Touring frame rec's
![m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net
I'm looking for a beefy 62cm ish touring frame. Oversized aluminum
seems to fit the bill. Does Cannondale sell bare frames? Any
reasonably priced (~600) sources?
Thx,
Mark
landotter
with steel fork for under $180 (on sale now). It's quite decent if you
don't mind some cruddly looking welds:
Largest size available is a 60cm
russell...@yahoo.com
Trek 520 comes in a 25" size I believe. Lots and lots on the road.
$1200 complete bike. Surly Long Haul Trucker frame/fork is about $400
frame/fork. 62cm is biggest size. I don't think Cannondale does sell
its touring frames as bare frames.
Since you are willing to build it yourself, you can use about any older
aluminum or steel mountain bike or hybrid frame. Your choice of 26" or
700C wheels depending on which frame you choose. Probably get these
used or NOS fairly cheap. Many come with rear rack mounts on the
seatstays and rack mounts on the dropouts. Probably have to get a new
rigid fork. Can be had fairly cheap from QBP or maybe the local shop
has old takeoffs laying about. Most likely with eyelets on the fork
ends. Can easily use a clamp on low-rider rack instead of the bolt
through model. Nashbar also has a rigid steel fork for 700C and 26"
wheel sizes.
Andrew F Martin
You'll appreciate the ride so much more.
Peter Cole
> 62, Beefy, Touring == STEEL.
>
> You'll appreciate the ride so much more.
>
Actually, with a large frame and a load, a laterally stiff frame is
best. Large tubes are the way to go, and that means aluminum.
Mark Atanovich
stolen, I got a Trek 520 frame. Shimmy heaven. The problem is that I carry
an Ortlieb Shuttle on top of a Blackburn expedition rack that loves to start
things vibrating in back. I mangled the derailer hanger in a crash and
replaced the frame with a Novara. Tange db tubing, Japanese made. Very
well constructed frame. Alas, the same problem. After15k miles, fatigue
set in:
http://members.cox.net/m.atanovich/Stay.jpg
Both stays failed in the middle of my ride. Can you say "rear suspension"?
The only thing that saved me was the brake cable hanger hitting the seatpost
clamp.
I want oversized aluminum. Or titanium. I hear "the ride" about any frame
material way too much (I think the ad writers for frames do speaker wire as
well). A few psi in the tires makes more difference than any frame material
could.
"Peter Cole" <peter...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B_6dnT5eGpQjSuvZ...@comcast.com...
philcycles
Mark Atanovich wrote:
> Amen to that. My first commuter was a Cannondale. Loved it. After it was
> stolen, I got a Trek 520 frame. Shimmy heaven. The problem is that I carry
> an Ortlieb Shuttle on top of a Blackburn expedition rack that loves to start
> things vibrating in back. I mangled the derailer hanger in a crash and
> replaced the frame with a Novara. Tange db tubing, Japanese made. Very
> well constructed frame. Alas, the same problem. After15k miles, fatigue
> set in:
I'd use a Bruce Gordon rack. Tubular steel. And while I was at it I'd
probably buy a Bruce Gordon touring bike.
Phil Brown
m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net
Qui si parla Campagnolo
landotter
Yeah, if you're some sort of elite fucking yuppie with money to piss
away.
Buy a Waterford frame and be admired for its decals, or buy 4 perfectly
decent durable and less tony frames instead.
data...@yahoo.com
to 63-64cm
Ryan Cousineau
"Mark Atanovich" <m.ata...@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:
> Amen to that. My first commuter was a Cannondale. Loved it. After it was
> stolen, I got a Trek 520 frame. Shimmy heaven. The problem is that I carry
> an Ortlieb Shuttle on top of a Blackburn expedition rack that loves to start
> things vibrating in back. I mangled the derailer hanger in a crash and
> replaced the frame with a Novara. Tange db tubing, Japanese made. Very
> well constructed frame. Alas, the same problem. After15k miles, fatigue
> set in:
>
> http://members.cox.net/m.atanovich/Stay.jpg
>
> Both stays failed in the middle of my ride. Can you say "rear suspension"?
> The only thing that saved me was the brake cable hanger hitting the seatpost
> clamp.
>
> I want oversized aluminum. Or titanium. I hear "the ride" about any frame
> material way too much (I think the ad writers for frames do speaker wire as
> well). A few psi in the tires makes more difference than any frame material
> could.
You know, I have postulated that the ideal touring bike would be made of
carbon fibre, because it's the only frame material where you could
easily carry a small repair kit on your bike.
I wasn't really joking when I said that, but I can't find any makers who
seem to be seriously selling carbon touring bicycles. I'm not in the
market, but if anyone knows of a carbon tourer, I'd like to hear about
it.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Peter Cole
Or a couple of complete Cannondale T2000's.
Ozark Bicycle
IIRC, that Waterford frame is ~$1500. Is $1500 going to buy "a couple
of Cannondale T2000's"?
Ozark Bicycle
I agree that that the Waterford is way outside the OP's budget. OTOH, I
think Waterford frames are, all things considered, a very good value.
YMMV.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>I wasn't really joking when I said that, but I can't find any makers who
>seem to be seriously selling carbon touring bicycles. I'm not in the
>market, but if anyone knows of a carbon tourer, I'd like to hear about
>it.
Dear Ryan,
"Nobody's making carbon fiber touring bikes as far as I know, yet."
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
I guess not, if you go with the cheapest frame & no fork & no finish
options, you could only buy 1 T2000. I didn't realize the adventure
bikes were such a bargain. I thought antiques were expensive.
data...@yahoo.com
$50. off course, i hear the complete story resides in the headtube and
what's to see in a photo?
the question i carry unansewred - does a genuine enlightened design
touring frame carry loaded front and rear bags with greater aplomb than
a non enlightened design touring frame?
one would expect that yes this is true but as we all know...
data...@yahoo.com
a shop there has a list of available top line touring equipment - also
see custom touring frame builders -there's several - 'western flyer'
for example that give a wider view of touring than say the adventure -
visit 'bruce gordon' and the united bicycle institute manufacturers list
russell...@yahoo.com
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net wrote:
> > > Howdy,
> > > I'm looking for a beefy 62cm ish touring frame. Oversized aluminum
> > > seems to fit the bill. Does Cannondale sell bare frames? Any
> > > reasonably priced (~600) sources?
