Horizontal Drop Out Problem
Mike
with horizontal drop outs. I've had trouble with the wheel slipping in
the dropouts and stopping me dead in my tracks when the
wheel wedges against the chain stay. I replaced the cheap
performance quick release with a more expensive Salsa quick
release and that has helped some. But still the wheel keeps
pulling to the left. I really can't tighten the quick release anymore.
Someone had mentioned that if my wheel axle was too wide, this
may be a cause (I doubt it).
I've also heard or read somewhere that Waterford quit making
bikes with horizontal drop outs just for this reason.
I really seriously considering having vertical dropouts put on the
bike. Though I hate to go to that expense. Any ideas?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
There are a zillion bikes out there with horizontal
dropouts and no problems. A Waterford 1200 might
have stainless steel dropouts that are harder than
average (less "bite" for the QR serrations), but still,
there is some problem with your setup, not with the
dropouts.
You need a wheel with serrated ends on the locknuts
to bite into the dropout, and a good quality steel skewer
with serrations. You also need to make sure that
your axle is not too long. Steel dropouts are thinner
than aluminum dropouts. Rather than doubting it,
measure it. For the skewer, any Shimano (or Campy
AFAIK) skewer will do.
Ben
peter
> with horizontal drop outs. I've had trouble with the wheel slipping in
> the dropouts and stopping me dead in my tracks when the
> wheel wedges against the chain stay. I replaced the cheap
> performance quick release with a more expensive Salsa quick
> release and that has helped some.
Expensive isn't necessarily better. Try a regular Shimano (or Campy)
quick release and be sure it has good sharp serrations.
> But still the wheel keeps
> pulling to the left. I really can't tighten the quick release anymore.
>
> Someone had mentioned that if my wheel axle was too wide, this
> may be a cause (I doubt it).
It certainly can be a cause if the end of the axle extends out as far
as the outer edge of the dropout. Easy enough to check before you
change anything else.
There shouldn't be any need to go to vertical dropouts. Horizontal
used to be found on most bikes and they didn't slip with properly
tightened QRs. Now that vertical dropouts are much more common I
suspect some QR manufacturers are no longer quite as concerned about
the holding power of their products.
Hank
> On Jul 5, 3:52 pm, Mike <mber...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > I recently acquired a 5 year old used Waterford 1200 steel frame
> > with horizontal drop outs. I've had trouble with the wheel slipping in
> > the dropouts and stopping me dead in my tracks when the
> > wheel wedges against the chain stay. I replaced the cheap
> > performance quick release with a more expensive Salsa quick
> > release and that has helped some.
>
> Expensive isn't necessarily better. Try a regular Shimano (or Campy)
> quick release and be sure it has good sharp serrations.
More specifically, avoid "external cam" type QRs. I had the same
problem with the skewer supplied with my Ambrosio wheelzinnabox. I
swapped the skewer for a Shimano, and had no problem. I later replaced
those wheels with some handbuilt ones with Campy hubs/skewers, still
no slippage.
David L. Johnson
> Someone had mentioned that if my wheel axle was too wide, this
> may be a cause (I doubt it).
It is very likely the cause. An axle whose end protrudes too far for
the dropout will cause the QR to clamp down on the axle, not on the
dropout, resulting in a wheel that can slip.
Some dropouts are thicker than others. I'm betting yours are on the
thin side. Grind off the end of the axle and your problem should go away.
Of course, getting real quick-releases might also help. Avoid most of
the aftermarket brands, since they have aluminum levers and open cams,
and are not nearly as strong as either Campy's or Shimano's original
equipment.
>
> I've also heard or read somewhere that Waterford quit making
> bikes with horizontal drop outs just for this reason.
I've got an old commuter with horizontal dropous, and an old track bike
I ride with a quick release, and never have any trouble. There are
millions of bikes on the road with quick-release axles and horizontal
dropouts. If this were a problem, there wouldn't be.
Vertical dropouts came into fashion as a way to speed up wheel changes,
especially with the fashionably short wheelbase that make it impossible
to remove/install a wheel with the tire inflated if you have horizontal
dropouts.
>
> I really seriously considering having vertical dropouts put on the
> bike. Though I hate to go to that expense. Any ideas?
They offer no advantage. Waste of money.
--
David L. Johnson
It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can only be
cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and Colnagos are a lot
cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris.
-- Glenn Davies
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Someone had mentioned that if my wheel axle was too wide, this may
>> be a cause (I doubt it).
> It is very likely the cause. An axle whose end protrudes too far
> for the dropout will cause the QR to clamp down on the axle, not on
> the dropout, resulting in a wheel that can slip.
> Some dropouts are thicker than others. I'm betting yours are on the
> thin side. Grind off the end of the axle and your problem should go
> away.
> Of course, getting real quick-releases might also help. Avoid most
> of the aftermarket brands, since they have aluminum levers and open
> cams, and are not nearly as strong as either Campy's or Shimano's
> original equipment.
>> I've also heard or read somewhere that Waterford quit making
>> bikes with horizontal drop outs just for this reason.
> I've got an old commuter with horizontal dropouts, and an old track
> bike I ride with a quick release, and never have any trouble. There
> are millions of bikes on the road with quick-release axles and
> horizontal dropouts. If this were a problem, there wouldn't be.
> Vertical dropouts came into fashion as a way to speed up wheel
> changes, especially with the fashionably short wheelbase that make
> it impossible to remove/install a wheel with the tire inflated if
> you have horizontal dropouts.
Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
>> I really seriously considering having vertical dropouts put on the
>> bike. Though I hate to go to that expense. Any ideas?
> They offer no advantage. Waste of money.
The advantage is that Campagnolo axles fail less if the right jam nut
is supported fore and aft rather than tilting into a slot, the
direction in which the chain load acts. Look at the face of a used
horizontal dropout and note a distinct gouging from the jam nut
knurling from rocking fore and aft. Beside that, I saw people snap QR
skewers or QR heads in an attempt to make them tight enough to prevent
slip under heavy chain load.
Ultimately, I switched to Shimano hubs that unlike Campagnolo hubs
have axle bearings at their outer ends and have no large overhung
bending load that cause enough Campagnolo axle failures for me to
break the right dropout twice.
Jobst Brandt
JG
symbol of quality - you couldn't fudge the alignment and with touring
bikes because they do allow you to use a lot let force on the QR,
prevent accidents when not tightened enough, and avoid having to
manually align the rear wheel. They don't help with wheel changes
(unless you have no room in the stays) because they drop the wheel
straight down into the derailleur...
JG
Ozark Bicycle
<the writings of lesser beings snipped>
>
> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
> to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo.
Was that shortly after you made the first bicycle, but many years
after you made the sun, moon, earth, wind, fire and water? ;-)
Tom Reingold
You think he's lying? If so, why?
Tom
carl...@comcast.net
[snip]
>Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
>to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
>year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
>dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
>got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
>dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
[snip]
Dear Jobst,
Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
dated and many showing the dropouts:
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
Am I misunderstanding something?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> [snip]
>> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave
>> them to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio
>> Campagnolo. A year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo
>> compatible vertical dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on
>> Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I got the idea from East Germans who
>> rode Diamant bicycles with vertical dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
> [snip]
> Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
> dated and many showing the dropouts:
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
> Am I misunderstanding something?
Please don't be so circumspect. What is it that you asking?
As I said, vertical dropouts became the Campagnolo mainline after Cino
Cinelli gave Tullio samples of the dropouts I gave him to build me a
couple of bicycles. Before then I could not find any in the
Campagnolo line nor elsewhere in Italy. I still have one of those
bicycles.
--
Jobst Brandt
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jobst,
Gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would be circumspect asking you a
question. Glad to hear that my fears were groundless.
Anyway . . .
What year did you give these frames to Cinelli?
What year are you saying vertical dropouts became mainline Campy?
Were you saying that this was the fashion for bicycles in general in
the first post, or did you mean Campy only?
Did you mean to imply that Campagnolo was unaware of Diamant and other
brands until you gave yours to Cinelli?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ned Mantei
Mike <mbe...@cox.net> wrote:
Try a drop of oil on the quick-release cam. It might be sticking,
preventing the QR from closing properly. This once solved the problem
for me.
Ozark Bicycle
Not exactly lying. Let's just say that when the ego exceeds a certain
size, it blurs the line between fact and fiction.
Have you read "The World According to Brandt"?
Tom Sherman
> ...
> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
> to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
> year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
> dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
> got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
> dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
>
of the Cold War!!! ;)
--
Comrade Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> [snip]
>>>> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave
>>>> them to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio
>>>> Campagnolo. A year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo
>>>> compatible vertical dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on
>>>> Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I got the idea from East Germans who
>>>> rode Diamant bicycles with vertical dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
>>> [snip]
>>> Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
>>> dated and many showing the dropouts:
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
>>> Am I misunderstanding something?
>> Please don't be so circumspect. What is it that you asking?
>> As I said, vertical dropouts became the Campagnolo mainline after Cino
>> Cinelli gave Tullio samples of the dropouts I gave him to build me a
>> couple of bicycles. Before then I could not find any in the
>> Campagnolo line nor elsewhere in Italy. I still have one of those
>> bicycles.
> Gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would be circumspect asking you a
> question. Glad to hear that my fears were groundless.
> Anyway...
> What year did you give these frames to Cinelli?
I don't recall but it must have been 1962.
> What year are you saying vertical dropouts became mainline Campy?
That's a while ago but it was probably after 1964 or I would have
deferred to forged dropouts from Campagnolo rather than min machined
from flat stock.
> Were you saying that this was the fashion for bicycles in general in
> the first post, or did you mean Campy only?
Campagnolo WAS the fashion of the time. What the French were doing
wasn't much because Italian bicycles were the focus of most riders in
the west when I returned to California in 1965.
> Did you mean to imply that Campagnolo was unaware of Diamant and
> other brands until you gave yours to Cinelli?
I never met anyone at Campagnolo, but they didn't make vertical
dropouts before that time. I was looking out for myself and not
researching the bicycle industry, so I don't know what others were
thinking.
Jobst Brandt
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jobst,
Perhaps it was your unspoken limitation of fashionable to Italian
bicycles in California that confused me.
I kept thinking of unfashionable bikes like this that didn't use
vertical dropouts after the 1960 Olympics:
http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1972sch1.htm
http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1973peugot1.htm
http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1973mer1.htm
http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1975cin.htm
Oops! Sorry, that last is Italian--Cinelli, to be precise.
I just browsed another large gallery with wonderful pictures of a lot
of old bikes that seemed fairly fashionable. Darned if I can see what
you were talking about--in fact, I didn't notice any of them using
vertical dropouts.
Oops! Another Italian from the early 1980s:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames2.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/sanren2.jpg
1973:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames3.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/frejus2.jpg
Drat! Another Italian 1970--Cinelli strikes again:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames4.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/PA130032.JPG
Technically a 1969 or 1970 Schwinn, but built up with Campy and
Cinelli parts:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames5.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/redparamount2.jpg
Another Schwinn, 1968:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames6.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/chromeparamount2z.jpg
Ditto, Paramount 1973:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames6.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/DSCN0023.JPG
A never unwrapped 1972 Masi Gran Criterium in a strip-tease gallery:
http://www.velostuf.com/Masi%20GC.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/dscn2596.jpg
A 1983 Bianchi:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames8.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/b13.jpg
A 1980 Bianchi:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames9.htm
http://www.velostuf.com/bianchisupercorsa4z.jpg
***
Even worse, I kept thinking of Huret and Simplex and Shimano and Campy
dropouts of the 1960s and 1970s as Berto described them in "The
Dancing Chain":
http://i27.tinypic.com/rabuq8.jpg
Nothing about vertical dropouts there, either.
Thanks for leading me to look into some details.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Doug Taylor
On mountain bike single speeds, BMX chain tugs a/k/a chain adjusters
a/k/a chain tensioners are used to prevent wheel axle slipping in
horizontal drops. Don't know if roadies use them, but they work.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>I kept thinking of unfashionable bikes like this that didn't use
>vertical dropouts after the 1960 Olympics:
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1972sch1.htm
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1973peugot1.htm
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1973mer1.htm
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1975cin.htm
None of those are vertical dropouts.
Tom Kunich
news:aguv64t1kgosubt3s...@4ax.com...
> I recently acquired a 5 year old used Waterford 1200 steel frame
> with horizontal drop outs. I've had trouble with the wheel slipping in
> the dropouts and stopping me dead in my tracks when the
> wheel wedges against the chain stay. I replaced the cheap
> performance quick release with a more expensive Salsa quick
> release and that has helped some. But still the wheel keeps
> pulling to the left. I really can't tighten the quick release anymore.
>
> Someone had mentioned that if my wheel axle was too wide, this
> may be a cause (I doubt it).
This is probably the case. When you tighten the quick release it tightens
against the axle instead of against the dropout. Another cause of this is
dropouts that are very thin such as the French bikes often use - stampings.
> I've also heard or read somewhere that Waterford quit making
> bikes with horizontal drop outs just for this reason.
This is not a reason. The world's strongest sprinters used horizontal
dropouts so why wouldn't you?
> I really seriously considering having vertical dropouts put on the
> bike. Though I hate to go to that expense. Any ideas?
There are problems with vertical dropouts as well. For instance - in order
to slide the wheel in the dropouts are a bit wider than the axle which means
that the wheel can be crooked in the frame with those as well.
Michael Press
Greatest cause of this is axle slightly too long. 85% of the time.
Either the axle extends too far on one side because the cones/
nuts are not symmetrically placed, or the axle is overall too long.
A visual and tactile examination will disclose this type of problem.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Ned Mantei <man...@cell.biol.ethz.ch> wrote:
Then throw it away if it is an open cam. :)
> It might be sticking,
> preventing the QR from closing properly. This once solved the problem
> for me.
--
Michael Press
Tom Kunich
news:rubrum-8C0F14....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
Of course I note that none of us brought up the point that some of the
Shimano quick releases have a hollowed out interior so that slightly long
axles can still be used without trimming them....
David L. Johnson
> On mountain bike single speeds, BMX chain tugs a/k/a chain adjusters
> a/k/a chain tensioners are used to prevent wheel axle slipping in
> horizontal drops. Don't know if roadies use them, but they work.
I can't see the need for them, since in my experience neither nutted
axles (used in bmx and track) nor quick-release axles slip, when
properly tightened and when using decent equipment.
But on a road bike they would make the rear wheel nearly impossible to
remove.
--
David L. Johnson
Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front of
enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of them would
reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The internet has
proven this not to be the case.
Hank
wrote:
That's what he said, "bikes like this that didn't use vertical
dropouts."
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Hank,
Thanks for explaining things to John.
To be fair, I can see afterwards (as usual) how my convoluted
scribbling could be misunderstood.
(That's why I admire Chalo's posts, whether I agree with them or
not--no dashes, no parentheses, no wandering, no confusion, no
dithering, no self-interruptions, no loss of focus, no typos, no
editing mistakes.)
(Curse him.)
Where was I?
Oh, yes, here are some links from another old-bike site that you might
enjoy, all Italian, all well past the 1960 Olympics, all unfashionably
non-vertical dropouts.
First, the site itself, for those who couldn't care less about dropout
squabbling and just like to look at such things, with a thumbnail
gallery and links to oodles of detailed photos:
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
Now the unfashionable non-vertical non-California Italian crew,
starting in 1986 and working back to 1968:
1986 Italian Wilier Triestina
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/images/Wilier_rear_der.JPG
1976 Italian Pogliaghi
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/images/76_Pogliaghi_SR_der.jpg
1974 Italian Masi
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/images/74_Masi_full.JPG
1973 Italian De Rosa
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/images/DeRosa_Drive.JPG
1972 Italian Cinelli
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/images/Cinelli_drivetrain.jpg
1972 Italian Colnago
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/images/Colnago_Super_drivetrain.jpg
1968 Italian Pogliaghi
http://www.theracingbicycle.com/images/1968_Pogliaghi_Campagnolo_der.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:43:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank <h...@wirtznet.net>
This discussion grows tedious.
Jobst said that he had something to do with
introducing vertical dropouts to Cinelli and
presumably to Campagnolo, and that they "came into
fashion" after that.
Carl appears to be contesting this by showing
examples of fashionable Italian racing bicycles
with horizontal dropouts produced long after 1960.
Many of us have owned such bicycles; the Waterford
1200 of this thread being an example (okay it isn't
Italian, but it is a high-class racing frame).
There is no contradiction here. One is reduced to
arguing about the meaning of the words "came into
fashion" and whether that means that Campagnolo
started to produce _any_ vertical dropouts after 1960
or whether it necessarily implies that vertical
dropouts became the _dominant_ fashion after 1960.
Even someone academically trained in close reading
may recognize this as fruitless.
Anyone who wishes to tilt at this particular
Jobstian windmill would be better off trying to prove
that Tullio Campagnolo had been making vertical
dropouts before 1960.
Ben
I invented close reading, but I let
I.A. Richards have the credit.
andre...@aol.com
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:43:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank <h...@wirtznet.net>
Maybe I am confused, but most of the bikes that you are showing have
what would be referred to as horizontal dropouts. These are the bikes
that, with a hard push on the pedals, the wheel would slide forward if
the quick release is not tight enough. I believe that what Jobst was
saying is that he came up with the idea of a vertical dropout, unlike
the ones in your pics. Vetical droupouts are seen today in most
aluminum bikes and don't have dropout screws. the dropout is not
parallel to the chainstay, but rather more vertical, so that if you
push hard the wheel won't slip forward. Im not sure if Jobst is the
inventor of these, or the internet, or the uncertainty principle.
However, I believe that he was stating that he came up with dropout
that is the opposite of the ones that you were depicting.
It is very possible, though, that I got it all wrong and a
misunderstood everything that everyone was saying.
Andres
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Andres,
Squabbles can be hard to follow.
Carl asked:
"Were you saying that this [vertical dropouts] was the fashion for
bicycles in general in the first post, or did you mean Campy only?"
Jobst replied:
"Campagnolo WAS the fashion of the time. What the French were doing
wasn't much because Italian bicycles were the focus of most riders in
the west when I returned to California in 1965."
That is, I was a bit puzzled by what seemed to be a claim that
vertical dropouts became the fashion in a year or two, when every
old-bike site that I look at shows horizontal dropouts (not vertical)
through the 1980s and Berto's history of derailleurs suggests in
passing that horizontal dropouts were the fashion in the 1960s (not
vertical).
You _can_ find vertical dropouts, if you look hard.
Possibly the sites that I've browsed have some built-in anti-vertical
and anti-California bias.
In any case, it should be pointed out that Jobst didn't claim to have
invented vertical dropouts. He saw them on some Diamints from the 1960
Olypmics, had some machined, gave some to Cinelli, who may have passed
them on to Campy, which might well have already been aware of
them--after all, Campy probably kept in touch with the bicycling
scene.
As a sidelight, this horizontal versus vertical dropout situation may
be a little like the history of radial versus tangent spokes in
highwheelers.
The tangent spoke was patented in 1874, but you'll have a hell of a
time finding an example reliably dated before 1884, ten years later.
One bicycle company had the tangent spoke patent, and over a hundred
other companies were happy to use old-fashioned radial spoking. Around
1884/1885, the New Rapid Co. in England started doing tangent spokes
(and tying and soldering them) and was almost immediately copied by
the Pope (later Columbia) Co. in the USA and then by the Victor Co.,
also of the USA.
I think that most non-track frames today do indeed use vertical
dropouts, and have done so for about twenty years.
But whatever the fashion was in California in the 1960s,
horizontal/adjustable dropouts seem to have been darned popular
through the 1980s--at least they seem to be what you'll find in sites
like the ones that I've posted.
You can get far more details (and far more interesting details) from
Berto's "Dancing Chain".
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
James Thomson
[snip]
> Oops! Another Italian from the early 1980s:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames2.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/sanren2.jpg
[snip]
Japanese, that one.
James Thomson
Ben C
[...]
> That is, I was a bit puzzled by what seemed to be a claim that
> vertical dropouts became the fashion in a year or two, when every
> old-bike site that I look at shows horizontal dropouts (not vertical)
> through the 1980s and Berto's history of derailleurs suggests in
> passing that horizontal dropouts were the fashion in the 1960s (not
> vertical).
>
> You _can_ find vertical dropouts, if you look hard.
Have you found any bikes with vertical dropouts that don't have the rear
tyre practically brushing the seat tube?
That very short wheelbase has become fashionable in about the last
decade or so and it pretty much mandates vertical dropouts because there
wouldn't be enough room to slide the wheel forwards to get it out
otherwise.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>To be fair, I can see afterwards (as usual) how my convoluted
>scribbling could be misunderstood.
LOL
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Squabbles can be hard to follow.
Tedious, excessively wordy and occasssionally smarmy writing
contriubtes to that problem.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>That very short wheelbase has become fashionable in about the last
>decade or so and it pretty much mandates vertical dropouts because there
>wouldn't be enough room to slide the wheel forwards to get it out
>otherwise.
Fashionable for about 25 years on racing bikes at least. Just a
passing fad really.
Ryan Cousineau
<ee5e9983-1a5e-4c18...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
Another element of density in this discussion seems to be that while
Carl is pointing out a great many bicycles with horizontal dropouts, few
are discussing the data point of bicycles with vertical dropouts.
I don't know much, but I have had the dropouts of a fair number of
bicycles from the 70s-90s eras pass in front of my eyes. I'm sure others
will fill in the gaps here, but...
-I briefly owned a Japan-built Nishiki road bike which, by its
components and graphics, dated to the early 1980s, and had vertical
dropouts. This was a shock, as I have seen similar Nishiki road frames
both before and after the putative era of this frame, and they had
horizontal dropouts. My estimation is that mainstream road bikes, even
to a rather high level of specification, used horizontal dropouts at
that time.
-I still own a much-abused steel Pinarello which originally came with
Shimano 105 six-speed equipment, which must place it around 1990, give
or take a year. It had horizontal dropouts, too, but I would place it as
one of the last "serious" road bikes to use them, specialty models and
customs excepted.
-Unmentioned is the fact that mountain bikes probably drove the adoption
of vertical dropouts. The subtle advantages of vertical dropouts on a
road bike became really obvious under the forces that mountain bikes got
to experience, especially when combined with the exciting new
quick-release designs mountain bikes popularized.
-The only Campy vertical dropout I can put a name (actually, a number)
to is the 1060 set, as seen here:
http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgalleryframebuildingmaterials.htm
Unsurprisingly, Campyonly.com is a major resource in this question.
1) their incomplete but delightful collection of Campy catalog scans:
http://www.campyonly.com/history/catalogs/
Catalog 15, page 31, 1060 series vertical dropout is sighted. That's
1967. Catalog 14 was 1958, and I could not see a vertical dropout
design. 9 years is a long time.
2) this bicycle is described as having "unusual vertical Campagnolo
dropouts." I believe most people following this thread will also find
them unusual:
http://www.campyonly.com/mypages/raysport.html
Look closer...
http://www.campyonly.com/images/mystuff/2006/raysport/DSCN0189_800.jpg
As vertical dropouts go, I'd say they're pretty unusual.
Jobst's claim:
"Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
dropouts at the 1960 Olympics."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/41d
f98771da532da/f6a869ac829303f6?lnk=st&q=horizontal+drop+out+problem#f6a86
9ac829303f6
"Into fashion" is vague enough to smear any specificity out of this
claim, but we are still left with the bare facts, and I have no reason
to doubt these bare facts: Jobst is quite clear that he saw vertical
dropouts on 1960 bicycles, and he had some made and gave them to
Cinelli. Cinelli was a friend of Campagnolo, and shortly after Jobst's
gift, Campy was producing vertical dropouts.
This isn't a very forceful claim of causation, but it's a plausible one.
For my part, I want these things:
1) pre-1990 examples of road bikes with vertical dropouts
2) more anecdotes from Jobst about his meetings with Cino Cinelli
3) how one went about commissioning lugs at that time. This isn't
because I want proof of Jobst's story, it's because for someone like me
whose profession amounts to computer-human relationship therapy,
mid-century industrial processes have their own fascination.
I was going to invoke Richard Sachs to come in and settle when he
started using vertical dropouts, as a pretty definitive representative
of well-connected American frame construction, but...
http://www.richardsachs.com/2006_red_gallery/pages/Image_0248.htmlhttp://
www.richardsachs.com/rsachstoys.html
Look for "Richard Sachs Forged Dropouts."
"Tecnociclo" seems like an important part of the puzzle, too. That led
me to a Rivendell blurb, which also gives a revisionist rationale for
vertical dropouts:
http://www.sandsmachine.com/bp_riv.htm
From my point of view, vertical dropouts were uncommon but not unknown
before the MTB era. After MTBs hit, vertical dropouts went from
ubiquitous to practically mandatory on road bikes. Rivendell claims
indexed shifting drove their adoption.
I have a SunTour Mountech-equipped Kuwahara MTB in my garage that must
be from about 1984. It has nutted axles, but that was not unusual among
early mountain bikes. I'll check which way the rear dropouts point
tomorrow.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Look closer...http://www.campyonly.com/images/mystuff/2006/raysport/DSCN0189_800.jpg
> As vertical dropouts go, I'd say they're pretty unusual.
>
> Jobst's claim:
>
> "Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
> to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
> year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
> dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
> got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
> dropouts at the 1960 Olympics."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread...
> f98771da532da/f6a869ac829303f6?lnk=st&q=horizontal+drop+out+problem#f6a86
> 9ac829303f6
>
> "Into fashion" is vague enough to smear any specificity out of this
> claim, but we are still left with the bare facts, and I have no reason
> to doubt these bare facts: Jobst is quite clear that he saw vertical
> dropouts on 1960 bicycles, and he had some made and gave them to
> Cinelli. Cinelli was a friend of Campagnolo, and shortly after Jobst's
> gift, Campy was producing vertical dropouts.
>
> This isn't a very forceful claim of causation, but it's a plausible one.
> For my part, I want these things:
>
> 1) pre-1990 examples of road bikes with vertical dropouts
> 2) more anecdotes from Jobst about his meetings with Cino Cinelli
> 3) how one went about commissioning lugs at that time. This isn't
> because I want proof of Jobst's story, it's because for someone like me
> whose profession amounts to computer-human relationship therapy,
> mid-century industrial processes have their own fascination.
>
> I was going to invoke Richard Sachs to come in and settle when he
> started using vertical dropouts, as a pretty definitive representative
> of well-connected American frame construction, but...
>
> Look for "Richard Sachs Forged Dropouts."
>
> "Tecnociclo" seems like an important part of the puzzle, too. That led
> me to a Rivendell blurb, which also gives a revisionist rationale for
> vertical dropouts:
>
> http://www.sandsmachine.com/bp_riv.htm
>
> From my point of view, vertical dropouts were uncommon but not unknown
> before the MTB era. After MTBs hit, vertical dropouts went from
> ubiquitous to practically mandatory on road bikes. Rivendell claims
> indexed shifting drove their adoption.
>
> I have a SunTour Mountech-equipped Kuwahara MTB in my garage that must
> be from about 1984. It has nutted axles, but that was not unusual among
> early mountain bikes. I'll check which way the rear dropouts point
> tomorrow.
I'll guess horizontal. Early production MTBs, Rockhoppers
and the like, usually had horizontal dropouts. Some of the
early custom or small-builder MTBs used road horizontal
dropouts, and some used verticals or even rear-facing
depending on the builder.
For two dark years, 1987-1988, an evil force stalked the
land, under whose spell MTB builders and brands were deluded
into building all their bikes with under-the-chainstay
U-brakes or Abominable Rollercams. These make for nice
unadorned-looking seatstays, but pack up terribly with mud.
For simple mechanical reasons, mud or no mud, you really
want vertical dropouts with chainstay-mounted brakes.
I believe, but have not proven, that this is when vertical
dropouts became nearly ubiquitous on MTBs, even after 1989
when Grant the Good Elf threw the master form for the
Rollercam into the volcanic pit of Mount Suntour and
harmony and rear cantis were restored to the world. Well,
actually I don't think Grant was responsible, it was a
sort of collective recovery-from-hysteria. I do have an
old Bridgestone MB-2 and a GT from the dreaded chainstay
brake era, both with vertical dropouts. They make fine
city bikes, and I even used to race the Bridgestone during
the Norcal spring MTB season (when there isn't much mud).
Especially after you replace the Rollercam with a U-brake.
Nice work finding the timeline of Campy dropouts. If
you want to research the paleontology of early mountain
bikes, look through the First Flight Bikes museum at
http://mombat.org/Bike_Listing.htm .
Ben
carl...@comcast.net
Dear James,
Ay, caramba!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ben,
Actually, I came up empty on finding vertical dropouts on the two
sites that I pillaged. You'd have to look further.
The short-wheelbase mania can be seen in extensive glory here:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/British.htm
Here's an example of how early short-wheelbase enthusiasts achieved
their unspeakable desires despite the moral restraint of horizontal
dropouts:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Butler_Claud/claud_butler__short_wb.htm
Another victim of the mine's-shorter-than-yours mania:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Grandex.htm
Even more extreme examples of the short-wheelbase craze:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Baines/Baines_IntTT_closeup.htm
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/images/British/Paris/Parisg2L.jpg
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Saxon_twin_t.htm
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Viking/Viking_SBU_Tracker.htm
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Waller/Waller_f_1.htm
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/TBoard_Cygnus.htm
The right-angle PMP crank in the last example is a different disease.
Here's another example of the kind of thing that they were worrying
about:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Sun/sun_manx_bb_ad.htm
The short wheelbase was supposed to provide unimaginable power:
"A machine with an unusual design of frame is the Curved Tube, made in
22 in. and 23 in. sizes only. Its wheelbase is shortened to 37 in. by
curving the lower half of the seat tube with the rear wheel. . . .
This cycle is suitable for time trials, but has been designed with
hill-climbing in mind."
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Taylor_Jack/jtaylor_62Art.htm
A learned article from that era ponders the magic of the short
wheelbase:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
***
This may be a vertical-dropout example of the
tire-brushing-the-seat-tube that you have in mind:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/images/British/Jack_Hearnes/Hearne12.jpg
No tire, but a blatantly vertical dropout:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/philbrook/Philbrook_TTframe.htm
Same maker, vertical dropout and tire close to seat tube:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/philbrook/aerospecial/photos/photo1.html
A 1970s short-wheelbase tire-brushing-seat-tube example, but it's not
a vertical dropout:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Quinn_galli.htm
***
Curved seat-tube for short wheelbase and unusual rear-ejection
track-style dropouts for a 3-speed derailleur:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Roberts_Chas/chas_roberts_TT.htm
The company was "established in the early 1970s"!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> That is, I was a bit puzzled by what seemed to be a claim that
>> vertical dropouts became the fashion in a year or two, when every
>> old-bike site that I look at shows horizontal dropouts (not vertical)
>> through the 1980s and Berto's history of derailleurs suggests in
>> passing that horizontal dropouts were the fashion in the 1960s (not
>> vertical).
>> You _can_ find vertical dropouts, if you look hard.
> Have you found any bikes with vertical dropouts that don't have the
> rear tyre practically brushing the seat tube?
That didn't bother some frame builders who were traditionalists and
fans of short bicycles at the same time. I saw bicycles that required
reducing tire pressure to remove the rear wheel.
> That very short wheelbase has become fashionable in about the last
> decade or so and it pretty much mandates vertical dropouts because there
> wouldn't be enough room to slide the wheel forward to get it out
> otherwise.
Fashion is a strange beast that compels humans to do and defend silly
concepts.
Jobst Brandt
Ben C
Fascinating.
I can't remember if I've mentioned before a bike I saw at a bike show in
London quite a few years ago.
The problem the design addressed was that on mountain bikes the seat
tube can get covered in mud thrown up by the back wheel.
The innovative solution was not to fit some kind of fender but to remove
the seat tube altogether.
But this meant there was nothing to attach the front derailleur to, so a
one-inch section of seat tube was retained, suspended in mid-air by a
small outrigger from the downtube, just for the derailleur to bolt onto.
[...]
> A learned article from that era ponders the magic of the short
> wheelbase:
>
> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
That seems to explain the case for and against very well.
> This may be a vertical-dropout example of the
> tire-brushing-the-seat-tube that you have in mind:
>
> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/images/British/Jack_Hearnes/Hearne12.jpg
Yes exactly, that's the kind of thing.
Ben C
> Ben C? wrote:
>
>>> That is, I was a bit puzzled by what seemed to be a claim that
>>> vertical dropouts became the fashion in a year or two, when every
>>> old-bike site that I look at shows horizontal dropouts (not vertical)
>>> through the 1980s and Berto's history of derailleurs suggests in
>>> passing that horizontal dropouts were the fashion in the 1960s (not
>>> vertical).
>
>>> You _can_ find vertical dropouts, if you look hard.
>
>> Have you found any bikes with vertical dropouts that don't have the
>> rear tyre practically brushing the seat tube?
>
> That didn't bother some frame builders who were traditionalists and
> fans of short bicycles at the same time. I saw bicycles that required
> reducing tire pressure to remove the rear wheel.
Yes which I suppose isn't too bad since you're probably removing the
wheel because it has a flat tyre anyway.
>> That very short wheelbase has become fashionable in about the last
>> decade or so and it pretty much mandates vertical dropouts because there
>> wouldn't be enough room to slide the wheel forward to get it out
>> otherwise.
>
> Fashion is a strange beast that compels humans to do and defend silly
> concepts.
What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should improve
stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as the 1939
article explains.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
The vertical dropout works perfectly well. You have a bit less wiggle
room for an incorrectly dished wheel or misaligned frame but that's not
such a bad thing.
Tom Kunich
news:slrng7540s....@bowser.marioworld...
Here's the real short wheelbase. Up until a couple of years ago there was a
shop in San Francisco that had a couple of these around.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Taylor_Jack/JTaylor_51_Brooker.htm
Ben C
Ouch. Similar to some of the designs Carl posted. Bending the seat tube
just seems to be taking it a bit too far.
Tom Kunich
Very long wheelbase is equally strange but there's a pretty wide possible
variation in wheelbase that has almost no effect on the handling of a bike
as long as the rest of the geometry is balanced.
54 cm Look KG233 - 96.5cm
61/62 cm Look KG241, Basso Loto, Time VX Elite - 100 cm
61 cm C40, Merckx ti - 102 cm
59 cm Raleigh Cyclocross factory - 105 cm (Note: label on factory box said
59 cm, label on bike says 61 cm)
62 cm Atala Cyclocross World Champion model - 105 cm (converted to touring
bike)
63.5 cm Raleigh Kodiak touring bike - 107 cm
I'd take $1200 for the KG233
carl...@comcast.net
>On 2008-07-07, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
[snip]
>> Fashion is a strange beast that compels humans to do and defend silly
>> concepts.
>
>What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should improve
>stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as the 1939
>article explains.
>
>http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
[snip]
Dear Ben,
Well, frames an inch longer are stiff enough for handling, the effect
of any weight savings from cutting off that inch are trivial to the
point of absurdity, and the power enhancement is somewhat less than
well-established.
(A difference of an inch of wheelbase is more reasonable than the 46
versus 39 inch examples in the article.)
First, try calculating the weight savings from the short wheelbase.
For example, given a 161 lb rider and a 14 lb bicycle who can
accelerate the total 175-lb mass from 0 to 20 feet per second in one
second, covering 10 feet.
How much do we expect to reduce the weight by shortening the frame for
a shorter wheelbase? A two-inch wheelbase reduction should amount to
about four inches of chainstay tubing.
But let's increase that to six inches because I happen to have a
6-inch piece of 5/8-inch steel tubing, flared to 3/4-inch at one end,
used to spread pulleys for tensioning fan belts.
It weighs 55.2 grams on my electronic scale, which we can round to
55/454ths pounds. If anything, it exaggerates the weight savings.
If an idealized 161-lb rider on a 14-lb bicycle produces enough steady
power to cover 10 feet in one second from a standing start, then he's
accelerating at 20 feet/second per second (we ignore wind and tire
drag).
175 lb * 454 grams/lb = 79,450 grams
Given the same power, how far will he travel with the 55 grams of
tubing removed? If the mass is reduced by 79,395/79,450ths, then the
acceleration will rise by 79,450/79,395ths, so . . .
20 fps * (79450/79395) = 20.0013854 fps.
With that average acceleration from a standing start, the lighter
bicycle will let the rider cover 10.0006927 feet in the same second.
The ~0.0007 inch "jump" is not measurable with a normal micrometer.
***
But what about hill-climbing power?
On hills, mass makes a _much_ larger difference.
:-)
A side-by-side calculator precise enough to be amusing:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html
Let's use a powerful rider and an impressive climb, 300 watts, a 10%
grade, 70kg rider, 9kg bike, tubulars, on the drops. Then we reduce
the bike 55 grams to 8.945 kg.
The calculator predicts 144.92 minutes versus 144.83 minutes for the
default 30 km distance, a lead of 0.09 minutes, or 5.4 seconds in over
two hours, about 0.06% faster.
But that's for a 30 km 10% grade, which would gain 3,000 meters.
The British manufacturers obsessed with the advantages of bicycles
with short-wheelbases would be hard pressed to find a local climb that
exceeds 1344 meters, the height of Ben Nevis, so we can reduce the
theoretical 5.4 seconds to about 2.4 seconds--and that's assuming that
they could take 55 grams out of a frame by shortening the wheelbase.
Power transmission improvements from frame shortening are even more
theoretical, if they exist at all.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Tom Sherman
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Fashion is a strange beast that compels humans to do and defend silly
>>> concepts.
>> What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should
>> improve stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as
>> the 1939 article explains.
That is what is claimed but no evidence shows that the missing inch or
two of chainstay changes any of that. These claims are like those
for Porsche 911's with huge aerodynamic appendages at the rear of the
car.
Hey, how fast do you drive to have the rear end of a car with rear
engine lift off anyway? I'm sure it improves the owners commute time
to work!
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
>> The vertical dropout works perfectly well. You have a bit less
>> wiggle room for an incorrectly dished wheel or misaligned frame but
>> that's not such a bad thing.
The horizontal slot is for fixed gear operation in which chain length
prescribes the exact fore and aft location of the rear axle. That
other stuff fits better with the Porsche whale tail.
> Here's the real short wheelbase. Up until a couple of years ago
> there was a shop in San Francisco that had a couple of these around.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Taylor_Jack/JTaylor_51_Brooker.htm
This is getting worser and worse. Rid quality is vertical not
rotationally about the wheel going over a small bump. The longer the
wheelbase the less the rider feels. That article does as though this
is unique to bicycles and assesses the effect of a front wheel going
over an obstacle. Most bicycles have the saddle close to the rear
axle and that is the criterion for VERTICAL jounce.
The existence of such pseudo technical articles gives fuel to myth and
lore... as if this were a mysterious effect. In other vehicles the
ride benefits of long wheelbases is understood and is not a subject of
public discussion.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> Fashion is a strange beast that compels humans to do and defend
>>>> silly concepts.
>>> What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should
>>> improve stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as
>>> the 1939 article explains.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
>>> The vertical dropout works perfectly well. You have a bit less
>>> wiggle room for an incorrectly dished wheel or misaligned frame
>>> but that's not such a bad thing.
>> Here's the real short wheelbase. Up until a couple of years ago
>> there was a shop in San Francisco that had a couple of these
>> around.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Taylor_Jack/JTaylor_51_Brooker.htm
> Ouch. Similar to some of the designs Carl posted. Bending the seat
> tube just seems to be taking it a bit too far.
Not for believers in the benefits of a fast, close coupled, short
wheelbase RACING bicycle. I've heard it all in bicycle shop sales and
read about it in Buycycling.
Jobst Brandt
Kerry Montgomery
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:4872c67b$0$17152$742e...@news.sonic.net...
In case a bit too far isn't far enough, here are the specs for next year's
ultra-short wheelbase track racing bicycle, or fakenger bike:
Rear wheel with a fixed cog on each side.
One chain on each side.
The seat tube is a single tube where the seat post attaches, then splits
into two tubes well above the bottom brackets.
Two 1/3 width bottom brackets with their axes aligned and a gap between them
wide enough to fit the rear tire. The right side of the right hand BB has a
crank with chain ring attached. The left side of the left hand BB has a
crank with chain ring attached.
The cranks stay in sync by way of the chains on each side going back to the
fixed cogs which are connected through the rear hub.
The chain stays could be short enough that the rear tire just misses the
front tire.
Should be responsive, yet twitchy.
Kerry
Ryan Cousineau
<b9fcefb7-4d63-43dc...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2:53 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another element of density in this discussion seems to be that while
> > Carl is pointing out a great many bicycles with horizontal dropouts, few
> > are discussing the data point of bicycles with vertical dropouts.
> >
> > I don't know much, but I have had the dropouts of a fair number of
> > bicycles from the 70s-90s eras pass in front of my eyes. I'm sure others
> > will fill in the gaps here, but...
[blah blah blah]
> > From my point of view, vertical dropouts were uncommon but not unknown
> > before the MTB era. After MTBs hit, vertical dropouts went from
> > ubiquitous to practically mandatory on road bikes. Rivendell claims
> > indexed shifting drove their adoption.
> >
> > I have a SunTour Mountech-equipped Kuwahara MTB in my garage that must
> > be from about 1984. It has nutted axles, but that was not unusual among
> > early mountain bikes. I'll check which way the rear dropouts point
> > tomorrow.
>
> I'll guess horizontal. Early production MTBs, Rockhoppers
> and the like, usually had horizontal dropouts. Some of the
> early custom or small-builder MTBs used road horizontal
> dropouts, and some used verticals or even rear-facing
> depending on the builder.
Vertical!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/2648495836/
(and so forth through my photostream for 12 more photos of the bike).
'83-'85 with those Mountech components?
> For two dark years, 1987-1988, an evil force stalked the
> land,
[Ben's comments are funnier with this part snipped]
> I believe, but have not proven, that this is when vertical
> dropouts became nearly ubiquitous on MTBs
> Nice work finding the timeline of Campy dropouts. If
> you want to research the paleontology of early mountain
> bikes, look through the First Flight Bikes museum at
> http://mombat.org/Bike_Listing.htm .
I Googled, someone else scanned. Thanks for reminding me about First
Flight.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jobst & Ben,
Of course, no modern bikes bend like this around the driving wheel:
http://i12.tinypic.com/4tz3tp0.jpg
Perfect for time trials or hill-climbing!
That cutting-edge short wheelbase design was infinitely superiro to
its long wheelbase predecessor:
http://blog.onpaperwings.com/uploaded_images/TheVelocipede-786164.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On 2008-07-07, carlfo...@comcast.net <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > That is, I was a bit puzzled by what seemed to be a claim that
> > vertical dropouts became the fashion in a year or two, when every
> > old-bike site that I look at shows horizontal dropouts (not vertical)
> > through the 1980s and Berto's history of derailleurs suggests in
> > passing that horizontal dropouts were the fashion in the 1960s (not
> > vertical).
>
> > You _can_ find vertical dropouts, if you look hard.
>
> Have you found any bikes with vertical dropouts that don't have the rear
> tyre practically brushing the seat tube?
Are you asking about bikes in general, or classic
road bikes in particular? You should be able to find
many bikes-in-general that have vertical dropouts
yet don't have super short chainstays. Most current
cyclocross bikes, many current touring and mountain
bikes, etc.
> That very short wheelbase has become fashionable in about the last
> decade or so and it pretty much mandates vertical dropouts because there
> wouldn't be enough room to slide the wheel forwards to get it out
> otherwise.
As JFT pointed out, the short wheelbase became
fashionable earlier, and there were short-wheelbase
bikes without vertical dropouts; you had to deflate
the tire to get the wheel out. I actually have a bike
with not-super-short chainstays where you still have to
deflate the tire partly to get the wheel out, if you use
decent size tires, because it has long Campy horizontal
dropouts and the wheel has to slide very far forward.
It's almost 30 years old.
Ben
Ben C
>
>>On 2008-07-07, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Fashion is a strange beast that compels humans to do and defend silly
>>> concepts.
>>
>>What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should improve
>>stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as the 1939
>>article explains.
>>
>>http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Well, frames an inch longer are stiff enough for handling, the effect
> of any weight savings from cutting off that inch are trivial to the
> point of absurdity, and the power enhancement is somewhat less than
> well-established.
Weight saving is cumulative though. Find 9 other places on the bike to
shave off 55g and you've got over half a kilogram.
> (A difference of an inch of wheelbase is more reasonable than the 46
> versus 39 inch examples in the article.)
>
> First, try calculating the weight savings from the short wheelbase.
>
> For example, given a 161 lb rider and a 14 lb bicycle who can
> accelerate the total 175-lb mass from 0 to 20 feet per second in one
> second, covering 10 feet.
>
> How much do we expect to reduce the weight by shortening the frame for
> a shorter wheelbase? A two-inch wheelbase reduction should amount to
> about four inches of chainstay tubing.
>
> But let's increase that to six inches because I happen to have a
> 6-inch piece of 5/8-inch steel tubing, flared to 3/4-inch at one end,
> used to spread pulleys for tensioning fan belts.
>
> It weighs 55.2 grams on my electronic scale, which we can round to
> 55/454ths pounds. If anything, it exaggerates the weight savings.
OK well if I can't notice the improved forward thrust of my short
wheelbase, can you notice the silky smooth ride, stable handling and
reduced vertical bounce of your long one?
John Forrest Tomlinson
>On Jul 7, 12:40 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-07, carlfo...@comcast.net <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > That is, I was a bit puzzled by what seemed to be a claim that
>> > vertical dropouts became the fashion in a year or two, when every
>> > old-bike site that I look at shows horizontal dropouts (not vertical)
>> > through the 1980s and Berto's history of derailleurs suggests in
>> > passing that horizontal dropouts were the fashion in the 1960s (not
>> > vertical).
>>
>> > You _can_ find vertical dropouts, if you look hard.
>>
>> Have you found any bikes with vertical dropouts that don't have the rear
>> tyre practically brushing the seat tube?
>
>Are you asking about bikes in general, or classic
>road bikes in particular? You should be able to find
>many bikes-in-general that have vertical dropouts
>yet don't have super short chainstays. Most current
>cyclocross bikes, many current touring and mountain
>bikes, etc.
Even road racing bikes. I'm not sure how "super short" is defined, but
I've got a Trek racing bike with vertical dropouts that certainly has
enough clearance that it would work fine if it had horizontal
dropouts.
Peter Cole
> What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should improve
> stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as the 1939
> article explains.
>
> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
>
> The vertical dropout works perfectly well. You have a bit less wiggle
> room for an incorrectly dished wheel or misaligned frame but that's not
> such a bad thing.
The article leaves out a few disadvantages and exaggerates the advantages.
Disadvantages left out: reduced tire clearance, worse shifting, more
unequal weight distribution between the wheels.
Exaggerated advantages:
(stiffness/efficiency) -- the rear of a bicycle, being a tetrahedron, is
already the stiffest part. In fact, the current hype is that it is too
stiff. Where you really want stiffness in a bike is torsional, meaning a
large diameter down tube.
(weight savings) -- what you save is the weight of the additional length
of chain stay(s), which being such small diameter, is not much. You also
save the weight of some chain. It's a real, but trivial savings.
The real reason for short chain stays is to make the claim that the bike
"climbs like a mountain goat" and "sprints like a rocket". After all, if
it looks fast, it must be fast. That's the same appeal that put fins on
cars in the 50's.
carl...@comcast.net
>On 2008-07-07, carl...@comcast.net <carl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:52:20 -0500, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-07-07, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Fashion is a strange beast that compels humans to do and defend silly
>>>> concepts.
>>>
>>>What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should improve
>>>stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as the 1939
>>>article explains.
>>>
>>>http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
[snip]
>Weight saving is cumulative though. Find 9 other places on the bike to
>shave off 55g and you've got over half a kilogram.
[snip]
>OK well if I can't notice the improved forward thrust of my short
>wheelbase, can you notice the silky smooth ride, stable handling and
>reduced vertical bounce of your long one?
Dear Ben,
Okay, let's imagine that a 161-lb rider shaves a total of 550 grams
off ten different spots on his original 14-lb bicycle.
(Let's hope that he didn't have to buy a redesigned frame each time.
There are much cheaper and easier ways to reduce weight. For example,
he could just lose a pound himself for free.)
(Let's remember, too, that none of those British bikes were 14-lb
wonders. We're using the 14-lb figure because it's familiar for some
reason or other and because it exaggerates the effect.)
:-)
Anyway . . .
If an idealized 161-lb rider on a 14-lb bicycle produces enough steady
power to cover 10 feet in one second from a standing start, then he's
accelerating at 20 feet/second per second (we ignore wind and tire
drag).
175 lb * 454 grams/lb = 79,450 grams
Given the same power, how far will he travel with the 550 grams of
something or other removed from his bike?
If the mass is reduced by 78,900/79,450ths, then the
acceleration will rise by 79,450/78,900ths, so . . .
20 fps * (79450/78900) = 20.139416 fps.
With that average acceleration from a standing start, the lighter
bicycle will let the rider cover 10.069708 feet in the same second.
That ~0.07 foot lead is just under 27/32nds of an inch.
So now we have a "jump" measurable with a good ruler!
***
Reducing weight has a much larger effect on hill-climbing, let's
cut-and-paste the previous calculations and try the huge new 550 gram
weight savings.
The side-by-side calculator again:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html
Let's use a powerful rider and an impressive climb, 300 watts, a 10%
grade, 70kg rider, 9kg bike, tubulars, on the drops. Then we reduce
the bike 550 grams to 8.450 kg.
The calculator predicts 144.92 minutes versus 143.99 minutes for the
default 30 km distance, a lead of 0.93 minutes, or 55.8 seconds in
over two hours, about 0.6% faster.
But that's for a 30 km 10% grade, which would gain 3,000 meters.
The British manufacturers obsessed with the advantages of bicycles
with short-wheelbases would be hard pressed to find a local climb that
exceeds 1344 meters, the height of Ben Nevis, so we can reduce the
theoretical 55.8 seconds to about 25 seconds.
But let's haul our half-kg-lighter wonder-bike and rider over to a
real climb and see what happens. The Stelvio's steeper side from Prato
is a famous climb:
http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/altimetria.aspx?id=949
The distance is about 25.5 km and the rise is from 916 to 2758 meters,
a gain of 1842 meters. Like any real climb, it varies in grade as the
profile shows, with lots of 8% stuff after the earlier, gentler slope
tires you out, but 1842/25,500 = ~7.22% grade.
So . . .
The side-by-side calculator again:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html
The same a powerful rider and a still impressive climb up the Stelvio,
300 watts, a 7.22% grade, 70kg rider, 9kg bike, tubulars, on the
drops. Then we reduce the bike 550 grams to 8.450 kg and go only 25.5
km.
The calculator predicts 93.39 minutes versus 92.84 minutes for 25.5
km, a lead of 0.55 minutes, or 33 seconds in over an hour and a half,
about 0.59% faster.
What the hell, let's go faster--we can shave a minute off those times
by changing the default elevation of only 100 meters.
Let's use the average elevation of (916 + 2752) / 2, or 1837 meters
and try again.
Both speeds drop over a minute, down to 92.30 versus 91.74. The
difference is now slightly larger, 0.56 minutes, but that increase is
probably due to rounding. If anything, the difference will get smaller
as the absolute times get smaller.
***
As for whether a long wheelbase produces a noticeable improvement in
ride smoothness, that depends on how long.
Yes, if you go from the ultra-short 39 inch to the ultra-long 46 inch
bicycle wheelbases in the article, you'll notice a difference in how
much smoother a rough road feels with 18% more wheelbase.
That's why limousines are longer than ordinary sedans.
But no, if you only take an inch off a _40_ inch wheelbase, then you
probably won't notice the 2.5% change in length--unless someone tells
you about the change, builds a weird frame, and raises your
expectations.
And that's roughly what the short wheelbase fanatics were doing. They
took already short bikes and did strange things to frames to make them
a tiny bit shorter. The frames looked so strange that no rider could
help expecting to "feel" differences that were probably well below the
threshold of what he could actually notice when comparing it to a
"normal" racing bike
Keep in mind that the real-world differences are rarely even as
dramatic as a 7-lb weight reduction or a 7-inch shorter wheelbase.
Here's a slightly dated article on weight reduction that makes the
point that most weight fanatics are not going from 21-lb 10-year-old
aluminum bikes to 14-lb carbon-fiber state-of-the-art:
http://www.torelli.com/tech/weight.shtml
And even that article is a bit misleading. When the author says that
weight is important, otherwise we'd be taking pleasant 75-mile rides
on 42-lb Schwinn varsity bikes, he hasn't plugged 42 pounds versus 19
pounds for his 160 lb rider.
Let's do 75 miles on pleasant, level ground, 160 lb rider,
on-the-drops, 200 watts, 19 versus 42 lb bikes:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
The light bike takes 211.88 minutes. The heavy bike takes 213.98
minutes. That's 2.10 minutes slower, about 1% speed difference.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ben C
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> What's silly about a short wheelbase? It seems like it should improve
>> stiffness and save weight at the cost of some comfort as the 1939
>> article explains.
>>
>> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Events/Long-or-short-wheelbase_1939.pdf
>>
>> The vertical dropout works perfectly well. You have a bit less wiggle
>> room for an incorrectly dished wheel or misaligned frame but that's not
>> such a bad thing.
>
> The article leaves out a few disadvantages and exaggerates the advantages.
>
> Disadvantages left out: reduced tire clearance, worse shifting, more
> unequal weight distribution between the wheels.
Another is it's harder to put panniers on without finding yourself
kicking them.
And cross-chaining is worse leading to increased chain wear.
Ben C
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:47:28 -0500, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>Weight saving is cumulative though. Find 9 other places on the bike to
>>shave off 55g and you've got over half a kilogram.
>
> [snip]
>
>>OK well if I can't notice the improved forward thrust of my short
>>wheelbase, can you notice the silky smooth ride, stable handling and
>>reduced vertical bounce of your long one?
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Okay, let's imagine that a 161-lb rider shaves a total of 550 grams
> off ten different spots on his original 14-lb bicycle.
>
> (Let's hope that he didn't have to buy a redesigned frame each time.
> There are much cheaper and easier ways to reduce weight. For example,
> he could just lose a pound himself for free.)
>
> (Let's remember, too, that none of those British bikes were 14-lb
> wonders. We're using the 14-lb figure because it's familiar for some
> reason or other and because it exaggerates the effect.)
[...]
> But let's haul our half-kg-lighter wonder-bike and rider over to a
> real climb and see what happens. The Stelvio's steeper side from Prato
> is a famous climb:
> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/altimetria.aspx?id=949
[...]
> The calculator predicts 93.39 minutes versus 92.84 minutes for 25.5
> km, a lead of 0.55 minutes, or 33 seconds in over an hour and a half,
> about 0.59% faster.
I guess I won't worry about trying to lose that pound then.
[...]
> Yes, if you go from the ultra-short 39 inch to the ultra-long 46 inch
> bicycle wheelbases in the article, you'll notice a difference in how
> much smoother a rough road feels with 18% more wheelbase.
>
> That's why limousines are longer than ordinary sedans.
Isn't it just so there's lots of legroom and space for swimming pools,
minibars etc., in the back?
[...]
> And that's roughly what the short wheelbase fanatics were doing. They
> took already short bikes and did strange things to frames to make them
> a tiny bit shorter. The frames looked so strange that no rider could
> help expecting to "feel" differences that were probably well below the
> threshold of what he could actually notice when comparing it to a
> "normal" racing bike
Peter Cole says the rear triangle is pretty stiff anyway.
And we've heard how dreaded shimmy is promoted by a floppy front
triangle.
I wonder what curving the seat tube or cutting chunks out of it does for
the stiffness of the front triangle.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ben,
The extra room in limousines does allow improvement in other areas,
but the chief thing that you'll notice is the smoother ride from the
longer wheelbase:
http://www.aaaalimos.com/images/Position%2001%206-8-10%20Passenger%20Limousine.jpg
The principle works for the school bus, too. The kid sitting at
"schools" enjoys a smoother rider than the driver or the kid sitting
over the rear wheel:
http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/school-bus-775146.jpg
Same thing for road graders, which place the blade in the middle of
the ridiculously extended wheelbase:
http://www.doublesinc.com/images/roadGrader.jpg
That's why wood planes get longer and longer for fine smoothing:
http://www.rvp1875.com/tools/transitional.html
Again, the trick is not to sit over a wheel, a drawback for RVs and
vans. In an old VW bus, you sit right over the front wheel.
http://www.germancarblog.com/images/vw/vwbus.jpg
A drawback to the ultra-short wheelbase bike frames is that they're
usually achieved by moving the rear axle closer and closer to the
seat, which exaggerates the road shocks.
If your limousine or road grader is in the shop, just drive your
station wagon down a long dirt road instead of your compact hatchback.
I do that twice a week. The longer wheelbase station wagon with
same-size tires is impressively smoother than the compact.
Here's one method for improving the smoothness of riding two wheels
down highways:
http://www.choppersaustralia.com/picture_library/Easy-Rider-WS.JPG
The exaggerated wheelbase really does smooth things out.
Of course, you could always try a tandem.
:-)
***
As for the front triangle, it's hard to see how curving straight tubes
or cutting chunks out of them can increase a triangle's stiffness.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ben C
> The extra room in limousines does allow improvement in other areas,
> but the chief thing that you'll notice is the smoother ride from the
> longer wheelbase:
>
> http://www.aaaalimos.com/images/Position%2001%206-8-10%20Passenger%20Limousine.jpg
Yes although looking at the position of the rear door I suspect the
passengers are much too close to the back wheels in that thing.
The driver will be getting a better ride.
This barouche looks like a better design:
http://sanctaflora.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/barouche.jpg
> The principle works for the school bus, too. The kid sitting at
> "schools" enjoys a smoother rider than the driver or the kid sitting
> over the rear wheel:
>
> http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/school-bus-775146.jpg
Yes, perhaps also partly why ordinary cars can be quite uncomfortable in
the back.
> Same thing for road graders, which place the blade in the middle of
> the ridiculously extended wheelbase:
> http://www.doublesinc.com/images/roadGrader.jpg
Basically a road-plane.
> That's why wood planes get longer and longer for fine smoothing:
> http://www.rvp1875.com/tools/transitional.html
[...]
> Here's one method for improving the smoothness of riding two wheels
> down highways:
> http://www.choppersaustralia.com/picture_library/Easy-Rider-WS.JPG
>
> The exaggerated wheelbase really does smooth things out.
They're still a little bit too close to the back wheel.
A Muzi
>>>>> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave
>>>>> them to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio
>>>>> Campagnolo. A year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo
>>>>> compatible vertical dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on
>>>>> Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I got the idea from East Germans who
>>>>> rode Diamant bicycles with vertical dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
>>>> dated and many showing the dropouts:
> http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
>>>> Am I misunderstanding something?
>>> Please don't be so circumspect. What is it that you asking?
>>> As I said, vertical dropouts became the Campagnolo mainline after Cino
>>> Cinelli gave Tullio samples of the dropouts I gave him to build me a
>>> couple of bicycles. Before then I could not find any in the
>>> Campagnolo line nor elsewhere in Italy. I still have one of those
>>> bicycles.
> Carl Fogel wrote:
>> Gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would be circumspect asking you a
>> question. Glad to hear that my fears were groundless.
>> Anyway...
>> What year did you give these frames to Cinelli?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> I don't recall but it must have been 1962.
> Carl Fogel wrote:
>> What year are you saying vertical dropouts became mainline Campy?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> That's a while ago but it was probably after 1964 or I would have
> deferred to forged dropouts from Campagnolo rather than min machined
> from flat stock.
> Carl Fogel wrote:
>> Were you saying that this was the fashion for bicycles in general in
>> the first post, or did you mean Campy only?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Campagnolo WAS the fashion of the time. What the French were doing
> wasn't much because Italian bicycles were the focus of most riders in
> the west when I returned to California in 1965.
> Carl Fogel wrote:
>> Did you mean to imply that Campagnolo was unaware of Diamant and
>> other brands until you gave yours to Cinelli?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> I never met anyone at Campagnolo, but they didn't make vertical
> dropouts before that time. I was looking out for myself and not
> researching the bicycle industry, so I don't know what others were
> thinking.
Indeed, the Campagnolo forged vertical ends are pretty nice compared to
the other offerings of the era (cheap stamped plate as used by Welker,
Garlatti etc).
After about 1975 (76?) the smaller Suntour (& later Shimano) 7mm thick
forged verticals were I think prettier and certainly the Suntours with
offset stay design were easy to build. Campagnolo #1060 were commonly
built with a washer at the axle interface to take them from 5mm to 7mm.
The Campagnolo large size and the extra brazing process made them less
favored by builders after the Japanese models became widely available.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
A Muzi
> I recently acquired a 5 year old used Waterford 1200 steel frame
> with horizontal drop outs. I've had trouble with the wheel slipping in
> the dropouts and stopping me dead in my tracks when the
> wheel wedges against the chain stay. I replaced the cheap
> performance quick release with a more expensive Salsa quick
> release and that has helped some. But still the wheel keeps
> pulling to the left. I really can't tighten the quick release anymore.
>
> Someone had mentioned that if my wheel axle was too wide, this
> may be a cause (I doubt it).
>
> I've also heard or read somewhere that Waterford quit making
> bikes with horizontal drop outs just for this reason.
>
> I really seriously considering having vertical dropouts put on the
> bike. Though I hate to go to that expense. Any ideas?
Sure. Get a real steel quick release and give your open-cam skewers to
someone you don't like.
p.s. lube inside the bell so the cam works more smoothly.
A Muzi
> On 06 Jul 2008 12:25:36 GMT, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>> Carl Fogel wrote:
>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave
>>>>>> them to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio
>>>>>> Campagnolo. A year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo
>>>>>> compatible vertical dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on
>>>>>> Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I got the idea from East Germans who
>>>>>> rode Diamant bicycles with vertical dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
>>>>> dated and many showing the dropouts:
>> http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
>>
>>>>> Am I misunderstanding something?
>>>> Please don't be so circumspect. What is it that you asking?
>>>> As I said, vertical dropouts became the Campagnolo mainline after Cino
>>>> Cinelli gave Tullio samples of the dropouts I gave him to build me a
>>>> couple of bicycles. Before then I could not find any in the
>>>> Campagnolo line nor elsewhere in Italy. I still have one of those
>>>> bicycles.
>>> question. Glad to hear that my fears were groundless.
>>> Anyway...
>>> What year did you give these frames to Cinelli?
>>
>> deferred to forged dropouts from Campagnolo rather than min machined
>>from flat stock.
>>> the first post, or did you mean Campy only?
>> wasn't much because Italian bicycles were the focus of most riders in
>> the west when I returned to California in 1965.
>>
>>> other brands until you gave yours to Cinelli?
>> dropouts before that time. I was looking out for myself and not
>> researching the bicycle industry, so I don't know what others were
>> thinking.
>>
>
> Dear Jobst,
>
> Perhaps it was your unspoken limitation of fashionable to Italian
> bicycles in California that confused me.
>
> I kept thinking of unfashionable bikes like this that didn't use
> vertical dropouts after the 1960 Olympics:
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1972sch1.htm
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1973peugot1.htm
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1973mer1.htm
> http://collection.rydjor.com/bikecollection/1975cin.htm
>
> Oops! Sorry, that last is Italian--Cinelli, to be precise.
>
> I just browsed another large gallery with wonderful pictures of a lot
> of old bikes that seemed fairly fashionable. Darned if I can see what
> you were talking about--in fact, I didn't notice any of them using
> vertical dropouts.
>
> Oops! Another Italian from the early 1980s:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames2.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/sanren2.jpg
>
> 1973:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames3.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/frejus2.jpg
>
> Drat! Another Italian 1970--Cinelli strikes again:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames4.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/PA130032.JPG
>
> Technically a 1969 or 1970 Schwinn, but built up with Campy and
> Cinelli parts:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames5.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/redparamount2.jpg
>
> Another Schwinn, 1968:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames6.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/chromeparamount2z.jpg
>
> Ditto, Paramount 1973:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames6.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/DSCN0023.JPG
>
> A never unwrapped 1972 Masi Gran Criterium in a strip-tease gallery:
> http://www.velostuf.com/Masi%20GC.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/dscn2596.jpg
>
> A 1983 Bianchi:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames8.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/b13.jpg
>
> A 1980 Bianchi:
> http://www.velostuf.com/velostufgallerybikes+frames9.htm
> http://www.velostuf.com/bianchisupercorsa4z.jpg
>
> ***
>
> Even worse, I kept thinking of Huret and Simplex and Shimano and Campy
> dropouts of the 1960s and 1970s as Berto described them in "The
> Dancing Chain":
> http://i27.tinypic.com/rabuq8.jpg
>
> Nothing about vertical dropouts there, either.
>
> Thanks for leading me to look into some details.
I can't tell where you are going with this but Campagnolo offered #1060
verticals from the middle sixties through about 1980. They were used
primarily for cyclo cross, time trial and custom machines by artisan
builders - few major manufacturers in Europe could hold the required
alignment tolerances at the time.
A Muzi
> [snip]
>> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
>> to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
>> year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
>> dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
>> got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
>> dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
> dated and many showing the dropouts:
> http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
> Am I misunderstanding something?
There's a lot of that going around today.
I can't see what a couple dozen photos of beautiful bicycles, all with
horizontal ends, have to do with Jobst's reminiscences about vertical ends.
??
Tom Kunich
news:32058$48712216$32...@news.teranews.com...
>> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
>>> to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
>>> year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
>>> dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
>>> got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
>>> dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
>
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
>> dated and many showing the dropouts:
>> http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
>> Am I misunderstanding something?
>
> There's a lot of that going around today.
>
> I can't see what a couple dozen photos of beautiful bicycles, all with
> horizontal ends, have to do with Jobst's reminiscences about vertical
> ends.
Unfortunately I've had to place Carl on Block since he doesn't seem capable
of understanding that his viewpoint is his viewpoint and isn't required
word-of-God to everyone else.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Vertical dropouts came into fashion when I had some made and gave them
>>> to Cino Cinelli, a good friend and confidant of Tullio Campagnolo. A
>>> year or so after I gave four sets of Campagnolo compatible vertical
>>> dropouts to Cinelli, they appeared on Campagnolo equipped bicycles. I
>>> got the idea from East Germans who rode Diamant bicycles with vertical
>>> dropouts at the 1960 Olympics.
>
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Here's a gallery showing many different racing bicycle photos, all
>> dated and many showing the dropouts:
>> http://www.theracingbicycle.com/Preservation.html
>> Am I misunderstanding something?
>
>There's a lot of that going around today.
>
>I can't see what a couple dozen photos of beautiful bicycles, all with
>horizontal ends, have to do with Jobst's reminiscences about vertical ends.
>
>??
Dear Andrew,
In a nutshell, I was puzzled by Jobst's claim that shortly after he
sent some vertical dropouts to Cinelli, based on Diamints from the
1960 Olympics, vertical dropouts became "the fashion."
Every site that I knew of and Berto's "Dancing Chain" shows that "the
fashion" remained horizontal adjustable dropouts through the 1970s.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
John Thompson
> I recently acquired a 5 year old used Waterford 1200 steel frame
> with horizontal drop outs. I've had trouble with the wheel slipping in
> the dropouts and stopping me dead in my tracks when the
> wheel wedges against the chain stay. I replaced the cheap
> performance quick release with a more expensive Salsa quick
> release and that has helped some. But still the wheel keeps
> pulling to the left. I really can't tighten the quick release anymore.
Is this one of the modern "boutique" type QRs? E.g.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/skewers.html
If so, consider upgrading to a traditional QR device.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
Tom Kunich
news:slrng72gr...@vector.os2.dhs.org...
I'm rather surprised at how rapidly Sheldon found out failures. I was under
the impression that he didn't work on bikes for quite a long time before he
passed away.
Ryan Cousineau
Eh? It's possible, but first, exposed-cam ("boutique") skewers have been
around for at least 20 years. Second, Sheldon was working in a bike shop
and would certainly have been exposed to every noteworthy mechanical
novelty in cycling, even if he wasn't pulling wrenches on a day-to-day
basis.