Re: [CR]RE: fenders, brakes, etc


From: "KCTOMMY" <KCTOMMY@email.msn.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]RE: fenders, brakes, etc
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:51:15 -0600

-----Original Message----- From: Richard G. Elmendorf <Elmendor@uwyo.edu> To: 'classicrendezvous@bikelist.org' <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:25 PM Subject: [CR]RE: fenders, brakes, etc


>Hi,
>
>I have been lurking here for a while, and this discussion about old racing
>bikes with clearance for fat tires and fenders, along with having long-reach
>brakes and eyelets has me questioning my age and recollections.
>
>I first got into bikes in 1970, and I wasn't exposed to a wealth of racing
>bikes. But there were Raleigh Pros, Paramounts, Motobecanes, Gitanes,
>Louison Bobets around. I don't recall any of those racing models that had
>much clearance, none were had fender eyelets. In fact at that time, all
>racing bikes had tubular tires because the only clinchers were heavy 27 in.
>jobs. There weren't even many, if any, lightweight alloy clincher rims.
>
>My first good bike was a Raleigh Pro, bought NOS in 1977. It was grey and
>black and had fastback seatstays. I think it was about 1974 vintage. This
>bike had clearance for wide tires, but didn't have any eyelets. I bought
>the Blackburn gizmos that fit in the rear dropout in order to use a rack.
>It was a good bike, but fitting fenders would have been a chore, if
>possible. A couple years after I bought it, it developed rust on the bottom
>of the downtube. I took it to a frame builder (Greg ?Hartranft, in Boston.
>I'm not sure of his first name). He said I should send the frame back
>because it was someething called filoform? corrosion. I did, and Raleigh
>gave me a new frame. This was the light blue 1977 frame. I'm still riding
>this bike. At any rate, this 1977 frame is nicer that the older one in that
>it has more brazeons, but not as good in that it has no tire clearance,
>especially in the rear. The brake bridge is too low. It also doesn't have
>any eyelets.
>
>So, I guess that my point is that some older bikes did have room for larger
>tires, and had longer reach brakes. But I have never seen one set up to
>mount fenders on. Furthermore, using tubulars with fenders is an invitation
>to flats because you can't wipe off the tires. I also think that Grant
>Petersen's recollection of the old days as being full of versatile racing
>bikes with wide-range gearing and great shifting is a little off the mark.
>Sort of like saying that you can break in a Brooks Pro in 100 miles :).

>

>Dick Elmendorf