[CR]FW: self-introduction

(Example: Production Builders:Cinelli:Laser)

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 11:34:28 -0800
From: "Chris Andrews" <andrews@tenforward.com>
To: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]FW: self-introduction

---------- From: "Chris Andrews" <andrews@tenforward.com> To: Oroboyz@aol.com Subject: self-introduction Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2002, 10:29 AM

Hello Group, Self introduction: I'm a retired romantic who was smitten by bicycles in the 40's (when good equipment was scarce because of the war as well as because of the Great Depression.) Now I'm revisiting old dreams, trying to fill in the half century gap, and getting a little exercise. When I was 15 I entered the Del Mar road race (23 miles) in the novice class. In those days handlebars were not taped, and I omitted the grips to save weight. In the first half mile a loose brake lever slipped off the drop and swung on its cable into the front wheel. Wooden rims! Rode the rest of the way in the crash truck. Still trying to decide if I should enter my second race. I'm intrigued with the ongoing discussion of authenticity vs. rideability. In the late 50's when I was squandering my energies on automobiles, my wife convinced me that for the general good I should separate ego cars from transportation needs. At the time I was trying to restore a 1936 Austin "Nippy" roadster -- (a very hot car considering the 21 BHP souped-up engine!) -- and then use it for commuting. Three major breakdowns with less than a hundred miles! I suspect most of this group ride for fun rather than necessity, so the bikes under discussion fall into the ego category, though even that can divides riders from collectors, which is why we often have more than one bike! It's nice to have a showpiece, even if some operational considerations must be given low priority, but everybody dreams of having the best of both worlds, and we will never reach a consensus on where the line should be drawn. Emotional factors here carry more weight than we will admit to in the real world. In 1946 I thought I wanted a really short wheelbase; 1/8-inch between the back tire and the seat tube would be just right! And I wanted a long extension stem, notwithstanding the fact that my arms are pretty short. I wanted fancy lug workwithout knowing that it originally had a rational basis. I wanted alloy cranks, and bought a used, cottered pair which turned out to have a crack connecting the bolt holes! Now sadder and wiser, I still have unreasonable plans. I am probably going to combine a Sturmey-Archer with a double chainring (using a tensioner). " Is this guy nuts? You can do that but why would you want to?" I can't supply a good answer, of course. But I think bicycles are about living one's dreams in a world that has less and less room for individuality. Individuality may be expressed by having an atypical bike, even though its characteristics were determined by some other individual. (Who among us can design and build his own BMW?) If being individual means departing from the factory configuration of your bike, so be it. However, long association with manufacturing and design in various fields has convinced me that most design decisions are economic rather than ideal. So you can always improve on the factory spec, or at least you can always try. The aftermarket car part business is based on this, and sadly most of those who modify their cars do so without any appreciation of engineering considerations and tradeoffs. If you try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, you may be sorry. However, after I redesigned the pressure lube system on that Austin Nippy, the car ran for five years without a problem. On the other hand, after I put aftermarket wheels on my Karman Ghia the tires hit the fenders on every turn. You may win a few. Friend with the short stays, I think making a custom claw for the derailleur is the way to go! I hear, occasionally, of" Hobbs of Barbican". However, my Hobbs says Dagenham on the head badge. Is it the same Hobbs? Did the factory relocate to The Barbican? (Which Barbican? Need help here, Hilary!) Any Hobbs info you may have would be appreciated! The frame appears to be from the early 50's and none of the original components are left. It has Chater Lea fork ends, very thin stays, and a long wheelbase, and is quite light. Alfred LeTourneur once told me that the English preference for short wheelbase machines was fine for time trials where you can pick the good part of the road, but that in French road races with scratch starts you have competitors close on each side who will make sure you hit the pothole! "An English frame would not last out the rece!" He put his foot against the BB of a French bike and flexed the frame -- it seemed like an inch I remember-- and the chainstays were long and willowy like my Hobbs. Hetchins had his own approach to this idea. I think components on restored bikes should be in-period, but not necessarily what came from the factory. The factory's decisions were economic, not ideal, and can always be improved upon or at least customized to suit the rider; that's the whole idea behind handmade bikes! Bicycles are simple machines, and it is easier to avoid engineering mistakes than with automobiles so you can probably swap a few components without endangering your life. I don't think a bike loses its authenticity just because a decal is omitted or somebody uses LP when the original was laquer! Glad to be aboard and am enjoying the discussions.

Chris Andrews