Is there no "budget" 650b steel frame with "planing" tube specs?

[ViveLemond]

First post here, but I've been lurking for a while and have been active in cycling since the 80's.
I admit it: I've been drinking the BQ/Jan Heine cool-aid. I'd like a 650b road bike with 42+mm tires for more "all-road" adventures, and I'd love to get a steel Soma-type frame at a reasonable price (let's say frame and fork in the $500-800 range, typical Taiwan sourced frame). I figure if I'm going to go down this road, I might as well get one that matches BQ's testing parameters of performance.It doesn't appear that anyone is making them with lightweight tubing (as is 7/4/7 or 8/5/8 dt), in the budget price point.
Is anyone here seeing anything different or have any suggestions?
Thanks for your input.

[Justin, Oakland]

Height/Weight/Fitness?

These things can all add to this experience.

-J

[David Parsons]

For that tube thickness & price point I suspect your only choice for a new frame would be to make the frame yourself (and that depends on knowing how to brweld + access to a torch.)    You might be able to find a standard diametered frameset from the 1980s or '90s that has 8/5/8 (remember that standard diameter tubes are much flexier than the O/S tubing you'd find on a Soma) but not 7/4/7.

How much do you weigh, and do you tend to sit upright or forward on your machines?  If you tend to set upright, you can get away with thicker tubing because your COG is further away from the front end of the bicycle (I sit forward w/ 13-14cm saddle to bar drop; I built one frame with a 7/4/7 TT and couldn't tell any riding difference between it and the 8/5/8 tt'ed frame I replaced with -- the 7/4/7 tubing dented a lot easier, and I rode it with a couple of substantial TT dents until the ST failed on me, but as for ride, um, I can't tell any difference at all.)

[satanas]

Planing = flexible = thin walls = expensive heat-treated tubing and/or more chance of damage from abuse = more skill needed to build = happy lawyers if someone tries to do it on the cheap. There are a lot of big, heavy, or abusive riders out there too, and quite a few people who hate any visible flex, hence Surly, etc - not that there's anything wrong with them.

For $500 your only realistic option is a used frame and conversion. You're very unlikely indeed to find anything in 747 (old Prestige maybe?), but 858 might be doable, for instance 531 SL, 531 Pro, Tange Champion #1. Most of these will be road frames though, so tyre clearance is likely to prove problematic. 38mm is much more likely to fit, or maybe 42mm if you can find something with a wide crown and manipulate the chainstays a bit. Be cautious about fastback or wishbone seatstays too, as they can sometimes be very narrow.

Good luck,
Stephen

[Joe Daws]

You could look around for a reynolds 653 frame, some older frames made of this have a sufficiently wide fork crown for a wider tyre. However the chainstays would most likely need indentation for a 650b tire. A frame designed for 27" wheels would give a bit more room here. Unfortunately most 653 frame I have seen don't have mounts on the dropouts for fenders,and brazing and a repaint all add up.

[Stephen Poole]

And of course there's always 753 & 853 (though gauges can vary), Ishiwata 015 and 017, Excell, Columbus Record, etc, but none of these were common, or typically used for anything except lightweight road frames, or perhaps the odd track frame.

"Audax" frames out of the UK often used lightweight Reynolds tubing and will have more braze-ons, but are also likely to have longer reach brakes (57mm), and clearances for 28-32mm tyres and fenders, so perhaps too much brake reach for an easy 650b conversion but not enough width; this varies though. UK "winter" training frames might have better reach, but cheaper, heavier tubing, etc.

None of the above are at all likely to have low trail, if that is important.

Best to test ride something you think might suit, then decide whether you're 1) prepared to pay for it, or else 2) to lurk around used gear websites forever if not.

Happy hunting,

Stephen

[Igor Belopolsky]

https://www.cyclestoussaint.com/products/velo-routier-2-0-650b-low-trail-frame-with-braze-ons

858 depending on the size you need.

[Steve Palincsar]

There's a saying: "Good, fast, cheap: pick any two."   Something similar
is at work here.  Your $500-$800 is the big stumbling block.  The most
promising solution is what Satanas suggested: find something old built
with standard diameter 531 and accept the fact that as a 650B conversion
you may only fit 38 mm tires.   38mm is plenty nice, especially if
you're used to 23-25mm.  Jan's Weigle was made to fit 38s, you'll recall.

Here
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1127782-gugificazione-raleigh-super-tourer-build-thread.html
is an example of what can be done with such an older bike.  In fact,
Gugie (who did the work) is a member of this group.

And here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16848401@N03/galleries/72157626357885897/?rb=1
are some examples of what a true world-class master can do with an old
Raleigh.

--
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia
USA

[Igor Belopolsky]

Why not a Soma GR either?

Both of the ones I mention are Taiwan made and use the tubing you want.

[Reed Kennedy]

No, there is not a mass-production inexpensive frame that does everything Jan likes, and everything you're looking for.

The closest is the Rawland Nordavinden, if you're short. The 54cm was built for 650b x 42mm tires, and Rawland lists a 7/4/7 standard diameter top tube and a 8/5/8 sd down tube:

http://rawlandcycles.blogspot.com/2012/07/nordavinden-geometry-and-specifications.html

Even if you are taller, you might still consider it. I've heard that the larger Nords can take 650b wheels with Mafac Raid brakes and fit 42mm tires (though I haven't tried it myself).

However, I'm not entirely convinced my 60cm Nord is actually 7/4/7 and 8/5/8. It feels fairly flexible, but about the same as my 8/5/8 oversize bikes. But maybe it is the right buttings and it doesn't make a difference to me, as David said?

That's the closest I'm aware of anyway, and I've looked hard. Only available used, but inexpensive if you can find one. I got my frame and fork for $300.

Best,

Reed

--
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.

[Stephen Poole]

So, the VTR has an 858 downtube only on the smaller sizes, 969 on bigger. That may or may not plane for the OP, depending on size, weight, riding style, etc. Not that 969 standard tubes are horrible - far from it - but I doubt they're likely to plane for most.

As for the GR, whatever the tubing is (and that seems to be in doubt) it definitely does not plane, or IME do anything well. Yes, it's cheap, but equivalents can be had for less elsewhere:

https://tinyurl.com/y879amzt

Later,

Stephen

On 3 Jan 2018 12:40 am, "Igor Belopolsky" <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why not a Soma GR either?

Both of the ones I mention are Taiwan made and use the tubing you want.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/IxXpKC37tuQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Reed Kennedy]

While the OP didn't specifically say that they're looking for standard diameter tubing I suspect that's the case if they're chasing the BQ / Jan Heine dream. Both the bikes you mentioned are built with oversize tubing and ride like it.

I adore my Toussaint Velo Routier. It makes a great front-loaded commuter and I ride it every day. However, it is burly! The furthest from planing of any bike I own. Mine is the 60cm, and 9/5/9, but I find it hard to believe a smaller frame built from OS tubing with walls only one step thinner would be much better given just how rigid mine is.

The Soma GR is, if anything, worse. It's just famously overbuilt.

Best,

Reed

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why not a Soma GR either?

Both of the ones I mention are Taiwan made and use the tubing you want.

--

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.

[Bill M.]

Better to look for a Rawland Stag or rSogn, which are native 650b and similar tubing to the Nordavinden.  

I saw a used Crust Romanceur on one of the lists this week for $900, not too far off of your range.  

The 2nd and 3rd runs of the Kogswell P/R (black frame, not Kustard) may not have 'ideal' tubing specs, but I liked the way mine rode.  They show up occasionally.

Bill

Stockton, CA

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

[Rick F]

I test rode the Soma GR a couple times really wanting to like it because of the low price but it came up short.  If all you want is wide (42mm) 650B tires and low trail it will check those boxes but it did not come close to planing for me.  I determined that even at that low price for a frame/fork the total build would still add up to a lot of money (for me.)  Rather than spend a bunch of money and be unhappy I decided to save a lot longer, spend a bunch more, but be happy by going custom/semi-custom.  If you can score a used Ocean Air Rambler, Box Dog Pelican or Rawland Stag those would be great options but hard to find.  Otherwise doing a 650B conversion of an older 531 frame as suggested would probably be cheapest.  My custom came from Norther Cycles and they do a lot of 650B conversions and low trail forks. 


Rick F in Bedford, MA

[Alex Wetmore]

Those $500 frames are cheap because the human labor costs are mostly removed from the bike.  

Getting a 7/4/7 downtube requires going from normalized 4130 to hardened steel.  Those cost a lot more (material cost on the tubing is normally about 3x what 4130 would cost).  Tooling costs go up because the hardened tubing wears cutters.  Since the bike will cost more the production counts will go down.  

All City Nature Boy comes in 4130 and 853, so you can use that as a comparison.  The 853 version retailed for $1150 as a frameset, the 4130 version for $650.

The hardened steel tubes are necessary to get high enough tensile strength to avoid denting.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of ViveLemond <samkru...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2018 9:05:10 PM
To: 650b
Subject: [650B] Is there no "budget" 650b steel frame with "planing" tube specs?

 

[Kevin M]

First, find something affordable with the geo and trail that you're interested in. Then, spring for something with fancy tubing if you like the way it steers. I bought a Rambler last year after reading all the BQ hype, and flexy low trail just didn't jive with me. 

[Max]

There’s a saying... “we are not so rich as to buy cheap things”...

Still, if you want new, $600 will get you into a BMC, which everyone seems to like. If the frame is larger than 55cm should be fine even with 700c fatties and fenders without toe overlap or funky steering.

If you’re not afraid of the bike getting stolen (a real concern for folks commuting and/or with theft risk and without means of easy replacement), it may be worth saving up and then springing for a dedicated frame from someone who knows what they’re doing with 650b (e.g. Lyon or Ebisu, which I eventually did and love).

Millimeter for millimeter, tube diameter - which used to be skinny back in the day - is a bigger influencer on frame flex than wall thickness. If strictly on a budget, I second the recommendations on converting an old frame - almost anything from the 1980s can work (which I also did with a Trek 400 for commuting). It only fits about 34 mm with good clearances if paired with fluted Honjo fenders, and 38 mm paired with thinner plastic fenders. If I dimpled the chainstays, I could get 42 mm tires in there. ($150 for frame + $100 for the dimpling < $500...) This is going to be common on many of those 1980s frames. 38 mm is actually quite a good size, especially if you run Panaracer GravelKing or nicer tires, which are a bigger determinant of “ride quality” (whatever that means) than the frame.

All strictly IME / ATMO. :-)

- Max in A2

[Jim Mather]

I bought a Merckx Corsa frameset (Columbus SL) for $300 and converted it. It fits 38's and is one of my favorite bikes ever. 70's & 80's stage race bikes, imho, make great conversions, though you do need to watch for rear clearance. Here's a Gazelle (531) cross bike for only $126. If it was my size I'd get it. I have a converted Gazelle too, and it also does well as a conversion. I'd bet the cross bike might even fit 42s.

jim m

walnut creek, ca

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:05:10 PM UTC-8, ViveLemond wrote:

[Greg Achtem]

Here's a broken cross frame with cantilever posts that probably will not work with 650B wheels.

There's good advice here. My gateway to 650B was an inexpensive but stout Kogswell PR. From there I went to a Kogswell PR Mk II, a converted, old road frame (fit's nominal 42s) and am awaiting a L'avecaise. Least expensive and best riding (so far) is the conversion frame.

--

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.

[Harald Kliems]

It's good to keep in mind that even though some on the list here don't like the SOMA Grand Randonneur, Jan's review of the bike was relatively positive. IIRC, he didn't not explicitly complain about it being overly stiff but neither did he mention planing.

 Harald (who likes his Grando)

[Stephen Poole]

The Gazelle description says the material is carbon fiber, but there's carbon in 531... Presumably the canti posts are sited for 700c, so getting brakes to work is likely to need frame mods; it's safer to stick with road frames meant for short reach brakes.

[Reed Kennedy]

Good call on the Stag Bill! Forgot about that one. It is all 8/5/8 in most sizes though, so still burlier than Jan suggests, and that’s if the tubing used is indeed what Sean/Rawland specified. I wish there were a way to measure and know for sure! (The smaller sizes get a 7/4/7 top tube, making it maybe a touch closer.)

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/650b/nTENPFzTSGQ

Too bad Stags are no longer made and are so hard to find used!

The rSogn, however, is all 9/6/9 standard diameter, definitely not what BQ advocates:

http://rawlandcycles.blogspot.com/2010/09/rsogn-tire-clearance-and-tubing.html

The Romanceur is also all 9/6/9 and does not do what the OP is asking. The newer Crust Lightning was made specifically for all the people who wished the Romanceur was skinner-tubed, but it is not inexpensive at around $1,300 or so. Plus, disc brakes, burlier fork. 

Best,

Reed

[Reed Kennedy]

 I’ve heard rumors that the original SOMA GRs were built from the tubing Mike Kone specified, but that the overseas factory substituted heavier tubes without permission on later bikes. Can’t find a reference for this hazy memory, unfortunately. 

I can provide this, where Han cut up and measured a GR:

https://www.instagram.com/p/7YuLhOw-v-/

Hard to read, but it says the top tube is 9/7.5/9 and the downtube is 10/8/10 (rounded to nearest). Yikes! Not likely to plane for anyone. I don’t know for sure, but I think that paint indicated a 2nd production run GR. Some people really like this bikes, including a good friend of mine, but they’re not likely to do what the OP is asking about. 

Best,

Reed

--

[Lee Legrand]

Hi Vive,

I may be wrong and I am only saying what I think as opposed to know.  I am sure I will corrected but I do not think you will find a budget frame like Jan idea of riding when considering tubing. Reason being is that most bicycle makers are built with specific tubing size and gages and those who do build them with low trail geometry, are using tubes that will work for most people regardless if it planes or not according to your weight.  If you want the planing, you have to pay for the price for that.  Box Dog Bicycles Pelican is close to what you are looking for but with a price that is not budget.

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.

--

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.

[Alex Wetmore]

Hahn: In the comments there it sounds like you were going to cut up at Rawland rSogn as well.  Did that ever happen?

I measured the tubing on a Soma Mixte as well (it was labeled Tange Prestige) when I had it cut up.  The downtube was 9/6/9, which is what I expected.  The mixte tubes appeared to be thicker and not butted, but my butt measuring tool couldn't fit inside the tube.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Reed Kennedy <re...@notfine.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 9:33:21 AM
To: Harald Kliems
Cc: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Re: Is there no "budget" 650b steel frame with "planing" tube specs?

 

[Bill Mennuti]

I keyed in on this line:
"I'd like a 650b road bike with 42+mm tires for more "all-road" adventures".
The rSogn can work in that context, even if the top tube is a tenth-mm heavier. It can also take much wider tires if the "+" becomes important for the OP, which can extend the meaning of "all-road" quite a bit.
That would still leave the problem of finding one...

Bill

[Eric Keller]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Lee Legrand <krm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Vive,

I may be wrong and I am only saying what I think as opposed to know.  I am sure I will corrected but I do not think you will find a budget frame like Jan idea of riding when considering tubing. Reason being is that most bicycle makers are built with specific tubing size and gages and those who do build them with low trail geometry, are using tubes that will work for most people regardless if it planes or not according to your weight.  If you want the planing, you have to pay for the price for that.  Box Dog Bicycles Pelican is close to what you are looking for but with a price that is not budget.

I thought that the vast majority of classic 531 and Columbus SL frames are 9/6/9.  

I think that a production company building inexpensive frames from lighter standard diameter tubing than that would come to regret the decision. And their production items might well not pass certification. I feel like one of my frames not pass those tests either, they are a little heavy-handed and aimed towards aluminum and carbon frames.  

Eric Keller

Boalsburg Pennsylvania 

[ViveLemond]

Thanks everyone for the great input.
I guess it's either "heavy" and cheap, or pay more for more refined characteristics. I guess that makes sense.
Happy New Year and ride fun and safe.

[Andy Bailey Goodell]

Or used. I got a Stag as a whole bike for around $950, and absolutely love it.

Price also depends a lot on parts of which the frame is just one. Watching this list and internet-bob is a great way to collect the parts to make a nice yet inexpensive build.

What kind of bike(s) are you riding now? Can you upgrade with new wheels and tires to at least get some of the characteristics that you'd hope for in a BQ-approved bike? When a nice frame come up for sale, you can trade up.

Andy in NH

[Mark Anderson]

Y'know, the Cycles Toussaint Velo-Routier is a decent enough entry level 650b bike. BQ gave it a positive review, too. I rode mine for a couple of years, decided I liked the Kool-Aid, sold it and had Jeff Lyon build me a frame. Positive experiences all around with the guys from CT and (especially) with Jeff. My point here is that there's a path to follow without a super heavy investment until you decide this is the way you want to go for sure.

Mark Anderson

Liberty, Missouri USA

The Early Morning Cyclist

[Steve Palincsar]

On 01/02/2018 03:06 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:

Y'know, the Cycles Toussaint Velo-Routier is a decent enough entry level 650b bike. BQ gave it a positive review, too. I rode mine for a couple of years, decided I liked the Kool-Aid, sold it and had Jeff Lyon build me a frame. Positive experiences all around with the guys from CT and (especially) with Jeff. My point here is that there's a path to follow without a super heavy investment until you decide this is the way you want to go for sure.

The Velo Routier is a path to try low trail, but not one to follow to learn if you like flexible frames made with thin wall tubing.

[John Hawrylak]

The wall thickness Reed quoted here are essentially the same as Columbus Tenax tubing (9/7/9 TT 10/7/10 DT) used by Schwinn in the 80's.   I have a 88 Voyaguer and while it does not plane, it's not a dog.

Really sad if the mfg did change the GR tubing without telling anyone.    Doesn't Soma know???

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Eamon Nordquist]

I think the Velo Routier is 9/6/9 all around in the larger sizes, but the thing that distinguishes it from most older frames is that it 1 1/8" all around. They didn't use a 1" top tube (unless their geo charts are inaccurate). I test rode one (pretty sure it was a 57, so all 9/6/9), and it felt pretty good to me, but I wasn't really riding hard.

My 1983 Trek 520 is 9/6/9 all around, but with a 1" top tube, and I feel like it gives me plenty of spring in my step compared to any modern bikes with oversize tubing I've test ridden. I have no experience with the type of tubing Jan recommends, but I don't think 9/6/9 is turdly by any means, as long as it's a 1" top tube. 

Eamon

Seattle, WA

[Reed Kennedy]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:02 PM, 'Eamon Nordquist' via 650b <65...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I think the Velo Routier is 9/6/9 all around in the larger sizes, but the thing that distinguishes it from most older frames is that it 1 1/8" all around. They didn't use a 1" top tube (unless their geo charts are inaccurate). I test rode one (pretty sure it was a 57, so all 9/6/9), and it felt pretty good to me, but I wasn't really riding hard.

I don't think that's so Eamon. I just measured the circumference of the tubes of mine, and got 10.5cm for the down tube and 9.2cm for the top tube. Converted to diameter and that's 33.4mm DT and 29.2mm TT. Those look like typical oversize tubing (28.6mm / 31.8mm) plus some paint to me. Definitely different diameter tubes.

Best,

Reed

 

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:50:02 PM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:

On 01/02/2018 03:06 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:

Y'know, the Cycles Toussaint Velo-Routier is a decent enough entry level 650b bike. BQ gave it a positive review, too. I rode mine for a couple of years, decided I liked the Kool-Aid, sold it and had Jeff Lyon build me a frame. Positive experiences all around with the guys from CT and (especially) with Jeff. My point here is that there's a path to follow without a super heavy investment until you decide this is the way you want to go for sure.

The Velo Routier is a path to try low trail, but not one to follow to learn if you like flexible frames made with thin wall tubing.

-- 
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia 
USA

--

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.

[ViveLemond]

Great stuff, what a forum!

My current bike is pretty cool: a Lemond Zurich, with a Carbonomas fork: running Compass 32mm in front and 28mm in back. Have some 650b wheels, but with the tight chainstays the max I could do in the back would be about 32mm, so not worth the trouble on this frame, and it rides great as is.
But yesterday my road ride diverged onto a trail, and I'd like to have fenders for when it finally rains again in Norcal, and it seems if I'm going to get a bike for that, might as well get it right.
I have experience with heavier steel frames: I had a vintage Specialized Sequoia for years, a classic beloved touring bike that Grant at Rivendell told me to never give up, but I never liked riding it. It always felt heavy, slow, and dead to me and since I've been reading Jan's stuff on frame stiffness and such, I think that makes sense. I also moved up from Rivendell tires to Compass- my god, what a difference. Back in day, an old guy told me he'd give up sex before he gave up his sew up tires, and now I know what he was talking about.

The Rawland thing is interesting: it seems if they'd just fine-tuned the Stag and left it alone, they'd have a pretty popular bike.
I'll keep my eye out for a cool frame that pops up.

[John Hawrylak]

Reed

33.4mmDT and 29.2mmTT sounds like OS-Plus, even more rigid than OS

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 8:13:25 PM UTC-5, Reed Kennedy wrote:

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:02 PM, 'Eamon Nordquist' via 650b <65...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I think the Velo Routier is 9/6/9 all around in the larger sizes, but the thing that distinguishes it from most older frames is that it 1 1/8" all around. They didn't use a 1" top tube (unless their geo charts are inaccurate). I test rode one (pretty sure it was a 57, so all 9/6/9), and it felt pretty good to me, but I wasn't really riding hard.

I don't think that's so Eamon. I just measured the circumference of the tubes of mine, and got 10.5cm for the down tube and 9.2cm for the top tube. Converted to diameter and that's 33.4mm DT and 29.2mm TT. Those look like typical oversize tubing (28.6mm / 31.8mm) plus some paint to me. Definitely different diameter tubes.

Best,

Reed

 

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:50:02 PM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:

On 01/02/2018 03:06 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:

Y'know, the Cycles Toussaint Velo-Routier is a decent enough entry level 650b bike. BQ gave it a positive review, too. I rode mine for a couple of years, decided I liked the Kool-Aid, sold it and had Jeff Lyon build me a frame. Positive experiences all around with the guys from CT and (especially) with Jeff. My point here is that there's a path to follow without a super heavy investment until you decide this is the way you want to go for sure.

The Velo Routier is a path to try low trail, but not one to follow to learn if you like flexible frames made with thin wall tubing.

-- 
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia 
USA

--
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.

[William Harrison]

I weigh 120lbs and I can could easily get my Sequoias to plane for me. The tubing might have been different in the smallest sizes though.

Will

[Eamon Nordquist]

Sorry, I took another look at the Velo Routier geo charts. The smaller sizes are 28.6 all around, but the larger ones are 28.6 top and seat tube, with a 31.8 downtube. 8/5/8 for the small ones, 9/6/9 for the big ones.

[satanas]

Re oversize top tubes: I know Jan doesn't like the idea, but can't recall him ever testing anything built that way. However, I have ridden a number of bikes with 28.6 top and tubes, 31.8 top and down tubes, 25.4 TT plus 28.6 DT plus twin lats, etc, and don't believe a larger top tube impacts on planing ability much.

What it does do IME is prevent excessive head tube deflection and thus dodgy handling, especially in tight low speed turns, and especially with front panniers. If the rest of the tubes are of suitable gauges and "balanced" correctly, the bike will still plane.

Apart from old Alans, the "planiest" bike I've ever ridden was an early prototype Specialized S-Works Steel MTB, with 31.8 top and downtubes, probably of light gauge Tange Prestige. I was unable to acquire one of these due to the &:#÷* local agent at the time, and subsequently had a frame built from Ritchey's Logic Prestige WCS tubing, pretty much the lightest steel MTB tubing then (958 with short butts), however it had a 28.6 TT and a 31.8 DT. It did not plane noticeably, not that it felt bad - sort of like Columbus SL road frames felt to me, balanced, neutral, but not especially lively; and with much weight in front panniers, unwanted deflection at the front could be felt.

Planing is a hard thing to nail down, and I suspect means different things to different people. What planes for someone will probably vary with rider weight, strength and riding style, luggage weight and how/where carried, etc.

FWIW, I've also found that at very high efforts, like sprinting uphill seated in an almost-too-big gear, more stiffness helps. After a certain point a stable platform is better (for me anyway) than excessive flex. At lower efforts things are different and more flex is good.

For whatever reason(s), some bikes just feel faster and nore enjoyable, and that's why test riding is useful!!!

Later,
Stephen

[Alex Wetmore]

The Soma GR has tubing that is one size larger (31.8mm downtube, 28.6mm top tube, vs 28.6mm downtube, 25.4mm top tube) than your Schwinn with Columbus Tenex.  That makes it about twice as stiff.  You can't just look at wall thickness without also looking at tubing diameter.

As a general rule of thumb a 7/4/7 oversized (now normal sized) tubeset has similar stiffness to a 9/6/9 standard (now skinny) tubeset.  A 7/4/7 skinny tubeset is much more flexible than any mass produced bikes that I'm aware of, and is what Jan loves to ride.  His latest (now couple of year old) experiment with the Mule is a 7/4/7 25.4mm top tube with a 7/4/7 31.8 downtube, which he also seems to like a lot.

My fastest bike is 8/5/8 28.6mm downtube, 25.4mm top tube.  It feels noticeably different than a 9/6/9 bike with the same geometry (I rode them back to back on my commutes yesterday and today).  

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John Hawrylak <John.H...@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 3:41:28 PM
To: 650b

Subject: Re: [650B] Re: Is there no "budget" 650b steel frame with "planing" tube specs?

[Steve Chan]

   I seem to recall that Jan reviewed the SOMA Wolverine and saying that it planed for him, even though it isn't skinny, thinwall tubing. Maybe someone else remembers that from BQ?

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 9:05 PM, ViveLemond <samkru...@gmail.com> wrote:

First post here, but I've been lurking for a while and have been active in cycling since the 80's.
I admit it: I've been drinking the BQ/Jan Heine cool-aid. I'd like a 650b road bike with 42+mm tires for more "all-road" adventures, and I'd love to get a steel Soma-type frame at a reasonable price (let's say frame and fork in the $500-800 range, typical Taiwan sourced frame). I figure if I'm going to go down this road, I might as well get one that matches BQ's testing parameters of performance.It doesn't appear that anyone is making them with lightweight tubing (as is 7/4/7 or 8/5/8 dt), in the budget price point.
Is anyone here seeing anything different or have any suggestions?
Thanks for your input.

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

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

[Philip Kim]

I didn't glean a positive review of the Soma Grand Randonneur when I read it. I bought both issues of the Cycles Toussaint and Soma GR trying to decide which one to buy. The Toussaint had a much more positive review (except some criticism of the brakes feeling mushy, and not "planing"), but overall satisfactory with ride for production bike. The Soma GR on the otherhand was noted as stiff, and not a very good ride, SOMA has since made changes to the tested version.

[Ryan Watson]

Or try to find a 2nd hand Rawland rSogn!
Mine planes as well or better than any bike I've ridden. Though I guess some might consider it heavy.

Ryan

[Justin August]

I think the Rawland story as such is informative when it comes to filling this niche. Can it be done? Almost. Is t easy? Sounds like it’s not. The main stumbling blocks include the willingness of folks in factories to build light forks and maintaining the use of appropriate tubing. I imagine that if you hired a full time rep in Taiwan to watch then you’d have more success which would raise the cost of the frame.

It reminds me a lot of the quest for the “budget Rivendell”. Eventually some things had to compromised on (sloping too tubes, all lugged all the time, weight of tubing, etc). You now have the Clem Level, Sam Level, AHH level of Bikes.

-J

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/IxXpKC37tuQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[John Hawrylak]

Alex

I agree entirely with your 2nd paragraph.

I disagree with your 1st paragraph.  Reed quoted the GR tubing gauge as 

" top tube is 9/7.5/9 and the downtube is 10/8/10 (rounded to nearest)."  and the Boulder site states the tubes are STD diameter, not OS. If the GR tubes were STD (as claimed by Boulder) and the gauges were as Reed posted, it would be similar to Tenax.

As for the Mule, the B article stated a 0.65/0.35/0.65 OS which is equivalent (in beam deflection)to a STD 0.89/0.49/0.89 or essentially a 9/5/9 STD tube.  This gives the Mule a equivalent TT 7/4/7 STD and DT 9/5/9 STD or close to the L'avercaise BQ tested in Summer 2012.   This leads to an interesting question of Compass selling 31.8mm DT in 7/5/7 gauge, equivalent to a 9/7/9 STD tube, much stiffer than the original Mule OS DT and much about as stiff as the 10/7/10 Tenax DT.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Andrew]

Actually, someone with a username of d_yu_g on Instagram was offering a crashed Stag not an rSogn for post mortem.  As a Stag owner I'd be very interested if that ever happened or could still be arranged.

To post to this group, send email to 6...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Reed Kennedy]

Yeah, I messaged that fellow a couple days ago, but no word back as of yet.

Best,

Reed

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

[Dustin Larson]

http://boulderbicycl.corecommerce.com/Soma-Grand-Randonneur.html

I believe only the very largest GR has a 31.8 downtube and a 28.6 toptube, while all the other sizes have 'standard' diameter tubing.  I have a 61cm V1 that seems very bendy and I like it.  

[Mark in Beacon]

Reed Kennedy wrote:

The rSogn, however, is all 9/6/9 standard diameter, definitely not what BQ advocates:

http://rawlandcycles.blogspot.com/2010/09/rsogn-tire-clearance-and-tubing.html

As a participant in the rSogn discussions and one who pre-ordered the bike,  I am 99% certain this is not correct. Final specs were for 8/5/8 in the top tube. Your link is to one page in the middle of an ongoing discussion that was not nearly done, and was famous for often being like watching a tennis match. Here is the last post on the page you linked (which I wrote):

"First let me say, I did go for a ride today, a very very hilly 45 miles in beautiful September weather.

I have been thinking further about the tubing and clearances, with a slightly different outcome:

I wonder in this instance if the 9/6/9 is not leaning toward overbuilt for the “lighter, stripped down Sogn” (I paraphrase.) 

I think maybe 8/58 would be robust enough for the great majority of users the great majority of the time. I understand a point can be made about a wide variety of riders on a production frame but a.this is actually a “limited” production, comparatively speaking, b. with the frame tubing specs published, true clydesdales (and how many are there, and in this niche) can go for an overbuilt frame from another manufacturer.

As far as a ding or a dent, I”d rather get one (never have yet) and have a bike that’’s more responsive every time I ride it. The Large could be a 9/6/9.

Another possibility: My BQ came in the mail with the 650B MAP review. Jan Heine seems to have come to the conclusion that the top tube thickness is most critical toward a lively road feel. Maybe the bikes could be spec”d with an 8/5/8 tt.

Finally, while it would be cool to have the Neo-Motos, that kind of turns it into a mountain bike, not an all-rounder."

Mark

September 19, 2010

If you go to the next post, Sean talks about "almost final" specs:

"Here is an updated geometry with the addition of size Small. This size is mostly proportional except for head and seat tube angles at 73 and 72 degrees, respectively. That is the best I can do without further compromising the proportion and ride.

The geometry also shows a slight change in rake from 60mm to 63mm. I decided to tweak the rake after riding a 60mm rake extensively with the Neo Moto, the Quasi Moto, the Hetre, and the Pari Moto over the weekend. This was also to address a minor design dilemma I had with the smaller frame sizes.

The standover height is now based on the Neo Moto 58c.

As far as tubing, I am now leaning toward 8/5/8 for all sizes. There might be a slight variation among certain frame sizes. I will share further details as they become available." 

Skoal,

Sean

For the next few pages, a discussion ensues, with Alex W. and others favoring 9/6/9 for all sizes, all tubes (even heavier for the xl). I believe the final decision was 8/5/8 tt and 9/6/9 dt for all sizes except XL, spec'd with all  9/6/9. The blog, now over 7 years old, brought back memories. I need to get a cut of the Compass Switchbacks:

"...One final question. There is a big range of tires that will fit the bike. Is there a range within the range that will be likely to give optimal handling? (Somebody needs to make a 48 Hetre. Call it the Cushy-Moto.)"

Mark

October 10, 2010

Anonymous said...

"Where do I send in my deposit for a pair of those Cushy-Motos?!"

October 11, 2010

[Ryan Watson]

My understanding was 8/5/8 all around, or at least top and down tubes. My rSogn planes better than my Boulder which has a 7/4/7 TT. 

Ryan

[Mark in Beacon]

You may be right, Ryan. It was a long time ago. But definitely had the 8/5/8 tt. And even if the DT is 9/6/9, the rSogn was also standard diameter, so basically equivalent to a 531 frame at minimum. Of course there is the fork...

[Alex Wetmore]

Sean changed the published spec's on the rSogn constantly.  I wouldn't trust anything that is in writing, the only way to know what tubing was used is to cut up a damaged frame.  I doubt that Sean actually has good records of what drawings Maxway built the frames from.

This same problem can be seen with Kogswell frames.  It is a downside of being so open with customers through the design process.  The upside is that the customers had a louder voice and the bike came closer to what customers would have wanted.

8/5/8 tubing in 4130 is pretty dent prone and a heat treated top tube would normally be used.  I don't think the rSogn had any heat treated tubing.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:18:26 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Is there no "budget" 650b steel frame with "planing" tube specs?

 

--

[Mark in Beacon]

Heat treated was discussed and ultimately passed over since no 7/4/7 was planned for this bike. I have a couple of 531 frames, one about 50 years old, the other about 45, no dents yet (fingers crossed).

He changed the specs constantly because the bike was being designed by committee and more or less blogged into being. Here are the final specs. If he lied, or the factory tricked him, yeah, then the planing that many have reported while riding this frame could certainly be placebo effect. Someone on another thread is looking for a frame to cut up. In fact he bought one for that purpose (Nord) but likes it too much to cut it. Sounds more like a job for consumer reports. While Sean and Rawland's credibility/reliability factors have long been a topic of internet discussion, I never got the impression he would knowingly vary a spec like that. What would be the point, especially after all that agonizing? 

Geometry
  > Four frame sizes: MD, ML, LG, and XL
  > 8/5/8 tubing for MD and ML
  > 9/6/9 tubing for LG and XL
  > No heat treatment
  > Click on the chart below to embiggen. 

(One caveat: this post was published on ...April 1.)

[Alex Wetmore]

531 came in 8/5/8, 9/6/9, and 10/7/10 and often used a mix.  For instance the Trek 1983 620/630 frames used 10/7/10 downtubes and 8/5/8 top tubes (or the other way around, I'm not going to look it up now).

There are certainly plenty of examples of 8/5/8 frames out there with no dents (I have one too), but it is a lot more dent prone than 9/6/9 tubing unless harden it.  This is why most current steel bicycle tubes that are 8/5/8 are hardened. 

I don't think Sean or Matthew knowingly varied a spec and I respect both of them.  I think it is hard to keep track of the spec when it is constantly being changed and they are the middle man.  I know that Kogswell bikes had spec errors and surprises in almost every version.  It seemed like Matthew was constantly working with the supplier to see what was possible and would lose track of the final agreed upon spec.  Sometimes this resulted in really bad errors like the 700C 64cm P/R frames which have extremely slack angles because the frame was designed around a 650B length fork (I "fixed" two of those by cutting off the lower headtube).  The spec that matters is what Maxway built the frames to, and that is something that we don't have access to.  Hopefully Sean did a better job of keeping track of these details than Matthew did.  The rSogn is a nice bike and it's too bad that he only made one run of them.  

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 1:38:14 PM

[Reed Kennedy]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Someone on another thread is looking for a frame to cut up. In fact he bought one for that purpose (Nord) but likes it too much to cut it. Sounds more like a job for consumer reports. While Sean and Rawland's credibility/reliability factors have long been a topic of internet discussion, I never got the impression he would knowingly vary a spec like that. What would be the point, especially after all that agonizing? 

Yup, that would be me. I'm on the same page as Alex: I'm sure Sean asked for a 7/4/7 top tube and an 8/5/8 down tube on the Nord. I'm just not certain the factory did what he asked. The frame feels less flexible than I'd expect. Specifically, to me, it feels about the same as my 8/5/8 OS bikes. 

Why do I care so much? I'm looking to figure out what tubing to have my next custom built with. If the Nordavinden has a 7/4/7 top tube I can confidently ask my builder for a 7/4/7 standard diameter top tube on my custom. However, if I spec that on the assumption that the Rawland spec is correct when it isn't I may end up with a very expensive frame that does not work well for me, or even do not work at all.

If Consumer Reports would do this, that'd be swell. But they haven't, and neither is anyone else. I'm attempting to take some initiative, educate myself, and share what I learn.

The good news is that I've heard of some promising methods for measuring tubing thickness without cutting up a bike. I'm looking in to those now.

Best,

Reed

[William Lindsay]

Reed said:

"The good news is that I've heard of some promising methods for measuring tubing thickness without cutting up a bike. I'm looking in to those now."

I had lunch with the geekiest know-it-alls from the office, and we brainstormed on this topic.  Here are a few ideas we came up with.  All of them would require some testing and validation:

- deflection.  The belly of a bicycle tube is the thinnest and has the least edge-effects.  It should be possible to estimate belly thickness by squishing the belly a tiny amount. That stress strain curve should correlate well to belly wall thickness.  

- magnetic.  Use a rare earth magnet and ball bearing.  Measure the pull force for the magnet to ball-bearing as a function of separation distance.  Stick a magnet to the belly, measure the pull force.  Roll the ball bearing down the tube.  Measure the new stronger pull force.  The difference should correspond to the tubing thickness.  

- four probe resistivity.  A four probe measurement flows current from probe A to B, while you measure a voltage between probes B and C.  The voltage is functionally related to the tube wall thickness

- ultrasound came up again.  I asked why there might be a minimum wall thickness of 1.0mm.  One of the know-it-alls speculated that it probably has to do with the duration of a 'chirp', and not being able to receive the beginning of the chirp before finishing with the transmission.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Reed Kennedy]

Interesting suggestions Bill!

The main one I'm pursuing right now is ultrasonic. I've contacted one device manufacturer who things they can measure things this thin to accuracy good enough for our purposes. 

Another friend suggested something much more practical: Find a drill bit that is just small enough to pass through an M5 water bottle braze-on. Measure it with a quality digital caliper. Stick the drill bit in to a water bottle braze-on. Push the pointy end right up against the inside of the tube. Measure from the end of the drill bit to the outside of the tube with the caliper.

Probably not super accurate as it won't account for paint and there is significant possibility for error. But might be good enough to give us an idea...

Best,

Reed

--

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.

[William Lindsay]

That drill bit idea sounds like a depth gauge.  Here's a link to a 2" throw mechanical dial depth gauge

https://www.mscdirect.com/product/details/76450089

A nice caliper plus a depth gauge like this would allow you to 

-measure outside diameter X at the bottle boss with the caliper

-measure inside diameter Y at the bottle boss with the depth gauge

-X-Y = wall thickness plus paint thickness.  

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

[John Hawrylak]

Reed

It sounds like you are looking for an ultrasonic wall gauge measuring device.  Olyumpus makes these and are commonly used to measure steel wall thicknesses.  They require a calibration coupon of the same type of steel measured using traceable calipers.  The device is called to the known coupon thickness and then used to measure the unknown samples (in your case 4130 CrMoly steel).  Works on measuring the time for the sound wave to travel to the opposite surface and reflect back to the device.  The speed of sound is known for the particular type of steel (part of the calibration coupon) and the thickness is calculated/displayed.  MINIMUM accuracy is typically +/-0.001" or +/-0.03mm, so it accurate enough to determine 0.7 or 0.8mm wall

You probably need to remove the paint to bare metal, so the sound wav is not reflected off the paint interface. 

Your local VoTech school may be able to help.  If you known someone in industry using these, you may be able to take the frame to them for the measurement. 

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

PS I understand your reasoning and I applaud your initiative.  I am also considering a custom frame and want it to plane also.

[John Hawrylak]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 7:30:27 PM UTC-5, William Lindsay wrote:

- four probe resistivity.  A four probe measurement flows current from probe A to B, while you measure a voltage between probes B and C.  The voltage is functionally related to the tube wall thickness

Bill

I believe you described a 3 wire resistance.  A 4 wire would establish I in A & B and measure the voltage drop in C & D, the key being the C-D measurement is independent of A & B.  Same idea as 3 wire vs 4 wire RTD 

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[David Parsons]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 4:30:27 PM UTC-8, William Lindsay wrote:

Reed said:

"The good news is that I've heard of some promising methods for measuring tubing thickness without cutting up a bike. I'm looking in to those now."

 

- deflection.  

- magnetic. 

- four probe resistivity.

- ultrasound 

Also direct measurement;  drill a m5 hole in the tube, use calipers to measure, then patch by silver-brazing a bottle boss into the  hole.

[Bill M.]

There are cheap ultrasonic thickness testers, but their advertised resolution is around 0.1 mm, and you'd probably want to do better than that.  There are certainly testers that would easily give accurate measurements, but it might be cheaper to have a custom frame built to spec than to buy the meter.

Reed, I don't know where you live, but if you're really curious you might check with some local machine shops to see if they have a suitable tester (likely) and what they would charge to measure a few spots on your target frame.  

Bill

Stockton, CA

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

[Reed Kennedy]

Thanks John! I've been chasing vague ideas but your informative post has set me on a good track. I especially appreciate the suggestion of a VoTech school. Hadn't thought of that!

Failing that, I'm going to reach out to a couple NDT (non-destructive testing) labs here in the Bay Area. They apparently often handle things of this general nature.

Almost tempted to try and track down a used one of these devices. It would be great fun to be able to have a frame measuring party and put together a spreadsheet of data.

I'm leaving for a trip to SoCal shortly, so this project will be on hold for a week and a half, but I'll keep at it when I return. Looking forward to sharing what I learn.

Best,

Reed

--
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.

[Reed Kennedy]

Hey David, can you recommend a caliper with a small enough jaw to fit into a bottle boss hole and enough accuracy for the task at hand?

Best,

Reed

[David Parsons]

There are surgical calipers that are set up like needle-nosed tweezers; they can't plunge through the hole and measure a (tiny) distance away from it, but you can go in from the side of the frame and get a measurement at the edge of the hole (because the wall of the tube will be falling away from the caliper blade.)   I can't recommend a specific model, but looking for a "jeweller's caliper" brings up some of the surgical ones as well.

Best,

Reed

[John Hawrylak]

Reed

The NDT labs is an excellent idea.   Hopefully, they can do it without too much 'red tape'.

Machine shop might be easier and have a 4130 calibration piece.  Their cal std thicknesses might be much thicker than 1mm though but the response is linear, so it should work.

The spreadsheet is also an excellent idea, Have Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge Will Travel,  Wire Kennedy San Francisco 

I got confused on the problem details.  Was the Rawland designed for an 8/58 TT & 9/6/9 DT, but we think thicker tubes were actually used, for 1 reason or the other (not important to know the reason)???   Have you ridden the frame you have, and if so, does it appear to ride worse than you expected for the design wall thicknesses??  

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

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

[Steve Chan]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Reed Kennedy <re...@notfine.com> wrote:

Why do I care so much? I'm looking to figure out what tubing to have my next custom built with. If the Nordavinden has a 7/4/7 top tube I can confidently ask my builder for a 7/4/7 standard diameter top tube on my custom. However, if I spec that on the assumption that the Rawland spec is correct when it isn't I may end up with a very expensive frame that does not work well for me, or even do not work at all.

   I know this is a boring answer, but why not just find a builder who builds these kinds of bikes ( Jeff Lyon, John Fitzgerald, etc...) and go with their recommendations?

   FWIW, I think Anton Tutter had a Stag and also got a full custom using 7/4/7 tubing, I think he found the planing comparable, aside from the stiff original fork. Maybe he can chime in.

[Reed Kennedy]

Yup, I have indeed looked, but I've yet to see anything that looks like it would both fit through the hole and give an accurate result.

If anyone has tracked down such a thing I'd be happy to hear about it!

Best,

Reed 

[Reed Kennedy]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:03 PM, John Hawrylak <John.H...@verizon.net> wrote:

I got confused on the problem details.  Was the Rawland designed for an 8/58 TT & 9/6/9 DT, but we think thicker tubes were actually used, for 1 reason or the other (not important to know the reason)???   Have you ridden the frame you have, and if so, does it appear to ride worse than you expected for the design wall thicknesses??  

Sean spec'd the Rawland I own (a Nordavinden) with a standard diameter 7/4/7 top tube and a standard diameter 8/5/8 down tube. It rides great! This *really* isn't about giving Sean / Rawland a hard time (at least it isn't for me). I am smitten with the bike.

However, it feels about as flexible as a custom I own built from 8/5/8 oversize tubing. From everything I've read, a standard diameter frame should feel-much- more flexible than an OS frame (especially given the 7/4/7 top tube). Instead they feel about the same.

So what's the problem?

Well, for my next custom I'd like to spec tubing similar to the Nordavinden, maybe a touch thinner. But the above leaves me wondering if the Nordavinden is built from the tubing Sean instructed. I would like to know for sure what it is I'm liking before plunking down big bucks.

My original plan was to cut the Nordavinden in half, measure it, and have the information I'm seeking. Destroy a $300 frame, potentially save a much more expensive custom.

But I like the Nord much more than I expected! And so I seek alternatives that allow me to have my cake and eat it too.

Best,

Reed

 

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:46:10 PM UTC-5, Reed Kennedy wrote:

Thanks John! I've been chasing vague ideas but your informative post has set me on a good track. I especially appreciate the suggestion of a VoTech school. Hadn't thought of that!

Failing that, I'm going to reach out to a couple NDT (non-destructive testing) labs here in the Bay Area. They apparently often handle things of this general nature.

Almost tempted to try and track down a used one of these devices. It would be great fun to be able to have a frame measuring party and put together a spreadsheet of data.

I'm leaving for a trip to SoCal shortly, so this project will be on hold for a week and a half, but I'll keep at it when I return. Looking forward to sharing what I learn.

Best,

Reed

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:24 PM, John Hawrylak <John.H...@verizon.net> wrote:

Reed

It sounds like you are looking for an ultrasonic wall gauge measuring device.  Olyumpus makes these and are commonly used to measure steel wall thicknesses.  They require a calibration coupon of the same type of steel measured using traceable calipers.  The device is called to the known coupon thickness and then used to measure the unknown samples (in your case 4130 CrMoly steel).  Works on measuring the time for the sound wave to travel to the opposite surface and reflect back to the device.  The speed of sound is known for the particular type of steel (part of the calibration coupon) and the thickness is calculated/displayed.  MINIMUM accuracy is typically +/-0.001" or +/-0.03mm, so it accurate enough to determine 0.7 or 0.8mm wall

You probably need to remove the paint to bare metal, so the sound wav is not reflected off the paint interface. 

Your local VoTech school may be able to help.  If you known someone in industry using these, you may be able to take the frame to them for the measurement. 

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

PS I understand your reasoning and I applaud your initiative.  I am also considering a custom frame and want it to plane also.

--
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.

--
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 August]

Reed-
I’d wager that if you work with Fitz again and tell him all of this he’ll be able to build you the bike you are searching for without measuring the Nord.

-J

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/IxXpKC37tuQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Reed Kennedy]

I have! I own a custom built to the builder's suggested specs. However, if the Nordavinden works for me and  is in fact standard diameter 7/4/7 and 8/5/8 that means I can go even skinnier than any of the professional builders I have talked to would dare.

Dare? Yes, dare. I'm 6'3 and 200 pounds. There just plane isn't much data around building a bike that planes for someone my size. I've read the threads, I've read the BQ articles, I've talked to many folks. Even Mike Kone, John Fitzgerald, and Mitch at MAP haven't built many frames for somebody as large and heavy as I am. When they do, without much data, I suspect they err on the side of caution. (Though I lack the data to back that up.)

I know it's silly. I know it is extremely unlikely I will derive enough benefit from what I hope to learn to make the time, cost, and trouble worth it. 

But I've seen so many threads on what the right tubing is for folks bigger or heavier than the BQ testers is. I think I might be able to take measurements, find out, and share what I learn. I'd like to try.

Best,

Reed

[christian poppell]

Hey Reed,

How's about turning the Nord in to a travel bike with S&S couplers? Cut it up and put it back together!

Christian
Berkeley, CA

[Justin August]

Genius.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/IxXpKC37tuQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Justin Hughes]

Reed, have you determined that the Nord does not produce shimmy for you? 

[Andrew]

A proper UT set (olympus/krautkramer etc) will be able to measure peak to peak which won't include the paint thickness. If you don't have an in with an NDT company to do it off the books, gather all your frames to be done at once at their premises to minimise costs.

[jack loudon]

One thing that may cast doubt on thinwall tubing in the Nordavinden is frame weight.  My size 56 Nord frame weighs 4.31 lbs.  I have another thinwall frame in size 57 that weighs 3.95 lbs, so the Nord is about 9% heavier.  The 57 frame is lighter in spite of being physically larger, lugged construction, and OS tubeset.  I know this is far from scientific, but I'd think the Nord, being a slightly smaller frame, small diameter tubeset, and welded joints, should be closer in weight - or even lighter - than the 57 frame.  I don't know what could account for this weight difference except extra steel where I can't see it.  The Nord is an inexpensive production frame and my 57 was hand-built, but still... 

Jack

Seattle

[Reed Kennedy]

Ok, Christian, now -that's- tempting...

Best,

Reed

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Justin August <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Genius.

On Jan 4, 2018, 7:28 PM -0800, christian poppell <smo...@gmail.com>, wrote:

Hey Reed,

How's about turning the Nord in to a travel bike with S&S couplers? Cut it up and put it back together!

Christian
Berkeley, CA

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/IxXpKC37tuQ/unsubscribe.

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

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

--

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

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

[Reed Kennedy]

As with my other low trail bikes, it depends on how well secured the load is. When I ride no-hands, if I have a front load poorly supported it will shimmy at certain speeds.

If I stop and strap things down securely the shimmy goes away.

I've also never experienced shimmy while holding the handlebars on any of my bikes. Only when riding no-hands.

Best,

Reed

--

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.

[Reed Kennedy]

Interesting information, thank you for sharing Jack! I fully intended to weigh my Nord before building it up, but then it got here, I got excited, and I built it before I remembered to weigh it. Great to hear what yours weighs and how that compares to your other frame.

It rides so well I won't even be particularly upset if it turns out my Nord is thicker-tubed than it was supposed to be. I'd just like to know for sure so I can use this information to make educated choices going forward.

Best,

Reed

--

[Stephen Poole]

All this talk of ultrasonic testing is fascinating, but I'm wondering why one couldn't get a rough idea using vernier calipers. It should be possible to use the depth gauge to measure the depth from the top of a bottle boss to the inside of the tube opposite, and the OD (admittedly including the paint) nearby, though I suppose there maywell be some distortion near any braze-ons. 

Maybe paint thickness might be "standard" enough to extrapolate from, or else it might be feasible to figure out what it is somewhere out of sight, like under the BB shell?

It's not such an easy problem to solve.

Re flex, etc: The worry with a larger frame (or a longer top tube) is whether it might flex so much that it might have vague handling, be unstable or shimmy, all of which are possibilities, especially with low trail. However, FWIW, an acquaintance used to have the largest Alan Tourist frame, IIRC 60x61 cm, and was very pleased with it. I had a 54x56 (or maybe 54x57 - I forget now) until it broke and it was the most flexible frame I've ever ridden, so I'd expect the bigger frame to flex more. They were super fast and comfy, but sadly didn't hold up well (due to cheaper construction than other Alans), and wouldn't stay in gear if one stood. Apart from that they were wonderful, and extremely stable, but were *not* low trail.

Assuming the frame is strong enough, then IMHO the major issue with going really thin wall on a large frame is going to be stability, and low trail will increase the risk of problems.

Later,

Stephen

[David Parsons]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-8, Reed Kennedy wrote:

 

Dare? Yes, dare. I'm 6'3 and 200 pounds. There just plane isn't much data around building a bike that planes for someone my size.

It's possible that you're chasing the wrong triangle;  if you have the money to experiment (or are willing to take up a torch) I'd suggest messing around with the chain & seatstays.   I'm 6'1" & 185-195 pounds but the only lightweight frame I've gotten to honest-to-Heine plane was a custom O/S Ahearne that passed briefly through my hands, and the only out of the ordinary thing on it were the chainstays, which were paired tiny-diameter tubes (3/8s?  Maybe half-inch?)

(The frame was otherwise slow, and the planing was very cadence-dependent, so it only saw a couple of months service before I stripped it and sold the frame, but if planing is your thing that approach might be worthwhile, and if it doesn't work that's why G-d invented hacksaws.)

[jack loudon]

First let me say that the following idea certainly has no validity whatsoever, but...  I have 4 steel frames and one Ti frame with similar top tube lengths and, when tapping on them with a metal object, they all sound markedly different.  I'm sure that tubing length, diameter, thickness, density etc. all have an effect on the sound.  But maybe there's a very experienced 'frame whisperer' framebuilder who could tap on your top tube and give you your answer.

Jack

[Stephen Poole]

I wonder if powder coat damps vibrations more than wet paint, or enamel more or less than Imron, etc? Butt length and taper wil probablyl also affect the frequency...

[Mark Bulgier]

Stephen/satanas wrote:

> I'm wondering why one couldn't get a rough idea using vernier calipers. It should 

> be possible to use the depth gauge to measure the depth from the top of a bottle 

> boss to the inside of the tube opposite, and the OD (admittedly including the paint) 

> nearby, though I suppose there may well be some distortion near any braze-ons.

I just did it on a frame with known tubing thickness, 0.3 mm in the unbutt.

Both of my calipers have the depth measuring "stick" small enough to go through an M5 H2O.

The digital caliper has a resolution of 0.1 mm, and it reads 0.3, correct but not very convincing due to the potential accumulated error in two measurements.  I did each measurement several times and I did sometimes get a different number, 0.1 off from the other measurements.  But even if they're right, rounded to the nearest 0.1, that rounding error gets doubled for the difference between two measurements.

The vernier has twice the resolution, down to 0.05 mm.  That one reads the thickness as 0.35, which I have a little more confidence in.  At least we know we're in the ballpark.

Downsides of this method include it's only in the DT, and only the unbutt.  H2O bosses are rare in TT and in the butt of a DT.

I'm not worried about distortion near the braze-on because the same distortion is there for both measurements, and when you subtract them you take that side of the measurement out of the picture, right?  Or am I missing something?

Mark Bulgier

Seattle

[John Hawrylak]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:05:10 AM UTC-5, ViveLemond wrote:

First post here, but I've been lurking for a while and have been active in cycling since the 80's.
I admit it: I've been drinking the BQ/Jan Heine cool-aid. I'd like a 650b road bike with 42+mm tires for more "all-road" adventures, and I'd love to get a steel Soma-type frame at a reasonable price (let's say frame and fork in the $500-800 range, typical Taiwan sourced frame). I figure if I'm going to go down this road, I might as well get one that matches BQ's testing parameters of performance.It doesn't appear that anyone is making them with lightweight tubing (as is 7/4/7 or 8/5/8 dt), in the budget price point.
Is anyone here seeing anything different or have any suggestions?
Thanks for your input.

[Mark in Beacon]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 1:55:00 PM UTC-8, Alex Wetmore wrote:531 came in 8/5/8, 9/6/9, and 10/7/10 and often used a mix. 

Yes, I know there were different 531 tubesets. I had a Woodrup for a few minutes with 531st that I definitively did not enjoy. But the bikes I am talking about are vintage production racers, in a mediumish size, and those are generally acknowledged to have 8/5/8 tt and 9/6/9 dt. It's not hard to keep track of a final spec, especially when you publish it. Those specs were not submitted until the prototype, iirc. I agree it is likely harder to track geometry specs, especially when they are changed mid-design and the factory has more than one set.

Reed wrote: I'm sure Sean asked for a 7/4/7 top tube and an 8/5/8 down tube on the Nord. I'm just not certain the factory did what he asked. The frame feels less flexible than I'd expect. Specifically, to me, it feels about the same as my 8/5/8 OS bikes. 

So, a bike built with 8/5/8 OS has the amount of flex as the Nord, a bike that hits the sweet spot for you and you really like. (assuming, of course, that the 8/5/8 OS bike is actually 8/5/8 OS). That could mean a couple things. SInce 8/5/8 OS is waay stiffer than 7/4/7 standard, you may not be that sensitive to flex in a frameset. Or, the specs for the Nord are way off. To match the stiffness of an 8/5/8 OS, the standard tubes would have to be thicker than 9/6/9 I believe, though someone here knows the math better than me.

Which all goes to say, if you are getting a custom, as someone has suggested, find a builder you like and work with them, using all the information you already have on hand--your body build, riding style, preferences, past and current bikes, etc. I know you are hesitant due to your body type, but really, you are not that much of an outlier. I do doubt many builders would recommend a 7/4/7 tt for someone your size. Hopefully it will turn out to be your dream bike. But, as you yourself have alluded to, ultrasounding or electrocuting or cutting another bike in half is probably not going to be the deciding factor in the success of this endeavor. And unfortunately, even if you find out the answer, I don't see how it will be useful to others. Except maybe to throw placebo effect into future planing discussions. 

By the way, I think S&S couplers are kinda pricey, no? I get the desire for a custom, and just a question, but what further are you seeking beyond what the Rawland gives you? Is it aesthetics? Better fit?

 For instance the Trek 1983 620/630 frames used 10/7/10 downtubes and 8/5/8 top tubes (or the other way around, I'm not going to look it up now).

There are certainly plenty of examples of 8/5/8 frames out there with no dents (I have one too), but it is a lot more dent prone than 9/6/9 tubing unless harden it.  This is why most current steel bicycle tubes that are 8/5/8 are hardened. 

I don't think Sean or Matthew knowingly varied a spec and I respect both of them.  I think it is hard to keep track of the spec when it is constantly being changed and they are the middle man.  I know that Kogswell bikes had spec errors and surprises in almost every version.  It seemed like Matthew was constantly working with the supplier to see what was possible and would lose track of the final agreed upon spec.  Sometimes this resulted in really bad errors like the 700C 64cm P/R frames which have extremely slack angles because the frame was designed around a 650B length fork (I "fixed" two of those by cutting off the lower headtube).  The spec that matters is what Maxway built the frames to, and that is something that we don't have access to.  Hopefully Sean did a better job of keeping track of these details than Matthew did.  The rSogn is a nice bike and it's too bad that he only made one run of them.  

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 1:38:14 PM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Is there no "budget" 650b steel frame with "planing" tube specs?

 

Heat treated was discussed and ultimately passed over since no 7/4/7 was planned for this bike. I have a couple of 531 frames, one about 50 years old, the other about 45, no dents yet (fingers crossed).

He changed the specs constantly because the bike was being designed by committee and more or less blogged into being. Here are the final specs. If he lied, or the factory tricked him, yeah, then the planing that many have reported while riding this frame could certainly be placebo effect. Someone on another thread is looking for a frame to cut up. In fact he bought one for that purpose (Nord) but likes it too much to cut it. Sounds more like a job for consumer reports. While Sean and Rawland's credibility/reliability factors have long been a topic of internet discussion, I never got the impression he would knowingly vary a spec like that. What would be the point, especially after all that agonizing? 

Geometry
  > Four frame sizes: MD, ML, LG, and XL
  > 8/5/8 tubing for MD and ML
  > 9/6/9 tubing for LG and XL
  > No heat treatment
  > Click on the chart below to embiggen. 

(One caveat: this post was published on ...April 1.)

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 10:23:59 AM UTC-8, Alex Wetmore wrote:

Sean changed the published spec's on the rSogn constantly.  I wouldn't trust anything that is in writing, the only way to know what tubing was used is to cut up a damaged frame.  I doubt that Sean actually has good records of what drawings Maxway built the frames from.

This same problem can be seen with Kogswell frames.  It is a downside of being so open with customers through the design process.  The upside is that the customers had a louder voice and the bike came closer to what customers would have wanted.

8/5/8 tubing in 4130 is pretty dent prone and a heat treated top tube would normally be used.  I don't think the rSogn had any heat treated tubing.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:18:26 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Is there no "budget" 650b steel frame with "planing" tube specs?

 

You may be right, Ryan. It was a long time ago. But definitely had the 8/5/8 tt. And even if the DT is 9/6/9, the rSogn was also standard diameter, so basically equivalent to a 531 frame at minimum. Of course there is the fork...

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:49:30 AM UTC-8, Ryan wrote:

My understanding was 8/5/8 all around, or at least top and down tubes. My rSogn planes better than my Boulder which has a 7/4/7 TT. 

Ryan

On Jan 4, 2018, at 07:37, Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reed Kennedy wrote:

The rSogn, however, is all 9/6/9 standard diameter, definitely not what BQ advocates:

http://rawlandcycles.blogspot.com/2010/09/rsogn-tire-clearance-and-tubing.html

As a participant in the rSogn discussions and one who pre-ordered the bike,  I am 99% certain this is not correct. Final specs were for 8/5/8 in the top tube.

--
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.

--

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.

[John P]

I'd very much like to know the answers to all the questions Reed is asking, even if it's somehow not useful to me.

  -John

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

[jack loudon]

David said: "It's possible that you're chasing the wrong triangle" 

I agree with David.  Years ago, BQ tested a Trek bike with an elastomer donut in the rear triangle.  The elastomer came in three densities, and the too-hard and too-soft ones made the bike feel dead and bouncy, respectively.  However, the middle density made the bike 'plane' for Jan, and this otherwise mediocre bike then climbed as well as the best bikes he had ridden.  In the recent 333fab test, BQ guessed the bike's poor performance may be due to flex characteristics of the rear triangle.

