In some defense of Dale, 50 years from now is the topic. Dale is simply stating identifying classic bikes in 50 years will be easier based on the steel designs. The rest he stated about current bicycle frames from various companies is as he stated (IMO) and he is entitled to that just as you are entitled to your opinion. In 50 years, 2000 frames will be classic. Therefore by jumping ahead some 50 years we made the current non subject bikes NOW the subject. Although I am in agreement that I would prefer to stay more on topic with classics, there occurs the occasional infraction to venture a comparison. As long as the comparison is being done to classic style or classic bicycles. It is somewhat still on topic. As long as it is not dwelled upon for continuous posts which seems to be the trend at times. Therefore I will not push the current bike comments which have been adequately summed up correctly by Bob, KCTommy, and Dale to some degree.
Walt Skrzypek Falls Creek, Pa
>From: Bob Reid <bob.reid1@virgin.net>
>To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>Subject: Re: [CR]50 years from now...
>Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 07:40:25 +0000
>
>Not that I'd remind List Captain Dale of his own rules but :-).............
>
> > - We have focussed on the approximate period from the beginning of the
> > Twentieth Century, up to the early 1980s. Certain classicaly produced
> > modern bikes are considered "on topic" here, but those welded,
> > injection molded, or glued modern wonders belong in some other mail
> > list, not this one! Ditto for mountain bikes & balloon tired bikes.
> > Those items have merit, but they just do not belong here.
>
>so Dale wrote anyway - cause it's his list okay ;
>
><snip>
> >
> > Now, in the future, 50 years or so away, how will we identify all these
>nasty
> > (IMO) welded aluminum bikes?
> >
> > It is so true what Grant Peterson said about someone digging up a
>Rivendell
> > in 100 years and telling what it is from the lugs! On the other hand,
>that
> > oh-so light new Paramount (I hate to even call it that) will look just
>like
> > the welded aluminum Giant or Trek or Jamis or Principia or yada yada...
> >
> > And a popped-out-of-a-waffle-iron-mold Carbon Fiber frame will look
>pretty
> > much like a Kestrel, Trek OCLV, Aegis, or Giant etc etc.
> >
> > How boring!
> >
> > Dale Brown
>
>I have to say it's a bit unfair to generalise - especially when it comes to
>the Giant produced bikes ! - Currently their using G prefixed serial
>numbers
>that will be easilly identifiable 50 years down the line........ and if
>you
>can't tell them apart well you are not looking hard enough..... Not all
>crap
>is equal though. Just like now, in fifty years I'm quite sure the varying
>standards of production quality and finish will make it as easy to identify
>a Giant CFR frame from a Look KG261 as it is a cheap 70's 10-speed from a
>Cinelli Super..... blah..blah...blah.... but I don't really feel the need
>to
>get into this conversation....
>
>No I'd forget about those Trek OCLV's (you know the ones you can date by
>counting the rings on the broken section of tubing) and start buying up
>10-speed Ergopower levers, throwing away the contents and saving up the
>packaging.....
>
>That's right - collect those boxes !
>
>Best Regards
>
>Bob Reid
>Stonehaven
>Scotland
>
>p.s. Can Dale actually mail himself a first warning for raising an
>off-topic
>subject ? :-)