i'm replying to the snipped post below.
1) i don't agree with the article in velo-news. i think
it borders on 'paralysis by analysis'. if your bicycle shakes,
it usually only shakes on one hill at one time. that is, it's
not a day-to-day problem. personally, i see it as a momentary
incident, one in which the rider's fore-aft shift came at an
inopportune time. a poorly designed frame, or a rider on a frame
that doesn't allow for proper balance, or a combination of both,
'could' be the culprit. i've seen all combos of head angles, rakes,
front wheelbases, stem lengths...and there is no constant to
the issue of shimmy. i think that notion of 'straighter' frames
shimming more frequently than crooked frames is bullshit.
ya' know what i think the real issue is? some people don't
have balls. they don't know how to go down a hill without freezing
up. period. i MEAN, do you ever here of guys descending in
the pyrenees, in the pro ranks, on factory built bicycles...do you
ever hear about these guys losing it at 62mph? no! because they
have honed their bicycle handling skills. for the rest of us, when
it comes to the issue of shimmy, and descending speeds, and the
related issues, i say it's all pilot error.
2) i don't understand the description about the brazing technique
st?rling was referencing. i'll wait to read more about it.
3) the os tubing that the french were using was less than 1mm different.
it was hardly oversize in the accepted use of the term. the same
effect that you get from growing the tube's od that small amount
could be had simply by increasing the wall thickness.
4) all my frames, except those specifically 'of the period', are
fully oversized and have been for almost 10 years. materials
improvements have allowed that the newer frames weigh less
without the penaltys once associated with 'light' frames. as far
as 'capturing the past' goes, that's not part of the commerce of it
all. that is, the few folks that want a bike 'from the old days', but
built in the here-and-now, don't constitute a market. yet.