Brett Wrote:
Sorry Tom, you are greatly mistaken. There were several manufactures at the time that, as part of their team sponsorship and R&D, insisted their riders use their clincher rims, albeit on a limited basis. To say the early 80's clinchers were unpopular with the riders is an understatement. That said, you are speaking about an era where riders were not given a lot of flexibility in component choice. When utilized, clinchers were rode in races with smooth tarmac and virtually no climbs or descents.
I reply:
No Brett, greatly mistaken would be saying that the earth is the center of the solar system. I said that nobody raced on clinchers, at his level, at that time. It sounds like I may have been unaware of some rare exceptions. Typically, I dont resort to absolutes, like nobody and I guess I have here a fine example of why I should redouble my efforts to account for all possibilities. But, like a person who grew up with the heavenly spheres rotating around the earth, it is going to be hard for me to incorporate clinchers into my early-80s peloton world view. A single photograph or reliable editorial reference would go a long way toward convincing me that those poor devils were using Hi-Lites when they could have been using CX setas. No matter, I would absolutely hold onto all the bits and pieces of the Colnago as you received it, but I would also pick up a set of wheels like those used in the Worlds RR. With an important bike like the one in question, Id document (in writing and with photos) exactly how the bike came to you, and leave open the possibility of restoring it to that condition wherever possible.
Brett Wrote:
This is the same type of thread that rang out last year with the unequivocal statement by someone on the list that the 60's pros never rode triple cranksets. Several pros rode them, the most notable being Jacques Anquetil. Anquetil rode in several races and there are scores of photos of him doing so, Giro d' Lombardia included.
I reply:
Okay
Brett Wrote:
Same thing can be said about tire choices of today. When I was at Tour of Flanders this past year, several teams were racing with Continental GP 2000's, including three teams that did not even have Continental as their sponsor. Most notable in the bunch were several Lotto and T-Mobile riders, including their stars. The average wanker US Cat 1/2 rider would stick their noses in the air to such an idea. After all, those tires cost about $10. How can one possibly be competitive on anything under $80 per tire?
I reply:
I dunno Brett, pretty much all the senior mens cat 1 and cat 2 riders Ive ridden with are pretty accomplished cyclists, and while they might enjoy a good wank as much as the next guy, I wouldnt call them wankers. But, I suppose when you hang out with really good pros, its easy to look down on decent amateurs, whatever your own status as a cyclist. FWIW, folding Continental 2000s cost about $32. While there are several other Conti clinchers that run up to $52 a shot (no Conti clincher is near $80), the 2000s are hardly so crappy as to be shocking when seen on a pros bike. An on-topic analogy might be choosing a Criterium Cotton over a Seta Extra, rather than a Super Condor vs. Seta Extra kinda scenario.
Brett Wrote:
The component choice perspective of Americans in the early 1980's was dictated almost exclusively by the media advertising and editorial available at the time, the majority of which by today's standards sucked. Every aspiring US junior or decent 1/2/3 rider seemingly had to have a bike outfitted head to toe in Campy Record or Super Record. That however, was not how the typical rider was set up in Europe. Even today, with the larger value sponsorships in cycling, components don't simply flow out of the water faucet.
I reply:
Yep.
Brett Wrote:
Some riders don't even like "top of the line" out of safety concerns. Others just like the ride and feel of lower level components.
I reply:
Today, more than ever, top-priced, top-of-the-line components cant be presumed to be the best for everyones application. I think serious riders learn this pretty quickly, unless they are just a little dim. The guy who needs a $400 carbon bar is likely too weak to appreciate the benefits of a $75 bar, or he just isnt riding much. But it has always been the case that while the top-end, top-priced part might be the lightest, it isnt necessarily the best for all purposes. Your reference to lower level is in itself an unfortunate side effect of the gotta have the best culture of racing, even if you dont believe this yourself. Consider SR vs NR botton brackets for example. Clearly most pros preferred the feel and safety of the steel NR unit, but was it really even lower level? Werent both units of pretty much the same quality? Isnt calling NR a lower level the same as saying GP4s are lower than GEL280s because they are heavier and cheaper. Same quality, different applications, price difference may reflect manufacturing costs, but more likely was a matter of what Mavic could get away with.
Brett Wrote:
I spent a few days last winter at the home of Erik Zabel. I think we can all agree he is a decent pro. You know what his bike of choice is to ride around town, to the coffee shop and on casual rides? A Moser steel bike from the early 1980's with all time period correct parts. Not NOS. More like COS (crappy old stock)
I reply:
Cool. There was an interesting photo, I believe it was in Cycle Sport, of Zabel in a room full of old bikes. I think it was actually a second apartment that he was renting to store his old bikes, trophies, etc. It was surprising to see a seasoned pro who was actually into bikes. Having seen this photo of Zabel in his trophy room, its no surprise to me that he rides some old iron. Besides, hes in Europe, where people actually ride bikes to get places (wow!), and even old race bikes get put to use around town. It seems that Eric is a bit nostalgic about old bikes. Can you get him to join CR?
Brett Wrote:
Although I do not personally agree with your position on the decals, I think I understand where you are coming from . It will be interesting to see what other opinions exist at VR 2005.
I reply:
If you already have formed an opinion on the decals, why did you solicit advice? Maybe I misunderstood your post because I didnt read whatever might have come before.
You may be right to preserve the decals it came with, because they are part of the bikes story, but IMO if that change happened (possibly several times) after the pivotal moment in the bikes history whats wrong with doing it again? OTOH, something like touching up the paint seems wrong, since that probably wouldnt have been done to the bike in normal use.
Tom Dalton
Bethlehem, PA
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com