Re: [CR]Lambert


Example: Production Builders:Cinelli

From: Joe Bender-Zanoni <joebz@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Lambert
To: Steve Neago <questor@cinci.rr.com>, "Beyer Jr., Chris (C.C.)" <cbeyer2@volvocars.com>
Cc: classicrendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <596000F0A205D511AABC0002B3152BD8078AD1EE@na1ecm14.dearborn.ford.com> <001701c264b3$2c7fece0$59f51b41@cinci.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:04:38 -0400

The six pin pattern doesn't mean much. It goes back forever. I never thought the arms were TA cause the square axle was so dopey but of Dale says it may be that's good enough for me. The rings and hardware on early Lamberts are definately not TA. Deep stamping of chainring #s, different finish, different tooth profile and an intermediate set of bolts tying together the large chainrings.

The steel stamped R mech had a short run because Suntour sued on this blatant ripoff.

My death fork broke the first day!!!! Had something to do with running into a parked car looking down at the @#$% shifter not working.

Joe B-Z
GNNJ


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Neago"
To: "Beyer Jr., Chris (C.C.)"
Cc: "classicrendezvous"
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]Lambert



> Hi Chris,
>
> I beg to differ... Lambert used TA arms that are the same a 6-pin
> CycloTourist, but the chainwheels were made cut from a different pattern. I
> an not sure about the BB axle...
>
> Regards, Steve Neago
> Cincinnati, OH
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Beyer Jr., Chris (C.C.)" <cbeyer2@volvocars.com>
> To: <mmeison@scubadiving.com>; <TonyFNitro@aol.com>
> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 10:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [CR]Lambert
>
>
> > Marty:
> >
> > Those are most assuredly NOT TA cranks; they just look similar. The
> > Lambert used a non-tapered bottom bracket axle, making the cranks
> > interchangeable with nothing else.
> >
> > Chris