I am 6' 6" plus, very long in the leg, but also very light -- built like a streak of p**s as my rugby coach said when consigning my fledgeling career as a second-row forward to the scrapheap of history. I don't feel I can justify the cost of a custom-built frame -- largely because I'd feel such a prat if I didn't like it, and the chances of that seem a bit too high, given that I have no experience of commissioning bike frames and I guess few builders have much experience of building to my dimensions.
So, I end up on stock frames that come in at around the 25" mark and -- like my compatriot Mr Sayles -- ride around with my a**e in the air. The limiting factor is how high I can get the bars, which is obviously limited by steerer and stem, but also by the length of the top tube: if it is shortish to start with, my weight gets shifted backwards and I have to have an outlandishly long stem -- up to 120 mm is fine, 130mm can be OK, but 140 mm and I find I am riding badly.
For long rides I currently reach for a 64 x 61 cm frame with a 120 mm stem which I can ride all day in comfort. By the book, the frame is too small for me. Another I love to ride is even smaller, a 653 whippet of a frame, eager and demanding. Recently, I built up a huge Roy Thame frame with a 28" seat tube and an extra horizontal tube welded from the downtube to the seat tube about 5 inches above the BB to brace the main triangle. Steepish angles and not much rake to the fork. It is very well behaved, comnfortable and sure-footed, and ought to fit me pretty well, but after six months I don't really love it. In my mind, it's a plodder and on longer rides it is less comfortable than my smaller frames. Or maybe it is just less fun, not what I'm used to, and so on. I ended up putting flat bars on it and using it round town. I had another very large frame once, a Dave Lloyd cross bike with some of the scrappiest brazing I have ever seen, but it had the virtue for me of a monster top tube. It was comfortable to sit on and on the move was one of the best handling bikes I've ever ridden, but it was built of diamond section dedacciai zero uno tubing and even with 28c tyres it was horribly harsh.
So, winding eventually back to the original question, no, my bigger frames have been less, not more comfortable. All other things being equal, a longer tube will be more flexy than a shorter one -- but then too much flex can make a bike handle badly and that makes you tense up in the saddle, which is uncomfortable. All credit to you framebuilders who have to tease out these conundrums and build the answer in steel.
Giles O'Bryen London, UK
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org Sent: 27 January 2011 5:25 AM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 97, Issue 132
Send Classicrendezvous mailing list submissions to classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.bikelist.org/
You can reach the person managing the list at classicrendezvous-owner@bikelist.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Classicrendezvous digest..."
ClassicRendezvous
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Big frames ride better? (paccoastcycles) 2. Re: Big frames ride better? (Joe Starck) 3. Re: Big frames ride better? (Jim Merz) 4. Re: Backwards Velodrome Racing (Carlos Ovalle) 5. Re: Big frames ride better? (Thomas Adams) 6. WTT: Stronglight Italian BB for English (old steel) 7. Re: all this talk of tandems...and I have some questions (Tom Harriman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:37:17 -0800 From: "paccoastcycles" <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better? To: "Tom Harriman" <transition202@hotmail.com>, <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com>, "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Message-ID: <A412394FB8F34D9A9754BAE0F0924A21@ownerd556865ac> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Tom Adams wrote:When I asked why, he said the bigger frames with the longer frame tubes would flex more and absorb more road shock.
My comment would be that it is not primarily the flex of the frame but the position of one's body and the distribution of one's weight with relation to
the wheelbase that leads to comfort on the bike.
Chuck Hoefer
Pacific Coast Cycles
Oceanside, Ca
<classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>
> Hi Tom. At 6.2 and 195 lbs I consider myself a larger rider. In my
> experience my 62cm frames ride about the same as 25" inch frames. I can't
> see that my frames ride any better or any worse than anyone ellis. Sorry,
> but I can't see that this theory holds any water.
>
> Tom Harriman
> San Francisco, Ca
>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:12:51 -0800
>> From: thomasthomasa@yahoo.com
>> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>>
>> Dear List:
>>
>> I am happy to see the insightful comments on this topic. To clarify what
>> I was asking, I'm not so much inquiring how to set up a bike, as I
>> presume anyone on this list is already enough of a bike addict to have
>> their own way of getting a good position. What I'm curious about is
>> whether a frame in the larger end of our acceptable frame size range has
>> any intrinsic advantages as far as ride quality goes. These days, with
>> Nitto stems and mountain posts you can acheive a tolerable set up on
>> almost any frame, but my totally subjective opinion, based on no
>> quatifiable data, is that my 64cm frames ride "nicer" than my 62cm
>> frames. Indeed, to the point that I sold a lovely 60 cm Ephgrave #1 to
>> Paul Raley, because the ride was just a bit,"wrong". Paul, did the frame
>> ride good for you and was it on the high end of your range? Does anyone
>> else share this impression, or indeed, have the opposite reaction?
>>
>> I think everyone has probably a 2 cm range on the ideal frame size. Is
>> there any perceived difference in ride between the low end of the range
>> and the high end of the range, assuming identical bike position?
>>
>> Aside from my own impressions, there are two tenuous roots for this
>> question. I once had a veteran LBS guy look at a 62 cm Raliegh
>> International I just got, and say "Ah, a nice big frame, that will be
>> comfortable". When I asked why, he said the bigger frames with the
>> longer frame tubes would flex more and absorb more road shock. This
>> probably is an old wive's tale, but the other side of the coin is still
>> prevelant: we're told to get the smallest racing frame we can fit
>> because the shorter frame will be stiffer (and please no one start
>> talking about whether stiffer is faster).
>>
>> The second reason is the change of frame size normally fitted to a rider.
>> Back in the 40's and 50's it looks like racers rode frames 2-3
>> centimeters bigger than current riders ride. Look at picutures of Coppi
>> and his contemporaries, and they all seem to have just a fist of seat
>> post showing out of the frame. Was there a reason for this or is it just
>> fashion?
>>
>> Thanks again for everyone's thoughts. Plenty of interesting theory out
>> there.
>>
>> Tom Adams
>> Manhattan, KS USA
>>
>> --- On Tue, 1/25/11, paccoastcycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: paccoastcycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>> To: "Dean Kernan" <dkernan@mindspring.com>,
>> classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 9:11 AM
>>
>>
>> Has this subject morphed from what I wrote about someone selling his
>> favorite bike because it was "too big"?
>>
>> To keep this subject on topic, I'll go on record by saying that
>> Specialized was the first company I was aware of that made each frame
>> with a clean slate design. In spite of my distaste for their recent
>> business model, I give them credit for giving the industry that. It
>> forced (or enabled?) other manufacturers to do the same or close to it.
>>
>> Also, being 5'8", I can only speak from what I've deduced with regard to
>> my tall customers over the years. There have been two developements I
>> have seen for tall riders. First, oversize tubing seems appropriate for
>> most very tall frames. That also enables the frame to be made with a more
>> generous top tube which seems proportional. Second, the tendency to put
>> riders on smaller frames seems to have resulted in fewer truly good
>> fitting tall frames (by this, I mean over 60cm). I think that is down to
>> the reluctance of dealers to stock frames in the 63cm range.
>>
>> This is veering off topic so I'll invite off list discussioin with
>> anybody who wishes to further discuss it. I think it is one of the true
>> tragedies of the bicycle market place.
>>
>> Chuck Hoefer
>> Pacific Coast Cycles
>> Oceanside, Ca.
>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Kernan" <dkernan@mindspring.com>
>> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>>
>>
>> > List (and especially framebuilders),
>> >
>> > I have a related question, and forgive my ignorance but...
>> >
>> > Was there a shift in frame-building philosopy/technique so that more
>> > recent
>> > large frames tend to be built with longer (and proportional) top tubes
>> > than
>> > they were back in the day?
>> >
>> > My original race bike from 1972 is Falcon San Remo that fits me well at
>> > 6'.
>> > Like a number of frames from that period, although it is fairly large
>> > (24/24.5 c-t-c) it has a fairly short top tube (22.5 c-t-c) which works
>> > fine
>> > for me, since I am more legs than arms.
>> >
>> > These proportions seem to be true of others from the period as well (as
>> > I
>> > have recently been reminded in an off-list exchange), ie. the larger
>> > frames
>> > tended to have extended seat tubes once they hit the upper end of the
>> > size
>> > range without a proportionate increase in TT length.
>> >
>> > Coming back to the sport, I was surprised to find more large frames
>> > that
>> > were proportional (often "square") so that I now ride a nominally
>> > smaller
>> > frame to have the same reach that I had on my original bike. Fitting on
>> > my
>> > orginal bike gives me the "fistful of seatpost" that was deemed correct
>> > for
>> > the time; fitting on my newer (~off-topic) Simonetti gives me more
>> > seatpost
>> > visible.
>> >
>> > [FWIW, I am indifferent to the issue of standover height since I don't
>> > stand
>> > over my bicycle. :>) ]
>> >
>> > The resulting loss is something that, if not a "better" ride, was
>> > certainly
>> > a different feeling on the bike.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Dean Kernan
>> > Pomona, New York
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:38:33 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Starck <josephbstarck@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better? To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Message-ID: <680334.89111.qm@web34304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
It may be that the rider/racer lessens his effort on a too-big sized bike, as compared to the same rider/racer's effort on a just-right sized bike. On the just-right bike, the rider/racer exerts to get the best out of him and the bike, which is the reason for the just-right bike. (And he has to really know how to handle his bike!) On any other bike outside of his just-right sized bike, he doesn't go all out, he doesn't put maximum demands on himself and the bike, he enjoys a ride of relaxation.
Joe Starck Madison, Wisconsin USA
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:39:15 -0800 From: Jim Merz <jameshmerz@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better? To: john@os2.dhs.org Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Message-ID: <AANLkTik7ktqDA98GLSVyqe-=vEuT_jRGbt0grOLF4ZjC@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Here is a funny UCI satire of current frame design requirements.
Jim Merz Big Sur CA
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John Thompson
<johndthompson@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 11:08 AM, verktyg wrote:
> > I can't speak for all makes of bikes or those built after the late 70s
> > but there was a tendency for European production models to all use the
> > same wheelbase length within a brand.
> >
> > This resulted in the smallest frames having a steep seat tube and
> > relaxed head tube which produced bikes that handled like a wheelbarrow.
> >
> > At the other extreme, the largest frame usually had the opposite, a
> > relaxed seat tube angle and a steep head tube. This resulted in the
> > riders weight being concentrated over the rear axle (with the seat up
> > high) and either sluggish or twitchy handling if the fork rake wasn't
> > adjusted to fit the frame size.
>
> Another factor that may have contributed is the UCI regulations on
> "front center" (the distance between the center of the BB shell and the
> center of the front dropout).
>
> We (Trek, that is) sponsored the US Women's National Team back in
> 1983-84, and built bikes for the team to use in competition. Among them
> were a number of track bikes used in the Nationals. These were designed
> and sized appropriately for the riders, some of whom were quite small
> (46-48cm frames). When the team took these bikes to the Worlds, UCI
> objected because the "front center" on the smaller frames was too short,
> so we had to scramble and build several new frames for the worlds (we
> had about a week's notice). IIRC, we had to use ~55cm top tubes on 48cm
> frames to satisfy UCI.
>
> Perhaps now the regulations have been modified to take into account
> frame size and rider size. I hope so, at least.
>
> --
>
> -John Thompson (john@os2.dhs.org)
> Appleton WI USA
> _______________________________________________
>
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:45:37 -0800 From: Carlos Ovalle <ovalle@charter.net> Subject: Re: [CR] Backwards Velodrome Racing To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Message-ID: <C7CDF82A-9262-4662-99B2-E3325953E208@charter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delmas and list:
Years ago I worked at an architecture firm that was bidding to design the rehabilitation of Madison Square Garden. I remember that part of the work involved research into the history of M.S.G. including its origin as a velodrome and something else that was curious... and I'm not sure how true... elephant racing? The firm was (is?) huge, 3,500 people, and I had my hands full on a couple of other sports projects so I only heard bits and pieces. Speaking of bits and pieces, and of old velodromes, at a world championship about 3 or 4 years ago at the L.A. Velodrome (aka ADT Center Velodrome, Home Depot Velodrome) they had an exhibit of old Madison Square Garden photos and pieces of the original wood track.
Cheers,
Carlos Ovalle Long Beach, California, USA
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:14:32 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Adams <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better? To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Message-ID: <637066.19171.qm@web35604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Chuck Hoefer points out that positioning on the bike is much more important
for comfort than any changes caused by a small difference in frame size.?
