Re: [650B] 650b bike recommendations

[ron...@ronlau.com]

Alex,

I would recommend Box Dog bikes in SF. Their Pelican can take 38 or 42c
with mudguard and it comes with all the braze on for all your needs.

Give them a email or call, they are very popular here in SF.

http://www.boxdogbikes.com/products-the-bdb-pelican/


Ron

"The Pelican

The Pelican is our in-house designed and USA built low trail, fully
integrated randonneur frameset. A fully integrated randonneur bicycle is a
quick riding, long distance road bike that is designed to carry a small
amount of luggage, usually in a handlebar bag, with built-in provisions for
full coverage fenders and generator lighting front and rear. The Pelican is
designed to be ridden on roads and tracks in all weather, and at all hours
of the day and night.

There are currently two versions of the Pelican. They share the same
geometry, but differ in terms of the builder and tube set. Click through
the title of either model to connect to the web store and view more
detailed photographs.

Banjo
From 2007-2012 Pelicans were built in Wisconsin by Banjo Bicycles. The
Banjo Pelicans are tig welded from True Temper Double butted steel, and use
the Grand Bois 50mm wide fork crown and Imperial Oval fork blades.

Winter
From 2013 forwards Pelicans are being built for us by Winter Bicycles in
Oregon. Winter Pelicans are a fully brazed frameset. The main triangle is
fillet brazed using Dedacciai double butted steel tubing. We are moving to
a thinner wall tubing which will give the new Pelican frames a more lively
and exciting ride. We still use the Grand Bois 50mm wide fork crown and
Imperial Oval fork blades.

All Pelicans are 1” threaded, have classic or “standard” diameter tubing,
level top tubes, vertical dropouts, take cantilever or V-brakes, have
correct fender lines, and have provisions for generator light wiring on the
fork blade and internal wire routing through the downtube. We offer the
Pelican frames in 700c in sizes 54-62cm, and in 650b from 48-62cm. You can
easily fit 700x35mm tire with fenders, or 650bx42mm tires with fenders.

Pelican frames have been ridden confidently over countless miles by
randonneurs and commuters around North America, and even in the famed
Paris-Brest-Paris grand randonnee in France. It is possibly the best riding
and designed USA built “off the peg” randonneur frameset available today.

We fully prep each frame prior to shipping. We face the bottom bracket
shell and head tube, apply frame-saver and run a dummy string through the
frame to facilitate routing generator wiring. If you are interested in a
full build call or email the shop. We are building out the store but do not
have our full run of components, lights, fenders, bags and other
accessories online yet.

More photographs and examples of customer builds can be found in the Box
Dog Bikes Pelican Pool on Flickr."

[Ryan Watson]

Sounds like the Rawland Stag is almost exactly what you're looking for. 

Lacking low riders though. 

The rSogn would be good too, more of an all rounder with room for big knobbies. It does have lowrider mounts. 

I have one and it's the best bike I've ever owned!

Check out the Ocean Air Rambler, too. 

It' 650B in 57 and smaller sizes. I have one on order :-) It uses centerpulls instead of cantilevers, though. (a huge plus in my book)

Ryan

On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:37, tortoi...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi folks,

I just joined this group and appreciate all the information i've found here so far.  Question for you (which i've also posted on the Rivendell Bicycle Works Owners Group but is more appropriate here).  Can you recommend a 650B bicycle for me?  

I already have a 650B bike for camping and carrying heaving loads (a converted 1985 Miyata 610) and would like one other 650B racing-style bicycle for everything else.

Uses

====

1) Everything except carrying heavy loads

2) Riding fast near and far on smooth or rough roads

3) Regularly carrying a light front load (<= 5 kg) on a small front rack, such as the Nitto M12

4) Occasionally carrying an extra front load in panniers on a removable low-rider front rack  

Desiderata

=========

a) Light and high-performance. I weigh about 65 kg.

b) Can accommodate 650B x 38 mm tires with mudguards.  Bonus points for accommodating 650B x 42 mm tires with mudguards.

c) Cantilever brakes for good clearance, braking power, and looks

d) Lugged or fillet brazed for good looks

e) Frame and fork cost <= USD 2000

I'm considering both new and used bikes.  In the new bike category, i've read that the Ebisu All-Purpose, the Box Dog Pelican, and the Boulder All-Road are excellent matches. By the way, is there a clear winner among those three?

Thanks for your attention.

Alex

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/650b?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Ken Freeman]

In the same bin I'd probably pick the Boulder Randonneur, or All-Road if you want 650b Hetres.  The Stag and Rambler may prove to be strong competition, however.

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[tortoi...@gmail.com]

Judging from the Stag specs on the Rawland website and from photos of other Rawland models, the Stag appears to fail desideratum (d). 

[Daniel]

Alex, I don't think we're going to point you to any thing you haven't already seen or heard of (or included on your list). There is one more you might consider: the SOMA Grand Randonneur. I would guess it meets all your criteria, but since it's not released yet, I can't be sure.

As for the Stag, it sounds like a neat bike, but details are still changing, so you might wait for it to solidify. It is TIG welded but non-TIG construction was only a desire on your original list. If my rSogn is any indicator, the Rawland welds are pretty clean.

At your $2k budget, you'd also do well to commission a custom. Try Jeff Lyons, Jack Franklin, Tom Matchak, or Al Wanta. There are many builders out there to consider and these are just a few; the ones I would hire, whom I also believe to be within that budget.

There are also semi-custom options like a Boxer Brevet Series (http://boxerbicycles.com/new-brevet-series-2/).

Daniel

[Ken Freeman]

Along with the Boxer you'll find the MAP Project and the Boulder.

I know Mitch Prior (MAP) is a little bit seasonal as far as taking in new Project orders.  I'm not sure about Boxer or Boulder.  Boulder used to do a special winter build, but I'm not sure he's doing that this year.

[tortoi...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the builder names, Daniel. Jeff Lyon's L'avecaise 650b sounds good and is under USD 2000:

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/
http://lyonsport.com/

Alex

[tortoi...@gmail.com]

The Boxer Brevet Series queue is closed, and the MAP Project frame sets are over my budget.

[tortoi...@gmail.com]

Thanks for your help, everybody! OK, regarding new bikes that satisfy my desiderata, i would get a 

* Box Dog Pelican or 

* Jeff Lyon L'Avecaise.

Sorted.

Now, onto old bikes that can take a 650B conversion to meet the desiderata, which would be the cheaper option by about USD 1000. I know a local frame builder who can braze on cantilever bosses for me.  So let me put desiderata c) aside when considering old bikes. 

These look good for a 650B x 38 mm conversion:

* 1980--1986 top-of-the line Trek sport bikes featuring mostly Reynolds 531 tubing, such as the 1986 Trek 700

* 1986 Miyata 912 featuring Miyata splined tubing

Any other suggestions?

Alex

[franklyn]

I have converted several older steel frames to use 650b wheels:

1. 80's Specialized Sequoia: actually has good chainstay and vertical fork clearance for wide (36mm or larger) 650b tires. I replaced the stock fork with a Kogswell Konversion fork and added cantilever brakes. The BB height is a little low if you like to pedal through sharp corners, but otherwise it's a great candidate. Here is the frameset after a recent repaint. I am still rebuilding it up.

2. 1982 Trek 720. This year of 720 didn't come with cantilever studs, which make the conversion easier--you don't have to use a torch to move the studs, but can just use longer-reach brakes. This is my wife's bike and she uses 165mm cranks, no pedal strikes yet. It uses 36mm CdlVs, but can probably accommodate Lierres.

3. Bridgestone RB-T: I didn't convert this bike, but helped a friend build it up. The fork has been re-raked. Currently using 33mm Rivy tires, but can easily take 36mm CdlVs, if not wider

franklyn

[Steve Chan]

These are the likely candidates I would have suggested as well - a
few comments in addition to what Franklyn says:

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:55 PM, franklyn <sin...@msn.com> wrote:
> 1. 80's Specialized Sequoia: actually has good chainstay and vertical fork
> clearance for wide (36mm or larger) 650b tires. I replaced the stock fork
> with a Kogswell Konversion fork and added cantilever brakes. The BB height
> is a little low if you like to pedal through sharp corners, but otherwise
> it's a great candidate. Here is the frameset after a recent repaint. I am
> still rebuilding it up.

The Sequoia usually gets good reviews for 650B conversions. I
believe it uses standard gauge tubing (of high quality), so it won't
be as flexible and spry as a custom L'Avecaise or the lighter gauge
tubing versions of the Box Dog Pelicans.

> 2. 1982 Trek 720. This year of 720 didn't come with cantilever studs, which
> make the conversion easier--you don't have to use a torch to move the studs,
> but can just use longer-reach brakes. This is my wife's bike and she uses
> 165mm cranks, no pedal strikes yet. It uses 36mm CdlVs, but can probably
> accommodate Lierres.

Franklyn's wife and I have a lot of overlap in our bikes (we could
probably ride each other's bike easily). I have pretty much the same
bike, but the original with the 700c wheels (but I have a Kogswell
Konversion fork like Franklyn's Sequoia). The caveat with converting
this model to 700c is that the chainstays are crazy long - great for
cush and heel clearance, but your fender mounting will be somewhat
clunkier, and for a fat tire you may need to deflate before you can
pull it out (the 720 has long horizontal dropouts). I run 700x33 tires
on mine and have to deflate it a little to get it out of the dropout.

You might have the same issue with fenders and deflating a fat tire
on all of these conversion frames - that is one of the drawbacks of a
converting an older 700c bike.

The 720 series had Reynolds 531, but with a touring gauge downtube.
This makes the bike very stable for carrying loads, but I didn't find
my 720 to be as flexible and responsive to pedaling as my old Serotta
race bike (which where I mostly clearly noticed the "planing"
phenomenon).

> 3. Bridgestone RB-T: I didn't convert this bike, but helped a friend build
> it up. The fork has been re-raked. Currently using 33mm Rivy tires, but can
> easily take 36mm CdlVs, if not wider

I did the conversion ( http://flic.kr/s/aHsjwA7tnP ) and Franklyn
did the build - as nicely as it turned out, it still has the drawbacks
listed above with potential fender alignment and wheel removal. Modern
purpose built 650b brevet bikes usually have the fender mounting all
worked out, and vertical dropouts
The good thing about the RB-T is that it might actually have the
lightest, sportiest tubing selection of these 3 bikes. That being
said, the Sequoia and the Trek 720 are highly regarded for the quality
of the frame construction (Grant Peterson explicitly called out the
Sequoia as a very well built bike), while the Bridgestone bikes were
more of a mainstream, assembly line level of quality.

Finding the right vintage bike and having a custom fork + small
mods to the frame itself is often a great way to get most of the
benefits of a nice purpose built/semi-custom 650B brevet bike. But
there are tradeoffs - which might be totally worth it for you.

Steve
--
"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a
habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel
Smiles

[tortoi...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the details, Steve, and nice looking RB-T!

Yeah, i don't want to convert a touring/heaving tube set bike. As i
said, i already converted a 1985 Miyata 610 to 650B to serve as a
camping bike. I'm looking for a *light* tube set bike, such as an all
Reynolds 531 frame set. Amplifying on that, i'd like standard
diameter tubing and not oversized diameter tubing, because, weighing
only 65 kg, i don't need the extra rigidity. I want a lively feel.

Let me add that last bit to the list as item f).

Desiderata
=========
a) Light and high-performance. I weigh about 65 kg.
b) Can accommodate 650B x 38 mm tires with mudguards. Bonus points
for accommodating 650B x 42 mm tires with mudguards.
c) Cantilever brakes for good clearance, braking power, and looks
d) Lugged or fillet brazed for good looks
e) Frame and fork cost <= USD 2000

f) Standard diameter tubing, not oversized tubing.

Alex

[Chris Cullum]

If you are looking for lightweight standard gauge tubing some to look for are:

Reynolds 531C (not ST), 753
Columbus SL
Tange Prestige, Champion no 2 or lighter no. 1
Ishiwata 22 (or lower)

Those are all 9/6/9 in std gauge (or lighter in some instances). There is light tubing by Dedacciai and Vitus but they are too rare to really search for.

The Avecaise is a super choice but I think Jeff Lyons pricelist is a bit out of date and current rando framesets are around $2000 IIRC.

Chris Cullum
Vancouver, BC

[Steve Chan]

Hi Alex,

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM, <tortoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> f) Standard diameter tubing, not oversized tubing.

Actually for the bikes mentioned, the tubing diameters are all
standard, however the wall thicknesses vary. As I recall, the Sequoia
has standard diameter tubing with .9/.6/.9 wall thicknesses. The Trek
720 has Reynolds 531 .8/.5/.8 walls for the top tube, but 1.0/.7/1.0
for the downtube - so it is Reynolds 531, but not Reynods 531C. Jan
Heine claims that it is the top tube that makes the big difference in
planing, but in this case, maybe it would take a .7/.4/.7 top tube for
the planing to kick in. I believe that Franklyn told me his wife also
felt that the Trek wasn't as quick feeling as the Torelli or Serotta
that she also owned - hopefully he will correct me if I'm mistaken.

The RB-T was assumed to have .9/.6/.9 tubing, but John Speare had
his RB-T frame modified and discovered that it was .8/.5/.8 tubing for
the top tube and downtube, which is actually a little more flexible
than Reynolds 531C.
http://cyclingspokane.blogspot.com/2010/02/coupled.html

A modern bike with oversized thinwall OX Platinum tubing is going
to be only a little stiffer than a standard gauge .9/.6/.9 frame. If
the builder is able to use a more aggressive butting profile for the
top tube, it could be comparable to your typical 531C frame.

[Nick Payne]

On 05/02/13 16:52, tortoi...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for the details, Steve, and nice looking RB-T!

Yeah, i don't want to convert a touring/heaving tube set bike.  As i
said, i already converted a 1985 Miyata 610 to 650B to serve as a
camping bike.  I'm looking for a *light* tube set bike, such as an all
Reynolds 531 frame set.  Amplifying on that, i'd like standard
diameter tubing and not oversized diameter tubing, because, weighing
only 65 kg, i don't need the extra rigidity. I want a lively feel.

Let me add that last bit to the list as item f).

Desiderata
=========
a) Light and high-performance. I weigh about 65 kg.
b) Can accommodate 650B x 38 mm tires with mudguards.  Bonus points
for accommodating 650B x 42 mm tires with mudguards.
c) Cantilever brakes for good clearance, braking power, and looks
d) Lugged or fillet brazed for good looks
e) Frame and fork cost <= USD 2000
f) Standard diameter tubing, not oversized tubing.

Other than your price limit, I'd suggest getting a custom 650b Ti frame. I had Hampsten (Tournesol) build me one about three or four years ago. At the time, the frame, fork, and a custom saddlebag rack cost $3000, though I think I got my order in just ahead of a price rise. They also do their customs in lugged steel, presumably somewhat cheaper than the Ti models. Some pictures of my Tournesol here: https://picasaweb.google.com/100520469917381690611/Tournesol?authkey=Gv1sRgCLXu1dWGq6eNxwE. Those are 38mm tyres under the mudguards. There's plenty of clearance, so I suspect 42mm would fit without any problem, but I haven't tried them on that bike, as I tend to use it for Audax randonnees where I'm looking for a reasonable turn of speed.

The way I look at it, when you amortise the additional cost over a decade or two, it's a dollar or two a week at most.

Nick

[Trek610]

I am not sure the Trek '86 700 is a good fit for what you are looking for.....   If you are looking for a "low" trail design.  

