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. 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 be 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. Edward Albert Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike,
>
>
> I realize that you were associated with the SBDU and that the TI Raleigh an
> d Panasonic Team bikes came from that shop, but I think this sort of abso
> lute statement might constitute revisionist history. I know for certain
> that specific Raleigh-riding Panasonic team members used 1-R stems duri
> ng at least parts of the 1984 season. Yes, it is interesting that Post
> 's boys generally steered clear of the 1-R's, and we can add to this fact
> that many non-Raleigh pros also avoided those stems. Certainly the Rale
> igh-equipped pros were not the only ones to avoid the 1-R, and there were p
> lenty of 1-As in use across the various teams (though I recall Guimard's gu
> ys all using 1-Rs at this time).
>
> Rather than making inaccurate blanket statements, I think it is at least as
> interesting to note that while the Raleigh riders largely avoided the 1-Rs
> , there were exceptions to the rule, and that these exceptions seemed t
> o NOT be seen during the cobbled races of the early season, but rather were
> seen later in the season and particularly on the TT bikes (back before the
> low-pro bikes). One has to wonder what would motivate anyone to make th
> e exception rather than just using the 1-A since it worked well and was the
> choice of most of the riders most of the time. Why would Panasonic have
> used 1-Rs at all? Might Cinelli have pushed the team to at least use th
> e 1-R when and where possible to get the top model some exposure? Sure,
> it was already a well known part by the 1980s, but perhaps Cinelli wanted t
> o promote it since it was a more expensive part, and getting teams to use i
> t would help downplay its well desreved reputation as troublesome. Surely
> Phil Anderson didn't insist on a 1-R because he thought it looked cool, or
> believed it to be "faster," so why would it be on his TT bike in the 1984
> Tour, for example?
>
> Maybe I've misundertsood you and what you are really talking about is t
> he TI Raleigh Team riders before the Panasonic takeover. I don't recal
> l those bikes exclusively having 1-As, but maybe that was the case.
> However, you refered to Raleigh Riders of the Post era, and I don't th
> ink that Post left the team at the time of the Panasonic takeover, since he
> brought them in as a sponsor, and they were certainly still riding Raleigh
> s.
>
> By the way, and I've asked you this before with no response, do you know an
> ything about the following items on the 1984 Panasonic team bikes: Brand
> s and models of tires, freewheels, chains, or spokes? Any info on tho
> se parts would be most welcome.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
>
>
>
>
> Mike Mullet wrote:
> Just for the record, no pro Raleigh rider of the famous Peter Post era ever
> fitted a 1R stem 1A was the order of the day, 1R stem clamping was just no
> t positive enough.
>
> Mike (ex Ilkeston) Mullett
> Reading
> UK
>
> =0A=0A=0A