I never liked the look of the 1R. To me the 1A is cleaner and more classic. Another advantage of the 1A is that it was available in extensions as short as 70mm or maybe even 60mm, which comes in handy, especially on old French bikes (and some others) with very long top tubes. I think the shortest 1R was around 90mm.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Houston, TX
The XA did away with the "sliding wedge" of the 1R, so slippage was no longer a problem, that I know of. I do ride an XA. Creaking was still a problem with Cinelli, but wasn't because of the stem, but rather the bar. Cinelli bars that incorporate a reinforced center sleeve are subject to creaking, not matter what year they were produced. Bulged centers is a much better idea............ala 3ttt. I agree.......for a rider, the XA is huge improvement over the 1R, but nothing is more elegant than the lines of the 1R. Just my personal opinions.
Marc Boral Long Beach, CA
-------Original Message-------
From: Paul Williams Date: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:18:20 PM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR]Further Cinelli stem question: X/A vs. 1R
Hi all,
Fellow CR lister Emerson Johnston, who is having trouble posting to the list has just sent me the following answer to my earlier enquiry:
"I checked my old French magazines and it's impossible to distinguish from mag photos 1R vs XA. The first evidence of the XA was in 82 in an ad for Peugeot where you could clearly see the Slit in the XA. The 1/R first appears in the 75 TdeF (Eddy M ). Of course the A1 shows up all the time. Feel free to post this if you like to share with the rest on CR"
The consensus from a couple of people I have heard from on the list suggested that the 1R was not a great success and should be avoided on a rider.
On the other hand, by comparison, how was the X/A? Was it an improvement on the 1R? Did it have the same problems with creaking and crushing the bars?
Paul Williams, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
_______________________________________________
.