I think I found my Ross Paragon that I sold in 1988. Please advise.
#101
I don't know.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Meriden, CT
Posts: 2,222
Bikes: '90 B'stone RB-1, '92 B'stone RB-2, '89 SuperGo Access Comp, '03 Access 69er, '23 Trek 520, '14 Ritchey Road Logic, '09 Kestrel Evoke, '08 Windsor Tourist, '17 Surly Wednesday, '89 Centurion Accordo, '15 CruX, '17 Ridley X-Night, '89 Marinoni
Liked 1,045 Times
in
534 Posts
dig it!
#102
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
The Truth Hurts
The truth hurts and as the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction.
Even though at one point I was convinced that this Ross Paragon is my original bike that I bought when I was 15 and by the miracles of fate it was brought back to me, I came to the irrefutable conclusion today that it is not in fact my bike.
Those dang handlebars kept nagging at me. I asked myself how sure are you? To which I replied, I am pretty sure. I asked myself, if you were on a jury, would you convict or do you have reasonable doubt. I had to admit to myself that I had reasonable doubt and it was the dang handlebars and the bike felt smaller than i remember.
I was able to rationalize that all away and convince myself that I bought the bike earlier than I did, when i was smaller, and people replace bars and stems to find the right fit. The abrasion on the rear derailleur, I remembered it being worse than it is. I rationalized that as time passes we remember things worse than they really were. That it had an abrasion at all was convincing to me.
The location, Janesville Wisconsin, that was the last known location!. and lastly the astonishing Flick Stand that I never saw on any other bike ever. Surely it was reasonable for me to believe it was my bike? Then there was the drawing made by P!N20 extending the top tube to demonstrate that it was likely a 21" frame and not a 23.
I didn't want to question it too much because honestly I wanted to believe it was my bike and I was afraid that I might not buy it and then after its gone find out that it was in fact my bike! I couldnt live with that kind of regret.
I guess I don't regret buying it. After all it is a great story and a great bike. (but too small).
So anyway, here's how I know for 100% certain that I am NOT the father. ermm eh I mean uh that it is NOT my original bike.
Looking at P!N20's drawing today and comparing my 21" bike in front of me to my original bike in the chess photo, I asked myself if it was possible to actually measure the pixels and compare the measurement to a known difference between the 21" and the 23"
I was able to find a 23" Ross Paragon for reference in real life. I measured the distance between the water bottle mounts and I got 64mm on center. I did the same on my 21" Ross Paragon and I got the same number.
Using the measuring tool in GIMP (like photoshop) I then measured the pixels between the water bottle mount bolts on center in my chess picture and I got 90.5pixels. Knowing that this distance was 64mm in real life, I divided 90.5 by 64 and concluded that there are 1.414mm per pixel.
I then measured with a tape measure the distance between the cable guides on the top tube on the physical 23" bike and it was 163.5mm. I did the same for the 21" bike and it was 152.5mm.
When I used the software to measure the distance in pixels between the cable guides in the chess photo, I got a startling reading of 232pixels. 232 / 1.41 = 164mm which is within a half millimeter of my actual measurement with a tape measure on the 23" bike! This proves the bike in the chess photo is a 23" bike and the bike I have now is not the same bike.
Based on this sad data, I concluded that I deceived myself into believing that the 21" Ross Paragon in front of me is my original bike come back to me from 1988, when in fact it is not, and I wept bitterly. (ok not that much).
Even though at one point I was convinced that this Ross Paragon is my original bike that I bought when I was 15 and by the miracles of fate it was brought back to me, I came to the irrefutable conclusion today that it is not in fact my bike.
Those dang handlebars kept nagging at me. I asked myself how sure are you? To which I replied, I am pretty sure. I asked myself, if you were on a jury, would you convict or do you have reasonable doubt. I had to admit to myself that I had reasonable doubt and it was the dang handlebars and the bike felt smaller than i remember.
I was able to rationalize that all away and convince myself that I bought the bike earlier than I did, when i was smaller, and people replace bars and stems to find the right fit. The abrasion on the rear derailleur, I remembered it being worse than it is. I rationalized that as time passes we remember things worse than they really were. That it had an abrasion at all was convincing to me.
The location, Janesville Wisconsin, that was the last known location!. and lastly the astonishing Flick Stand that I never saw on any other bike ever. Surely it was reasonable for me to believe it was my bike? Then there was the drawing made by P!N20 extending the top tube to demonstrate that it was likely a 21" frame and not a 23.
I didn't want to question it too much because honestly I wanted to believe it was my bike and I was afraid that I might not buy it and then after its gone find out that it was in fact my bike! I couldnt live with that kind of regret.
I guess I don't regret buying it. After all it is a great story and a great bike. (but too small).
So anyway, here's how I know for 100% certain that I am NOT the father. ermm eh I mean uh that it is NOT my original bike.
Looking at P!N20's drawing today and comparing my 21" bike in front of me to my original bike in the chess photo, I asked myself if it was possible to actually measure the pixels and compare the measurement to a known difference between the 21" and the 23"
I was able to find a 23" Ross Paragon for reference in real life. I measured the distance between the water bottle mounts and I got 64mm on center. I did the same on my 21" Ross Paragon and I got the same number.
Using the measuring tool in GIMP (like photoshop) I then measured the pixels between the water bottle mount bolts on center in my chess picture and I got 90.5pixels. Knowing that this distance was 64mm in real life, I divided 90.5 by 64 and concluded that there are 1.414mm per pixel.
I then measured with a tape measure the distance between the cable guides on the top tube on the physical 23" bike and it was 163.5mm. I did the same for the 21" bike and it was 152.5mm.
When I used the software to measure the distance in pixels between the cable guides in the chess photo, I got a startling reading of 232pixels. 232 / 1.41 = 164mm which is within a half millimeter of my actual measurement with a tape measure on the 23" bike! This proves the bike in the chess photo is a 23" bike and the bike I have now is not the same bike.
Based on this sad data, I concluded that I deceived myself into believing that the 21" Ross Paragon in front of me is my original bike come back to me from 1988, when in fact it is not, and I wept bitterly. (ok not that much).
Last edited by BikePower; 07-02-24 at 08:56 PM.
#103
Happy With My Bikes
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,490
Bikes: Hi-Ten bike boomers, a Trek Domane and some projects
Liked 2,771 Times
in
1,282 Posts
Knowing this is not your Ross from back in the day should only have knocked off a bit of the luster. But enjoy it anyway.
__________________
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz Stücke
Likes For Chuck M:
#104
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
Im not getting repeatable results with other photos however. I dont get it. What am I doing wrong? Could this still actually be my bike??
Last edited by BikePower; 07-01-24 at 02:44 PM.
#105
As long as we are looking at gift horses in the mouth: I think the better objects to measure, would be the ratio of the length between cable guides, to the length from cable guide to seat post, and cable guide to top tube decal. The important thing is that you are measuring along the same axis, in close proximity. When you are measuring along different axes the perspective of the camera can and will make that impossible to compare accurately.
Likes For icemilkcoffee:
#107
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
As long as we are looking at gift horses in the mouth: I think the better objects to measure, would be the ratio of the length between cable guides, to the length from cable guide to seat post, and cable guide to top tube decal. The important thing is that you are measuring along the same axis, in close proximity. When you are measuring along different axes the perspective of the camera can and will make that impossible to compare accurately.
Likes For BikePower:
Likes For P!N20:
#110
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
Heres an actual scan of the slide that I made today. The previous picture was just a phone picture of a projected slide on a wall. Im hoping the extra detail will help me determine if its the same bike or not.
Likes For BikePower:
#111
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
That means its a 23" bike. So with bluebeam its possible to calibrate on one axis and measure on another? That would be awesome to know for sure either way, is better than not knowing.
Likes For P!N20:
#113
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
Thats still pretty close. Thanks for doing that. I tried downloading Bluebeam but I couldnt get it to work.
Can you see what the distance is between the cable guides on this pic using the waterbottle lugs as calibration. (63mm).
That would be awesome thanks!
Can you see what the distance is between the cable guides on this pic using the waterbottle lugs as calibration. (63mm).
That would be awesome thanks!
Likes For BikePower:
#114
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,889
Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
Liked 1,013 Times
in
648 Posts
Isn't black in trouble ? Looks like checkmate as the bishop protects the queen.
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Likes For P!N20:
#117
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
This is whats confusing to me. This bike is a 21" bike and when I measure with a ruler , between the cable guides on center, I get 152.5mm. When I check it in GIMP my photoshop software it also tells me that it is about 165mm. Why is this? How can it be right on the money on the Chess picture bike, which we dont know the frame size, but on the 21" bike that we know, we get 10mm error ? Even with advanced software . There must be a way to be sure what size the bike in the Chess pic is. By the way, thanks for your effors I appreciate that.
Likes For BikePower:
#118
Senior Member
This is whats confusing to me. This bike is a 21" bike and when I measure with a ruler , between the cable guides on center, I get 152.5mm. When I check it in GIMP my photoshop software it also tells me that it is about 165mm. Why is this? How can it be right on the money on the Chess picture bike, which we dont know the frame size, but on the 21" bike that we know, we get 10mm error ? Even with advanced software . There must be a way to be sure what size the bike in the Chess pic is. By the way, thanks for your effors I appreciate that.
Just so we're on the same page, this is where I'm taking the measurements:
Likes For P!N20:
#119
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
Something's not right. Maybe take a photo against a light coloured wall trying to be as square to the frame as possible. Get down so the lens is roughly between the bottle mounts and cable guides. The photo only needs to include those elements. You could even get back and zoom in as much as your camera allows in order to create as close to a true elevation as possible.
Just so we're on the same page, this is where I'm taking the measurements:
Just so we're on the same page, this is where I'm taking the measurements:
#120
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 455
Bikes: 1983 Ross Paragon
Liked 114 Times
in
65 Posts
Something's not right. Maybe take a photo against a light coloured wall trying to be as square to the frame as possible. Get down so the lens is roughly between the bottle mounts and cable guides. The photo only needs to include those elements. You could even get back and zoom in as much as your camera allows in order to create as close to a true elevation as possible.
Just so we're on the same page, this is where I'm taking the measurements:
Just so we're on the same page, this is where I'm taking the measurements:
Likes For BikePower:
Likes For P!N20: