Romanceur fame pics

[mitch....@gmail.com]

Unpacked a Romanceur frame today. Don't think there have been many photos of the frame/fork available so here are a few. 

Paint looks brighter and more sparkly in the photos than real. In person the metallic silver finish looks not flat but not glossy. 

The site had announced delivery in August so after the first week of September I emailed and got an immediate answer they'd shipped out. 

Then here it was carefully packed, complete with handwritten note of appreciation from Matt and this dyno hub included.

Crust sort of setting a standard for how to provide small batch frame/forks. Develop, announce, sell, deliver. No drama. 

23mm clearance between front edge of fork crown and RTP, 14.7mm RTP clearance each side.

23.5mm clearance from RTP to chainstay fender boss (same to seat stay boss), 11.6mm RTP chainstay clearance each side. 

RTP's widest girth comes toward the rear of the chainstay flutes/indents so SBH girth will be at about center of chainstay flutes. 

Don't have an SBH's to put in the frame but if they are the same height/width as RTPs they'll have 10mm clearance. 

--Mitch 

[Andrew Fatseas]

Looks pretty good!  Will be interested to hear how they ride.  I may have been a guinea pig myself if they'd had a smaller size.

--
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.

[Dave Johnston]

Best looking disc fork I've ever seen! Curvy and slender!

-Dave

[eric moss]

I love that fork, too -- substantial crown, graceful radius -- yay!

--

[Tamaso Johnson]

Paint looks great.

Why does this bike have a threaded steerer?

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:11:35 PM UTC-6, Tamaso Johnson wrote:

Paint looks great.

Why does this bike have a threaded steerer?

Preference of UltraRomance / Bene. (A preference I share.)

The bike has some unlikely combinations but they're all what UltraRomance has found he prefers for his riding. 

He describes his reasons, as only he can, if you page down on this link:

http://journal.crustbikes.com/post/145361038071/the-romanceür-is-a-swashbuckling-tender-heart-of-a

--Mitch 

[Igor Belopolsky]

That fork is great. A bit off topic, I recently got myself an All City Macho King - amazing frame and all, love the carbon fork, but I am thinking in future if I want to get the bars up higher a steel disc fork would be great, and this type of fork would be needed.

[Matt Maceda]

I too, received mine this week, although I'm kind of on the fence in my size choice. 

I have a brand new frameset in size small I'd like to trade for a medium if anyone feels the same about their medium.

[David Cummings]

Congrats! What's the weight?

I understand the logic of the disc brakes for ease of wheel swapability and his claim that they work better (others claim otherwise), but I would hate to do anything to reduce the fork flexability.  Nitpicky, yes, but that's just me.  I completely agree with everything else UltraRomance did on this frame.  I like his ideas even if he comes off a bit strong with his ultra-hip attitude.  The frame itself looks killer!  Can't wait to see the build!

[Fred Blasdel]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:50 PM, <mitch....@gmail.com> wrote:

Crust sort of setting a standard for how to provide small batch frame/forks. Develop, announce, sell, deliver. No drama. 

Meanwhile Rawland is years in without delivering, and they just announced another brand at Interbike!

[Philip Kim]

I also wonder how the fork is with discs, was about to get this but their smallest was a 55.

[Ryan Watson]

I don't know what's up with Rawland these days, but I liked how they did the rSogn. Soliciting all sorts of info from potential customers beforehand then making the bike. I guess there may have been some drama, but the result was one of the best riding, most versatile bikes I've ever seen!

Ryan 

--

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.

[Joe Broach]

Hope to see some of these on the road--very cool mix of old and new. I can't tell how they're handling wheel retention. Just lawyer lips, or are the dropouts angled?

Best,
joe
pdx or

Caveat lector. Sent from a phone.

--

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.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

I wondered about wheel retention too. Forkends seem rotated forward about 20 deg from where the traditional down/back orientation faces. Maybe they found this amount of change to be enough to retain the wheel during braking.

From what I can see from the various low-res photos of the prototype UltraRomance has been riding, it has these same forkend angle.

I agree about the mix of old and new, and Crust chose exactly he right combination, for me anyway.

Ryan, I don't mind drama either if it produces a great bike like it has several times. Good point. Rawland's crowdsourcing of the design has certainly been a cool experiment at the very least and a successful one until recently. I don't know why it broke down this time (Ravn) but my guesses include: 1) recent market diverging more than before so customer wants were too far apart this time, 2) Ravn development coinciding with Rawland expansion into a different kind of company with some hopefully temporary derailment for this model, and 3) interference stuff going on in the lives of the Rawland folks, which is always a risk in a shoestring company with no real paid employees.

