Re: [CR] the trend of new KOF builders

(Example: Framebuilders:Mario Confente)

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:42:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [CR] the trend of new KOF builders
From: "Doug Fattic" <>
To: Jan Heine <>, 'Classic Rendevous' <>, Peter Weigle <>
In-Reply-To: <a062309a6c4776a3aac3c@[]>


I often exchange the word ³performance² for ³racing² which can lead to the inaccuracy in meaning you noted. I do this because when I am measuring someone up for a custom bike - that is probably middle aged - and I inquiry what type of frame they want, the word racing can mess up the process. If that word were by accident to slip out of my mouth, I'd then need to listen to a long report on why they don't race (or don't race anymore). In addition to that if I was to accidentally label what I am making for them a s a racing frame, they would be sure that would not be right because they don't race - even though that is exactly what they need.

Besides asking about what kind of riding they do, I also try to find out what kind of personality they might have. A strong type "A" wants a go fas t bike no matter what the label might be.

So you are right, a randoneuring frame is a performance frame. What a student typically wants to build is an all purpose frame which can carry (o r not carry) a load at any speed.

By the way, I thought the randoneuring bikes that Peter Weigle showed at Cirque were really gorgeous. He has done a fine job of integrating the accessories into the overall appearance of the bike. Beautiful work!

Doug Fattic Niles, Michigan USA

On 6/12/08 8:17 PM, "Jan Heine" <> wrote:
> At 5:06 PM -0400 6/12/08, Doug Fattic wrote:
>> Of the 34 frames that have been made in my classes the last 2 years, onl y one
>> has been a performance frame while all the rest were transportation,
>> randoneuring or touring frames of some kind.
> This probably was just a poor choice of words, but I'd like to point this
> anyhow...
> I am surprised you do not consider the randonneuring frame a performance
> frame! A good randonneur bike is a performance bike. I would even go so f ar
> that a good commuting bike is a performance bike.
> As long as you load the front and not the rear, you can use the same fram e
> tubing for all of them, and similar components, and unless loaded down wi th
> very heavy loads (for the commuter especially), they should perform simil arly.
> In all my bike tests for Bicycle Quarterly, I have found performance to b e
> related to many factors, but not to whether a bike is a racing or randonn eur
> bike. Some randonneur bikes are even lighter than most On-Topic racing
> bikes...
> I do not want to start a discussion, but this is the second time today I see
> somebody refer to "performance" frames in juxtaposition to randonneur bik es...
> Apart from that, I agree with Doug. I see a lot of interest in "real-worl d"
> bikes. I suspect that those interested in the semblance of ultimate
> performance today reject classic and KOF bikes anyhow. They still buy rac ing
> bikes, just not steel ones. And those who can see beyond the marketing hy pe
> want a rational, beautiful bike, which they can use in their everyday rid ing.
> We still feature classic racing bikes in Bicycle Quarterly because I love
> them, and it's my magazine, so I can do what I want! Testing that 1957
> Cinelli, complete with steel cranks and super-wide Clement Campionato del
> Mondo tubulars, was a blast! It wasn't superlight, but it sure was fast. Here
> is the bike:
> Jan Heine
> Editor
> Bicycle Quarterly
> 140 Lakeside Ave #C
> Seattle WA 98122