Considerations in production Rando- frames for heavier riders

[Joseph Kopera]

Hi All,

I'm kind of resurrecting several older threads from a few years ago with the question, I realize, but wanted to get input on a minor dilemma given what frames are currently out there:

I've been drooling over the BDB Pelican for quite a while now, but am wondering, as a tall & heavy rider (250lb--> 225 when in shape) if there are things I'm not considering with regards to tubing thickness, my ideal frame size (~60-62 cm ST) and weight. While Box Dog seems to be upping the tubing thickness on larger Pelicans to be 0.6-0.9-0.6, I'm still wondering if the frame might be *too* flexy for my mass on gravel and crap pavement that dominate my rides.

Should I be looking at oversized tubing? Would I even notice? Am I overthinking it?

I *really* like the feel of my 1982 Trek 613b conversion, but have yet to take it on a super long ride on gravel (which is what I want). However some folks on earlier threads have suggested it's pretty flexy-tubing for heavier riders. The geometry between this and a Pelican is pretty different, although some older threads on here suggest the ride quality and handling are pretty similar-- however some folks mentioned that the 9-6-9 Reynolds 531 was a little too springy on bumpy roads for them. it will be getting a new fork after I read about safety issues with the lugs on the `82 600 models so it will be pretty low trail.

Without anyone near me, to my knowledge, who has a Pelican I can't take for a spin, I'm wondering if people who've ridden both would chime in and offer what the salient differences would be between the early 1980's Treks with 531 tubing and a Pelican vs. a Boulder All-Road vs. Velo-Routier vs Grand-Randonneur what else is out there.... For heavier riders. :-). (Not interested in the balloon tire 650bs that are hot right now)

I've heard from other heavy riders that love their Soma GR's and others who felt it was too stiff. While I think SOMA is a great company, the paint color on the v. 2... I just can't deal with it.

I asked Rawland about the possibility of new Stags and they said "Nope."

Should I save my money and get lots of joy out of hunting down old Treks and doing 650b conversions on them? Are the newer frames just *that* much more amazing? Are needle-bearing headsets a panacea? Is ignorance bliss?

What *is* clear, after doing part of the D2R2 100K this past weekend, is that my beloved VO Polyvalent is really not a rando- bike. Thing can carry a lot of weight and handles beautifully with a load, but plane & climb it does not.

Thanks!
Joe
Western Mass.

[Jeff Bertolet]

The tubing on the Polyvalent is oversized. It might be worth it to contact VO and see if VO will divulge the butting profile so you can have something to compare other bikes to.

[Joe Kopera]

Thanks for the suggestion: I remember reading somewhere on their blog the tubing on all their bikes was 9/6/9 but it's double check.  Yes... the downtube on the PV is definitely oversized.

_____________________

joeyk...@gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mark Guglielmana]

That's a real good question, Joe. BQ has been waxing poetic about thinwall, standard tubing for quite some time, but I don't know how that translates to bigger riders. Jan and his gang are pretty athletic, no clydesdales in the group. 

For what it's worth, we're about the same height, I run around 205 nowadays, and the vintage Raleigh's I've converted fell great to me. I recently built an 8-5-8 DT frame with those fat Rat Trap Pass tires that are all the rage, seemed fine to me. Add a couple of dimes, don't know how that would affect things. One figures there's some scaling to be done for bigger riders, however. Maybe Jan will study that at some point, if he can find some bigger riders that can hang with him!

[Joe Kopera]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the insight on the old Raleighs-- that's something I've been meaning to ask you about but keep forgetting.

Yes-- you're right.  I love the work BQ and other folks have been doing regarding performance, but, unless I'm missing a major resource (which is likely), most of the current resurgence and research seems geared toward lighter-weight, [younger] more athletic riders, and I've seen some dismay amongst heavier riders in various places about how a lot of what's popular out there in the light-weight / supple category, component-wise, seems to leave us out of design considerations, and some disbelief around our experiences of popular components not holding up... mostly regarding tires and rims, but also with too-narrow rando- bars, clothing, etc...

I'm a little squeamish around lighter-weight tubing after seeing a photo of a 8/5/8 tubing failure the other week from a rider who is a good 130 lbs lighter than me... On a reputable frame at that... So it makes me wonder if similar tubing failures are possible with 9/5/9 and more weight.  But then again, if that was the case, we probably wouldn't still have all these old abused 1980's 9/5/9, standard diameter tubing Japanese bikes floating around in such decent shape. :-)

I have no doubts that frame makers take all this into consideration, but it's unclear how that translates into production models.  I know VO does, since Chris has claimed he's a heavier rider and has talked about modifications on their larger frames to address that, but they don't make a low-trail, 650b, rando-oriented frame at present (and to my chagrin/annoyance, they've been pretty clear over the years that the Polyvalent was designed as a city bike / tourer, in spite of them using the word "brevet" in the latest description for it... :-\. )

Has anyone here ridden a Velo-Routier? That's a frame that was recommended to me, but I've yet to meet anyone who has one.

Thanks,

Joe

W-Mass.

_____________________

joeyk...@gmail.com

[Chris Cullum]

Ryan Hamilton is a bigger guy and part of the BQ team. There's been a few issues detailing considerations for larger and smaller riders. Ryan H's Boulder is OS not Std tubing.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Philip Kim]

In your size it's 9/6/9 OS tubes, 28.6 TT, and 31.8 DT. I wouldn't think that is flexy. I would call BDB and ask them. Friendly and helpful.

I had converted a 531 Reynolds Trek 400 elance 1987. It was fun, but it was noodly and flexy for me, especially when I front loaded.

I the last Winter Cycles BDB Pelican recently. I haven't built it up as I'm getting some custom racks and getting the Compass light brazed on, but it is nice.

 I wouldn't expect anything less from Ahearne and Igleheart, very reputable builders.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 9:25:48 PM UTC-4, Joseph Kopera wrote:

[Philip Kim]

Oh also, the old Treks- clearance may be an issue. I couldn't fit 42s and fenders. Rear required chainstay dimpling, and front barely fit 42s without fenders. I've seen the same Trek with Hetres and fenders, but I wasn't comfortable with it, so I had 38s with fenders. I'm able to 42s with fenders, and Switchback Hills. I may even be able to put fenders on the Switchback Hills, but I'm waiting for the tire to  stretch a bit more before I try that.

Also converting 559 or dia compe 750 brakes, both of which I'm not a fan, or canti posts to be brazed on, which requires more time and effort. 

The Pelican also has the right fender mounts, and proper dyno wiring (guides on the fork leg, and internal wiring for the rear).

[mitch....@gmail.com]

My main consideration for production rando frames for larger riders is to let even the taller riders ride 650B. I only ride a 58 but in many production models that's going to be a 700c bike. I've heard scale and looks mentioned as the reason for this but the tall bikes I see with 650b wheels look good to me, the scale looks right, and the smaller wheels are stronger which should matter to larger riders.