?
True, but we're assuming identical position on the bike, either from
increasing or decreasing seatpost setback and extension, and fitting a
different reach stem.? With all those variables?neutralized, is there any
anecdotal evidence that there's any perceivable difference in the ride of
frames?at the upper and lower end of a rider's acceptable frame size range??
I seem to like my larger frames a touch more, or rather the frames that
really have "it" for me seem to be the 64cm jobs as opposed to the 62cm
ones.? And all my frames have, as far as I can measure, identical saddle
to?BB position and pretty much?identical saddle to handlebar distance.
?
? We've had all sorts of responses from just the opposite (smaller frame
handles better and so is "nicer"), mild agreement and some that say it's all
in my head (which refutes all of you who claim I have nothing in the
cabeza).? I certainly don't claim to have made any sort of rigorous test,
which would require neutralizing innumerable variables, such as having
identical frames with identical geometry and tubing but a 2cm difference in
size, and then have the bikes ?built with identical components,
especially?wheels, tires and saddles.? I'm not expecting any blinding
insights, just trying to get a sense of whether other folks?have noticed
anything similar (or exactly the opposite)?to what I've noticed.?
?
Tom Adams
Manhattan, KS USA
From: paccoastcycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better? To: "Tom Harriman" <transition202@hotmail.com>, thomasthomasa@yahoo.com, "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 9:37 PM
Tom Adams wrote:When I asked why, he said the bigger frames with the longer frame tubes would flex more and absorb more road shock.
My comment would be that it is not primarily the flex of the frame but the position of one's body and the distribution of one's weight with relation to the wheelbase that leads to comfort on the bike.
Chuck Hoefer Pacific Coast Cycles Oceanside, Ca
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Harriman" <transition202@hotmail.com> To: <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com>; "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>
> Hi Tom.? At 6.2 and 195 lbs I consider myself a larger rider.? In my
experience my 62cm frames ride about the same as 25" inch frames.? I can't
see that my frames ride any better or any worse than anyone ellis.? Sorry,
but I can't see that this theory holds any water.
>
> Tom Harriman
> San Francisco, Ca
>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:12:51 -0800
>> From: thomasthomasa@yahoo.com
>> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>>
>> Dear List:
>>
>> I am happy to see the insightful comments on this topic.? To clarify what
I was asking, I'm not so much inquiring how to set up a bike, as I presume
anyone on this list is already enough of a bike addict to have their own way
of getting a good position.? What I'm curious about is whether a frame in
the larger end of our acceptable frame size range has any intrinsic
advantages as far as ride quality goes. These days, with Nitto stems and
mountain posts you can acheive a tolerable set up on almost any frame, but
my totally subjective opinion, based on no quatifiable data, is that my 64cm
frames ride "nicer" than my 62cm frames.? Indeed, to the point that I sold a
lovely 60 cm Ephgrave #1 to Paul Raley, because the ride was just a
bit,"wrong".? Paul, did the frame ride good for you and was it on the high
end of your range?? Does anyone else share this impression, or indeed, have
the opposite reaction?
>>
>> I think everyone has probably a 2 cm range on the ideal frame size.? Is
there any perceived difference in ride between the low end of the range and
the high end of the range, assuming identical bike position?
>>
>> Aside from my own impressions, there are two tenuous roots for this
question.? I once had a veteran LBS guy look at a 62 cm Raliegh
International I just got, and say "Ah, a nice big frame, that will be
comfortable".? When I asked why, he said the bigger frames with the longer
frame tubes would flex more and absorb more road shock.? This probably is an
old? wive's tale, but the other side of the coin is still prevelant:? we're
told to get the smallest racing frame we can fit because the shorter frame
will be stiffer (and please no one start talking about whether stiffer is
faster).
>>
>> The second reason is the change of frame size normally fitted to a rider.
Back in the 40's and 50's it looks like racers rode frames 2-3 centimeters
bigger than current riders ride.? Look at picutures of Coppi and his
contemporaries, and they all seem to have just a fist of seat post showing
out of the frame.? Was there a reason for this or is it just fashion?
>>
>> Thanks again for everyone's thoughts.? Plenty of interesting theory out
there.
