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, only 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 out 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 far 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 frame tubing for all of them, and similar components, and unless loaded down with very heavy loads (for the commuter especially), they should perform similarly. In all my bike tests for Bicycle Quarterly, I have found performance to be related to many factors, but not to whether a bike is a racing or randonneur 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 bikes...
Apart from that, I agree with Doug. I see a lot of interest in "real-world" bikes. I suspect that those interested in the semblance of ultimate performance today reject classic and KOF bikes anyhow. They still buy racing bikes, just not steel ones. And those who can see beyond the marketing hype want a rational, beautiful bike, which they can use in their everyday riding.
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 http://www.bikequarterly.com