Steven, Greg is flatly wrong on several ponts in his post, specifically in his negative generalizations about me and in his assumptions that I am unyielding in my opinions, and that I have confused manufacturing variations with design changes. If your pal at Campy can "back this up 100%" then thanks for the insight. If not, think twice about exactly what you are endorsing before you go "attaboying" on-list. And remember, if you don't like the thread... DELETE! Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA The Maaslands <TheMaaslands@comcast.net> wrote: Great post! A friend of mine was production director at Campagnolo from 1994 to 1997 and he will back this up 100%. Let's move on.
Steven Maasland
Moorestown, NJ
> Tom:
>
> This is all becoming rather banal at this point IMHO. Please, I implore
you,
> let's move on.
>
> Marc's possible early SR lever sounds very much like a modified early
Record
> to some of us. If you want to "prove" any of your theories, then please
> contact the original Engineers from Vicenza, get them to dig out their
> Engineering Change Logbooks from that time period, and sort this out once
and
> for all. You can then publish the results on your own website for all that
> choose to view it. (I personally would be thrilled to find an accurate
source
> of information such as that on the Web). Short of doing that, we will
never
> fully prove anything.
>
> After waaaay too much recent discussion of Campy Record / SR brake levers,
> three things are becoming clearer for me. One, you will never change your
> opinion about this. That's fine; you are certainly entitled to your
opinion,
> as we all are. You really do have an uphill struggle here, though. Zero of
> these early SR levers has been proven to exist on this planet thus far.
Two,
> relating to the SR headset questions, IMO you don't seem real familiar
with
> the Mass-Production Manufacturing environment. Three, I fear you may be
> becoming one of those who get their jollies by stirring up the pot and
then
> always needing to have the last word. I call it the "one percent factor."
(Hi
> Ken!). If it would make you happy to respond to this post, and then let's
> call it a fortnight and talk about something more meaningful, I'm all for
> it....
>
> In response to your generalized attack, of course many of us NR / SR
junkies
> are interested in the minutiae of the most popular and
> instantly-recognizeable classic lightweight bicycle components on the
planet,
> but we need to have a sense of balance at some point. There were and are
> minor lot-to-lot variations in any Mass-Production setting. Do you want to
> measure the depth of the flutes or the opacity of the anodizing on every
> Campagnolo Record crankarm and categorize the variation as "Design
Changes?"
>
> As a Design Engineer, I have been approached by Purchasing or
Manufacturing
> on literally thousands of occasions to approve a "Deviation" from the
> blueprint. This is common at Manufacturers of all sizes. Something may not
be
> 100% "to print" in some way or another, but someone somewhere doesn't want
to
> scrap the whole lot of XX,000 pieces if the deviation doesn't affect the
> function, fit or finish of the item in question. It's certainly
> understandable that this would occur (although Deviations are never
> automatically approved - I've taken some heat many times over the last
twenty
> years for standing my ground and saying "scrap 'em" if I felt that the
part
> would be unacceptable in some way).
>
> Finally, in summation, I'll say this as clearly as I can:
>
> Catalogs don't mean doo-doo!
>
> (Can I say "doo-doo" on CR?)
>
> Greg Parker
> A2 MI USA
>
> Where I am stockpiling early SR brake levers to sell on eBay for
retirement
> income (Please send me all you might have...).
>
>
> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:29:57 -0400
> > From: Richard M Sachs
> > Subject: [CR]Early SR lever shape, really, hallucinating. WEEK 2
> >
> > re the 'supposed' sr levers with the early 70s shape,
> > a.k.a. the 'longer-reach brake lever'...
> > here's why (we) think they don't exist:
> > in 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
> > 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