custom wheels

[Curtis]

Mentioned when I started reading this group I am a returning
cyclist. Well, am progressing well in my re-found interest.

In the past 14 months, my weight has dropped from a high of 415 to
under 280, and I'm still losing. Expecting to stabilize at about 250,
but that will depend on final muscle mass, (I'm already quite happy).
Was going to wait until I reached the lower weight, but have decided to
return my old road bike to service by Father's Day, looking forward to
being able to century again by year's end. Figure fat tires won't get
me there, (although expect to keep the current one active as I've
discovered the joys of leaving pavement behind, something I never tried
in my past).

Bike is a '72 Italvega road racing frame, Columbus steel, 72/72 w/ 1
1/4" rake. Looking to replace my old wheels with customs built to
handle my weight. Had a 48 spoke rear built for my "cruiser" I've been
riding. My mechanic assures me that 36 / 3X F, 2X-4X R with modern rims
will serve me very well. Planning on running 700C x 28.


Comments?

Curtis

[thirty-six]

36 spokes is sufficient in 14swg on rims probably of 480g or over.
Just don't ride too agressively until that weight has fallen off. If
you can get a 32mm tyre in there, it makes for a better ride when the
road is not so perfect. For a 32mm tyre, for best performance the
rim should be about 23mm between walls, about 28mm outside width.

[gpsman]

On May 11, 11:04 pm, Curtis <cavey_cur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Was going to wait until I reached the lower weight, but have decided to
> return my old road bike to service by Father's Day, looking forward to
> being able to century again by year's end.  Figure fat tires won't get
> me there, (although expect to keep the current one active as I've
> discovered the joys of leaving pavement behind, something I never tried
> in my past).

When I was in training I rode fat tires (and wore a t-shirt) on the
theory more resistance = more exercise (and far fewer flats so I spent
more time exercising harder).
-----

- gpsman

[datakoll]

photo ?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=960&bih=529&q=fat+man+riding+bicycle&oq=fat+man+riding+bicycle&gs_l=img.12..0.2549.9942.0.13454.38.22.0.11.11.6.309.2509.13j5j2j1.21.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.sKPE21QquvM

try Sun double wall rims.

lune hub/spoke junctures with Finish Line wax/teflon dry lube
in and outside.

read Armstrongs fitness books

try intervals

drink water

[Andre Jute]

Absolutely. On the same principle I don't slim the stuff in the bags on my bike, or half-fill the water bottle, or perpetrate any other weight-saving tricks. The more weight I haul, the better for my health. And the faster I bomb downhill!

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Really, Trevor? Where do you get these wonderfully wide rims? Most of what I see is 16mm over the beads, at most 19mm. It is a hell of a business getting any 24 or 25mm across-the-beads rims such as I prefer for my 622x60 Big Apples.

Andre Jute

[Jay Beattie]

Why is your mechanic recommending a mixed spoke pattern? 4X or 3X has
better torque transmission and lateral stiffness than 2X, and tension
imbalance in a 120mm/5sp wheel is not dramatic. Use some spoke prep.
You should get a good deep section 480-500g-ish rim like a Velocity
Dyad or something along those lines. Period appropriate would be Phil
40 hole/4X on Super Champion Mod 58.

Personally, I would skip the retro racing frame and go with something
more modern - like a $99 Nashbar 6061 frame or one of the zillion
cheap Kinesis Al frames with tire clearance. An SL frame for someone
north of 250 is going to feel noodly under hard pedaling, IMO. You
also get to skip the Italian BBs, 5sp, quill stems, etc. Get something
more upright to accommodate your back and shrinking gut, particularly
for century riding I love looking at the old steel bikes hanging up
at my local shop. I owned some of them. I'd never want to ride one
again -- too short in the TT and HT, too limber in the BB and heavy.
In a 63cm, they also look too leggy. I've grown accustomed to the look
of OS tubes, but that's just me.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Curtis]

On 5/12/13 9:54 AM, datakoll wrote:
> photo ?

Nah, besides, the weight description is for illustrating bike
stress, not fitness issues. Numbers alone can be deceiving.

> read Armstrongs fitness books

Under surgeon's and doctor's care.

Curtis

[AMuzi]

True, but a 1972 Italvega is pretty; that's a factor too.

Well, unless it's their superduper pro model with a series
of 1/2 inch holes in the Record crank. That would be scary.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Curtis]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> Why is your mechanic recommending a mixed spoke pattern? 4X or 3X has
> better torque transmission and lateral stiffness than 2X, and tension
> imbalance in a 120mm/5sp wheel is not dramatic. Use some spoke prep.
> You should get a good deep section 480-500g-ish rim like a Velocity
> Dyad or something along those lines. Period appropriate would be Phil
> 40 hole/4X on Super Champion Mod 58.

