Re: [CR] 700C timeline

(Example: Framebuilding:Norris Lockley)

References: <732660995.12096381267986866606.JavaMail.root@sz0035a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> <181300.87184.qm@web27906.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4B9404B1.5020808@oxford.net> <858706.14547.qm@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:09:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "barrie carter" <barriemgracer@yahoo.co.uk>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <858706.14547.qm@web84107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] 700C timeline


We never had decimilisation in the UK until 1971, until then we used the nice old Brit custom of feet and inches, I still do as do many. I dont know when 700c came in but it wasnt there when I left in the early 60s but it was when I came back in 2003. But I know old tubs fit new rims and visa versa. Barrie Carter Roundham UK

To: John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net>; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Sun, 7 March, 2010 20:48:08 Subject: [CR] 700C timeline

All,

This is an interesting point. I rode in the UK during the late '50's and '60's. As John says, bikes either had 27" "high pressures" or sprints (tubulars). I believe that sprints followed the 700C sizing as they always had more wheel clearance. When did 700C clinchers take over from 27" wheels?

Barrie, Neil, Norris, what say you?

Tony Taylor Manchester NH where it was 50+ today, and I enjoyed my first ride of the season!!

________________________________ From: John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Sun, March 7, 2010 2:55:29 PM Subject: Re: [CR] Short Reach Front, Long Reach Rear

Back in the 1950s when I rode with a club in the UK as a teenager, I had never heard of a "700C" size rim. Lightweight bikes had 27" high pressure tires, and tubs were called 28" I think. I'm not sure, because I couldn't afford them. All I could hope for was to one day replace my 27" chrome wheels with Conloys or the like.

-- John Betmanis Woodstock, Ontario Canada

barrie carter wrote:
> If youve been following, Norris is from Scotland and I was referring to his comments. You must be young, when I was racing we only knew 27" wheels, hence my question.
> Barrie Roundham, Somerset UK
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "billydavid13@comcast.net" <billydavid13@comcast.net>
> To: barrie carter <barriemgracer@yahoo.co.uk>
> Sent: Sun, 7 March, 2010 18:34:26
> Subject: Re: [CR] Short Reach Front, Long Reach Rear
>
>
> Hi again. No idea when, but it seems like tubulars have always been 700C [622mm bead seat]. The 27" rims have a 630mm bead seat so the difference is 8mm difference in rim diameter or 4mm in radius. I have never heard the term "Norris." Can you elaborate? Sincerely. Billy [seeking enlightenment] Ketchum; Chicago, IL; USA.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "barrie carter" <barriemgracer@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 12:22:42 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [CR] Short Reach Front, Long Reach Rear
>
> So when did the 700c wheel replace the 27" Norris, and how much is the difference.!
> Barrie Carter Roundham Crewkerne Uk
>
> ________________________________
> From: Norris Lockley <nlockley73@googlemail.com>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Sent: Sat, 6 March, 2010 21:54:04
> Subject: [CR] Short Reach Front, Long Reach Rear
>
> Somewhere up in the lowlands of Southern Scotland is a 24" Bespoke of Settle
> Baines Gate-design frame. I made it in the mid-80s to the custom design of a
> close friend who never had much money, having been made redundant from his
> jobs as an engineering draaughtsman thirteen times in his working life.
> nevertheless he still wanted fancy lugs on his frames.
>
> Because he had to make-do-and-mend with his cycle parts his frames were
> always built to accommodate a variety of parts that he transferred from bike
> to bike. For this bike he specified that the frant and rear brake clearances
> would be different, and that he would a combination of Weinmann side-pull
> brakes. The dimensions he supplied on the drawing supplied were very precise
> with little or no room for manoeuvre.
>
> He explained that he required these odd clearances so that he could
> accommodate a choice of 27inch or 700 C wheels, with mudguards and alsohave
> the freedom of using gears or a fixed wheel - hence it was a polyvalent
> design.
>
> Having oredred the frame and I had built it, he lost his job once more and
> could not afford to buy it. Feeeling bad about the fix he had landed me in
> he said he would find a buyer..which he did quite quickly. Some months later
> I was called to the phone to answer a call from an irate customer who turned
> out to be the owner of this frame.
>
> The chap was very complimentary about my ability to copy Baines' famous
> design and even congratulated me on the finely fretted lugwork. However he
> went on to satate that none of this was any good if he could not find a set
> of brakes that would enable him to set the bike up correctly so that it
> could be ridden. He also recommended a certain brand of tape-measure to me.
> Fortunately I was able to send him a copy of the draughtman's drawing to
> guide him on his way. I still have that drawing on file just in case some
> fine evening I receive a phone call....
>
> I do not recall that it was common-place for builders in the UK in the 70s
> to build frames with the intention of using different lengths of brakes for
> front and rear, but I do remember that often when setting the rear brake
> bridge, the brake block might set slightly lower down the slot in the
> caliper just to make it slightly easier to accommodate a mudguard. And, of
> course, many Club-type riders did tend to ride both 27inch and 700C wheels.
>
> Norris Lockley
> Settle UK