[CR]Cinelli Laser

(Example: History:Norris Lockley)

Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
To: gholl@optonline.net
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]Cinelli Laser

George Hollenberg MD wrote

Mr. Baylis's comments on the Cinelli Laser are interesting and could be enlarged, for example eel (?) skin saddle and handlebar wrap, silk tires, Roval wheels, clipless pedals, etc. These are all exotic and very impractical features.

Dear George Hollenberg MD,

While I agree that the Cinelli Laser was both exotic and impractical, I think you may have missed Brian's point. His point was that the execution of some of the features was poor, and that these shortcomings cannot be justified by the supposed cutting-edge nature of the bike. For example, internally-routed cables had been around for decades prior to the introduction of the Laser, and the practical requirements of internal cabling were already well understood. In my view, impracticality is acceptable, even "cool," when it is necessary for achieving a performance end. Of the examples you cite, I'd put Roval wheels in this category. It is inconvenient to remove a tubular just to access the spoke nipple, but the high spoke tension required with such a low spoke count makes a conventional nipple impracticable, and hiding the nipple in the rim gives the added benefit of aerodynamics, at least in theory. In hindsight, the Roval design was far ahead of its time, and we now see similar designs as standard-issue race wheels. As for the M71 pedals on the Laser, I'd classify them, with the Laser itself, as impractical due design shortcomings. If we assume that a race bike will always be used with special shoes, then clipless pedals have no intrinsic practical shortcoming that I can think of. The particular execution by Cinelli was difficult to use, and in some people's opinion dangerous. The M71 was yet another attempt at a clipless pedal that didn't quite work, and only with the introduction of the commercially successful Look did we see that clipless could be practical (for racing bikes, at least). While I agree that eelskin anything is impractical, I would attribute the use of anything so silly to Italian origin of the bike. As for silk tires, there are certainly practical concerns in wet weather, but this is another of those for-performance-sake concessions. Having been around "forever" and widley used on both road and track, there is nothing especially exotic about silk tires.

In my view Cinelli was respected company because of their products that actually worked under racing condtions. It is my understanding that the SC frame was influential upon trends in frame geometry. The basic bars and stems, saddles, toestraps, and frame components set the standard for many years. While a history of innovation adds to what makes Cinelli and interesting company, I think there were far, far more misses than hits. Look at the Bi-Valents, the M-71s, and the countless bizarro stem designs from the 80's onward. Looking at the integrated Cinelli bar/stem combinations of today I see only impracticality. Not only is one forced to change both the bar and stem to achieve a dimensional change in either part, but you can't even alter the angle of the handlebar. I imagine there could be a tiny weight savings with such a design, but unless the rider has unlimited access to all bar/stem combos, including various angles (which aren't made) this is an utterly senseless system. I see the modern reduction in size choices and adjustability as a cheapening of the product disguised as performnace-enhancing innovation. This leaves me feeling none-too-pleased with what Cinelli has become.

Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA, USA

---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.