Re: [CR] Sekai 4000 info...thanks - Tange Tubing - Correction

(Example: Framebuilders:Rene Herse)

From: "Andrew R Stewart" <onetenth@earthlink.net>
To: "verktyg" <verktyg@aol.com>, <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <FA9B31D8-4930-44D9-9B12-88F38C9652D2@mac.com> <4D336126.5000501@aol.com> <AANLkTi=b2a8pQL2qiVw0AzV88k9De9ZsL9T0_A7YJLSP@mail.gmail.com> <4D33CB58.2070207@aol.com> <AANLkTi=8uJNm4G=Fx11op1SeaU_4cWbHnVXTAJxWKN42@mail.gmail.com> <4D33F4A5.4090806@aol.com> <AANLkTi=7b=4GfzNX+=bT1xixsTdk-Yww31U0h1yqBNd-@mail.gmail.com> <4D35433C.9030300@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D35433C.9030300@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:46:25 -0500
Subject: Re: [CR] Sekai 4000 info...thanks - Tange Tubing - Correction


Charles- This correction jives with my memory. Andy.


----- Original Message -----
From: verktyg
To: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: [CR] Sekai 4000 info...thanks - Tange Tubing - Correction



> Correction, I was having problems reading the 1981 Tange Catalog .PDF file
> when I scrolled using the wheel on my mouse. Old ,PDFs will do that...
>
> I wrote:
>
> Here's the differences [between Tange #1 & #2] right from the 1981 Tange
> Tubing Catalog:
>
> Top tube wall thickness:
>
> #1 0.6mm x 0.3mm x 0.6mm [should be 0.8mm x 0.5mm x 0.8mm]
>
> #2 0.8mm x 0.5mm x 0.8mm [should be 0.9mm x 0.6mm x 0.9mm]
>
> Down tube wall thickness:
>
> #1 0.8mm x 0.5mm x 0.8mm
>
> #2 0.9mm x 0.6mm x 0.9mm
>
> [All other tubes are the same. The 0.6mm x 0.3mm x 0.6mm were used in
> the Tange Champion Pro set. Hard to read .PDF file...]
>
> Charles Colerich
> Oakland, CA USA
>
>
> james black wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 13:20, verktyg <verktyg@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Here's the differences right from the 1981 Tange Tubing Catalog:
> >
> > Interesting data, and I don't doubt the integrity of your information,
> > but it contradicts what I've heard from some other sources, that the
> > #1 used .8/.5/.8 and the #2 used .9/.6/.9 for both top and seat
> > tubes*. I find these figures plausible, since #2 bikes don't seem
> > particularly flexy; and my #1-labeled Centurion Semi Pro doesn't have
> > a crazy-thin top tube that I can deflect with a pinch between thumb
> > and forefinger.
> >
> > Maybe they lightened up their tubes (which is to say, shifted their
> > numbering system) in 1981 - my experience is with 1976-1980 framesets.
> >
> > *See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/centurion/index.html
> >
> > James Black
> > Los Angeles, CA
> _______________________________________________

Andrew R Stewart
Rochester, NY