More even spoke tension with dish, and heavy rims a definite.
Cassette hub to bring bearings closer to drop-out, added bonus making a
12 speed into a 16? speed. Have Campy 177.5 with 52/44, old freewheel
13-18, be nice to have a 13-22/24 without sacrificing the 70-85 inch
close increments. Looking for overkill rather than adequate, I stress
equipment with power as well as size.

> Personally, I would skip the retro racing frame and go with something
> more modern - like a $99 Nashbar 6061 frame or one of the zillion
> cheap Kinesis Al frames with tire clearance. An SL frame for someone
> north of 250 is going to feel noodly under hard pedaling, IMO. You
> also get to skip the Italian BBs, 5sp, quill stems, etc. Get something
> more upright to accommodate your back and shrinking gut, particularly
> for century riding I love looking at the old steel bikes hanging up
> at my local shop. I owned some of them. I'd never want to ride one
> again -- too short in the TT and HT, too limber in the BB and heavy.
> In a 63cm, they also look too leggy. I've grown accustomed to the look
> of OS tubes, but that's just me.

This bike has already proven itself to be well worth returning to
service. Last use was a century ride at approx 275 lbs, retired it at
the time for new interests (technical scuba & martial arts), not health
issues, was quite fit at that size. Bike very comfortable and
responsive, well fit to long torso, long reach and wide shoulders.
Looking to upgrade an excellent piece of machinery, not replace it with
a new-fangled piece of expensive designer toy.


Andrew Muzi wrote

> True, but a 1972 Italvega is pretty; that's a factor too.

Yep. Braze-ons added for down tube shifters, 3 water bottles, cable
guides, rack lugs and chain peg, then powder coated with a rack
attached. Not quite like original, but the lines are there. What was
considered road racing geometry in '72 makes for a nice light & fast
tour bike.

Curtis

[Jay Beattie]

I wouldn't consider a $99 frame a new-fangled piece of expensive
designer toy. That's less than your powder coat. But, hey, if you
love your frame, that's great.

It sounds like your frame got re-spaced to 130mm, so you will have the
usual tension imbalance. You might want to consider an OC rim, but I
don't know what available in the 450-500g-ish range. I just think at
your weight, grinding those gears, you should skip 2X on the NDS.
Maybe Muzi could chime in.

Watch for the cranks. I broke a bunch of those, probably four or five
while riding in the 190-200lb range. I was sorting through all my old
crap yesterday, getting ready to make a donation to the Community
Cycling Center here in PDX, and I found a 177.5 and a 172.5 -- both
left side, meaning I broke the right arms. I think Jobst broke a dozen
of those.

Now that you have 130mm spacing, you can go with anything you want up
to a 11sp, ignoring for a moment chain issues. Why just 8? More gears
are good when you have to lug a lot up hill, fit or not. Corn cobs
are passe. 9 speed chains are plenty durable. 44/24 seems a little
high, unless you live where its flat. Even the pros are using 39/23
in the hills -- if not a lot lower for the nose bleed climbs on the
Giro.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

Some here look worthy, at a glance.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Categories.aspx?CategoryID=1260

--
JS

[James]

Talking about limber in the BB....

I've been doing up an 853 lugged frame I had made years ago and raced on
for some time. The other day I got it mostly together, sat on it and
with the brakes on hard, pushed down on the left pedal. Yikes! The BB
swung sideways and down to such an extent, it looked like the thing was
made of rubber - not steel.

Another post coming about this frame...

--
JS

[AMuzi]

Agreed, 2x is right out. No advantage and reliability drops
off fast.

We would build 40h or 48h on a Deep V or Synergy OC rim. If
he can fit 28mm rather than 25 we would do that as well.
Think 'tandem wheel' for the XXXL rider.

[AMuzi]

That class of steels has advanced a bit regarding temper and
they are almost all oversize tubes now. Lighter, stiffer etc.:

http://waterfordbikes.com/now/faqshow.php?qandaid=7

[James]

Yes, well, Young's modulus is the same, but because the ultimate tensile
strength has increased, the wall thickness has been reduced and tube
diameter increased which has allowed much stiffer frames of about the
same weight to be produced.