> > >
> > > Thx,
> > > Mark
> >
> > For a genuine toruing frame. Waterford 'Adventure' cycle-
> >
> > http://www.waterfordbikes.com
>
> Yeah, if you're some sort of elite fucking yuppie with money to piss
> away.
So anyone riding a nice bike fits your description? Do you live in the
cheapest house/apartment you can possibly find? Do you drive the
cheapest, most base car possible? I am assuming you drive a car and do
not use your bike for all transport.
>
> Buy a Waterford frame and be admired for its decals, or buy 4 perfectly
> decent durable and less tony frames instead.
My Waterford looks wonderful. My Nashbar frame and Performance fork
does not look great. It works fine though. I like riding my Waterford
more.
landotter
russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net wrote:
> > > > Howdy,
> > > > I'm looking for a beefy 62cm ish touring frame. Oversized aluminum
> > > > seems to fit the bill. Does Cannondale sell bare frames? Any
> > > > reasonably priced (~600) sources?
> > > >
> > > > Thx,
> > > > Mark
> > >
> > > For a genuine toruing frame. Waterford 'Adventure' cycle-
> > >
> > > http://www.waterfordbikes.com
> >
> > Yeah, if you're some sort of elite fucking yuppie with money to piss
> > away.
>
> So anyone riding a nice bike fits your description?
The markup on the Waterford is insane. I could fly to England, stay
over the weekend, and pay for and be measured up for a Mercian for the
same price.
It's not about the bike, the bike is sweet. It's about value.
Waterfords are a crap value.
If you think it's pretty and sexy and you are willing to pay for
craftsmanship in the same way folks buy rolexes that are less accurate
than a $50 Timex--then by all means. There are ways to appreciate bikes
that involve not sitting on them.
Here in Nashville, I see guys all the time on $2000+ frames going
15mph with the large to large combo, bitching that the shop gypped them
'cause their drivetrain makes noise. They likely walked into Gran Fondo
or some other tony shop and just bought the most expensive thing, and
would have been happier on a Jamis at 30% of the price had they taken
the time to learn how to operate the damn thing properly.
>Do you live in the
> cheapest house/apartment you can possibly find? Do you drive the
> cheapest, most base car possible? I am assuming you drive a car and do
> not use your bike for all transport.
>
I burn a gallon of gas per week and drive a 15 y/o Japanese car that's
worth less than my city bike. My city bike's worth perhaps $800, which
is pretty much the maximum I'll invest in something that's getting
locked up outside a grocery store. Bikes get jacked, that's a fact of
life.
> >
> > Buy a Waterford frame and be admired for its decals, or buy 4 perfectly
> > decent durable and less tony frames instead.
>
> My Waterford looks wonderful. My Nashbar frame and Performance fork
> does not look great. It works fine though. I like riding my Waterford
> more.
Nashbar frames are indeed hideously brazed, but there are frames to be
had from 3-800 bucks that have pretty damn nice welds with quality
tubing, durable powdercoating, and build up to be very sexy machines.
Again, Waterfords are sexy, but artificially elite, a frame of similar
quality should by no mean cost what they're charging. Why can I get a
hand brazed 631 Audax frame from Mercian for $650, but Waterford feels
that their uberness is worth $1000 more?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
hmmm, last one we sold was to a retired cop who then did loaded,
unsupported touring in places like Sardinia He rode the bike to Boulder
from Cortez CO, with 50 pounds of stuff...Not everybody can find a well
made, reliable and $300 genuine frame actually meant for loaded
touring, not the garage made, rack zipp tied on the back, day trip to
the 'mountains' type bike.
Which frame do you mean Mr Otter, that are $300 and actually can be
built to do loaded touring, not the wannabe 'touring' stuff, loaded
with a credit card and a windbreaker for a 1 day trip.
Tuschinski
> Which frame do you mean Mr Otter, that are $300 and actually can be
> built to do loaded touring, not the wannabe 'touring' stuff, loaded
> with a credit card and a windbreaker for a 1 day trip.
*Shakes head in amazement*
I think that the giant explorer frames cost as much as 300$ considering
their complete price. Now I know people who crossed the Himalaya with
them.
I bet all of the shelve 1000$ randonneur type bikes have a frame wich
cosys ~300$, And to suggest that they are all wannabe bikes is complete
and utter nonsense.
Also, a waterford might be a fine bike indeed, but 1500$ for a lugged
steel frame is kinda "steep". If you want a custom built top of the
line touring frame you can get a santos travelmaster for *gasp* 600$.
And yeah, that "cheapo"frame (you can get steel or Alu) also is used by
world travelers. I'm sure you have similar "cheap"deals in the USA.
Anything over 1000$ for a frame is indeed snobbism over function.
And although you scream and shout that it aint true, but a steel frame
is not always the best pick for loads. An oversized Alu frame can be a
lot more stable.
G.T.
> landotter wrote:
>
>>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>>>m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Howdy,
>>>>I'm looking for a beefy 62cm ish touring frame. Oversized aluminum
>>>>seems to fit the bill. Does Cannondale sell bare frames? Any
>>>>reasonably priced (~600) sources?
>>>>
>>>>Thx,
>>>>Mark
>>>
>>>For a genuine toruing frame. Waterford 'Adventure' cycle-
>>>
>>>http://www.waterfordbikes.com
>>
>>Yeah, if you're some sort of elite fucking yuppie with money to piss
>>away.
>>
>>Buy a Waterford frame and be admired for its decals, or buy 4 perfectly
>>decent durable and less tony frames instead.
>
>
> hmmm, last one we sold was to a retired cop who then did loaded,
> unsupported touring in places like Sardinia He rode the bike to Boulder
> from Cortez CO, with 50 pounds of stuff...Not everybody can find a well
> made, reliable and $300 genuine frame actually meant for loaded
> touring,
So the Somas and Surlys of the world aren't well made or reliable?
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
41
Peter Cole wrote:
> Actually, with a large frame and a load, a laterally stiff frame is
> best. Large tubes are the way to go, and that means aluminum.
Huh? I think your prejudice against steel has put you out of touch with
what's really going on out there. Most custom or high-end steel frames
today are built with oversized tubing. Not ridiculously oversized like
titanium or aluminum or CF-reinforced aluminum have to be, but the
right size for the job. Look at Waterfords: they all have oversized
tubes. It's getting harder to find any built with standard 1" top
tubes, 28.6 seat tubes and downtubes..
Excuse me, I have to go, I think my floppy steel frame is rusting.
Amazing it can be ridden at all.
41
Mark Atanovich wrote:
> replaced the frame with a Novara. Tange db tubing, Japanese made. Very
> well constructed frame. Alas, the same problem. After15k miles, fatigue
> set in:
>
> http://members.cox.net/m.atanovich/Stay.jpg
>
> Both stays failed in the middle of my ride.
The tubing type and brand are irrelevant, because there is no tubing at
the failure site depicted in your photo. What failed was the
attachment, and so the end cap. The failure is very unusual and could
not occur without defective workmanship or materials. And why is the
stay displaced backward like that? Unless you moved it, this indicates
that there was unwanted stress at rest in the original configuration,
another sign of defective construction.
i
41
41 wrote:
> CF-reinforced aluminum
Read "CF-reinforced resin".i
carl...@comcast.net
Dear 41,
The broken seat-stay could have simply bent in that direction when it
broke under the rider.
Which way a seat-stay will bend in such an unusual failure is
complicated by whether it was the first to break, the second to break,
or broke simultaneously with the other ("Both stays failed in the
middle of my ride").
And God knows what happened after they both broke.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
You've got me wrong, I don't give a damn about frame materials (or
frames, particularly). I have never owned a CF or Ti frame, and probably
never will, not unless there's a large drop in prices. In steel and
aluminum, I have ridden "nice" and "not-so-nice" frames and can't really
tell the difference except that the steel ones don't feel as stable at
high speeds, and seem to break more easily.
I'm sure Waterford has improved the design of steel frames, but steel
has only limited suitability in lightweight applications like bicycles.
As I've said, I couldn't care less, I'll happily ride inexpensive steel
frames, but an expensive, "high performance" steel frame is an oxymoron
-- strictly for retro-grouches.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Tuschinski wrote:
> > Which frame do you mean Mr Otter, that are $300 and actually can be
> > built to do loaded touring, not the wannabe 'touring' stuff, loaded
> > with a credit card and a windbreaker for a 1 day trip.
>
> *Shakes head in amazement*
>
> I think that the giant explorer frames cost as much as 300$ considering
> their complete price. Now I know people who crossed the Himalaya with
> them.
>
> I bet all of the shelve 1000$ randonneur type bikes have a frame wich
> cosys ~300$, And to suggest that they are all wannabe bikes is complete
> and utter nonsense.
>
> Also, a waterford might be a fine bike indeed, but 1500$ for a lugged
> steel frame is kinda "steep".
Well, first $1500 for a made to order, custom steel frame is not 'steep
and the Adventure cycle is not necessarily lugged and not $1500...
Tuschinski
>
> Well, first $1500 for a made to order, custom steel frame is not 'steep
> and the Adventure cycle is not necessarily lugged and not $1500...
>
According to their site:
1300$ of the shelve, extra for custom sized.
It's not exhorbitant, though I know top-class frame builders who are
25% cheaper. maybe that's because we have more bikes here in the
Netherlands^^
But for someone who just starts touring AND states he has a tight
budget it's not a good reccomendation at all.
Alu frames are fine frames... stating they are harsh, unyieldy, bad
built etc is overstating it. Saying steel is better for all purposes is
also nonsense.
There are many ways to Rome and obviously some are cheaper than others.
41
Peter Cole wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, with a large frame and a load, a laterally stiff frame is
> >> best. Large tubes are the way to go, and that means aluminum.
> >
> > what's really going on out there. Most custom or high-end steel frames
> > today are built with oversized tubing. Not ridiculously oversized like
> > titanium or aluminum or CF-reinforced aluminum have to be, but the
> > right size for the job. Look at Waterfords: they all have oversized
> > tubes. It's getting harder to find any built with standard 1" top
> > tubes, 28.6 seat tubes and downtubes..
> >
> > Excuse me, I have to go, I think my floppy steel frame is rusting.
> > Amazing it can be ridden at all.
> I'm sure Waterford has improved the design of stee l frames, but steel
> has only limited suitability in lightweight applications like bicycles.
> As I've said, I couldn't care less, I'll happily ride inexpensive steel
> frames, but an expensive, "high performance" steel frame is an oxymoron
> -- strictly for retro-grouches.
Hmm. You've said essentially the same thing twice now. So far, the only
justification you have offered is that oversized tubing doesn't happen
in steel (false), and that they "seem to break more easily". They may
seem to to you, but in fact they don't. Do you have any actual reasons
for your claim that there is no such thing as a high performance steel
frame?
You might want to define what you mean by "high performance". It seems
to bear no relation to what I mean: long-term reliability, durability,
safety, customizability, can be made into a suitable geometry to use
with the tire sizes I like and with fenders, stiff enough to ride
safely and efficiently, light enough to carry easily. CF-reinforced
resin, aluminum, and titanium give no useful benefit to me, but fail in
criteria important to me. What do these materials do for you that is
genuinely useful?
If you say you need them to get something that is not "floppy and
rusty", BZZZZT.
Z
41
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 23:52:00 -0700, "41" <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Atanovich wrote:
> >
> >> replaced the frame with a Novara. Tange db tubing, Japanese made. Very
> >> set in:
> >>
> >> http://members.cox.net/m.atanovich/Stay.jpg
> >>
> >> Both stays failed in the middle of my ride.
> >
> >
> >The tubing type and brand are irrelevant, because there is no tubing at
> >the failure site depicted in your photo. What failed was the
> >attachment, and so the end cap. The failure is very unusual and could
> >not occur without defective workmanship or materials. And why is the
> >stay displaced backward like that? Unless you moved it, this indicates
> >that there was unwanted stress at rest in the original configuration,
> >another sign of defective construction.
> The broken seat-stay could have simply bent in that direction when it
> broke under the rider.
That seems unlikely because the direction of the loading force does not
push the top of the stay that way. It loads the stay in compression; if
anything the rotation is in the other direction. Backlash might give a
load in that direction. It seems more reasonable that the stay was
improperly forced into place before joining, leaving residual stress
that led to fatigue failure.
> And God knows what happened after they both broke.