But I'm personally glad the Romanceur wasn't the result of crowd-sourcing and more the result of a particular point of view, riding preference, and extensive experience. UltraRomance's idiosyncrasies (and Crust's) matched my own exactly in this case.

--Mitch

[Eric Keller]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:04 PM, <mitch....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wondered about wheel retention too. Forkends seem rotated forward about 20 deg from where the traditional down/back orientation faces. Maybe they found this amount of change to be enough to retain the wheel during braking.

so it doesn't have ridges on the dropouts or any other kind of wheel
retention? I hate those, but with discs it just makes sense. If they
are 20 degrees forward from vertical, that's probably enough.

[Alex Wetmore]

The drops aren't tilted forward at all.  I'm a little surprised that they didn't do forward facing dropouts on a disk fork.  There are small retention lips visible in the first photo.

The disk tab looks pretty short.  I wonder which of the Nova blades they chose for that crown, it looks like they are the fork blades instead of the tandem blades.  The fork blades can be pretty thin for disk use.

What are the barrel brazeons at the top of the fork meant for?

What size tires does it fit?

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of mitch....@gmail.com <mitch....@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:50:40 PM
To: 650b
Subject: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

 

--

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.

[Chris Cullum]

It's a sharp looking bike!

I saw 853 and thought it was going to be more thinwall steel. Most of the advantage going to a high end steel like 853 is to make it thinner/lighter but still relatively dent resistant but I see this is 9/6/9 OS. I know not everyone wants a flexy frame, especially in a moderately loaded frame that you can take off-road but it seems like they could have gone a bit lighter. Especially given the relatively lightly built disc fork and quill stem. Those don't seem to jive with me. I guess ultimately it's built around UR's preferences not mine.

--

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.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

They looked a little rotated to me but maybe not; Alex's eye for that may be better than mine.

The tabs on he tips of the forkends look like ordinary lawyer lips. I hope they would not be intended for retention under braking force(?).

The fork blades feel like they are reinforced internally toward the bottom. The disc-side blade has a fabrication flat spot on the lower inside that suggests there is something in there connecting to the disc mount tabs possibly. The lower fork region also feels heavier than the mount tabs would account for, and tapping on the lower forks sounds dead compared to the ringing sound when the upper fork leg is tapped. Not a good sign for fork suppleness of course :-) but it may indicate disc-use adaptation. Alex could probably tell better than I can since this is the first disc fork I've handled.

My RTP tire clearance measurements notes in my original post may suggest what will fit. I don't have any SBH wheels to pop in to test but my guess is SBH will fit with fenders. How much / enough fender clearance, not sure.

I calculate 268mm BB height with RTPs so about 280 with SBH.

--Mitch

[Alex Wetmore]

Tapered fork blades are thicker wall in the thinner portion of the blade.  That is how all tapered blades are made.  The blades use on that fork look like these ones:

http://www.cycle-frames.com/bicycle-frame-tubing/NOVA-CRMO-ROAD-OVAL-0.9-0.6-NOV_CXFB_OVL_0.9.html

It is possible that they used these ones:

http://www.cycle-frames.com/bicycle-frame-tubing/CRMO-25.4mm-OVAL-TANDEM-CHAINSTAY.html

It is possible that Crust had custom blades drawn, but I strongly believe those are the only two production blades available that fit that crown.

I'd be interested to see the flat section that you see where the disk mount meets the blade.  It would be unusual to do anything inside the blade to support the disk mount.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of mitch....@gmail.com <mitch....@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:18:49 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

 

[Marc Pfister]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:18:49 PM UTC-6, mitch....@gmail.com wrote:

The disc-side blade has a fabrication flat spot on the lower inside that suggests there is something in there connecting to the disc mount tabs possibly. 

I believe that's just there to provide rotor clearance.

- Marc 

[David Cummings]

I'm guessing the barrel braze ons are for a more secure portuer rack mount?

David

[Ray Varella]

I thought I read somewhere that those braze ons were for a proprietary rack. 

Ray

Vallejo CA

On Monday, September 26, 2016, David Cummings <flath...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm guessing the barrel braze ons are for a more secure portuer rack mount?

David

--
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.
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.

