[CR]Debunking time again/my 2 cents/LONG

(Example: Framebuilding)

To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:36:33 -0400
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>
Subject: [CR]Debunking time again/my 2 cents/LONG

i have had alot of my own bicycles over the years. fwiw, the 'numbers' pertaining to design, layout, fit, etcetera haven't changed by more than a millemeter in over 20 years. that is, the position, reach, setback, and saddle height all have remained constant for a long, long time. now-it's hard to correct for the fact that my older frames weren't of the quality of my newer frames, but i THINK the quality of the construction has improved. the alignment tolerances are better. and i arrive at solutions with greater ease. so-in essence-the frames i've used through the years have all been the same, position wise. obviously, different era would have seen different parts on these various frames. fwiw, i always liked the newer stuff better than the stuff getting 'replaced'. i say thay because the build, with components and their periodic upgrades, are part of the equation. all the frames, these similarlaly designed frames from over the years, were made from only one material-steel-but from a wide degree of types and guages and diameters; 531, 653, SL, SLX, KL... more recently, i've used reynolds cro-mo and Dedaccai, seperately as well as in a mix. my conclusion: none rode any differently than any of the others. i attribute this to the fact that they were all the same frame design. none seemed stiffer, stronger, more reponsive, or livelier than the rest. the only difference that i can make certain of is that THE NEWER ONES ARE LIGHTER WITHOUT ANY PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING MATERIAL JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT. but, unless i lift the bicycle over my head, even that difference doesn't matter that much.
maker, user, collector
chester, ct