>>
>> Tom Adams
>> Manhattan, KS USA
>>
>> --- On Tue, 1/25/11, paccoastcycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: paccoastcycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>> To: "Dean Kernan" <dkernan@mindspring.com>,
classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 9:11 AM
>>
>>
>> Has this subject morphed from what I wrote about someone selling his
favorite bike because it was "too big"?
>>
>> To keep this subject on topic, I'll go on record by saying that
Specialized was the first company I was aware of that made each frame with a
clean slate design. In spite of my distaste for their recent business model,
I give them credit for giving the industry that. It forced (or enabled?)
other manufacturers to do the same or close to it.
>>
>> Also, being 5'8", I can only speak from what I've deduced with regard to
my tall customers over the years. There have been two developements I have
seen for tall riders. First, oversize tubing seems appropriate for most very
tall frames. That also enables the frame to be made with a more generous top
tube which seems proportional. Second, the tendency to put riders on smaller
frames seems to have resulted in fewer truly good fitting tall frames (by
this, I mean over 60cm). I think that is down to the reluctance of dealers
to stock frames in the 63cm range.
>>
>> This is veering off topic so I'll invite off list discussioin with
anybody who wishes to further discuss it. I think it is one of the true
tragedies of the bicycle market place.
>>
>> Chuck Hoefer
>> Pacific Coast Cycles
>> Oceanside, Ca.
>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Kernan" <dkernan@mindspring.com>
>> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>>
>>
>> > List (and especially framebuilders),
>> >
>> > I have a related question, and forgive my ignorance but...
>> >
>> > Was there a shift in frame-building philosopy/technique so that more >
recent
>> > large frames tend to be built with longer (and proportional) top tubes
> than
>> > they were back in the day?
>> >
>> > My original race bike from 1972 is Falcon San Remo that fits me well at
> 6'.
>> > Like a number of frames from that period, although it is fairly large
>> > (24/24.5 c-t-c) it has a fairly short top tube (22.5 c-t-c) which works
> fine
>> > for me, since I am more legs than arms.
>> >
>> > These proportions seem to be true of others from the period as well (as
> I
>> > have recently been reminded in an off-list exchange), ie. the larger >
frames
>> > tended to have extended seat tubes once they hit the upper end of the >
size
>> > range without a proportionate increase in TT length.
>> >
>> > Coming back to the sport, I was surprised to find more large frames >
that
>> > were proportional (often "square") so that I now ride a nominally >
smaller
>> > frame to have the same reach that I had on my original bike. Fitting on
> my
>> > orginal bike gives me the "fistful of seatpost" that was deemed correct
> for
>> > the time; fitting on my newer (~off-topic) Simonetti gives me more >
seatpost
>> > visible.
>> >
>> > [FWIW, I am indifferent to the issue of standover height since I don't
> stand
>> > over my bicycle. :>)? ]
>> >
>> > The resulting loss is something that, if not a "better" ride, was >
certainly
>> > a different feeling on the bike.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Dean Kernan
>> > Pomona, New York
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:51:32 -0800 (PST) From: old steel <hfbirm@bellsouth.net> Subject: [CR] WTT: Stronglight Italian BB for English To: Classic Rendezvous <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Message-ID: <22722.21473.qm@web180304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
The good old 118mm used on 93's, 104's and I'm sure many others.? I removed this soon after acquiring a c.1980 Franken-bike with a?retapped French to Italian BB and never rode it in the as-bought configuration.? I want to use the 104 now on an English frame, so that's my story.
Not in perfect shape, but should be good as a rider.? Complete w/?sleeve, bolts and all. Link to the first of several Flickr pics:
http://www.flickr.com/
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:23:44 +0000 From: Tom Harriman <transition202@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [CR] all this talk of tandems...and I have some questions To: <moschika@gmail.com>, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Message-ID: <BAY140-W20F043FDA3CC54AB3DC4A7F0FE0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Eric. Just two more bits of advise, and then I'll let ride the bike in peace. Before you bid on those ebay wheels, make sour that a Shimano cassette will fit on this hub. Different manufactures have different amounts of space between the gears, and if you don't use a Shimano cassette the indexed shifting will be really bad, if it works at all. Finally, the rear of the frame doesn't always have to make all the changes. If the axel is more than 140, I would call Bullseye and ask if a shorter axel can be installed. The Santa Rosa bike shops are pretty good, so you should be able to do this locally. Apologies to list members on the east cost, but the weather in CA for this weekend is forecasted to be in the mid 60s with little or no wind. A perfect weekend for a tandem ride. Tom (sunscreen in January) HarrimanSan Francisco, Ca.
From: moschika@gmail.com To: transition202@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [CR] all this talk of tandems...and I have some questions Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:19:40 -0800
Hey Tom,
the updates seemed really hodge-podgey to me. not all bad, but not
necessarily what i would've done. i'll keep the shifters, levers,
derailleurs, but mis-matched wheels is a bicycle pet peeve of mine.
as for wheels, the response i got from folks on the "spread" was quite
varied from "no problem" to "i wouldn't advise it". so i take it as, if you
find a wheelset, whatever the spacing from 126-135, then i'll be ok.
so i did find some 40h Bullseye wheels with 27" Super Champions on ebay
$200, that i'm considering getting. i'm waiting to hear back on the hub
spacing incase it's too out of the ordinary.
I did change out the stoker bar to an upright bar. it clears my legs, and
makes it more comfortable for her. i also replaced the bars and keith
anderson stem, with a shorter and less angled cinelli stem and nitto
randonneur bars that have a shorter drop.
thanks for your advice.
Eric
On Jan 25, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Tom Harriman wrote:Hi Eric.
Thanks for sending a picture, it tells me allot.
This bike has already been updated a great deal. The brake levers are
modern arrow type, as well as the Shimano deralleurs, and the bar end
shifters. Since the back hub is an eight speed Hugi cassette than I would
guess and all of these parts were added around the late 1990s. It appears
that the bar end shifters were installed around this same time, so it should
have indexed shifting. I can't see anyone buying new hub and deralleurs and
then not buying new shifters.
>From what I have seen of Hugi hubs they are really good, and I would advise
you to have it inspected to see if it can be saved. You should be able to
install a 11-32 cassette on this hud, and this is also within the range of
the rear deralleur. This just got easier.
I was also thinking of the front wheel. If the two of you aren't going to
go loaded touring with this bike, and your not heavier than average adults,
than a standard 36 spoke 3x wheel will work just fine. As these are still
pretty common it will save you allot of money from not having to buy an
uncommon 40 spoke wheel.
I do see 36 hole rims in 27" on ebay from time to time, so this can be done.
My last bit of advice is to raise the stoker handlebar. I would guess that
if you and your wife were to start doing on longer rides her back would get
sour from being bent pretty far forward, and I have found we want to keep
our better half happy.
I hope these bits of advise help.
Tom HarrimanSan Francisco, Ca
From: moschika@gmail.com To: transition202@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [CR] all this talk of tandems...and I have some questions Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:13:57 -0800
thanks for the reply.
good call on the canti fit. the cantis on there now are adjustable, so they
are working with 700c, but the don't work that well. i'll have to see how my
pauls mount up. i know they aren't as adjustable, so that could be an issue.
27" wheels wouldn't be bad i guess. there are some nice tires and rims out
there in that size. also the tandem is 140 spacing. so i'll hold off on a
wheelset for now. if i'm lucky i'll find a set of Phils on CL for cheap. :)
the wheelset will also determine cassette or freewheel. knowing i can go up
to 8sp on the crankset makes it easy to find something with the gear ratio
that will work for us. it currently has an 8sp on there now. i think the
friction shifting deore derailleurs will work on any ratio, so i won't need
to change those.
here's a pic of what i'm starting with.<tandem1.jpg>
the current set up stretches me out a bit. fortunately i have something i
can replace the bar and stem with. i'm going to change them out for a
shorter cinelli stem and nitto rando bars - hope the barends fit. i found
some stoker bars today that i think might work too. they're bars that come
on the commuter/townie Treks. basically alloy risers that look similar to
the catalogue scan. we'll see how it goes.
i think this will be a fun project.
Thanks for the tips.Eric
On Jan 24, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Tom Harriman wrote:Hi Eric.
I few years back I belonged to a tandem club that often took blind people
out for rides, so I did get some experience with this. I'll try to help out
as best I can.