--

Ray Varella

IAABC Parrot Division

Supporting Member

[Austin ^]

The rack in question that fits the braze ons - 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BKd2TJ7AGER/

And with the detachable lower pannier piece - 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BKfuaFkAeTB/

[Fred Blasdel]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Austin ^ <orangec...@gmail.com> wrote:

The rack in question that fits the braze ons - 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BKd2TJ7AGER/

Seems silly to make the racks double-adjustable, which requires it to be heavier and much weaker than building them to match the forks. They ignored the existing standard and didn't improve on it.

On the upside it will be the best handlebar bag rack for modern Surly forks!

[Eric Keller]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Fred Blasdel <blas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They ignored the existing standard and didn't improve on it.

what's the existing standard? Fork center hole and braze ons down the fork?

I agree on adjustability. No point in that at all.

[Alex Wetmore]

The current standard is a hole at the fork crown and a pair of brazeons 165mm down from that hole.  Rivendell, Soma, Rawland, Elephant and others all use this standard.  Haulin Colin and Nitto make racks that fit it, with no heavy and fragile adjustable parts necessary.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Eric Keller <kell...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:56:20 PM

To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

[Andrew Squirrel]

Alex, I'm pretty sure it's 140mm, not 165mm

- Andrew Squirrel

[Justin Hughes]

+1 I was going to post that, but without having the frame in front of me I wasn't going to question a frame builder. :)

Not sure if it's all that widely used of a standard yet, but I'm for it. 

[Alex Wetmore]

I was going by memory so I'm not surprised that I was wrong.  I did do a quick search.  Either way there is a good standard.

165mm is the distance from dropout eyelets to lowrider mounts for Tubus racks.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Justin Hughes <justin...@me.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:00:31 PM
To: 650b
Cc: kell...@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

[Andrew Squirrel]

I also want to add. Between the downward facing front dropouts, 4-point adjustable rack and known issues with the NDS fork leg fractures that bike could be a recipe for disaster. 

My biggest, possibly unfounded, fear would be the flex differential between the two fork blades leading to loosening of adjustable rack mounts.

Stay safe out there Romanceurs, I like your teeth just the way they are.

[Evan Baird]

To be fair Ocean Air did a similar thing based on the mark's rack. I think that choice was mainly out of consideration for the racer brakes, but you might argue that these would fit newer surly forks which don't have the "nitto standard".

[Peter Turskovitch]

"known issues with NDS fork leg fractures"

Can you expand on that or give a link or something? I may be out of the loop but I haven't heard of those issues.


Also, it seems like there are several people commenting here who (I think?) design and/or sell competing racks and bikes, or are friends with people who do. Or at least I vaguely recognize some people's names in the context of Elephant bikes and Hollin Colin racks. Is that right? Your experience very likely gives you greater than normal insight here, but it would also be nice to state those attachments upfront. But again I live in europe and barely post here so I might just be out of the loop.


Peter, in Zürich, is on the Elephant waitlist but also considering the Romanceur

[rob perks]

Yes, I broke from the standards with the Rambler design in the hope of both simplification and mounting redundancy at the crown.  There are two things I see that have the potential to become problems with many of the designs that have followed.  

- Our design takes the two upper mounting bolts out of the same plane of rotation, also taking the upper connection out of the plane of rotation, that the front/lower mounts are in.  There are pros and cons, the hardware can still come loose due to the multiple planes of vibration affecting the fork, but getting all the hardware off of a single axis is similar to the engineering redundancy of multiple mounting points.

- The second aspect is a subtle variation of the prior, where we try to keep the mounts in different arcs of swing should something come loose.  This is something I think a ton about with multi fastener connection points, e.g. the Nitto struts that use a draw bolt at one end and bolt at the other, or the Surly rack hardware at the top of a porteur rack.  This is a time when the engineering needs to trump the aesthetic.  The primary load connection being the strut from the front of the rack to the lowest mounding point.  From that low mounting point upward there are an infinite number of concentric arcs.  If your upper mount is the single point of retention in the potential swing arc, what do you think stops the rack from spinning forward if the hardware comes loose at all?  IF the hardware/strut is constrained in a non-concentric arc, the rack can't spin forward should one end of the hardware assembly loosen.  Bonus points for taking the arc out of plane.  When we install the surly kit between the crown and porteur rack, the struts are out of the arc starting at the fork tips, the crown bolts are in a plane 90deg to the possible rotation of the rack, and the struts splay such that they self tighten should the rack slip forward at all.  While a hardware based assemble, as opposed to weld/braze, great care was taken to isolate the rotation in multiple axis. None of this keeps every nut  and bolt tight forever, but it keeps the rack out of your front wheel if one comes loose.

