Ken Freeeman wrote:
>
> So in the interest of reducing the variables, which I as (guess what?)
> another engineer applaud, maybe we should write down the targets for the
> measurement. How much precision? Are all tubes c-c except the seat tube?
> Will Masis be measured c-t or center to lug point? Will chainstays be
> measured along the tube or from bb to rear axle along the frame
> plane-of-symmetry? What should be the position of the dropout adjuster
> screws?...ad nauseum.
>
> But the point is, if we want people to do the measurement, and if some
> degree of accuracy is desired, and if we hope the measurements can be
> correlated and compared afterwards, the key points should be written down so
> one can find them in the archives.
>
> Chuck, I write standards as part of my living. I'm willing to as a starting
> point write up neatly (at least for an engineer) what you think as a first
> draft for a Vintage Bike Geometry Measurement Standard. Then you can all
> shoot at it, then I write a second draft.
>
> Whadd'ya think?
>
> Ken Freeman
> Ann Arbor, MI
I guess I'd have to say I think the question of a Vintage Bike Geometry Measurement Standard is moot. Keeping this simple resulted in exceedingly little response the list. Making the process overly complicated does nothing to encourage participation.
One off list response, "Why should people care."
I've gone to the trouble of measuring most of my bikes and it helps me form opinions on what I'm feeling while riding them by knowing the geometry of each. I was always curious about how the racing bike has evolved over the decades and have found the answers to my own satisfaction.
Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, Southern California
.