Re: [CR]was: Campy Gum hoods; now: another perspective

(Example: Framebuilders:Pino Morroni)

From: <>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 14:44:39 EDT
Subject: Re: [CR]was: Campy Gum hoods; now: another perspective

In a message dated 5/7/02 1:17:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

> If you aren't concerned with preserving accuracy, why use old style Campy
> levers at all?

I don't, generally, and I said so in my first message. I do like Campy Record hubs.
> Compared to SR/NR, the current Dura Ace 9-speed STI levers are better
> suited to any human hand that I can imagine and they offer more choices of
> hand position, PLUS they can be used to change gears! For about the price
> of four sets of Campy hoods you can get a set of STI levers that include
> hoods that may well last 4 times longer than SR/NR hoods ever will.

I don't like Shimano 9-speed gearing, for various reasons, but I use Shimano 8-speed STI or bar-end on various bikes and am very pleased with it. I use 8-speed Ultegra STI on my 73 Raleigh Pro, for example. Scandilous ?
> Regarding the comment: "The reason I am attracted to vintage bikes is that,
> for me, they are more fun to ride. I like riding large steel bikes, not
> these new ones designed to make my butt stick up in the air higher than my
> shoulders, with two feet of seat post showing." There is nothing about
> modern frames that prohibits setting your butt or shoulders where you want
> them.

Modern frames are made in "compact" sizes, and no modern frame I am aware of comes with 25 1/2" C-C seat tube and short top tube. I am unable to be properly fitted on a Trek OCLV, for example.

Modern headsets actually make it easier to set your bars high, as long as you buy the frame
> with an uncut fork, cut it to the desired length and use extra spacers.
> Yes, the seat tubes tend to be shorter relative to the top tubes, so you'll
> want to buy a bike based on the top tube length you want. There is really
> no mechanical problem with setting up a bike with a lot of post showing,
> though it may be an aesthetic problem for you. Of course you generally
> suggested that you are not hung up on aesthetics.

People exceeding the manufactorer's specs for how many washers to put under the aheadset stem are in for a nasty surprise down the road. Ever broken a stem ? Use over about 1/2" of washers under your aheadset and most manufactorers of threadless forks say you are in danger of having their very light carbon or aluminum steerers fail.

I stuck a threadless carbon fork (with a 1" steel steerer) on my 25.5" 1973 Raleigh Pro. The Pro fits me nicely enough that the lack of adjustability has not been a problem, fortunately. The Raleigh's real fork is safely stored away where it's vunerable chrome plating cannot get dinged. The carbon fork was just laying around in the shop/cellar. I never cut the steerers on any threadless forks, and only plug them for racing. We call the resulting system a "belly-button enlargement tool" and ride more carefully than perhaps we would otherwise.

As far as compact frames go, I like to be able to reach the top tube with my thighs, on my road frames. I have my reasons for this. My MTB (a Ti DEAN frame) has a compact frameset and it is very nice for its intended purpose. Odd that the compact frames originally came from the MTB world, like Aheadsets ? I know the real reason these are offered is that it makes manufactoring of bikes cheaper because there need to be less sizes made. As the MTB glory days fade, more and more MTB "innovations" are introduced to the world of road bikes. Maybe due to excess manufactoring capacity ?
>>> I generally don't use vintage Campy components, even on my vintage bikes, because they do not w> ork well compared to other options <<<

Glenn Jordan - Durham, NC