Bonus points for not building parallelograms with the struts in the vertical plane.  Parallelograms are generally meant to be moving mechanisms, trapezoids will help keep the frame(strut assembly) from collapsing of one or more of the connection points becomes loose.

That all said, I am really glad to see the niche expanding at multiple pice points

-- 

Rob Perks

oceanaircycles.com

Tumblr

facebook

Instagram

Flickr

Pinterest

Ventura, CA

 

[Jeffrey Kane]

You know, sometimes I think I know what I'm talking about here and am following the conversation well -- and then an explanation like Rob's comes in and I realize I'm much better at simple pedaling than I am at mechanical geo analysis ...

[Andrew Squirrel]

"Can you expand on that or give a link or something? I may be out of the loop but I haven't heard of those issues"

There are no issues with the Romanceur presently, I'm just extrapolating from what was already discussed earlier in this thread. The Romanceur is embarking down the same path that the NFE took with an identical crown and likely the same fork blades (tandem stays) with slightly different disc tabs. Most of us know how that story has concluded: Elephant is moving to a unicrown even after several disc tab iterations with the Nova crown/blades because of NDS blade cracking at the tab. 

It would be great if Crust remedied this issue with their tab style, we could all learn from their design and apply it elsewhere. Alternatively Crust could be using new fork blades unknown in this circle. It's all speculation at this point, we will see.

[rob perks]

There are plenty of days that I just want to go for a ride.  It is up to us, designing and selling the stuff, to make sure most of you out there, just ride and not have to worry about loosing your teeth.  I love front loading, but the price of failure is a bit higher than a rear load.  The same for front disc brakes.  Neither is inherently bad, but the designs need to be thought out and vetted.  That is the job of the salesman, not us here chatting on the forums.  

Again, I want to love what the Crust team has going, it widens the pond for all of us

Rob

Ocean Air Cycles

[Steve Palincsar]

On 09/29/2016 02:48 PM, rob perks wrote:
> There are plenty of days that I just want to go for a ride. It is up
> to us, designing and selling the stuff, to make sure most of you out
> there, just ride and not have to worry about loosing your teeth. I
> love front loading, but the price of failure is a bit higher than a
> rear load. The same for front disc brakes. Neither is inherently
> bad, but the designs need to be thought out and vetted. That is the
> job of the salesman, not us here chatting on the forums.

Without invalidating or disputing a word of what you've said, I think
it's worth reminding readers that the price for failure with a rear load
can be pretty high too. A person I used to work with wrapped a sweater
around a rear rack and accidentally left the sleeves dangling. One got
caught in the wheel and locked the back wheel on a fast downhill. She
was out of work for a year as a result of the crash and the several
surgeries needed to correct the damage.

[gphilipsparks]

Did the v2 Elephant NFE use the tandem stays as blades? I know Fred's cow prototype used the butted 9-6 blades.

Philip Sparks

[Jeff Bertolet]

pictures needed to further illuminate the text.

like this rack?

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 12:15:49 PM UTC-4, rob perks wrote:

[rob perks]

Jeff,

Yes, we have installed a bunch this way:

http://oceanaircycles.com/2013/10/18/upper-porteur-mounting/

I know it is fairly self tightening just by how hard it is to make subtle adjustments.  It is not completely failsafe, but gives you a fighting chance before loose hardware leads to complete failure.

-- 

Rob Perks

oceanaircycles.com

Tumblr

facebook

Instagram

Flickr

Pinterest

Ventura, CA

 

[Alex Wetmore]

No, I don't think that any Elephant NFE forks used the tandem stays as blades.

I started to build a fork with those tandem stays and stopped.  They carry the large diameter down very far, which makes for a really ugly bend because the blades ovalize sideways a bit in a tight radius bend.  I'm fairly sure that the Crest fork also isn't using those fork blades based on the photos that I've seen.

I recently suggested to Nova that they make disk-ready blades for that fork crown and they said they'd consider it (this was all public on Facebook).  It would be great if that happens, but in the meantime I think unicrown is a much better option.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of gphilipsparks <gphili...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:09:22 PM
To: 650b

Subject: Re: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

Did the v2 Elephant NFE use the tandem stays as blades? I know Fred's cow prototype used the butted 9-6 blades.

