-----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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
I think the big change was from the 60's to the 70's. 60's racers usually had 72 degree angles, eyelets and clearances for big tires and fenders. This was probably caused by poor muddy road surfaces that made cushier ride and moisture control characteristics desirable at the expense of additional weight and frame flex that compromised sprinting and climbing. My Raleigh Pro is a '72, and has eyelets and enough clearance for fenders. My Peugeot PX 10 is a '76 or so, and has eyelets and stupendous clearance. Right now it has Specialized 28mm Armadillos (look like 32mms) and there's almost a finger's worth of clearance under the brake arches. But my early 80's Colnago barely took Continental 28mm tires (looked like 25mm). Fenders were impossible. It appears that Raleigh moved to tight clearances in the mid 70's on their racers, whereas Peugeot waited longer. I recall from a video about the '83 tour that Phil Anderson's training PX 10 (presumably the state of the art from '82 or 3) featured fenders.
Actually the real reason I haven't got fenders yet is that I love all my bikes and hate to consign one to be the designated slop ride. Plus fenders are a pain since I transport my bike in the trunk with the front wheel off, which makes fenders clumsy. But I'll find a fender bike soon. Just need to buy (ready honey?) A NEW BIKE! Bu Wah Ha Ha!
Tom Adams in freezing precipitating (again! Arrgh!) Kansas City