Perhaps the rider does too, which is why I inquired..
rle...@hotmail.com
I don't know about Alu, but Surly's Long Haul Trucker's a steel
frame that is very popular with the folks over at Bikelist.org and
crazyguyonabike.com. It's under 600 -- barely. Since Surly's the punk
rock/DIY street-cred arm of Quality Bicycle Parts, availability is
usually a function of how much arm-twisting you can inflict at the
Local Bike Shop (or order direct). Urbane Cycles in Toronto, Canada
(sorry, don't have the URL) can probably go as low on the raw frame
price, but then you have shipping and the always random customs charges
-- and again, those are steel. John Schubert at Adventure Cycling is
now agnostic about steel vs. alu, and he REALLY like dthe Breezer
Bikes "Range" line (Greenway and Liberty), although as stock bikes they
come with expedition or flat bars, not typical road bars. These ARE
Alu, but I don't know if Joe Breeze sells raw frames.
Happy bike-building!
Robert Leone rle...@hotmail.com
carl...@comcast.net
Dear 41,
Any minor amount of residual stress suggested by the slight mismatch
between broken end and frame seems unlikely to have caused the
failure.
It's pure guesswork, but I suspect that the crack started on the far
side of the seat stay end, where it was welded to the side of the seat
tube.
In that situation, the compression force would tend to flex the seat
stays outward. Here's a crude ascii diagram:
* *
cap * *
-----\-* *
/ \*weld * seat tube
/ / \* *
/ / \ * *
/ / \
/ / \crack starts below at seat-stay/weld/seat-tube
progresses out through smooth face of seat-stay cap
seat stay
At the seat-stay cracks through, it will be in compression between the
axle and seat post, but flexing outward and bulging in tension away
from the seat post, too.
Which way it will end up relative to the seat post will depend on
exactly how the crack angles and what the rear diamond does when
things snap--possibly two seat stays cracking at once.
I think that it's a bit like a collapsing bike wheel--which way the
wreckage will skew is too hard to predict.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> 41 wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, with a large frame and a load, a laterally stiff frame is
>>>> best. Large tubes are the way to go, and that means aluminum.
>>> Huh? I think your prejudice against steel has pu t you out of touch with
>>> what's really going on out there. Most custom or high-end steel frames
>>> today are built with oversized tubing. Not ridiculously oversized like
>>> titanium or aluminum or CF-reinforced aluminum have to be, but the
>>> right size for the job. Look at Waterfords: they all have oversized
>>> tubes. It's getting harder to find any built with standard 1" top
>>> tubes, 28.6 seat tubes and downtubes..
>>>
>>> Excuse me, I have to go, I think my floppy steel frame is rusting.
>>> Amazing it can be ridden at all.
>
>> I'm sure Waterford has improved the design of stee l frames, but steel
>> has only limited suitability in lightweight applications like bicycles.
>> As I've said, I couldn't care less, I'll happily ride inexpensive steel
>> frames, but an expensive, "high performance" steel frame is an oxymoron
>> -- strictly for retro-grouches.
>
> Hmm. You've said essentially the same thing twice now. So far, the only
> justification you have offered is that oversized tubing doesn't happen
> in steel (false),
Depends what you mean. Waterford makes a really big deal about "S3"
tubing allowing them to get a 1.5" downtube. Cannondale get 2" without
all the fuss.
> and that they "seem to break more easily". They may
> seem to to you, but in fact they don't.
Sure they do, lots of people break steel frames, and have been doing so
for the last century -- I've broken a couple, myself. The only example
of frame fatigue testing I've read showed higher failure rates in steel
frames. Aluminum frames are typically made much stronger.
> Do you have any actual reasons
> for your claim that there is no such thing as a high performance steel
> frame?
>
> You might want to define what you mean by "high performance". It seems
> to bear no relation to what I mean: long-term reliability, durability,
> safety, customizability, can be made into a suitable geometry to use
> with the tire sizes I like and with fenders, stiff enough to ride
> safely and efficiently, light enough to carry easily.
"High performance" to me means strictly strength to weight. Nothing
touches CF in that department, nor aluminum for a low price. Aluminum,
CF and Ti are used to make airframes, steel almost never is -- there's a
reason.
> CF-reinforced
> resin, aluminum, and titanium give no useful benefit to me, but fail in
> criteria important to me. What do these materials do for you that is
> genuinely useful?
>
> If you say you need them to get something that is not "floppy and
> rusty", BZZZZT.
Well, aluminum *is* stiffer and doesn't corrode as readily. I don't have
a huge preference since TIG'ed steel and aluminum frames are both very
inexpensive. Waterford will sell me a 1.5" DT frame for $2000, I can get
a much stiffer frame, with fork, for 15-25% of that price -- in
aluminum. BZZZZZZT, yourself.
41
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 29 May 2006 09:43:38 -0700, "41" <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >
> >carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2006 23:52:00 -0700, "41" <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Mark Atanovich wrote:
> > > >
> >> >> replaced the frame with a Novara. Tange db tubing, Japanese made. Very
> >> >> well constructed frame. Alas, the s ame problem. After15k miles, fatigue
> >> >> set in:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://members.cox.net/m.atanovich/Stay.jpg
> >> >>
> > > >> Both stays failed in the middle of my ride.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The tubing type and brand are irrelevant, because there is no tubing at
> >> >the failure site depicted in your photo. What failed was the
> >> >not occur without defective workmanship or materials. And why is the
> >> >stay displaced backward like that? Unless you moved it, this indicates
> >> >that there was unwanted stress at rest in the original configuration,
> >> >another sign of defective construction.
> >
> >> The broken seat-stay could have simply bent in that direction when it
> >> broke under the rider.
> >
> >That seems unlikely because the direction of the loading force does not
> >anything the rotation is in the other direction. Backlash might give a
> >load in that direction. It seems more reasonable that the stay was
> >that led to fatigue failure.
> >
> >> And God knows what happened after they both broke.
> >
> >Perhaps the rider does too, which is why I inquired..
>
> Any minor amount of residual stress suggested by the slight mismatch
> between broken end and frame seems unlikely to have caused the
> failure.
As you know from the nice diagrams in Jobst's book, the more the
residual stress, the shorter the fatigue life. When I compare the
amount of force required to spread dropouts that much, it's not clear
to me that the resitual amount indicated is minor. Whatever the actual
problem, the attachment was clearly defective.
>
> It's pure guesswork,
ASCII diagrams are of no use to me, as Google doesn't display them
properly. I suggest there's not much point in guessing from the limited
information available. It's time for the original poster to simply tell
us what happened, or give us the tools to determine for ourselves.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear 41,
Click on any thread from the main list in Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech
On the upper right should be the fixed-font/proportional-font option.
