[CR]CPSC and a sanity check

(Example: Racing:Roger de Vlaeminck)

To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <sachs@erols.com>
Subject: [CR]CPSC and a sanity check
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:40:49 -0500

It's not clear to me who wrote <snip> :

GPVB1@cs.com wrote:The RH 1958-1977 arms [inside of Campy cranks] have a larger "bump" on the back where the spindle enters the spider. The later arms have a much smaller "bump." That's the easiest way to tell them apart. The change was made to accomodate the "lip" on the front derailleur cage that was added at the insistence of our fine Consumer Product Safety Comission (CPSC). They forced Campagnolo to change several "protrusions" in mid-1977. This was done because the American Bike part manufacturers were jealous of Campy's success, and lobbied our fine Government into hassling Campy and costing them much money for no good reason IMHO." <snip>

CPSC may have overestimated the probability of injury from getting pants caught or whatever, but I would doubt very much that this was done to protect any American part manufacturers. At that time (and remember the lead time for CPSC regs is years), there were none that I can recall. I believe this was before either Specialized, Ritchey, or Avocet -- and these fine firms were largely marketers of parts made in other countries. Leaving out wonderful innovators like HiE and Phil Wood, neither of whom had measurable market share, I don't think there were any US manufacturers of sport, touring, or racing calibre bicycle parts. Yes, there was Ward and there were others supplying Huffy and Columbia with Ashtabula crank parts, but...

For full disclosure, in "other life" I work at an NGO, on energy efficiency <www.aceee.org>. I occasionally see CPSC folks at hearings (as on furnace flues). Although none has ever talked about it to me, I assume they occasionally feel some political intrusions. But, I really doubt that my esteemed colleague's hypothesis fits this case. But, I could be wrong.

harvey sachs
mcLean va