I think the casting that's used on the Strawberry is often referred to as the Strawberry wishbone. I'm not positive but I think it's their own casting and they've been using it for a long time. I'm not suggesting they did it first because there are very few confirmed firsts in the bike biz. It's just that the wishbone has been a signature look for Strawberry for a long time.
I can't answer why other builders don't build with the wishbone but personally, I just don't like the look of it. It just doesn't do it for me. Plus, I've always thought of it as a Strawberry thing and I don't build berry bikes. I don't mean any disrespect it's just not my thing. I have built a few bikes with wishbones and I don't think they are any easier or harder to build. I also don't see that they would affect ride qualities positively or negatively. The seat stays are mostly under compression so almost anything will do the job. To me, wishbones are window dressing. If you like the window dressing then groovy if not that's groovy too. That said, I do like have a warm spot in my heart for Strawberry bikes even though I build bikes that don't look like them.
Curt Goodrich
Minneapolis, MN
<classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>; "Grant McLean" <Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:06 AM Subject: [CR]Re: Wishbone stays, Strawberry
> So.......
>
> My Ron Stout has the wishbone stays, I've seen Colin Laing and his son Ian
> frames built using the wishbone stays, and now I see the Strawberry also.
>
> Why don't more builders use the "wishbone" seatstay arrangement?
>
> Is it the "look?
> the ride?
> harder to build?
>
> Rod Kronenberg
> Fort Collins, CO
>
> > Too each their own, but let me lay down why I like it. I find a large
> > percentage of bikes, classic bikes included, very boring. I really
> > appreciate builders who 'think outside of the box.' Building a bike is
> > not rocket science and I think just about anybody on this list could
> > make their own. Anyway, I think people spend too much time looking at
> > fancy lugs and not thinking about the look or design of the rest of
> > the frame. There are tons of folk that just build the same frame over
> > and over. . . and over.
> >
> > If a builder is willing to break with tradition that gives them bonus
> > points in my book. Take e-richie's frames for example, he uses
> > oversized tubing on all(?) his frames. I'm sure he gets flak from
> > people that want a classic looking bike. But he was willing to step
> > away from tradition and built using oversized tubes. Rene Herse looked
> > at what was around him and said, 'I can do better' and he did in many
> > cases. I like touring frames that have racks brazed on because it
> > shows that the builder is thinking of how the bike is going to be used.
> >
> > In the case of the Strawberry seat binder it's a much better way of
> > binding the seatpost that previous methods. Remember all the aero
> > bikes that just used a screw into the seatpost. It would scar the post
> > and also not hold it very well either. Also the bike just looks clean
> > to me and I like wishbone monostays. Again to each their own, and the
> > fewer people that like bikes I like the easier it is for me to get them.
> > ciao,
> > Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
> > pedals to a different drummer
> > in Santa Barbara, Calif
> >
> > On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 07:08 AM, Grant McLean wrote:
> >
> > > List,
> > >
> > > Just zipping up my flame retardant gear here....
> > >
> > > I don't get it. That seat stay "treatment" seems entirely
> > > disproportionate for a frame that large. I understand
> > > it's their signature move, but looks like it was left in
> > > the microwave too long. Goofy seat post binder aside,
> > > I don't see what else makes this frame drool worthy.
> > > The fork is ugly too.
> > >
> > > Grant McLean
> > > Toronto.Ca
> > > duck and cover!