cinelli super corsa

[Fixed]

bro anyone see the new road mag? it shows the new version with 10 speed d.t. shifters and a.c. wheels and their chromed lugs . looks kinda like what i've been racin for ever
cheers

[catulle]

Mine rides like a million bucks. I really like the way it rides. I'd be nice if it were a little better finished.

[Fixed]

sweet, bro

[Serpico]

fixed,

check gvhbikes.com for these, I've seen them on eBay as well

[alancw3]

gvh use to have a great selection of large frame sizes i.e. 62-64cm. haven't checked their inventory recently though. the bright red with chrome lugs and chainstays is absolutely gorgeous imho.

[ndoshi72c]

Yeah Fixed, I also saw this in the new Road mag. I wondered what kina dt shifters were being used, since they sure didn't look like DA. They were silver, maybe friction?

Also, I didn't like the look of the adaptor and shim to use a threadless stem. Should've gone all classic with a quill stem (maybe the issure is that the only company that makes a decent quill these days is Japanese).

Other than that, a great concept. I'm all about the 'sleeper' style road bike-- vintage frame, mod components.

[catulle]

. Should've gone all classic with a quill stem (maybe the issure is that the only company that makes a decent quill these days is Japanese).

Thankfully, there are plenty of Cinelli quill stems and bars if you look around.

[mpetry]

the original Cinellis from the classic period (roughly 65 - 74) were not well finished - looked like they had been painted with a whiskbroom. Terrible, and the paint rubbed thru or flaked off.

I remember watching Spence Wolf lever the lid off a wooded crate, inside were 5 or 6 Cinelli frames, packed in straw. They were built to go, the paint was just an add-on.

The american builders (Ritchey, Sachs, Masi, et al) really raised the bar on finish to a whole new level, and with the advent of 2 component paint there really was no comparison.

So a refinished Cinelli of any vintage will easily look better (lots better) than an original , early one, and probably somewhat better than a new production bike as well.

http://www.petry.org/pics/cinelli1183.jpg

The new bike looks good, I am glad these are still being built, and they are a true classic, true to the classic. The fork blades are beefier.

Just my $0.02.

Mark Petry
former keeper of the worldwide Cinelli owner's registry
Gilligan's Island, Wa

[GoJavs]

It's a very sweet, classic ride and its got good looks to spare. :)

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=16914

[bfd]

the original Cinellis from the classic period (roughly 65 - 74) were not well finished - looked like they had been painted with a whiskbroom. Terrible, and the paint rubbed thru or flaked off.

I remember watching Spence Wolf lever the lid off a wooded crate, inside were 5 or 6 Cinelli frames, packed in straw. They were built to go, the paint was just an add-on.

The american builders (Ritchey, Sachs, Masi, et al) really raised the bar on finish to a whole new level, and with the advent of 2 component paint there really was no comparison.

So a refinished Cinelli of any vintage will easily look better (lots better) than an original , early one, and probably somewhat better than a new production bike as well.

http://www.petry.org/pics/cinelli1183.jpg

The new bike looks good, I am glad these are still being built, and they are a true classic, true to the classic. The fork blades are beefier.

Just my $0.02.

Mark Petry
former keeper of the worldwide Cinelli owner's registry
Gilligan's Island, Wa

As the former owner of a later, non-classic, Columbus-made Cinelli, 1988 or 89 (yes, its not considered a true Cinelli), the one thing that killed me was the paint job. The problem with these later Cinelli is that they chrome the frame, then painted over it. Result - the paint would chip just looking at it. However, there was a nice chrome finish underneath.

[531Aussie]

sorry, but I think I'd prefer the new Supercorsa :)
Ultrafoco, Carve fork


http://www.itsbicycletime.it/images/foto/nuovosupercorsa.jpg


but the 2006 is blue, I think

[OldDog]

Take note of the length of the chainstays on Mr. Petry's vs. GoJavs. This is more typical of the era (and roads) back then vs todays "race geometry". Different riding bikes for sure.

[texbike]

I've had two of the Columbus-era Cinellis and have greatly enjoyed both of them. The first was a 1983 constructed of Columbus SL. It was my first steel road bike. I had just begun to ride in 1990 and started on Cannondales. The first ride on the Cinelli was an eye opener! The bike was sooooooo smooth and responsive compared to the Cannondale Criterium that I had spent the last 8 months on. It started my love affair with lugged-steel frames. I put many miles on that bike all over the U.S. and Western Europe. After taking it to follow the 2003 TDF, I retired it and eventually sold it earlier this year after rebuilding it.

The second is a 1986 constructed of Columbus SLX tubing that was picked up a few years ago. I still have this one and am amazed at how responsive and fun to ride the bike is. It may be the one bike that I have always stepped off of after a ride and said: "Wow! That was fun!". It just "feels" fast. The bike still has the original red paint which is one of the worst paint jobs that I've ever seen on a bike. The quality of the chrome leaves a bit to be desired as well.

I'm at a cross-roads with the bike now trying to decide if it should be refinished, left the way it is (in all of its tarnished glory), or passed to a new owner.

The cool thing is it was built during the point in Campy history (1986) when it could have worn C Record, Super Record, or Nuovo Record componentry.

Texbike

[Fixed]

bro the best thing about a steel bike?........the steel fork imho
cheers

[cpg]

the original Cinellis from the classic period (roughly 65 - 74) were not well finished - looked like they had been painted with a whiskbroom. Terrible, and the paint rubbed thru or flaked off.

I remember watching Spence Wolf lever the lid off a wooded crate, inside were 5 or 6 Cinelli frames, packed in straw. They were built to go, the paint was just an add-on.

The american builders (Ritchey, Sachs, Masi, et al) really raised the bar on finish to a whole new level, and with the advent of 2 component paint there really was no comparison.

So a refinished Cinelli of any vintage will easily look better (lots better) than an original , early one, and probably somewhat better than a new production bike as well.

http://www.petry.org/pics/cinelli1183.jpg

The new bike looks good, I am glad these are still being built, and they are a true classic, true to the classic. The fork blades are beefier.

Just my $0.02.

Mark Petry
former keeper of the worldwide Cinelli owner's registry
Gilligan's Island, Wa



Hey Mark,

Welcome to the lisp!

Curt Goodrich

[Elefantino]

As the former owner of a later, non-classic, Columbus-made Cinelli, 1988 or 89 (yes, its not considered a true Cinelli), the one thing that killed me was the paint job. The problem with these later Cinelli is that they chrome the frame, then painted over it. Result - the paint would chip just looking at it. However, there was a nice chrome finish underneath.

Didn't Cinelli, like other Italian makers, "varnish" their frames?

I have a varnished frame that also chips on command. But a sweet ride with SLX.