re the 'supposed' sr levers with the early 70s shape, a.k.a. the 'longer-reach brake lever'... here's why <I> think they don't exist: all the campagnolo catalogs in which they appear in the earlier shape, (different curve. more material at the top.), the pics are DRAWINGS, not photographs. and in the drawings each lever has 9 holes as opposed to the 10 that are on the sr levers that we're all familiar with. even the benotto catalog in the scans, which happens to be MY catalog that was scanned, shows a lever with 10 holes. furthermore, from the angle of the picture, a picture that is no bigger than a postcard, i cannot tell any difference between it and any other campagnolo lever. the depth of field is too distorted. maybe marc boral really found the 'supposed' lever this weekend. but he ended up with some doubts. i remain skeptical about the production of a sr lever that ACTUALLY looks like the drawings in the earlier catalogs. e-RICHIE Richard Sachs Cycles No.9, North Main Street Chester, CT 06412 USA http://www.richardsachs.com
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Tom Dalton
<tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Greg Paker wrote:
> "So how can you be sure if you have no proof? You may have a strong
> opinion,
> but you can't be sure, right?
>
> I'll ask the questions again: has anyone on this list ever held in
> his or her
> hand a Production "long-reach" SR brake lever? Does anyone currently
> have one?
>
> They don't exist..."
> This too is at best a strong opinion. How do you KNOW they don't
> exist. They VERY OBVIOUSLY appear in photographs in three
> manufacturer's catalogs, despite our inability to measure
> logo-to-edge distances, or whatever. Just look at the photos. Is
> that proof? I suppose not, as anybody could alter a "regular" SR
> lever, or a photo thereof, but why would they? If they did, why
> would they do it in multiple catalogs from the same manufacturer?
> If they were pre-production prototypes (modified Records) why would
> they appear one year after another? Why have I seen a photo of a
> guy with two SR levers on his bike, one of which is obviously
> different from another? Why would Campy continue to make the 1st
> gen Record lever until the time of the CPSC changes if they modified
> the basic lever shape at the beginning of SR production, about two
> years earlier?
>
> "There were not five generations of the SR headset either;
> there were normal Production run variations (plus different/reworked
>
> stamping/forging dies that caused additional minor variation within
> print
> specifications over the years), and Campy's anodizing changed over
> the years
> on many parts...."
>
> Did the guys in charge at Campy sit down in a meeting and decide
> that a slight increase in thickness of the SR headset anodizing
> would make a better, cheaper, or more marketable product? I doubt
> it. Deleting a machining step on the locknut may have been a
> conscious decision though. In any case, there are distinct
> differences in the shape of certain parts that, based on the bikes I
> see them on, correlate to production date. These were never
> intended to be "next generation" changes. I'm sure Campy never
> expected anal-retentive bike collectors to consider these
> differences in judging concours bikes, but here we are. If you
> don't care to try to decipher the changes through time, keep them
> straight, and oufit your bikes accordingly, that's fine. To me,
> this is one of the more interesting aspects of Campy stuff. I will
> continue to look very closely at any NR/SR equipped bike that I know
> to be OE, to see if my ideas hold up. I will continue to outfit my
> bikes to come as close as possible to my model. All just for fun.
> It is not important in the scheme of things. If someone wants to
> pay $150 for a late 80's headset to slap his earl 70's bike that's
> fine. To me that bike will look very incorrect, but that's not
> really a problem. It's a question of wher you draw the line. If
> the date stamp on the crank matters to you, shouldn't the surface
> finish of the crank fixing blt matter too?
>
> "Folks, none of this is rocket science; it's just normal
> volume-Production of
> (the best ever IMO) bicycle parts. Let's get real a little here. I'm
> as
> interested as anyone is in true design changes on Record/NR/SR
> parts, but
> normal Production run-to-run variations are not Design changes.
> Hello!!!"
>
> Again, you are correct that they are not design changes just
> temporal variations. I doubt they are just day to day. I think,
> and in some cases know, that certain unrecognized changes are date
> specific. No it's not rocket science, but it is a historical
> investigation, using the best information I can get. A lot more
> like stamp collecting than rocket science. It's not for everybody.
>
> End of rant...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Dalton
>
> Bethlehem, PA
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes