Re: [CR]Frame integrity

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme)

From: <"richardsachs@juno.com">
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:33:46 GMT
To: joebz@optonline.net
Subject: Re: [CR]Frame integrity
cc: richardsachs@juno.com
cc: richardsachs@juno.com

snipped: "Ya gotta pay attention to my words. I said "Functionally" as the all important qualifier."

joe-issimo i did read that. my point in replying (below) was that it seemed contrary to the very raison d'etre of the CR list to validate reasons that an old frame <could> rebuilt to accomodate 04 parts. i assumed from the timing of your post that you did not read the thread in its entirety - g.a. from nyc asked in the a.m. about a rearranged pog frame and the merits of a buying a 70s frame that was spread to 130mm. there were exlanations and detractors on both sides of the issue. no matter what <could> be done, i remain(ed) surprised that list folk would think it was okay. greg parker had the best explan- ation as to why it <could> be perilous, and i certainly agree(d) with his perspective - and i still agree with myself (below)!!
e-RICHIE
chester, ct


-- Joe Bender-Zanoni wrote:


Richie,

Ya gotta pay attention to my words. I said "Functionally" as the all important qualifier.

I then went on to talk about sighting down the seat stay to assess the, at least aesthetic, damage. And minimizing any yanking to boot should yanking be done.

Now for the real conundrums- do you return 126mm to its proper 120? Do you pay to have added braze-ons removed- especially when you have a nice repaint on the bike? Those are the questions that drive me crazy.

Joe Bender-Zanoni Sitting firmly on the fence in Great Notch NJ


----- Original Message -----
From: richardsachs@juno.com
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]Frame integrity


>
> snipped:
> -- Joe Bender-Zanoni <joebz@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Functionally, I think spreading old frames with tubing like
> 531 is not much of a problem."
>
>
> i'm not down on this or any similar posts on this issue aujourd hui.
> trying to create situations that validate yanking around rear triangles
> on a list like this seem counterproductive.
> how different is coldsetting a classic frame for a 10 speed
> cassette than adding braze-ons for a front der or cutting
> off lever bosses on a cinelli and adding h.t. ports for sti levers.
> this is the freaking cr list. i thought many folks wanted to "protect"
> those old war horses from the likes of modern intruders/intrusions?
> if having 10 cogs is so important, why not get a modern frame.
> quite often "patina" and "provenance" are thread subjects in and
> of themselves. if cr listees start okay-ing rearranging frames for
> use with 2004 spec-ed parts, what is the point?
> e-RICHIE
> chester, ct
> collects old - rides new