Re: [CR] Time(line)ly Considerations


Example: Production Builders:Tonard

From: gpvb1@comcast.net
To: "ternst" <ternst1@cox.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Time(line)ly Considerations
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:40:20 +0000


Ted:

If you'd like to start your own Internet-based bike discussion group, that's great - go for it. Then you can set it up any way you see fit! Be prepared for a ton o' work, though.....

Greg Parker

Ann Arbor, Michigan


-------------- Original message --------------


> Greg, et al: I'm not trying to do anything but see how the group feels about

\r?\n> limitation or expansion. Dale's reasoning makes good sense and your points

\r?\n> are well taken.

\r?\n> Just mentioning a few things for future consideration.

\r?\n> The field is so varied that hopefully another creative and industrious

\r?\n> fellow like Dale will come along with a parallel universe and we'll have

\r?\n> some side by side pedalling.

\r?\n> I'm not so concerned about the CR, but I would hope the Bike Shows that have

\r?\n> Ye Oulde Velos, would put in categories for some younger machines to draw

\r?\n> some new blood in and expose them to the earlier finer things in life and

\r?\n> then grow the group by inclusion rather than exclusion. We will catch more

\r?\n> flies with honey than vinegar.

\r?\n> The CR is quite full, I agree, and limiting this sight is certainly in good

\r?\n> order. Maybe someone will take the bait and run with it.

\r?\n> Another point to consider with KoF is if we are going to play tight cones,

\r?\n> Then almost all the trade name bikes from Italy, England France Germany,

\r?\n> Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, etc., would be excluded. They for the most

\r?\n> part were hand made but it was all production run old fashioned style, and

\r?\n> really only qualify because of age.

\r?\n> If I understand correctly the veteran frame builders at Carlton were

\r?\n> "retired" cause they did too much hand work, too slow and too expensive when

\r?\n> Raleigh took them over and geared things up for modern day reality.

\r?\n> How about all those Italian bikes that were brought in to our country that

\r?\n> were done with forced prison labor, until someone told customs and they got

\r?\n> caught and no more then came in. If I remember, a ship load or two were

\r?\n> turned around in port and sent back. Nice rehab, but hardly KoF motivation.

\r?\n> Do we reject all the prewar fillet brazed semi-racers and touring machines

\r?\n> we all enjoy so much? They were all beautifully hand filed and finished.

\r?\n> As you can see the lines are blurred, and I'm only trying to look at the big

\r?\n> picture for the future. I've seen these cycling cycles go cycling around the

\r?\n> track a few times in my humble time in the sport and industry.

\r?\n> Some 40 years ago I suggested to the So Cal Cycling Group that we pool our

\r?\n> money and buy up a few ranches or desert / mountain type acreage that was

\r?\n> dirt cheap at the time and put in bike riding camp and training grounds for

\r?\n> long term seeing that growth was a'comin'. Well, they poo-pooed that

\r?\n> suggestion as too far out. Just think what cycling would have had , had we

\r?\n> done that.

\r?\n> Hopefully, someone will pick up on Dale's and all of your terrific work, and

\r?\n> do a thing with the '84 bikes slowly forward, and see how we can blend some

\r?\n> of that gently into the exhibits, leaving the CR timeline in place, putting

\r?\n> volume two into existence.

\r?\n> Ted Ernst

\r?\n> Palos Verdes Estates, CA

\r?\n> ----- Original Message -----

\r?\n> From:

\r?\n> To:

\r?\n> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:18 AM

\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] Time(line)ly Considerations

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> > Hi Ted:

\r?\n> > Not sure exactly what you're looking to do, but CR isn't a Democracy, or

\r?\n> > even a Constitutional Republic or a Right-Wing Theocracy. we don't have

\r?\n> > sub-committees or blue-ribbon panels that make recommendations to any

\r?\n> > august body of decision-makers. ;-)

\r?\n> > Dale has spoken on this subject repeatedly - it is his decision, and his

\r?\n> > decision alone.

\r?\n> > Here's what I lifted directly from the "about Classicrendezvous" portion

\r?\n> > of the "join Classicrendezvous" page:

\r?\n> > "In this Classic Rendezvous mailing list, a discerning few bicycle

\r?\n> > enthusiasts celebrate the hand made craft objects that are vintage

\r?\n> > lightweight bicycles.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > We see the demise of the hand crafted bicycle as a sad turn of events..

\r?\n> > Indeed our society is rapidly discovering fast and robotic means of

\r?\n> > manufacturing everything we use in our lives. The bicycle, since it's

\r?\n> > invention, has represented a sublime blending of function and art.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > The Classic Rendezvous list focuses on bicycles made from the beginning of

\r?\n> > the Twentieth Century, up to 1983. We also consider "on topic" makers of

\r?\n> > very fine bicycles that can be seen as "Carrying the torch" for classic

\r?\n> > style cycling....New age welded, injection molded, or glued modern wonders

\r?\n> > belong in some other mail list, not this one! Ditto for mountain bikes &

\r?\n> > balloon tired bikes. Those items have merit, but they just do not belong

\r?\n> > here."

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > If you're just talking about getting more people involved in pre-1984

\r?\n> > on-topic lightweight bikes that meet the stated criteria, then yes, that's

\r?\n> > great, go for it.....

\r?\n> > Greg "retrogrouch" Parker

\r?\n> > Dexter, Michigan

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:02:12 -0800

\r?\n> > From: "ternst"

\r?\n> > To:

\r?\n> > Subject: [CR]Time(line)ly Considerations

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Hello all: And a happy wish for you all to any and every persuasion that

\r?\n> > gives you solace, pleasure, and the strength to keep looking for those

\r?\n> > neato bicycle parts.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > A thought to ponder: Much has been debated and discussed re: The

\r?\n> > timeline. Remember the old capatalistic adage, "Grow Or Die"?

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > I would like your thoughts and comments about having a sliding scale of

\r?\n> > age vs. style or construction of bicycles. Maybe an age of 25 or 30 years

\r?\n> > may be in order. If the age is not able to keep in a reasonable time frame

\r?\n> > the old stuff will be ancient and it'll be in accumulation / collection

\r?\n> > depots and no one will be able to afford it, and then we limit the members

\r?\n> > to such an exclusivity and elitist group that it implodes.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > IMHO the flame must be carried from generation to generation, and the

\r?\n> > mechanism should be put into place. Today's younger people, collector's of

\r?\n> > tomorrow, don't know a world without computers, dvd's, jammed freeways,

\r?\n> > etc. How will they know the real old bikes, nail on cleats, leather

\r?\n> > chamois shorts, 5-sp clusters, toe clips and straps, one inch pitch, etc.,

\r?\n> > except in some digital repro =

\r?\n> > foto?

\r?\n> > Let's bring a younger group and newer tech construction into the fold,

\r?\n> > they'll collect their generational stuff and then branch into older and

\r?\n> > build bridges connecting the vintages.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > All bikes are collectible to someone or other. We can include and grow or

\r?\n> > exclude and wither.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Comments? Is there a Board of Regents that would take this for a tour

\r?\n> > around the block after the august members of the CR hopefully enter into

\r?\n> > some timely and lively consideration and discussion?

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Ted Ernst

\r?\n> > Palos Verdes Estates

\r?\n> > CA 90274