My current Columbus Spirit frame is the same dimensions, has oversize
tubes with very thin walls, is TIG welded, weighs about the same, and is
way stiffer than the old 1" tube set.

http://www.columbustubi.com/eng/4_4_2.htm

It is "way stiffer" so much that the ride is probably too harsh for
some. Even for me it was a bit rough on 23 mm tyres, so I recently
fitted a 25 mm tyre to the back. (I had the frame designed to accept up
to 28mm tyres.) It has taken the sting out of rough chip seal pavement.
I recently completed a one day 250km odyssey through the Victorian
Alps, and though my seat has minimal padding my arse was none the worse
for wear at the end of 10 hours of riding.

As with all things there is a balance to find.

--
JS.

[James]

I commented to my wife last night that it's taken 25 years of riding to
refine my choices of frame, components and position to where I feel
comfortable in a variety of road riding conditions (riding for fun,
training, racing, etc). The problem is that I bought a bike and rode
it, then discovered what I didn't like but had to wait until it was well
thrashed before I could justify replacement. The refinement process
took me a long time - and it's on going. ;-)

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

Thanks, James. I'll see if there is anything worth having, but I've worked over the CRC stocklist before, because their warehouse is up the road from me, and they deliver free to my door. I don't aspire to Trevor's luxurious ratio of a 23mm bead width for a 32mm tyre, but all the same a manufacturer who thinks a 16mm wide rim is a "29er" is too unreliable for me even to consider... What I need is 25mm inner bead width or better, 24mm absolute minimum, and a rim brake track because I insist on using Magura rim brakes. I intend using Sapim Strong spokes and Sapims poleax nipples. I've been looking at Big Bull rims, but the nearest source to me is in Germany.

Andre Jute

[Jay Beattie]

I had a custom SP frame -- beautiful work. I cut the tubes and did
the filing, but a really fine builder in San Jose designed and built
the frame in about 1980. Anyway, it cracked through the head tube/top
tube lug in 1984, which I noticed during a little clean up. I
immediately called around to see if I could find a cheap and temporary
replacement, which I did -- a first generation Cannondale. Same basic
geometry, a pound lighter and stiffer through the BB. The custom
frame went in to a closet, until I decided to rebraze it many years
later at the adult ed metal shop (good option for those who do not
want to buy a hot torch). I got it powder coated and had myself a
spanky newish custom steel frame. What a boat anchor, and it was not
magical "steel is real." It had a short TT by evolved post-LeMond
standards (something I had grown to like), and it felt slow. This was
a bike I raced on for years and loved. Twenty years later, it hurt my
back. It's now hanging in by back yard holding a bird feeder. It
cracked again while I was respacing it (my fault), and I didn't feel
like rebrazing . . . so it has been repurposed.

Went over to the Bohemian belly-button of PDX, the Community Cycling
Center and left off my old parts. It's like being in a Portlandia
skit. Rosie the Riveter and various bohemioid mechanics ignored me
for about ten minutes before I could make my donation. I was wearing
a polo-type shirt and was immediately profiled as part of the one-
percent and Monsanto sympathizers. Driving down narrow Alberta, I was
stuck behind wandering bicyclists who pedaled when the desire
struck.-- meandering to and fro, with the fixie riders launching
around, trying to avoid snagging their gauges. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbZn07rZJ88

Stopped at Universal on the way home and got a quick link for the new
10 speed chain. What an amazing shop. You could spend hours just
looking through all the stuff.

-- Jay Beattie.

[thirty-six]

2x works on a 32 spoke. Perhaps it's a 36 hub with a wide spacing
between flanges. I'd like to see some photos of the completed rear
wheel, showing the deviation from the left flange of the inner spokes.

[Curtis]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> I wouldn't consider a $99 frame a new-fangled piece of expensive
> designer toy. That's less than your powder coat. But, hey, if you
> love your frame, that's great.

No, sorry, $99 reads like a misprint to me. Still, that would describe
a frame I would be biased against, a big trade down. Maybe functional,
but that's what I'm now riding.

The braze-ons cost me a little, but the powder coating was done by a
friend in barter. The frame was a gift, the components came off a '78
Pinarello that I had been riding for nearly 20 years prior.

Basically, wheels, tires, pedals & chain and I'm riding something I
should be moving noticeably faster with the same effort.

> It sounds like your frame got re-spaced to 130mm, so you will have the
> usual tension imbalance. You might want to consider an OC rim, but I
> don't know what available in the 450-500g-ish range. I just think at
> your weight, grinding those gears, you should skip 2X on the NDS.
> Maybe Muzi could chime in.

Those are the comments I am considering. I am pretty much set on the
bike itself. My original request was for a 48 OPS 4X or 5X rear and a
36 4X front, running 700C x 28-32 tires. The Italvega has the
clearances for the 32s, unlike my old Pinarello. Availability,
practicality, suitability / durability & final cost being decided upon,
getting options from a mechanic I consider very competent.

