Chuck Schmidt and a number of others (myself included) contributed what numbers we could get. There was also a lively debate about measurement techniques, tools, accuracy, and standardization of methods. I thought there was at least one Cinelli in there (measured, not debating!).
Ken Freeman, Ann Arbor, MI
>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Original Message:
\r?\n> -----------------
\r?\n> From: rhawks@lmi.net
\r?\n> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:58:38 -0800
\r?\n> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> Subject: [CR]Geometry of mid 60s Cinellis
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> "I searched the archives for some mention of this, but
\r?\n> I only found passing references that used the word
\r?\n> geometry in a non-specific way. I didn't find any
\r?\n> hard numbers for seat tube angles, head tube angles,
\r?\n> fork rake offset, trail, etc."
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Check the archives again... didn't Chuck Schmidt diligently measure
\r?\n> a lot
\r?\n> of the machines in his collection maybe eight months ago?? I thought t
\r?\n> here
\r?\n> were Cinellis represented. It's a pet peeve that except for the British,
\r?\n>
\r?\n> the Italians and especially the French seemed loath to state even the fram
\r?\n> e
\r?\n> angles in their brochures. And even those, except for Peugeot, seem very
\r?\n>
\r?\n> elusive.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Peter Kohler
\r?\n> Washington DC USA
\r?\n>
\r?\n> --------------------------------------------------------------------
\r?\n> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
\r?\n> http://mail2web.com/