Re: [CR] Alternate users of Reynolds tubeing

(Example: Framebuilders:Alex Singer)

In-Reply-To: <6787C849-D0D0-4D27-A3E5-4C0DDD89A4F4@htc.net>
References: <6787C849-D0D0-4D27-A3E5-4C0DDD89A4F4@htc.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:04:43 -0800
From: "Kurt Sperry" <haxixe@gmail.com>
Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Alternate users of Reynolds tubeing


On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Ken Wehrenberg <wnwires@htc.net> wrote:
> Marten Gerritsen stated:
>
> Airplane use is not surprising, seamless 4130 tubing was especially
> develloped for airplane construction, and Reynolds tubing stems from the
> same period
>
> In 1971, I spent some time with my uncle, a United Air Lines pilot in
> Seattle.  With his airplane background, and a lot of contacts at both
> Douglas and Boeing, he told me that "Boeing is planning on producing bikes,
> the tubing is just their thing, and they will end up with a better product
> than is available right now."  I waited and waited until I settled on
> 531-equipped Follis.  Seattle at that time, in the BM years (before
> Microsoft) was home to a rough-and-tumble economy, somewhat  revolving
> around Boeing orders, and when the orders and the economy were down, they
> were indeed contemplating on catching some of the bicycle boom themselves.

The funny thing is that had Boeing entered the bike market then, it is highly unlikely they had the know-how to make a steel tubed bike superior to the universal lugged 531 frame of the day, as that frame was essentially as state of the art then as it was 30 years earlier. I think in fact it's completely valid to argue that the top of the line bike boom 531 frame is in many senses as state of the art *today* as it was then. The changes made since in steel bike frames represent more simply a different set of compromises than unequivocal progress. Is a 2010 steel frame/fork really functionally better than a early '70s Masi or Cinelli? Maybe, but maybe not. It depends what you want.

Kurt Sperry
Bellingham, Washington
USA