Yeah, where I worked we took a pass on the whole-frame test, but then later took the single-joint one (which certainly was a cakewalk*), probably in about '81-82.
So Tom Sanders's question remains, did they actually destructively test the whole frames they were sent? We now have some evidence they didn't (Tom's recollection) - any evidence they did ever destroy them?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----+ | *cakewalk (KAYK-wok) noun (borrowed without permission from wordsmith.com)| | | | Something very easy to do, having little or no opposition. | | | | [In the 19th century, cakewalk was a popular contest among slaves on | | the American plantations. It was a strutting dance, developed as a | | parody of white owners, in which couples with the most stylish steps | | won a cake as a prize.] | +----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----+
Mark Bulgier Seattle WA USA
John Thompson wrote:
>
> Tom Sanders wrote:
>
> > In the earlier discussion of submitting 753 frames for certification
> > Doug Fattic had written "You had to supply them a complete bicycle
> > frame in which they did destructive testing." At some point the
> > destructive testing must have ceased, because I have had builders
put
> > their "Certification Frames" into my hands and they certainly were
all
> > of a piece. Was it found that the destructive testing was too
extreme
> > a criteria? When might this have been decided?
>
> When I did it in the early 80s you only had to braze and
> submit single joint, which was then destructively tested by
> Reynolds. They sold kits for this purpose -- a lug and a
> couple tube ends for ~US$75 including the cost of testing.