Re: [CR]Craft vs. Machine building

(Example: Production Builders:Cinelli)

From: "Rick Chasteen" <chasteen@kcaccess.net>
To: "Classic Rendevous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <200103021530.f22FUPA29005@troi.cc.rochester.edu> <5.0.2.1.1.20010302212419.00a5f8d0@pop.erols.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Craft vs. Machine building
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 22:23:03 -0600


It was I who nominated Trek. Douglas only innocently posed the question.

Harvey, for your own good, repeat after me: "I will not mention Cannondale (bad word) on this list".

Rick Chasteen, Kansas City


----- Original Message -----
From: Harvey M Sachs
To: Rick Chasteen


<dbrk@troi.cc.rochester.edu>; Classic Rendevous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [CR]Craft vs. Machine building


> At 16:41 3/2/2001 -0600, Rick Chasteen wrote:
>
> > > Classic content question: Were there any production line style
> > > machines making bikes in the era of our interests?
>
> Douglas Brooks suggested Trek...
>
> I think that the implied question was, "were there vintage-era bikes of
> high quality ("professional") that were built, and well-built at that, with
> substantial mechaization. May I speculate?
>
> 1> Finally, a semantic point: If Douglas can "get away" with nominating early
> Treks as classics, I'd wanna bring down the wrath of the entire group by
> also nominating the ca. 1980 (?) all Campy Cannondale special
> edition. No, lads & lassies, I'm not trying to restart a religious war,
> just trying to tweak you. :-)
>
> Harvey "yep, that stuff gets hot" Sachs
>
>
> > > Douglas Brooks
> >
> >
> >Trek?
> >
> >Rick Chasteen