Re: [CR]Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc.

(Example: Framebuilding:Norris Lockley)

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:28:02 -0500
From: "Angel Garcia" <veronaman@gmail.com>
To: "CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc.
In-Reply-To: <8132BB47-01DC-4B3B-96C3-47F03931E9F0@earthlink.net>
References: <8C8FB00EE1032A7-1050-4573@MBLK-R10.sysops.aol.com>


You can continue laughing, as I don't have my dave moulton with me so I can't tell you the height of the BB.

BUT, his (dave moulton) Criterium model has a 1/4 inch higher BB than his road model. Along with that he changed seat and head tube angles, increased by a degree (73 to 74 head with fork offset changed to maintain 6cm of trail).

On his website Dave says: Another argument for raising the bottom bracket and one I rarely see discussed is this: *By raising the bottom bracket you shorten the chainstays and down-tube, thereby making a stiffer more responsive frame. *.......To sum up; if I built a Criterium or Track frame with a higher bottom bracket, it was not just to give more ground clearance. It was to build a stiffer more responsive frame. (Full text at: http://www.prodigalchild.net/Bicycle6.htm)

Angel Garcia Verona, IT, off to New Year's dinner, followed by fireworks in Piazza Bra. Happy New Year to all!

On 12/31/06, Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> A fascinating aspect to this whole discussion of high and low BB
> height is that there hasn't been a single dimension mentioned as to
> what would be considered a high or low BB.
>
> Hilarious...
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, CA
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2006, at 6:41 AM, oroboyz@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hey Ken:
> >
> > I can't help but wonder about a couple of things you wrote here:
> >
> > << Mine (1980, pre-TSD) also has a high BB, the drop is about 6.4
> > cm. Compares
> >
> > to about a cm more for my Trek and others. I think this
> > contributes to the
> >
> > Woodrup's sense of stability. >>
> >
> >
> >
> > "In Theory" the lower the BB, the more stable and of course the
> > opposite for
> >
> > higher BBs.
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact, if I remember correctly, that is one of Richard Sach's unique
> >
> > characteristics in his frames... He has used quite a bit lower bb
> > height
> >
> > and while you may not be able to pedal through the curves quite as
> > much,
> >
> > that is a well considered trade-off that results in a more secure
> > control
> >
> > (stability)while cornering.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that much of the sought after stability and steering
> > accuracy is part
> >
> > of accurate frame alignment and dishined wheels... So many frames,
> > of all quality
> >
> > levels, are not straight.. Just a 1/2 CM in misalignment can make a
> > huge
> >
> > difference and we tend to blame other factors (frame angles,
> > dimensions)
> >
> > when in fact, if the frame were carefully aligned, would make the
> > bikes
> >
> > ride ever so much better....
> >
> >
> >
> > << My theory is that both of my frames are small frames, and
> > subject to
> >
> > compromises inherent in minimizing toe overlap and gettign adequate
> > front
> >
> > tire to downtube clearance, without extremely long top tubes. One
> > design
> >
> > feature to address this is to raise the BB, and another is to lay
> > back the
> >
> > head tube to perhaps 72 degrees. >>
> >
> >
> >
> > In my (limited) experience, the reason many builders/manufacturers
> > make
> >
> > a higher BB in smaller frame is to solve the problem/save a lot of
> > work
> >
> > in joinery at the compacted head tube /head lugs area...
> >
> > By raising the BB, that allows raising the upper head lug,
> > allowing quick and unmodified use of the
> > stock lugs. I.e., no cutting or fitting, etc. Another solution to
> > this was a one-piece head lug
> > that allowed the top tube & down tube to intersect...
> >
> > On road bikes of any size, I don't think
> > the clearance of the down tube vs tire is much concern...
> >
> > 'Course I could be wrong. It is fun the theorize about all this
> > mysterious stuff!
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > Dale
> >
> >
> > Dale Brown
> > Greensboro, NC USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: freesound@comcast.net
> > To: jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net; hydelake@verizon.net;
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Sent: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 7:43 PM
> > Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > Mine (1980, pre-TSD) also has a high BB, the drop is about 6.4 cm.
> > Compares
> > to about a cm more for my Trek and others. I think this
> > contributes to the
> > Woodrup's sense of stability. The SOH on mine is 77.6 cm, seat
> > tube is 53.5
> > c-t, 52 cm c-c.
> >
> > My '84 or so Mondonico (sure looks on-topic, but I can't be sure!)
> > has a BB
> > drop of 7.2, 52 cm c-c seat tube, and 78.3 cm SOH. Both bikes seem
> > to have
> > high BBs, so I don't think national style is necessarily being
> > illustrated
> > here. My theory is that both of my frames are small frames, and
> > subject to
> > compromises inherent in minimizing toe overlap and gettign adequate
> > front
> > tire to downtube clearance, without extremely long top tubes. One
> > design
> > feature to address this is to raise the BB, and another is to lay
> > back the
> > head tube to perhaps 72 degrees. My Woodrup and Mondonico
> > respectively have
> > head tube angles of 72.0 degrees and 72.4 degrees (I have less
> > confidence in
> > this latter number).
> >
> > Both bikes are sort of a French fit for me.
> >
> > Ken Freeman
> > Ann Arbor, MI USA
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
> > [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Jerome &
