Road Frames c.1975-85.. Un-vague us!

[roadking]

Re: Re:

I don't think there was a previous reference to that book?

I refer you to the two books cited in my first post

I believe roadking is referring to the two French books, one of which contains the picture. That's not to say the selfsame picture isn't reproduced in the Merckx '69 book?

It was actually your second post, roadking

The picture I referred to is NOT in the Merckx '69 book - and I'm no longer posting on this thread.

Rk.

 

[torqueless]

Re:

Thanks DSH... more useful information..
I too would be happy to spend those couple of hours with 'A Sunday in Hell', but I hold out little hope of being able to view it at the kind of resolution which makes it possible to spot the minutiae of bike design..

Thanks for your contributions, roadking. I value them. I get the impression that it is all too easy for some of us to blithely blather and banter across an invisible line and offend your dignity, and that you feel you are 'casting your pearls before swine'. If that has happened on my account I apologise.

 

[stefthehat]

Re:

I think the apology should come from me as I seem to have offended most of you, if anything I was trying to avoid any confrontation and move on with the subject,i'll happily drop out so folk feel they can contribute to the thread which should always be the overarching factor

 

[torqueless]

Re:

You haven't offended me, stefthehat... neither has anyone else..

 

[stefthehat]

Re:

Ok, but still stand by the end of my last post,as it seems my involvement is stopping others from contributing to your topic

 

[torqueless]

Re:

Hah... I could say the same thing about my involvement!..

Anyway.. as you wish.

Your post of yesterday afternoon got me thinking about my 1975 mystery frame, which I bought secondhand in 1984. It ticked all my boxes over the 'phone: 23", 531db, close clearance, Campag. ends.. Even then it had under-bracket cable tunnels. I think it had been recently resprayed, and probably got a few brazed 'updates' in the process- that under-bracket stuff, and maybe a pair of non-invasive down tube bottle cage bosses. I used to think someone must have moved the chainstay cable-stop from top-of-stay to underneath, but really it is just as likely that this frame started life with no braze-ons at all. There is not even one of those pips under the down tube to position the gear levers, and this was with a 120mm rear end, 65mm bracket shell, and 'track' stack-height.

 

[stefthehat]

Re:

Iam about to return what iam pretty sure is an old Bill Gray built frame back to its original{when I first got it}non braze-on state,over the years ive had front mech/canti pivots and sti/barend cable guides added so would totally confuse anyone trying to work out what it was originally,i had the canti's put on so I could use 700c's instead of its original 27 inch wheels, there must be a fair few folk out there confused about their frames original usage as what would of been tight clearances for 27's would make a frame seem a "sports" bike or "commuter" with 700c's put in

 

[torqueless]

Re:

One of those legendary frame builders who seem to have worked in a 'shed out the back', for fifty years. How old is your frame?

Yeah, there was a (pre-squinternet) time, which in my case I would loosely label 1985-2005, when, if you wanted to keep an old machine on the road, without a shedful of already accumulated spares, you had to make some pragmatic choices. Things like hollow axles for 120mm OLN, BB axles compatible with a 65mm bracket shell, 27" wheels/tyres, even those chrome clips on the top tube- these things, and who knows what else?- looked fair set to become impossible to obtain. So frames sometimes got 'modernised'. Mine got a 68mm bracket shell around the turn of the millenium, which cost me more than I'd originally paid for the frame. The threads on the original 65mm one were less than confidence-inspiring even in 1984..

Incidentally, if anyone thinks "Torqueless's timeline is wildly inaccurate" and wishes to post an alternative version on this thread that is OK with me.

 

[JSH]

Re:

Carry on with the thread. Although I've nothing to add, I'm finding it a good read.

The problems seem to start when some posters claim themselves as the absolute authority on matters. It's not the first time RK has been involved in a fractious exchange and likely not the last

 

[roadking]

Re: Re:

Carry on with the thread. Although I've nothing to add, I'm finding it a good read.

The problems seem to start when some posters claim themselves as the absolute authority on matters. It's not the first time RK has been involved in a fractious exchange and likely not the last

Perhaps JSH would point out the fractious exchange ?

This is an issue (sometimes) with this forum, we have an opinion from a fairly new member, who has nothing to add yet is quite happy to make personal insults.

JSH seems to think I claim to be an authority. What I did with this thread was to look through my considerable archive of magazines, books and various research materials to give some feedback on the OPs original question - it is this archive that is the authority as in all things facts speak louder than uniformed opinions.

So JSH has nothing to add...mmm, the insult doesn't count then ?

Rk.