If you are after that low trail design, like the Pelican has (41-42), then you should look at the 1983 600s.  With a Soma 38mm tire you get a trail of 44 which is lowish.   The 1986 (while an awesome bike) with that same tire would have a trail of about 55, not really lowish.  BTW if you decide that is a good fit for you the 400, 500, 520 and 700 all had the same geometry.  Many of these are 531 main triangles, not full 531 so you may be categorically have eliminated them.  The other issue here is that Trek did not publish geometry for all sizes in the many of the early 80 catalogs - so you may have to fudge it some if you are anything but a 22.5.  

You may find the online trail calculator helpful:  http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php 

You are correct when you say that many of the early 80s Treks may work. I was lucky to find a 1983 Trek 630, and plan to do a 650 conversion soon.  It has a 531 full triangle and manganese fork and rear stays.  All I can tell you is it rides great on the stock 27s, I can only imagine how nice it would be with 650s.   The only downside with many of these, is that if you want to run a 42 Hetre with fenders, I do not believe these frames have the clearance.

Hope some of this helps - I have spent many many hours trying to find the perfect frame for a low trail conversion.  I am not sure on this, but I suspect the Raleigh Super Course might be a good fit as well.  There are a couple of other options and brands but they escape me, but not many.

Also - I think it was mentioned earlier, but Soma is going to release a Grand Rando bike sometime soon.  That has me interested peaked.  That may be one that works for you as well.

Cheers,

Tom

[Trek610]

Also - I many of these do not have canti brakes on them.  So they are simpler to convert with long reach brakes.  So if you must have canti brakes you can ignore my post.  I also suspect many of the canti braked bikes will be touring focused and have heavier tube sets in general.  If you are going all out and plan to repaint the frame, many frame shops can add canti studs simply.  

Although I have never done it - though many have discussed its benefits - having a fork re-raked may work for you as well.  Making many of the early 80s bikes candidates.  I often wonder how far you can change it, and how that affects other considerations 45mm to 60mm? to even 55mm?  Again, I think it comes down to your desire to have something low trail or not.  I think there some RIVs that can be had in 650b but they will not be 650B

Cheers - hope I am helping.

[Trek610]

Ugh - meant "I think there some RIVs that can be had in 650b but they will not be low trail"

[tortoi...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the information, Tom.  I'll write up a separate Trek wanted post now. If i find a good Trek, then i'll put 650B x 38mm tires on it, such as the Grand Bois Lierre, and possibly add canti bosses and increase the fork offset if the bike doesn't handle a front load well. 

Alex

[Nick Bull]

I currently own four 80's Treks.  The low-trail ones from earlier in the decade definitely make nice 650B conversion targets.  (My 1985 Trek 500 has too tight a geometry to be a good conversion candidate -- it's built up as a fixie with 700Cx25 tires being about the biggest it can take.)  I have an '82 Trek 728 running Hetres that is currently my main randonneuring machine.  It's actually slightly higher trail than might be optimal since the fork rake is only 52mm.  But it's all-Reynolds 531 and it has a very nice road feel.  Prior to that I was riding an '84 Trek 610 with Hetres as my main rando bike.  It's all-Reynolds 531CS and I thought that maybe the Reynolds 531 in the 728 would be even nicer, though I'm not sure I can tell any difference.  Anyway, it got built back to 700C and it is my daily commuter.  I'm not really sure that the Reynolds fork in the 728 makes all that much of a difference compared with whatever is in the 610.  Finally, I have an '82 Trek 614 that I gave to my son as a commuter bike after riding it as my main commuter for a year.  It cannot be converted to use modern 9-speed wheels because the cable is routed above the chainstay which makes the cable interfere with the chain when dropping into the smallest cog.  So it's still running 7-speed freewheel.