'Planing' is an elusive sensation, so maybe Trek-style elastomers are a good idea for fine-tuning a frame to suit the individual rider.   

Jack

Seattle

[Chris Sanford]

>Years ago, BQ tested a Trek bike with an elastomer donut in the rear triangle. 

Interesting.  This bike?

--

[John Hawrylak]

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, Mark in Beacon wrote:

"Yes, I know there were different 531 tubesets. I had a Woodrup for a few minutes with 531st that I definitively did not enjoy. But the bikes I am talking about are vintage production racers, in a mediumish size, and those are generally acknowledged to have 8/5/8 tt and 9/6/9 dt. "

Mark, just for clarification:  Are you saying medium frames with a 1" 8/5/8 TT and 1=18" 9/6/9 had decent planning???

" To match the stiffness of an 8/5/8 OS, the standard tubes would have to be thicker than 9/6/9 I believe, though someone here knows the math better than me."

Mark, correct, the following STD diameter tubes have the same calculated beam deflection (stiffness) as OS 0.8/0.5/0.8 mm tubing

1" TT,           1.21/ 0.74 /1.21 mm,   1" (STD) vs 1-1/8" (OS)

1-1/8" DT,     1.14/ 0.71 /1.14 mm,  1-1/8" (STD) vs 1-1/4" (OS) 

The STD tubes are slightly thicker than the Columbus Tenax tubing used in approx. 125,000 Schwinn frames in the 1980's, and the OS TT is significantly thicker than STD 8/5/8.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[jack loudon]

I'm not personally familiar with the bike, but it was a Trek 2100 tested in 2006.  If the elastomer truly does have the ability to fine-tune the ride and allow planing, I'm wondering why  this idea isn't promoted by BQ or other planing advocates?  Maybe there are other drawbacks?  

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 10:36:11 AM UTC-8, csanford wrote:

>Years ago, BQ tested a Trek bike with an elastomer donut in the rear triangle. 

Interesting.  This bike?

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:32 AM, jack loudon <jwlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

David said: "It's possible that you're chasing the wrong triangle" 

I agree with David.  Years ago, BQ tested a Trek bike with an elastomer donut in the rear triangle.  The elastomer came in three densities, and the too-hard and too-soft ones made the bike feel dead and bouncy, respectively.  However, the middle density made the bike 'plane' for Jan, and this otherwise mediocre bike then climbed as well as the best bikes he had ridden.  In the recent 333fab test, BQ guessed the bike's poor performance may be due to flex characteristics of the rear triangle.

'Planing' is an elusive sensation, so maybe Trek-style elastomers are a good idea for fine-tuning a frame to suit the individual rider.   

Jack

Seattle

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

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

[John Hawrylak]

Chris

I believe Trek used the donuts on Aluminium frame bikes to greatly reduce road buzz, although they may have had carbon frames with them to also "soften" the ride.  Never heard Trek claimed "planning" although it may be an unintended consequence.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Justin August]

I would assume a large reason for not wanting to use elastomers or other low level suspension to encourage planing is that the planing ideal also conjures up nostalgia of French Bikes with skinny tubes, curved forks and the like. There’s a lot of re-enactment that goes along with the very reasonable want for a responsive and reactive frame that planes. People don’t just want a bike that planes - they want a Rene Herse.

Which I totally understand.

-Justin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/IxXpKC37tuQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[jack loudon]

I believe your correct; the elastomers weren't intended to promote planing, but this was BQ's conclusion.  I would like Jan Heine to comment on the usefulness of elastomers for planing, and whether they would be a practical addition to a custom frame.   

Jack

[Mark in Beacon]

Hi John. I am saying that my 2 vintage bikes with standard 531 tubing, which in almost all non-touring, "competive" bicycles in the 1960s and 1970s, meant a tubeset with an 8/5/8 tt and 9/6/9 dt are a couple of my favorite rides, especially with 700 x 32 or 35 wider good quality tires. And with those good tires and when I am in shape and well-fed and feeling young, I might describe the sensation as planing, yes.

[Mark in Beacon]

I disagree. I understand that you understand, but the term "re-enactment" always seems to carry a whiff of derision, even if not meant in that way. In fact, the tubes being skinny are part of the reason bicycles are said to plane. Forks being beautifully curved are believed to provide more than historical accuracy. At least in terms of steel bikes, which I believe are still a valid technology. But these days, bikes reviewed in BQ, the fertile crescent of planing, you'll see machines with fat carbon profiles, titanium, etc. Most bicycles ordered with planing in mind also come with 10 or more cogs in the rear, STI style shifters and 1 1/8 steerers. And it looks like the latest generation of 650b all roads might have a few candidates for planing--and disc brakes. Bikes qualifying for Eroica events might be closer to "re-enactment" (for me they are basically, my bikes), but the term really refers to acting out historical events. If you rode your fully stock RH to a French style cafe while wearing baggy knickers, a blouse and a beret, and smoking a Gitanes, that would be re-enactment. POIDH.

[Justin August]

Mark-
I know all of that. And the reality is that most folks chasing the planing dragon are looking to find the equivalent of a skinny tubed, lugged or filet brazed, steel, 1” threaded steerer, with curved fork blades and rim brakes.

I understand why - they are elegantly beautiful. But there are clearly other avenues to chase that are very rarely chased around these parts. It’s not meant as a slight. It’s my fault if it came off as such. To that I apologize.

-Justin

[Reed Kennedy]

I'm definitely open to the rear triangle being more important. One thing that would be exciting about ultrasonic testing is that I could easily measure those tubes as well.

If these devices do turn out to be useful for measuring bicycle tubing I wonder if BQ would consider using one to measure the frames they test? They measure most specifications themselves, but if I remember correctly they publish the manufacturer's quoted tubing thicknesses.

Best,

Reed

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:32 AM, jack loudon <jwlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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

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

[Reed Kennedy]

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reed wrote: I'm sure Sean asked for a 7/4/7 top tube and an 8/5/8 down tube on the Nord. I'm just not certain the factory did what he asked. The frame feels less flexible than I'd expect. Specifically, to me, it feels about the same as my 8/5/8 OS bikes. 

So, a bike built with 8/5/8 OS has the amount of flex as the Nord, a bike that hits the sweet spot for you and you really like. (assuming, of course, that the 8/5/8 OS bike is actually 8/5/8 OS). That could mean a couple things. SInce 8/5/8 OS is waay stiffer than 7/4/7 standard, you may not be that sensitive to flex in a frameset. Or, the specs for the Nord are way off. To match the stiffness of an 8/5/8 OS, the standard tubes would have to be thicker than 9/6/9 I believe, though someone here knows the math better than me. 

 

Which all goes to say, if you are getting a custom, as someone has suggested, find a builder you like and work with them, using all the information you already have on hand--your body build, riding style, preferences, past and current bikes, etc. I know you are hesitant due to your body type, but really, you are not that much of an outlier. I do doubt many builders would recommend a 7/4/7 tt for someone your size. Hopefully it will turn out to be your dream bike. But, as you yourself have alluded to, ultrasounding or electrocuting or cutting another bike in half is probably not going to be the deciding factor in the success of this endeavor. And unfortunately, even if you find out the answer, I don't see how it will be useful to others. Except maybe to throw placebo effect into future planing discussions.  

 

By the way, I think S&S couplers are kinda pricey, no? I get the desire for a custom, and just a question, but what further are you seeking beyond what the Rawland gives you? Is it aesthetics? Better fit?

The thing I want to know: How light of tubing is too light for a large heavy rider? How light is just right? Is building for a 200 pound rider with 8/5/8 OS tubing the equivalent of building for a 150 pound rider with 7/4/7 SD tubing? Or is 8/5/8 OS conservative? Simply the current compromise because nobody wants to build a frame for a large rider that fails?

I believe that we won't know what is "just right" for a large rider until we know what is too thin. I haven't been able to find that information, so I am trying to establish it myself. If I have to have a probably-too-thin custom made, I may well. But first I'd like to establish as much information as I can using inexpensive production frames. Then I can make an educated guess about what probably-too-thin is. 7/4/7 OS? 8/5/8 SD? Something else?

Hence my interest in confirming (or correcting) what we know about the Rawland Nordavinden.

I'm pretty happy with my bikes. My goal is information. Yes, it will only be one data point. It may not apply to all large riders. However, it will be one more data point than the dearth we have now. 

Best,

Reed

[Jeff Bertolet]

If it fails, what is a premature failure? Perhaps superlight bikes should not be considered bikes for indefinite use. If I had a bike was on the “just right” between too stiff and not stiff enough would 10 years be long enough? 5 years?

I really like my Lyons, but I am not prepared to pay 50% more for a possibility of a few % gain in performance and possibility of decreased durability, or being more prone to shimmy.