Philip Sparks

[gphilipsparks]

By disc ready blades, are you referring to the 28x20 nova blades that taper to 17 mm round with a 1.4 wall or something? I've built a fork with those on the pacenti mtb crown, and those blades are incredibly heavy, much more so than the tandem stays. I built a couple asym forks using a tandem stay on the NDS and the butted light blade on the DS, without using an extended Willits style tab, and haven't had any issues. These forks are much lighter than the "disc ready" one, and I didn't notice any particular ugliness in the bend with the tandem stay, but I'm obviously using a different bender.

-Philip Sparks

[Alex Wetmore]

They are 1.1 wall at the dropouts, but yes, those are the disk ready blades.  I've built forks with them too and they are heavy, but disk forks are always heavy compared to regular ones.

Elephant and I use a very similar radius bender.  When you bend the tandem stays with a tight radius bender they bulge in the bend and get wider across than they are front to back.  They don't wrinkle or anything, but it doesn't look particularly good.  I wish I had taken photos of the pair that I bent up, but I gave them to a friend when I sold my tandem.

Disk forks seem to need think enough blades to prevent the tab from fatiguing them where it mounts, plus large enough in diameter that they don't want to bend back, and it helps to use a long enough tab to lead the stresses up above the bend.  I'm hoping that good fatigue testing is done and shared with the community so that we know what the reliable recipe is instead of what works most of the time.  I don't think we are learning from one off custom frames because a 10% failure rate would be huge, but few custom builders make 100 forks the same way and share results to learn what worked.  

The first road disk fork that I built (http://photos.alexwetmore.org/Bicycles/Framebuilding/Porteur-Disk-Fork/) uses Columbus SL blades and a long custom tab and has the low-rider eyelet really damn close to the tab and it hasn't broken after 4 years of regular use, but I also know enough from seeing production forks fail to say that I wouldn't make and sell a fork built the same way.  This fork is used with an e-bike motor now and so it is seeing unusual braking and driving forces.  I inspect it at least weekly.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of gphilipsparks <gphili...@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 4:40:38 PM

To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

By disc ready blades, are you referring to the 28x20 nova blades that taper to 17 mm round with a 1.4 wall or something? I've built a fork with those on the pacenti mtb crown, and those blades are incredibly heavy, much more so than the tandem stays. I built a couple asym forks using a tandem stay on the NDS and the butted light blade on the DS, without using an extended Willits style tab, and haven't had any issues. These forks are much lighter than the "disc ready" one, and I didn't notice any particular ugliness in the bend with the tandem stay, but I'm obviously using a different bender.

-Philip Sparks

[gphilipsparks]

Nova's website claims that the wall at the dropout is 1.4 mm, and the upper wall before the taper is 1.1 mm, which matches my memory of the blades.
http://www.cycle-frames.com/bicycle-frame-tubing/NOVA-ROAD-OVAL-Disk-Brake-Fork-Blade-.html
I'd consider these blades overkill, based on my personal experience with the tandem stay(which has a 14mm diameter at the dropout and 1.2 mm wall) as a disc fork blade. I think a better solution would be to move the taper up the blade a little further to prevent the sideways ovalizing issue you've described, rather than replicating the super oversized thick wall "disc ready blade" with a 25.4 upper to work with the old school crown. Part of the issue with the huge blades is also that they look strange unless you use a hooded dropout or the recommended plug dropouts, with the 17 mm small end. I've not had the same issue with the 14 mm end of the tandem stay.
Where have the cracked Elephant forks failed? Was it generally at the top of the Willits tab? I suspect this is more due to the 9-6 butting of the tube prior to the tapering. I would suppose that Willits tab lands somewhere in the .6 mm wall region, which is less equipped to deal with both the can opener effect and fatigue from the braking stress. Perhaps using the same tapering process as the 9-6 blade, but starting with a 10-9 tube instead would resolve the issue of cracking at the tab.
The unicrown is a better solution though for those who care less about aesthetics. I'm probably going to try a truss fork next instead.

Philip Sparks

[Justin Hughes]

To Alex and any others with knowledge on the subject. 

Does making the steel disc fork with straight blades as opposed to curved result in a fork less prone to this kind of stress related damage/failure? Does using a straight blade design allow one to build a steel, disc fork with a lighter/thinner fork blade than one would need with a curved design? 

[Alex Wetmore]

Elephant doesn't use a Willit's tab, the Willit's tab isn't suitable for curved forks (especially in production building...one off people manipulate them to make them work).  They had a custom tab made that matches their fork bend.  Yes, it cracks at the top of the tab.  I've seen a lot of disk forks made with standard short blades which unrake due to braking forces, so I don't think that a shorter tab is a good idea either.

