Uh-huh. Whatever, man. Merry Christmas!
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Greg: You can't hang a guilt trip on me. I only bring things like this up occasionally to get people thinking about the future. I like for things to grow on. I think I alluded to the work and achievement of the CR but with my plate full also, I'd just like to see some encouragement to the newbies to carry on. Please recall what happened to the Shakers. That's all. Ted Ernst Palos Verdes Estates, CA
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.....
Ann Arbor, Michigan
> 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> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:18 AM
\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] Time(line)ly Considerations
\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> > 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> > 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> > 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> > 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> > 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> > 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> > 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> > 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> > All bikes are collectible to someone or other. We can include and grow or
\r?\n> > exclude and wither.
\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> > Ted Ernst
\r?\n> > Palos Verdes Estates
\r?\n> > CA 90274