Re: [CR]To ride or not/fairly short...


Example: Framebuilding:Tony Beek

From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]To ride or not/fairly short...
References: <20020908.171916.-3998915.8.richardsachs@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 16:39:43 -0700

Richard M Sachs wrote:
>
> Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net> 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.(cut)

Exactly right Richie. It is building method and not a timeline thing.

And exactly my point! In today's state of the art racing bikes, a method of joining tubes that adds less than 3 oz is, to quote a friend of mine, "Off the back, Jack!"

You said, "...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..." Modern bicycles are all about weight, which is just one of the reasons lug steel construction is moot. And with modern bicycles (we are talking about racing bicycles I assume) 3 oz count.

You say, "...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."

My comment, "Nostalgia isn't what it use to be, I guess."

Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal

.