How many disk forks have you built with the tandem blade?  I really do think that it takes roughly 100 forks in regular use for a year to understand how well they will hold up.  A better (but more difficult and expensive) solution is fatigue testing.  The tandem blade not working well with small radius benders is an issue in my eye.  Ugly fork bends (look at most Surly forks) are worst than unicrowns.

Justin asked if a straight blade makes anything better.  The straight blade doesn't change the can opener effect at the top of the tab and isn't any better at resisting bending, so it really doesn't offer an improvement.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of gphilipsparks <gphili...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 1:14:33 PM

To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

[Marc Pfister]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 4:17:37 PM UTC-6, Alex Wetmore wrote:

> Justin asked if a straight blade makes anything better. The straight blade doesn't 

> change the can opener effect at the top of the tab and isn't any better at resisting 

> bending, so it really doesn't offer an improvement.

The straight blade should see a lower bending moment from vertical loads at the end of the tab, so this could help reduce fatigue failures at this spot.


I also think that if the blade has sufficient cross-section to resist unraking, the fatigue life could be improved by attaching the disc tab to somewhere other than at 6 o'clock looking down on the leg, which will be the highest stressed location on the blade.


- Marc

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 4:17:37 PM UTC-6, Alex Wetmore wrote:

Justin asked if a straight blade makes anything better.  The straight blade doesn't change the can opener effect at the top of the tab and isn't any better at resisting bending, so it really doesn't offer an improvement.

The straight blade should see a lower bending moment from vertical loads at the end of the tab, so this could help reduce fatigue failures at this spot.

I also think that if the blade has sufficient cross-section to resist unraking, the fatigue life could be improved by attaching the disc tab to somewhere other than at 6 o'clock looking down on the leg, which will be the highest stressed location on the blade.

- Marc 

[rcnute]

My only contribution to this interesting discussion is--Mitch, when we gonna see this sweet ride built up?!

Ryan

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-7, mitch....@gmail.com wrote:

They looked a little rotated to me but maybe not; Alex's eye for that may be better than mine.

The tabs on he tips of the forkends look like ordinary lawyer lips. I hope they would not be intended for retention under braking force(?).

The fork blades feel like they are reinforced internally toward the bottom. The disc-side blade has a fabrication flat spot on the lower inside that suggests there is something in there connecting to the disc mount tabs possibly. The lower fork region also feels heavier than the mount tabs would account for, and tapping on the lower forks sounds dead compared to the ringing sound when the upper fork leg is tapped. Not a good sign for fork suppleness of course :-) but it may indicate disc-use adaptation. Alex could probably tell better than I can since this is the first disc fork I've handled.

My RTP tire clearance measurements notes in my original post may suggest what will fit.  I don't have any SBH wheels to pop in to test but my guess is SBH will fit with fenders. How much / enough fender clearance, not sure.

I calculate 268mm BB height with RTPs so about 280 with SBH.

--Mitch

[Scott Henry]

We lost me on this thread right here from Alex: "The first road disk fork that I built (http://photos.alexwetmore.org/Bicycles/Framebuilding/Porteur-Disk-Fork/) ............... This fork is used with an e-bike motor now and so it is seeing unusual braking and driving forces.  I inspect it at least weekly."

If there is something that needs inspected that often, it is totally unsafe.   You can ride a sub 10lbs weight wienie bike that doesn't need that type of attention, motor or no.    

I'm more of a 2stroke pseudo-whizzer kinda guy myself anyway.  

Scott "Carbon straight blades on all my disc forks" Henry

--

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.

[Justin Hughes]

Seems like you're missing the point, not paying attention or both, Scott. Alex built the fork. Sounds like Alex is conducting research and running a test to advance this low trail, curved, disc fork thing so many of us are interested in. 

And how many of your carbon disc forks have a straight 1 1/8" steerer, 65mm offset with fender and rack eyelets? Tell me where to buy that. I'll buy two. 

[Alex Wetmore]

"I also think that if the blade has sufficient cross-section to resist unraking, the fatigue life could be improved by attaching the disc tab to somewhere other than at 6 o'clock looking down on the leg, which will be the highest stressed location on the blade."

I agree with that.  I did an experiment with the dropout geometry (short story: I used rear ISO mount because the dropout and disk tab are inline) on my fork to avoid building a disk tab jig.  That experiment failed in multiple ways, and putting the tab centered on the fork blade wasn't awesome.

