Chuck Schmidt <email@example.com> writes: <...Richie, if we are going to submit to the tyranny of the scale, then there is no logical reason to ride any lugged steel creation...>
chuckie what do lugs have to do with this issue? lugs are part of a tube-joining process. including them in a build adds less than 3 ounces. using lugs to join tubes is a method, not a factor in whether the bicycle is a timeline classic or not. again-and let me phrase this differently-i have nothing against people's enjoyment of riding what we refer to as classic bicycles. i prefer to use modern stuff. i used classic bicycles when they weren't classic; that is, when they were new! i remember getting all wet and sticky when super record came out, and when columbus kl came out, and when alloy railed cinelli saddles came out, and i was feeling like the king of the world when, in the 70s, i rode my 21 pound bicycle. and when my race wheels had clement campionissimo setas glued on, i got more tail than sinatra. but that was then. now i ride the new stuff. but i also like the old stuff. i haven't forgotten the lineage of all that is CR relevant. i'm just not all that keen on using something i had used for tens of thousands of miles back in the day that the goods were new, not classic. e-RICHIE chester, ct
Chuck Schmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Richard Sachs wrote:
> i have a modern bicycle that i like and i wouldn't enjoy my cycling
> as much on a bicycle with less efficient parts, or on one that weighed
> 4 pounds more, (cut)
Richie, if we are going to submit to the tyranny of the scale, then there is no logical reason to ride any lugged steel creation, RichardSachs, or otherwise.
Daily, I switch between 16.5 / 17.5 lb. bikes and bikes that weigh in the 24 / 26 lb. range with no diminishment in the smiles per miles ratio. But to each his own.
Someone mentioned an unwatched film still in the can... I liked that Collecting analogy...
Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal