Ahoy!
It's not an issue of issue of simplicity nor of personal knowledge. It's an issue of what common technique the CR list should endorse in order to facilitate understanding in general discussion and in the business that is conducted among members. I am supposing a fair number of listers have received frames and parts not quite the size described.
Moreover, I think the issue of standards is significant for larger reason to the CR list. Moments of transition arise in the life cycle of any organisation; and the manner in which the organisation reacts to those moments largely determine its future. During my brief membership - perhaps less than two years - I've noticed a slow and slight increase in the quantity of postings from new or "visiting" listers who have commented that they have come to the sight to seek information; that is, the CR list is becoming the Go To place for information and fellowship regarding the wonderful "time line" machines. In such light, I suggest the CR list may be approaching a transitory moment signalling the maturity of the organisation. Whether the CR list decides to accept and step up to the responsibilities of a mature, recognised and respected organisation or not is up to it membership. Having standards to shape meaningful discussion is among the basic principles of organisational identity. To be clear: I am not suggesting rules and regulations. I am merely pointing toward establishing a common understanding of the technical terms bantered in the postings. For instance, if the provided frame measuremet diagram becomes posted to the CR site as part of its technical library then, fine, that could work.
It's about time to recognise what Dale's et al, baby boy has grown up to become.
While it seems such a simple matter I otherwise suggest that you recall the large quantity of discussion that massed in attempt to answer what seemed to be a simple question: How to measure chain stay length, a question that was asked in an attempt to answer the preceding question on Raleigh chain stay length. The former was not resolve but left divided while the latter remained ignored.
Richard Cielec Chicago, Illinois
Charles Nighbor <cnighbor@pacbell.net> wrote:
> ATTACHMENT part 2 image/jpeg name=Charles_Dark_Blue_Colnago_classic_1010.jpg
> ATTACHMENT part 3 image/jpeg name=Colnago_Black_Track_80s_1001.jpg
> ATTACHMENT part 4 image/jpeg name=Colnago_geometry_1004.jpg
> ATTACHMENT part 5 image/bmp name=Colnago_geometry_1003.bmp
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. http://www.yahoo.com