Re: [CR]victims of campy marketing

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing:Falck)

From: "Tom Martin" <tom@wilsonbike.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <167.209f2bef.2bfda537@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]victims of campy marketing
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 08:56:39 -0700


Is a bike that comes to a dealer from a manufacturer that is not the same spec as in their catalogue is not original then? This logic would tell me that factories do not produce factory original product. Maybe the catlogue had a typo, or the spec was changed to keep the cost down or because they ran out of the galli freewheel and they threw on an everest instead. This happened all the time. Still does, for many many reasons in the bike industry. Forecasting is an evil word. And when was the last time a bike company employed an editor to proof catalogues and other sales and technical material? What about the bike shop's input? If a Paramount had a drivetrain that they knew from recent personal experience that the Everest freewheels did not mesh with the book spec D I D chain, and replaced it with the more functional and proper 'correct' Everest chain, does that mean the bike is now not orginal and out of correctness? If it was kept 'stock and correct' then the actual user would have a completely non functional bike. Better to sell a useless bike and be 'original' than a functional machine worthy of the $500.00 the budding racer spent on it? I think not. And the customer just might like his/her bike with a pump. Or the alloy toe clips found on the super record model instead of the stainless ones his nuovo record model. Or the lighter tubes. This bike would not be original? There should be room for interpretation of what is original and what is not.

Tom Martin
Oakland, CA
where the boxers are a little loose today


----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfman231@aol.com
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]victims of campy marketing



> In a message dated 5/21/03 10:14:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> monkeylad@mac.com writes:
>
> << Well then Chuck let me ask this, what is more original and why; what's
> in the catalog, what's in the box that the dealer gets, or what the
> customer walks out with >>
>
> I'd say what the majority of the bikes actually came through with. Most
> changes by manufacturers were minor, like rubber or spokes or handlebar tape.
> If the catalog was printed, then a supplier went out of business, etc., and
> none or few of that model year came equipped with that component, would a
> sensible person argue that the bike MUST have that stated component to be
> 'original?' Ummm...no. If Joe Consumer has to have an aerobioplus
> whatchamacallit installed on his new bike because it decreases the
> ergocoefficient of friction by .075% (as reported by a famous cycling
> website/magazine/voice in his head) does that mean it is more original?
> Ummm...no.
> My unscientific, simplistic response would be that for 99% of bikes, the
> catalog description would come pretty close to the other answers. If I felt
> it was worth making a distinction, I'd first buy one size larger underwear,
> then rethink the issue.
> Sorry Dale,
> Ed Kasper
> Detroit MI