Re: [CR] Continental Oval vs. Imperial Oval

(Example: Framebuilders:Brian Baylis)

From: <gpvb1@comcast.net>
To: Mitch Harris <mitch.harris@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Continental Oval vs. Imperial Oval
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 02:02:10 +0000
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Hi Mitch:

Those are the early oval - that's all that was availabale form Reynolds at that point (not including the D-shaped and the round track types). Some material probably got removed and/or pushed around a bit during building of the fork....

Greg "Imperial Oval to the max" Parker Ann Arbor, Michigan


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


> So I wonder which Reynolds fork does my 70 or 71 Raleigh Pro have?

\r?\n> This is the Carlton built Raleigh Pro with the new-style fully sloping

\r?\n> crown. The blades are measure 27x17, so they are more oval than the

\r?\n> (old) Continental, but not as wide as the New Continental which

\r?\n> wouldn't be released until a few years after this Raleigh. The frame

\r?\n> decal says the forks are Reynolds and that seems certain even though

\r?\n> the fork decals are Carlton decals.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> (Speaking of track forks, some of the Columbus track forks are round

\r?\n> all the way up to the crown. But some Columbus track forks may begin

\r?\n> as the Columbus road ovals because they are 28x19 oval at the crown

\r?\n> and become round a couple inches below the crown.)

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Mitch Harris

\r?\n> Little Rock Canyon, Utah

\r?\n>

\r?\n> On 8/3/05, gpvb1@comcast.net wrote:

\r?\n> > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:21:26 -0700 (PDT)

\r?\n> > From: Fred Rafael Rednor

\r?\n> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

\r?\n> > Subject: Re: [CR] (New) Continental Oval vs. Imperial Oval

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > > When did Reynolds introduce the 29 x 16 fork blade?

\r?\n> > >

\r?\n> > > If this was originally described as 'Continental

\r?\n> > > Oval', surely it is to differentiate from the round

\r?\n> > > or D-shaped blades which were common in Britain.

\r?\n> > >

\r?\n> > David,

\r?\n> > To be honest, by the time I started seriously looking at

\r?\n> > this stuff, all I recall are the 29 x 16mm blades (which I

\r?\n> > think are really elliptical.) Actually, that's not quite true.

\r?\n> > There were the round blades but I remember seeing those on

\r?\n> > bikes at the Kissena Park Velodrome in New York.

\r?\n> > Then again, it was so long ago and I was too young to really

\r?\n> > appreciate what I was seeing, much less commit it to memory...

\r?\n> > Cheers,

\r?\n> > Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > About 1976 (per e-RICHIE, earlier this morning).

\r?\n> > The NOS tubing that I have, which was purchased directly from Reynolds in

\r?\n> 1974, has the early (Imperial) blades....

\r?\n> > Greg Parker

\r?\n> > Dexter, Michigan