Paramount

wishful thinker said:

When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be one
of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike compare to
a top of the line bike of today?

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Depends on when you were a kid, since Paramounts were made from the 60s
to the 90s, or at least mid-to-late 80s. But new bikes are lighter and
stronger, and the components are way better. Chances are the Paramount
you have (?) is not worth as much as you might hope for, unless it's
really old, in which case collectors might be interested.

I'm not so sure that Paramount was ever a "great" bike. Lots of
international competitors from the US rode them, because they were the
only decent American-Made racing frame for a long time. But that
doesn't mean they were superior to Italian bikes of the day.

--

David L. Johnson

"What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass.
What are you on?"
--Lance Armstrong

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wishful thinker said:

When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be one
of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike compare to
a top of the line bike of today?

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Depends on when you were a kid, since Paramounts were made from the 60s
to the 90s, or at least mid-to-late 80s. But new bikes are lighter and
stronger, and the components are way better. Chances are the Paramount
you have (?) is not worth as much as you might hope for, unless it's
really old, in which case collectors might be interested.

I'm not so sure that Paramount was ever a "great" bike. Lots of
international competitors from the US rode them, because they were the
only decent American-Made racing frame for a long time. But that
doesn't mean they were superior to Italian bikes of the day.

--

David L. Johnson

In the mid to late '60's I had 3 road bikes. I rode a Paramount, a Cinelli
and a Carlton. The Cinelli was a top of the line model, as were the others.
The Paramount and Carlton were made of 531 tubing. The Cinelli was probably
Columbus. At the time, the Paramount was considered the best thing made over
here. There were also a number of good domestic frame makers available, all
working in steel. Aluminum was unheard of, carbon not invented yet, and
titanium not on the horizon.

Some of my friends had Raleigh Professionals. They were so close to the
Paramount, in every way, it was amazing. The big thing back then was an all
chrome finish. Italian chrome was miserable. The Paramount and Raleigh were
a lot better. The Carlton put a transparent paint over chrome which looked
really nice.

I forget what my bikes weighed. I would guess 23 pounds or so. I have a 2000
Colnago Master Light with 8 speed stuff on it that I use as my lunch time
ride. It weighs about 22. Whatever the frame weighs less than an old 531
model, has to be made up by the shifters. I don't think the Colnago rides
any better or worse than anything from the sixties. Steel is still steel.

I think the biggest two differences in equipment (from the sixties to now)
are STI or Ergo shifting and clipless pedals. The ability to throw gears
without reaching down is wonderful. Having some rotation in the feet can be
a lifesaver as well. The shoes are a lot better as well. Shorts with the new
modern pads beat the old leather chamois any day. Let's face it, brain
injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The helmet
argument stops the first time you have to change an adult diaper...

Modern bikes made from carbon, ti, or whatever, perform better than the
vintage stuff. Perhaps the old steel stuff does fatigue. But to me, the new
frames are a lot snappier.

Next Interbike, I am going to arrange to bring in a few Taiwan/China carbon
frames. much to my wife's dismay. I'm going to build something absolutely
stupid-light, just to aggravate my riding buddies. Nope, no more of these
weighty 17 pound 5500's for me. I want something that will sail across the
parking lot on its own when a gentle breeze blows. Yep, this is going to be
the bike that you counterweight with a sheet of Kleenex, a real two wheel
kite. Durability? Hey, it is going to be carbon with a balloon inside of it
(monocoque). It is not a matter of IF it's going to break. It is a matter of
WHEN. Now you have a perfectly good example of why old people should not be
exposed to otherwise nice technology.

Have a good safe 4th. It looks like a lot of rain in Houston this morning.
Ugghh, another trainer workout. See, if I had a lighter bike, I would be
faster on the trainer :-)

Bruce

Bruce Gilbert said:

...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.

WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Quoted message said:

I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The helmet
argument stops the first time you have to change an adult diaper...

Male bovine..., there is no proof that these persons would have been
any better off if they had been wearing a CPSC or even Snell rated
foam hat, unless of course their identical twins had EXACTLY similar
head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bruce Gilbert said:

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wishful thinker said:

When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be one
of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike compare to
a top of the line bike of today?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Quoted message said:

Depends on when you were a kid, since Paramounts were made from the 60s
to the 90s, or at least mid-to-late 80s. But new bikes are lighter and
stronger, and the components are way better. Chances are the Paramount
you have (?) is not worth as much as you might hope for, unless it's
really old, in which case collectors might be interested.

