[CR]Re: Classicrendezvous digest, Vol 1 #1700 - 16 msgs

(Example: Framebuilding:Paint)

From: "Stephen Barner" <Steve@sburl.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <20020915190045.95687.37203.Mailman@phred.org>
Subject: [CR]Re: Classicrendezvous digest, Vol 1 #1700 - 16 msgs
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:13:38 -0400

Mark,

I hope someone knowledgeable addresses the issue of why Schwinn had such an abnormally long TT on the 21" touring Paramounts. I bought a 21" in 1977 and have always been annoyed that I did not look carefully enough at the frame dimensions to pick up that stretched TT. The larger sizes seemed to be in much better proportion. Here are specs that Sarah Gibson sent me awhile back. These are from '75, but I think Schwinn used them throughout the 70s. The numbers, of course are ST, TT, WB.

P15, P10, P65, P60 20 21 3/16 39 3/8 head and seat angle 73 21 22 3/16 40 9/16 drop 3" 22 22 3/16 40 9/16 fork rake 2" 23 22 3/16 40 9/16 24 23 41 3/8 *P65 and P60 available in 20 and 22 frames 25 23 1/2 41 3/4 only 26 24 1/2 42 7/8

On the P13 model, the 21" frame's TT is a full inch shorter! I was told once that Schwinn used a longer TT on the touring model to provide toeclip clearance where they thought they could get away with it. Frankly, I think the fact that they consistently used the same tube lengths in several different sizes just points to the mass-production mentality of Schwinn. Fewer different lengths means fewer different settings when cutting, mitering and jigging. With parallel angles, the downtubes would be the same on multiple sizes as well.

In Schwinn's defense, stretched out frames on touring models were common practice back then, probably due to manufacturing philosophy around stability when loaded and beliefs about customer preference (I don't imagine much real market research informed these decisions). Personally, I don't see why riding position should change significantly between performance riding and touring. I can understand different bends in the handlebars, front end geometry, chainstay length and wheelbase, but the rider's body doesn't change.

Steve Barner, stretched out over a long frame in Bolton, Vermont

----- Original Message ----- >
From: FujiFish1@aol.com

> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 01:10:28 EDT

> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

> Subject: [CR]Yet another member with a new arrival, and a new QUESTION

>

>...Snip...

> I picked up the 1972 (seller said it was 73), all chromed with new red

> decals. The size (c-c) is 53 x 56.5. All Campy N.R., except for Schwinn

> approved c-pull brakes that look like Weinmann (I'm not well versed in
that

> area). I have wanted to replace my foolish sell of for quite some time,
and

> now it's done. Now, I intend to care for this bike for many, many, MANY

> years to come. The chrome is still very good, but might benefit from
chrome

> polish as there are a few typical scratches (clamp areas and rub areas).

> Happy - happy joy - joy

>...snip...

> Third, is there any story to the super long (relatively) top tube? The

> bike has eyelets for racks. Campy long rear drops and front drops.

> Non-drive side rear drop is stamped with the Schwinn numbers: L 72 (5?).

> Bottom shell is stamped with the Nervex label with an additional set of

> numbers. They are very lightly stamped toward the beginning and the end,
so

> I can only give a partial, and not so sure account:

>...Snip...

> Best regards,

> Mark (I can see my reflection) Agree

> Detroit MI