Please define "failure". Even if Coppi's bike falls apart lifting it back onto the team car after he makes it to the finish line, as he wins another Giro, is it a failure? If Ole Ritter crushes the hour, and his bike has brazing gaps in the seat lug that would take 30 years of riding to break does that mean his bike is a failure?
The fact that there are examples of 60's and 70's race frames (that cost a couple of hundred dollars new) that don't have the finish level of our CR list builders frames, doesn't diminish their value for me. (or say anything about their durability, how they ride, or if they are collectable either, for me anyway) The fact that they are still ridable 30+ years later is just a bonus.
The important qualities we "collectors" impose onto the bikes we cherish and respect has nothing to do with the reality they were created for. Ask Michael Schumacher if he wants to race a Ferrari F1 car that will last forever. I think he'll take a pass....
I'm very happy to own a De Rosa that rides as well as any bike I've ridden,
fits like a dream, has a nice clean appearance, has plenty of miles on it, and I'm more than happy to add lots more. I'm really not concerned with the implication there is a "possibility" that there is a "likelihood" something might be wrong with it, I'm just enjoying it.
Grant McLean Toronto.Ca
From: email@example.com Subject: Re: [CR]Stinky DeRosa not Peroiod State of Art Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:44:19 +0000
Oh no - I do disagree. The main goal of a framebuilder is to build a frame that will not fail. An occasional brazing gap is no big deal, but when the brazing is very uneven it indicates the possibility of uneven heating - and possibly overheated tubing. That implies a greater likelihood of failure.
I had assumed that based on DeRosa's reputation his early frames would be outstanding. I was mistaken and the photo on the web site confirms my observation. And the story of the failed DeRosa does nothing to diminish my concerns.
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
> Hi Mike,
> Like Mr. Jackson sang, "a few bad apples don't spoil the bunch".
> As Italian production bikes designed for racing go, I'd say
> Ugo and sons don't have much to be ashamed of.
> I try not to forget that the vast majority of racing bikes
> (up until the mid 70's) where bought by racers, who didn't much
> care about the odd bit of rough finish here or there.
> I guess it's kind of like inspecting a hammer for scratches.
> To measure how successful a frame builder is, there has to be
> an understanding of their intent. What's the point of building
> their frames? How well does the builder measure up to what they
> are trying to make? If Ugo was building a frame for Eddy
> Merckx to win the tour de France, is it fair to criticize that
> frame for having a gap in the seat lug? Would it be nice
> if there were no gaps? Sure it would.
> So yes, we can compare and contrast the different marques for
> their level of craftsmanship and artistic value, but lets not
> forget how well they measure up to what the builder intended
> in the first place. De Rosa built frames to be used in races.
> IMHO, any builder who chromes lugs, paints on pinstripes, and
> hand paints their logos is begging to be judged on the finish
> level of their frames. I feel that it's fair to criticize
> that builder for their level of skill if the quality of the
> fishish doesn't measure up.
> Grant McLean