Re: [CR]Fork Crowns, continuation of Fork Blade discussion

(Example: Production Builders)

Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:05:37 -0500
From: "John Thompson" <JohnThompson@new.rr.com>
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance
To: classic list <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]Fork Crowns, continuation of Fork Blade discussion
References: <8C7665D73AF70B2-B38-CA58@FWM-D29.sysops.aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C7665D73AF70B2-B38-CA58@FWM-D29.sysops.aol.com>


loudeeter@aol.com wrote:
> An off-list discussion with another listmember pointed out that in
> 1981 Nishiki (actually Kawamura built) used "Colnago-like" fork
> crowns on their Professional model and "Cinelli-like" fork crowns on
> their next model down. After reading the fascinating discussion
> about the development & dimensions of Reynolds and Columbus fork
> blades this week, it got me to thinking. How did the industry
> approach the size and shape of different fork blades as it relates to
> fork crowns? Does the framebuilder have to reshape the fork blade to
> insert into the fork crown or is that a fairly standard dimension?
> Would availability of fork crowns have influenced the changes to fork
> blades? Colnago introduced their microfusion fork crowns in 1969.
> Would this have had anything to do with the changes made by Columbus
> about that same time?

Fork blades are essentially identical to chainstays (except 24mm track blades, of course) that have been ovalized and raked. Socketed crowns were available for a variety ovals, but a little judicious work with a vice can usually convert one type of blade oval to another.

--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
Appleton WI USA