Quoted message said:

I'm not so sure that Paramount was ever a "great" bike. Lots of
international competitors from the US rode them, because they were the
only decent American-Made racing frame for a long time. But that
doesn't mean they were superior to Italian bikes of the day.

Quoted message said:

--

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson

In the mid to late '60's I had 3 road bikes. I rode a Paramount, a Cinelli
and a Carlton. The Cinelli was a top of the line model, as were the others.
The Paramount and Carlton were made of 531 tubing. The Cinelli was probably
Columbus. At the time, the Paramount was considered the best thing made over
here. There were also a number of good domestic frame makers available, all
working in steel. Aluminum was unheard of, carbon not invented yet, and
titanium not on the horizon.

Some of my friends had Raleigh Professionals. They were so close to the
Paramount, in every way, it was amazing. The big thing back then was an all
chrome finish. Italian chrome was miserable. The Paramount and Raleigh were
a lot better. The Carlton put a transparent paint over chrome which looked
really nice.

I forget what my bikes weighed. I would guess 23 pounds or so. I have a 2000
Colnago Master Light with 8 speed stuff on it that I use as my lunch time
ride. It weighs about 22. Whatever the frame weighs less than an old 531
model, has to be made up by the shifters. I don't think the Colnago rides
any better or worse than anything from the sixties. Steel is still steel.

I think the biggest two differences in equipment (from the sixties to now)
are STI or Ergo shifting and clipless pedals. The ability to throw gears
without reaching down is wonderful. Having some rotation in the feet can be
a lifesaver as well. The shoes are a lot better as well. Shorts with the new
modern pads beat the old leather chamois any day. Let's face it, brain
injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The helmet
argument stops the first time you have to change an adult diaper..

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

..

Quoted message said:

Modern bikes made from carbon, ti, or whatever, perform better than the
vintage stuff. Perhaps the old steel stuff does fatigue. But to me, the new
frames are a lot snappier.

Next Interbike, I am going to arrange to bring in a few Taiwan/China carbon
frames. much to my wife's dismay. I'm going to build something absolutely
stupid-light, just to aggravate my riding buddies. Nope, no more of these
weighty 17 pound 5500's for me. I want something that will sail across the
parking lot on its own when a gentle breeze blows. Yep, this is going to be
the bike that you counterweight with a sheet of Kleenex, a real two wheel
kite. Durability? Hey, it is going to be carbon with a balloon inside of it
(monocoque). It is not a matter of IF it's going to break. It is a matter of
WHEN. Now you have a perfectly good example of why old people should not be
exposed to otherwise nice technology.

Have a good safe 4th. It looks like a lot of rain in Houston this morning.
Ugghh, another trainer workout. See, if I had a lighter bike, I would be
faster on the trainer :-)

Bruce

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:35:10 -0400, [email hidden] (wishful

thinker) said:

When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be one
of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike compare to
a top of the line bike of today?

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Sorta. It probably rides fine. You can get bikes that shift better,
brake better, are far easier to maintain, are more reliable and
lighter for much less money in real dollars.

Compared to a modern bike of comparable cost in real dollars, it's
worse.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bruce Gilbert said:

Perhaps the old steel stuff does fatigue. But to me, the new
frames are a lot snappier.

I think it's at least partially the weight of heavier bikes that make
them feel less "snappy."
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bruce Gilbert said:

Let's face it, brain
injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The helmet
argument stops the first time you have to change an adult diaper...

You're a moron.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Jul 3, 10:35 pm, [email hidden] (wishful thinker)

Quoted message said:

When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be one
of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike compare to
a top of the line bike of today?

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chicago-schwinns.html

Early Paramounts have collector value (one kind of "spec"😉. --D-y

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bruce Gilbert said:

Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few friends
from back then that are still staring at the walls because of crash
injured brains. The helmet argument stops the first time you have to
change an adult diaper...

Ah, must be time for the helmet rants. We haven't had one in a while.
(No) thanks for bringing this up.

