Cartridge bearings

[John B.]

I came across an advertisement for a frame and the description said
"HEADSET 1" cartridge bearing".

I have never seen a 1" head set that used "cartridge" bearings. Is
there such a thing and can anyone point me to one?

--
cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

Voila:

http://www.amazon.com/Origin8-Pro-Threaded-Headset-Steerer/dp/B002J97EGS

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[jbeattie]

Basically every 1" Shimano road headset after what, about 1990? Sir should know.

-- Jay Beattie

[avag...@gmail.com]

3rd world ?


https://goo.gl/C6hCeS

[John B.]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 16:26:05 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-05-21 16:13, John B. wrote:
>>
>> I came across an advertisement for a frame and the description said
>> "HEADSET 1" cartridge bearing".
>>
>> I have never seen a 1" head set that used "cartridge" bearings. Is
>> there such a thing and can anyone point me to one?
>>
>
>Voila:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Origin8-Pro-Threaded-Headset-Steerer/dp/B002J97EGS

Interesting. I had never seen one.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Oh! Modern Bikes? I've never owned one :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

https://goo.gl/iQQCIp

?

an old set in the garage maybe 1982+ ? too narrow 28 spokes.

deal is if you're crossing Yemen ( for exampul) cone n bearing is reliable and repairable in the field.

but outside that area, cartridge bearings are accurate low friction reliable replaceable n adjust with a pipe wrench.

hmmmm what was the last car made with cone n ball wheel bearings ?

[jbeattie]

Jobst noted that Shimano licensed its angular-contact cartridge bearing from Wilderness Trail, which I guess was a tribute to that company. http://yarchive.net/bike/head_bearing.html

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

I was thinking about replacing my miserable Shimano 600 contraption with
one of these. Mine always shakes loose on rough roads.

[Joerg]

Interesting. I wonder why Jobst dismissed the notion of "my chain
stretched from climbing steep hills". It's something I clearly
experienced in Europe. When riding flatlands a chain could easily last
3000mi. When I rode in the hills of East Belgium I was lucky if I got
2000mi. Lots of mashing.

[AMuzi]

Not new or rare at all. The original Chris King headset
(around 1982 or so?) was 1" threaded BSC with cartridge
inserts. That's still a current product at CK, BTW.

Here's a current model by Tange:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/wfd16dc1.jpg

They exist in 1" BSC threaded and also 1" AH threadless

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

[Ian Field]

"Joerg" <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote in message
news:dqe1us...@mid.individual.net...

Around the 80s or 90s, aftermarket taper roller headset bearings were all
the rage for motorcycles.

At the time, they were heavily advertised as the must have accesory.

[Frank Krygowski]

Jobst was an engineer who clearly understood thing like forces,
stresses, yield strength, etc. Even a dim understanding of those
principles allows one to understand you're not stretching the metal of
the chain.

Jobst was also excellent at understanding detailed interactions of
various mechanical components, and he was better than most engineers at
tribology. That allowed him to understand what many people call chain
"stretch."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

Where did I say that?

> Jobst was also excellent at understanding detailed interactions of
> various mechanical components, and he was better than most engineers at
> tribology. That allowed him to understand what many people call chain
> "stretch."
>

So how do you explain the differences noticed above? Voodoo?
Extraterrestrial influence? Belgian beer?

Hint: These were always the same chains. I bought a large stack of them
in a bulk deal.

[Frank Krygowski]

No voodoo necessary. Look into the effect of normal load on friction
and wear. Perhaps you could start with a physics book, then progress to
a book on the design of machine elements.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I used to read Brandt's posts, but sometimes I thought he got carried
away with nomenclature. The "chain stretch" is an example. No, the
chain does not stretch, as in elastic band, but it does get longer, so
what do we say? "The chain elongates" is likely an accurate
description, but then we look in the dictionary and we find:

elongate - 1. make long or longer by pulling and stretching
stretch the fabric

[John B.]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:35:56 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

wrote:

>On 2016-05-21 23:14, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2016 16:26:05 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-05-21 16:13, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I came across an advertisement for a frame and the description said
>>>> "HEADSET 1" cartridge bearing".
>>>>
>>>> I have never seen a 1" head set that used "cartridge" bearings. Is
>>>> there such a thing and can anyone point me to one?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Voila:
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Origin8-Pro-Threaded-Headset-Steerer/dp/B002J97EGS
>>
>> Interesting. I had never seen one.
>>
>
>I was thinking about replacing my miserable Shimano 600 contraption with
>one of these. Mine always shakes loose on rough roads.

I believe if I had that problem I would (1) buy a new quality head
set, and (2) have the top and bottom of the head tube reamed and faced
to ensure that the ends were exactly at right angle to the tube and
flat. And, that the head set races were properly installed using a
press of some sort. Not a BFH. (BFH's work but require more skill to
achieve a perfect installation)

Another thing, there is play in the steer tube threads and after the
threaded race is adjusted perfectly tightening lock nut will likely
change things.

I might comment that I have a Shimano 600 head set on one of my bikes
that has never come loose :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:40:26 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

It is a matter of nomenclature. A chain doesn't stretch the way a
rubber band stretches. A chain elongates due to wear. But in
colloquial English the terms stretch and elongate are frequently used
interchangeably.

It might be said that when something stretches it does elongate but
when something elongates it doesn't necessarily stretch.

(Rather like, "a Beetle is always a bug, but a bug is not always a
beetle :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:48:32 +0700, John B <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
wrote:

>
> I used to read Brandt's posts, but sometimes I thought he got carried
> away with nomenclature. The "chain stretch" is an example. No, the
> chain does not stretch, as in elastic band, but it does get longer, so
> what do we say?

We say what it is: chain wear. It's simple enough, why obfuscate it?
If we start people out with accurate concepts, they will understand much
more easily than if we tell then BS and they have to replace false
information with correct information. I think that was ulimately
Jobst's goal.

As regards greater chain wear in the mountains, the mechanics of that
are straightforward enough. Rear tires also wear faster when doing lots
of extended climbing.

I miss Jobst. And Sheldon. And Bruce Hildenbrant. Among others who no
longer post here for one reason or another.

[John B.]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 22:54:56 -0500, Tim McNamara
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:48:32 +0700, John B <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
>wrote:
>>
>> I used to read Brandt's posts, but sometimes I thought he got carried
>> away with nomenclature. The "chain stretch" is an example. No, the
>> chain does not stretch, as in elastic band, but it does get longer, so
>> what do we say?
>
>We say what it is: chain wear. It's simple enough, why obfuscate it?

Of course it is chain wear. But frankly few people actually are
completely descriptive in speaking. We say "bike" for bicycles and
motorcycles. Some people say "cool" meaning "calm self-control
(especially in trying circumstances) or unemotional" and others mean
it isn't warm. We say "post" meaning a stake in the ground or the
mail. And, and, and...

>If we start people out with accurate concepts, they will understand much
>more easily than if we tell then BS and they have to replace false
>information with correct information. I think that was ulimately
>Jobst's goal.
>
>As regards greater chain wear in the mountains, the mechanics of that
>are straightforward enough. Rear tires also wear faster when doing lots
>of extended climbing.
>
>I miss Jobst. And Sheldon. And Bruce Hildenbrant. Among others who no
>longer post here for one reason or another.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2016 5:25 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2016 22:54:56 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:48:32 +0700, John B <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I used to read Brandt's posts, but sometimes I thought he got carried
>>> away with nomenclature. The "chain stretch" is an example. No, the
>>> chain does not stretch, as in elastic band, but it does get longer, so
>>> what do we say?
>>
>> We say what it is: chain wear. It's simple enough, why obfuscate it?
>
> Of course it is chain wear. But frankly few people actually are
> completely descriptive in speaking. We say "bike" for bicycles and
> motorcycles. Some people say "cool" meaning "calm self-control
> (especially in trying circumstances) or unemotional" and others mean
> it isn't warm. We say "post" meaning a stake in the ground or the
> mail. And, and, and...

I think that issues arise when such shortcut verbiage leads to
misunderstanding of the phenomena, and to weird proposals for
"improvements."

Someone who really believes chains stretch (in the sense of metal
yielding and elongating) may propose chains with thicker side plates to
resist the "stretch" that comes from climbing mountains. That would, of
course, be ineffective.

And IIRC, there have been posters in the past who were firmly convinced
that their manly quads were capable of literally and permanently
stretching chain. There are still, I believe, people who think their
grip on the brake lever permanently stretch their brake cables.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2016 9:16 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Sun, 22 May

> 2016 20:17:08 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> Around the 80s or 90s, aftermarket taper roller headset bearings were all
>> the rage for motorcycles.
>>
>> At the time, they were heavily advertised as the must have accesory.
>

> And they were a good, inexpensive and long lasting improvement, too -
> so much so that most production motorcycles now use them from the
> factory.
>
> It's been my contention for a long time that a properly designed
> bicycle fork should have the flexibility in it's legs, not the
> steerer, and that if this is the case (as it used to be on the
> delicately curved and tapered fork legs of yore) taper rollers are
> equally valuable on pedal cycles.

Interesting. Our 1986 Cannondale touring bikes came with Stronglite A-9
roller bearing headsets. Those bikes are not light by today's
standards. They have massively rigid frame tubes, and ours has fairly
thin-looking steel forks. I doubt they tried to make the steerer tube
very thin, so perhaps the fork flex is largely confined to the blades.

The A-9 on my bike lasted for decades before I had to replace the lower
roller bearing's races. The replacement races are still fine. My
wife's (with far fewer miles) still has the original parts, IIRC.
Perhaps the long life is due in part to the rigidity of the frame and
steerer tube.

I guess the A-9 is out of production now. Maybe I should search out
some NOS repair bits before they vanish.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-22 19:26, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:35:56 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-21 23:14, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 May 2016 16:26:05 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-05-21 16:13, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I came across an advertisement for a frame and the description said
>>>>> "HEADSET 1" cartridge bearing".
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never seen a 1" head set that used "cartridge" bearings. Is
>>>>> there such a thing and can anyone point me to one?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Voila:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Origin8-Pro-Threaded-Headset-Steerer/dp/B002J97EGS
>>>
>>> Interesting. I had never seen one.
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking about replacing my miserable Shimano 600 contraption with
>> one of these. Mine always shakes loose on rough roads.
>
> I believe if I had that problem I would (1) buy a new quality head
> set, and (2) have the top and bottom of the head tube reamed and faced
> to ensure that the ends were exactly at right angle to the tube and
> flat. And, that the head set races were properly installed using a
> press of some sort. Not a BFH. (BFH's work but require more skill to
> achieve a perfect installation)
>

I don't mind a little slack in the steerer as long as the thing doesn't
come all the way loose on a rough stretch.

> Another thing, there is play in the steer tube threads and after the
> threaded race is adjusted perfectly tightening lock nut will likely
> change things.
>

Yes, but by know I just jam it all down. I don't want to fuss around
with it but ride :-)

> I might comment that I have a Shimano 600 head set on one of my bikes
> that has never come loose :-)
>

It it this type with the knurled nuts?

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/coronadelmar/Shimano_600_HP-6207_Headset_02.JPG

How hard do you torque down the top nut? Mine works ok on regular roads
but it does come loose on gravel roads and dilapidated old highways.
Also during even the shortest offroad stretch if sufficiently gnarly. I
use thick leather plus vise grips to tighten it and give it a lot of
muscle. Maybe I should add a pipe extension for even more torque.

I've even thought about filing down the nuts to get rid of this
nonsensical knurl so I can use regular wrenches.

[Joerg]

Ah, you are beginning to find out the answer yourself. Ask yourself
this: Why is it that the chain on a one-cylinder offroad motorcycle
ridden on paved roads wears faster if the motorcycle isn't fitted with a
rubber-buffered sprocket assembly?

[Joerg]

The effect is elongation but, of course, the "stretch" is all in the
pins. They seem to wear down faster when there is regular uphill mashing
versus rides where one applies constant power most of the time.

It's the same with cars. Front wheel drive cars suffer in their
universal joints worse if drivers "step on it" in curves versus gentle
riders. At least it used to be like that. Those joints were kind of
smallish compared to the big one in the drive shaft on a rear wheel
driven car. I am a gentle rider but still had to replace a worn joint in
my Citroen 2CV when I was young.

> (Rather like, "a Beetle is always a bug, but a bug is not always a
> beetle :-)
>

At Volkswagen it is :-)

[jbeattie]

The A-9 on my T1000 died for reasons I don't recall. I threw in a Deore of the day, and it lasted until I went to a 1" threadless (changed the fork) and then gave the frame away.

The current angle contact bearings on my fleet are just fine, and I can't remember the last time I replaced a failed bearing or race. I put in a new headset on my commuter, but that's because the OE headset was cheap (caged open bearing hybrid integrated design) and poorly sealed and prone to creaking with lots of wet weather riding -- and 15 or more years old. A simple angle contact bearing headset like the threaded Ultegra (and the many, many other similar headsets) seems to be more than adequate for the job.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Ian Field]

"jbeattie" <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ee0f87a2-699f-4994...@googlegroups.com...

The only headset bearings I ever had trouble with were on very old salvaged
bikes that had been left in the weather long enough to wash the grease out.

Those usually had so much else wrong that I was too busy patching it up
until something less derelict came along.

[James]

On 24/05/16 02:05, Joerg wrote:

>
> The effect is elongation but, of course, the "stretch" is all in the
> pins. They seem to wear down faster when there is regular uphill mashing
> versus rides where one applies constant power most of the time.
>

If you change to a smaller chain ring to ride up a steep hill, the
leverage you have over the chain is significantly increased, hence chain
tension is significantly increased, and wear.

--
JS

[Joerg]

I know. Similar when standing in the pedals a lot which is what I had to
do on account of 42T being the smallest chain ring. I've recently eased
that by fitting 11-32T instead of the old 11-21T in back which is the
max the old Shimano 600 derailer could take. In consequence I rarely
have to stand in the pedals and got a hundreds of extra miles out of my
last Wippermann chain. The routes on my road bike are almost the same
week to week and no matter where I go I always have to slog back up to
1450ft where I live.

Now you only have to explain that to Frank :-)

[Sir Ridesalot]

Is the 600 headset you're using the one with the scalloped nuts?

You need to use TWO wrenches to adjust a headset. You snug the cup to the proper tighteness and then you hod that nut in position with one wrench and then you use the second wrench to tighten the locknut. If you don't adjst the headset properly or tighten the locknut properly then it's no surprise thatt he headset comes loose. That's not a problem with the headset but with the user.

Cheers

[Joerg]

Unfortunately yes, like in the link above. I don't know what possessed
them to do such a design that is incompatible with any classic bicycle
wrench.

> You need to use TWO wrenches to adjust a headset. You snug the cup to
> the proper tighteness and then you hod that nut in position with one
> wrench and then you use the second wrench to tighten the locknut. If
> you don't adjst the headset properly or tighten the locknut properly
> then it's no surprise thatt he headset comes loose. That's not a
> problem with the headset but with the user.
>

That's what I am doing. There is a ring between lower and upper nut
which prevents the lower (adjusting) one to turn with the top. So you
don't need much holding force on the lower nut.

How much torque can I exert into the top nut before things go ka-crack?

[jbeattie]

Far more than your palms can tolerate with those flat wrenches -- or that you need to get it to stay tight. I think 20-ish foot pounds on that headset should get it snug -- but whether it stays snug is a different thing. I'm sure that if you bash a soft-ish aluminum cup road headset enough, it will loosen.

You should check your cups and crown race to make sure they are snug, too.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Seems to me that as a first approximation (a constant speed, zero
acceleration climb), the chain tension depends only on the bike weight,
the grade and the size of the _rear_ cog, not the front chainring.
Weight and slope determine the necessary force applied at the ground.
The ratio of rear cog diameter to tire diameter determines the tension
in the chain.

With accelerations that come from non-uniform torque applied at the
cranks, you get increases and decreases in chain tension away from the
mean tension of the steady state case. But that's certainly a secondary
effect.

And ISTM that the amplitude of that chain tension variability might be
smaller with a small front chainring. With a "granny" ring, I can spin
up a grade, whereas in a larger chainring, I have to do more stomping,
so to speak. I suspect that may give larger chain tension peaks.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:50:02 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

The problem with that philosophy is that a properly installed bearing
lasts for years and years while improperly installations usually fail
quickly.

>
>> I might comment that I have a Shimano 600 head set on one of my bikes
>> that has never come loose :-)
>>
>
>It it this type with the knurled nuts?
>
>http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/coronadelmar/Shimano_600_HP-6207_Headset_02.JPG
>
>How hard do you torque down the top nut? Mine works ok on regular roads
>but it does come loose on gravel roads and dilapidated old highways.
>Also during even the shortest offroad stretch if sufficiently gnarly. I
>use thick leather plus vise grips to tighten it and give it a lot of
>muscle. Maybe I should add a pipe extension for even more torque.
>
>I've even thought about filing down the nuts to get rid of this
>nonsensical knurl so I can use regular wrenches.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you use the word "knurl"
as there isn't any knurling on the reference you posted.
knurl - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knurling

I may be wrong but the head set I referred to, which doesn't look like
your reference, is on a bike that was originally equipped with a
complete Shimano 600 group set and I had assumed that the head set was
Shimano 600 also.

In any event, on my headset the upper race - the part in your
reference with the black lettering SHIMANO 600 is knurled.

See
http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/components/stronglight-griffith-comp.html
The "V.4" illustration is very similar to what I have.

I've owned the bike for, maybe 5 years now, and have never had any
problem with the head set coming loose.

To adjust I tighten the top bearing race until when I hold the front
brake and push the bike forward and backward I feel no movement of the
head bearings. I then hold the upper race so that it doesn't move and
tighten the lock nut. Then, to check, I try again moving the bike
against the front brake and also holding the front of the bike in the
air swing the handle bars back and forth throughout their maximum
travel to be sure that the bearings are not "binding".

As I mentioned, there is play in all threads and it is possible that
tightening the lock nut can move the upper race sufficiently, even
though it doesn't rotate, that it is too tight. Thus an "after adjust"
check.

I tighten the lock nut with a wrench that is 9 inches long, overall,
and just give it a good tug, with one hand. Holding the upper race
stationary.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 16:51:44 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

First, there is clearance in all threads, secondly the serrated ring
between the upper race and the lock nut has clearance. If you don't
hold the upper race perfectly stationary it will turn, and even if it
doesn't turn it will move very slightly on the steerer tube threads,
so it must be checked after adjusting.

How tight can you tighten without the threads failing? I don't know
but tightened with one hand (while the other hand holds the upper race
from turning) and without grunting, is likely tight enough.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 09:05:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

The original Volkswagen is referred to as a "frog" in Indonesian :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 14:16:43 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Sun, 22 May
>2016 20:17:08 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>

>And they were a good, inexpensive and long lasting improvement, too -
>so much so that most production motorcycles now use them from the
>factory.
>
>It's been my contention for a long time that a properly designed
>bicycle fork should have the flexibility in it's legs, not the
>steerer, and that if this is the case (as it used to be on the
>delicately curved and tapered fork legs of yore) taper rollers are
>equally valuable on pedal cycles.

Certainly. But is it useful to build a more elaborate and probably
more costly, set of bearings for something that has likely been
successfully used for a hundred years, or who knows, maybe more?

The 1-1/8 inch "modern" steerer tube, and bearings, for example, while
certainly stronger was almost universally implemented, not because it
was stronger, but because it was cheaper to manufacture.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:29:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/23/2016 5:25 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 22:54:56 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:48:32 +0700, John B <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I used to read Brandt's posts, but sometimes I thought he got carried
>>>> away with nomenclature. The "chain stretch" is an example. No, the
>>>> chain does not stretch, as in elastic band, but it does get longer, so
>>>> what do we say?
>>>
>>> We say what it is: chain wear. It's simple enough, why obfuscate it?
>>
>> Of course it is chain wear. But frankly few people actually are
>> completely descriptive in speaking. We say "bike" for bicycles and
>> motorcycles. Some people say "cool" meaning "calm self-control
>> (especially in trying circumstances) or unemotional" and others mean
>> it isn't warm. We say "post" meaning a stake in the ground or the
>> mail. And, and, and...
>
>I think that issues arise when such shortcut verbiage leads to
>misunderstanding of the phenomena, and to weird proposals for
>"improvements."
>

I think it is really jargon:, "a specialized technical terminology
characteristic of a particular subject". Or perhaps argot, "a
characteristic language of a particular group (as among thieves)".

I mean, are there any other devices that call a "sprocket" either a
"chain wheel" or a "cog", depending on location?

>Someone who really believes chains stretch (in the sense of metal
>yielding and elongating) may propose chains with thicker side plates to
>resist the "stretch" that comes from climbing mountains. That would, of
>course, be ineffective.

What's not to believe? I am assured that (1) Obama has done a
wonderful job, and that (2) Trump will do an even more wonderful job
:-)

>And IIRC, there have been posters in the past who were firmly convinced
>that their manly quads were capable of literally and permanently
>stretching chain. There are still, I believe, people who think their
>grip on the brake lever permanently stretch their brake cables.

Well, why ever not? After all, bike helmets will protect you in a
crash, glutton free is wonderful, and peanut butter-jelly sandwiches
are the food that made America great :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[James]

On 24/05/16 10:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/23/2016 6:10 PM, James wrote:
>> On 24/05/16 02:05, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The effect is elongation but, of course, the "stretch" is all in the
>>> pins. They seem to wear down faster when there is regular uphill mashing
>>> versus rides where one applies constant power most of the time.
>>>
>>
>> If you change to a smaller chain ring to ride up a steep hill, the
>> leverage you have over the chain is significantly increased, hence chain
>> tension is significantly increased, and wear.
>
> Seems to me that as a first approximation (a constant speed, zero
> acceleration climb), the chain tension depends only on the bike weight,
> the grade and the size of the _rear_ cog, not the front chainring.

I think the weight of the rider might play a part.

> Weight and slope determine the necessary force applied at the ground.
> The ratio of rear cog diameter to tire diameter determines the tension
> in the chain.
>

Using the same gear ratio, for example 39:13 compared with 51:17, both
3:1, riding at the same constant speed up a constant gradient, there
will be more tension in the chain using the 39:13 combination.

The chain also flexes (rotation at each pin) more to go around a smaller
toothed wheel.

And, if I produce 200W @ 90rpm (9.42 rad/sec) on a 53 tooth chain ring
(~107mm radius), the average chain tension is;

(200 / 9.42) / 0.107 = ~198N

The same power and cadence on a 39 tooth chain ring (~79mm radius) yields;

(200 / 9.42) / 0.079 = ~268N

> With accelerations that come from non-uniform torque applied at the
> cranks, you get increases and decreases in chain tension away from the
> mean tension of the steady state case. But that's certainly a secondary
> effect.
>
> And ISTM that the amplitude of that chain tension variability might be
> smaller with a small front chainring. With a "granny" ring, I can spin
> up a grade, whereas in a larger chainring, I have to do more stomping,
> so to speak. I suspect that may give larger chain tension peaks.
>
>

Much guesswork.

--
JS

[AMuzi]

You have a 1"x24t thread so something less than a millimeter
of aluminum nut depth engaged. You average guy will strip
those threads away before breaking anything else.

Sir noted well that the adjustable top race and locknut
should be locked together using two wrenches.

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

[AMuzi]

The DuraAce and 600 headsets scalloped for this wrench:
http://velobase.com/ViewTool.aspx?ID=5f1435c4-ff86-4185-ad98-b91a5a695ff1&AbsPos=19

also adjust readily with a regular 32mm wrench. You do not
need the cute and expensive wrench at all, although it is
cute to hang on the wall.

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:

> On 5/21/2016 6:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > I came across an advertisement for a frame and the description said
> > "HEADSET 1" cartridge bearing".
> >
> > I have never seen a 1" head set that used "cartridge" bearings. Is
> > there such a thing and can anyone point me to one?
> >
>

> Not new or rare at all. The original Chris King headset
> (around 1982 or so?) was 1" threaded BSC with cartridge
> inserts. That's still a current product at CK, BTW.
>
> Here's a current model by Tange:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/wfd16dc1.jpg
>
> They exist in 1" BSC threaded and also 1" AH threadless

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

yeahyeah but muh cane creek cost $7

[Sir Ridesalot]

The scallop headset wrenches may not needed but they sure do fit those headset parts really well. In fact you need to be positive that the spacer ring is thicker than the wrench or you won't be able to get the lowere wrench off the headset once the headset is tightened. Then again that might not be such a bad thing for Joerge because then he could tighten the top hedset cup as he rides. VBEG LOL

I also like the plastic cap that goes over those scallop headsets.
Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2016 2:41 AM, James wrote:
> On 24/05/16 10:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/23/2016 6:10 PM, James wrote:
>>> On 24/05/16 02:05, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The effect is elongation but, of course, the "stretch" is all in the
>>>> pins. They seem to wear down faster when there is regular uphill
>>>> mashing
>>>> versus rides where one applies constant power most of the time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you change to a smaller chain ring to ride up a steep hill, the
>>> leverage you have over the chain is significantly increased, hence chain
>>> tension is significantly increased, and wear.
>>
>> Seems to me that as a first approximation (a constant speed, zero
>> acceleration climb), the chain tension depends only on the bike weight,
>> the grade and the size of the _rear_ cog, not the front chainring.
>
> I think the weight of the rider might play a part.

Yes, I meant to say bike+rider. If you add loads to the bike, it would
be bike+rider+groceries or whatever. If you attach a trailer, it would
be +trailer... and so on.

>
>> Weight and slope determine the necessary force applied at the ground.
>> The ratio of rear cog diameter to tire diameter determines the tension
>> in the chain.
>>
>
> Using the same gear ratio, for example 39:13 compared with 51:17, both
> 3:1, riding at the same constant speed up a constant gradient, there
> will be more tension in the chain using the 39:13 combination.

Yes, as I said. It depends on the ratio of cog radius to wheel radius.

>
> The chain also flexes (rotation at each pin) more to go around a smaller
> toothed wheel.
>
> And, if I produce 200W @ 90rpm (9.42 rad/sec) on a 53 tooth chain ring
> (~107mm radius), the average chain tension is;
>
> (200 / 9.42) / 0.107 = ~198N
>
> The same power and cadence on a 39 tooth chain ring (~79mm radius) yields;
>
> (200 / 9.42) / 0.079 = ~268N

We'd have to agree on what factors are being held constant. The
statement "If you change to a smaller chain ring to ride up a steep

hill, the leverage you have over the chain is significantly

increased..." seems to imply the hill has not changed. In that case,
the chain tension will not have changed. Changing from a 53 tooth to a
39 tooth (front) chainring will change the climbing speed, the power
required and/or the cadence. That's why people downshift, after all.

>> With accelerations that come from non-uniform torque applied at the
>> cranks, you get increases and decreases in chain tension away from the
>> mean tension of the steady state case. But that's certainly a secondary
>> effect.
>>
>> And ISTM that the amplitude of that chain tension variability might be
>> smaller with a small front chainring. With a "granny" ring, I can spin
>> up a grade, whereas in a larger chainring, I have to do more stomping,
>> so to speak. I suspect that may give larger chain tension peaks.
>
> Much guesswork.

Sure, regarding the amplitude part of the problem. It's not guesswork on
the rest.

We can discuss the amplitude effects. What are your guesses?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

That what I am doing but it does not hold longer than 100mi or so, or
until I hit the first bumpy road. Do you think the 20 lb-ft Jay
mentioned are safe? That's a lot of torque, about half of what a freehub
bolt wants.

[Joerg]

It was like that from the beginning where the bike was under post-sales
maintenance at the LBS. That was a pro shop in Germany. They said "it
happens" on some of those roads in Eastern Belgium where many of my
rides were. The roads there often were in deplorable condition. Like
they are starting to be in California because of mismanagement of budgets.

>>
>>> I might comment that I have a Shimano 600 head set on one of my bikes
>>> that has never come loose :-)
>>>
>>
>> It it this type with the knurled nuts?
>>
>> http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/coronadelmar/Shimano_600_HP-6207_Headset_02.JPG
>>
>> How hard do you torque down the top nut? Mine works ok on regular roads
>> but it does come loose on gravel roads and dilapidated old highways.
>> Also during even the shortest offroad stretch if sufficiently gnarly. I
>> use thick leather plus vise grips to tighten it and give it a lot of
>> muscle. Maybe I should add a pipe extension for even more torque.
>>
>> I've even thought about filing down the nuts to get rid of this
>> nonsensical knurl so I can use regular wrenches.
>
> I'm not sure what you are referring to when you use the word "knurl"
> as there isn't any knurling on the reference you posted.
> knurl - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knurling
>

Well, I meant a really coarse and wavy knurl.

> I may be wrong but the head set I referred to, which doesn't look like
> your reference, is on a bike that was originally equipped with a
> complete Shimano 600 group set and I had assumed that the head set was
> Shimano 600 also.
>

Shimano made them both ways. One with classical hex nut structure and
then, whatever possessed them, the wavy version which makes no sense at
all. Unfortunately I have the latter.

> In any event, on my headset the upper race - the part in your
> reference with the black lettering SHIMANO 600 is knurled.
>
> See
> http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/components/stronglight-griffith-comp.html
> The "V.4" illustration is very similar to what I have.
>
> I've owned the bike for, maybe 5 years now, and have never had any
> problem with the head set coming loose.
>

Amazing, especially since you can only hold the lower nut with your
fingers if you don't want to damage its surface. In Europe I was not the
only one where this steerer kept coming loose. Aside from me it was
mostly Belgian riders who complained. On the well paved surfaces of the
Netherlands or Germany it held on well. Eastern Belgium, different story.

> To adjust I tighten the top bearing race until when I hold the front
> brake and push the bike forward and backward I feel no movement of the
> head bearings. I then hold the upper race so that it doesn't move and
> tighten the lock nut. Then, to check, I try again moving the bike
> against the front brake and also holding the front of the bike in the
> air swing the handle bars back and forth throughout their maximum
> travel to be sure that the bearings are not "binding".
>
> As I mentioned, there is play in all threads and it is possible that
> tightening the lock nut can move the upper race sufficiently, even
> though it doesn't rotate, that it is too tight. Thus an "after adjust"
> check.
>

Yes, like the QR does to axles where you have to leave an ever so slight
play when not mounted. Which reminds me, I have to get rid of the %^&#!!
QR on my MTB front axle.

> I tighten the lock nut with a wrench that is 9 inches long, overall,
> and just give it a good tug, with one hand. Holding the upper race
> stationary.
>

Do you think a "good tug" with your arms muscle is in the vicinity of
the 20 lb-ft Jay mentioned? I am not too muscular but have stripped 16mm
threaded crane hooks so I'd like to torque it down in a more controlled
fashion. Could not find a formal Shimano torque rating for it.

[Joerg]

No kidding, I have often tightened it while riding. Pulse the front
brake, tighten lower nut, then pulse some more and tighten upper nut.
That'll tide it over until back home where the big wrenches are.

> I also like the plastic cap that goes over those scallop headsets.

That I've never seen, didn't come with my set back in the early 80's.

[Frank Krygowski]

I think the main advantage of that Shimano wrench design is that it's
impossible for the headset wrench to slip off and round the nut's
corners, the way a simple hex (or octogon) wrench can.

I have that headset on one bike, our tandem. When I got it, I had
little money but I had access to an excellent machine shop. I made my
own wrenches for that headset. They do work well, but they're not
really necessary.

But we did have trouble with that headset loosening sometimes. I
eventually installed a Growler headset nut, one that locks in place via
a transverse allen screw. I've had no loosening problems since.

See http://www.bikepro.com/products/headsets/hset_acc.html

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-24 09:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-05-23 18:30, John B. wrote:

[...]

>>> I may be wrong but the head set I referred to, which doesn't look like
>>> your reference, is on a bike that was originally equipped with a
>>> complete Shimano 600 group set and I had assumed that the head set was
>>> Shimano 600 also.
>>>
>>
>> Shimano made them both ways. One with classical hex nut structure and
>> then, whatever possessed them, the wavy version which makes no sense at
>> all. Unfortunately I have the latter.
>
> I think the main advantage of that Shimano wrench design is that it's
> impossible for the headset wrench to slip off and round the nut's
> corners, the way a simple hex (or octogon) wrench can.
>

I've never had such large wrenches slip. IMHO this wavy stuff is a
stupid design. That wasn't Shimano's brightest moment.

> I have that headset on one bike, our tandem. When I got it, I had
> little money but I had access to an excellent machine shop. I made my
> own wrenches for that headset. They do work well, but they're not
> really necessary.
>

Access to a well equipped machine shop is great but most of us aren't
afforded such luck.

> But we did have trouble with that headset loosening sometimes. I
> eventually installed a Growler headset nut, one that locks in place via
> a transverse allen screw. I've had no loosening problems since.
>
> See http://www.bikepro.com/products/headsets/hset_acc.html
>

That's a good option. The redneck method would be a big hose clamp
locking both nuts together so they can loosen WRT each other. Not as
elegant as your solution, of course, but no shipping and available at
the local hardware store.

[Joerg]

Well, it almost looks like one. My first car was called "The Ugly Duck"
in Germany:

http://www.schiavon-sa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Citroen_2cv_1966_carideal-300x225.jpg

16hp out of 430ccm ... VROOOOM ...

It was very versatile. Once I transported a huge upright fridge with it
by removing the top assembly and making a "truck" out of it. The owner
of the fridge was embarrassed that his VW van could not fit this fridge.
But that was topped by the transport of a bed and mattress ... using two
road bikes. Mainly because I could not afford dual registration and
plates for the car in the Netherlands plus Germany as a student.

