As I said earlier, I've been blissfully ignorant of the 1-R problems, as I usually ride an 80mm or shorter stem, whereas 1-R, it seems, was 90 or mayb e 95 minimum.
So what then was the difference between 1-R and XA? Someone got a side-b y-side photo? I suspect I have a few of each, removed from bikes because they were too long. I also have an 85mm, which I guess must be an XA, s ince it was said the 1-R did not come that short.
Regards
Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA
From: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> Subject: [CR]Cinelli 1-R woes To: biankita@comcast.net Cc: "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 11:19 AM
I'm no defeatist, but 1-R stems are nothing like SR posts, other than that
both can slip. As I said in my lengthy post, 1-R's rely completely o n a compatible, undamaged knurling on the associated Cinelli handlebar. There may be fixes that allow the system to work with a damaged bar (such damage might not even be considered damage under normal condit ions, like if you use a 1-A) but the no-fuss, or least fuss, method calls f or just using a fresh bar and NEVER letting it slip. If you test your ba rs and they do slip, they will likely never be tight again in that stem, un less you glue/rivet/screw etc them into place. I like 1-Rs, but their ob vious failing is that they are totally reliant on impractically good cond ition on the bar's knurling. They should be viewed as analogous to a mod ern Campy post that has discrete angular positions and relies on the teeth
of the post head and lower bracket, rather than the 1-bolt SR post that was infinitely adjustable and relies on a frictional coupling between a smooth head and bracket.
They can be made to work, but not not in that works-with-everything-under-a ll-conditions way that CR types seem to relish. From a philosophical sta ndpoint, they have one foot in the modern era. Bars slip, buy new bars,
what's the problem? Know what I mean?
Tom Dalton
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA