[CR]RE: Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 3, Issue 75

(Example: Framebuilders:Norman Taylor)

From: "Steve Birmingham" <sbirmingham@mindspring.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:02:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CATFOODjNVtoX2gAb8f00000b36@catfood.nt.phred.org>
Subject: [CR]RE: Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 3, Issue 75

I'm still new at this, but I think the short market life was due to a few things. One was the expense of the parts etc. Even today, if you compare the price of a disc wheel to a more normal wheel, there is a huge difference. The other was just simple evolution. Just visually, C-record cranks appear more "aero" than the Shimano AX stuff, And probably are, and there's no need for special pedals. Some of the earlier aero frames used seatposts with weird diameters, or teardrop cross sections over the full length. So you had to get a fully aero frame made with the same tubing when you wanted to upgrade. Not really a problem for well funded teams, but really a problem for most people. When there was Aero stuff you could put on most any frame, it probably sold better. None of the areo stuff went away, it just changed very quickly for awhile. What was cutting edge became normal, or out of date, and some of it didn't work as well as it might have(Like the U.S. bikes at the 96 olympics)In the end, it all really comes down to the rider.

Steve Birmingham Lowell, Ma

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:16:13 -0600 From: "David Novoselsky" <dnovo@ix.netcom.com> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Subject: [CR]"Aero Frames" Message-ID: <E18tdns-00001f-00@puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 15

Other than the Cinelli Laser, which surfaced in a discussion on this = lately, along with its (apparently) equally-rare companion by date, the = Colnago Oval CX (and which both fit just within the time limitations of = this list as they appear to have arrived in 1983 and vanished within a = year or so thereafter, were there any other frames that adopted this = then-radical aero principle, or were these two unique? It would seem = that as "regular" production models, they would appear to be among the = most rare of rara avis, so were there kin? I presume that since = Columbus went to the trouble of producing special tubesets, and at least = when inspecting my Oval CX, it would seem that Colnago went to lot of = trouble to produce some model-specific parts, lugs, etc including having = 'aero' shifters built for inclusion with these frames (and I must assume = Cinelli did the same on the Laser, although I have seen that frame in = photos only) what killed this concept off so quickly? Colnago goes to = the trouble of running off a model-specfic catalog, goes to all this = work, and the Oval and the Laser end up with the model lifespan of a = Dayfly? What caused this to happen? Poor public reception? Poor = performance? I got out of bikes about this point in my life (my = practice and a growing family kept me otherwise occupied) and nobody I = have spoken to has a good answer. What's the scoop?

Dave Novoselsky, Chicago, Illinois =20

------------------------------