But that may not matter in this case if the OP is not interested in 650b (or just in "balloon tire" 650b?).

At the OP weight I think you can go either way--no reason to shy away from skinny (standard diameter) tubes if you want to emphasize planing, but oversize done work well at your frame size and can plane too. A conversation with Mike at Boulder might help since he does both and give good advice.

In general for this question, I think you have to decide which side to err on--planing or off-pavement--and take your shot. Most production bikes will be a little over-built in this size which is good. Boulder, also conservative, does give you the choice of tubing diameter.

--Mitch

[Joey Kopera]

Thank you for the thoughts Mitch! Definitely things to think over.

Yes... I should have clarified... 650b. :-)

Thanks,
joe

[Joey Kopera]

Hi Philip,

Thank you for the insight... for some reason I didn't catch that the Pelican had a 31.8 DT in my size.  If that's the case I'm wondering how similar the handling would be to my Polyvalent in terms of liveliness.  The Pelican seems to have a slightly sportier geometry, but only slightly and higher trail- but then again I'm still new to how all the different facets of geometry work out to handling and ride quality.

I agree with the Trek-- it seems super fun, but I worry that as I go on progressively longer rides with a heavier bar bag the flexiness that makes for a lively ride may get old. Only one way to find out on that front.  It's at a point where I could dump another $700 into components and a new fork to make it a nice Brevet bike that still is a PITA to deal with w/regards to fenders, racks, and bottle cage mounts... or if I should just sell the Polyvalent and get a modern rando. frame.

Thanks!
Joe

--

[Jim Mather]

My rando bike is a 59cm Merckx Corsa 650B conversion made with Columbus SL. I'm about 240 lbs. The bike rides great, and I've ridden it on fire roads with no problem. No breakage so far.

jim m

wc, ca

[Philip Kim]

I could be wrong, but I thought the Polyvalent is 31.8 tubing all around, probably 9/6/9 or maybe even 10/7/10. Most production bikes will use a bit thicker tubing and overbuilt, I assume because of liability and the need to fit as many types of riders as possible.

The difference would be possible a smaller diameter top tube, dyno wire light guides, everything in the right place for fenders, no horizontal drop out, frame built by two extremely experienced builders, geo designed by an experienced randonneur. i think iglehart and ahearne being involved in the building process alone are very compelling reasons to buy it, though winter cycles does great work as well. the price is very fair, as a full custom will be around $2700 by the time you add everything on.

[Joey Kopera]

Hi Philip,

Nope... the PV is 9/6/9 all around, with 28.6 top and seat tube and a 31.8 downtube.  It's (very) well set up for fenders, although the horizontal rear dropouts are a pain. But, it was specifically designed as an urban bike for mustache handlebars, so has a very long top tube and longer chainstays than most randonneur frames I've seen.

I've no doubt the Pelican is a great deal-- all the details you list is initially what drew me to it, and the fact that MAP is the builder (or is heavily involved, at least) in the newest batch around is quite the pedigree. It's basically come down to the PolyV not being as fabulous a randonneur bike as I was hoping it to be, and wondering if I'll actually notice the difference in other non-custom options out there. I put in an e-mail to them and we'll see what they say.

[Mark Guglielmana]

In the wc, shouldn't you be riding a Hunqapillar on Shell Ridge?

😉

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Jim Mather]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:52:38 AM UTC-7, Mark Guglielmana wrote:

In the wc, shouldn't you be riding a Hunqapillar on Shell Ridge?

😉

Ha! Bombadil 650b, actually. But I wanted to see how the Compass Loup Loups performed on dirt. Quite well, I thought.

[Joseph Kopera]

Hi All-- Thank you for the input and the resources!  It's given me a fair bit to think about and clarified my thinking a bit.

For those who are interested in nerding out as much as I did today, a chart comparing all the 650b, low-trail, "rando"-style production frames I'm aware of (and interested in) is attached.

Given that the tubing is the same for my size, it seems, geometry-wise, the Polyvalent and the Pelican are pretty darn similar.. main differences are a 1cm-shorter chainstays, shorter top-tube, and a 2cm shorter wheelbase-- which I honestly don't know if I'd notice. The Pelican is clearly the superior bike, but I already own the Polyvalent.

Looks like I should give the Soma GR a try, though...

Thanks!

Joe

[Eric Daume]

Love the chart, thanks!

I finally maybe, hopefully, got some decent 650b rims (Soma Weymoth), so I'm more open to a 650b bike lately. The Soma does look pretty good.

Eric

Plain City, OH

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Greg Walton]

Super sweet chart, Joe.  One minor edit, the Stag in that size (XL) has an 8.5.8 top tube.

Greg

Seattle

[Joseph Kopera]

Whoops!  Thanks Greg!  The Stag make much more sense now...  New chart attached!

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 7:06:17 PM UTC-4, zybariver wrote:

Super sweet chart, Joe.  One minor edit, the Stag in that size (XL) has an 8.5.8 top tube.

Greg

Seattle

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Kopera <joeyk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All-- Thank you for the input and the resources!  It's given me a fair bit to think about and clarified my thinking a bit.

For those who are interested in nerding out as much as I did today, a chart comparing all the 650b, low-trail, "rando"-style production frames I'm aware of (and interested in) is attached.

Given that the tubing is the same for my size, it seems, geometry-wise, the Polyvalent and the Pelican are pretty darn similar.. main differences are a 1cm-shorter chainstays, shorter top-tube, and a 2cm shorter wheelbase-- which I honestly don't know if I'd notice. The Pelican is clearly the superior bike, but I already own the Polyvalent.

Looks like I should give the Soma GR a try, though...

Thanks!

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Rod Holland]

By way of a data point, as a 240lb rider, I've been happy with my Rawland Nordavinden on a variety of terrains. The Norda is built up with standard tubing (7/4/7 heat treated top tube, 8/5/8 down tube), a lively frame, but does just fine for me on pavement and dirt. This has 700C x 32 wheels, and I'd be curious as to how a bike with a similar tubeset and fatter, lower pressure tires would be: I expect it would be a whole lot of fun.

I had similar misgivings before I built up the Norda, but have been very pleased that I tried it, and spend a lot of time riding it. My advice: do the experiment.

rod

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 9:25:48 PM UTC-4, Joseph Kopera wrote:

[Mike Klaas]

In addition to top/down tube stoutness, you should also consider the compliance of the rear triangle and fork.  The GR is famously stiff in both areas, and I wouldn't be surprised if the PV had some similarities in that regard.

[Joey Kopera]

Hi Mike,

Thanks!  Yes... I was wondering about that, looking at the rear triangle on the GR-- it's much stouter tubing than on the Polyvalent... it may all even out, as you say.  I will probably experiment with putting the Polyvalent's fork, which is quite springy, on the GR and seeing how that changes its handling.

