Charles- This correction jives with my memory. Andy.
> Correction, I was having problems reading the 1981 Tange Catalog .PDF file
> when I scrolled using the wheel on my mouse. Old ,PDFs will do that...
>
> I wrote:
>
> Here's the differences [between Tange #1 & #2] right from the 1981 Tange
> Tubing Catalog:
>
> Top tube wall thickness:
>
> #1 0.6mm x 0.3mm x 0.6mm [should be 0.8mm x 0.5mm x 0.8mm]
>
> #2 0.8mm x 0.5mm x 0.8mm [should be 0.9mm x 0.6mm x 0.9mm]
>
> Down tube wall thickness:
>
> #1 0.8mm x 0.5mm x 0.8mm
>
> #2 0.9mm x 0.6mm x 0.9mm
>
> [All other tubes are the same. The 0.6mm x 0.3mm x 0.6mm were used in
> the Tange Champion Pro set. Hard to read .PDF file...]
>
> Charles Colerich
> Oakland, CA USA
>
>
> james black wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 13:20, verktyg <verktyg@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Here's the differences right from the 1981 Tange Tubing Catalog:
> >
> > Interesting data, and I don't doubt the integrity of your information,
> > but it contradicts what I've heard from some other sources, that the
> > #1 used .8/.5/.8 and the #2 used .9/.6/.9 for both top and seat
> > tubes*. I find these figures plausible, since #2 bikes don't seem
> > particularly flexy; and my #1-labeled Centurion Semi Pro doesn't have
> > a crazy-thin top tube that I can deflect with a pinch between thumb
> > and forefinger.
> >
> > Maybe they lightened up their tubes (which is to say, shifted their
> > numbering system) in 1981 - my experience is with 1976-1980 framesets.
> >
> > *See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/
> >
> > James Black
> > Los Angeles, CA
> _______________________________________________
Andrew R Stewart
Rochester, NY