Re: [CR]victims of campy marketing

(Example: Production Builders:LeJeune)

From: <Wolfman231@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 06:23:25 EDT
Subject: Re: [CR]victims of campy marketing
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


In a message dated 5/22/03 12:05:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tom@wilsonbike.com writes:

<< Is a bike that comes to a dealer from a manufacturer that is not the same spec as in their catalogue is not original then? This logic would tell me that factories do not produce factory original product. Maybe the catlogue had a typo, or the spec was changed to keep the cost down or because they ran out of the galli freewheel and they threw on an everest instead. This happened all the time. >>

Hi Tom, First off, I'd love to have one of those galli freewheels for a galli project...were they gold anodized?

To get back to your concerns about my original post in which I wrote:
>If the catalog was printed, then a supplier went out of business, etc., and
> none or few of that model year came equipped with that component, would a
> sensible person argue that the bike MUST have that stated component to be
> 'original?' Ummm...no.

I should have been more specific than "etc.," but I was taking into account things like typos or minor spec changes. I must have underestimated the amount of spec changes going on, because I wouldn't have classified it as happening all the time. Sure, I remember the lower end models having generic, substituted parts. Take the seatpost for example: in one batch it was a Delta, the next it was a Strong, the next they slapped the house brand label on it. And often on those models the seatpost would be listed in the catalog as "alloy." I just don't remember the better bikes having that many major spec changes. Those are the bikes bought by the sophisticated customer who would notice deviations from the catalogs. But my bicycle industry exposure was limited to summers and afterschool at only two bike shops and 4 major brands (Schwinn, Panasonic, Peugeot and Specialized...oh...and only briefly, Cannondale) so I'll defer to the pros on the list and their experience in the industry. If they say it happened enough to be significant, OK. I'll be more mindful of that when restoring by catalog in the future.

I'd say factories don't always produce factory 'original' product: sometimes when they run out of parts, they produce factory 'substituted' product. Let me give you a self-serving hypothetical: Motobecane runs short on derailleurs for their Jubilee model. They upspec to Campagnolo for a batch. For my thinking, that batch is an aberration, a substitution, but not the real Jubilee. Yes, it still says Jubilee on it...Motobecane calls it a Jubilee, but Motobecane didn't originally intend the Jubilee to have a Campagnolo derailleur. We literally define some models by the frame material and part spec: "Oh yeah, that was Brand X's SL Nuovo Record bike or Brand Z's Sante bike."

You also asked: What about the bike shop's input? If a Paramount had a drivetrain that they knew from recent personal experience that the Everest freewheels did not mesh with the book spec D I D chain, and replaced it with the more functional and proper 'correct' Everest chain, does that mean the bike is now not orginal and out of correctness? If it was kept 'stock and correct' then the actual user would have a completely non functional bike. Better to sell a useless bike and be 'original' than a functional machine worthy of the $500.00 the budding racer spent on it? I think not. And the customer just might like his/her bike with a pump. Or the alloy toe clips found on the super record model instead of the stainless ones his Nuovo record model. Or the lighter tubes. This bike would not be original?

My answer, No, I wouldn't call these cases original either. I never used the words correct or incorrect in any of my post. That would have been a value judgment. I just was defining what I thought was original. I would call the examples you cite as custom. Sometimes customizing improves a bike, sometimes it doesn't. Have you ever had a customer ask you to take a really nice lightweight racing bike and convert the drop bars to touring/flat bars? Would you consider this bike to be original? How about better, more functional? See the slippery slope once changes are made? Personally, I like to customize most of my bikes with my favorite saddles, pedals, etc. Even though thats how I may have set them up as new, they are still custom. That would be my same classification for a bare frame built up.

Tom, thanks for taking the time to help me clarify my opinion. I'm sorry I didn't express myself better in the first post. I think we just have a different definition of the word original. And I hope I didn't get your boxers all in a bunch. ;-)

Ed Kasper
Detroit