Hi Nick,
Did Beacon import any bikes from Japan in the '70s, and did any of these have non-spec'd components? I'd be real interested to know if that was the case, and what Japanese factory produced them.
This kind of thinking didn't generally apply in Japan, and it certainly didn't work this way for Fuji. In the Japanse domestic market, most shops are tiny and dealers can only display a handful of bikes. I had good dealers doing decent volume that only had room for 4 or 5 bikes on the floor; a good shop with room for 20-25 bikes seemed _huge_. They sell almost exclusively from the catalog. Customer drools over the catalog, customer orders from the catalog, customer often doesn't actually see an example of the bike she's buying until her bike arrives for pickup.
So Japanese manufacturers did not consider it acceptable to ship bikes domestically with substituted components. They avoided supply problems by buying from Japanese suppliers, who made sure they got what they needed when they needed it. If the bike shipped late, it shipped late. Better to ship late than to ship with parts substitutions.
And Japanese dealers did not consider it acceptable to receive bikes with substituted components. Even through the '90s, my Japanese dealers would not accept bikes with parts substitutions, especially for major components, and many times I had to buy derailleurs (most common parts sub) to send to dealers so they could put the bike back to catalog spec. They would even complain in those rare cases when the substitution was an upspec. It wasn't an upspec/downspec issue, it was a catalog fidelity issue.
I wasn't selling Japanese bikes in the '70s, but during the early '80s I never found a single Fuji out of the box with anything other than catalog spec parts. This was at a time when you didn't know what was on a Trek until you opened the box. Catalog fidelity was important for Fuji even for export product.
And even if Fuji had a need to sub parts, I can't imagine them having a bunch of Campy stuff lying around the factory. Campy was extremely expensive to import and they didn't use any Campy components for domestic product. I can't see it being easier for them to get their hands on Campagnolo parts than to lean on SunTour and Shimano to get something out quick.
Cheers,
Paul Brodek Hillsdale, NJ
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:24:23 -0400 (GMT-04:00), Nick Zatezalo
<nickzz@mindspring.com> wrote:
>During the 70s, specs from manufacturers were by no means dogma.
>Due to the high demand for cycling gear; most manufacturers were
>forced to provide what was available to them at the time. This often
>times led to unusual kits on bicycles sold as complete rigs.
>
>Having worked for importer,Beacon Cycle, at this time, we often
discovered
>non-spec'd items, upon opening a newly shipped bicycle.
>
>In the 70s there were specs and then there was the reality of available
parts.
>
>Nick Zatezalo
>Atlanta,Ga
>
>
>-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Aug 2, 2005 9:07 AM
>To: mdschmidt@patmedia.net, David Ross <dlr94306@yahoo.com>,
> classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: Re: [CR]Was: Cinelli bikes now Fuji
>
Wow, I'd be amazed if a Fuji Newest came with Nuovo Record, but then
I'm amazed by something here every day. I have seen Fuji Newest both
in catalogs and "in the steel" which were most definitely all
Suntour/Sugino/Diacompe. The closest they came to Campy NR was that
the Sugino Mightly could be mistaken for it from 25 ft away. It is
possible that Fuji speced the Newest with NR at some time in the 70's,
but I've never heard of such a thing, and it would seem out of
character for Fuji, which seemed to have a loyalty to Japanese parts
as great as Peugeot's loyalty to French parts. If someone has a
catalog with a Campy NR equiped Fuji Newest, or any so equiped 70's
Fuji model I'd LOVE to see it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jerry Moos
Paul C. Brodek
Hillsdale, N.J. U.S.A.
E-mail: pcb@skyweb.net