To me, the most important thing to know about the early Treks is that the '82 Trek 613 and 614 should absolutely be avoided, because the Ishiwata CCL fork crown does not have a proper lug point on the inside of the fork near the crown.  Instead, the lug just makes a horizontal line across the fork leg on the inside, which creates a stress riser.  One day I was riding to work and noticed the fender rubbing again as it had been for the prior couple of weeks.  OK, I decided to stop and take a look but couldn't see any reason it should be rubbing.  I adjusted the fender line a little but that didn't help.  It only rubbed when I stood up on hills, so I did that while looking down at the fender.  Boy, I could see a lot of flex in the fork.  I didn't remember it being that flexy!  I decided I'd better ride back home to see what was going on -- disassembled the fork and discovered that the fork legs were cracked all the way along that lug line.  I was able to literally pull the fork legs off with my bare hands.  Good thing I found it before my daily 30-mph descent down the hill behind my house tore the fork apart!  I replaced the fork with one from an '86 Trek 400 that had the main frame triangle destroyed in a crash.

It looks like the '81 Trek 610/613/614 were made with the same Ishiwata fork as the '82, but I can't tell for sure if their crowns are also defective without being able to look at one. So, all that said, here is my current list of desirable low-trail, high-quality-steel Treks:  Information compiled from the Vintage Trek website.

AVOID '81 Trek 610/613/614 and '82 Trek 613/614 because the Ishiwata CCL fork crown does not have a proper lug point so it is a stress-riser failure vector.

R531=Reynolds 531=R531
NCO=Reynolds New Continental Oval fork

Low-Trail, high-quality steel
Except as noted, all have 73 degree head angle, 55mm rake = 43mm trail with 650Bx42 tires.

1976 TX700=R531+NCO
1977 TX700=R531+NCO
1978 710=R531+NCO, 910=Columbus SL/SP+NCO
1979 710=R531+NCO, 910=Columbus SL/SP+NCO
1980 710=R531+NCO, 910=Columbus SL/SP
1981 AVOID 610/613/614, see above
1982 AVOID 613/614, see above
1983 600/620/630/640 = R531C + mangalloy fork -- rear-rack + water-bottle cage

1984 610=R531CS frame+ fork; has 52mm rake=49.6mm trail with 650Bx42 tires.

1982 720/728=R531, 72 degree head+52 mm rake==> 52mm trail with 650Bx42 tires.

[tortoi...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the tips, Nick. Hey, we should put them and others on a
Trek 650B conversion webpage/wiki, possibly on the Vintage Trek
website (http://vintage-trek.com/). What do you think?

I will avoid the 1982 Trek 613 and 614!

From what i understand Reynolds 531CS tubing is 531 in the main
triangle and 501 in the stays and fork
(http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-121899.html). That
tubing is nice and light enough that i've included it in my Trek
wanted list.

Alex

[Nicholas Bull]

Hi, Alex,

Yes, I started to say that the 610's fork isn't Reynolds 531 because that's how I remembered it, then looked it up and it said Reynolds 531CS so I took my statement out.  But I left in an out-of-context statement about the non-Reynolds fork in the 610 that might have been puzzling.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder of what the CS means: Reynolds 501 stays and fork!  It's my understanding that 501 is just the same steel as 531 but rolled and seam-welded instead of being seamless.  I have no idea whether that has any real-world practical implications.  Maybe slightly heavier and less responsive because of the welding?  Or maybe 501 and 531 are not even the same steel.

Nick

[Trek610]

Nick has pulled together some great information - thanks for this.  I have a couple of foot notes to add and miscellaneous pieces of information to add.

1) If you look at the very early bikes - until '76 - '80 they were only 73 degree head tubes in sizes larger than 22.5.  The smaller bikes 19 & 21 inch bikes get  more slack and affect that low trail quest considerably.  I am vertically challenged @ 5'6 and 21' treks so this took those years out of the running for me.

For example a 21' 1080 510, 710 and 910 (same as many of the 76-80 treks do) had a head angle of 71.5 degrees.  With a  605b X 42 tire you wind up with a trail of 55, not considered low.  The same models in a 22.5 inch size with a 73 degree head angle and 650b X 42 provides a trail of 45 which is in the lowish trail.  So - 1976 - 1980 you must ride a 22.5 or larger to get that 73 degree head tube angle.

2)  I was totally unaware of the 81 and 82 fork issue - in all my wasted time on the net I did not run across this critical - Thanks Nick!

3)  Here comes 1983 - every size in the 600 series is 73 seat and head tube angles with fork rakes of 55cm.  This is great for shorter riders with frame needs of 19" or 21".    Should I say it is really the only option in Vintage trek that works.  Now the only drawback of the 600 series is that they are not full 531 and have manganese alloy forks.  I am not a tubing expert and have no idea how it really compares to 531 - I just now my  '83 630 rides good by me.

4) In 1984 Trek decides not to publish geometry for all sizes... ugh.  I have asked this question to several people in the "know" and have been told they continue with 73 degree head tube angles in the smaller sizes, but I cannot be sure.  I had an 21" 1984 610 for a short time, but did not measure the angle.  It was as sweet riding bike, but was in rough shape so I let it go.  FWIW - that 1984 610 (imho) may be one of the best all around bikes they made.  It makes a great bike that can be easily changed to 700c.  It is not, imho, a good candidate for a low trail 650b bike.

5)  Lastly - I would be careful of the touring dedicated bikes - 620 and 720s specifically.  Again, I know nothing really and this is just my opinion, but many of these of long chain stay lengths for carrying loads and reducing heal strikes when carrying large panniers. The 1983 720 has a chain stay length of 47cm - very much a touring bike.   Going back to many of the sport touring bikes designs of the early 80s I think you will find most to be 42.5 - 44cm.  The only reason I bring this up is I do not think you will get that sporty ride you "may" be looking for in a bike with a long wheel base.  I had an '84 620 and liked it, but would take the '83 over it any as it has more "feel" whatever that means.... :-).

I appears that anything newer than 85 does not really have the fork rake necessary for a conversion.  That being said - the '85 and '85 520s are really, really great bikes and ride like a dream.

6)  Disclaimer:  Many of the above suggestions about geometry I have spew have been gleaned from modern 650b bike manufactures.  So I am making a generalization that could be way off base.  I was merely assuming modern 650b bikes have ideal geometry and went back looking for bikes that had these same qualities.  Again - it is important for me to clarify the I am speaking about low trail 650b bikes you hear about used for rando and endurance type riding.  

Other than Trek - I wonder what other bikes might fit.  I have not really found anything sporty that fits the bill.  The Miyata 1000s and Expeditions of the world are much to touring orientated to fit in this group I believe.  I am wondering if any Raleigh experts could jump in and provide information on the '80s Supercourse an international models.  I think they have right tubing set and geometry that may work great for a low trail 650b conversion.  Some early Schwinn Paramountints may fit the bill as well, but...... not many would likely convert these.  I have to admit the thought of a 650B chrome P-15 in my size has a great sound to it :-)!

Anyone else have a thought on other vintage low trail conversion candidates?

Thanks all - great conversation.  Cheers!

On Friday, February 8, 2013 8:50:41 AM UTC-6, Nick Bull wrote:

I currently own four 80's Trieks.  The low-trail ones from earlier in the decade definitely make nice 650B conversion targets.  (My 1985 Trek 500 has too tight a geometry to be a good conversion candidate -- it's built up as a fixie with 700Cx25 tires being about the biggest it can take.)  I have an '82 Trek 728 running Hetres that is currently my main randonneuring machine.  It's actually slightly higher trail than might be optimal since the fork rake is only 52mm.  But it's all-Reynolds 531 and it has a very nice road feel.  Prior to that I was riding an '84 Trek 610 with Hetres as my main rando bike.  It's all-Reynolds 531CS and I thought that maybe the Reynolds 531 in the 728 would be even nicer, though I'm not sure I can tell any difference.  Anyway, it got built back to 700C and it is my daily commuter.  I'm not really sure that the Reynolds fork in the 728 makes all that much of a difference compared with whatever is in the 610.  Finally, I have an '82 Trek 614 that I gave to my son as a commuter bike after riding it as my main commuter for a year.  It cannot be converted to use modern 9-speed wheels because the cable is routed above the chainstay which makes the cable interfere with the chain when dropping into the smallest cog.  So it's still running 7-speed freewheel.

