[Fwd: [CR] was frame size/saddle-height/handlebar height - now Dalton Intro]


Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:28:50 -0500
From: Jerry & Liz Moos <moos@penn.com>
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [Fwd: [CR] was frame size/saddle-height/handlebar height - now Dalton Intro]


Message-ID: <3A834856.CA4A006A@penn.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:31:03 -0500 From: Jerry & Liz Moos <moos@penn.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> CC: classirendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR] was frame size/saddle-height/handlebar height - now Dalton Intro References: <20010208230840.27527.qmail@web905.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Welcome, Tom, I think your philosophy fits wonderfully into the group. But I might suggest that while many of us have a bike or two that is original or "period correct" we often also have other bikes that take adventage of the wonderful "mix and match" potential of classic component, i.e a BOBish bike as our esteemed colleagues on that other list call it. Riding both types is great fun, like have a totally original vintage Packard, but also the proverbial "Hot Rod Lincoln".

Regards,

Jerry Moos

Tom Dalton wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> You are absolutely right about the versatility of
> classic components. I have to admit that I've been
> looking at things exclusively from my own perspective.
> Since I have not yet provided a formal introduction
> to the CR list, and given that such an introduction
> might explain some of my earlier comments, let me do
> that now.
>
> My name is Tom and I'm a bikeaholic. I was born in
> 1967 and bought my first derailleur-equipped bike in
> 1979 (an all-steel Nishiki Sport.) I began racing on
> that bike about a year later. My racing career was
> hardly glorious, but I consider myself to be an
> experienced cyclist at this point and I can ride with
> racer types when I'm in good shape. Not that I am
> always in good shape. Some years I ride a lot,
> others, hardly at all. Throughout it all though, my
> love of the bike itself has been constant. I
> sometimes feel a little silly putting the cart before
> the horse this way, but I yam what I yam.
>
> My knowledge of things cycling has been enhanced by
> the four years I spent working as a shop service
> manager as well as the many summers prior to that
> spent working as a mechanic. Much of my shop
> experience (as well as my riding) was in the D.C.
> area, though I spent five years in Madison, Wisconsin
> and have been living in Emmaus, PA for the last six
> years. I am no longer "in the industry."
>
> I like "top-of-the-line" racing bikes like those used
> by elite and professional racers, and I am
> particularly interested in equipment from the period
> during which I have been riding. I currently own 4
> bikes (3 race, 1 MTB) and a big pile of parts. One of
> these bikes constitues my "collection," while the
> others are either on active duty, or, in the case of
> the MTB, are just a dirty little secret that I should
> sell off. The "collection" bike is a Trek 770,
> repainted a non-origonal bright yellow. I have
> equipped it with a SR (reduced) group, Cinelli,
> Vittoria CX/CG, etc. to reflect what I consider to be
> the best stuff available in 1985, the model year of
> the frame. What I most enjoy about the restoration
> process is determining which variation of each part is
> correct for the date, and then tracking that part down
> however I can. Not that I'm totally rigorous, I have
> put some slightly older parts on that bike (1983
> cranks). I figure if anyone was bolting a bike
> together in 1985, it would likely have had some parts
> that were sitting on the shelf for a while. I won't
> budge in the other direction however, since a newer
> part would have been unavailable at the "target date."
> Oh yeah, the Trek was my race bike until about 1991.
>
> I'm still at a point in my riding "career" that racing
> equipment is what works best for me. My current rider
> is a circa 1991/92 Masi Nuova Strada with full
> C-record, screw-on hubs and 7-speed indexing (The
> casette would be "correct" for this vintage, but I
> never took the eight speed plunge and it's a bit late
> now).
>
> Whatever bike I ride does not have to be the latest
> available, but I like the whole package to be of a