I think that Google Groups remembers your preference.
Click on fixed-font, and the ASCII diagrams will display nicely.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
41
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> Click on fixed-font, and the ASCII diagra ms will display nicely.
I have tried that, it produced no change for me. And I tried again now,
still the same non-result. I suppose it's either the same browser
incompatibility, or else I could fiddle with settings. I just forget
about it.

Michael Press
<1148943352.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"41" <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> ASCII diagrams are of no use to me, as Google doesn't display them
> properly. I suggest there's not much point in guessing from the limited
> information available. It's time for the original poster to simply tell
> us what happened, or give us the tools to determine for ourselves.
>
Google groups gives the option of a fixed width font.
Their default of proportional font is wrong. Usenet
is a fixed width font communication medium. No fair
claiming that you cannot read someone's message when
using a faulty tool. It is up to you to use a proper
reader in these situations.
Google groups is not a news reader. It provides an
interface to Usenet through port 80. A real news
reader connects to a news server through port 119.
--
Michael Press
12345678911234567892123456789312345678941234567895123456789612345678971234567898
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzAB
41
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1148943352.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "41" <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > ASCII diagrams are of no use to me, as Google doesn't display them
> > properly. I suggest there's not much point in guessing from the limited
> > information available. It's time for the original poster to simply tell
> > us what happened, or give us the tools to determine for ourselves.
> >
>
> Google groups gives the option of a fixed width font.
> Their default of proportional font is wrong. Usenet
> is a fixed width font communication medium. No fair
> claiming that you cannot read someone's message when
> using a faulty tool. It is up to you to use a proper
> reader in these situations.
Google groups is indeed a very faulty tool. For example, it seems to
have eaten a very nice reply to Peter Cole's last message that I didn't
save elsewhere. I won't be reconstructing it if it doesn't eventually
appear. However, I have no real need for any better tool, and have no
responsibility to properly read someone else's messages, as long as I
am not using that against them, or anyone else. I simply inform them of
that fact and let that be that.
Peter Cole
> ASCII diagrams are of no use to me, as Google doesn't display them
> properly. I suggest there's not much point in guessing from the limited
> information available. It's time for the original poster to simply tell
> us what happened, or give us the tools to determine for ourselves.
I use Windows, so I just cut & paste to Notepad.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Tuschinski wrote:
> .
> >
> > Well, first $1500 for a made to order, custom steel frame is not 'steep
> > and the Adventure cycle is not necessarily lugged and not $1500...
> >
>
> According to their site:
>
> 1300$ of the shelve, extra for custom sized.
I've been selling Waterford for almost a decade. -14 series is made to
order, $1300 for the frame, nothing extra for custom. -22 and 33 series
are the same-$1600 and $2000, made when ya order them, nothing extra
for custom. 'Gunnar is an off the shelf frame, $750 and $250 for
custom.
>
> It's not exhorbitant, though I know top-class frame builders who are
> 25% cheaper. maybe that's because we have more bikes here in the
> Netherlands^^
Ahhh, in the Netherlands...that kinda makes a difference-yes??
>
> But for someone who just starts touring AND states he has a tight
> budget it's not a good reccomendation at all.
Most who say they have a 'budget' for this leisure time activity item,
are usually pretty conservative and often change, here in the US, when
they see what their $ actually will get. Either crap for less $, or
really good for more $.
>
> Alu frames are fine frames... stating they are harsh, unyieldy, bad
> built etc is overstating it. Saying steel is better for all purposes is
> also nonsense.
Ya need to look at the thread. I am not the one that said anything
about steel vs aluminum....
russell...@yahoo.com
> russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > landotter wrote:
> > > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > > m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net wrote:
> > > > > Howdy,
> > > > > I'm looking for a beefy 62cm ish touring frame. Oversized aluminum
> > > > > seems to fit the bill. Does Cannondale sell bare frames? Any
> > > > > reasonably priced (~600) sources?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thx,
> > > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > For a genuine toruing frame. Waterford 'Adventure' cycle-
> > > >
> > > > http://www.waterfordbikes.com
> > >
> > > Yeah, if you're some sort of elite fucking yuppie with money to piss
> > > away.
> >
> > So anyone riding a nice bike fits your description?
>
> The markup on the Waterford is insane. I could fly to England, stay
> over the weekend, and pay for and be measured up for a Mercian for the
> same price.
>
> It's not about the bike, the bike is sweet. It's about value.
> Waterfords are a crap value.
I looked up Bob Jackson frames a few years ago and they were a great
bargain. About $600 or so at the time for an off the rack touring
bike. More to customize it. Mercian were more expensive than that at
the time. Given the fall in the dollar to the Pound, the Jackson and
Mercian might be a bit closer to the Waterford prices now. But they
are cheaper, I agree. Campagnolo parts are usually much cheaper in
England too. Are they a bad value in the US then?
>
> If you think it's pretty and sexy and you are willing to pay for
> craftsmanship in the same way folks buy rolexes that are less accurate
> than a $50 Timex--then by all means. There are ways to appreciate bikes
> that involve not sitting on them.
I paid $900 for my Waterford 1200 frame and fork in 1998. Good
discount off regular price. Reynolds 753 tubing. I'm a big fan of
getting things on sale. Makes the value better. But as nice as my
Waterford rides and looks, I could pay full retail price and not
consider myself robbed. Mine is a very good bike.
>
> Here in Nashville, I see guys all the time on $2000+ frames going
> 15mph with the large to large combo, bitching that the shop gypped them
> 'cause their drivetrain makes noise. They likely walked into Gran Fondo
> or some other tony shop and just bought the most expensive thing, and
> would have been happier on a Jamis at 30% of the price had they taken
> the time to learn how to operate the damn thing properly.
>
> >Do you live in the
> > cheapest house/apartment you can possibly find? Do you drive the
> > cheapest, most base car possible? I am assuming you drive a car and do
> > not use your bike for all transport.
> >
>
> I burn a gallon of gas per week and drive a 15 y/o Japanese car that's
> worth less than my city bike. My city bike's worth perhaps $800, which
> is pretty much the maximum I'll invest in something that's getting
> locked up outside a grocery store. Bikes get jacked, that's a fact of
> life.
You got me beat here. My Japanese car is only 13 years old. And I do
drive it more than a gallon of gas a week. But it does get 32 mpg.
Its in very good shape and I think it could be sold for more than my
nicest bike. Japanese cars hold their value very well.
>
> > >
> > > Buy a Waterford frame and be admired for its decals, or buy 4 perfectly
> > > decent durable and less tony frames instead.
> >
> > My Waterford looks wonderful. My Nashbar frame and Performance fork
> > does not look great. It works fine though. I like riding my Waterford
> > more.
>
> Nashbar frames are indeed hideously brazed, but there are frames to be
> had from 3-800 bucks that have pretty damn nice welds with quality
> tubing, durable powdercoating, and build up to be very sexy machines.
I don't think my Nashbar bike is badly welded at all. $100 frame, $100
fork. If I had to do it over again, I might get one of the slightly
more expensive, nicer bikes out there. I am waiting to find a really
cheap Cannondale frame/fork to replace the Nashbar frame/Performance
fork.
>
> Again, Waterfords are sexy, but artificially elite, a frame of similar
> quality should by no mean cost what they're charging. Why can I get a
> hand brazed 631 Audax frame from Mercian for $650, but Waterford feels
> that their uberness is worth $1000 more?
I'm not really in the market for another steel bike, but I might go the
mail order England route if I was looking for a nice bike. Waterford
has gone upscale in the last few years. In 1998 they had their 1100
model for $900 frame and fork. Reynolds 531 I think. 1200 model was
$1200 frame/fork Reynolds 753. 2200 model was $1400 frame/fork
Reynolds 853. All of these were lugged frames/forks. Now the 2200
model is $1925 frame/fork. But you do get the option of custom sizing
for the same price. Less of a good value now. But still very good
bikes.
Pat Lamb
> m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net wrote:
>> Howdy,
>> I'm looking for a beefy 62cm ish touring frame. Oversized aluminum
>> seems to fit the bill. Does Cannondale sell bare frames? Any
>> reasonably priced (~600) sources?
>>
>> Thx,
>> Mark
>
> For a genuine toruing frame. Waterford 'Adventure' cycle-
>
> http://www.waterfordbikes.com
Per Bruce Gordon's page (http://www.bgcycles.com/faq.html), Waterford
uses thinner tubing that Gordon's own (.8/.6/.8 mm? vs. 1.0/.7/1). Does
this make any difference in durability and shimmy resistance in the real
world?
Pat
Tuschinski
> > It's not exhorbitant, though I know top-class frame builders who are
> > 25% cheaper. maybe that's because we have more bikes here in the
> > Netherlands^^
>
> Ahhh, in the Netherlands...that kinda makes a difference-yes??
I don't know... considering our sales-tax price levels of most goods
(can't immediately come up with an exception) are lower in the Us,
however, this might be different with hand-made, boutique frames.
> >would
> > But for someone who just starts touring AND states he has a tight
> > budget it's not a good reccomendation at all.
>
> Most who say they have a 'budget' for this leisure time activity item,
> are usually pretty conservative and often change, here in the US, when
> they see what their $ actually will get. Either crap for less $, or
> really good for more $.
Well, somewhere it's hard for me to understand that I am looking at my
Chorus 2004 bike, fully handbuildt with love by my LBS for about 2000$.
And that is with all good parts (yes, handbuilt, sensible wheels).
It's a relatively cheap frame (600$), but it was custom ordered sizing,
custom design paint. Now if I look at how she plans on spending 50%
than I have and then goes for 250% I'm seriously questioning the
integrity of the bike-shop.
I fully understand someone wanting the same bike as Lance, basso,
Boonen and spend a fortune on it. I understand if someone just wants
the most expensive pretty bike, just to look at it.
But she wants to ride 75 miles painfree and she was recomended a 7k$
bike (strongly suggested in the article that it was better than a 3k
bike). I can not be convinced that that is good advice... Considering
her goal and initial budget I'm ready to say she is been a prey of a
salesman... not a loving LBS.
> >
> > Alu frames are fine frames... stating they are harsh, unyieldy, bad
> > built etc is overstating it. Saying steel is better for all purposes is
> > also nonsense.
>
>
> Ya need to look at the thread. I am not the one that said anything
> about steel vs aluminum....
Mea culpa, I saw you suggest a waterford frame to someone who was
looking for a low-cost solution. I confused that with being a
Steel-Zealot. Knee-jerk^^
Lew
landotter wrote:
> If you want function over beauty, Nashbar sells an aluminum frameset
> with steel fork for under $180 (on sale now). It's quite decent if you
> don't mind some cruddly looking welds:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f3t6y
>
> Largest size available is a 60cm
Please take a look at the Nashbar-framed touring bike I built:
Yeah, I know, this doesn't advance the discussion much, but I wanted to
show off.
Lew
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
Lew wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > If you want function over beauty, Nashbar sells an aluminum frameset
> > with steel fork for under $180 (on sale now). It's quite decent if you
> > don't mind some cruddly looking welds:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/f3t6y
> >
> > Largest size available is a 60cm
>
> Please take a look at the Nashbar-framed touring bike I built:
>
> http://worthem.com/forsale
>
Those pedals look really light! ;-)
John Forrest Tomlinson
Pretty fly. But I want to see full fenders and a pump behind the
seattube.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Victor Kan
>
> Please take a look at the Nashbar-framed touring bike I built:
>
> http://worthem.com/forsale
>
> Yeah, I know, this doesn't advance the discussion much, but I wanted to
> show off.
I like your shifter cable arrangement with the V-brake noodles! I'll
have to give that a try.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
David
Obviously, this person does not know what's he's talking about or had
never done any real "global" touring before.
In my many touring years, most I have seen were bikes of lower-end
quality. In fact, global tourers Janick Lemiuex and Pierre Bouchard
of Wheels On Fire tour with a Devinci Mission MTB frame. If you look
up the Mission frame, it's not exactly touring certified like the
Waterford does. But, it survived years of abuse, climbing up many
volcanoes with a 90lbs pack (which includes their SAT phone and laptop
computer). They do use a Bruce Gordon rack, though they did break
them a couple of times on the welds.
Aluminum or steel touring frames can actually be had for around $400
or so. Unless you need some specialized geometry, cheap frame and
better components is the way to go. And the money saved on your
touring bike can be spent elsewhere like a nice meal somewhere or the
occassional motel accommodation. Most people seemed to have forgotten
that!
David.
David
>hmmm, last one we sold was to a retired cop who then did loaded,
>unsupported touring in places like Sardinia He rode the bike to Boulder
>from Cortez CO, with 50 pounds of stuff...Not everybody can find a well
>made, reliable and $300 genuine frame actually meant for loaded
>touring, not the garage made, rack zipp tied on the back, day trip to
>the 'mountains' type bike.
>
Actually, 50lbs isn't a heavy load. Most of the time, it's the racks
that break first "BEFORE" the frame even breaks. Most racks don't
handle dynamic loading too well. For global tours, I know of people
who carry up to 90-100lbs at any given one time on an aluminum
mountain bike frame that was only "MEANT" to be used as a cross
country rig.
And yet, the racks broke first. They were using Bruce Gordon racks
and had to resort to zip tying and duck taping it.
>Which frame do you mean Mr Otter, that are $300 and actually can be
>built to do loaded touring, not the wannabe 'touring' stuff, loaded
>with a credit card and a windbreaker for a 1 day trip.
The Devinci Mission frame is one example and had been demonstrated to
be capable of fulfilling the task. It's a mountain bike frame though.
Besides, people who do global tours do not elect to tour with 700c
frames. That makes most well made and expensive steel framed bike,
except the 26" Bruce Gordon BLT or the Surly LHT 26" (smaller sizes)
unsuitable for the job.
David.
russell...@yahoo.com
David wrote:
> There isn't any such thing as a legitimate and certified touring bike.
> Obviously, this person does not know what's he's talking about or had
> never done any real "global" touring before.
I hope you weren't referring to me by this reply. I've toured Europe
loaded a couple times. 4000 miles one summer and about 800 miles
another short trip. Since Europe is a different continent than the one
I live on, I consider it global.
>
> In my many touring years, most I have seen were bikes of lower-end
> quality.
I used my Trek 520 for my trips. Cheap, tough, don't care about it too
much so don't worry about riding it anywhere. Works well as a loaded
touring bike.
In fact, global tourers Janick Lemiuex and Pierre Bouchard
> of Wheels On Fire tour with a Devinci Mission MTB frame.
I think Adventure Cyclig had an article about a couple who toured form
Alaska to Tierra del Fuego on Salsa steel mountain bikes and rigid
forks I think. 26" wheels. I've often thought of converting my
aluminum Raleigh mountain bike to a loaded touring bike by putting on a
rigid fork, drop bars, and bar end shifters. If for some reason I were
to tour in more remote parts of the world, I probably would do this.
But for now since I have a new Redline Conquest Tour aluminum loaded
touring frame/fork built up, it would be a waste of money.
If you look
> up the Mission frame, it's not exactly touring certified like the
> Waterford does. But, it survived years of abuse, climbing up many
> volcanoes with a 90lbs pack (which includes their SAT phone and laptop
> computer). They do use a Bruce Gordon rack, though they did break
> them a couple of times on the welds.
The stainless steel clip holding my Blackburn Expedition rack to the
front fork eyelets broke on a recent tour. Not the solid rod aluminum
rack, just the attaching hardware. A piece of wire taken from a fence
worked splendidly to solidly attach the rack back to the fork.
>
> Aluminum or steel touring frames can actually be had for around $400
> or so. Unless you need some specialized geometry, cheap frame and
> better components is the way to go. And the money saved on your
> touring bike can be spent elsewhere like a nice meal somewhere or the
> occassional motel accommodation. Most people seemed to have forgotten
> that!
But most US tourers can afford a nice bike and a nice meal and a nice
motel when they want. Its not really an either or choice. If you have
the leisure time to tour on a bike, you have the disposable income to
fly to where you are touring and buy a nice bike and stay in motels and
eat in restaurants when you want. It is a vacation for you. You are
choosing to spend money and time. Actually the money is immaterial in
the long run. Or short run. Even when I toured Europe for a summer
right out of college, I was still not so penniless that I could not
afford anything reasonable I wanted or needed. If money is that tight,
then you need to spend your riding time working an extra job or
studying to get a better paying job.
>
> David.
Jay Beattie
russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> But most US tourers can afford a nice bike and a nice meal and a nice
> motel when they want. Its not really an either or choice. If you have
> the leisure time to tour on a bike, you have the disposable income to
> fly to where you are touring and buy a nice bike and stay in motels and
> eat in restaurants when you want. It is a vacation for you. You are
> choosing to spend money and time. Actually the money is immaterial in
> the long run. Or short run. Even when I toured Europe for a summer
> right out of college, I was still not so penniless that I could not
> afford anything reasonable I wanted or needed. If money is that tight,
> then you need to spend your riding time working an extra job or
> studying to get a better paying job.
Totally OT, but after riding across the United States in '81, I dropped
by Phil Wood's shop to get some new bearings for a hub, or a bottom
brakcet or something. I was chatting with Phil about how my long and
arduous journey was a tribute to his equipment, and he said it was a
tribute to spare time. It took me a while to appreciate the truth of
his comment. Tours are not macho death marches. They are vacations. --
Jay Beattie.
Mark Janeba
Absolutely! Non-cyclists I meet on tours often say something like "You
sure are brave!" To which I reply "Hey, I'm just on vacation!"
Mark
chuck
fenders?
landotter
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > m.atanovich@[NOSPAM]cox.net wrote:
> > > > Howdy,
> > > > I'm looking for a beefy 62cm ish touring frame. Oversized aluminum
> > > > seems to fit the bill. Does Cannondale sell bare frames? Any
> > > > reasonably priced (~600) sources?
> > > >
> > > > Thx,
> > > > Mark
> > >
> > > For a genuine toruing frame. Waterford 'Adventure' cycle-
> > >
> > > http://www.waterfordbikes.com
> >
> > away.
> >
> > decent durable and less tony frames instead.
>
> unsupported touring in places like Sardinia He rode the bike to Boulder
> from Cortez CO, with 50 pounds of stuff...Not everybody can find a well
> made, reliable and $300 genuine frame actually meant for loaded
> touring, not the garage made, rack zipp tied on the back, day trip to
> the 'mountains' type bike.
>
> built to do loaded touring, not the wannabe 'touring' stuff, loaded
> with a credit card and a windbreaker for a 1 day trip.
You can get a generic frame from Nashbar for $200, or if you want
something a litle more soulful get a Surly LHT for $400. The Soma
Smoothie ES for weekend trips is $300--there are tons and tons of
options, build up a used frame, Ebay, etc. A production basic steel
frame shouldn't cost over a grand. Waterford has just created an
artificial market through marketing so that they can sell their $800
frames for twice the price.