I have found that SR post work well and last a long time, however if your
having doubts about a thirty four year old part, than by all mean replace
it.
I do agree with you that modern brakes are a big improvement, and that you
should install then. The one thing I would caution you about is that the
cantilever monts are wielded to the frame and fork so that the brakes match
up with a 27" rim. Going to the smaller 700c rim could cause you problems.
If you have a 700c wheel set then put these in the frame and fork and see
how the rim and brakes line up. I have know several people for whom this
small distance was a big problem, so give this some thought before buying
new parts.
On old bikes you can match any kind of brake with any kind of brake lever.
This will be simple.
Eight speed chains will work with everything.
As I recall stoker bars were the standard 31.0. I would take the old one to
the shop with you, and have the employee match the two. This should be easy
to resolve.
I don't think you will have to replace the crank set, as long as the gear
ratios work in your area, it should be fine.
I also wanted to mention that I have a set of tandem wheels for sale. I was
at a swap meet a while back and bought a pair of Mavic 40 hole rims and a
pair of Shimano 40 hole hubs. The seller was planning on building these up,
but never got to it. The rear hub is a seven speed freehub, and has a 145
spacing. You will need to measure the rear triangle to see if this will
work. Let me know.
This bike sounds like a fun project, let us know how it turns out.
Tom HarrimanSan Francisco, Ca
> From: moschika@gmail.com
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:25:06 -0800
> Subject: [CR] all this talk of tandems...and I have some questions
>
> this list has "birthed" another bike in the shed. all this talk of
> tandems on the list recently has led me to purchase a 1977 paramount
> tandem. the only thing "original" as far as i can tell is the campy
> triple tandem crankset. it looks to have been repainted by Keith
> Anderson, with a KA stem painted to match - unfortunately i think the
> stem might be a bit long for me. the paint is chipped in several
> places but looks good from 10' away, and one of the cable guides needs
> replacing. if it really works out, then a repair/repaint may be in
> order.
>
> wifey felt comfortable in the stoker seat, the SR MTE-100 post helps
> with that. btw, how sturdy are those? i think i'ld rather get a
> setback post.
> also the original stoker bar looks to be similar to a standard mtb
> riser bar. is that correct? what's on there now are some bullhorn bars
> that hit my legs, they need to go.
>
> wheels - originally it came with campy HF 36h hubs on 27"rims. were
> these your standard campy HF hubs? i don't plan on going back to 27"
> wheels, so i'll probably lace something up to modern 700c rims. the
> wheels now are a mismatched pair of DT swiss Hugi rear cassette hub
> with threads for a drum and a Sachs new success front hub and
> mismatched 700c rims. i'ld like to get a matching set, one of my
> neuroses about bike stuff.
>
> brakes - found in the archives about the mafac cantilevers and there
> being 3 sizes. how does one know which size is which? would you need
> to use mafac levers too? i'm also considering with going with modern
> Paul neo-retros. brakes are kind of the one thing i don't want to
> short-change myself on and i've used these before with success
> stopping and they still look the part. it currently has some cheap
> shimano canti's that barely worked on singles. i don't plan any long
> descents but would like my brakes to work when i need them.
>
> drivetrain - has shimano deore with the stags head front and rear DR.
> i remember these worked well on mtbs back in the day, guessing they
> still work well. they have it shifting an 8sp cassette with bar-ends.
> if i modernized the drivetrain (gasp!), i'm guessing the campy triple
> would still work with 8/9sp chains. will it? this really will depend
> on what kind of wheelset I can manage, but i really don't want to
> replace the crankset either.
>
> we've only ridden it around the neighborhood, but once i get a set of
> stoker bars and put on a shorter stem, we'll take it farther. wouldn't
> mind some feedback on what to look for to "upgrade" it over time.
> tandeming is a new thing for us. besides the beach cruiser tandems at
> the beach and borrowing a friends Burley - which didn't feel as comfy
> as this one, we haven't spent much time on them. btw, i paid $500
> which i think was a reasonable price for the bike. we'll probably ride
> it as it is for a while before i really put more into it, but I kind
> of want a plan for changes.
>
> Eric Acuna
> tandeming away with long posts in Santa Rosa, CA, USA
> _______________________________________________
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
End of Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 97, Issue 132 **************************************************