Discussion of the relative merits of one type of seat stay attachment, fork crown, etc. go more to artistic execution than quantifiable difference in ride, handling, or whatever.
It's interesting to note however that many small details may affect the long term durability of the frame (filing at the tube to dropout interface for example).
I'd really be surprised if one could come up with any measurable differences between frames with design details that differ slightly.
But I might be wrong.
===================================================== Mark Petry 206.618.9642 Beautiful Bainbridge Island, WA mpetry@bainbridgeisland.net ===================================================== The quick and the dead.
- Niki Lauda =====================================================
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org]On Behalf Of James A Narlesky Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:56 PM To: Lee Berg; classicrendezvous Subject: Re: [CR]Fastback seatstays?! Was: Trek TX900 Frame Ebay# 1018754618
Lee,
O.K. I'll weigh in on this one. The seat cluster on a Cinelli "Speciale Corsa" looks pretty nice to me. Although they are contoured more near the pinch bolt than those on the Trek. Can anyone really tell or feel the difference between the different styles of seat stay attachment when riding a bike? Comparisons of different makers frames would have too many variables to judge objectively.
Jim Narlesky
San Jose
> I should have been more specific: I'm referring to the type of fastback
> seatstays used on this Trek, the type I believe was invented (or at
> least popularized) by Cinelli, where the seatstays are attached at the
> seatpost binder (and are pinched together by the binder bolt). (I am
> not referring to "fastback" seatstays attached some other way, e.g.,
> mitered and brazed to the back of the seatlug or seattube.)
>
> Lee Berg
> Palo Alto