Thoughts on Cinelli Super Corsa??

"Eurastus" wrote in message
...
Many moons ago (like 24 years--back in 1979) when I first started serious
road
riding as a freshman in high school, one of the guys I rode with quite
regularly had a beautiful Cinelli with a brand new Campy Nuovo Record
group--he
even had a Cinelli saddle. What a bike. I was on a pitiful Schwinn
Traveler
III and dreamed of the day I could afford such a machine.

Well, now I can. I've been looking about for a steel framed replacement
for my
15-year-old 7-speed steed and happened into this site:
http://www.gvhbikes.com/.

They've got a beautiful Cinelli Super Corsa in a color I like and just the
right size.

I intend to equip it with a full Campy Record 10 triple group.

I want to stay with steel.

So here's my questions:

What is the reputation of Cinelli steel frames? Back in the day, they
were
considered the very best, but is this still the case?

The guy that runs GVH Bikes appears to have had some health problems and
his
shop is closed indefinitely. Is there another source for the Cinelli
Super
Corsa I could turn to should I decide to purchase?

Anything else you can tell me about the Cinelli Super Corsa?

Thanks much...

My understanding was that Cinelli was acquired by the Columbus tubing
company (love to hear otherwise). I've only seen one Super Corsa less than
a couple years old, and I'm saddened to say it didn't really match the
finish of the early models. Nowhere near as nice as the work on my
Mondonico, which would be my choice for a "traditional Italian lugged frame"
that's still fairly modern in its tubing choices and weight. Then again, I
still ride my 19 year-old Torelli and Paramount frames too...

TC

"F1" wrote in message k.net...
A bit off topic, but why do you want steel? I'm fairly new to biking and
just wondering why anyone would want anything BUT a good aluminum or carbon
frame, price not withstanding?

because the bike in question looks great.

(If you're not interested in The Ultimate in Performance--or indeed,
as in my case, you are utterly incapable of any Performance
whatsoever--than you're looking for the bike you can ride comfortably,
know will last forever, and gratifies your eye as much as the rest of
your body when you ride. )

(I, however, can't afford nice frames like that, so.)

Because the OP might remember the racing heroes of his youth riding
similar frames.

Because modern frames look too garish....

Because riding is prior to and more imporant than even racing

Because...just because.

-Luigi

bfd- However, if
you want state of the art or the very best, American made lugged steel
frames are far superior to that Cinelli. The following are links to just a
few of the best, there may be one close to you:

www.richardsachs.com
www.eisentraut.com BRBR

http://www.nobilettecycels.com

I have one, wouldn't ride anything else-

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

F1- A bit off topic, but why do you want steel? I'm fairly new to biking and
just wondering why anyone would want anything BUT a good aluminum or carbon
frame, price not withstanding? BRBR

Why? Because for the best combination of what you are looking for in a bicycle
frameset, like ride, stiffness, comfort, looks, weight, price, repairability,
Steel is still the very best choice. Why somebody would want aluminum is beyond
me...unless you are racing and want a light, stiff, essentially throw away
frameset.

You are being overly influenced by marketing, methinks(Trek, aluminum,
etc)...Go to a shop that hasd an example of each material, set up the same,
ride each and decide...ti, steel, carbon and aluminum.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Brad Keeter wrote:
[Nothing except changing the subject line.]

This is not a Web forum. Don't do that.
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!

In article ,
says...
I guess I understand the traditional looks and longevity, but I thought
steel was the worst as far as comfort goes.

I don't have an opinion (all I've ever ridden is steel), but many people
say that steel is the best riding of them all.

.....

--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

On 07/25/2003 13:33, in article
, "F1"
wrote:

I guess I understand the traditional looks and longevity, but I thought
steel was the worst as far as comfort goes.

Comfort depends far more on how the bike is made than what the bike is made
of. Witness the "soft" reputation that aluminum had after the first Vitus
and Alan frames that suddenly transmuted into a "stiff" reputation when
Cannondale introduced it's oversized frames.

Baird





"Eurastus" wrote in message
...
I don't race anymore, so pure performance isn't an issue. I'm looking for
traditional looks, comfort, and longevity. I've owned and raced on
carbon, Ti,
aluminum, and steel. I just keep coming back to steel.



"F1" wrote:
A bit off topic, but why do you want steel? I'm fairly new to biking and
just wondering why anyone would want anything BUT a good aluminum or
carbon
frame, price not withstanding?






--
Baird Webel
Washington DC

"F1" wrote in message k.net...
A bit off topic, but why do you want steel? I'm fairly new to biking and
just wondering why anyone would want anything BUT a good aluminum or carbon
frame, price not withstanding?

Because "Steel is Real"

Silliness.

I ride a 57cm steel bike that weighs 17 lbs.. I'd say that's light enough.
Climbing actually is quite nice on a steel bike. To me the feel is
characteristic of a spring: you get this compression and expansion effect
which propels one up climbs. It's comfort makes for less fatigue in most as
well to ride longer/farther. I weigh 190 lbs., and I don't recall ever
walking up a hill, but I'm sure there's a first.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:46:35 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" from
Shaw Residential Internet wrote:

Imagine trying to climb on a steel bike!

Aren't there like really heavy people and that's all they can ride? I think
they
don't try climbing though. They walk up the hills.


--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
I feel like I am sharing a ``CORN-DOG'' with NIKITA KHRUSCHEV ...
11:50:56 PM 25 July 2003

I currently own three bikes: a '74 Jack Taylor Reynolds 531 steel, an
early 90's Masi Nuova Strada Reynolds 653 steel and a late 90's
Simonetti Easton aluminum. I do sprint rides and time trials on the
Simonetti, but greatly prefer either steel bike for all other riding,
including climbs. I live in Vermont and do a LOT of climbing. I always
choose steel when I'm riding over mountain gaps... reminds me of a great
ride a couple weeks ago when a buddy and I did a double gap ride over
Middlebury and Brandon gaps... wonderful! I used my '74 Jack Taylor.

David G. White
Burlington, VT

Bill Graham wrote:

Silliness.

I ride a 57cm steel bike that weighs 17 lbs.. I'd say that's light enough.
Climbing actually is quite nice on a steel bike. To me the feel is
characteristic of a spring: you get this compression and expansion effect
which propels one up climbs. It's comfort makes for less fatigue in most as
well to ride longer/farther. I weigh 190 lbs., and I don't recall ever
walking up a hill, but I'm sure there's a first.



On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:46:35 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" from
Shaw Residential Internet wrote:



Imagine trying to climb on a steel bike!


Aren't there like really heavy people and that's all they can ride? I think
they
don't try climbing though. They walk up the hills.


--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
I feel like I am sharing a ``CORN-DOG'' with NIKITA KHRUSCHEV ...
11:50:56 PM 25 July 2003