[CR]Re: Restoration and value....

(Example: Production Builders)

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Brett Horton" <bretthorton@thehortoncollection.com>
To: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050907211830.52724.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]Re: Restoration and value....

Sorry Tom, you are greatly mistaken. There were several manufactures at the time that, as part of their team sponsorship and R&D, insisted their riders use their clincher rims, albeit on a limited basis. To say the early 80's clinchers were unpopular with the riders is an understatement. That said, you are speaking about an era where riders were not given a lot of flexibility in component choice. When utilized, clinchers were rode in races with smooth tarmac and virtually no climbs or descents.

This is the same type of thread that rang out last year with the unequivocal statement by someone on the list that the 60's pros never rode triple cranksets. Several pros rode them, the most notable being Jacques Anquetil. Anquetil rode in several races and there are scores of photos of him doing so, Giro d' Lombardia included.

Same thing can be said about tire choices of today. When I was at Tour of Flanders this past year, several teams were racing with Continental GP 2000's, including three teams that did not even have Continental as their sponsor. Most notable in the bunch were several Lotto and T-Mobile riders, including their stars. The average wanker US Cat 1/2 rider would stick their noses in the air to such an idea. After all, those tires cost about $10. How can one possibly be competitive on anything under $80 per tire?

The component choice perspective of Americans in the early 1980's was dictated almost exclusively by the media advertising and editorial available at the time, the majority of which by today's standards sucked. Every aspiring US junior or decent 1/2/3 rider seemingly had to have a bike outfitted head to toe in Campy Record or Super Record. That however, was not how the typical rider was set up in Europe. Even today, with the larger value sponsorships in cycling, components don't simply flow out of the water faucet. Some riders don't even like "top of the line" out of safety concerns. Others just like the ride and feel of lower level components.

I spent a few days last winter at the home of Erik Zabel. I think we can all agree he is a decent pro. You know what his bike of choice is to ride around town, to the coffee shop and on casual rides? A Moser steel bike from the early 1980's with all time period correct parts. Not NOS. More like COS (crappy old stock)

Although I do not personally agree with your position on the decals, I think I understand where you are coming from . It will be interesting to see what other opinions exist at VR 2005.

Brett Horton San Francisco, CA

Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote: You wrote: Wheels: He won the worlds using sew-ups. The bike now has clinchers. Similar to the issue with decals, he did race on these wheels, just didn't win the worlds on them. Replace with configuration actually used?

Raced on clinchers circa 1981-82?!? Nobody raced on clinchers, at his level, at that time. The best available clincher rims at the time were Mavic G40's and Ambrosio Elite 19's. The training wheels of choice for underfunded juniors, but I doubt Maertens trained on them, let alone raced.

I'd try to get the parts/decals that have been changed back to spec as used at Worlds. I wouldn't replace rusted or worn parts, unless you know they were replaced at some point after the bike was raced.

Tom Dalton
Bethlehem PA