Tom:
This is all becoming rather banal at this point IMHO. Please, I implore you, let's move on.
Marc's possible early SR lever sounds very much like a modified early Record to some of us. If you want to "prove" any of your theories, then please contact the original Engineers from Vicenza, get them to dig out their Engineering Change Logbooks from that time period, and sort this out once and for all. You can then publish the results on your own website for all that choose to view it. (I personally would be thrilled to find an accurate source of information such as that on the Web). Short of doing that, we will never fully prove anything.
After waaaay too much recent discussion of Campy Record / SR brake levers, three things are becoming clearer for me. One, you will never change your opinion about this. That's fine; you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as we all are. You really do have an uphill struggle here, though. Zero of these early SR levers has been proven to exist on this planet thus far. Two, relating to the SR headset questions, IMO you don't seem real familiar with the Mass-Production Manufacturing environment. Three, I fear you may be becoming one of those who get their jollies by stirring up the pot and then always needing to have the last word. I call it the "one percent factor." (Hi Ken!). If it would make you happy to respond to this post, and then let's call it a fortnight and talk about something more meaningful, I'm all for it....
In response to your generalized attack, of course many of us NR / SR junkies are interested in the minutiae of the most popular and instantly-recognizeable classic lightweight bicycle components on the planet, but we need to have a sense of balance at some point. There were and are minor lot-to-lot variations in any Mass-Production setting. Do you want to measure the depth of the flutes or the opacity of the anodizing on every Campagnolo Record crankarm and categorize the variation as "Design Changes?"
As a Design Engineer, I have been approached by Purchasing or Manufacturing on literally thousands of occasions to approve a "Deviation" from the blueprint. This is common at Manufacturers of all sizes. Something may not be 100% "to print" in some way or another, but someone somewhere doesn't want to scrap the whole lot of XX,000 pieces if the deviation doesn't affect the function, fit or finish of the item in question. It's certainly understandable that this would occur (although Deviations are never automatically approved - I've taken some heat many times over the last twenty years for standing my ground and saying "scrap 'em" if I felt that the part would be unacceptable in some way).
Finally, in summation, I'll say this as clearly as I can:
Catalogs don't mean doo-doo!
(Can I say "doo-doo" on CR?)
Greg Parker A2 MI USA
Where I am stockpiling early SR brake levers to sell on eBay for retirement income (Please send me all you might have...).
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:29:57 -0400
> From: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>
> Subject: [CR]Early SR lever shape, really, hallucinating. WEEK 2
>
> re the 'supposed' sr levers with the early 70s shape,
> a.k.a. the 'longer-reach brake lever'...
> here's why (we) think they don't exist:
> in all the campagnolo catalogs in which they appear in the
> earlier shape, (different curve. more material
> at the top.), the pics are DRAWINGS, not photographs.
> and in the drawings each lever has 9 holes as opposed
> to the 10 that are on the sr levers that we're all familiar
> with. even the benotto catalog in the scans, which happens
> to be MY catalog that was scanned, shows a lever with
> 10 holes. furthermore, from the angle of the picture,
> a picture that is no bigger than a postcard, i cannot tell
> any difference between it and any other campagnolo
> lever. the depth of field is too distorted.
> maybe marc boral really found the 'supposed' lever
> this weekend. but he ended up with some doubts.
> i remain skeptical about the production of a sr lever
> that ACTUALLY looks like the drawings in the earlier catalogs.
> e-RICHIE
> Richard Sachs Cycles
> No.9, North Main Street
> Chester, CT 06412 USA
> http://www.richardsachs.com
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Tom Dalton
> <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Greg Paker wrote:
> > "So how can you be sure if you have no proof? You may have a strong
> > opinion,
> > but you can't be sure, right?
> >
> > I'll ask the questions again: has anyone on this list ever held in
> > his or her
> > hand a Production "long-reach" SR brake lever? Does anyone currently
> > have one?
> >
> > They don't exist..."
> > This too is at best a strong opinion. How do you KNOW they don't
> > exist. They VERY OBVIOUSLY appear in photographs in three
> > manufacturer's catalogs, despite our inability to measure
> > logo-to-edge distances, or whatever. Just look at the photos. Is
> > that proof? I suppose not, as anybody could alter a "regular" SR
> > lever, or a photo thereof, but why would they? If they did, why
> > would they do it in multiple catalogs from the same manufacturer?
> > If they were pre-production prototypes (modified Records) why would
> > they appear one year after another? Why have I seen a photo of a
> > guy with two SR levers on his bike, one of which is obviously
> > different from another? Why would Campy continue to make the 1st
> > gen Record lever until the time of the CPSC changes if they modified
> > the basic lever shape at the beginning of SR production, about two
> > years earlier?
> >
> > "There were not five generations of the SR headset either;
> > there were normal Production run variations (plus different/reworked
> >
> > stamping/forging dies that caused additional minor variation within
> > print
> > specifications over the years), and Campy's anodizing changed over
> > the years
> > on many parts...."
> >
> > Did the guys in charge at Campy sit down in a meeting and decide
> > that a slight increase in thickness of the SR headset anodizing
> > would make a better, cheaper, or more marketable product? I doubt
> > it. Deleting a machining step on the locknut may have been a
> > conscious decision though. In any case, there are distinct
> > differences in the shape of certain parts that, based on the bikes I
> > see them on, correlate to production date. These were never
> > intended to be "next generation" changes. I'm sure Campy never
> > expected anal-retentive bike collectors to consider these
> > differences in judging concours bikes, but here we are. If you
> > don't care to try to decipher the changes through time, keep them
> > straight, and oufit your bikes accordingly, that's fine. To me,
> > this is one of the more interesting aspects of Campy stuff. I will
> > continue to look very closely at any NR/SR equipped bike that I know
> > to be OE, to see if my ideas hold up. I will continue to outfit my
> > bikes to come as close as possible to my model. All just for fun.
> > It is not important in the scheme of things. If someone wants to
> > pay $150 for a late 80's headset to slap his earl 70's bike that's
> > fine. To me that bike will look very incorrect, but that's not
> > really a problem. It's a question of wher you draw the line. If
> > the date stamp on the crank matters to you, shouldn't the surface
> > finish of the crank fixing blt matter too?
> >
> > "Folks, none of this is rocket science; it's just normal
> > volume-Production of
> > (the best ever IMO) bicycle parts. Let's get real a little here. I'm
> > as
> > interested as anyone is in true design changes on Record/NR/SR
> > parts, but
> > normal Production run-to-run variations are not Design changes.
> > Hello!!!"
> >
> > Again, you are correct that they are not design changes just
> > temporal variations. I doubt they are just day to day. I think,
> > and in some cases know, that certain unrecognized changes are date
> > specific. No it's not rocket science, but it is a historical
> > investigation, using the best information I can get. A lot more
> > like stamp collecting than rocket science. It's not for everybody.
> >
> > End of rant...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tom Dalton
> >
> > Bethlehem, PA