[jbeattie]

Goddamn, just knock the thing out and buy another one that does not come loose and doesn't require special wrenches. Try this: http://harriscyclery.net/product/velo-orange-grand-cru-1-threaded-headset-26.4-iso-3021.htm Or go get a plain old Ultegra of the day -- or Andrew probably has any number that he could sell you. Half an hour and your problems are over. Beats machining tools.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Sir Ridesalot]

According to the Shimano 1982 maual:

4. Adjustment

Screw the upper head cup to a position where the firk stem can be turned lightly without interference.
Next step, fix the upper head cup by use of the exclusive Shimano spanner (TL-HP10) and tighten the lock nut. Torque should be 300~400 kg.cm (260 ~350 in. lbs). When using a thinner head tube, the handle stem should be assembled before tightening the lock nut.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 1:36:44 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

Snipped

> > That's a good option. The redneck method would be a big hose clamp
> > locking both nuts together so they can loosen WRT each other. Not as
> > elegant as your solution, of course, but no shipping and available at
> > the local hardware store.
>
> Goddamn, just knock the thing out and buy another one that does not come loose and doesn't require special wrenches. Try this: http://harriscyclery.net/product/velo-orange-grand-cru-1-threaded-headset-26.4-iso-3021.htm Or go get a plain old Ultegra of the day -- or Andrew probably has any number that he could sell you. Half an hour and your problems are over. Beats machining tools.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Probably needs a new one bu now seeing as it's from t least the mid-1980s and has been ridden a fair bit with the top locknut not properly tightened. just tightening the top lock nut when it gets when loose is not good since it'll just loosen again in short order.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

Do it, and report back, please.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I didn't expect anyone else to machine tools. I did that only because
that's the headset that came on the bike, and I had the ability to do
it. But again, those tools aren't mandatory with that headset. They're
nice, but not mandatory.

I'll be interested in photos of Joerg's hose clamp kludge.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

I very much doubt that a hose clamp is wide enough to stop a headset from loosening or if you can get a hose clamp tight enough to the headset and tighten the hose clamp enough at the sdame time to keep a headset tightened.

Sometimes it's best to realize your item is toast and get a new one and install it properly.


So many people don't istall or adjust their stuff properly and then then when it's damaged or it breaks they blame the product.

Cheers

[AMuzi]

That's right. Threaded headsets range from under $10 to $150
(not counting new vintage which can be several times that).
No shortage of selection, I think we have 25 different BSC
headsets in stock today.

[AMuzi]

In the same way that a guy who loses a sprint finish throws
his bicycle and screams at the mechanic.

[jbeattie]

I guessed 20 foot pounds, which is actually low. Considering that there is no torque wrench fitting for that headset, the correct torque is actually: "about this much" (noticing dents in palm, minor biceps/pecs strain).

Actually, my elbows click when I hit the right torque. It's a feature.

This is why I love integrated threadless. You can change yourf headset with a 5mm wrench at the back door of the LBS (assuming no crown race change is needed). If you mung the internal bearing seats, you're f*****, but that's hard to do.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

Is that online somewhere? I couldn't find it in mine.

>> 4. Adjustment
>>
>> Screw the upper head cup to a position where the firk stem can be
>> turned lightly without interference. Next step, fix the upper head
>> cup by use of the exclusive Shimano spanner (TL-HP10) and tighten
>> the lock nut. Torque should be 300~400 kg.cm (260 ~350 in. lbs).
>> When using a thinner head tube, the handle stem should be assembled
>> before tightening the lock nut.
>

> I guessed 20 foot pounds, which is actually low. ...


But you were quite close with your guess.


> ... Considering that

> there is no torque wrench fitting for that headset, the correct
> torque is actually: "about this much" (noticing dents in palm, minor
> biceps/pecs strain).
>

"Grandma, how much is a pinch and a smidgen?" ... "Well, every good
housewife knows that!"

> Actually, my elbows click when I hit the right torque. It's a
> feature.
>

Mine starts oozing right now if I exert muscle, on account of a very bad
poison oak case.

> This is why I love integrated threadless. You can change yourf
> headset with a 5mm wrench at the back door of the LBS (assuming no
> crown race change is needed). If you mung the internal bearing seats,
> you're f*****, but that's hard to do.
>

But those also come loose occasionally because the usual 5nm torque
rating on the stem is too wimpy for MTB. With enough toothpaste in there
mine now holds somewhat ok. The good old abrasize kind, not the gel type
for electric tooth brushes.

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-24 11:31, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 1:20 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-05-24 09:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>>> But we did have trouble with that headset loosening sometimes. I
>>> eventually installed a Growler headset nut, one that locks in place via
>>> a transverse allen screw. I've had no loosening problems since.
>>>
>>> See http://www.bikepro.com/products/headsets/hset_acc.html
>>>
>>
>> That's a good option. The redneck method would be a big hose clamp
>> locking both nuts together so they can loosen WRT each other. Not as
>> elegant as your solution, of course, but no shipping and available at
>> the local hardware store.
>
> Do it, and report back, please.
>

Will do but first I have to ride a few gnarly stretches before I can
report any success. It has to wait though. Right now my right arm is
heavily swollen from poison oak and oozing. Can't even operate the brake
lever. So no rides for a while. Starting to feel cycling withdrawal
symptoms :-(

[Sir Ridesalot]

When I adjusted my Dura Ace AX headset with the wrenches i got from you (thanks again) I wondered if the scallop design of the headset was to provided more surface area for the wrenches to grip on soft aluminim alloy that what a regular hex design would have without increasing the size of the headset parts.

Cheers

[jbeattie]

Joerg is a special case and creams a lot of equipment, but back in the day when someone complained about a perpetually loose headset, the first thing I looked for was whether a JIS headset had been stuck in an ISO frame. Next up was lack of a lock washer or low torque on the lock nut. If the headset was beaten-up from riding loose and got pitted -- into the trash. When in doubt, throw it out. That's why they make headset presses -- and money printing presses. Keep the economy strong!

Joerg, help balance the trade deficit and buy a Chris King headset, made right here in the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Portland. Provide the downtrodden Bohemians of Portland with a living wage! If you don't buy CK, who will support the gourmet century? http://gourmetcentury.com/ride/ Become a sustaining member. Call now. Operators are standing by.

-- Jay Beattie.









-- Jay Beattie.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 3:40:14 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-05-24 12:28, jbeattie wrote:

Snipped

> > This is why I love integrated threadless. You can change yourf
> > headset with a 5mm wrench at the back door of the LBS (assuming no
> > crown race change is needed). If you mung the internal bearing seats,
> > you're f*****, but that's hard to do.
> >
>
> But those also come loose occasionally because the usual 5nm torque
> rating on the stem is too wimpy for MTB. With enough toothpaste in there
> mine now holds somewhat ok. The good old abrasize kind, not the gel type
> for electric tooth brushes.
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Geeze Joerg, yet another thing on a bicycle that doesn't work for you yet works for thousands of other riders many who ride much more extreme terrain than you do?

Are you positive you're stting up and then adjusting your components properly? rather than not being bothered getting it just right?

Cheers

[Joerg]

Well, it was the same when initially the LBS mintained the bike. He had
to tighten that every single time. But ... toothpaste fixed it.

Same with the seat post that was constantly sliding down no matter how
hard I closed the QR. Toothpaste sure fixed that.

[Joerg]

My first attempt of such support (PDW bike light) ended in utter
disappointment so now I am gun shy :-)

But Chris King has a great reputation. Just like Phil Woods does, where
I discovered to my surprise that my MTB buddy once worked there.

> http://gourmetcentury.com/ride/ Become a sustaining member. Call
> now. Operators are standing by.
>

My vintage bike would feel right at home there except I don't have such
a classy saddle:

http://gourmetcentury.com/ride/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/gcsonoma6.jpg

But hey, Sonoma is supposed to be Californian.

http://www.sonomacounty.com/articles/top-farm-table-restaurants-sonoma-county

I envy you guys for your growler fill stations.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 3:40:14 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

Snipped

> Is that online somewhere? I couldn't find it in mine.
>
>
> >> 4. Adjustment
> >>
> >> Screw the upper head cup to a position where the firk stem can be
> >> turned lightly without interference. Next step, fix the upper head
> >> cup by use of the exclusive Shimano spanner (TL-HP10) and tighten
> >> the lock nut. Torque should be 300~400 kg.cm (260 ~350 in. lbs).
> >> When using a thinner head tube, the handle stem should be assembled
> >> before tightening the lock nut.
> >

Snipped

You can find a lot of Shimao instructions from that era at

http://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/Shimano_Bicycle_System_Components_(1982).html

Cheers

[Joerg]

Thank you. Loks a bit different from what I have but the mounting
methods should generally be the same.

[James]

People generally down shift as the gradient increases.

I try to maintain relatively constant power (heart rate at least) and
cadence. This is the sweet spot where the body can produce maximal
power with minimal muscle damage and waste build up.

>>> With accelerations that come from non-uniform torque applied at the
>>> cranks, you get increases and decreases in chain tension away from the
>>> mean tension of the steady state case. But that's certainly a secondary
>>> effect.
>>>
>>> And ISTM that the amplitude of that chain tension variability might be
>>> smaller with a small front chainring. With a "granny" ring, I can spin
>>> up a grade, whereas in a larger chainring, I have to do more stomping,
>>> so to speak. I suspect that may give larger chain tension peaks.
>>
>> Much guesswork.
>
> Sure, regarding the amplitude part of the problem. It's not guesswork on
> the rest.
>
> We can discuss the amplitude effects. What are your guesses?
>
>

Stick to the steady state problem first.

