On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:28:33 -0700 Brandon Ives <monkeylad@mac.com>
writes:
> I can understand for production that drilling
> and tapping a 5m hole is much easier than soldering on two hard to
> jig tiny cable guides. I would think many of the custom builders
> would have kept it as a feature that was superior to the way they do
> production bikes. So can anyone clarify the history of under the BB
> routing and give me any good reasons to do it that way beyond it's
> easier?
Cheaper maybe, but back when everyone had above the BB cable guides, under the BB was different, looked cleaner and cool? That custom feature on a production bike. Mr production does not want to look like he is making an old bike, run those cables under the BB like everyone else. Innovation!
Kind of like the component makers making any change look like a tech innovation, the production frames have to do the same things? 60s and 70s frames with no braze-ons because "Hey that little bit heat on a tube weakens it." Then the custom bikes have all the braze-ons because "A good custom builder can control the heat applied to the tube." Then all these braze-ons start showing up on production bikes, levers, one WB mount, then two. More innovation, product differentiation. Makes that bike look slick. Get rid of that above the BB cable routed frame, get the new neat under the BB cable routed frame (Buy me, buy me!).
Did anyone notice this back in the early 80s? I sure did. "Hey that Masi is cool, with that old cable routing, but my new Trek has the innovative sleek under the BB cable routing. (Subtle implied marketing message: Has to make the bike faster.)"
Steven M. Johnson, Chesapeake, VA
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/