Re: revise finely made objects; was [CR]Frame integrity

(Example: Racing:Beryl Burton)

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:40:03 -0400
Subject: Re: revise finely made objects; was [CR]Frame integrity
From: "greg arnold" <greg@nofatcomm.com>
To: <unreceived_dogma@mindspring.com>, "richardsachs@juno.com" <richardsachs@juno.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1BnJwx-0002zG-00@mclean.mail.mindspring.net>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Finally some political vintage bike commentary that gives me a fat, wry, grinning chuckle!

Greg arnold nyc
> How about turning the Mona Lisa's wry smile into a politician's fat grin?
> Will that do?
>
> Michael Lebron
> NYC
> ----------
>> From: "richardsachs@juno.com" <richardsachs@juno.com>
>> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Subject: Re: [CR]Frame integrity
>> Date: Wed, Jul 21, 2004, 8:48 AM
>>
>
>>
>> snipped/cut:
>> "If someone spreads the rear stays on a vintage 60s/70s frame - Columbus
>> tubing - to accommodate a 7/8/9 speed modern cassette, how much is the frame
>> integrity compromised?"
>> Greg arnold nyc
>>
>>
>> my 2 cents is: you "can" do it because the material is
>> fairly malleable (sp?) but going from 120mm to 130mm
>> is on the extreme of what's recommended. if you owned the
>> frame, i'd say don't revise it. if you're buying a frame that's
>> been revised, i'd say - if you really love it, get it. if not, pass.
>>
>> i think spreading rears is over-rated (to allow older frames to
>> use modern parts...) and i wish i could think of an appropriate
>> analogy to other finely made objects,
>> but - alas - i cannot.
>> e-RICHIE
>> chester, ct
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________

Greg Arnold Senior Partner No Fat Communications 12 West 37th Street New York, NY 10018 http://www.nofatcomm.com

212-629-7595
greg@nofatcomm.com