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

(Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor)

To: bikevint@tiac.net
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:22:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [CR]Debunking time again/my 2 cents/LONG
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>


MK> If what you're saying is true - then why not build large frames out of KL for heavy riders? RS> because it hasn't been made since about 1979

MK> Maybe I'm missing something in Richards argument - cause I believe that tube gauge is critical - slight variations are what changes the nature of the bikes "soul". RS> it's not an argument-it's an opinion: MINE!! people, all day, are talking about tests, road tests, blind taste tests. well, as i wrote, all my frame specs were the same; the tubes were different and the parts/groups were continually updated. ergo, i just said what i think- that all the bicycles 'felt' the same, parts/groups notwithstanding. also-"soul"? i got soul. many handmade items, it could be argued, have soul. do we really want to try to qualify and quantify the intangibles? e-RICHIE i hear the hand clapping in chester, ct

On Fri, 31 May 2002 17:08:10 -0600 Michael Kone <bikevint@tiac.net> writes:
> I just can't buy it that huge swings in tube diameter and tube gauge
> are
> making no difference to the ride - just change the chainstays and
> the bike
> changes behavior pretty dramatically. If what you're saying is true
> - then
> why not build large frames out of KL for heavy riders? You can't
> cause the
> thing would flex like crazy - but a tall rider who is really light
> might
> get away with it. Why not build the small frame out of SP? Cause
> the frame
> will be dead. Yes, the differences are slight, but they are there.
>
>
> Sure, I haven't designed and built many frames, but I spent a fair
> amount
> of time working through tube spec on identical frames the past year,
> and
> boy does it matter. Heck, I once commented to Waterford that some of
> their
> 1700 531 track bikes felt different that the others - the response?
> We
> substituted 753 chainstays on a few 531 bikes - the 753 chainstays
> were
> thinner gauge but 753 is lighter - so customers should be happy.
> Maybe
> some were, but the solid feel of the bike was lost under my
> too-heavy build.
>
> Step on a Waterford RS-22 and an RS-11 - the RS-11 has a much
> heavier tube
> set and the bikes are like night and day.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something in Richards argument - cause I believe
> that
> tube gauge is critical - slight variations are what changes the
> nature of
> the bikes "soul".
>
> Mike "am I missing something here?" Kone in Boulder CO
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 04:36 PM 5/31/02 -0400, Richard M Sachs wrote:
> >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.
> >e-RICHIE
> >maker, user, collector
> >chester, ct