[Tom Spinoso]

Just to be clear - I think any bike converted to 650b can ultimately be an upgrade and ride magically regardless of the geometry.

But if low trail is what you are after the options more limited.

[Ken Freeman]

I have a 21.5 " (20.5"?) 1984 610 that I bought new, and I can confirm it is 73/73 as far as angles go.  As far as a 650b conversion, the main thing I'd be concerned about is the clearance between the chainstays, at least for a Hetre build.  Measurements on my frame show it would only give me about 2 mm each side.  So good reliable running requires taht the wheel never gets inserted misaligned, the rim never goes out of true, and the rear triangle never needs misalignment.  A rear fender on that bike will also fit rather tightly at the seatstay bridge, mainly an issue of radial clearance.  

I also have a 1983 620 in 56 cm (23"), and despite the longer chainstay (44 cm v. 43 cm), I measure the between-chainstay clearance (and between forkblade!) clearances to be the same as for the 1984 610.  I'm curious as to how well the 42 mm Hetre installation works.  It doesn't look like a good option to me, I'd like to see more like 6 or 8 mm lateral tire clearance each side.

I can supply more detailed numbers if anyone is interested.

I also think the caliper brake reach to a 584 rim might be at the limit of what can be accomplished with these originally 27" frames.

These thoughts assume no change to the front end geometry, from the middle-trail to high-trail Trek designs.  A new frame-neutral fork built for 584 with perhaps 65 mm offset will require even longer brake reach, best achieved with cantis on posts or centerpulls on brazed posts.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 09:20 -0500, Ken Freeman wrote:
> I have a 21.5 " (20.5"?) 1984 610 that I bought new, and I can confirm
> it is 73/73 as far as angles go. As far as a 650b conversion, the
> main thing I'd be concerned about is the clearance between the
> chainstays, at least for a Hetre build.

However, there are some very nice 650B tires in the 36-38mm range that
can give you the full "650B experience", and it's a lot easier to fit
one of those between the chain stays than a Hetre.

[William Lindsay]

"Anyone else have a thought on other vintage low trail conversion candidates?"

I'm very pleased at how my conversion on a 1984 Miyata 912 turned out.  It has a 73 degree headtube, and ample fork clearances for 38s with fenders.  I dimpled the chainstays a little for rear tire clearance. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/sets/72157629709054752/with/7160301115/

[Nick Payne]

On 10/02/13 13:41, wharri...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have an 21" 83 Trek 620, and recently got a 19" frame that's the
> same model and year, so I could get a little more drop to the bars.
> Just eyeballing it, the smaller frame seems to have a slightly steeper
> seat tube and slacker head tube -- I put some wheels in the smaller
> frame and stood them next to one another. I haven't actually measured
> it, but I think maybe the smallest size could have been an exception
> to the standard 83 geo. As soon as I have time to build it up I'll
> post on the handling and clearances.

That's usually the case - the smaller frame sizes steepen the seat tube
and slacken the head tube in order to minimise toe overlap on the front
wheel. My wife has a mid-1980s 19" SLX DeRosa that has about a 76 degree
seat angle and 71 degree head angle, and even that is not enough to
prevent toe overlap on the front wheel. The only frame she has that
doesn't have this compromise on the angles is a Thorn Cycles touring
frame built around 26" (559 bead seat diameter) wheels, where the
smaller wheel size avoids the problem.

Nick

[Ken Freeman]

Yes, I think the Italian builders worked pretty hard to make a small racing frame that worked well, more so than Trek did.  I've measured 83's and 84's in a few sizes, but not the little 19 incher.  Usually they match the 56 cm model pretty well.  My '84 does.

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/650b?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--