It is tempting to put the tab there because it makes the mitering easy, but it is better to put them to the outside where they are not pushing on the thinnest and highest stressed part of the blade.

"If there is something that needs inspected that often, it is totally unsafe.   "

This is a personal fork that I built for myself.  I've said that multiple times in the thread.  It is not an Elephant fork, and it is clearly underbuilt based on what is known now.  On the other hand it hasn't broken yet (unlike the associated rack, which broke last night in a somewhat unexpected way).

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Marc Pfister <marc.p...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 8:52:29 PM

To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Romanceur fame pics

--

[Nick Favicchio]

Thanks Alex for putting your butt on the line for science :).

And yea, built pics! !

Is there an argument for straight bladed forks for discs in this thread? I feel like I've read that both there is and is not additional stress due to a bent fork leg, specifically to the dropout tabs?

Considering the stiffer fork legs needed for discs, is the ~1mm-2mm of travel that a stiff bent leg may perhaps maybe get you worth the added stress? Design the fork for a 2mm larger tire then, no?

Thinking about Hann Rossman's fork on his Bontrager. Could be the smart way to go.

[Eric Keller]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Nick Favicchio <nickfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there an argument for straight bladed forks for discs in this thread? I feel like I've read that both there is and is not additional stress due to a bent fork leg, specifically to the dropout tabs?

So far, there has been an argument that straight blades don't help
you. At one time, I had myself convinced that straight blades were
very marginally better for discs, but I don't remember my reasoning.
At least they aren't going to un-rake themselves.

Well-known framebuilder Dave Kirk has said that putting the disk tab
off to the side helps with unraking and fatigue. For what it's worth.

Eric Keller
Boalsburg, Pennsylvania

[Christian Juckett]

The compromises that appear necessary to put disc brakes on an all-road bike make me wonder whether it would be a better solution to simply put cantilever brakes, or even v-brakes, on such a bike.  Disc brakes are great on a mountain bike, in part, because rim brakes are so affected by dirt and water on the rim as well as a rim that is knocked out of true.  "Road" bikes don't suffer from these problems as frequently.  I always found v-brakes to provide the necessary stopping power on a mountain bike.

-Christian 

[Tamaso Johnson]

The 'compromises necessary' you're alluding to are... What, exactly? Marginally stiffer fork blades? Less lugged crown build options for fat tires?

I'm not sure why the conversation inevitably leads to 'Well x works good enough for me!'. OK, but, is it really debatable at this point that decent, correctly set up discs simply stop a bike better than any rim brakes, especially in wet conditions?

[Steven Frederick]

I have some disc brake compromises to share! I'm a bit frustrated by
them. I like them when they work well, and they work fine more often
than they used to. Shimano XT disc brakes are super good! But I'm
pretty useless when it comes to sorting them when they misbehave.
Also, I live in a pretty flat area and I tend to brake long/lightly to
control speed rather than hard to slow sharply or stop. So I get to
deal with glazed pads fairly often. I also don't like having parts on
my bike that I don't know how to work on. I mean, sure-I'm not one to
crack open hubs or suspension forks, but I can deal with most other
repairs and adjustments, and I miss being able to set up and work on
my brakes. I'm disinclined to learn to bleed hydraulic brakes, and
I'm near-sighted enough that setting up proper caliper/rotor gaps is a
real challenge. I think V-brakes work as well as discs for most of my
needs, and they're lighter, cheaper and simpler.

Having said all that, I like disc brakes and most of the N+1 plans I
have involve replacing a rim-braked bike or two with a disc braked
one. I do like the wheel size versatility discs offer--having a bike
that'll fit both 700cX32-ish and 650bX2.1ish for example, is an
appealing prospect!

Steve

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Tamaso Johnson <tam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 'compromises necessary' you're alluding to are... What, exactly? Marginally stiffer fork blades? Less lugged crown build options for fat tires?
>
> I'm not sure why the conversation inevitably leads to 'Well x works good enough for me!'. OK, but, is it really debatable at this point that decent, correctly set up discs simply stop a bike better than any rim brakes, especially in wet conditions?
>

[Nick Favicchio]

Not to get too into the weeds but there are compelling reasons for discs but, yea, I chose cantis for my allroady bike. For a bike like the Romanceur, I think you go disc. Ultra Turbo Bene, as I recall, really liked his with 45mm wide Velocity Dually rims and RTPs and that's not something you're gonna get with rim brakes.

