Re: revise finely made objects; was [CR]Frame integrity


Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2004
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:28:42 -0400
Subject: Re: revise finely made objects; was [CR]Frame integrity
From: <unreceived_dogma@mindspring.com>
To: "richardsachs@juno.com" <richardsachs@juno.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

How about turning the Mona Lisa's wry smile into a politician's fat grin? Will that do?

Michael Lebron NYC ----------
>From: "richardsachs@juno.com" <richardsachs@juno.com>
>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: Re: [CR]Frame integrity
>Date: Wed, Jul 21, 2004, 8:48 AM
>
>
>snipped/cut:
>"If someone spreads the rear stays on a vintage 60s/70s frame - Columbus
>tubing - to accommodate a 7/8/9 speed modern cassette, how much is the frame
>integrity compromised?"
>Greg arnold nyc
>
>
>my 2 cents is: you "can" do it because the material is
>fairly malleable (sp?) but going from 120mm to 130mm
>is on the extreme of what's recommended. if you owned the
>frame, i'd say don't revise it. if you're buying a frame that's
>been revised, i'd say - if you really love it, get it. if not, pass.
>
>i think spreading rears is over-rated (to allow older frames to
>use modern parts...) and i wish i could think of an appropriate
>analogy to other finely made objects,
>but - alas - i cannot.
>e-RICHIE
>chester, ct