Long-winded review of the Rawland Stag

[somervillebikes]

Go ahead and grab a coffee, this may take awhile...

Background: The Stag is a low-trail (37mm), lightweight 650B frameset manufactured in Taiwan. It's designed to fit 650x42B tires with fenders. It has limited braze-ons:  fender eyelets and a pump peg, but no low rider provisions nor extra eyelets for additional racks. Smaller sizes are made with 7.4.7 top tube, 8.5.8 down tube. Larger sizes have all 8.5.8. Mine is an "XL", or the largest size made (59.5 x 60.0 ctc), so it has 8.5.8 tubing. I weighed the bare frame and fork together at 7 lb.

I had written my early impressions of the Stag on the rCOG list a while back, after logging in just a few short rides on the bike, which I built up in August. I was hesitant to write a longer review because (a) I hadn't ridden it too much, (b) I hadn't gotten everything dialed in perfectly, and (c) I was waiting until I had a professional fit done and ridden the bike afterward to make sure my impressions weren't skewed by suboptimal fit. Since then several people asked me to post a Stag review on the 650B list, so here it is.

I've ridden the Stag about 400-500 miles at this point, and about 150 of those were since my fitting. I've ridden the Stag on mixed terrain, ranging from smooth pavement to rough, patched pavement, to gravel roads. Roughly 1/3 of all the miles logged have been on gravel or dirt roads of varying conditions. Most miles have been on hilly routes, with about 1000 feet of average elevation gain for every 10 miles with pronounced 10-16% grades fairly common. I'll give my impressions of the bike on dirt and on pavement. But first, I'll give my impressions of the build quality. Then I'll go on to the ride.

Frame build quality:

The frameset arrived professionally packed. The paint and decal quality are excellent for a production frame and there were no flaws in the paint, either from manufacturing or from transit. The TIG welding is clean and unobtrusive;  not as tight and clean as some TIG customs, but on par with Surly, Soma and other common mid-range Taiwanese production frames.  The fork has a nicely brazed Pacenti PBP biplane crown and the fork blades use a graceful French curve to achieve their rake. I checked the alignment of the dropouts using a Park DO alignment tool and they were straight. They measured 100mm front and 132mm rear, so pretty much right on spec. I do not have a proper frame alignment tool, but the Sheldon string method showed that the rear triangle was in alignment (at least within detection limits of that method). The rear derailleur hanger was also perfect, according to my Park hanger alignment tool. The head tube and BB shell were not faced after painting, and I could not tell if they had been faced before painting. The BB shell threads were clean and did not need chasing. I chose to leave the BB shell as-is, since I would not be using a fixed cup that relies on seating a flanged edge against the shell (I was installing a Phil BB which uses non-flanged adjustable cups on both ends). I had my LBS face the head tube. The seat tube did not appear to need honing, as the 27.2mm seat post I was using slid in very easily without catching any burs.

I did note some manufacturing tolerance problems/defects/design omissions:

1) the front canti posts: the two posts were visibly asymmetrical, with one of them rotated slightly relative to the other. I did not measure them to see if they were vertically aligned, but they appeared to be, and the front rack which attached to them installed perfectly (more on that below), indicating their vertical and also horizontal alignment was probably within spec. The rotational misalignment did cause a problem getting the cantilever brakes adjusted properly-- I had to replace the stock tension screw on one of the Tektro cantilevers with a longer one to increase the tension adequately to balance out the other and maintain even spacing with the rim. But with that out of the way, there were no further brake complications. The rear canti posts appeared to be properly aligned.

2) the crown race seat was not milled to 26.4mm, it was ~0.1mm too large in diameter. I could not get the crown race to seat using my [cheap] Sette-branded setting tool and did not want to risk damaging something, so I had my LBS give it a try. Their master tech told me that when he measured the race seat it was about 0.1mm too large! But he got the race to seat using a slide hammer. (Now I'm worried I'll never be able to get it off!)

3) Not a defect per se, but I REALLY miss the lack of any integrated wiring provisions. There are no guides on the fork leg, or holes in the down tube, for installing generator wiring. I brought this up on the rCOG forum before the prototyping stage, but I suppose it fell on deaf ears, or maybe I was in the minority. But if you plan to run dynamo lighting, you will have to get creative with how you affix and route your wiring. This was a big challenge for me, considering that the bike seemed too good to have to have a shoddy wiring job, tacked in place like an afterthought.

Those points aside, I also had a few pleasant surprises: not only did most components bolt up as expected without issue, but the Nitto/Grand Bois M13 rack installed without any significant alignment issue and rests perfectly horizontal. For those of you who have installed front racks, you know that it's common for production racks to need tweaking to fit, and in some cases never align well. In my case, the three-way alignment between the canti posts and fork crown brake hole were perfect. I only had to slightly tweak the angle of the rack leg "dropouts" about a degree or so, which took me all of 5 seconds in the vice. As far as front racks go, this match was a pure win. No rack leg bending, no spacers, perfect horizontal fit.

Also, Sean designed the Stag with equidistant/perpendicular fender mounts on the bridges, making fender installation more straightforward without the need for spacers. He obviously put thought into this, and knowing that a lot of Stag owners would be riding on mixed terrain, he designed the mounts to provide 20mm of clearance with a 650x42B tire. In my experience with fendering other 650B bikes, 20mm is the magic number—far enough away from the tire for small debris to clear, but no “light gap”. I installed VO Zeppelin fenders. For the rear, I installed one leather washer on each mount and the distances were perfect. The front worked out well, too, but required some work. You can't use a daruma bolt to support the fender. There is a plate brazed across the bottom of the steerer tube, and it has two 5mm threaded holes in it. This allows you to mount the fender directly. However, I found it odd that neither of the two holes in that plate were centered with respect to the steerer. They were both offset, one fore, one aft. I drilled a hole right in the center and tapped it to M6. I found I needed to use two rubber washers and one metal one (the ones that come with the fender hardware) between the fender and the plate at the crown to achieve the same 20mm clearance as the rear fender. The fender mounting stud at the front of the Nitto M13 rack was just the right length and ended up aligning perfectly with the fender to maintain the 20mm clearance and a clean, consistent fender line (using one thick, or two thin, leather washers).

Final build list:  bike weighs 24.0 lb with pedals, saddle, fenders, rack, lighting and bell:

• Shimano Dura Ace 7800 GS rear derailleur
• Shimano Dura Ace 7900 10spd cassette, 11-28
• Shimano Dura Ace 7800 10spd bar-end shifters
• Shimano Dura Ace 7900 10spd chain
• TA Pro Vis 5 crank arms, 170mm, 44/28T rings
• Phil Wood Ti-Mag BB, 116mm JIS, alloy cups
• Grand Bois Maes Parallel Handlebars
• VO 1-1/8” stem, 80mm 6deg
• Nitto/Grand Bois M13 rack
• Cane Creek 100 1" classic threadless headset
• Campagnolo Record Ti seat post
• Gilles Berthoud Aravis saddle, Ti rails
• Shimano A520 pedals
• Tektro CR720 cantilever brakes
• Shimano 105 (BL-1050) brake levers
• Pacenti PL23 rims
• White Industries T11 rear hub, 32H
• SONdelux front hub, 32H
• KCNC QR Ti skewers
• Grand Bois Hetre Extra Leger tires w/lightweight tubes
• B&M IQ Cyo headlight
• Spanninga Pixeo taillight
• VO Zeppelin fenders
• Aluminum bell on VO stem spacer mount

Ride quality. First, the positive:

The bike feels lively, and I feel like the bike encourages me to climb faster and push myself more. Since most of my rides involve a lot of climbing, I wanted to make sure my low gear was 1:1, and on the Stag the 1:1 low is adequate to carry me over the steepest grades I encounter. Previously, on my 650B converted Japanese touring bike with stiff frame (9.6.9 tubing and unknown fork/stay spec), I needed a sub-1:1 gear (32/28) to tackle the same climbs. With the Stag, I'm consistently in a higher gear ratio at any given time than I was in my previous bike. It also takes me longer to get tired, and this translates into longer rides and more time in the saddle. I'm not a long-distance cyclist by any means and my longest rides are centuries, but on the Stag I no longer feel exhausted after a long ride (my longest ride on it was 80 miles), and I feel unsatisfied on short rides where I wish I could just keep going. I rode the Stag on this year's D2R2 and Kearsarge Klassic (both the shorter 100k versions), and my average speed had jumped by 1.5 mph for both rides compared with last year on my 650B conversion. I'm hesitant to say the bike "planes" because I don't agree with the planing analogy, but I totally experience the mystique of the concept and believe that the bike encourages me to push myself without getting exhausted, and it never feels sluggish. It also encourages me to sprint longer, and I spend a lot more time pedaling out of the saddle than on any other bike.

Steering is light and responsive to body inputs and tracks well with no front load or a small load of less than 5 lb (see more below).

The bike bombs down hills *really* fast. In group rides where in the past I would usually be mid-pack during a fast descent, the Stag just moves to the front, and this is even more true for dirt/gravel descents than it is for smooth paved descents (more on that below). To be fair, part of this could be the reduced rolling resistance of the Extra Leger Hetres, where previously I had been riding standard Hetres. But the bike gives me the confidence to push it as fast as it can go without holding back, and it remains stable and tracks intuitively at fast speeds and on rough roads, and that's something that my previous 650B did not deliver.

The less positive:

I was expecting a really cushy, compliant ride from the nicely curved fork, and Sean had intentionally left out low rider braze-ons to be able to go with a thin-spec fork blade. I don't know how he spec’d the fork blades in the end, but the fork feels stiff and offers little deflection; it seems to transmit road imperfections more than absorb them, and to compensate I need to keep the front tire pressure lower than usual for an E-L Hetre-- 30 psi for dirt/gravel, and 35-40 psi for smooth pavement. If I pump the front tire beyond 40 psi / 10% deflection pressure, the ride harshens noticeably. Small bumps and loose gravel are generally smoothed out by the E-L Hetres, but larger bumps, particularly broken and patched pavement, and potholes, can feel harsh. (By comparison I have experienced two other 700c bikes with 32mm tires, one with Grand Bois Cypres, the other with Panaracer Paselas, that simply *glide* over bumps, making big bumps feel like tiny ones, and tiny ones nonexistent, so it’s not just wide tires that make a bike ride smoothly.)

I'm not totally sold on the virtues of low trail, at least as it’s executed on this bike. The Stag has lower trail (37mm) than any other bike I’ve ridden, yet having more than 5 lb on my front rack makes the steering noticeably heavier and floppy—something I had been led to believe doesn’t happen with low trail bikes. It seems to handle best with no weight or only a little weight, say up to 4 lb on the rack (including the weight of the bag). In this scenario the steering is still acceptably light and responsive and the bike tracks well (i.e., can ride no hands, albeit with more concentration and correction). With 5 lb of weight or more, the steering begins to flop and loses responsiveness, and I can no longer guide the bike with body inputs alone. Because of this, I've switched to a small front bag and a small saddlebag to move some weight to the rear, keeping the weight in front down to under 5 lb. Not a huge deal, but a little disappointing; one of the appeals of low trail was to be able to keep all my stuff up front and easy to access, while having the bike follow my body inputs. Also, with the stiff fork, having more weight on the front just seems to make larger bumps more pronounced, as all that road shock gets transmitted to the cargo instead of getting absorbed by the fork. I'm no expert on these things, but I wonder: if Sean were to design a lighter fork that can deflect more, would that solve the issue of shock absorption? And maybe, just maybe, despite all the hype about the E-L Hetres being the smoothest, supplest riding tires, they’re just not the right tire for this bike.  I might try swapping in some regular Hetres from my other bike for a direct comparison. Also, maybe since I'm new to low trail geometry, this is totally normal and 5 lb is the upper limit before handling starts to disintegrate?

The bike shimmies. From my limited understanding, this is not an inherent flaw in the frame, but a combination of low trail geometry, wide and soft tires, frame size and flex characteristics (larger, flexy frames being more prone), weight distribution and build components. I'm running a standard ball-bearing headset (Cane Creek 100), and experience mild shimmy at speeds over 15mph with no weight on the rack. With weight, it worsens considerably. With 5 lb or more on the rack, shimmy is bad enough that I have to keep both hands on the bars at speeds over 30 mph. Taking just one hand off to switch gears can induce shimmy, but having both hands on the bars or a knee against the top tube kills it. I have not tried increasing the tire pressure (the bike would ride harsher), but I tried increasing the pre-load on the headset, which had no effect. The next step is to swap headsets for a Miche roller bearing unit. As a side note, shimmy's not an issue at all on gravel/dirt roads. The vibrations from the road surface seem to completely cancel out or disrupt the shimmy oscillations. It becomes a total non-issue and I can push the bike as fast as possible without loss of confidence, free to move my hands around, and this results in crazy fast dirt descents, faster than descending smooth payment. Some Stag owners report shimmy, others don't, but I'm curious whether the ones that do report shimmy have larger frame sizes and/or conventional headsets.

The verdict:

These three shortcomings-- stiff fork, handling with a large front load, and shimmy aren't enough to kill my enjoyment of the bike. The fact that the bike begs me to go fast and push myself over long rides while being able to have a small front load trumps the shortcomings by a large margin. I hope to resolve the shimmy with the roller bearing headset. I've also heard suggestions of going with narrower tires, like 38mm. I already have a Miche headset, and it's a cheaper solution to try first. If I can eliminate the shimmy, the bike will be that much more confidence-inspiring on paved descents, and I can live with the stiff fork and the front load issues.

Pics of the build process and finished bike: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7516215@N03/sets/72157634772934405/

Anton

[David Yu Greenblatt]

Thanks, Anton, for that thorough and thoughtful review and the nice photos of your handsome bike. Your bike sets the standard for rando-style Stags. 

- David G in San Diego

[WMdeR]

Dear Anton,

The Stag has the same steering geometry (almost) as one of the tested prototype Boulder Bicycles. We had a hell of a time with shimmy on that bike (with a Cane Creek 1" threadless headset), to the extent that I switched a then pending 650B order to 700C for my (much more expensive) René Herse. However, once we sourced and installed a 1" threadless Miche headset (a commercially-available full needle-bearing headset), the shimmy became entirely manageable (i.e. never happened with a finger on the bars; never happened with a knee on the top tube; didn't try to shake when shifting positions or reaching for a shifter, etc). Now that bike (no longer in my possession; I have a very close relative, dubbed the Bride of Shimmy Monster) shimmies no-hands at about 13mph and under no other circumstances.

We found, with 73deg HTA, a bit more geometric trail (40mm) worked better for heavier (porteur) loads, and that the required trail was at a minimum (I preferred 30mm for 650B) with a light (3-4lb) load on the front; off-road we preferred a touch more trail. Mike went with 35mm for the first Allroad production spec, and has since switched to (I believe) 30mm for the current generation of production machines.

Best Regards,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

Dear Anton,

[Richard]

Thank you for such a balanced review of your experience with your Stag. It is always good to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of our bikes to allow us to gain the most enjoyment from them. By sharing this, everyone is forced to evaluate their current bike in a more balanced manner therefore enriching their experience as well! Those who completely exult their bike or bag it show little in the way of experience in the nuances of what is cycling for pleasure.

 

Thanks again!

 

Regards

Richard

[Justus Gunther]

Thanks for the information and in depth review.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Brent Avery]

    I just read your thoughts on the Stag - after I ordered a size Large yesterday and I almost have second thoughts. It seems the very quality I was hoping for - the ability of the front end especially to readily absorb road shock in a satisfactory manner may be missing somewhat. I was down to choosing between the Stag, Soma Grand Randonneur and the Toussaint Velo Routier and had a tough time finding much feedback from owners that really addressed that aspect - the Stag had a few at least that pointed to a bike that made you want to keep riding, and it seemed the graceful curve of the fork would help absorb enough road shock. With the thicker tubing of the Soma and Velo Routier  I was positive that of the three the Stag offered the best combination. I am fairly light at 140 pounds and find that frames built with O.S. tubing or too thick tend to feel harsh to me - the Rivendell Bleriot I currently ride is an example ( with 42mm Hetres ) of being too unyielding on rough surfaces. Besides enjoying low trail immensely I have to believe the Stag will provide a more forgiving ride while offering a higher level of performance. The Stag still appears to offer the better combination. It is difficult making choices when one cannot actually ride an example to get an idea so I hope I made the right choice. My enthusiasm has been dampened somewhat after reading this but until I have mine built up I can then find out. I do intend on installing a Stronglight needle bearing head set I have on hand and will also keep the tire pressures on the low side initially and see what happens. I do hope it will also handle a bit of weight up front - say between 5-8 pounds or so but in that regard how acceptably a bike handles varies from person to person.

[Allan Desmond]

seems you asking quite a bit at very low cost..have a bike built custom if your a 140 pounds and want a smooth riding bike..with thin tubes as you stated.

--

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Allan Desmond
Desmond Tactical
702.764.8656
desmond...@gmail.com

[Steve Chan]

   Thanks for the long and detailed review.
   As I understand it, Matthew Grimm helped Sean out initially with contacts in Taiwan for the frame building. The Kogswell PR was noted for having particularly stiff forks, even when the frame was very compliant - I wonder if the forks were sourced from the same place?

   Steve

--

[somervillebikes]

One builder I know told me that the people who have the best luck with customs are people who are either anthropometrically so far toward one end of the bell curve that most off the shelf production units can't work for them, or people with specific disabilities. And by contrast, most regular folks who have been riding regular bikes successfully for a long time who take the plunge for a custom end up underwhelmed. So I don't think it's fair to say that a cheap production frame can't satisfy the majority of demands by the consumer provided the demands fall within the mainstream consensus of the target audience. It's possible that simply changing the design of the fork could solve all the issues I brought up with my Stag that are of concern to Brent. Or maybe he could just have a new fork made by a builder for a fraction of the cost of an entire frame and be perfectly happy.

Anton

[Steve Palincsar]

On 11/13/2013 10:25 AM, somervillebikes wrote:
> One builder I know told me that the people who have the best luck with
> customs are people who are either anthropometrically so far toward one
> end of the bell curve that most off the shelf production units can't
> work for them, or people with specific disabilities. And by contrast,
> most regular folks who have been riding regular bikes successfully for
> a long time who take the plunge for a custom end up underwhelmed. So I
> don't think it's fair to say that a cheap production frame can't
> satisfy the majority of demands by the consumer provided the demands
> fall within the mainstream consensus of the target audience. It's
> possible that simply changing the design of the fork could solve all
> the issues I brought up with my Stag that are of concern to Brent. Or
> maybe he could just have a new fork made by a builder for a fraction
> of the cost of an entire frame and be perfectly happy.

Is being light weight a specific disability or anthropometrically very
far toward one end of the bell curve? One of the big problems for such
people is that production frames have to be built sturdy enough for
substantially heavier riders, and a frame that is sturdy and stiff
enough for a 230 lb rider is apt to be far too stiff for a 130 lb rider.

[somervillebikes]

That's true, but there are productions frames designed to appeal to the general masses, and therefore a wider bell curve, and there are production frames built in small batches to appeal to a small niche of similar-minded folks like the ones who frequent the same bike lists like this one, whose demands and interested span a narrower range. There were people on the rCOG list who wanted more stout tubing on the Stag because they're closer to one end of the bell curve, but Sean designed his bike to fit a narrower center range (I myself, at only 6'1", almost fell outside those boundaries because the "XL" version isn't really XL at all! I had begged Sean to make a taller XL, but nope.) So right there, the range of Sean's bikes already exclude people on certain bell curve extremes.

Besides, what's thin tubing these days?  I thought 7.4.7 TT with 8.5.8 DT are considered pretty thin for anything other than a pure racing bike.

Anton

[Ryan Watson]

Brent,

I've owned low trail 650B bikes from Kogswell, Boulder, Rawland, and Ocean Air. Also a high trail Bleriot and several 650B conversions. The forks have all varied in offset, curvature, and apparent "beefiness" of the legs.
My experience is that a fat tire like the Hetre does so much shock absorption that the flexibility of the fork is pretty much irrelevant.
I think you're in for a real treat switching from a Bleriot to a Stag.
I haven't ridden a Stag, but from the specs it sounds nearly identical to my (early prototype) Boulder. The Bleriot was definitely the worst bike I've ridden in terms of both planing and handling.
For what it's worth, of the 650B bikes I've had, the best "planing" of the bunch has been the Rawland rSogn, while the best handling is the Ocean Air Rambler.

Ryan

[Brad]

Regarding the "floppy" steering.  Low trail ( low flop factor) bikes steer a little differently from high trail biks.  Steering involves more handlbar input and less body english.  Thus at slower speeds or in rough conditions or on hills you can steer without leaning the bike over.  The difference will feel ... well different.  

The observations on shimmy are fascinating.  It makes me think that somewhere in the roller bearing headset system something is not quite aligned.   Maybe vibration can make the large balls move in a notchy kind of way. like what a bike tire does on a bridge grating- seeking one hole and then another in a different line.  I vaguely recall one headset in the past that had different size balls top and bottom.   Has anyone ever experienced shimmy with a loose ball headset?  It would be an interesting experiment to replace caged balls with loose balls and see if the shimmy is still there. Cages can stick to balls if they aren't quite right.