> particular vintage and feature a complete grouppo.
> Which is where I start to have a problem with riding
> the old stuff. To maintain the standard of having
> date-specific top-end Campy stuff in good condition
> costs a lot of money. I'm getting to the point with
> the Masi that I would like to put it in the collection
> and get something newer for routine use. If I were to
> do that I would try to buy what I consider to be the
> best stuff currently made. This would probably mean
> and oversize steel frame with Dura Ace 9-speed, if I
> can afford it. I figure for the five years or so that
> I would use this bike, spare parts should be fairly
> easy to get. Once the bike started to show some age
> and as parts were getting scarce, I would like to
> retire it to the collection and buy something new
> again. This is my plan for building a collection of
> interesting date-correct racing bikes that have
> personal relevance to me (as bikes that I have ridden
> or raced).
>
> I am considering a couple of exceptions to my policy
> of collecting bikes I've ridden. As a youngster, I
> didn't have access to good equipment but I admired
> everyone else's. I would like to build a late 70's
> early 80's race bike. I actually have a reasonably
> accurate bunch of parts and a Benotto frame should be
> on it's way from Renaissance any day. I am also
> considering setting up a late 80's C-record bike,
> since I have most of the group. I wanted a new bike
> back then but couldn't make it happen when I was in
> college. There are a couple frames used during the
> 1985 season by pro teams (Panasonic, Lotto, Gis)that
> would inspire me to switch the parts off the Trek and
> use it as the C-record bike.
>
> So, that's my brief intro.
>
> Tom Dalton
>
> --- Jerry Moos <moos@penn.com> wrote:
> > You have some valid points, but I don't agree about
> > new equipment being
> > more practical and economical to maintain. While it
> > may be expensive to
> > maintain something one actually rides in completely
> > original condition,
> > as some CRers do, it is infinitely easier to
> > maintain classic equpiment
> > in functional condition than with new equipment.
> > This is the whole
> > philosophy behind Rivendell and the iBOB list and is
> > shared by many on
> > the CR list. Tried to buy an 8-speed cassette in
> > the combo you want
> > lately? Campy 9 speeds will probably soon become a
> > problem. When one
> > replaces Ergo/STI components one has to be sure the
> > new chain is
> > compatible with the cassette, is compatible with the
> > dreailleur, is
> > compatible with the shifters, not to mention chain
> > with cassette with
> > chainrings. Don't mix 10 speed with 9 speed with 8
> > speed. Don't mix
> > Campy with Shimano, and if someone else makes it,
> > figure which it is
> > campatible with and if they make both, don't mix the
> > Shimano type ones
> > with the Campy type ones from the same manufacturer.
> > This is cheap?
> > This is easy? Sometimes it is easier to just chuck
> > the whole gruppo and
> > buy the latest coolest one, which of course the
> > Shimano marketerers want
> > you to. And while you're at it maybe you should
> > just buy a new bike as
> > last year's Ti model didn't have adequate Al/V
> > numbers, whatever that
> > meant. A disposable bike - the marketer's dream.
> > That classic 7 speed
> > FW on the other hand can be replaced with 7 or 6 or
> > 5 speed FW, Regina
> > or SunTour or Atom or Shimano with a Regina or Sedis
> > or HHK or Shimano
> > chain with Campy or Simplex or Suntour or Shimano or
> > Huret derailleurs,
> > the same front and back or not, with matching shift
> > levers or not, with
> > a dozen brands of pedals from 1920 to 1990 that
> > could all use the same
> > cleats or no cleats at all. Have to watch a bit for
> > French and Swiss
> > thread, but the vast majority of bikes made from the
> > mid 70s to 1990
> > have the compatible threads except only for BB.
> > Replace almost any
> > classic component with almost any other classic
> > component you have handy
> > or can buy cheap or just happen to fancy. Isn't
> > that easier?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jerry Moos
> >
> > Tom Dalton wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > > To characterize consumers as "suckers" simply
> > because
> > > they buy what is made available to them might be