The short answer is: it's a beer cooler. On your head. Designed for
impacts of about 10 mph. Faster than about 14 mph it's not very useful.
As a result, a helmet is probably of greater benefit for children than
adults- children are more likely to be riding a bike within the
limitations of a helmet- low speed and low head eheight fromwhich to
fall. A helmet might keep road rash off your head, which is nice, but
it's not likely to add much in terms of brain protection- a bit perhaps
in straight line impacts and nothing to prevent shearing injuries of the
brain. Interestingly, the decisive factor in the severity of brain
injuries is not the trauma itself but the things that happen afterwards-
cytotoxic edema in which a number of brain-damaging chemicals are
released into the brain as the blood-brain barrier is disrupted.

For perspective, I am a psychologist. I work in nursing homes and have
had hundreds of clients with traumatic brain injuries over the past 17
years. Of those, two had cycling-related brain injuries. In one case,
the patient was struck by a car while riding his bike and hurled into
the curb- he was about 6 years old at the time (it was about 1930 when
this happened). In the other case, the patient was 21 and crashed, also
striking his head on the curb. In his case, his cognitive status has
been progressively impaired by a poorly controlled seizure disorder and
he also has paranoid schizophrenia, so it is very hard to estimate which
cognitive deficits were acquired when. The vast majority of my clients
with brain injuries sustained them in motor vehicle accidents and falls,
followed by anoxic brain injuries suffered during heart attacks,
seizures, etc.

According to the NIH, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of
brain injuries in the US (50%), followed by falls of all types (20-30%,
biased towards people over 75 and under 5 years of age), and firearms
(12%). The rest are from miscellaneous causes. About 45-50% of TBIs
are work-related, at least half of those being from falls. A study by
the Minnesota Department of Health found that motor vehicle accidents,
falls, gunshots, etc. had far higher incidence of brain injuries than
cycling, and that road cycling had a lower incidence of brain injuries
than off-road cycling.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bruce Gilbert said:

...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.

WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Statistics are never definitive proof. Statistics are a form of
ritualized argumentation about what might be proved.

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bruce Gilbert said:

Perhaps the old steel stuff does fatigue. But to me, the new frames
are a lot snappier.

I think it's at least partially the weight of heavier bikes that make
them feel less "snappy."

The new stuff may or may not feel "snappy," but IME it doesn't make me
any faster in terms of how long it takes me to ride by favorite routes.
I'm not significantly faster on my 19 lb bike than on my 25 lb bike over
the rolling terrain we have here- maybe .1 mph. In my racing days that
would have counted for something, but no longer.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

On Jul 4, 7:17 am, Bruce Gilbert wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.

Quoted message said:

WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Yawn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The
helmet argument stops the first time you have to change an adult
diaper...

Quoted message said:

Male bovine..., there is no proof that these persons would have been
any better off if they had been wearing a CPSC or even Snell rated
foam hat, unless of course their identical twins had EXACTLY similar
head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Where did Bruce say his friends' crashes weren't low-speed falls? Lose
balance due to uneven surface and smash melon into curb edge -- you want
properly fitted plastic & foam protection or not?

Get a clue, Tommy. (Today's catch-phrase...for a WIDE range of topics,
apparently.)

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

That's why they need warning sticks in dayglo text that say, "this
laceration reducer does not replace good judgment."

They do hurt...my sense of style. Jaunty caps for the win. If I crash,
I'll just get a Depends with a team logo!

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

If they never hurt, why do you not wear one all the time?

If you truly believe there is no downside to wearing a helmet,
shouldn't you wear it all the time. At least when awake and moving,
or when outside? Seems to me that's the logical conclusion to your
belief.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Jul 4, 7:23 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:35:10 -0400, [email hidden] (wishful

thinker) said:

When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be one
of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike compare to
a top of the line bike of today?

Quoted message said:

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Sorta. It probably rides fine. You can get bikes that shift better,
brake better, are far easier to maintain, are more reliable and
lighter for much less money in real dollars.

Compared to a modern bike of comparable cost in real dollars, it's
worse.

Use the frame(particularly if it's a Waterfrod produced steel frame)
and put some modern stuff on it so it shifts better, brakes better,
maybe a pound or so lighter but as for ride quality, besides being
Subjective with a capital 'S', it'll look great, ride wonderfully and
last forever. The new 'wunderbikes' are mostly so much mass produced
eyewash that doesn't really make riding any easier or better.Not since
the late 80s/early 90s has anything come to market that really makes
cycling 'better'.

