FW: Re: [CR]Disadvantages of removing anodizing from aluminum parts

(Example: Framebuilders:Alex Singer)

From: "nick zatezalo" <nickzz@mindspring.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: FW: Re: [CR]Disadvantages of removing anodizing from aluminum parts
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 00:18:06 -0400


We prefer patina on our steel rigs and think it unjust to remove originality here, but turn around and buff/polish a high luster sheen to aluminum parts instead of favoring the satin like subtle tones originally created by most anodizing. Seems a bit bi-polar to me.

Nick Zatezalo Atlanta,Ga


> [Original Message]
> From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
> To: classicrendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Date: 5/13/2005 8:24:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Disadvantages of removing anodizing from aluminum parts
>
> Pete Rutledge wrote:
> >
> > If you coat the anodized part with original Easy-off Oven Cleaner for a few
> > minutes, it will remove the anodized layer and you can go straight to
> > rubbing compound to bring up the shine. Of course you may still want to do
> > some localized sanding (from coarse to fine) to remove gouges and scratches.
> > Finally a good coat of wax will help retain the shine for many months. As
> > far a originality is concerned, I prefer a shiny, scratchless, gougeless
> > unanodized (but unoriginal) aluminum part to a scratched, gouged, chaulky
> > white but original anodized part. Quite a bit of info on the topic of
> > anodizing can be found in the CR archives.
>
>
> Great info Pete!
>
> After removing the anodizing (chrome shops the also did anodizing used
> to do this for free) I would use Swiss pattern files to "profile" the
> parts. This involved removing the mold parting lines and any waviness
> in the surfaces of the parts till they looked like the original idea of
> the part the manufacturer had in mind in the first place. Very tedious
> work but the result spoke for itself!

>

> Chuck Schmidt

> South Pasadena, CA

>

> .