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

I consider that problem solved. Look at a free body diagram of the
entire bicycle, then a free body diagram of the rear wheel.

I get the following chain tension:

T = Wtot* sin(theta)*Rw/Rc

where Wtot is weight of the entire bike+rider+other_stuff, theta is the
slope of the road surface, Rw is the radius of the wheel and Rc is the
radius of the rear cog. The front chainwheel doesn't come into the
equation.

Do you see any problem with that?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

I don't have a 31.25 tooth rear sprocket to go with my 53 tooth chain
ring that would give the same gear ratio as I have with my 39 tooth
chain ring and 23 tooth rear sprocket.

YMMV.

--
JS

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-24 16:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 6:06 PM, James wrote:
>> On 25/05/16 01:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2016 2:41 AM, James wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/16 10:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>>>>> With accelerations that come from non-uniform torque applied at the
>>>>> cranks, you get increases and decreases in chain tension away from the
>>>>> mean tension of the steady state case. But that's certainly a
>>>>> secondary
>>>>> effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> And ISTM that the amplitude of that chain tension variability might be
>>>>> smaller with a small front chainring. With a "granny" ring, I can
>>>>> spin
>>>>> up a grade, whereas in a larger chainring, I have to do more stomping,
>>>>> so to speak. I suspect that may give larger chain tension peaks.
>>>>
>>>> Much guesswork.
>>>
>>> Sure, regarding the amplitude part of the problem. It's not guesswork on
>>> the rest.
>>>
>>> We can discuss the amplitude effects. What are your guesses?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Stick to the steady state problem first.
>
> I consider that problem solved. Look at a free body diagram of the
> entire bicycle, then a free body diagram of the rear wheel.
>
> I get the following chain tension:
>
> T = Wtot* sin(theta)*Rw/Rc
>
> where Wtot is weight of the entire bike+rider+other_stuff, theta is the
> slope of the road surface, Rw is the radius of the wheel and Rc is the
> radius of the rear cog. The front chainwheel doesn't come into the
> equation.
>
> Do you see any problem with that?
>

There is. If a bike is equipped with a granny gear up front it can exert
much more stress on a chain than one that doesn't have a granny gear.
Because the rider might, as I have many times, decide to muscle up that
last ultra-steep stretch instead of hopping off. Standing in the pedals
and crunched over the handlebar so the front wheel won't rise. Without
the granny gear his weight would not suffice and the bicycle would stall
out.

Not surprisingly that is also a typical situation where a chain snaps.

It's the same with larger rear cogs except that stresses spokes and
freehubs more instead of the chain. When I switched from a max of 21T in
back to 32T I promptly crunched my road bike hub on a steep hill that I
used to have to walk up.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:37:52 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped> There is. If a bike is equipped with a granny gear up front it can exert

> much more stress on a chain than one that doesn't have a granny gear.
> Because the rider might, as I have many times, decide to muscle up that
> last ultra-steep stretch instead of hopping off. Standing in the pedals
> and crunched over the handlebar so the front wheel won't rise. Without
> the granny gear his weight would not suffice and the bicycle would stall
> out.
>
> Not surprisingly that is also a typical situation where a chain snaps.
>
> It's the same with larger rear cogs except that stresses spokes and
> freehubs more instead of the chain. When I switched from a max of 21T in
> back to 32T I promptly crunched my road bike hub on a steep hill that I
> used to have to walk up.
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

So, once again you destroyed equipment that thousands of others use in adverse condiitions with no problems. Amazing Joerg. Simply absolutely amazing.

Cheers

[Joerg]

Not so amazing. That freehub was old and the road bike might have been a
tad heavy with some load. It more or less locked up, didn't skip,
something in there must have wedged itself. I was able to limp it home.

I crunched the freehub of my MTB as well after a little over 1000mi.
That one suddenly developed a lot of bearing play and started skipping.
Shifting became a problem and there were lots of ka-clunk sounds from
the back. Since the MTB just a few months old they gave me a whole new
rear-wheel on warranty. The freehub bolt would not budge even though the
bike dealer and I leaned in with all we could and he is quite muscular.

Oh, and I broke two saddles over the last couple of years, along with
other stuff ...

[Frank Krygowski]

I wish you'd comment on the equation for chain tension. Is it correct?

I guess I could put the free body diagrams on the web, if that would
help. But they're pretty simple.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

James and I are talking about the chain tension necessary to move a
bike+rider at constant speed up a specified slope. I'm saying that in
that instance, the chain tension is not dependent on the front chainring
size.

I'm using physics to determine the necessary tension. You're talking
about something else.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Just a data point, I broke a Sedis Sport 8sp chain on my old T1000 by crushing the rollers, a few of which broke and fell off. That was from riding through the West Hills in a 30/28 (old Ultegra triple) while pulling my son in a Burley trailer up this hill on the way home from day care: http://tinyurl.com/ju7zp2u

The chain didn't snap. This could have been a defective batch of rollers. Who knows.

-- Jay Beattie

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:37:53 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

Strange that. I have a 32 tooth cog on one of my bikes and even in the
"granny gear" (24 teeth) I've never broken a hub riding up hills that
with a 21T I would have to push up.



--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:25:43 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-05-23 18:30, John B. wrote:

>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:50:02 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-05-22 19:26, John B. wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:35:56 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2016-05-21 23:14, John B. wrote:

Probably if I looked I could find a torque specification, but why
would I bother? After all, I've never had a head set loosen.

But I would have to question your whole statement. If you hit a bump
with a bicycle the major force exerted is upward, against the bottom
(fixed) bearing in the head set, which would be followed by a force,
downward amounting of the weight of the fork, wheel and tire.

What you seem to be talking about is some force that causes the upper
bearing race and lock nut to loosen... or a force that stretches the
steerer tube.

To be frank, I cannot imagine any antics with a road bike that would
impose a significant downward force on the steerer tube to stretch it,
nor can I envision a force on the top bearing or retaining nut that
would tend to loosen it.

I suggested that you take the bike to a competent shop and insure that
the head bearing races fit the head tube correctly and that they were
properly installed and you say that you don't want to bother.

In short, I can only assume that you are incapable of properly
installing the front fork, and really don't care whether it is
correctly installed or not.

Of course if a part is not correctly fitted on a machine the whole
thing could break. Which, I suppose, supports your self-image of the
big, powerful, guy who breaks bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 10:20:06 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-05-24 09:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> On 5/24/2016 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-23 18:30, John B. wrote:
>
>

>[...]

>
>
>>>> I may be wrong but the head set I referred to, which doesn't look like
>>>> your reference, is on a bike that was originally equipped with a
>>>> complete Shimano 600 group set and I had assumed that the head set was
>>>> Shimano 600 also.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Shimano made them both ways. One with classical hex nut structure and
>>> then, whatever possessed them, the wavy version which makes no sense at
>>> all. Unfortunately I have the latter.
>>

>> I think the main advantage of that Shimano wrench design is that it's
>> impossible for the headset wrench to slip off and round the nut's
>> corners, the way a simple hex (or octogon) wrench can.
>>
>
>I've never had such large wrenches slip. IMHO this wavy stuff is a
>stupid design. That wasn't Shimano's brightest moment.
>
>
>> I have that headset on one bike, our tandem. When I got it, I had
>> little money but I had access to an excellent machine shop. I made my
>> own wrenches for that headset. They do work well, but they're not
>> really necessary.
>>
>
>Access to a well equipped machine shop is great but most of us aren't
>afforded such luck.
>

Actually, and contrary to Frank's post, a fully equipped machine shop
is not necessary. I recently made a pair of head set wrenches using a
4" angle grinder and a few files... Oh Yes, and a vise (or is that
vice)?

>> But we did have trouble with that headset loosening sometimes. I
>> eventually installed a Growler headset nut, one that locks in place via
>> a transverse allen screw. I've had no loosening problems since.
>>
>> See http://www.bikepro.com/products/headsets/hset_acc.html
>>
>

>That's a good option. The redneck method would be a big hose clamp
>locking both nuts together so they can loosen WRT each other. Not as
>elegant as your solution, of course, but no shipping and available at
>the local hardware store.

I don't know if I qualify as a "red neck" but my solution would be to
correctly install the thing and adjust it properly.

At least that is what I do with my bikes and I've never had the
problem that you describe. Nor, apparently from the posts here, has
anyone else.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 14:33:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2016 1:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:

>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-24 09:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2016 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-05-23 18:30, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I may be wrong but the head set I referred to, which doesn't look like
>>>>>> your reference, is on a bike that was originally equipped with a
>>>>>> complete Shimano 600 group set and I had assumed that the head set was
>>>>>> Shimano 600 also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shimano made them both ways. One with classical hex nut structure and
>>>>> then, whatever possessed them, the wavy version which makes no sense at
>>>>> all. Unfortunately I have the latter.
>>>>
>>>> I think the main advantage of that Shimano wrench design is that it's
>>>> impossible for the headset wrench to slip off and round the nut's
>>>> corners, the way a simple hex (or octogon) wrench can.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've never had such large wrenches slip. IMHO this wavy stuff is a
>>> stupid design. That wasn't Shimano's brightest moment.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have that headset on one bike, our tandem. When I got it, I had
>>>> little money but I had access to an excellent machine shop. I made my
>>>> own wrenches for that headset. They do work well, but they're not
>>>> really necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Access to a well equipped machine shop is great but most of us aren't
>>> afforded such luck.
>>>
>>>

>>>> But we did have trouble with that headset loosening sometimes. I
>>>> eventually installed a Growler headset nut, one that locks in place via
>>>> a transverse allen screw. I've had no loosening problems since.
>>>>
>>>> See http://www.bikepro.com/products/headsets/hset_acc.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a good option. The redneck method would be a big hose clamp
>>> locking both nuts together so they can loosen WRT each other. Not as
>>> elegant as your solution, of course, but no shipping and available at
>>> the local hardware store.
>>

>> Goddamn, just knock the thing out and buy another one that does not come loose and doesn't require special wrenches. Try this: http://harriscyclery.net/product/velo-orange-grand-cru-1-threaded-headset-26.4-iso-3021.htm Or go get a plain old Ultegra of the day -- or Andrew probably has any number that he could sell you. Half an hour and your problems are over. Beats machining tools.
>

>I didn't expect anyone else to machine tools. I did that only because
>that's the headset that came on the bike, and I had the ability to do
>it. But again, those tools aren't mandatory with that headset. They're
>nice, but not mandatory.
>

As for tools, I have adjusted head bearings using two waterpump
pliers.... and it didn't loosen. (I'm a bit more sophisticated these
days and have a wrench :-)

>I'll be interested in photos of Joerg's hose clamp kludge.

Imagine two loose nuts clamped together.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, of course. "I could not be wrong!"
--
cheers,

John B.

[Ralph Barone]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>

> I consider that problem solved. Look at a free body diagram of the
> entire bicycle, then a free body diagram of the rear wheel.
>
> I get the following chain tension:
>
> T = Wtot* sin(theta)*Rw/Rc
>
> where Wtot is weight of the entire bike+rider+other_stuff, theta is the
> slope of the road surface, Rw is the radius of the wheel and Rc is the
> radius of the rear cog. The front chainwheel doesn't come into the
> equation.
>
> Do you see any problem with that?
>
>

No, except there may be multiple chainring/sprocket combinations that give
you the same ratio. In that case, the pair with the larger diameter is
easier on the chain.

[James]

As you said, we have to agree on what factors are held constant. My
followup was that humans tend to maintain power and cadence (within a
useable band).

I quite often use a 53x17 on the flat, and simply swap to the small ring
to climb a hill. I gave an example of that above, and how the chain
tension will increase as a result. Is there something wrong with the
equation of power divided angular velocity that gives torque at the
crank, and divide that by chain ring radius to give chain tension?

To iterate, climbing a hill using same gear ratio but different chain
rings, there will be less chain tension using a 53x31.25 gear than a
39x23. This does not violate the equations either of us have posed.

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

That's already covered by the formula. Rc is the sprocket radius.
Dividing by a larger Rc gives a smaller chain tension.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-24 20:57, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 10:20:06 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-24 09:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>>
>>> I have that headset on one bike, our tandem. When I got it, I had
>>> little money but I had access to an excellent machine shop. I made my
>>> own wrenches for that headset. They do work well, but they're not
>>> really necessary.
>>>
>>
>> Access to a well equipped machine shop is great but most of us aren't
>> afforded such luck.
>>
>
> Actually, and contrary to Frank's post, a fully equipped machine shop
> is not necessary. I recently made a pair of head set wrenches using a
> 4" angle grinder and a few files...

Sure, but I really don't want to spend a lot of time making a tool just
because a manufacturer did a suboptimal design. I just use vise grips.
To heck with appearance, to me a road bike is only another vehicle, not
a show item.

> ... Oh Yes, and a vise (or is that vice)?
>

Vices are a different thing :-)

>>> But we did have trouble with that headset loosening sometimes. I
>>> eventually installed a Growler headset nut, one that locks in place via
>>> a transverse allen screw. I've had no loosening problems since.
>>>
>>> See http://www.bikepro.com/products/headsets/hset_acc.html
>>>
>>
>> That's a good option. The redneck method would be a big hose clamp
>> locking both nuts together so they can loosen WRT each other. Not as
>> elegant as your solution, of course, but no shipping and available at
>> the local hardware store.
>
> I don't know if I qualify as a "red neck" but my solution would be to
> correctly install the thing and adjust it properly.
>

That's what the bike dealer back in the early 80's did and what I did
later. It does not hold on very rough roads or on dirt roads.

> At least that is what I do with my bikes and I've never had the
> problem that you describe. Nor, apparently from the posts here, has
> anyone else.
>

People who venture from pristine paved roads do. I have seen many bikes
(mostly MTB) that had bailing wire kludges here and there because the
factory stuff wasn't up to snuff.

Heck, even noble manufacturers do it. Recently I was following an MTB
rider on singletrack and yelled to stop. The rear brake line had come
loose to the point where is was almost touching the spokes. Turns out
their "standard" mounting method to the frame was ... plastic zip ties!
I bet in automotive that would not pass muster with the authorities or
result in a recall.

[Joerg]

Doubt it but only time will tell. The problem is always the top nut
letting go first and then the lower one slowly follows. The bottom one
only lets go a little while the top rattles all the way loose. If they
remain under mutual tension they (hopefully) won't turn on the thread
anymore.

[Frank Krygowski]

Our disagreement is in the definition of the problem.

I think your idea is fine IF the rider behaves exactly as you say when
he encounters a change of grade. But I think Joerg was originally
talking about climbing difficult hills and therefore seeing more chain
wear. ISTM that when hills get really tough, almost all cyclists
increase their power output (otherwise, why would they be more tired at
the top of a mile-long hill compared to the end of a flat mile?); and
most cyclists also lower their cadence. Perhaps it's not optimum, and
dedicated spinners might not start "mashing," but mashing is pretty
common practice.

It therefore seems to me that calculations assuming constant power and
cadence have little to do with chain tension on hills.

It's quite easy to calculate the chain tension necessary for a given
hill and load, as I did. Of course, a chain with that tension could
have a lower or higher velocity, based on crank rpm and chainring
diameter. Tension times velocity is power, so that can be used to
determine rider power output.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-24 20:50, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:25:43 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-23 18:30, John B. wrote:

[...]

>>
>>> I tighten the lock nut with a wrench that is 9 inches long, overall,
>>> and just give it a good tug, with one hand. Holding the upper race
>>> stationary.
>>>
>>
>> Do you think a "good tug" with your arms muscle is in the vicinity of
>> the 20 lb-ft Jay mentioned? I am not too muscular but have stripped 16mm
>> threaded crane hooks so I'd like to torque it down in a more controlled
>> fashion. Could not find a formal Shimano torque rating for it.
>
> Probably if I looked I could find a torque specification, but why
> would I bother? After all, I've never had a head set loosen.
>
> But I would have to question your whole statement. If you hit a bump
> with a bicycle the major force exerted is upward, against the bottom
> (fixed) bearing in the head set, which would be followed by a force,
> downward amounting of the weight of the fork, wheel and tire.
>
> What you seem to be talking about is some force that causes the upper
> bearing race and lock nut to loosen... or a force that stretches the
> steerer tube.
>

Unfortunately many roads in California have become like this:

http://moneytipcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/large_bad-road.jpg

I also sometimes have to travel roads like this:

http://watislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/bad-road-300x200.jpg

Often in order to get to a particular desitination as my bikes are used
as means of transportation part of the time and not just as sports
equipment.

> To be frank, I cannot imagine any antics with a road bike that would
> impose a significant downward force on the steerer tube to stretch it,
> nor can I envision a force on the top bearing or retaining nut that
> would tend to loosen it.
>

You have similar forces in play as on a mountain bike even though to a
lesser extent. Front-rear jerking which probably does the most to shake
things loose, up and down, sideways.