Quoted message said:

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bruce Gilbert said:

In the mid to late '60's I had 3 road bikes. I rode a Paramount, a Cinelli
and a Carlton. The Cinelli was a top of the line model, as were the others.
The Paramount and Carlton were made of 531 tubing. The Cinelli was probably
Columbus. At the time, the Paramount was considered the best thing made over
here. There were also a number of good domestic frame makers available, all
working in steel.

Certainly the paramount was considered to be the best thing made over
here. It may not have been in actuality, but the others that could
claim that were small shops making very few bikes.

Quoted message said:

Some of my friends had Raleigh Professionals. They were so close to the
Paramount, in every way, it was amazing.

The rep on the Raleigh was that is was a "whippy" frame (not stiff
enough), and I think the Paramount was supposed to be stiffer.

Quoted message said:

The big thing back then was an all
chrome finish. Italian chrome was miserable.

Not only the chrome, but the paint was not so great, and the frame prep
prior to painting was shoddy.

Quoted message said:

I forget what my bikes weighed. I would guess 23 pounds or so. I have a 2000
Colnago Master Light with 8 speed stuff on it that I use as my lunch time
ride. It weighs about 22.

I think that if you look at a common bike from 2000 on, compared to one
from the late 60s, you will lose about 3 lbs total. Wheels and tires
are typically heavier than back then, since they are typically clincher
now, and because rims have to be stronger for a highly-dished rear
wheel. Stell forks make good anchors, but weigh about a pound more than
a steel-steerer carbon-bladed fork. Components are a wash, taken in
toto. My old Frejus frame was about 5.5 lbs (that is frame alone,
without the fork).

Quoted message said:

--

David L. Johnson

The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a Mack
truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

--

David L. Johnson

The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

On Jul 4, 7:23 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:35:10 -0400, [email hidden]
(wishful

thinker) said:

When I was a kid the Schwinn Paramount was considered by many to be
one of the finest bikes ever made. How do the specs on that bike
compare to a top of the line bike of today?

Quoted message said:

By today's standards is it still considered to be a great bike?

Sorta. It probably rides fine. You can get bikes that shift better,
brake better, are far easier to maintain, are more reliable and
lighter for much less money in real dollars.

Compared to a modern bike of comparable cost in real dollars, it's
worse.

Use the frame(particularly if it's a Waterfrod produced steel frame)
and put some modern stuff on it so it shifts better, brakes better,
maybe a pound or so lighter but as for ride quality, besides being
Subjective with a capital 'S', it'll look great, ride wonderfully and
last forever. The new 'wunderbikes' are mostly so much mass produced
eyewash that doesn't really make riding any easier or better.Not since
the late 80s/early 90s has anything come to market that really makes
cycling 'better'.

It doesn't have to be revolutionary to be better. I changed my Chorus Ergos
from the pointy ones to the rounded ones because the earlier ones were
uncomfortable and the new shape is really nice. I think the expectation
that a calendar year brings a new model year is a modern hoax that needs to
die. The early Record Ergos are now found in last year's Veloce model, save
the cut out and the internal ball bearings. Price went way down, especially
following inflation. That's better, no? Lots of people who buy new carbon
frames are happier on them just because, and as a result, they ride more,
and that's better, also. Even home trainers got better, quieter, and they
work perfectly with a 6-speed bike, which is, at not more than 100$ also
better.

If there's one thing that's clearly worse, it's that retrogrouches can make
people feel small and stupid for getting on a bike they like. My practical
sense tells me that I should be happy _inside_ my car when I drive, less
important that the exterior look perfect. But aesthetics is a good enough
reason for choosing your clothes or car or two-wheeled transport. It's
progress that not every carbon bike has to show black and filaments.

Not everyone is stupid, and not all modern production is inferior. But it's
a safe bet that the curious cachet of riding steel on tubulars wearing wool
is the silliest "improvement" of all. Some folks ride that way because they
don't spend all their money on bikes. Some spend it on exorbitant modern
American health care.
--
Les faits relatés ici ne sont que pure fiction, et ne sauraient être
utilisés ou rapprochés d'une situation réelle existant ou ayant
existée

On Jul 4, 11:31 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:03:11 -0000, Qui si parla Campagnolo

Quoted message said:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

If they never hurt, why do you not wear one all the time?

If you truly believe there is no downside to wearing a helmet,
shouldn't you wear it all the time. At least when awake and moving,
or when outside? Seems to me that's the logical conclusion to your
belief.

http://tinyurl.com/2m2vzv

EYETHCREAM EYETHCREAM, WOO WOOO!