Re: [CR]Cinelli 1R Problems

(Example: Framebuilders:Bernard Carré)

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:43:39 -0400
From: "Edward Albert" <ealbert01@gmail.com>
To: tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [CR]Cinelli 1R Problems
In-Reply-To: <265070.31060.qm@web55902.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <265070.31060.qm@web55902.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
cc: Classic Rendezvous

Tom, I agree with many of your points because they seem not at all different from what I too believe. However, one point you made that I really am in agreement with, I quote, "I may be splitting hairs, but....." :) Best Regards. Eddie (and I am not a Dr., I do not practice medicine, although I do sometimes play one on TV) Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote :
> Eddie Albert wrote:
>
> Res Ipsa Locuitur. Again, Freek, I believe is right on. The stem did no t
> hold the bars, i.e., it stunk!
>
> Tom Dalton replies:
>
> Okay Dr. Eddie, now you've got me all worked up. I must admit that I had
> to Google your Latin phrase to learn that it means "the thing speaks for
> itself," but upon learning this I was left wondering "what thing?" Are
> you suggesting that Hinault learned the hard way in the midst of the 1979
> Tour just how stinky the 1-R is and changed to a 1-A? The 1-R had been
> around since 1975 or so, and I think everyone knew what it was by 1979. If
> it was truly as bad as you assert, there is no way that anyone would stil l
> have been messing about with them four years later, and there's no way th at
> Cinelli would still have been manufacturing them.
>
> Eddie also wrote:
>
> I don't know who was or was not using stems that looked to be 1Rs. But
> again, I will cling to my earlier assertion that those stems did not work
> properly and racers avoided them. They may have tried them out, but soon
> after they switched back.
>
>
>
> Tom Dalton replies:
>
> I agree that a lot of folks had problems with the 1-R and quickly moved
> away from them after a brief and unsuccessful trial. I saw this several
> times in the day. They were finicky stems, and for all their finickiness ,
> they offered no obvious benefit beyond looking cool, and possibly being
> slightly lighter. I don't think they were ever the practical choice for
> workaday racers, just as SR bottom brackets and pedals and Regina titaniu m
> freewheels and chains were not practical choices. As such, 1-Rs were
> usually only found on the Gucci bikes of poseurs and on the bikes of
> professional racers who enjoyed the highest level of technical support.
   The
> guys you raced with in the 70's and 80's on the east coast in the pro-am
> crit circuit naturally rejected them, of course.
>
>
>
> Eddie also wrote:
>
> Re: Cinelli pushing to have them ridden. Of course he would have. Given
> the cost of sponsorship Cinelli would expect riders to use what he was
> selling. However, as in the case of frames and other parts I would not b e
> at all surprised at all if the 1R you see on a pros bike was not in fact
> either doctored to fix the problem or doctored to look like a 1R. In the
> U.S. we all know about how AMF was not AMF, Huffy was not Huffy, etc, etc .
> I can't imagine a pro rider taking the risk of his bars slipping down in
> the heat of the action. Just does not make sense to me. But, of course,
> neither do a lot of other things.
>
>
>
> Tom Dalton Replies:
>
> I disagree\u2026 with all of this. Okay, not quite all of it, but most of it.
> Yes, Cinelli would, as a sponsor, expect riders to use what he was sellin g.
> But he was also selling 1-As, so the real question is whether he pushed
> specifically for teams to use the 1-R, or if those pro riders (and entire
> teams) that opted for the 1-R did so by preference. Hard to imagine why a
> rider would prefer the 1-R, though I do have one friend who swore they
> soaked up the bumps a little better than 1-As (the extension was hollow).
> It could be that Cinelli put pressure on teams to use the 1-Rs because th ey
> sold for nearly twice the price of 1-As and were the flagship model. It
> doesn't speak well of your parts when your "best" part is rejected and
> everyone uses your older, cheaper stuff, but who knows what Cinelli wante d?
> What I do know is that the 1-R was not a stinky stem in that they were no t
> fundamentally flawed in such away that the bars would inevitably slip. T hey
> were temperamental and prone to problems. If they were not used in
> exactly the right way, they didn't work. Properly set up they were
> reliable, even if sometimes a bit creaky. The problem is that "properly
> set up" meant a couple of things. Foremost, you needed to mate them to
> fresh Cinelli brand bars with the correct knurling. The 1-A was very
> flexible; you could use many different makes and models of bar with the 1 -A,
> even when the bar had the wrong diameter. By comparison the 1-R was very
> restrictive. This compatibility issue was the real problem, because othe r
> than top pros, riders wanted to be able to use whatever equipment they ha ve
> on hand and they wanted it to all work together. This, I think, is where
> the 1-Rs reputation as hopelessly deficient, as voiced by you, finds its
> basis. Many, many people bought them and tried to use them with some old
> bar they had lying around. Even the correct models of Cinelli bar would
> not work if the knurl was not fresh. Then there is the matter of getting
> it tight. The little wedge, the pressure plate, the bolt thread and the
> bolt head all needed to be thoroughly greased before the bar was assemble d
> to the stem. Then the binder needed to be torqued down very hard. If
> this wasn't done, the bar would slip, damaging the knurling, and at that
> point there was no hope of ever getting that bar to hold again.
>
>
>
> Another problem was that there was zero documentation included with these
> stems. They came in an otherwise empty plastic bag. Users would need to
> figure out the stem's quirks by themselves, and I suspect they rarely did
> before just trashing the 1-R stem. Pro teams likely figured out the 1-Rs
