Re: [Classicrendezvous] Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality)

(Example: Production Builders:Frejus)

To: mbikealive@earthlink.net
Cc: oroboyz@aol.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:58:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality)
From: "Richard M. Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>


On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:12:52 -0700 Marc Boral <mbikealive@earthlink.net> writes:
>Hi Dale and CR,
> My early catalog refers to "4/10 Record". This
>refers to
>the 10 tubes used to make a frameset, not including the steerer.

i always assumed that the figures expressed this way referred to the guage ratio, i.e. four tenths of a millemeter-this referring to the wall thickness. SL tubing, being butted, would be called " .9x.6x.9 ". RECORD tubing was all straight guage, being " .5 ". that is, all tubes, with the exception of the fork blades, were one-half a millimeter in wall thickness throughout their length. i still believe that this 4/10 stuff refers to this, rather than how many of the 10 tubes are from the RECORD kit. furthermore, there isn't anything that could convince me that in the era these frames were made, that a steel tube of 4 tenths of a millemeter in thickness, even if it was just only the middle section, not the entire guage, was used to make any production frames. RECORD tubing, at .5 mm in thickness was extremely hard to work with, owing to it's fragile nature. it wasn't a different, stronger, or harder material than SL. there was simply less of it. particularly, the rear stays defied anything but your best white-glove assembly procedures. short of getting the man himself to address this issue, i speculate that between the super and the mexico, the differences were mostly cosmetic: the then-new short campagnolo dropouts, different stay-end treatments, increased use of engraved frame pieces, updated graphics, more use ofplating...ultimately, with all the pierced tubes, and gilco tubes, and stenciled paint jobs, the differences between the 2 models became more distinct. i think, originally though, it was a fancier version of the 'same thing'. in a way, similar to the masi special versus the masi gran criterium thing, only on a much larger scale. i also would like to add that i can think of no frame shops in that era that would have used RECORD tubes to make frames in any numbers to speak of. it was too much trouble. period. even by today's standards, RECORD tubed frames would be lighter than most other materials. not useful. but light.
my opinions...
e-RICHIE