Re: [CR]Debunking time again/my 2 cents/LONG


Example: Framebuilders:Rene Herse

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:08:10 -0600
To: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: Michael Kone <bikevint@tiac.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Debunking time again/my 2 cents/LONG


I just can't buy it that huge swings in tube diameter and tube gauge are making no difference to the ride - just change the chainstays and the bike changes behavior pretty dramatically. If what you're saying is true - then why not build large frames out of KL for heavy riders? You can't cause the thing would flex like crazy - but a tall rider who is really light might get away with it. Why not build the small frame out of SP? Cause the frame will be dead. Yes, the differences are slight, but they are there.

Sure, I haven't designed and built many frames, but I spent a fair amount of time working through tube spec on identical frames the past year, and boy does it matter. Heck, I once commented to Waterford that some of their 1700 531 track bikes felt different that the others - the response? We substituted 753 chainstays on a few 531 bikes - the 753 chainstays were thinner gauge but 753 is lighter - so customers should be happy. Maybe some were, but the solid feel of the bike was lost under my too-heavy build.

Step on a Waterford RS-22 and an RS-11 - the RS-11 has a much heavier tube set and the bikes are like night and day.

Maybe I'm missing something in Richards argument - cause I believe that tube gauge is critical - slight variations are what changes the nature of the bikes "soul".

Mike "am I missing something here?" Kone in Boulder CO

At 04:36 PM 5/31/02 -0400, Richard M Sachs wrote:
>i have had alot of my own bicycles over the years. fwiw, the
>'numbers' pertaining to design, layout, fit, etcetera haven't
>changed by more than a millemeter in over 20 years. that is,
>the position, reach, setback, and saddle height all have remained
>constant for a long, long time.
>now-it's hard to correct for the fact that my older frames weren't
>of the quality of my newer frames, but i THINK the quality of the
>construction has improved. the alignment tolerances are better.
>and i arrive at solutions with greater ease. so-in essence-the frames
>i've used through the years have all been the same, position wise.
>obviously, different era would have seen different parts on these
>various frames. fwiw, i always liked the newer stuff better than the
>stuff getting 'replaced'. i say thay because the build, with components
>and their periodic upgrades, are part of the equation.
>all the frames, these similarlaly designed frames from over the years,
>were made from only one material-steel-but from a wide degree of
>types and guages and diameters; 531, 653, SL, SLX, KL...
>more recently, i've used reynolds cro-mo and Dedaccai, seperately
>as well as in a mix.
>my conclusion: none rode any differently than any of the others.
>i attribute this to the fact that they were all the same frame design.
>none seemed stiffer, stronger, more reponsive, or livelier than the
>rest. the only difference that i can make certain of is that
>THE NEWER ONES ARE LIGHTER WITHOUT ANY
>PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING MATERIAL
>JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT. but, unless i lift the bicycle
>over my head, even that difference doesn't matter that much.
>e-RICHIE
>maker, user, collector
>chester, ct