RE: [CR]American Framebuilders' Antipathy to Chrome

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme)

Subject: RE: [CR]American Framebuilders' Antipathy to Chrome
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:45:54 -0400
Thread-Topic: [CR]American Framebuilders' Antipathy to Chrome
Thread-Index: AcJHsdhhYop9tbNqEda/2QBQBLC6Xg==
From: "Rich Rose" <rrose@normandassociates.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


Plus I've always heard that chrome is not a good thing to do on a steel bike. Waterford has a spiel about this on their website. Even so, what would be wrong with (polished) stainless steel dropouts? Richard (my dropouts are chipped too) Rose (Toledo, Ohio)

-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Richard M Sachs Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 2:47 PM To: kurtsperry@netscape.net Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]American Framebuilders' Antipathy to Chrome

there isn't any antipathy. it's related to the lack of efficient and quality platers who can, year in and year out, offer consistant work at a reasonable cost. in europe, the epa/osha type standards are different enough (from ours) that chrome, on steel frames, continues as a feature. also, over 'there' no one does just one frame; a typical situation would see a frame shop hand over dozens of pieces simultaneously. doing it on a one-frame-at-a-time basis is cost ineffective.
e-RICHIE
chester, ct