In a message dated 5/10/2002 6:09:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org writes:
> my apologies to the list for participating in and
> prolonging the thread that has no end.
> when i posted a reply to whomever about
> whatever on thursday a.m. i had no idea that
> it would evolve and devolve into this, today's
> #1 time sink.
> i had mentioned that a bicycle from the 70s
> would be useless in today's peloton. i spent
> the near-two days since explaining what i meant
> and why i meant it. if you missed any of it, check
> the list archives.
> while i did resort to lightheartedness by today's
> end, i did so out of frustration, rather than to
> alienate. simply put, i feel like all my posts
> came down to one core point-to explain my
> original sentiment from thursday a.m.
> all of my opinions and choices are based on my
> years in the sport and in the business. i have no
> academic training in any technical or related
> disciplines. it's all osmosis and seat-of-the-pants.
> more than anything, i respect the history that preceeded
> my entry into the industry. my love for classic bicycles
> and making it my hobby is a result of this respect.
> in essence, i dream about being as innovative and cutting
> edge in 2002 as some of the now-considered 'icons'
> were in 1972. this, alone, fuels me. what i don't want
> is to assume nothing has changed or improved over
> the last three decades and, thus, make bicycles to
> a 1972-ish standard. those bicycles were innovative
> and cutting edge then, and now they are part of history.
> and not to assume that racing changes anything, let me
> borrow a line from an interview that gabe konrad did:
> "until the bicycles start going by themselves, they may
> as well all be the same."
> i believed that when i said it 8 years ago,
Also to the list,
I did try to simply start a discussion that may be able to use the lists knowledge to define the parameters and the values for identification of the differences between the 1970's bicycle and the 2002 bicycle,
I have earned the right to know that I can use my methodology to do this.
Sad to say I have no tolerance for anything once I try to identify this data.
I do not know people from and e-mail, and I cannot identify a wink from a e-mail -- thus in e-mails only the precision of words matter.
I think that in the end both Richard and I were sincere, a both had the same level of contribution -- he in frame building and I in scientific decision making.
I actually though that I could add value in the identification of the parameters and target values that decide any differences between a 1970s bicycle and a 2002 bicycle. For the record it is possible to do so but it takes time and a desire to make the identification materialize.
Anyway, I have received many e-mails supportive and not so.
Regards,
Bill Barnard