RE: [CR]Dumb Question, BB cable guides

(Example: Framebuilders:Pino Morroni)

From: "Mark Cutrufelli" <masimark@gmail.com>
To: <marcus.e.helman@gm.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <MONKEYFOODXf2LTrpwA00000059@monkeyfood.nt.phred.org> <OFA5D1AE7E.61971210-ON852574E8.000FC4B9-852574E8.00106C8A@gm.com>
Subject: RE: [CR]Dumb Question, BB cable guides
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:21:30 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Thread-Index: AckyYAptEn5crPQdRv6fnDv3JWitTgAAp1+A


I can see an advantage here. Water or moisture, esp. from sweat would be less likely to stay on the cable guides that are usually sensitive to rust.

Mark Cutrufelli Laurel,Maryland USA

-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of marcus.e.helman@gm.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:59 PM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR]Dumb Question, BB cable guides

Why did framebuilders start running cables under the bottom bracket? It seems to offer no advantage. I have one bike with the cables run on top of the BB, and one with the cables running underneath. There is no difference in shifting that I can tell. Maybe it's just esthetics. Personally, I prefer the more traditional top of BB treatment.

Wondering,
Marcus Helman
Detroit, MI