> limitations after a short time, possibly with input from Cinelli, and giv en
> that they had deep reserves of fresh bars, it was not really a steep
> learning curve to figure out that the knurl needed to be pristine.
>
>
>
> I think your assertion that all the stems used in the pro peloton were
> either doctored 1-Rs or other models doctored to look like 1-Rs is way of f
> the mark. I have seen 1-A's with little black dot stickers on the front,
> but that was rare and it was completely obvious what was going on. As fo r
> other models of stem that were doctored to look like 1-Rs, I can't imagin e
> what they would be. The only common stem that looked similar was a Nitto
> made Dura Ace stem that was significantly different and was not introduce d
> until the very late 70's or early 80s. No, all those stems that look lik e
> 1-Rs in all those pictures from the European pro races in the 1980's were ,
> in fact, 1-Rs. There are plenty of very close-up pictures to confirm
> this. So, this leaves the matter of whether the 1-Rs in use were
> routinely modified by team mechanics to overcome some tragic flaw. I say ,
> "no way." For one thing, I have never noticed any modification in any
> picture of a 1-R on a pro's bike, and I have never even heard of any
> modifications that were done. Harvey's speculation was interesting, as
> was Ray's pic of his modified stem, but this says nothing about what pro
> team mechanics were really doing. Ray's bike is, as far as I know, not a
> former team bike. You will also note that the image he provided shows
> obvious damage to the knurl. Ray's fix was likely necessary to get that
> particular bar to stay in place. I seriously doubt that this was the
> standard setup for all 1-R equipped pro bikes. It involves drilling a
> hole into the stem and the bar in a highly stressed area. In a racing
> situation that just wouldn't be smart, and it would be so much of a hassl e
> to do this to every single bike that there is no way that the mechanics
> would have bothered. They would have just used the 1-A, and in many case s
> they did.
>
>
>
> I looked through my Winning Magazine yearbooks from 1984 and 1985 last
> night, and I was surprised to see that the 1-A vs 1-R balance actually ca me
> down even more strongly in favor of the 1-R than I had thought. There
> were some really good examples of the 1-R being used in conditions that
> suggest they were trusted. There is a picture of Vanderaarden winning th e
> sprint on the Champs Eylesees with a 1-R and Criterium bars. There is a
> pic of Anderson on an early low-profile TT bike with cowhorns and a 1-R.
   If
> that's not a test of stem grip, what is?
>
>
>
> Overall, I will concede that the 1-R was a problematic stem. You needed
> to handle it just so. However, it was not unable to do its job due to
> some basic flaw. It was silly in the way that a lot of exotic lightweigh t
> racing parts are silly, but without any clear (or even implied) performan ce
> benefit. Still, they looked sweet, and they work just fine if you use
> fresh bars and handle them correctly. Basically, they suffered from a
> need for coddling and a lack of documentation to indicate what form that
> coddling must take. I may be splitting hairs, but I think there is a
> basic difference between a design that "stinks," and simply cannot be mad e
> to work, and a design that is problematic and impractical outside or
> specific environments (well supported teams, in this example). To me the
> fact that 1-Rs were used successfully by pros, and unsuccessfully by othe rs
> (leading to their rejection at lower levels) makes the 1-R cool. I didn' t
> use them in the day, because of the cost, and the reputation, and basical ly
> because I was not a sponsored pro, but I have several now and I'm happy t hat
> I do.
>
>
>
> Finally, I want to point out that the rejection of the 1-R outside of the
> top pro ranks (and in many cases within) is a great example of how things
> really were different in the CR timeframe. These days it is taken in
> stride that certain parts require specific anti-seize compounds, or threa d
> locking compounds, that you need special saw baldes for cutting carbon
> steerers and masts, that drivetrains needing to be very clean and cables
> carefully lubed, that you need special brake pads depending on the rim
> material, etc., etc. Compatibility issues are so widespread that they are n't
> even recognized, you just "use as directed," without ever consdering mixi ng
> barnd S with brand C. These days, people are either using their bikes in
   a
> state that is far below ideal, or they do a lot of very careful, fussy
> mechanical work. Usually it's the former. In the 1980's this kind of th ing
> was really frowned upon. Parts like the 1-R, Super Record BBs and pedals ,
> alloy freewheels, toeclips, saddle rails and bottle cages, even Super Rec ord
> headsets and seatposts, were all pushed to the margins by racers "in the
> trenchs" because they weren't practical. I guess this is why many of us
> long for those days, because among racers what was practical was embraced
> and what was silly and exotic was generally rejected. There is analogous
> practical equipment now; even when a bike has 10 cogs, clipless pedals, a nd
> 20 spokes per wheel, it can be practical for racing. However, there is
> also now a preponderance of impractical crap, and it seems to be the norm
> for amateur racers, and even Sunday dabblers, to seek it out rather than to
> reject it. I think it is this, rather than the specific mechanical detail s
> (steel vs. carbon, friction vs STI, etc) that differentiates the CR era f rom
> today.
>
>
>
> Anyway, you can use 1-Rs without problems if you do it just so, but that
> kind of caveat was not acceptable in the day, even if it now is among mod ern
> riders with modern bikes. To have a 1-R on a period bike is in some way not
> period correct, because serious (non-pro) riders rejected them. Still, I
> can make them work, and so I mount them on certain bikes because they wer e
> the exotic-cool choice of the day, and many pros did use them, including
> some of Post's Raleigh boys.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA