Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:09:13
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

I'm thinking of using a piece of the upcoming tax return to add my
first real road bike to the collection. While I'd like something
reasonably lightweight my main concern is strength. I weigh in closer
to 200lbs than I should and do not have the lightest riding style in
the world. I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
thrown into a daylong road ride.

Now for the questions:
1) Am I correct in assuming that I should be looking for a steel frame
and fork?
2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
Material or model suggestions?
3) Are touring bikes generally stronger than race bikes?
4) Is the same rider generally faster or a race bike?
5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
world?

I've read of riders such as Jobst successfully using road bicycles on
rides with a couple miles of trail thrown in and logging many thousands
of miles. I've not heard anything about Jobst's weight or chosen
ride but am still encouraged by this.

Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions,

Dan

Date: 25 Jan 2007 07:21:19
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Jan 17, 12:18 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:27:35 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2007 06:09:49 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> > <p...@vecchios.com> may have said:
>
> >>... I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
> >>nothing, just for info to this newish rider.
>
> > Carbon stays do one thing. They increase the price...
>
> > (sorry, couldn't resist.)In the volume they're being manufactured these days, that's probably not
> true.
>
> One can hardly buy anything else, except with entry level bikes.
>
> Matt O.
Depends on the bike. Litespeed and Merckx have both dropped carbon butt
ends...

Date: 26 Jan 2007 08:50:52
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:

>Litespeed and Merckx have both dropped carbon butt
>ends...

And so ends another fashion trend in the bike biz... (I can only hope,
for the sake of those who might otherwise buy into it).

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 26 Jan 2007 18:37:26
From: nash
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

carbon butt
>ends...

Errrr is that what you call a seat post these days? lol

Date: 25 Jan 2007 19:47:25
From: nash
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

If that is where all the weight goes then a large fellow like the OP might
be very interested in carbon seat post. Lighter and stronger. The Trek
1000 is the same bike, no carbon but high quality components $500 less.
That is my next bike if I live that long. Carrys fender room too I believe.
I did not know about it until after my purchase.

SN

Date: 25 Jan 2007 12:47:00
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
> If that is where all the weight goes then a large fellow like the OP might
> be very interested in carbon seat post. Lighter and stronger.

The failure mode on a carbon seatpost is not my favorite (think sharp
jagged ends). I'll stick to nice (not terribly heavy really) aluminum.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Hello," he lied.
-- Don Carpenter, quoting a Hollywood agent

Date: 25 Jan 2007 07:20:14
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Jan 17, 10:08 am, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> "qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com> wrote in messagenews:1169042989.226448.229250@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > nash wrote:
> >> 5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
> >> > world?
>
> >> Sure do. Trek 1500. Guarantees frame for a life time to original owner
> >> only. Luckily I am not rough on my preowned bike.
>
> >> Has carbon forks and seat stay also.
>
> > GREAT warranty but I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
> > nothing, just for info to this newish rider.Forgive me I meant seat post. I was just giving the specs but why would a
> seat post not make the bike stronger? That is where all your weight ends
> up.

A seatpost makes the bike rideable, place to hold the saddle. A carbon
one doesn't make the bike stronger, just more expensive.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 10:29:02
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover <danindover@gmail.com > wrote:

> I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
> up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
> thrown into a daylong road ride.

get a cyclocross

...and don't worry about your weight, you're not that heavy-- most
manufactures who build super lightweight performance machines have
weight limits set -- and since you'll be looking at a cyclocross most of
them are overbuilt-- carbon, aluminum steel or anything else.

-- 36 spokes for the rear wheel is a good idea. I weigh 180-lbs and have
had great success with 32-hole Ultegra/Mavic Open Pro with DT spokes.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 13:53:48
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 17:02:59
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Dan in Dover wrote:
>
>> 2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
>
> For a road bike that's sufficient. I think that only tandems now use 40
> or 48 spoke rear wheels, even touring bicycles are now using only 36
> spoke wheels. There's a big advantage from 32 to 36, less from 36 to 40.

In general yes, however there are some (at least one I know of) heavy
touring bikes that come with greater than 36 spokes. And of course
downhillers, trial bikes, heavy cargo bikes, and bloody idiots like
myself.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"I only touch base with reality on an as-needed basis!"
-- Royal Floyd Mengot (Klaus)

Date: 20 Jan 2007 17:17:08
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

>>> 2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
>>
>> For a road bike that's sufficient. I think that only tandems now use 40
>> or 48 spoke rear wheels, even touring bicycles are now using only 36
>> spoke wheels. There's a big advantage from 32 to 36, less from 36 to 40.
>
>In general yes, however there are some (at least one I know of) heavy
>touring bikes that come with greater than 36 spokes. And of course
>downhillers, trial bikes, heavy cargo bikes, and bloody idiots like
>myself.

Perhaps the gold standard in bomb-proof touring machines:
http://www.co-motion.com/Amerc.html

Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:41:17
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Chris Neary wrote:
>>>> 2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
>>> For a road bike that's sufficient. I think that only tandems now use 40
>>> or 48 spoke rear wheels, even touring bicycles are now using only 36
>>> spoke wheels. There's a big advantage from 32 to 36, less from 36 to 40.
>> In general yes, however there are some (at least one I know of) heavy
>> touring bikes that come with greater than 36 spokes. And of course
>> downhillers, trial bikes, heavy cargo bikes, and bloody idiots like
>> myself.
>
> Perhaps the gold standard in bomb-proof touring machines:
> http://www.co-motion.com/Amerc.html

My touring bicycle also uses a 40 spoke, dishless, rear wheel. It became
the standard in the 1980's for touring bikes, but since then most of the
touring bicycles seem to have regressed to 36 spoke wheels.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:46:57
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:17:01 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

> Cosine error is based on the geometry of the caliper. The short arm of
> the dual pivot caliper sweeps up into the tire as the pads wear,
> requiring re-positioning of the pad.
>
> In contrast, when single pivots are properly adjusted with new pads, no
> re-positioning of the pads in their slots is required throughout the
> life of the pad. All that's required is periodic tweaking of the barrel
> adjuster as the pads wear. The pad continues to contact the center of
> the rim's braking surface. In no way are dual pivots better in this
> regard. They are much worse. I'm curious how you came to the opposite
> conclusion.

The path of the pad face follows a circle with center the pivot of the
arm. The "long" arm, on the side of the brake with the cable, pivots
exactly like a single pivot brake. The short arm has center displaced
out, which depending on the brand can be more directly over the side of
the rim, and more in-line with the slope of the rim. If that circle
centered at the pivot passed directly through the center of the pad, there
would be no change in position as the pad wore. In reality, for both
single pivots and dual pivots, it is close enough that it doesn't matter.
It is with cantilevers and V-brakes that there is a problem.

>
>> Actually, though, the advent of dual-pivot designs also brought a real
>> innovation; that little adjusting screw on the side of the brake,

> Dual pivots needed it because their pads have to be set closer to the
> rim, making accurate centering essential.

Single-pivots have always had a tendency to tilt. Better ones resist is
more than cheap ones, but the springs are never exactly balanced,
especially as the brake ages. The adjustment screw allows you to easily
correct for this. With wide gaps it is not as much of a problem, but it
is still there with single pivots.

--

David L. Johnson

Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 21:06:03
From:
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

David L. Johnson writes:

>> Cosine error is based on the geometry of the caliper. The short
>> arm of the dual pivot caliper sweeps up into the tire as the pads
>> wear, requiring re-positioning of the pad.

>> In contrast, when single pivots are properly adjusted with new
>> pads, no re-positioning of the pads in their slots is required
>> throughout the life of the pad. All that's required is periodic
>> tweaking of the barrel adjuster as the pads wear. The pad
>> continues to contact the center of the rim's braking surface. In
>> no way are dual pivots better in this regard. They are much worse.
>> I'm curious how you came to the opposite conclusion.

> The path of the pad face follows a circle with center the pivot of
> the arm. The "long" arm, on the side of the brake with the cable,
> pivots exactly like a single pivot brake. The short arm has center
> displaced out, which depending on the brand can be more directly
> over the side of the rim, and more in-line with the slope of the
> rim. If that circle centered at the pivot passed directly through
> the center of the pad, there would be no change in position as the
> pad wore. In reality, for both single pivots and dual pivots, it is
> close enough that it doesn't matter. It is with cantilevers and
> V-brakes that there is a problem.

Both the length of the arm and its pivot location make for greater
cosine error on the short one because it travels nearly twice as great
and angle as the center pivoted arm. I haven't used these brakes but
suspect that the pads don't wear at the same rate besides the short
one climbing into the tire.

>>> Actually, though, the advent of dual-pivot designs also brought a
>>> real innovation; that little adjusting screw on the side of the
>>> brake,

>> Dual pivots needed it because their pads have to be set closer to
>> the rim, making accurate centering essential.

> Single-pivots have always had a tendency to tilt. Better ones
> resist is more than cheap ones, but the springs are never exactly
> balanced, especially as the brake ages. The adjustment screw allows
> you to easily correct for this. With wide gaps it is not as much of
> a problem, but it is still there with single pivots.

I think you attribute this to the springs. It is not the springs that
change but their sliding contacts with the brake arms that become
gritty and change their sliding friction. As I have said in this
forum, a return spring that instead of a coil on both legs, had a coil
circling about the pivot bolt would have accomplished a reliable
centered return without the odd linkage of a dual pivot brake.

You'll note that the effective center of rotation of the haul back
spring is the center of the coil, which lies more than 25mm away from
the pivot bolt. This causes cosine error that is visible as sliding
motion of the spring when the brake is activated. A spring that makes
a left and right hand coil about the pivot bolt would reduce that to
practically zero.

I am surprised that no one has included such a design in their brake.
I built a prototype to test this and it is easily done.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 20 Jan 2007 11:20:37
From: Helmut Springer
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> You'll note that the effective center of rotation of the haul back
> spring is the center of the coil, which lies more than 25mm away
> from the pivot bolt. This causes cosine error that is visible as
> sliding motion of the spring when the brake is activated. A
> spring that makes a left and right hand coil about the pivot bolt
> would reduce that to practically zero.
>
> I am surprised that no one has included such a design in their
> brake. I built a prototype to test this and it is easily done.

Actually late SunTour GPX feature springs that are coils around the
pivot bolt. The dark grey color is somewhat challenged, but they
stay centered and perform nicely, so form follows function...

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

Date: 19 Jan 2007 12:17:01
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Art Harris wrote:
>
> > I disagree with your argument that the overall mechanical advantage of
> > single pivot brake systems is the same as dual pivots. When comparing
> > my Dura Ace single-pivot brakes (using the levers they came with) to
> > Shimano dual-pivots (and STI levers), the dual pivots require much less
> > hand effort for braking.
>

> You could get the supposed benefits of the greater mechanical advantage of
> dual pivot calipers by using levers that pull less cable per mm of
> lever travel. That would also require that the pads be closer to the rim
> and all those other factors you attribute to dual-pivots, except that the
> cosine error would not be the same (and is better for dual-pivots, though
> not by much).

The cable pull of levers used in single and dual pivot designs is not
significantly different. That's why the pads of dual pivot calipers
must be set much closer to the rim (so that the lever doesn't bottom
out). And that close spacing (and the resultant pad dragging on hard
climbs) is what led Campy to revert to single pivots on the rear as you
pointed out. Fortunately, dual pivot calipers maintain their centering
better than single pivot sidepulls, so the close spaced pads don't drag
except during hard pedaling.

Cosine error is based on the geometry of the caliper. The short arm of
the dual pivot caliper sweeps up into the tire as the pads wear,
requiring re-positioning of the pad.

In contrast, when single pivots are properly adjusted with new pads, no
re-positioning of the pads in their slots is required throughout the
life of the pad. All that's required is periodic tweaking of the barrel
adjuster as the pads wear. The pad continues to contact the center of
the rim's braking surface. In no way are dual pivots better in this
regard. They are much worse. I'm curious how you came to the opposite
conclusion.

> Actually, though, the advent of dual-pivot designs also brought a real
> innovation; that little adjusting screw on the side of the brake, to
> center the brake around the wheel. Prior to dual-pivots, such an
> adjustment screw was probably not seen as necessary, but dual-pivot
> designs needed it because the two arms had such different leverage.

Dual pivots needed it because their pads have to be set closer to the
rim, making accurate centering essential.

Art Harris

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:32:38
From:
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Art Harris writes:

>>> I disagree with your argument that the overall mechanical
>>> advantage of single pivot brake systems is the same as dual
>>> pivots. When comparing my Dura Ace single-pivot brakes (using the
>>> levers they came with) to Shimano dual-pivots (and STI levers),
>>> the dual pivots require much less hand effort for braking.

>> You could get the supposed benefits of the greater mechanical
>> advantage of dual pivot calipers by using levers that pull less
>> cable per mm of lever travel. That would also require that the
>> pads be closer to the rim and all those other factors you attribute
>> to dual-pivots, except that the cosine error would not be the same
>> (and is better for dual-pivots, though not by much).

> The cable pull of levers used in single and dual pivot designs is
> not significantly different. That's why the pads of dual pivot
> calipers must be set much closer to the rim (so that the lever
> doesn't bottom out). And that close spacing (and the resultant pad
> dragging on hard climbs) is what led Campy to revert to single
> pivots on the rear as you pointed out. Fortunately, dual pivot
> calipers maintain their centering better than single pivot
> sidepulls, so the close spaced pads don't drag except during hard
> pedaling.

> Cosine error is based on the geometry of the caliper. The short arm
> of the dual pivot caliper sweeps up into the tire as the pads wear,
> requiring re-positioning of the pad.

> In contrast, when single pivots are properly adjusted with new pads,
> no re-positioning of the pads in their slots is required throughout
> the life of the pad. All that's required is periodic tweaking of
> the barrel adjuster as the pads wear. The pad continues to contact
> the center of the rim's braking surface. In no way are dual pivots
> better in this regard. They are much worse. I'm curious how you
> came to the opposite conclusion.

>> Actually, though, the advent of dual-pivot designs also brought a
>> real innovation; that little adjusting screw on the side of the
>> brake, to center the brake around the wheel. Prior to dual-pivots,
>> such an adjustment screw was probably not seen as necessary, but
>> dual-pivot designs needed it because the two arms had such
>> different leverage.

> Dual pivots needed it because their pads have to be set closer to
> the rim, making accurate centering essential.

Dual pivot brakes came along for two reasons:

1. Hicher mechanical advantage

2. Precise centering (which a higher ME requires with lower pad
clearance)

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/brakes.html

Jobst Brandt

Date: 19 Jan 2007 12:21:33
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:58:18 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

> I disagree with your argument that the overall mechanical advantage of
> single pivot brake systems is the same as dual pivots. When comparing
> my Dura Ace single-pivot brakes (using the levers they came with) to
> Shimano dual-pivots (and STI levers), the dual pivots require much less
> hand effort for braking.

Let me put it this way. The braking effort is directly related to the mm
of lever travel to mm of pad travel, nothing else. Whether you achieve a
given overall mechanical advantage by increasing the advantage of the
calipers, or the levers, the effect is the same.

You could get the supposed benefits of the greater mechanical advantage of
dual pivot calipers by using levers that pull less cable per mm of
lever travel. That would also require that the pads be closer to the rim
and all those other factors you attribute to dual-pivots, except that the
cosine error would not be the same (and is better for dual-pivots, though
not by much).

> The only real advantage of dual pivots is their greater mechanical
> advantage. Considering the disadvantages of dual pivots (less tire
> clearance, need for pads to be adjusted closer to rim, inability to
> track an out-of-true rim, and cosine error), why on earth do you think
> they would be so popular if not for more mechanical advantage?

For the same reason that Campy's new single-pivot rear brake is popular.
keting. There is no reason to presume that one design is superior to
another just because it is more popular. If dual-pivot brakes were so
superior, why did Campy drop the design for the rear? The reason was to
increase the pad travel in the rear (keeping the same leverage in the
brake lever and changing the caliper accomplished that, though changing
the lever would have as well), because the supposedly superior low
spoke-count wheels flexed too much during out-of-saddle climbing and the
brake pads tended to rub. You can see racers who use Shimano brakes
loosening the Q/R on their rear brake during a long climb.

Actually, though, the advent of dual-pivot designs also brought a real
innovation; that little adjusting screw on the side of the brake, to
center the brake around the wheel. Prior to dual-pivots, such an
adjustment screw was probably not seen as necessary, but dual-pivot
designs needed it because the two arms had such different leverage. But
even single-pivot brakes benefit from that adjustment, since with wear the
two sides tend to not have the same spring tension, so the old
single-pivots tended to not stay centered as well as dual-pivots.

--

David L. Johnson

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job. -- Douglas Adams

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:57:31
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:58:18 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

>> The only real advantage of dual pivots is their greater mechanical
>> advantage. Considering the disadvantages of dual pivots (less tire
>> clearance, need for pads to be adjusted closer to rim, inability to
>> track an out-of-true rim, and cosine error), why on earth do you think
>> they would be so popular if not for more mechanical advantage?
>
>For the same reason that Campy's new single-pivot rear brake is popular.
>keting. There is no reason to presume that one design is superior to
>another just because it is more popular. If dual-pivot brakes were so
>superior, why did Campy drop the design for the rear? The reason was to
>increase the pad travel in the rear (keeping the same leverage in the
>brake lever and changing the caliper accomplished that, though changing
>the lever would have as well), because the supposedly superior low
>spoke-count wheels flexed too much during out-of-saddle climbing and the
>brake pads tended to rub. You can see racers who use Shimano brakes
>loosening the Q/R on their rear brake during a long climb.

There's another fairly significant factor that no one (unless I missed
it...) brought up. You simply don't NEED as much brake on the rear
wheel. In fact, I'd prefer the lower mechanical advantage of a single
pivot brake on the back brake, just to allow that much more control of
the rear braking, and to make the lock-up point closer to the pull
required for the front "tip-over point".

For the same reason, I've kept cantilever brakes on the back of my MTB
- better modulation and lower mechanical advantage than my front
linear ("V") brake.

OTOH, I run dual pivot calipers on the back of my tandem - you don't
have to worry about rear wheel lift-off on a twofer (or should I say,
you don't worry about it but if it DID happen, worry... worry a lot).
The additional mechanical advantage provides the best braking I've
ever had on a tandem (including a lot of fiddling around with
different canti-style brakes).

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 19 Jan 2007 06:58:18
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Art Harris wrote:
>
> > I was specifically comparing single-pivot and dual-pivot road brakes.
> > There's no question that dual-pivots have a greater mechanical
> > advantage, and require much less hand effort for a given amount of
> > braking force.
>

> you could use single-pivot brakes with levers designed for dual-pivots,
> but then the cable travel would be just too much, and the bike would be
> hard to stop. On either side, the design has to come back to a standard
> amount of lever travel needed to stop, which means a standard amount of
> overall mechanical advantage, whether you have single pivots, dual pivots,
> cantilevers, or v-brakes.
>
I disagree with your argument that the overall mechanical advantage of
single pivot brake systems is the same as dual pivots. When comparing
my Dura Ace single-pivot brakes (using the levers they came with) to
Shimano dual-pivots (and STI levers), the dual pivots require much less
hand effort for braking.

The only real advantage of dual pivots is their greater mechanical
advantage. Considering the disadvantages of dual pivots (less tire
clearance, need for pads to be adjusted closer to rim, inability to
track an out-of-true rim, and cosine error), why on earth do you think
they would be so popular if not for more mechanical advantage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_brake_systems#Rim_brakes

Art Harris

Date: 19 Jan 2007 05:46:52
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Art Harris wrote:
>
> > The main things to avoid when buying an older frame are French or Swiss
> > threads,
>
> Well, presuming that you know your proper frame size.
>
What has frame size got to do with "things to avoid?"

> frames designed for 27" wheels,
>
> Most older high-end frames could actually handle either. My old Frejus
> used to have a set of 27" clinchers for my girlfriend, and tubulars for
> me. No problem at all going from one to the other, just a matter of
> adjusting the brakes.
>
Assuming the particular frame really can accomodate either size with
the then common "standard reach" brakes. Otherwise, you've got a big
problem. Why risk it?

> > and frames with 120 mm rear
> > dropouts (for 5 speed wheels). (Spreading 126 mm dropouts to 130 mm is
> > not a problem.)
>
> Nor is spreading 120mm to 130mm.
>
That requires more than double the spreading (compared to 126 = > 130
mm), and increases the risk of damaging the rear brake bridge
attachment. Also increases the risk of the chainring hitting the
chainstay, and requires more bending of the dropouts to keep them
parallel.

> > There are a few other tricky areas like recessed allen
> > vs. nutted brake caliper attachment,
>
> only for bikes older than about 30 years. Maybe cheap frames held onto
> the non-recessed nuts for longer, but most 70s frames could handle them.
> If not, a good drill will fix matters.

I have a good quality Italian frame from 1984 that doesn't use recessed
brake mounting. I was able to work around that when installing new
brakes, but it would have been easier not to have to.

That's my point with all of these suggestions: to avoid complications
and make upgrading easier, especially since the OP said he questions
his ability to bring it all together.

Art Harris

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:24:56
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:37:30 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

> I was specifically comparing single-pivot and dual-pivot road brakes.
> There's no question that dual-pivots have a greater mechanical
> advantage, and require much less hand effort for a given amount of
> braking force.

Yes, there is a question. You can't think of the brake in isolation, but
in combination with the lever. To use the two brakes with the same lever
would indeed result in less hand effort with the dual-pivot. But, also,
it would necessarily result in more lever travel, and a greater risk of
bottoming out the lever in a hard stop, which is dangerous. Thus, you
should use such brakes with levers that pull more, which precisely cancels
out any mechanical advantage.

It just has to do that, or else the brakes could not be safely used. yes,
you could use single-pivot brakes with levers designed for dual-pivots,
but then the cable travel would be just too much, and the bike would be
hard to stop. On either side, the design has to come back to a standard
amount of lever travel needed to stop, which means a standard amount of
overall mechanical advantage, whether you have single pivots, dual pivots,
cantilevers, or v-brakes.

> Again, I was comparing single vs. dual pivot brakes. The cosine error on
> the "short" arm of a dual-pivot caliper is much worse than a single
> pivot.

That is true. But even single-pivots do require re-positioning of the
brake pads. Fortunately, this is trivial.

--

David L. Johnson

"What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass. What
are you on?" --Lance Armstrong

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:16:32
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:48:52 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

> The main things to avoid when buying an older frame are French or Swiss
> threads,

Well, presuming that you know your proper frame size.

frames designed for 27" wheels,

Most older high-end frames could actually handle either. My old Frejus
used to have a set of 27" clinchers for my girlfriend, and tubulars for
me. No problem at all going from one to the other, just a matter of
adjusting the brakes.

> and frames with 120 mm rear
> dropouts (for 5 speed wheels). (Spreading 126 mm dropouts to 130 mm is
> not a problem.)

Nor is spreading 120mm to 130mm.