Thanks,
Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Guglielmana]

I seem to remember in the BQ Elephant NFE review that the rear triangle stiffness is important, and that the "planing" knob is mostly the down tube (if anyone can confirm or correct me on that, I'd appreciate it!). Stiff chainstays, coupled with a light "whippy" DT seems like the optimal design? 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Joey Kopera <joeyk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mike,

Thanks!  Yes... I was wondering about that, looking at the rear triangle on the GR-- it's much stouter tubing than on the Polyvalent... it may all even out, as you say.  I will probably experiment with putting the Polyvalent's fork, which is quite springy, on the GR and seeing how that changes its handling.

Thanks,
Joe

On 8/26/16 11:44 AM, Mike Klaas wrote:

In addition to top/down tube stoutness, you should also consider the compliance of the rear triangle and fork.  The GR is famously stiff in both areas, and I wouldn't be surprised if the PV had some similarities in that regard.

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 3:10:31 PM UTC-7, Joseph Kopera wrote:

Hi All-- Thank you for the input and the resources!  It's given me a fair bit to think about and clarified my thinking a bit.

For those who are interested in nerding out as much as I did today, a chart comparing all the 650b, low-trail, "rando"-style production frames I'm aware of (and interested in) is attached.

Given that the tubing is the same for my size, it seems, geometry-wise, the Polyvalent and the Pelican are pretty darn similar.. main differences are a 1cm-shorter chainstays, shorter top-tube, and a 2cm shorter wheelbase-- which I honestly don't know if I'd notice. The Pelican is clearly the superior bike, but I already own the Polyvalent.

Looks like I should give the Soma GR a try, though...

Thanks!

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Mark Guglielmana]

Mike, I read Joe's post but not yours prior to sending, wondering about your thoughts on that combo...

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Joey Kopera]

Hi Rod,

Thanks for the reminder about the Norda!  Haven't seen any for sale in a while, but I'll keep a lookout.  Rob from Ocean Air brought up the point elsewhere that I, perhaps, should discount all the low trail 700c options out there.  And the Nord can be built up with either, which is nice.

-Joe

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Cullum]

On Aug 26, 2016 10:43, "Mark Guglielmana" <mark.gug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember in the BQ Elephant NFE review that the rear triangle stiffness is important, and that the "planing" knob is mostly the down tube (if anyone can confirm or correct me on that, I'd appreciate it!). Stiff chainstays, coupled with a light "whippy" DT seems like the optimal design? 

BQ is an advocate of the thin standard diameter top tube. They have generally found beefing up the downtube slightly doesn't negatively impact planing. I think Jan's Mule actually has an OS downtube.

>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Joey Kopera <joeyk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Thanks!  Yes... I was wondering about that, looking at the rear triangle on the GR-- it's much stouter tubing than on the Polyvalent... it may all even out, as you say.  I will probably experiment with putting the Polyvalent's fork, which is quite springy, on the GR and seeing how that changes its handling.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> On 8/26/16 11:44 AM, Mike Klaas wrote:
>>>
>>> In addition to top/down tube stoutness, you should also consider the compliance of the rear triangle and fork.  The GR is famously stiff in both areas, and I wouldn't be surprised if the PV had some similarities in that regard.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 3:10:31 PM UTC-7, Joseph Kopera wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All-- Thank you for the input and the resources!  It's given me a fair bit to think about and clarified my thinking a bit.
>>>>
>>>> For those who are interested in nerding out as much as I did today, a chart comparing all the 650b, low-trail, "rando"-style production frames I'm aware of (and interested in) is attached.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the tubing is the same for my size, it seems, geometry-wise, the Polyvalent and the Pelican are pretty darn similar.. main differences are a 1cm-shorter chainstays, shorter top-tube, and a 2cm shorter wheelbase-- which I honestly don't know if I'd notice. The Pelican is clearly the superior bike, but I already own the Polyvalent.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like I should give the Soma GR a try, though...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Guglielmana
>

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Guglielmana]

Joe,

What was Rob's rationale for discounting low trail 700c options? I know the reasons for converting older bikes (fixed fork and stay lengths limit tire width), but one would think a new frame, purpose built for wide 700c tires would work. Rivendell is the model here, but obviously not low trail.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Mark Guglielmana]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Joey Kopera]

Rats!  Typo!

Rob implied that I *shouldn't* discount 700c options as a larger rider, and now that he's got me thinking about it, I'm inclined to agree. :-)

Rob's Rambler is a very nice, lowish trail, 700c design that can take 42s with fenders, and has all the bells and whistles for fender mountain and wire routing. I really want to try one.  I've yet to see any in the Northeast, but I might not be looking hard enough.

-Joe

[Joey Kopera]

Ahh... now this is the meat of the things I was hoping folks would discuss. :-)

Does anyone know which particular BQ back issues address frame geometry and "planing"?  I have the one from last year with the Mule Specs and Elephant NFE review... but someone above implied there were more...

Thanks,
Joe

[Rod Holland]

I mentioned the Nordavinden because of the tubeset, which has the attributes you seemed to be interested in. The Norda was designed for 650B in the small size, and 700C in larger sizes, so a 650B Norda for you would involve a conversion. Is that a good idea? Dunno... As a 700C, I've gotten it to take 32mm with fenders; I've heard rumors of folks running 35mm without fenders, but maybe that was only on the front wheel. A 700C Norda at D2R2 would constitute underbiking, I think, 32mm just ain't what most of us need for that application. That said, my experience with the Norda frame suggests that standard tubesets can be quite satisfactory for larger riders. A used Stag, or a Boulder (new or used) with a standard tubeset could be a whole lot of fun.

rod

[Paul Clifton]

Another data point regarding tubing diameter and thickness -

I'm right at 200lbs, so right over the limit that builders seem to have for spec-ing small tubes.

Well, I got my hands on a 57cm Boulder All Road with the skinny tube option (1 1/8" 8/5/8 DT, 1" 7/5/7 top) and don't feel like it's lacking in stability at all. The planing, however, is definitely noticeable, not whippy but fun. I rode an early 1970s skinny tube 531 racing bike before. It was too flexy.

I suspect that if I rode a 60cm frame and weighed 50lbs more, the Boulder's skinny tubing might be approaching too flexy. It might not even make a difference though.

It all depends on how much flex you like and the only way too find that out is to cross the line.

How big are balloon tires? I went back to 38s from 43s on my Surly and am unhappy about it. I love the 42s on my Boulder.

Paul in ATL

[Murray Love]

The best way to assess flexiness is to ride the flexiest frame you can get your hands on and see how it feels. There are still plenty of 531C/Tange #1/Ishiwata 019 frames about for not too much money, even in large sizes.

I still haven't found a too-flexy frame. I'm 185 lb now, but have ridden my Vitus 979 at up to 205 lb, and it's never felt anything but perfectly solid under me.

Kind of disappointed to learn that the larger BDB Pelicans are now OS, since they've long been one of my candidate frames for an eventual native 650B build. If they're 9/6/9 OS, as Philip claims, that's Long Haul Trucker territory--fine for a loaded touring bike, but overbuilt for most purposes short of that.

