[CR]Reason for clip headset conversion?

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PY-10)

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:38:19 -0500
From: "Joe Bender-Zanoni" <joebz@optonline.net>
To: Philcycles@aol.com, flying_scot@btopenworld.com, Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
References: <123.282b5c88.2cf7ee86@aol.com>
Subject: [CR]Reason for clip headset conversion?

What's the reason to convert? I think people paid extra for these headsets and forks in the 30s. It was an option on a Pop Brennan. They are very easy to adjust and resistant to coming loose. Also if you use a regular stem, the stem is very secure against twisting for heavy duty use like tandems or motor pacing because the quill and steerer are engaged twice. I think they went out of fashion because it was a pain to make the fork.

Joe Bender-Zanoni
Great Notch, NJ


----- Original Message -----
From: Philcycles@aol.com
To: flying_scot@btopenworld.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]Headset question



>
> In a message dated 11/27/03 3:04:48 PM, flying_scot@btopenworld.com writes:
>
> >Bianchi in Italy used a similar arrangement into the 1950s ? (Chuck / Steven
> >/ Aldo) ?, and they even patented a manufacturing process to produce the
> >necessarry flared head tubes to take the bearing races, and top and bottom
> >lugs formed from a single piece of sheet steel....
> >
> >
> The Bianchis used a conventional quill stem and were conventional in all
> respects except the bearing races. Headclips are a very different animal.I made a
> headclop fork once and it was tough. The steerer has to be the exact length
> and you can't cut a bit off the to to make it so. Also, the top of the steerer
> is 31/32", not 1". There a reason most were converted to conventional headsets
> and conventional forks.
> Phil Brown
> Sna Rafael, Calif.