Is a custom steel frame with lugs and fancy laquer going to cost over
$1000? Sure, there's a lot of labor there, but why do you want to take
some delicate artwork on tour when you can get something tough, factory
made, and powder coated for a fraction of the price?
It's 95% prestige and 5% added function, sort of like a Rolex
G.T.
>
>
> But most US tourers can afford a nice bike and a nice meal and a nice
> motel when they want. Its not really an either or choice. If you have
> the leisure time to tour on a bike, you have the disposable income to
> fly to where you are touring and buy a nice bike and stay in motels and
> eat in restaurants when you want.
I don't agree with that at all. Or, my touring friends just don't fit
the "most US tourers" mold. In fact none of mine do, they're messenger
types who also like to tour the west coast US. They work for awhile,
scrape some savings together and just ride their old Motobecanes and
Schwinns around California, Oregon, and Washington for weeks or months
at a time. They definitely don't have money for hotels or nice meals.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
David
>
>David wrote:
>> There isn't any such thing as a legitimate and certified touring bike.
>> Obviously, this person does not know what's he's talking about or had
>> never done any real "global" touring before.
>
>I hope you weren't referring to me by this reply. I've toured Europe
>loaded a couple times. 4000 miles one summer and about 800 miles
>another short trip. Since Europe is a different continent than the one
>I live on, I consider it global.
I don't think so. I was referring to someone who was making claims
that only Waterford touring bike is the real deal.
>> In my many touring years, most I have seen were bikes of lower-end
>> quality.
>
>I used my Trek 520 for my trips. Cheap, tough, don't care about it too
>much so don't worry about riding it anywhere. Works well as a loaded
>touring bike.
>
I don't think the Trek 520 is really cheap as a whole bike. Could be
had cheap if bought used over eBay, but the main problem with the 520
is sizing for smaller sizes. On the smallest size, it has a
particularly "LONG" top tube. I know of some folks who forced
themselves to fit on this bike, only to resort to some drastic
handlebar mods -- ultra short stem (Azonic stubby 45mm) with a ZOOM
stem extender! And for the reason so they can have bar ends
shifters!!
There are alternatives to a Trek 520 if people look hard a bit.
>
> In fact, global tourers Janick Lemiuex and Pierre Bouchard
>> of Wheels On Fire tour with a Devinci Mission MTB frame.
>
>I think Adventure Cyclig had an article about a couple who toured form
>Alaska to Tierra del Fuego on Salsa steel mountain bikes and rigid
>forks I think. 26" wheels. I've often thought of converting my
>aluminum Raleigh mountain bike to a loaded touring bike by putting on a
>rigid fork, drop bars, and bar end shifters. If for some reason I were
>to tour in more remote parts of the world, I probably would do this.
>But for now since I have a new Redline Conquest Tour aluminum loaded
>touring frame/fork built up, it would be a waste of money.
A cheaper alternative would be to buy a Kona Smoke! Steel and 26". In
fact, I know of a few who bought the Smoke and converted into serious
touring rigs for remote parts of the world touring.
Coincidentally, the pair Janick and Pierre were formerly sponsored by
Kona and had ridden the early version of the Kona Caldera steel rigid.
I wouldn't be surprised that the Smoke's design is back to classic
cross country rig like the old school Caldera was.
>> Aluminum or steel touring frames can actually be had for around $400
>> or so. Unless you need some specialized geometry, cheap frame and
>> better components is the way to go. And the money saved on your
>> touring bike can be spent elsewhere like a nice meal somewhere or the
>> occassional motel accommodation. Most people seemed to have forgotten
>> that!
>
>But most US tourers can afford a nice bike and a nice meal and a nice
>motel when they want. Its not really an either or choice. If you have
>the leisure time to tour on a bike, you have the disposable income to
>fly to where you are touring and buy a nice bike and stay in motels and
>eat in restaurants when you want. It is a vacation for you. You are
>choosing to spend money and time. Actually the money is immaterial in
>the long run. Or short run. Even when I toured Europe for a summer
>right out of college, I was still not so penniless that I could not
>afford anything reasonable I wanted or needed. If money is that tight,
>then you need to spend your riding time working an extra job or
>studying to get a better paying job.
>
Please don't confuse function with frugality. Anyone with a good
disposable income can certainly tour with any nice bike be it an IF
Independence, True North, Waterford, Rivendell, Litespeed Blue Ridge
or even a Hetchins special (yes, hand made with that very nice curved
signature seat stays). All of these frames are certainly not your
supermarket Nashbar variety kind. They don't start from $300 either.
But do you really need a $1500 frame to start touring?
The answer is maybe.
Time and time again, I was impressed by the ingenuity and the
functionality of others who simply want to have a cycling vacation
just like you and me but couldn't simply justify the cost for a $3000
touring bike or even a $1000 which some of us may consider cheap. Some
of these people aren't poor either as they can afford these bikes.
It's a matter of how a person values the bike as a functional tool or
a nice showcase or both.
David.
Lew
chuck wrote:
> I saw that frame at Nashbar. I wonder if it will fit 42mm tires with
> fenders?
For what it's worth, I have two bikes built up with this frame, a
tourer with 32s and a trail bike with Conti TT2000 37mm tires, both
with old style cantilever brakes. The 37s fit fine. I'll take a look to
see how much clearance there is w/ the 37s.
Lew
Qui si parla Campagnolo
The Waterford I mentioned does indeed have 26 inch wheels and altho 50
pounds for a non global tour is not the heaviest seen I would still
catagorize the load as 'heavy', compared to some of the day tripper
'tourers', that have a jacket and a credit card.
>
> David.
SMS
> .
>> Well, first $1500 for a made to order, custom steel frame is not 'steep
>> and the Adventure cycle is not necessarily lugged and not $1500...
>>
>
> According to their site:
>
> 1300$ of the shelve, extra for custom sized.
>
> 25% cheaper. maybe that's because we have more bikes here in the
> Netherlands^^
In the U.S., the price of a custom frame varies a lot by region. I have
a nephew in Minnesota that was going to buy a Rivendell, until the local
shop told him that he could have a custom frame built for a lot less
because there was a glut of frame builders in the area after Trek
(located in the next state over) moved much of their manufacturing to China.