Murray

Victoria, BC

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Joseph Kopera]

Yes... Unfortunately I think used Stags might be a rare thing indeed. I have seen a Nordavinden or two for sale.., if I got one I would likely be doing a 650b conversion if the BB drop allows it. Many of the nice riding roads in my neck of the woods are D2R2 "quality" (as D2R2 is pretty much in my backyard), so 32s are definitely under biking around here unless I'm sticking to pavement.

According to Boulder's website, they were claiming the difference between a GR and a Boulder all-road was dangerously small... That the feel is the same. That's partly waphat caused me to hop on the GR I saw on eBay... And I may try it with a different fork.

[Joseph Kopera]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for sharing your experience of an All Road. Yet another bike I have to try if I get a chance. :-)

Right now my "possibly too flexy" bike is the '82 Trek listed in the chart above... Has standard diameter 858 tubing throughout and a really interesting 10/7/10 standard diameter downtube so it kinda-sorta-might be similar in tubing feel / "planing" to an all-road or stag, even though the geometry is a bit sportier. I love it, but my only other points of comparison for a low-trail bicycle is the Polyvalent. The main issue is that I could easily throw as much money as I'd spend on a new production frame into the Trek in components, re-raking the fork (if safety issues re: lugs) getting a new fork, etc... Compensating for the ridiculous lack of braze-ons and cage mounts, etc... To turn it into a machine I'd trust not to break down on me on a longer, slightly loaded ride. And still have the Polyvalent which is useful.. But not super fun...as a utility bike or light tourer in a hilly, rural area. Hence my wondering about the zippier randos that are designed for front loaded light touring too...

[Joseph Kopera]

In my mind the balloons are 48+, like Compass's Switchback Hill, etc... I run 42s and love them.

[Joseph Kopera]

Rats.., I mixed up my reply to this in my reply above re: my flexy Trek.

[Brad]

Let's track down the specs on the frames you find to be too flexy.  Also where on your rides are you experiencing the extra flex? 
My experience is that I favor the older frames that had robust rear triangles- "beefy stays" for the seat and longer wheelbases, but with normally spec'd main triangles.


There is a lot to be said for doing 650B with brakes because if someone comes along that wants to use 700C tires, all that needs to be changed is brakes.

It is a shame there is not a bolt on option for the Compass Raid brakes.
The real deal came with an attachment that allowed them to placed above or below the bridge via a vertical bolt.

[Mark Guglielmana]

I believe you can use an old MAFAC bridge to modify the Compass brakes. The "real deal" vertical bolt was an option, I believe. Most of the sets I've run across are horizontal bolt, but I have at least one set with verticals.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Toby Whitfield]

I got a set with a vertical bolt using French Ebay. My understanding is that it was for a French vertical drilled brake bridge, and I didn't think (or I guess more accurately know) it allowed me to adjust the range, but I also don't have a bike with the right brake bridge drilling for it. I am using a horizontal bolt setup scavenged from a Racer.

Toby
Toronto

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 10:53:48 PM UTC-6, Joseph Kopera wrote:

In my mind the balloons are 48+, like Compass's Switchback Hill, etc...  I run 42s and love them.

Ah, got it. Thanks.

--Mitch 

[Steve Palincsar]

Don't those widths pretty much correspond with the old 55mm "ballon" and 42mm "demi-ballon" tires?
http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/BQ64TireTest.pdf

[Brad]

By and large if you have the bridge for Mafac Raid, you have the whole brake, unless, of course you had custom pivots brazed on.
The people that have them left over should let the public know.

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 11:58:43 AM UTC-4, Mark Guglielmana wrote:

I believe you can use an old MAFAC bridge to modify the Compass brakes. The "real deal" vertical bolt was an option, I believe. Most of the sets I've run across are horizontal bolt, but I have at least one set with verticals.

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Brad <riendeau...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's track down the specs on the frames you find to be too flexy.  Also where on your rides are you experiencing the extra flex? 
My experience is that I favor the older frames that had robust rear triangles- "beefy stays" for the seat and longer wheelbases, but with normally spec'd main triangles.


There is a lot to be said for doing 650B with brakes because if someone comes along that wants to use 700C tires, all that needs to be changed is brakes.

It is a shame there is not a bolt on option for the Compass Raid brakes.
The real deal came with an attachment that allowed them to placed above or below the bridge via a vertical bolt.

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:54:41 AM UTC-4, Joseph Kopera wrote:

Rats.., I mixed up my reply to this in my reply above re: my flexy Trek.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Ryan Watson]

> On 2016/08/27, at 21:44, Brad <riendeau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> By and large if you have the bridge for Mafac Raid, you have the whole brake, unless, of course you had custom pivots brazed on.
> The people that have them left over should let the public know.

I have a one if someone needs it.

Ryan in Albuquerque

[Ken Freeman]

Jim, now your comment touches on what I've been thinking in this thread (well, kind of obliquely!).  I have a Mondonico in SL that I think of a a stiff but resilient frame, and a good climber.  I'm 5'6" and about 185 #.    Last year I crashed it into a solid wall of 2 foot diameter river boulders at about 16 mph, I guess.  After the frame and fork hit the rocks, the helmet, cranium, and other body parts did so as well.  Helmet totaled, skull intact, neck a bit stiff, frame top tube and downtube kinked where the head tube was forced back.  Fork was slightly bent, but that repair was easy.  

I was going to say it's hard to break an SL frame without a catastrophe like I had, and that might be correct.  So for Joe Kropera, I wonder what problem are you worried about with your up and coming rando frame, thta gives you worry about underbuilding the frame?  I have rarely if ever on this list or others heard of a 531, SL, or ELOS failure that was not due to catastrophe.  And seeing from my story what can happen (head on at 16 mph!), I think such failures are not preventable with even heavy tubes like 531 Super Tourist or Columbus SP.

Next major failure mode is plain and simple fatigue, but here I've also seen nearly zero occurrences.  And with more modern air-hardened alloys such as 853, OX-Plat, Colombus Nivex and others, I wonder just how many rando frames of any size have failed without major trauma preceeding the failure.

Failure due to poor workmanship is also part of the issue and here, I don't see alloy, butting, or wall thickness playing any part at all.  It should all be traceable to workmanship.

So, what can really go wrong with say, a bigger guy like Joey K. (about 40-50# bigger than I) riding a really thin and flexy bike, say OX-Plat standard diameter at 7/4/7, Columbus EL (standard diameter) also 7/4/7, or ELOS 7/4/7 walls with 0.7 cm thickness?  How common are fatigue failures in high-quality road frames when used within the range of elastic stress with minimal stress cycling into the inelastic range?  

Maybe this will sound like overthinking, but I think the whole question (in terms of frame failure) may well be overthought.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jim Mather <math...@gmail.com> wrote:

My rando bike is a 59cm Merckx Corsa 650B conversion made with Columbus SL. I'm about 240 lbs. The bike rides great, and I've ridden it on fire roads with no problem. No breakage so far.

jim m

wc, ca

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:25:48 PM UTC-7, Joseph Kopera wrote:

Hi All,

I'm kind of resurrecting several older threads from a few years ago with the question, I realize, but wanted to get input on a minor dilemma given what frames are currently out there:

I've been drooling over the BDB Pelican for quite a while now, but am wondering, as a tall & heavy rider (250lb--> 225 when in shape) if there are things I'm not considering with regards to tubing thickness, my ideal frame size (~60-62 cm ST) and weight.  While Box Dog seems to be upping the tubing thickness on larger Pelicans to be 0.6-0.9-0.6, I'm still wondering if the frame might be *too* flexy for my mass on gravel and crap pavement that dominate my rides.

Should I be looking at oversized tubing?  Would I even notice?  Am I overthinking it?

I *really* like the feel of my 1982 Trek 613b conversion, but have yet to take it on a super long ride on gravel (which is what I want).  However some folks on earlier threads have suggested it's pretty flexy-tubing for heavier riders.  The geometry between this and a Pelican is pretty different, although some older threads on here suggest the ride quality and handling are pretty similar-- however some folks mentioned that the 9-6-9 Reynolds 531 was a little too springy on bumpy roads for them. it will be getting a new fork after I read about safety issues with the lugs on the `82 600 models so it will be pretty low trail.

 Without anyone near me, to my knowledge, who has a Pelican I can't take for a spin, I'm wondering if people who've ridden both would chime in and offer what the salient differences would be between the early 1980's Treks with 531 tubing and a Pelican vs. a Boulder All-Road vs. Velo-Routier vs Grand-Randonneur what else is out there.... For heavier riders. :-).   (Not interested in the balloon tire 650bs that are hot right now)

I've heard from other heavy riders that love their Soma GR's and others who felt it was too stiff.  While I think SOMA is a great company, the paint color on the v. 2... I just can't deal with it.

I asked Rawland about the possibility of new Stags and they said "Nope."

Should I save my money and get lots of joy out of hunting down old Treks and doing 650b conversions on them? Are the newer frames just *that* much more amazing? Are needle-bearing headsets a panacea? Is ignorance bliss?

What *is* clear, after doing part of the D2R2 100K this past weekend, is that my beloved VO Polyvalent is really not a rando- bike. Thing can carry a lot of weight and handles beautifully with a load, but plane & climb it does not.

Thanks!
Joe
Western Mass.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[Joey Kopera]

Hi Ken,

Thanks!  Sorry to hear about the crash! But glad to hear that the bike fared well.  My original post may be a little misleading-- I'm less concerned about frame failure and more about which frames, tubing, geometry, etc... I should be considering as options in regards to handling and performance for a light-tubed rando- and light-touring frame under a larger rider, being relatively new to frame geometry-- which I'm realizing is almost an entirely subjective matter and required reading through some BQ back issues. :-)

A few weeks ago someone posted a picture to instagram of a new small production frame, by a popular / reputable builder, with 7/5/7 tubing, that failed along the top tube without any reported trauma. It may have been a manufacturing defect / poor workmanship.  Not naming the builder because it's probably an isolated incident.

My Trek 613 with its thin 531 tubing, which I'm coming to love more and more, has a small dent along the top tube and I'm not worried one bit. I'm pretty sure with a re-raked fork I could probably tour with loaded front panniers if I wanted.

Thanks!
Joe

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Joseph Kopera]

Hi All,

Updated chart with a key correction thanks to Ken, and added specs on the Nordavinden, even though the brake reach on the fork makes it an unlikely conversion candidate...

[Joseph Kopera]

Hi all,

For those interested in the outcome: quickly built up a new Soma GR v.2 today that I got off of eBay cheap w/ spare parts hanging around. The thing definitely "planes" for me and is a cush ride on BSP's (39-40mm on my rims). Has Shimano Deore DX headset (anodized black, eww) and shimmy doesn't appear to be issue when it's properly adjusted. Will swap (nicer) parts over from PolyV and am awaiting 42mm Pari-Motos, which seem to mount true to size on my rims.

PolyV frame, fork, headset, and Zeppelin fenders, completely wired for 2-conductor dynamo lighting (in the Velo-Luminous style) will appear for sale on this and iBob at some point this week for $475 obo. Will make a great commuter-porteur-tourer.

GR, for me, has roughly similar ride feel and response-to-power-Input as Trek 613, but with low trail stable-feeling, ride-on-rail handling at high speed, and super maneuverable at low speeds... Some wheel flop, but may be due to a decaleurless and poorly packed handlebar bag + sloppily mounted, forward tipping front rack... Or me just getting used to having a bike with trail this low (~29mm right now)

Coincidentally, I was informed over on the rCOG list that someone had successfully converted emir Nordavinden to 650b.

Thank you everyone for the input! To paraphrase a separate convo, with Mark Guglielmana, it appears I've figured out what a lot of folks already have: standard diameter "light" tubing for the main triangle with stiffer dropouts and forks seems to be the ticket if you're going to keep your load primarily on the front of the bike.

[Daniel Jackson]

What tubing did Mark recommend? Less than 8/5/8? Different tubing for top and down? What fork blades for appropriate stiffness? What top tune lengths were you guys contemplating?

What is Mark's height and weight?

[Mark Guglielmana]

6'2" 205, but I'm shrinking and fighting the mid-life bulge. 

Other than that, we didn't describe any specifics that you're asking for.

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Jackson <daniel.se...@gmail.com> wrote:

What tubing did Mark recommend? Less than 8/5/8? Different tubing for top and down? What fork blades for appropriate stiffness? What top tune lengths were you guys contemplating?

What is Mark's height and weight?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Nick Bull]

Hi, Joseph,

My "notes to self" about desirable low-trail Treks say: "AVOID '81 Trek 610/613/614 and '82 Trek 613/614 because the Ishiwata CCL fork crown does not have a proper lug point so it is a failure vector."

Looks like you have an '82 613?  Take a look at the inside of the fork leg.  Does the lug cut across it horizontally, or does it go down the leg to a point?  If it cuts across horizontally, that creates a stress riser that can eventually make the fork fail, which is what happened to me.  In the attached photo of an upside-down 614 fork, you can see one leg is gone, and the other has a horizontal crack developing at that stress riser.  The good news is that I noticed unusual fork flex and then found the cracks before the fork "let go".  That's the good thing about steel!

Nick

[Mark Bulgier]

Nick Bull wrote:

> My "notes to self" about desirable low-trail Treks say: "AVOID '81 Trek 610/613/614 and
> '82 Trek 613/614 because the Ishiwata CCL fork crown does not have a proper lug point so
> it is a failure vector."

Nick, I don't think we can chalk up that failure to just the crown shape.  Lots of forks with similarly shaped crowns have lasted effectively forever even with heavy loads and rough roads.

While the shape may have contributed, I think there was probably also some overheating or other mistreatment of the steel involved.

Here's another one, a Trek I think, looks to be the same crown (pic collected on the Internet, I don't know the details). 

I think there was something wrong with their fork making process, because failures like this are extremely rare, yet I have seen it a few times on Treks of that vintage.

Mark Bulgier
Seattle

[Eric Keller]

If you look at the far fork blade, it has broken straight across the bottom of the crown.  That's probably the blade that went first, but it's not as dramatic as the near fork blade. 

I don't think it's the crown either.  I think there are a lot of crowns with that same shape. I have no idea why these failed, I seem to recall John Thompson saying they weren't built at Waterloo.  I would be interested in doing some fractography on one.

When I worked at Trek every bike got the same Hayden crown, from the lowliest 300 to the 900.  That had to come to an end eventually.

Eric Keller

Boalsburg Pennsylvania.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Joey Kopera]

Hi Nick,

Thank you for the head's up... that's very alarming!  And I'm glad to hear that you noticed it before it made itself known while breaking on a steep downhill.

I do have a 1982 Trek 613... and it's something I'll keep an eye on.  To echo a lot of the expertise here and my own kinda-sorta knowledge of materials science (though, as applied to rocks), looking at the failure mode it doesn't look like the crown is the culprit.  That doesn't exactly mean that the forks from that year were all made properly... but to echo Mark, I got this thing used last winter at a college-town bike shop and am who-knows-what number owner... it's likely taken a lot more abuse than I will give it, even with my fantasies about re-raking the fork (which won't put any undue stress on the crown at all).  But I'll definitely keep an eye on it-- that is the lovely thing about steel... it usually gives you a head's up prior to failure.

Thanks,
Joe

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Nicholas Bull]

Hey, Joey,

The stress-riser from that crown lug was definitely the cause of the failure.  I bought it on CL or EBay in December 2009 and it was a regular commuter, accumulating 5000 miles by early 2012.  That's when I noticed that there was a bit of fender rub when I stood up on hills, but not particularly bothersome.  After a week or so of this, I thought "I should really fix that" but when I tried to fix it it didn't improve.  So while I was standing on a hill, I looked down at the fender to see what was going on.  That's when I noticed that the fork was flexing unusually.  I was only a mile from home so I rode back and pulled the wheel and fender, and then it became obvious what was going on.  Attached photo shows the crack on the LH side.  Just by pulling the left leg back and forth a few times, it came off in my hand, and that's when I took the photo that I posted earlier that shows the crack in the other side, too.

Is there anything about that description that would lead you to think the crown is not the culprit?  Look at every high-end crown you can find, and you'll see that the lug has a point that goes down the inside of each fork leg.  For that matter, look at every lug on any decent lugged frame--none of them cross the tube perpendicularly.  That's because lugs that are perpendicular to the tube create a stress riser, and thus a point of failure.

That's not to say you need to replace it, I agree you can just watch it.  But this fork is an example of bad engineering!  About 1/3 of the 613/4's that I see come up on CL have replacement forks, I wonder why? :-)

Nick

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Greg Walton]

I'm in agreement with Mark on this one, an overwhelming number of the UJB from the 70's used that fork crown design, have put in many punishing miles and are still rolling strong.  I have owned a number of them - Shogun, Miyata, Nishiki, Univega etc.   Perhaps not the best design, but also not a case for hand wringing based on real world observation.

Nick, as a follower of the "low trail" Treks (I have previously bought one for myself, one for a friend and am presently searching for another friend) I've got to take strong exception with your "1/3 replacement forks" assertion.  I have viewed at least 100 of these '81/'82 613/614 models on Craigslist or Ebay and I cannot remember seeing a replacement fork, although there might have been one in there.  To back that up, here is a link to an Adhuntr search that has 8 recent listings - and while many of these ads are not still active, I have viewed all of them and not one had a replacement fork.  http://bit.ly/2bSNYZ9

Here are links to three archived Ebay searches and none have replacement forks

http://ebay.to/2cvquFv

http://ebay.to/2bSO4QG

http://ebay.to/2c1Flpz

Greg

Seattle

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Guglielmana]

Nick, for the readers of this thread, could you help us find something to back some of your claims? I've tried Googling "Trek steel fork failure" and a few other search terms that I could think of, but I'm not finding much. Perhaps you've got the magic link? Some of us are also interested in your background - metallurgy, engineering, failure analysis? It's ok if you get further in depth with the analysis or data sources, I for one am willing to read through it.

I don't doubt for a minute that you had bad luck with that fork. I'm just concerned for Joe's safety at this point.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Metin Uz]

Mark,

That's my picture, and the failure happened to my friend's bike while we were maybe a mile from the overnight control in a mixed terrain 600K, on a smooth and flat road just having descended 1500ft over a rough road at night! I told him he should buy a lottery ticket. Subsequent research identified it as a Japanese built fork with a stamped crown.

--Metin

[Mark Bulgier]

Metin,

Thanks for that info, and I hope you don't mind that I snagged your photo.  I guess I should have recorded the photo's owner along with the file.

Considering that Trek appears to have not made their own forks at least some of the time. and the apparent similarity of the crowns (I think it's the same crown), leads me to think that your friend's fork and the Treks that broke were made by the same fork maker.  Maybe Ishiwata?

-Mark

[Eric Keller]

Pretty sure they were still making forks, just not these relatively low-end forks and frames.  IIRC, they were painted in Waterloo. Maybe the guys cleaning up the brazing got over-aggressive with the dynafile.  I agree with Nick that these bikes are not necessarily a good choice because there seems to have been a number of failures, but people are still riding the Viscount death forks too.  Since there is a big change of section at the crown, any crack is going to follow the shoreline.  That doesn't really indicate where or why the crack started.  We don't have one to examine and see the initiation point, and usually that point is rusty due to the rider not noticing right away.

I replaced a headtube where the tube was cracked along the lug shoreline. The crack started at the tip of the lug on the back of the headtube, but it went almost all the way around. It was funny because you could barely see the crack at all, the shop asked me if I thought it was cracked. And the lugs were paper thin, so probably best case for stress risers.  That was one bike that makes me question the wisdom of repairing other people's frames unless it's a really clean fix.

Eric Keller

Boalsburg Pennsylvania

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Greg Walton]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Eric Keller <kell...@gmail.com> wrote:

just not these relatively low-end forks and frames.

The main triangle on the Trek 613/614 frame is Reynold 531 DB, so don't really fit your label of "low end".  The higher dress 614 had SunTour Cyclone MKII derailleurs and Sugino AT cold forged crank.  Call it mid range for Trek.  

As for the forks, once again Mark is on the money - the blades and crown are Ishiwata, at least on the '82: http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/Trek3pg6.jpg.  The upper tier 700 and 900 series bikes had nicer forks with investment cast lugs.

