 Record" refers to the thickness of the tubing, not the number
>of
>> tubes in the frame...
>>
>> Chuck Schmidt
>> South Pasadena, California
>> http://www.velo-retro.com (list of t-shirts on site)
>>
>> Marc Boral wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Dale and CR,
>> >
>> > Most of my knowledge about earlier Colnagos comes from older
>Colnago literature,
>> > but some comes from having 25-30 Colnagos in my collection :-).
>So assuming the
>> > literature is correct, here is little info about Mexico vs.
>Super.
>> >
>> > Mexico framesets first appeared in '75/'76. They were constructed
>of Columbus
>> > Record & SL tubing. My early catalog refers to "4/10 Record".
>This refers to
>> > the 10 tubes used to make a frameset, not including the steerer.
>I assume it
>> > means that four tubes are Record, and the rest are SL. The
>problem is that the
>> > catalog doesn't refer to which tubes are the Record tubes.
>(snip)