I think Brian has brought up some really interesting points about the Cinelli Laser bikes, And about the functional aspects of the design as well. I have a few early TT bikes, which are from roughly the same era, and I'd like to add some thoughts on those, as a comparison. I also have a question I'll get to last as it will make more sense then.
1) Hujsak Aero -- Decent brake cable routing, but no internal tube to guide the housing It does have a fairly gentle angle though, so feeding the housing through wasn't too hard. The shift cables were routed through thin nylon tubes with just enough room for the tube to exit the frame. over the years, that tube came apart, and feeding new ones through was very difficult. It took about 4 hours! And I still didn't have a complete run through the tube. It's Columbus Air, like a laser. I haven't checked for fillers, but the faired sections look more like sheetmetal to me.
2)84 olympic US team time trial bike -- Really odd cable routings. the rear brake makes an s bend going into and inside the head area.and exits beneath the bottom bracket. the front actually runs inside the steerer, and through the bolt that holds the bars on. I'm expecting a very difficult time running those. But the castings that form the head and bottom bracket have cable grooves cast in. The single shifter cable runs through the bottom bracket, and exits through the dropout. So it should be another tricky run. The aero faired sections are castings, so no filler, but it is glued together.
3)Raleigh team TT bike. Very similar to the 84 olympic bike, and probably used by the levis team for the trials. Better cable routings, normal in front, and a smooth transition with the adjuster on the down tube, cable runs through the bottom bracket and out the bottom to the bottom mounted brake. The shifter cable runs through the bottom bracket as well, the exit isn't clear, as a previous owner changed it to track ends. (It's currently in the shop being changed back)
The Hujsak was intended for some use, and so some provision was made for maintainance. The other two were made to be used primarily for a single event, anything after that wasn't really planned for. The rear brakes themselves are carved up Dura Ace AX, with the bare cable running in a filed groove. Not really the best for use or longevity, and maybe just barely ok for what they were built for, world class riders on a closed course, slowing/stopping maybe only at the very end of the race. I have a couple later TT bikes, which are a bit smoother from a maintainance/usability aspect, and more normally designed.
So the question I'm left with is how were the lasers marketed, and who were the target customers. If they were intended for pro or top level amateur teams, then maybe the shortcomings Brian describes make more sense, as they would be expected to see limited use over maybe a couple years. The number of special variants makes it seem to me that this was the case. If the intent was to market them to the general public as the primary buyers, then the shortcomings are just that, and Brian is spot on both from a mechanical point which is a given, and in context as well.
Steve Birmingham Lowell, Ma
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 04:49:36 GMT From: "brianbaylis@juno.com" <brianbaylis@juno.com> Subject: Re: [CR]Cinelli Laser and Modolo Kronos Message: 12
Garth,
Perhaps I should explain further my impressions and opinions regarding
the Cinelli Laser. And let me again state that the standard road
version of the Laser is not at all the same laser that is represented
by the Ken Denny Photos of the special Laser track sprint bike. That
is one of the nicest pieces of design and construction I've ever seen
for that type of bike.
My first complaint about the road version is how the rear brake cable
was routed through the top tube. There are three parts to my
objections here. To begin with, the angle that the cable enters and
exits the tubes is far too extreme, especially at the front of the top
tube. The entry should be at a relaxed, gentle, and graceful angle for
a number of reasons; not the least of which is that the brakes work
MUCH better that way. Most important on the rear brake on account of
the long route. Front brakes always work great (don't they?).
Furthermore, the Cinelli does not have a continuous tube through the
top tube (which explains why the entry is at nearly 90 degrees, an
internal tube would not allow one to route a tube in such an awkward
angle in the first place), and this makes is MUCH more difficult to
route a brake cable housing. Not only do you have to fish a piece of
brazing rod through there to slide the housing over, but the extreme
angles at both ends make it very difficult. Try it some time. Making
a "state of the art bicycle" should also include doing the basic
simple functional things at least as good as anything else of the
period; if not better or classier. They really dropped the ball here.
To top it off, the appearance, not to mention the function, is
compromised by that awful sharp angle. The cable turns much better,
the cable doesn't chafe, and it looks ten times better and more
refined if the proper entry angle and location are selected. OK,
judging from the period; I promise you there were plenty of
framebuilders who knew all this at the time. I promise!
Shall we move on to the derailleur cable routing? Why the hell not. To
begin with, I had to do a lot of work in the area around the braze-on
for the shifters and the entry points where the cable goes inside the
frame. Lots of bondo work and again not the ideal angle for the
cables, but not nearly as bad as the brake cable routing. The real
problem is how they failed to make a practical transition between the
down tube and the seat tube (for ft. der.) and the chainstay (for rear
der.) which made it a genuine certified nightmare to replace a
deralleur cable. So much so that I opted to leave the cables in with
the shifters still on them while I was restoring the bike, which made
the job more difficult, but apparently not as difficult as the other
alternative (unless you considered suicide). Anyway, if they had come
up with a solution for this situation I would be REALLY impressed. But
not so in this case; and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the aero
bike built by Weigle that Alan mentioned during the thread at least
had a much better approach if not some genius solution to this problem
that plagues anyone who tries internally routing cables continuously
from the tubes through the BB shell. Dale mentioned that the look of
the laser was the feature that was being recognized and "appreciated"
by people at the time. My feeling is you people only see the visual
way too much and overlook the basic elements of design and function in
the process. I'm suggesting a more enlightened perspective as an
alternative. If the piece passes the design and function part first,
then look at the visual/perceived appearance for innovation and
styling. Cinelli most definitely does not win the award for solving
this problem.