Re: [CR] fenders, brakes, and other opinions...


Example: Events:Eroica

From: "Rick Chasteen" <chasteen@kcaccess.net>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Cc: "Lowell Premer" <Lowell@kc.rr.com>, "Curt Bales" <cbalesrw@aol.com>, "Greg Williams" <ggwilliams@dstsystems.com>
References: <f.1044bc4d.27c7fd86@aol.com> <001201c0a0b0$8a45eaa0$333efea9@oemcomputer> <004201c0a0d4$e24ecd60$65865d18@maine.rr.com> <033601c0a0e7$2880e7c0$8382b0d1@chasteen> <008301c0a0ee$649634c0$65865d18@maine.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] fenders, brakes, and other opinions...
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:34:23 -0600


Gosh, Ed, it sounds as if I've touched a nerve here.

While you are right, the focus of the List is Classic bikes, it was you who bemoaned the lack of "...big tires and fenders..." available on current "production frames", so I think my comments about the similarity between mountain bikes (which provide clearance for big tires and fenders) and earlier British and French rough stuff and touring bikes (which also provide that clearance) is on topic.

But let me be more precise and say there is a similarity between those Brit and French bikes and some of the early mountain bikes from Fisher, Ritchey, Bridgestone, or any number of others. These similarities are obviously less apparent in the newer, suspended iterations but if you consult the specifications, you will discover that the wheelbases, angles, tube lengths, and in many cases weights are suprisingly similar in the older. I might also suggest that you leaf through the Data Book and marvel at the design of some of the bicycle componentry from the '30's, '40's, and '50s and then ask yourself where analogous or identical designs are available now. Need any hints?

My comments about Early and Later Classic race frames was poorly worded and didn't convey my thoughts accurately so I'll try again. I did not mean to imply, although I think I did, that LATER Classic race frames were more desirable than EARLIER or that you are more fortunate to own the former. I think it's great to own both and I do. What I meant to say is, why buy a LATER frame with short reach brakes and no fender clearance or eylets and then complain because it lacks normal reach brakes and fender clearance and mounts? And, with that in mind, why would you want to put fenders on a Ciocc, or Pinarello, or DeRosa, or Sachs, etc. road racer when there are plenty of very nice older frames available which will readily accept fenders. You can also buy a new frame with fender clearance and mounts from Mercian or brothers Bayliss or Bohm or Sachs among many others.

I still like cantilever brakes.

Rick Chasteen, not be*itchy in Kansas City but concerned about the snowfall, which is not abating.

Original Message ----- From: Ed Braley <edbraley@maine.rr.com> To: Rick Chasteen <chasteen@kcaccess.net>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [CR] fenders, brakes, and other opinions...


> Lots of opinions here, Rick,
>
> I think the focus of this list is classic bikes. I don't think mountain
> bikes are on topic for the thread or list, but I did briefly mention them
> and since you bring it up, I suppose that the models that aren't heavily
> suspended might fit fenders. A lot of the road bikes I see don't have the
> clearance though.
>
> You'd be hard pressed to convince everyone that mountain bikes are the
> spiritual successor to those utilitarian British and French rough stuff
> bikes. I don't buy it. Spiritual successor to a stripped down cantilever
> frame used to ride hiking paths and logging roads, perhaps.
>
> Why, are only people who own "LATER Classic" race frames fortunate? Fenders
> don't bastardize bikes that have fender or rack eyelets, do they?
>
> I'm done on this topic. It doesn't matter anyway.
>
> Everyone is way to be*itchy lately, myself included.

>

> Ed.