Re: [CR]Re: The Pre Vs Post-1984 Debate

(Example: Framebuilding:Technology)

From: "Diane Feldman" <feldmanbike@home.com>
To: <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <20.1535cf79.2811db71@aol.com> <3AE09DE5.5EDA@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: The Pre Vs Post-1984 Debate
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:17:43 -0700


And another thing, new integral headsets have been thought out more thoroughly than those '40's to 70's Bianchi units; they use standard bearing cartridges; imagine that! Gee, praising threadless stems and hidden headsets, must have sucked too many diesel fumes on my ride this morning. David Feldman


----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Schmidt
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: The Pre Vs Post-1984 Debate



> Randy August wrote:
> >
> > (snip) Even though I probably am
> > a "technoweenie", it's gotten to the point that I find little joy anymore in
> > reading about new bike hardware.
> >
> > Frame integral bearing races, Aheadsets and their stems, splined bottom
> > brackets and hollow cranks all save a little (very little) weight but offer
> > no advancement in real world functionality.
>
>
> I think we are all a little old and jaded. Guys in their teens and 20s
> are excited and enthusiastic about the latest and the greatest.
>
> Speaking of which...
> Integral headset bearing races -- Bianchi and others early 1900s ?
> Ahead-style stems -- French 1940s ?
> Splined bottom brackets -- Italian Gnutti 1940s ?
> Hollow cranks -- French Duprat (steel) 1930s ?
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, California
> Sunny, puffy clouds, 70