> Watch for the cranks. I broke a bunch of those, probably four or five
> while riding in the 190-200lb range. I was sorting through all my old
> crap yesterday, getting ready to make a donation to the Community
> Cycling Center here in PDX, and I found a 177.5 and a 172.5 -- both
> left side, meaning I broke the right arms. I think Jobst broke a dozen
> of those.

Noted.

> Now that you have 130mm spacing, you can go with anything you want up
> to a 11sp, ignoring for a moment chain issues. Why just 8? More gears
> are good when you have to lug a lot up hill, fit or not. Corn cobs
> are passe. 9 speed chains are plenty durable. 44/24 seems a little
> high, unless you live where its flat. Even the pros are using 39/23
> in the hills -- if not a lot lower for the nose bleed climbs on the
> Giro.

The pro's have different goals, and physiologically, I had more in
common with an NFL lineman than a pro cyclist.

Most of my riding has been in Florida, although NC, SC and GA used to
get visits. Rode the Assault on Mt Mitchell and the Bridge to Bridge
using a 44 / 28 (42 inch) low (yeah, crunching, not spinning), here the
66 low sufficed with most riding 70-90 inch range. Our hills can be
steep, but short. Currently do most riding in the 50-65 range on the
fat tires when on pavement. With bilateral knee surface replacement 4
years ago, figure I'll be needing some lower gearing, suspect the
climbing challenges are history, wind being the likely obstacle.
Cadence 80-ish.

Curtis

[thirty-six]

Base your riding on a low cadence of 85rpm for low effort.
Sustainable "aerobic" maximum power is usually around 118rpm,
sprinting and downhill runs can go over 200rpm. I have taken sprint
cadence repeatedly to around 238rpm. For flat lands, it is a rarity
to use an 81" gear unless the lead rider(s) is/are either well-
conditioned racers or is/are killing himself/themselves. Anything
from 55 to 75 is more usual.

Take it easy, save your muscles, your bones and your life.

[T0m $herman]

Look in the rabbit hole for a wide rim.

<http://surlybikes.com/parts/rabbit_hole>

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

On 5/12/2013 9:37 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
> Stopped at Universal on the way home and got a quick link for the new
> 10 speed chain. What an amazing shop. You could spend hours just
> looking through all the stuff.

Or making friends with the shop cats.

<https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/165290_10151368355876957_144241516_n.jpg>

--
T0m $herm@n

[Andre Jute]

I use Magure hydraulic rim brakes. The Rabbit Hole rim is disc brake only. -- Andre Jute

[davethedave]

It all becomes clear! Have you ever seen "Withnail and I"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NeBfY6U4n8
--
davethedave

[James]

LOL. Thanks.

--
JS

[andre...@aol.com]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:04:19 PM UTC-6, Curtis wrote:
> Mentioned when I started reading this group I am a returning
>
> cyclist. Well, am progressing well in my re-found interest.
>
>
>
> In the past 14 months, my weight has dropped from a high of 415 to
>
> under 280, and I'm still losing. Expecting to stabilize at about 250,
>
> but that will depend on final muscle mass, (I'm already quite happy).
>
> Was going to wait until I reached the lower weight, but have decided to
>
> return my old road bike to service by Father's Day, looking forward to
>
> being able to century again by year's end. Figure fat tires won't get
>
> me there, (although expect to keep the current one active as I've
>
> discovered the joys of leaving pavement behind, something I never tried
>
> in my past).
>
>
>
> Bike is a '72 Italvega road racing frame, Columbus steel, 72/72 w/ 1
>
> 1/4" rake. Looking to replace my old wheels with customs built to
>
> handle my weight. Had a 48 spoke rear built for my "cruiser" I've been
>
> riding. My mechanic assures me that 36 / 3X F, 2X-4X R with modern rims
>
> will serve me very well. Planning on running 700C x 28.
>
>
>
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> Curtis

Forget custom wheels. These are indestructible: http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_506872_-1___202478
You could probably put 4 of these on a car.
When you get them, go around squeezing parallel spoke pairs to stress relieve them.
If for any reason the can't handle your weight, you can return them to nashbar and they will give you a full refund.

[thirty-six]

so no good for hub brakes then? what a pity.

[Andre Jute]

A disc brake is a hub brake, or at least fitted to a hub. Shimano also makes a hub brake called a roller brake of which I have extensive experience. I prefer them to discs, for instance. They would work with these rims. But above all, for smooth modulation, I like Magura's rim hydraulics, and those would most definitely not work with the rim Liddell Tommi suggested.

Andre Jute