Re: [CR]Frame integrity


Example: Production Builders:Frejus
From: "Tom Martin" <tom@wilsonbike.com>
To: <richardsachs@juno.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <20040721.092138.28268.30658@webmail29.nyc.untd.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Frame integrity
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:45:03 -0700


E-ritchie said: fork blades are designed in guage, taper, and overall length to be bent. chainstays are not.

And How did Hetchins deal with this back in the day?

Tom Martin
Oakland CA


----- Original Message -----
From: richardsachs@juno.com
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [CR]Frame integrity



>
> snipped:
> -- Peter Jon White <lists@peterwhitecycles.com> wrote:
> "When I get fork blades from True Temper or whomever, they come straight.
> They have to be bent to offset the dropouts. The amount that chainstays and
> seat stays need to bend in order to move the dropouts 5mm is far less than
> fork blades are bent to get 40mm of rake in the fork.
> In short, it's harmless..."
>
>
> i feel differently.
> fork blades are designed in guage, taper, and overall length
> to be bent. chainstays are not. also, the original question is
> rooted in taking a finished "unit" and bending it. fork blades
> are typically bent as blades and matched in pairs to create
> the "unit". if you took an older chainstay and "s-ed" them as
> modern chainstays are supplied, that would be a different
> story. (i told the original pos-er offlist that...) i would steer
> clear of the re-worked vintage frame that this thread centers
> around (...unless the bridges were removed first, the frame
> spread, and the bridges replaced a 'la brian-issimo's post).
> e-RICHIE
> chester, ct