[CR]Cirque bike judging

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Avocet)

Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:52:46 -0400
From: "Michael Schmidt" <mdschmidt56@verizon.net>
Subject: [CR]Cirque bike judging
In-reply-to: <s86c8c8d.036@gw15.hofstra.edu>
To: Edward Albert <Edward.H.Albert@hofstra.edu>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, Peter Weigle <jpweigle@sbcglobal.net>, <hmsachs@verizon.net>
Thread-topic: [CR]Cirque bike judging
Thread-index: Acje0FAwjtiPn0rDEd2csgAWy8lbaw==

My .02 on the whole judging thing. First, I really like Weigle's idea to announce the runners up. If anything, it tells everyone that the bike was noticed and right up their with the best in class (in the judges opinion anyway). As far as serving as incentive to try harder, well that might apply to some but for me, I just wipe it down and put the bike on the floor . It is what it is.

I enjoy the fact that the Cirque contest is not too serious. I mean it is ok to have some rules but not to the point where it takes the fun out of th e event. Beyond that, the judges selected for that year should have the flexibility to define the formality used.

Mike Schmidt Stirling, NJ USA

On 7/3/08 8:23 AM, "Edward Albert" <Edward.H.Albert@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> Harvey,
> Your post raises questions that go to the very heart of the issue of
> judging, questions that we faced at this years Cirque. (I hope I am not
> in for a barrage of hate mail now). And, questions that have come up
> after every Cirque at least as long as I have been involved.
> 1. In the first place your post correctly points to a problematic issue
> but only one of many and cries out for our ³hobby² to establish more
> formal rules for judging or to give up the judging entirely. My own
> feelings on this matter are on record and I will not bore you all with
> them again
> 2. Re the specifics of the post concerning restored vs. unrestored. In
> the main I believe the spirit of Peter¹s suggestion is correct. The
> Judges this year were sometimes at a loss to decide if a bike was in its
> original condition or was a repaint. In a few cases we got it wrong.
> Insofar as time was short and there was nobody around to ask, we made ou r
> best judgment call. In my own view when one talks about ³unrestored²
> the central criteria is paint and, secondarily, parts. Does the bike, in
> the main, retain the original finish put on the bike at the time it was
> made and are the parts ones that could, conceivably, have been on the bik e
> when the bike was assembled.
> 3. If the bike is deemed unrestored and the parts are ³relatively²
> correct for the date given, then judging can proceed on other criteria.
> Does, for example, a bike identified as say 1975 which has a rear Campag
> derailleur dated Pat. 74 or 75 have its original derailleur or a replacem en
> t (for whatever reason)Šwho can tell? We must assume if not its
> originality at least its correctness. But, on the other hand, if a bike
> dated, say 1962, has a Nuovo Record Derailleur and not a ³Record²
> model then, IMHO that is a point against it.
> 4. We viewed many beautiful unrestored bikes this year that contained a
> mishmash of parts that were clearly on the bike because it was, first and
> foremost, a rider and these parts worked. I see no problem in that excep t
> that if one enters a bike to be judged than one must realize that some
> sort of criteria must be applied and inappropriate parts is an obvious on e
> and, again IMHO, one that merits deductions when comparing to others in
> the class that contain if not original, at least period appropriate parts .
> If one does not care at least to remove the modern oversize waterbottle
> from the cage than I have to ask why bother to enter the bike for judging
> in the first place. Display the bikeŠabsolutely, but to expect to be
> considered seriously for an award, absolutely not.
> 5. Peter¹s Post (pun intended) also made reference to the usefulness of
> including runners up in each category as a way of encouraging more
> participants and giving them incentive for next time. I am in full
> agreement with that suggestion.
> I am also in favor of retaining a revamped, more objective, judging
> process. Judging improves the breed while the ³I¹m ok, your ok²
> perspective leads to mediocrity. Let the chips fall.
> Edward Albert
> Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.
>>>> hmsachs@verizon.net 07/03/08 7:10 AM >>>
> Peter Weigle (I think it was my esteemed friend Peter) suggested that
> each owner in the Cirque show declare whether his bike is "original"
> vs.
> "restored," to make judging easier. Now, I have enormous respect for
> Peter, and great love for the bike, his own ride, that he consented to
> sell me several years ago. But, I like vigorous discussion too, so
> let's
> stir the pot.
> At first blush, this cut makes sense for production bikes, say a Raleigh
> Pro, shipped with a full ensemble of parts. Is the finish original, and
> are the parts the ones it came with? But, all the parts? Can't I
> change "wear" parts, like chain, cogs, tires, brake lever hoods? Is it
> still "original" if I change the left crank for a matching one, because
> the original snapped? So, I'd devilishly suggest that there's some
> grey
> in this, too.
> But wait, it gets better: What about a custom, that was bought from a
> builder or shop as a frameset and built up? Does "original" mean that
> it has the parts it was first ridden with, or only that the frame
> finish
> is original? Take my '73 Hetchins, which probably was built up at
> Cupertino. It came with a Suntour "backwards" FD that doesn't match up
> with the frame braze-ons, and required a kludge fit to work. Doesn't
> sound right, eh, not to fix that original build error. Done. Am I
> allowed to add a "demultiplicator" to mate the barcons to the proper RD?
> So, I guess we're converging, by reducing the alternatives to absurdity
> (like we were mathemagicians), to an understanding that "original"
> refers to frame finish. So, I have one other Theological Question for
> my beloved brothers and sisters of the road: Is my Peter Weigle
> "original?" It wears the paint that it had when I bought it ~2005, as
> the first buyer of the bike, paint that Peter did. But, it's at least
> its third painting. The first was by Betsy Weigle, as a show bike in
> the
> early '80s. Since then, it's had a new brake bridge, other changes, and
> been repainted twice by Peter. Is it "original?" Certainly not
> "restored," since that brake bridge wasn't available when it was built
> originally...
> Having (too) cleverly shown that classifications are helpful but that
> they tend not to cover every case, I can now sign off. I confess that I
> once commited taxonomy, and even helped "author" a new species of
> long-dead microfossil... :-)


> harvey sachs

> mcLean va