Greg 

Seattle

[Nick Bull]

Basic university physics.  And enough intelligence to observe that frame-makers who build decent frames -- Peter Weigle, Rivendell, etc.. -- do not use lugs that are perpendicular to the tubes.  Maybe that's because doing so creates stress-risers?  Not many people look at the insides of the fork legs, so I doubt that it is just for pretty.  Are you trying to argue that a perpendicular lug does not create a stress riser?

Once these builders switch their methods to building forks like the Ishiwata fork that was installed on the Trek 613/614 in '81 and '82, I'll be happy to eat my words! 

Can you give me any examples of current, custom framebuilders who are using crowns that are perpendicular to the inner leg?  I have seen perpendicular lugs recently on an absolute crap Norco bike parked at a lamppost in Toronto.  But I don't think that bike stands as an example of engineering excellence!  Maybe the stress riser is an insignificant issue when paired with the right production quality.  But to me, the other photo posted by the other Mark is further evidence of combined defective engineering/production of these Trek forks.  And I'll note that after '82, Trek never went back to perpendicular lugs, based on all the later Treks I've seen.

By the way, I've posted about this in other google forums, plus bikeforums.net.  So even if you think my posts are stupid, you should still at least be able to find them.

My observation that about a third of 613/614 on local DC CL may just be an example of small-sample size having low statistical power.  I've only seen about a half dozen of these frames come up in the last couple of years, and a couple of them had replacement forks.  Whoever reported seeing 80 or so has a much bigger sample size..  That said, it only takes one fork failure at 40mph on a twisty mountain road to result in serious facial surgery, so I don't need a whole lot of examples of crappy engineering to convince me that there are other forks that I'd rather ride.

FWIW, my current favorite bike is my '84 Trek 610, because the frame is so responsive.  So it's not like I have it against early-80's Treks.  I still have the 614, but with a fork from an '86 Trek 600 that got killed in a crash; plus an '82 728, an '85 510, and my wife's '86 600.

The 610 is Reynolds 531CS throughout, but as far as I've been able to find out, that means the main tubes are 531 and the fork and stays are 501, with the difference being seamless versus seamed.  Anyone have better info?

Nick

[Eric Keller]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Nick Bull <nick.bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you give me any examples of current, custom framebuilders who are using
> crowns that are perpendicular to the inner leg?

Peter Weigle builds lots of forks with crown shorelines perpendicular
to the inner leg. Some of them are really minimalist. See this pic:
https://flic.kr/p/EZhk5k

Also, the MAP randonneur project bikes:
http://theradavist.com/2013/01/map-cycles-schmidt-son-sl-forks-for-the-randonneur-project/

Just as a first order approximation, stress risers on or near the back
of a fork are the ones that are worrisome, since that is where the
peak stress condition happens in tension. The center of the fork is
the neutral axis until a crack forms. This process isn't really
explained well by undergrad physics, maybe upper-level undergrad
engineering. The physicists lost interest in fatigue when they found
out that an analysis at the electron level doesn't really help much in
practice. Every once in a while they'll show back up in the field
with an elegant analysis, declare victory, and lose interest again.

The crap lugged forks of today often have nothing on the inside other
than a seam, I was doing a survey of my LBS' repair bikes. This works
because you need to support the back of the blade, and to a lesser
degree the front. The blade actually holds the inside of the crown
together.

Strangely enough, those inner fork tangs that are on so many custom
bikes are basically decoration. They probably add a little lateral
stiffness, framebuilders and cyclists had an obsession over that when
the tangs first showed up.

Eric Keller
Boalsburg, Pennsylvania

[Mark Guglielmana]

Eric, you missed the most important function of the inner fork tangs.

You're out on a long ride, nearly exhausted, and somebody asks you what the 4 suits are in a deck of cards. If you were smart and ordered your frame with the right inner tangs...

;-)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/6GXoNsbbW40/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Mark Bulgier]

Nick Bull wrote:

> [snip] frame-makers who build decent frames -- Peter Weigle, Rivendell, etc.. -- do not use lugs that are perpendicular to the tubes. 

Weigle uses crowns with a straight-across "stress riser" more often than not.  Here are some examples, from his personal Flickr page:
https://flic.kr/p/EZhk5k 
Note in that photo there are about 5 or 6 different types of crowns, and only one of them has a point or tang there.  It's a style point, not needed for strength or fatigue endurance.

Riv doesn't use those crowns because they are very interested in a certain style (look) that includes fork tangs.  Crowns without inner tangs went out of style, but Weigle is not afraid to use "retro" designs that he knows work.

Also look at the resurgence of two-plate crowns, popular with quite a few top-end builders these days.  Those are almost always straight across, no point or tang.

Due to my 30 years in the bike biz (1970 to 1999) and 20 years as a custom framebuilder, and my strange obsession with bikes made before I was born, I have a longer perspective than many folks.  I can tell you for sure, there are forks with the straight across "stress riser" that were brazed in the '30s and '40s with thinwall blades that are still running strong today. 

Professional racers usually aren't heavy, but the miles they put on, and the horsepower they put into the pedals, are beyond imagining for most riders.  This means they'll generally break a frame if anyone can.  Yet most pro race forks had a crown shaped like that (straight across), for decades, until the fashion for tangs became de rigeur.  Breaking during a race is very bad advertising, so if a design were breaking, the maker would change the design. And the magazines and newspapers would have shown pictures -- whatever they can get before the team whisks the broken bike away and hides it anyway.  It's true the team will try to hide it, so a few could have broken without us knowing, but in general there are too many spectators with cameras to hide them all.

-Mark

[Ken Freeman]

Nick, not to argue your technical story, but just two points:

I'm a 12-ish year member of Bike Forums ("Road Fan"), and I think the search function at the beginning was dodgy, and is still dodgy.  If I was referring somebody to an item on BF, I would give a specific link if I really expect them to search for my stuff.

I have a 1984 Trek 610 that I bought new, and after detailed reads of the catalogs on the VintageTrek site, I think the 531 CS as Trek defines it is the same in the main tubes at least as is 531 DB as Trek defines it.  I think the only room for differences is in the blades and stays (maybe lugs), plus the fork crowns are not the same.  And (actually I'm less sure about this), all the 61x frames with a model year frame build had the same tubing and geometries.  

My bike was about $530 purchased new from a Trek dealer, equipped stock with nearly all 600-6207.  Not low-end or mid-range build, but also IMHO not at the level of a contemporary 'Traut or other builder-bike.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Nick Bull <nick.bi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nicholas Bull]

Hi, Ken,

I didn't post a link to anything I've posted on BF because I figured it is just duplicative of what I posted here.  My point was just that since Mark didn't find the posts that I know are out there (mine) then it's possible there are others; I don't know.  I agree the search feature on BF is not easy to use.  But Google finds posts on there, including this thread on 531CS: http://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1045846-reynolds-531-cs-used-trek.html

Note the 6th post in that thread refers to the 614 fork as "The dreaded death fork" so apparently it is a well-known problem, at least over in the Classic & Vintage forum.