> I suggested that you take the bike to a competent shop and insure that
> the head bearing races fit the head tube correctly and that they were
> properly installed and you say that you don't want to bother.
>
> In short, I can only assume that you are incapable of properly
> installing the front fork, and really don't care whether it is
> correctly installed or not.
>
> Of course if a part is not correctly fitted on a machine the whole
> thing could break. Which, I suppose, supports your self-image of the
> big, powerful, guy who breaks bicycles.
>

As I have written several times this bike _had_ been maintained by a LBS
for a while (was part of the custom build deal) and it shook loose. I
was not the only one that it happened to with this assembly and the
mechanic wasn't surprised after I told him where I ride. "This isn't
supposed to happen so fast. Where do you ride?" ... "Mostly the east of
Belgium" ... "Oh, aha!"

[Joerg]

But you said somewhere that you are a smaller guy. I am more of a clyde.
Plus I often ride with loads on the rack where on acceleration your
first step into substantial "dead weight". Then the road bike doesn't
feel like a Porsche, more like a pickup truck with a load of firewood.
On the downhills though ... woohoo ... that recently surprised a
lycra-clad athletic rider on a fancy bike who passed me on my uphill
slog home. Afterwards came a downhill section and here I pulled into the
lane and barreled by. On my old steel frame road bike in T-shirt and
jeans, with the rack swaying from lots of load and clattering.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 11:15:56 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

> Sure, but I really don't want to spend a lot of time making a tool just
> because a manufacturer did a suboptimal design. I just use vise grips.
> To heck with appearance, to me a road bike is only another vehicle, not
> a show item.

Snipped

> People who venture from pristine paved roads do. I have seen many bikes
> (mostly MTB) that had bailing wire kludges here and there because the
> factory stuff wasn't up to snuff.

The Shimano scalopped headset is not a suboptimal design. In fact in some ways it's superior because there's a much better fit of the wrench on the parts and far less likelihood of the wrench slipping.

Vicegrips? Well there's your problem. I be that you've bunged up the threads of the top locknut or the threads on the steerer tube.

Don't use proper tool for a job and then complain when things go out of adjustment or break. No, blame the user not the equipment.

Those MTB riders with the bailing wire kludges also need to learn how to properly set stuff up and adjust it. Thousands of other riders ride a lot more technical terrain and do not have the problems you and yours seem to have.

Cheers

[sms]

On 5/25/2016 8:15 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-05-24 20:57, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 10:20:06 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-05-24 09:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>
>>>> I have that headset on one bike, our tandem. When I got it, I had
>>>> little money but I had access to an excellent machine shop. I made my
>>>> own wrenches for that headset. They do work well, but they're not
>>>> really necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Access to a well equipped machine shop is great but most of us aren't
>>> afforded such luck.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, and contrary to Frank's post, a fully equipped machine shop
>> is not necessary. I recently made a pair of head set wrenches using a
>> 4" angle grinder and a few files...
>
>
> Sure, but I really don't want to spend a lot of time making a tool just
> because a manufacturer did a suboptimal design.

I had a Park PW-1 pedal wrench that was machined wrong and used a
grinder to take off maybe 50 microns. I gave to a bike mechanic in
Russia after a tandem tour I went on.

I have frequently had to fashion a custom tool for various projects
using a vise, a grinder, flat bar, rods, etc.. You don't need a machine
shop to do this.

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-25 11:56, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 11:15:56 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
> Snipped
>> Sure, but I really don't want to spend a lot of time making a tool
>> just because a manufacturer did a suboptimal design. I just use
>> vise grips. To heck with appearance, to me a road bike is only
>> another vehicle, not a show item.
> Snipped
>> People who venture from pristine paved roads do. I have seen many
>> bikes (mostly MTB) that had bailing wire kludges here and there
>> because the factory stuff wasn't up to snuff.
>
> The Shimano scalopped headset is not a suboptimal design. In fact in
> some ways it's superior because there's a much better fit of the
> wrench on the parts and far less likelihood of the wrench slipping.
>

A properly designed hex wrench does not slip. Needlessly requiring a
special tool in a design is a suboptimal design.

> Vicegrips? Well there's your problem. I be that you've bunged up the
> threads of the top locknut or the threads on the steerer tube.
>

No, they look just fine.

> Don't use proper tool for a job and then complain when things go out
> of adjustment or break. No, blame the user not the equipment.
>

There are people who can do delicate jobs even with a vise grip :-)

> Those MTB riders with the bailing wire kludges also need to learn how
> to properly set stuff up and adjust it. Thousands of other riders
> ride a lot more technical terrain and do not have the problems you
> and yours seem to have.
>

Because they get a new bike all the time. Hardcore XC riders often
don't. A prime example are the cable-ties I mentioned that nowadays are
considered "proper" methods of securing a brake line. Think about it:
What happens to most plastic parts when they are exposed to the
glistening sun for many years?

I design a lot of high-rel for a living, and successfully so for over
three decades. Not even in my dreams would I use plastic cable-ties to
secure anything in there.

[Joerg]

Correct. But then you need a lot of time. It's always the same, you
either need machine shop access or a lot of time.

[AMuzi]

There is some logic to that wrench/fastener design, given
the preponderance of mangled aluminum locknuts in that era.

Besides, machine nuts were square for a long time before
they went to hex. A host of other fastener shapes have both
emerged and survived for unusual applications (a threaded
bicycle headset in aluminum being an unusual application).


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

[Joerg]

That's because some folks use badly set adjustable wrenches for that. Or
worst case a pipe wrench. On aluminum hex nuts that are "in the line of
sight" I often tape the wrench with very thin Kapton. Usually still goes
on there but then it won't leave marks.

> Besides, machine nuts were square for a long time before they went to
> hex. A host of other fastener shapes have both emerged and survived for
> unusual applications (a threaded bicycle headset in aluminum being an
> unusual application).
>

Square is fine, fits a normal wrench. The wavy stuff is IMHO
non-sensical. Other than that it looks cool (when new).

[jbeattie]

If you remove your front wheel, stem/handlebars and bring your bike to my house, I will put in a new headset/crown race (everything) in under 20 minutes. Bring a new headset, too.

While waiting, you can walk to the little growler station across from the neighborhood market. I'll lend you my growler. Mmmmm. http://www.blockandboardpdx.com/beer--wine.html Or you could walk to the one over at the Fred Meyer store, but its a longer walk. Another little one, the Boneyard RPM IPA is quite good. http://growlers.fredmeyermedia.com/st/burlingame

Or go buy some dope at the shop next to the growler station across from the neighborhood market. http://www.divine-kind.com/ Oh, there is also a bike shop that caters to the retro-set next to the growler station (how apropos). http://www.burlingamebikes.com/

Bud, beer, bikes . . . boss! Or you can stick around the house and mow my back lawn.

This is going on far too long.

Knock out the hold headset and put in a new one with ordinary wrench flats. The existing headset is probably munged anyway. No need to keep historical headsets unless you want a period-perfect bike, which you obviously don't.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

I could swap it out as well. But I generally hate to throw stuff away
that somehow can still be pressed into service even if with a hose
clamp. My grandpa taught me that philosophy, he had gone through two
world wars.

> While waiting, you can walk to the little growler station across from
> the neighborhood market. I'll lend you my growler. Mmmmm.
> http://www.blockandboardpdx.com/beer--wine.html

My wife would love the Koelsch. But 0% alcohol ain't right :-)


> ... Or you could walk to

> the one over at the Fred Meyer store, but its a longer walk. Another
> little one, the Boneyard RPM IPA is quite good.
> http://growlers.fredmeyermedia.com/st/burlingame
>

Those prices are almost as high as ours. I can get a good Koelsch for
$15 per 64oz growler here:

http://edhbrewing.com/

I sure wish they'd open at 3pm because on my week rides 4pm is too late
to get home in time from there. Across the street they open at 3pm so
that's where I typically stop for a pint and a growler:

http://mrazbrewingcompany.com/

> Or go buy some dope at the shop next to the growler station across
> from the neighborhood market. http://www.divine-kind.com/ Oh, there
> is also a bike shop that caters to the retro-set next to the growler
> station (how apropos). http://www.burlingamebikes.com/
>

No dope for me but the vintage bike shop would be nice. I didn't even
know there was a Titanium Merckx frame.

> Bud, beer, bikes . . . boss! Or you can stick around the house and
> mow my back lawn.
>

Or plant hops which is what my MTB buddy just did :-)

> This is going on far too long.
>
> Knock out the hold headset and put in a new one with ordinary wrench
> flats. The existing headset is probably munged anyway. No need to
> keep historical headsets unless you want a period-perfect bike, which
> you obviously don't.
>

You are probably right. That headset was never any good to begin with,
should have had the LBS replace it right away in the 80's.

[James]

You are entitled to an opinion.

--
JS

[AMuzi]

Uh, Joerg, those _do_ take a normal 32mm headset wrench