> > Elizabeth Moos
> > Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:56 AM
> > To: Barb & Dan Artley; Classic Rendezvous
> > Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
> >
> > I have an early/mid 80's Woodrup. Nice bike, but does have a very
> > high
> > bottom bracket. Haven't measured the actual BB height, but the
> > standover
> > height is what I'd expect on a bike with a seat tube about 2 cm
> > longer. No
> > one else has mentioned this, but were high BB's typical of
> > Woodrup? On the
> > other hand I also have a 52 cm ctc 1988 Mercian KOM with a
> > standover height
> > about the same as a 55 cm French of Italian frame, so maybe the
> > high BB's
> > were a British thing in the 80's.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jerry Moos
> > Big Spring, TX
> >
> >
> >
> > Barb & Dan Artley <hydelake@verizon.net> wrote:
> > I can't say how pleased I am hearing so much of Woodrup Cycles. A
> > Woodrup
> > was my first really nice race bike replacing what I considered more
> > of a
> > tourer, my PX-10 (Sorry Peter K.). It was unfortunately crashed, badly
> > repaired and sold, but recently repurchased. I'm hoping that
> > someday it will
> > get the restoration it deserves for the fond memories of my only
> > race season
> > back in 1973. Thanks to all who've provided this information. Does
> > anyone
> > know if they are still building keepers of the flame in lugged
> > steel? ...
> > More?
> >
> > Dan Artley in Parkton, Maryland
> >
> > Archive-URL:
> > http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=classicrendezvous.
> > 10612.
> > 1653.eml
> > Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:57:24 -0500
> > Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
> > From: Doug Fattic
> >
> > The subject of Woodrup frames reminds me of my own experiences
> > visiting
> > their framebuilding shop when I was learning to build at Ellis Briggs.
> > I
> > wanted to learn how to do a fluted seat stay top like what was on
> > my Masi
> > and Jack Briggs rang up Woodrup to see if one of them would be
> > willing to
> > show me how. What I vaguely remember Jack Briggs telling me was
> > that somehow
> > Jack's father helped Woodrup get started. The date around 1953 or 4
> > sticks
> > in my mind from our conversation about it. Leeds is about 15 miles
> > to the
> > east from the much smaller town of Shipley where Ellis Briggs is
> > located.
> > The good size city of Bradford is about 3 miles to the south.
> > In
> > other words, these places are one big megalopolis. 15 British miles
> > is not
> > 15 American miles. The roads are not laid out on a square because
> > of the
> > shape of the land and going to Leeds seemed like a big trip. It was
> > lots of
> > stop and go city driving on winding roads in my old Morris Minor. This
> > generosity (to help others when it wasn't to his own advantage) was
> > part of
> > Jack's character too and something I've been deeply grateful for
> > (since he
> > did the same for me).
> >
> > I was a little shy going in the door and was glad Jack had asked
> > permission
> > for me. One of the sons (I don't remember which one) spent several
> > hours of
> > the afternoon showing me what to do. That day he was the only one
> > there. I
> > had some seat stays with me and he demonstrated how to miter the
> > end and
> > braze another piece of tubing in that place and then file off the
> > excess. I
> > looked around a bit and realized they did things a bit differently
> > than
> > Briggs. I also remember him suggesting to me that there wasn't much
> > need now
> > days (as in 1975) to pin frames together before brazing since
> > hearth brazing
> > was replaced with oxyacetylene brazing. As he explained, a spot
> > isn't likely
> > to break or move. All in all a valuable and pleasant afternoon. As
> > a newbie,
> > I was respectful of his advice and didn't try to argue how we did
> > things a
> > bit differently at Briggs. My impression was that Woodrup was a bit
> > more
> > production oriented - meaning that they concentrated on getting a
> > certain
> > number of frames made in a decent way in a week.
> > It
> > was the primary thing that brought in money for them. The frame
> > shop at
> > Briggs when I was there was a bit more of an extension of the bigger
> > business. There was the regular retail sales on the ground floor with
> > several sales people. There were the regular Raleigh and other
> > bikes and
> > another area had pro stuff. In the back was the repair shop with 2
> > workers.
> > Upstairs in one room was Bill and Rodney the painters and in
> > another, Andrew
> > mostly made the frames one at a time to a particular person. The
> > result of
> > not having framebuilding be the center of the business was that it
> > allowed a
> > bit more individual attention to be paid to each frame being made.
> > Jack
> > never pressured Andrew to be more productive, he just wanted him to
> > make
> > them right. Jack himself also helped out in there but mostly he and
> > his wife
> > kept an eye on the entire business. When he was in the frame shop,
> > it was
> > primarily to teach me and share his considerable knowledge or finalize
> > instructions about another frame for Andrew to build. Those
> > circumstances
> > really were a benefit to me which I have always deeply appreciated.
> > Another
> > advantage was the ability to wander into the paint room next door and
> > observe all the steps in painting. Bill and Rodney always enjoyed
> > company
> > and Andrew and I also ate our lunch in there.
> >
> > There are lots more memories of that time but not more time to
> > write about
> > them now. About the other framebuilders in West Yorkshire and the area
> > itself.
> >
> > Doug Fattic
> > Niles, Michigan USA
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > __
> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
> > across the web, free AOL Mail and more.