> > bit
> > > unfair. Perhaps you are simply suggesting that
> > the
> > > bike industry (and the publications that are
> > supported
> > > by it) is not putting customers' needs first these
> > > days. I would have to agree with that. But, I
> > bet
> > > it's a lot easier to point to Lance Armstrong's
> > Trek,
> > > say "it weighs 18 pounds and has 18 gears and he
> > won
> > > the Tour de France," than to say "you're old, over
> > > weight, and you're no Lance Armstrong. Your
> > > requirements are nothing like his. To obtain a
> > > posture that your tired body is capable of
> > > maintaining, you need a bigger frame. Given that
> > you
> > > don't have a personal mechanic or an unlimited
> > supply
> > > of chains and freewheels, and considering that you
> > > don't know how to properly select your gears
> > anyway,
> > > you don't need 9-speed STI... "
> > >
> > > To be sure, significant forces in the bike
> > industry
> > > are selling customers gear that will ultimately
> > hinder
> > > their progress as riders and drive them away from
> > the
> > > sport. These are the companies that sold everyone
> > > MTB's (yuk) and then fully-suspended MTB's
> > > (double-uck) and now nobody is buying much of
> > > anything. They didn't enjoy cycling, even after
> > they
> > > bought in to the $2000 Y-bike. They've moved on.
> > Go
> > > figure. The bike industry certainly shoots itself
> > in
> > > the foot now and again.
> > >
> > > Getting back to the poor consumer, how can we
> > blame
> > > him or her? Without significant experience, or
> > honest
> > > advice from someone with significant experience,
> > he or
> > > she is left to use what's most readily available.
> > > This leads me to a certain gripe I have about
> > > attitudes voiced by some CRer's and other Retro
> > types:
> > > Is it reasonable to expect that people will go
> > out of
> > > their way to track down out-of-production
> > equipment to
> > > "enhance" their riding experiece, when what most
> > > people care about is the ride and not the
> > asthetics,
> > > history, nostalgia, etc. that drives us to our
> > strange
> > > pursuit? Really, if I'm going for any
> > half-serious
> > > ride I ain't packing friction shifting, toeclips,
> > or
> > > tubulars, be sure of that. The new stuff is
> > simply
> > > better. If I ever get back to the point where I'm
> > > riding more than twice a week, I'll be 9-speed
> > STI'ing
> > > as soon as I can afford it. Aside from that fact
> > that
> > > such systems provide performance advantages over
> > my
> > > current 7-speed downtube system, I just don't want
> > to
> > > have to hunt down old style Campy axles and NOS
> > > 7-speed freewheels when I inevitably need them. I
> > > don't have the time or the money to use and
> > maintain
> > > collectable equipment. I'll save it for the
> > ocasional
> > > nostalgia ride.
> > >
> > > BTW- It was Rodale Press. Now it's Rodale Inc.
> > Since
> > > they fired everyone who actually rode a bike,
> > Bicyling
> > > has become a bigger rag than ever. I can't tell
> > ad
> > > from editorial anymore. But are they really a
> > > significant influence on consumers? I think shop
> > > employees and fellow riders have a lot more
> > influence
> > > here. Most people are smart enough to see
> > Bicycling
> > > for what it is.
> > >
> > > Tom Dalton
> > >
> > > --- Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com> wrote:
> > > > And it's why most recreational riders are
> > suckers if
> > > > they let themselves get
> > > > scammed into buying the newest types of road
> > bikes
> > > > by bike companies or
> > > > Rodale Publishing!
> > > > David Feldman
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Andrew & Merilee Gillis"
> > > > <apgmaa@earthlink.net>
> > > > To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:01 PM
> > > > Subject: [CR]RE: Frame
> > size/saddle-height/handlebar
> > > > height
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > To all CR's:
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to thank Tom Dalton for his thorough
> > and
> > > > well reasoned coverage of
> > > > > the issue of modern vs retro saddle height
> > (and
> > > > handlebar height). I only
> > > > > want to add a few items to his list (IMHO):
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. My copy of Bernard Hinault's (& Claude
> >
> === message truncated ===