Dear Mark, Those are 32's in the frame (GB Cyprès are actual 32-622 tires whatever they're marked).
A 32-622 ends up being about r = 344mm and a 48mm brake reach yields about exactly that, depending on the bridge/fork crown braze on dimensions. The Roads and "road standard" and "long-lows" were all built around short-reach brakes, and went to a 48mm brake reach spec to maximize clearance. Now, that 48mm had 1mm of so of float upward before the brake required modification, and Waterford reserved/reserves a 2mm placement tolerance for bridges, so if you got one that was on the short end of okay, then a 28 or a 29 might be the biggest thing you could stuff in there--and it would still pass QC. The "right" thing to do for 1 1/4" tires + fenders in the late 1990's would have been to go to cantilevers, which I think was available on request for the Long-Lows, but some folks hated/hate them.... Once the BR-600 came back into production, the spec got changed to take advantage of that brake's increased (standard) reach. With them, even with a mid-slot spec, you can get a 32 under the bridges easily, and a 35 fits okay, depending on your braze-ons. We're in better shape for real-world tires now than twenty years ago, that is certain, thanks in part to Mr. Petersen's advocacy, for sporting-quality clincher tires in that size thanks to Mr. Heine's efforts, and for wide-ish tubulars, the myth and hoopla surrounding Paris-Roubaix. Best, Will William M. deRosset Fort Collins, CO On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6:17:45 PM UTC-7, Mark in Beacon wrote: > > Well, I don't think it can be a stock Road Standard, at least not from the > catalog year posted, because those apparently had clearance for a 700x35, > whereas this frame does not go wider than 30. Unless one or the other fact > is incorrect. Or it changed year to year and this is a different year than > the catalog. > > In terms of price, I think there was a discussion recently about a Wilbury > that was actually listed *over* the old price, and that was not, as this > one is, an almost 20-year old frame. Don't forget that in addition to > possible intrinsic value, and collectability/rareness, there is > inflation--a similar frame today goes for at least a grand more. Then there > is simple desirability: Try buying a Schwinn Paramount > <http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Chrome-1973-Schwinn-Paramount-P15-DeLuxe-Touring-25-63-CM-Campagnolo-/172008621100> > > for the listed catalog price. > <http://schwinncruisers.com/catalogs/1973.html#deluxe-touring-paramount> > > > > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 3:57:51 PM UTC-5, Ryan Fleming wrote: >> >> I think it is a 1996/1997 and the $1350 asking price is about the same as >> it was then (1.2-1.35K). Nice as the frame is,I don't believe it's a >> custom and $1350 might be a big ask... >> >> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:56:31 AM UTC-6, Fullylugged wrote: >>> >>> Nice looking bike. You can date it by the serial # on the bottom >>> bracket. The usual Waterford dating method is used. Yours has no head tube >>> extension and appears to have a level TT, so an earlier date might be >>> right. Possibly repainted along the way, because it has later DT decals. >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