Nick

[Nicholas Bull]

In fact, a google search of "Trek 614 fork failure" gets thousands of (mostly irrelevant) hits.  Looking at just the BF hits, this one (http://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1043401-1981-1982-trek-610-613-614-ishiwata-forks.html) has a message that says:

"The way I look at this issue is: there are only two* really well known fork designs that have a reputation for breaking without being abused, the cast aluminum Lambert fork from the early 70s and the Trek fork that's the subject of this thread. I think the OP's poll is a good effort to try to quantify how much that reputation is deserved in the case of the Trek....

(*and yes of course there are many dozens/hundreds of truly rotten forks on cheap bikes that would be prone to failure if people actually rode them, but none from companies with the high quality standards that Trek had BITD, none from companies who designed their bikes to be raced, toured or really go a lot of miles.) "

[Mark Guglielmana]

Nick, your posts on this subject fall in the realm of gross exaggeration, IMO, and don't help your arguement when we can readily shoot holes in them. Making claims that "About 1/3 of the 613/4's that I see come up on CL have replacement forks" really overstates your case. When you claim that there are "thousands (mostly irrelevant)" posts on the subject, what am I supposed to get from that? Well, at least one of out thousands was relevant, that's all. Since someone posted "The dreaded death fork" therefore it's apparently a well-known problem is just silly. That falls into "don't believe everything you read on the internet" bucket. You asked for, and received a very good counterpoint - to the "current, custom framebuilders" using crowns perpendicular to the inner leg, and even gave an example, Peter Weigle, which was used in the counterpoint. When I asked for links to Trek fork failures, I guess I wasn't specific enough. I should have added the proviso "not from you". I was looking for other examples, rather than the two or so that you've used to extrapolate a trend. 

And that guy you quoted from the BF C&V forum? I know "The Caveman", I've ridden with him several times, and built a custom rear rack for one of his bikes. Far be it from me to piss on a good friend, but he did use the term "reputation". He's a very good and clever writer, and knows how to say exactly what he means.

I give you credit for looking at a fairly thick fork crown and seeing a stress riser. Any lug or fork crown could be considered a stress riser, but I think we can all agree that a reasonably thinned lug, or fork crown, at the edges would reduce that concentration of stress. 

Perhaps this stress riser isn't the main culprit, but is a contributing factor. Overheating a tube can significantly weaken the material. Incomplete fill during the brazing operation can leave a gap that can rust over time. Overzealous filing at the crown could cause this. On the other hand, any, or all of these factors could contribute to a fork failure - including a stress riser. 

But a few very experienced frame builders have added their opinion here in this thread, I weigh their background as much more relevant than yours. I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and worked in the bike industry many moons ago, albeit not in frame design nor manufacture, and before I received said degree. All I can say is that I feel comfortable weighing expert opinions on the subject, and choosing my experts wisely. I'm going to go out on a limb and declare that you're not an expert. A real expert, with their reputation on the line, would want to take a look at a failed fork, or read the failure analysis of a fork before declaring any potential root cause. 

My opinion, based on reading these posts, is that the fork crown design in and of itself is doubtfully the cause of any fork failures. As pointed out by others several other companies used that same exact fork crown style, in volume. It was also pointed out that racers of days past used that same style without failures. 

The reason I'm taking time to write this is that I see no reason for people to stay away from certain vintage Treks due to concern over fork failure. I don't have one to sell, so I don't have a dog in that fight. It's your perogative, of course to stay away from them, and you can use your freedom of speech to warn others, just las the guy down the street with a placard giving me the exact time and date for the world to end. 

Like any bike, you should look for signs of damage, cracks, newly developed rust, etc. on a regular basis. Lugs, fork crowns, and dropouts are high stress areas, and should be especially examined. When I have examined frames that have failed there was always some tell that explained why the frame probably failed. I have nowhere near the experience level of others on this thread, but my observations are backed by theirs.

Maybe you're just the kid who cried wolf. As the story goes, he was right one day, but no one believed him.

[Nick Bull]

OK, then I will happily eat my words! 

It does seem that these 613/614 forks have a problem, based both on posts by others, and my own observation.  Maybe the problem is caused by something in the production process, since others are apparently using the same straight-across lug without failures.

Nick

[Nick Bull]

Hey, Mark,

None of the posts that I cited are from me and I had never even seen them before, let alone posted in them--I don't follow the C&V forum.

You said you couldn't find relevant posts.  With two seconds of searching, I found some. 

Nick

[Mark Guglielmana]

Nick,

Whether the 613/614 forks in question have a higher failure rate than others, your effort to heighten concern on the subject is well taken. Since a fork failure can be a catastrophic, life threatening event, hopefully this thread will bring a heightened awareness to "do your due diligence" in purchasing a vintage bike, and maintaining it properly, including carefull checking the frame on a regular basis.

Thanks for that!

[Daniel Jackson]

Howdy folks,

I feel as though this thread has drifted substantially enough that it warrants a new offshoot. I personally am interested in the original topic and would like to choose whether or not to follow opinions on Trek forks and perpendicular lugs, etc.

Thanks much for considering a transition thread. 

Best,

Daniel 

[Nick Bull]

Mark,

Thanks.  I really do not intend to exaggerate the "danger" of these forks.  If I still owned a bike with one, I'd just keep a more watchful eye on it. If I were buying a "new" early-80's Trek, I'd prefer to get one that doesn't have this fork, and at least I'd know to take a careful look before buying it.  I've had other steel parts fail--bottom bracket separated from the seat tube on a 600; drive-side dropout failed on a Rambouillet.  Nothing lasts forever.

Nick

[Nick Favicchio]

Umm...

To the OP. I'm getting good and fat again (205lbs) and my new fancy custom has a 747 tt and 858 dt stand diameter tubing. I'm 5'11' with a long inseam and short torso, so short tt but otherwise big frame.

I've tried pretty hard in a short span to kill the thing, including crashing at 15-20 mph on a garbage rutty road, mashing uphill in stupid gears, just generally trying to get the thing to screw up or be weird and it won't. The 50mph + steering wobble was, I think, mostly my fault but I think I'm ok with keeping it below 50mph most of the time.

The dropouts are FAT. Very wide and meaty. And the rear triangle is super light too. The seat stays are hilariously skinny and we're bizarre to hold in the hand before they were cut and mitered and brazed onto the bike.

It's great. And I don't think my tastes are wildly unique. If the thing is made by someone who knows their business, my experience until I brake the thing is that the scary thin stuff is pretty great even for those of us who know the reason to ride the hell out of your bike year round is so that you can justify the gut earned by nachos and beer and pizza and burritos and beer and cider and beer and so on.

But, I'm not Jobst. I'll bet I weigh less than he and he broke the hell out of some frames!! So who knows?

[Brad]

Corrosion and over heating/ bad mitering are the enemy.  Otherwise it takes a lot.