Ok, did that and found more. Oddly, by being more specific in my search terms I got more hits, and among them I got the postings from 10 months ago. In one of them, I found Chuck's admonition to never believe anything quoted in a catalog. Still, my other question, or at least the spirit of that question, remains: Was there a standard that the frames followed or, for Cinellis specifically, would any two bikes otherwise assumed to be the same 'size' end up with different angles?
rob hawks richmond, ca
Quoting "kohl57@starpower.net" <kohl57@starpower.net>:
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: rhawks@lmi.net
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:58:38 -0800
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: [CR]Geometry of mid 60s Cinellis
>
>
>
> "I searched the archives for some mention of this, but
> I only found passing references that used the word
> geometry in a non-specific way. I didn't find any
> hard numbers for seat tube angles, head tube angles,
> fork rake offset, trail, etc."
>
> Check the archives again... didn't Chuck Schmidt diligently measure a lot
> of the machines in his collection maybe eight months ago?? I thought there
> were Cinellis represented. It's a pet peeve that except for the British,
> the Italians and especially the French seemed loath to state even the frame
> angles in their brochures. And even those, except for Peugeot, seem very
> elusive.
>
> Peter Kohler
> Washington DC USA
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/