[Greg Achtem]

Has anybody touched on the BQ findings that the lowest trail fork in a test was not the best for carrying heavy(ier) loads? Kogswell offered three forks with the first P/R. Without numbers they were something like "extra low", "low" and "medium". I'm going by memory here so forgive me if my calibration is off. Based on that test I changed out my "extra low" fork for the "low". I think I felt a change for the positive but can't say that the angels sang and the heavens opened.

Perhaps the trail on the Stag it too low.

--

[chad k]

You're using very short stem (8 cm!) on a large frame.  I would guess that impacts the handling.

Chad K

Urbana, IL

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Chan <sych...@gmail.com>

>    As I understand it, Matthew Grimm helped Sean out initially with contacts in 

> Taiwan for the frame building. The Kogswell PR was noted for having particularly 

> stiff forks, even when the frame was very compliant - I wonder if the forks were

>  sourced from the same place?

It is quite likely that the very compliant steel forks that those of us with custom bikes enjoy can't be built to meet current CEN and ASTM impact standards (which are designed for all types of forks, especially carbon fiber).  This might prevent a high-scale factory in Taiwan from building them or a company making production bikes (like Kogswell, Rawland, Soma, etc) from being able to sell them for liability reasons.  Empirically I've never seen such a fork come out of the Taiwanese factories.

OBCA in Oregon is building a fork testing fixture for it's members to try and figure this out.  The resulting research could be helpful for everybody, not only members of the OBCA.

When I paid attention to Rawland I gave a lot of technical advice multiple times on how to improve the forks.  The only piece of advice that was taken was to make them low trail (I re-raked a Rawland fork to supply Sean with his first experience riding a low-trail bicycle).  The use of thinner wall steel steerers, lighter weight fork blades, or tighter fork rake radius appear to not be practical for whatever reason.

One solution could be having a custom fork made for your production bicycle.

alex

[William Lindsay]

Alex

Do you ever make forks for other people?  Or do you strictly build for yourself?  I'm thinking a motivated builder could build ~20 forks to fit a Stag and have tiny little cottage industry similar to the Haulin Colin front rack.  Just an idea.  

[Steve Palincsar]

On 11/13/2013 11:59 AM, Greg Achtem wrote:
> Has anybody touched on the BQ findings that the lowest trail fork in a
> test was not the best for carrying heavy(ier) loads? Kogswell offered
> three forks with the first P/R. Without numbers they were something
> like "extra low", "low" and "medium". I'm going by memory here so
> forgive me if my calibration is off. Based on that test I changed out
> my "extra low" fork for the "low". I think I felt a change for the
> positive but can't say that the angels sang and the heavens opened.

Perhaps the angels didn't sing and the heavens didn't open because you
weren't at the critical weight threshold.

BQ found, and so did I when I was touring in South Dakota with my P/R
w/30mm trail that when I exceeded around 20 lb in front, on steep hills
at low speed my steering started to feel as though it was binding up.
I'd read the BQ test by then, and once I noticed this I stopped and
transferred a few heavy items from my handlebar bag and panniers to the
Carradice seat bag. I think the weight involved was just a few pounds,
less than the weight of a bag of sugar. (I know how much I had up front
at first because I weighed all the bags before we set out on the drive
to SD.) Transferring that small amount of weight made the
binding-steering feeling go away, not to return even though on
subsequent days we encountered worse grades.

Not exactly the angels singing for me, or the Bells of Hell going
ting-a-ling-a-ling, but definitely noticeable and definitely significant.

[Allan Desmond]

well I have so that's not really ture at all about custom bicycle. I am a prefect 56cm  right out of almost any production bicycle.that said because of the ride and grant you some fetures I wanted, I've own nothing but custom for the pass 20 years,. Being from Washington State no shortage of Builders to fill my time with and drain my bank account, Davidson~ Rodriguez ~ Bushnell etc etc.. Not once have any them failed to bring the Ride or quailties I was looking for in my High speed light weight Commuter bicycles.A real custom has In fact very little to do with the Size an almost everything to do with the Ride. A Good custom builder (see above among others) will in Fact Build the Fork to Match the desire Ride the owner is looking for.Davidson spend his time building the fork having others in his shop build the frame. So again low cost builder have to factor in more metal for Mass Production as well as cost an defects "hence a stiffer fork etc etc"..enjoy what you have at the cost you have or man up and spend some cash and get it done the way you want. Cheer's, Allan

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[somervillebikes]

In what way?

[Alex Wetmore]

I am not insured and only build bicycles (and forks) for myself.  There are many builders who are better setup to build forks at a production scale, I just have a teeny basement shop.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of William Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:27 AM
To: 65...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Steve Chan; Anton Tutter
Subject: Re: [650B] Long-winded review of the Rawland Stag

 

--

[somervillebikes]

I would gladly pay for such a fork, since the frame itself delivers in other performance departments.

Anton

[somervillebikes]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:46:13 PM UTC-5, Alex Wetmore wrote:

When I paid attention to Rawland I gave a lot of technical advice multiple times on how to improve the forks.

You don't pay attention to Rawland now?

One solution could be having a custom fork made for your production bicycle.

This is what I suggested this earlier.

Anton

[William Lindsay]

That's cool Alex.  I'm a long-time admirer of your work.  A bigger basement and a more accommodating family might have me following in your footsteps.  :-)

[somervillebikes]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:46:13 PM UTC-5, Alex Wetmore wrote:

It is quite likely that the very compliant steel forks that those of us with custom bikes enjoy can't be built to meet current CEN and ASTM impact standards (which are designed for all types of forks, especially carbon fiber).  This might prevent a high-scale factory in Taiwan from building them or a company making production bikes (like Kogswell, Rawland, Soma, etc) from being able to sell them for liability reasons.  Empirically I've never seen such a fork come out of the Taiwanese factories.

That's interesting. So basically you're saying that if you want a light, compliant fork, your only option is a custom?

Anton

 

[Alex Wetmore]

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

> That's interesting. So basically you're saying that if you want a light, compliant fork, your only option is a custom?

I have no contact or ties to bicycle building in Taiwan.  I'm saying that is a conclusion that I'm drawing with limited evidence.  I'd love to be proven wrong.  The lightest Taiwanese fork that I've seen is the post-prototype Kogswell P/R fork, and it is still fairly stout (and has a boat anchor steerer).

The other option is finding a vintage fork with the characteristics that you want, they've been made in the past.

alex

[somervillebikes]

Hmm... also interesting.  I have or had two vintage bikes whose front ends simply *glided* over imperfections like they weren't there, and these were 700c forks riding with 32mm tires. One of those was a high-volume production bike, from 1988.  I wonder if either of those standards did not exist, or were not followed, at that time.

Anton

[Steve Chan]

Do you happen to have the actual (measured) axle to crown length
for the Stag fork?

Steve

> --
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
"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

[chad k]

It's hard to say for sure because I haven't done any experiments.  How about this idea:  with a very short stem, you have less weight towards the front of the bike (using the term "front" loosely).  But the reason for using low-trail is to enable extra weight to be placed on a rack at the front.  If you don't have enough body weight there, you might experience some maybe sub-ideal handling results?  Just a guess.

FYI, I am 6'2" and ride ~60-62 cm frames with 12-13 cm stems.

Chad

[Alex Wetmore]

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

> One of those was a high-volume production bike, from 1988.  

> I wonder if either of those standards did not exist, or were not followed, at that time.

Standards have changed and are driven by failure modes in carbon fiber forks from what I've read.

It would be interesting to measure the outside diameter of those fork blades at the dropout and the top of the bend and compare that to your Stag.  My guess is that they will be about 14mm and the Stag will be about 16mm at the dropout.  The Stag fork probably gets larger faster.  That is a major in tubing stiffness difference.  The Stag has a tighter and nicer looking bend, but the thicker tubing hurts the "springiness".

alex

[Alex Wetmore]

A photo comparison.

This is a 1983 Trek 620 (520 and 630 all shared the same fork I believe):

http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/1983/83Trek7.jpg

This is the Stag:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_squirrel/10220799214/

You can see that the Trek fork blade has a longer slender section than the Stag.  The Stag has a nicer small radius bend (and thus looks nicer to many riders eyes), but I wouldn't be surprised if the Trek was ultimately more flexible.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Wetmore <al...@phred.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:52 PM
To: somervillebikes; 65...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [650B] Long-winded review of the Rawland Stag

 

--

[Gregory Haase]

How funny - I just measured the 531 blades on my '83 Trek 720 against the Stag because I *know* the Trek's blades are "springier". They are about 2mm smaller in diameter right before the dropout.

Greg Haase

Irvine, CA

[Brent Avery]

    Some interesting observations, and obviously what used to be a more or less standard build in the past ( say into the mid '80's) is now pretty well the domain of  custom builders. Today over sized and/or over built tends to be the norm with steel frames.  Of all the bikes I have owned - only a mid '70's high end Italian road bike and my current 650b conversion Fuji have what has been termed a "compliant" ride where the bike tends to more readily float or absorb road shock in a manner that allows the rider a greater degree of comfort, certainly less fatiguing on longer rides on less than optimum road surfaces. The Fuji even has hi tensile forks and stays yet manages to feel very forgiving and still not flex where I notice it. I can imagine how it would ride with the 42mm Hetres but 38mm is the maximum with fenders so even if the Stag is not quite there I am pretty sure it will ride better than the Rivendell Bleriot, which looks very nice but is not a joy to ride unfortunately, as Ryan pointed out. I understand it is all compromise with production frames and I guess if one did want to have a custom fork made it would still be cheaper than a complete custom. I will have to ride the Stag for a bit to see for myself so who knows, I may like it just the way it is.

[Nick Payne]

A custom steel fork can certainly be quite light. I had Hampsten make me a custom 650b steel fork for a 650b Ti frame that Darren Baum had made for me (I originally ran the Baum with a Wound-Up 700c road fork on the frame - it was exactly the right length, but only gave cigarette paper clearances between the fork blades with a 38mm tyre. The steel fork (with almost 400mm of 1-1/8" steerer) was remarkably light - only about 150g heavier than the Wound-Up C-F fork. And I think I actually prefer the ride with the steel fork.

Here's a picture of the bike with steel fork:

https://picasaweb.google.com/100520469917381690611/Baum?authkey=Gv1sRgCJ3d4Pje8pHdoQE#5857176451039110226

and with the Wound-Up fork:

https://picasaweb.google.com/100520469917381690611/Baum?authkey=Gv1sRgCJ3d4Pje8pHdoQE#5598658635471263266

Nick

[Bill M.]

The Stag fork apparently weighs about the same the fork of the rSogn, about 2-1/2 lb (the measured weight of my own Sogn's fork). My Nordavinden's fork weighs 1 lb 13 oz, quite a bit less. I have written before on the plush ride of the NV, the Sogn front end feels stiffer though the tires are more compliant.

I don't see where the weight difference comes from, unless it's the wider crown. In hindsight I wish the NV had been built with a 1 in. steerer, 1-1/8 seems to be overkill in steel.

Bill

[Joe Broach]

Anton's notes on load handling and shimmy mirror my own with the Nordavinden (link below to i-BoB post, not sure if you can view if not a member):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/internet-bob/zaua3GQ0nbw/5_xUR_CEueMJ

Both are XLs, and it looks like our saddle heights are similar (mine is 83cm). I wonder if something going on with the taller frames makes them less suitable to front loading? 

Best,

joe broach

portland, or

[Nick Payne]

On 14/11/13 15:51, Joe Broach wrote:

Anton's notes on load handling and shimmy mirror my own with the Nordavinden (link below to i-BoB post, not sure if you can view if not a member):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/internet-bob/zaua3GQ0nbw/5_xUR_CEueMJ

Both are XLs, and it looks like our saddle heights are similar (mine is 83cm). I wonder if something going on with the taller frames makes them less suitable to front loading?

Not in my experience. Maybe your front rack isn't stiff enough. I ride 61cm or 63cm frames, and I've never had problems with putting all the weight at the front, using Cr-Mo racks brazed from 3/8" tubing. Here's a pic of our old touring tandem, which has a 25" (63.5cm) front seat tube, and with all the luggage for two people for a three week tour mounted up front, the handling was fine. The racks there are Bruce Gordon, and the monster front panners I made myself. There's probably 60 or 70 lbs loaded at the front in this picture.

http://www.users.on.net/~njpayne/bikestuff/swtas.jpg

Nick

[Joe Broach]

Hi Nick,

Sweet tandem, and good data point. I'm not sure a tandem is the best counter, since it has an extra tube to offset the longer top and head tubes. Sounds like you've had good experience with singles, too, though. I'll look forward to trying things with a stiffer rack. They aren't easy to find for sidepulls. I think Anton's Nitto M13 is pretty stiff, at any rate.

Keep in mind the Nordavinden is 7-4-7 standard in the TT. I do hope I can figure out a way to carry a few pounds up front without killing the handling. I really like the ride unloaded.

[satanas]

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:20:47 PM UTC+10, Bill M. wrote:

The Stag fork apparently weighs about the same the fork of the rSogn, about 2-1/2 lb (the measured weight of my own Sogn's fork).  My Nordavinden's fork weighs 1 lb 13 oz, quite a bit less.  I have written before on the plush ride of the NV, the Sogn front end feels stiffer though the tires are more compliant.  

I don't see where the weight difference comes from, unless it's the wider crown.  In hindsight I wish the NV had been built with a 1 in. steerer, 1-1/8 seems to be overkill in steel.

The weight *might* come from the steerer, but note that True temper make very lightweight, thinwall 9/8'" steerers, so it doesn't have to be that way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if thicker wall fork blades were used on account of the canti brakes. Some builders certainly have preferred to use thicker blades (and seatstays) when these were used, and for production frames there might be liability concerns about the bosses as well.

IME, forks cannot be too flexible, but I remember one customer decades ago who bought a Columbus SL road framset, then complained that the forks flexed too much. I duly test rode the bike and thought it rode extremely well, and was absolutely normal and un-dramatic in all respects, a Good Thing IMHO. It turned out that the guy's other bike was a Cannondale MTB with an extremely rigid alu Pepperoni fork which never visibly deflected, and that he was paranoid about the steel fork's flex under braking, and feared it would fail(!). (Just as well he didn't buy an Alan.) We duly had a Columbus Max frameset made for him; that fork (and frame) did not deflect noticeably anywhere, weighed a lot more and had a drastically harder ride, but he was happy.

Later,

Stephen

[satanas]

Hi Will,

By "porteur loads" do you specifically mean loads carried up high on a porteur style rack, or just heavier front loads generally? I'm intending to carry up to say ~3kg in a handlebar bag for day-to-day use or on randonnees, but am likely to additionally carry much more than this in low mounted front panniers when touring, say up to 10-15kg. I've been dithering about how much trail will be best, difficult as my experience with low trail geometry is zero. I've seen suggestions that ~35mm trail (73 degrees x 65mm offset + Hetres) works for everything, and also that 40mm trail is better when carrying more stuff. Any input would be useful.

Thanks,

Stephen

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:24:15 AM UTC+10, WMdeR wrote:

We found, with 73deg HTA, a bit more geometric trail (40mm) worked better for heavier (porteur) loads, and that the required trail was at a minimum (I preferred 30mm for 650B) with a light (3-4lb) load on the front; off-road we preferred a touch more trail. Mike went with 35mm for the first Allroad production spec, and has since switched to (I believe) 30mm for the current generation of production machines.

[Fred Blasdel]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:20 AM, somervillebikes <atu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's interesting. So basically you're saying that if you want a light,
> compliant fork, your only option is a custom?

there's also carbon — some are built super stiff, but most have pretty
decent compliance

older models were especially flexible, before mainstream magazine
reviewers amped up the whole lateral stiffness nonsense

[Allan Desmond]

it's not over kill..it's common sense 1 vs 1 1/18.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Allan Desmond <desmond...@gmail.com>

> it's not over kill..it's common sense 1 vs 1 1/18.

On a road/dirt touring bike why is 1-1/8" common sense over 1"?

1" has proven that it is durable in these settings.

1-1/8" is not being used by Rawland to make lighter and stiffer steerers (though that is possible and often done on custom bikes).  So it is just overkill.

The only advantage to 1-1/8" on a steel rando/road/rough stuff bike is that headsets are a tiny bit easier to source.  1" threadless works great, is lighter, and plenty strong.

If we were talking about mountain bikes then the story would be different.  No one that I know of is doing 10' drops on their Rawland.  Fred Blasdel probably came the closest when riding his Rawland at Duthie MTB park before buying a proper MTB, and I was there.

alex

[Steve Palincsar]

The constant refrain regarding 1" threadless on the forums is fear of future inability to source headsets.  I asked Chris King about that at NAHBS in Richmond a few years ago and was told he would continue to make them forever, so as far as I'm concerned that answers that.  1" threaded headsets, of course, are readily available -- even roller bearing headsets are, although some of the most beloved ones are no longer available.  But you know how some of those guys on the forums are: the instant Campy 11 came out they were beating the drum of 10 speed obsolescence, future inability to source cassettes, etc., gotta upgrade right now because the sky has fallen.

[Allan Desmond]

1/18 is everywhere..common sense.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 11/14/2013 03:47 PM, Allan Desmond wrote:
> 1/18 is everywhere..common sense.
>

How many headsets do you actually need over the lifespan of a bicycle,
and what difference does it make if 1 1/8" is "everywhere" as long as
you can get the one that you need that isn't 1 1/8"?

Carbon is everywhere. 700C is everywhere. Does that mean we shouldn't
ride 650B or steel? (Perhaps for some it does, but they're not likely
to be members of the 650B list...)

[Gregory Haase]

I would like to see a few more 1" threadless stems on the market that don't break the bank though. Not that there is an issue when the shim is supplied with the frame... But if we are forever going to have a 1" threadless headset it would be nice to forever have matching stem options.

Greg Haase
Irvine, CA

--
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.

[Allan Desmond]

1 1/8 come out in 2012.very new.

[Alex Wetmore]

From: Gregory Haase <haa...@onefreevoice.com>

> I would like to see a few more 1" threadless stems on the market that 

> don't break the bank though. Not that there is an issue when the shim 

> is supplied with the frame... But if we are forever going to have a 

> 1" threadless headset it would be nice to forever have matching stem options.

The shims are trivial to make.  They aren't as common as they once were (most road stems used to come with them), but they aren't hard to source right now.  It would be good if 1" threadless frames came with one.  If not one can easily be made with $10 worth of tools (a hacksaw and sand paper) and $1 worth of materials (1.125 x 0.058" piece of aluminum or steel tubing, 40mm long).

alex

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Allan Desmond <desmond...@gmail.com>

> 1/18 is everywhere..common sense.

23mm 700C tires are everywhere too, but somehow we seem to have this mailing list that hangs out talking about bikes built around the very obscure 650B x 40mm size.

1" headsets (threaded or threadless) are easier to source than 650B road tires.

alex

[Bill M.]

Sorry I mentioned it! Let's please take this thread back on topic.

Bill

[Steven Frederick]

I would also consider a custom fork for my Stag, one with more compliant blades and raked so the bike handled more like my mid-trail forked' Kogswell PR.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM, somervillebikes <atu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would gladly pay for such a fork, since the frame itself delivers in other performance departments.

Anton


On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:27:54 PM UTC-5, William Lindsay wrote:

Alex

Do you ever make forks for other people?  Or do you strictly build for yourself?  I'm thinking a motivated builder could build ~20 forks to fit a Stag and have tiny little cottage industry similar to the Haulin Colin front rack.  Just an idea.  

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:46:13 AM UTC-8, Alex Wetmore wrote:

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Chan <sych...@gmail.com>

>    As I understand it, Matthew Grimm helped Sean out initially with contacts in 

> Taiwan for the frame building. The Kogswell PR was noted for having particularly 

> stiff forks, even when the frame was very compliant - I wonder if the forks were

>  sourced from the same place?

It is quite likely that the very compliant steel forks that those of us with custom bikes enjoy can't be built to meet current CEN and ASTM impact standards (which are designed for all types of forks, especially carbon fiber).  This might prevent a high-scale factory in Taiwan from building them or a company making production bikes (like Kogswell, Rawland, Soma, etc) from being able to sell them for liability reasons.  Empirically I've never seen such a fork come out of the Taiwanese factories.

OBCA in Oregon is building a fork testing fixture for it's members to try and figure this out.  The resulting research could be helpful for everybody, not only members of the OBCA.

When I paid attention to Rawland I gave a lot of technical advice multiple times on how to improve the forks.  The only piece of advice that was taken was to make them low trail (I re-raked a Rawland fork to supply Sean with his first experience riding a low-trail bicycle).  The use of thinner wall steel steerers, lighter weight fork blades, or tighter fork rake radius appear to not be practical for whatever reason.

One solution could be having a custom fork made for your production bicycle.

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.

[David Givens]

Anton - Thoughtful and informative review. Thank you for sharing.  Did you use the "wide" version of the M13 rack for your Stag? 

-David

[somervillebikes]

David, thanks.  I used the wide version of the M13 rack.

Anton