Due to my recent fork mishap, I dredged up a set of Campagnolo dropouts I knew I had laying around for no good reason other than they take up so little room. Low and behold they have fender eyelets, so my new fork will proudly carry the old school banner - whatever you want that to mean. Imagine that - Campagnolo and fender eyelets. In today's language that qualifies as a paradox. I've owned both style of Paramounts mentioned, and the "touring" models were preferred for overall ride quality - I even raced them a wee bit and got the same looks you might if you showed up for a time trial series on a bike with eyelets, with or without fenders attached.
On Jul 23, 2:56 pm, JoelMatthews <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Jim. That is a little bit before my touring days, but I know I > have seen the Paramount tourers. > > The one thing that has really changed among (US anyway) tourers is > fender acceptance. Even though many of the older bikes could > accommodate fenders, seems travelers in that era were having none of > it. I imagine the quality of modern fenders available on the market > now have something to do with the changed attitudes. > > On Jul 23, 1:36 pm, Jim Cloud <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Actually, Schwinn had a touring model of the Paramount (either the > > P10, 10-speed version or P15, 15-speed version, as well as "Ladies" > > model of the same bikes - P60 and P65) available for many years. I'm > > specifically referring to the Chicago era Paramounts that were > > produced until 1979, after that the Waterford era production > > Paramounts tended generally to be more racing oriented (although > > touring models of the Paramount were produced). > > > The touring models of the Chicago Paramount were distinguished from > > the racing models (P13 road racing model, P14 track model) by having a > > longer chainstay length and more fork rake than the racing model. > > They also had eyelets on the forks and dropouts to accommodate racks > > or fenders. There were some additional differences in brake > > clearances (although the touring models were available from the > > factory with frame mods to accommodate close clearance sidepulls like > > the Campagnolo Record). > > > Finally, the touring models were supplied as standard equipment with > > clinchers tires (either 27 1/4" or 27 1/18") rather than the standard > > tubular tires that were supplied on the P13 (Clement No. 50 cotton was > > standard on the P13, Clement "Campianto del Mondo" were available as > > an extra cost option). Tubular tires were available, however, as an > > extra cost option on the P10 and P15 models. > > > Jim > > > On Jul 23, 11:05 am, JoelMatthews <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > current RBW designs have little in common with > > > > racing bikes from the past. Rather than some sort of nostalgic > > > > throwback, I tend to think of my Riv and Riv-ish bikes as thoroughly > > > > modern and uncompromising for the kinds of multi-use riding I like to > > > > do. I don't see many parallels between, say, my Atlantis and any bike > > > > that was even remotely racy from the 1970s. > > > > Yeah, seems the 1970s bikes that have the most in common with Riv were > > > some of the practical Raleighs, Motebecanes and arguably even the > > > Schwinn lightweights such as the Continental and Varsity (the lugged > > > Paramount was usually a racing bike - although I seem to recall there > > > was a year or two when Schwinn made a touring Paramount). > > > > On Jul 23, 11:24 am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > A fun idea, but why suggest it on the RBW group? I ask not to accuse > > > > the OP of being OT, but to raise a broader philosophical issue. RBW > > > > tends to focus on non-racing bicycles and equipment with "all-rounder" > > > > versatility being the foremost consideration, and aside from being > > > > lugged steel (for cosmetics and durability and market > > > > differentiation), current RBW designs have little in common with > > > > racing bikes from the past. Rather than some sort of nostalgic > > > > throwback, I tend to think of my Riv and Riv-ish bikes as thoroughly > > > > modern and uncompromising for the kinds of multi-use riding I like to > > > > do. I don't see many parallels between, say, my Atlantis and any bike > > > > that was even remotely racy from the 1970s. > > > > > On Jul 23, 5:35 am, Marty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I've been keeping up with the TDF as always this time of year. Seems > > > > > bike makers often roll out "specials" for certain stages etc. (like > > > > > today's TT) and it occurred to me that the race could use another > > > > > crowd-pleasing and playing-field-leveler gimmick: why not a turn-the- > > > > > clock-back stage using vintage-style bikes? (Other sports do this from > > > > > time to time) Maybe the stage would not even have to count in the > > > > > overall standings, but it would be a blast to watch today's riders > > > > > "suffer" with non-aero levers, down-tube shifters, pre-index > > > > > drivetrains, five-speed clusters, toe-clips and leather saddles. They > > > > > could auction off the bikes after the stage too, just like they do now > > > > > for various charities. I can see it now: Wool jerseys, Citroen team > > > > > cars, corked water bottles, sew-ups wrapped around their shoulders, > > > > > and maybe even fenders if it's raining that day. A guy can dream > > > > > right? > > > > > > Marty- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