For a bike packing bike, the vast majority of folks are gonna want disc. If for no other reason than rim choices! Wheel interchangeability? Hookless carbon?!

I love my MAFAC cantis. But I'm a weirdo.

[Igor Belopolsky]

I knew I should have pre ordered. Guess I will see how I feel when these are for sale again

[mitch....@gmail.com]

I promised to post photos of the build and forgot till today...

mine is a pretty generic rando build, and there are probably more interesting ways to build up this adventure bike. 

This stuff works for me and it's what I had around already. I had to buy brakes, fenders, and bar. 

Next, I'm building wheels with wider, disc-specific rims (Pacenti DL31 and TL28 for RTPs and BSPs, respectively) and dyno hubs (an SP/PD-8 hub came with the frame/fork).

The front rack is the result of tinkering with a broken Nitto rack I had. The Romanceur prototype, with many photos on instagram has the usual upper-fork rack mounts for typical rando racks and uses a Nitto 32F in most of those photos. But the frame delivered had these high fork mounts plus mid-fork low-rider mounts and I had trouble finding a rack to fit them. Some of you noticed this already and pointed it out in the body of the thread, and people who know what they're talking about when it comes to racks discussed a prototype Crust rack that's been seen on instagram. Since then I've discussed the prototype rack with Crust and they seem likely to release the rack but I think it's not available yet except for remainder sample units. 

Meantime, I had a broken Nitto 32F and I wanted a simple, fairly light, rando rack for ordinary front bag loads. So I tinkered a bit and came up with this. Not an ideal strut angle obviously, but turns out to be pretty stiff and carries weight fine so far. If it continues to work out I may have the struts brazed properly to the rack or just have a rack fabricator make me a version of this. 

--Mitch 

[Jeffrey Kane]

Hey Mitch -- how does the bike feel (?) Is this your first 26"/RTP type ride? If so, what did you switch from (650b x 42, etc.)? 

Lastly, what is that rear D is that it's original cage? 

(sorry -- that's a lot of questions!)

[mitch....@gmail.com]

-Bike feels great: quick and likes to sprint.
-Not my first RTP bike--I got RTP ELs as soon as they were available. I did a Bontrager Race RTP bike with drop bar and rigid fork that is fun to ride and convinced me I wanted to ride RTPs more, and ride them on a more regular road bike.
-Didn't switch to RTPs really; I still expect to ride BSP bikes as much as before. I plan to ride this Romanceur with BSPs too as soon as I get the disc specific rim version built. RTPs are fast on gravel and dirt but also quick on the road. I've done paved canyon climbing in the mountains on this bike and it feels easy and fast climbing even though the wheels/tires are a little heavier. Descending with RTPs on pavement you can really feel the grip. Mostly the wide cushier tires are fun and versatile and give some interesting variety compared to narrower tires. You feel the extra pneumatic trail (so wider disc rims will be good) therefore they don't feel quick in the same way BSP or narrower tires do. It would be hard to decide which I prefer but it would be settled based on the surface I'm riding most.
-Rear Der is Shimano Crane GS (stock cage) 1970. Shifts well. Crane was the precursor to Dura-Ace.

--Mitch

[Jeffrey Kane]

Thanks Mitch -- that thing is a beauty, Enjoy!

[Ugaitz Etxebarria]

That's the best Romanceur build, Amazing
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 08:50:41 UTC+2, mitch....@gmail.com wrote:

Unpacked a Romanceur frame today. Don't think there have been many photos of the frame/fork available so here are a few. 

Paint looks brighter and more sparkly in the photos than real. In person the metallic silver finish looks not flat but not glossy. 

The site had announced delivery in August so after the first week of September I emailed and got an immediate answer they'd shipped out. 

Then here it was carefully packed, complete with handwritten note of appreciation from Matt and this dyno hub included.

Crust sort of setting a standard for how to provide small batch frame/forks. Develop, announce, sell, deliver. No drama. 

23mm clearance between front edge of fork crown and RTP, 14.7mm RTP clearance each side.

23.5mm clearance from RTP to chainstay fender boss (same to seat stay boss), 11.6mm RTP chainstay clearance each side. 

RTP's widest girth comes toward the rear of the chainstay flutes/indents so SBH girth will be at about center of chainstay flutes. 

Don't have an SBH's to put in the frame but if they are the same height/width as RTPs they'll have 10mm clearance. 

--Mitch