Re: [CR] Questions about CPSC and Campy

Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor
From: <>
Subject: Re: [CR] Questions about CPSC and Campy
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:16:26 +0000

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 07:41:12 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Dalton <> To: Subject: [CR]Questions about CPSC and Campy

Someone brought up the interesting point about lower level groups not having the same features as those normally attributed to CPSC requirements on NR/SR. I'd say it is more accurate to say "later groups," becuase we again saw uncoated wheel guides on Triomphe and Victory brakes, and lip-less ft ders on C-record (though on not Victory as stated). Could it be that CPSC backed off on their regs? Or, it could be that Campy over-reacted to the CPSC requirements in 1978? After all, a lot of other brands retained lip-less ft. ders and uncoated wheel guides, didn't they? I really have to wonder if the CPSC mandate took a far more general form than Campy being told to add specific bits and pieces to the components. I remember hearing that the CPSC requirement was for something very general, like "no sharp protrusions." I have to wonder if the feds stepped in and pointed directly at the brake QR, ft der lip, etc., or if these changes reflect Campy's interpretation of the regs. If so, it would explain why other companies reacted differently, or didn't react.

Also, we should consider which of the changes at the commonly accepted CPSC timeframe of 1978 were truly made to address a new requirement. The often cited "plastic trumpety thingies" on the rear ders are probably not a CPSC thing. They are there to guide the screwdriver to the slot, as in whilst hanging out of a car window trying to get your rider's bike to reach the 13t cog. The curved QR too... that was around before CPSC, in the form of the block lettered curved handle. This goes way back according to The Timeline, and according to Chuck was a common cool-guy mod applied to flat QRs. It could be that Campy simply decided to start curving the road QR levers because the end users were doing it themselves. What really reinforces this idea in my mind is that Campy made these levers for a long time, but at some point added the "open" and "closed" markings on the outside and inside of the curves. Now *that* is almost certainly a CPSC change.

Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA

Thanks to Chuck and Steven B in Vt.

Hi Tom: A few thoughts: Tullio Campagnolo was famous (infamous to some, I'd wager) for NOT changing his designs, even when certain "issues" were well-known and documented. That is part of what kept him on top for so long - interchangeability and near-zero part obsolescence. It's why bike shops could afford to stock the small replacement parts for NR/SR, in stark contrast with Dura-Ace smalls, which were often obsolete before you had them inventoried! I'd bet a million Lire that Tullio Campagnolo didn't go out and tell his Engineers to put that lip on the Record front der., causing a complete re-design of all of his road crank arms, and the corresponding BB spindles, without being reluctantly forced into it. No way José..... Many of the "CPSC-mandated" changes occured in 1977 - I have 1977 Record cranks that are made both ways. The black plastic derailleur adjusting screw "covers" most certainly were CPSC-related. They didn't put those on derailleurs sold outside the US market, to my knowledge. Urban legend sez that it was the then-fairly-new American Bicycle Manufacturers' Association that lobbied the CPSC hard to "deal with that pesky Campagnolo guy that's making so much money in our market." Basically a case of jealousy, Protectionism, and Government Regulators run amok, from what I've heard & experienced. "As The Sprocket Turns," so to speak....
Greg Parker
Dexter, Michigan