> There are a few other tricky areas like recessed allen
> vs. nutted brake caliper attachment,

only for bikes older than about 30 years. Maybe cheap frames held onto
the non-recessed nuts for longer, but most 70s frames could handle them.
If not, a good drill will fix matters.

--

David L. Johnson

"What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass. What
are you on?" --Lance Armstrong

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:10:05
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:14:51 -0500, Peter Cole wrote:

> Bikes are loaded with aluminum, and most of it is in places that present
> much more danger than the frame (cranks, bars, stem, seatpost, etc.).
> This is not an academic distinction, many here have suffered broken
> components. As for frames, I've broken 2, both were lugged steel. Most
> frame failures are pretty benign. Although both of my frames were a
> total loss, I rode them home.

I've also broken 2 frames, one steel, one aluminum. The aluminum one was
a fatigue crack, the steel one was me (as a kid) jumping curbs.

>
> Others have advised building your own wheels and/or buying a frame and
> populating it with components. Having done both, I can tell you it's an
> expensive way to go.

Not necessarily. If you can get parts cheap (sales, swap meets, or other
scrounging) you can do quite well for very little money if you can
build your own. Most store-bought boutique wheels cost a freaking fortune
in comparison.

You can generally find factory-built wheelsets for
> significantly less than the total price of the components bought
> separately.

Oh? Maybe bargain-basement wheels with straight-gauge spokes and cheap
hubs/rims, but nothing comparable to what you can do on your own.

> If you
buy a set already made, you don't have to worry about
> matching components (spoke length, etc.)

Well, there's a challenge. Come on. There are several spoke-length
calculators out there that are free. There is absolutely no other "worry".

, you don't have to lace, all
> you have to do is tension, stress relieve and true (see the FAQ).

Lacing wheels is a triviality. Truing takes the skill and/or time.

--

David L. Johnson

"What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass. What
are you on?" --Lance Armstrong

Date: 18 Jan 2007 13:48:52
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:

> The object here seems it may be if I can find a bike with enough
> of what I want that the upgrades won't negate the discount of buying
> complete.

Right. And you can always sell the stuff that you replace on the new
bike (e.g., wheels).

> Unfortunately, I'm not
> confident I have the knowledge to mix-match brifters, brakes,
> derailers, cranks & freewheels to a near-perfect result.

The main things to avoid when buying an older frame are French or Swiss
threads, frames designed for 27" wheels, and frames with 120 mm rear
dropouts (for 5 speed wheels). (Spreading 126 mm dropouts to 130 mm is
not a problem.) There are a few other tricky areas like recessed allen
vs. nutted brake caliper attachment, and oddball stem/handlebar
diameters. But those aren't show stoppers. You will need some tools for
installing the BB, etc. But acquiring the tools and skills will save
you money over the long haul.

> Adding ebay to the equation may not be wise.

Peter Cole made some good points about eBay. I'll add a few. I bought a
nice, never-built-up frame, fork, and headset for $130 on eBay that I
originally intended as a beater. But now I do about half my riding on
it. Same with components. You can buy them new in the box, or as take
offs from a new bike. I got a set of never used Shimano 105 9-speed
brifters for my wifes bike for about $70. Of course, you have to know
what you're buying as there are usually no refunds.

Now (winter) is a good time to decide exactly what you want, and do
some research on the technical issues. Sheldon Brown's site and the
Park Tool site have a wealth of information.

Art Harris

Date: 18 Jan 2007 11:41:36
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Jan 18, 2:14 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Bikes are loaded with aluminum, and most of it is in places that present
> much more danger than the frame (cranks, bars, stem, seatpost, etc.).
> This is not an academic distinction, many here have suffered broken
> components. As for frames, I've broken 2, both were lugged steel. Most
> frame failures are pretty benign. Although both of my frames were a
> total loss, I rode them home.
>
> Others have advised building your own wheels and/or buying a frame and
> populating it with components. Having done both, I can tell you it's an
> expensive way to go. You can generally find factory-built wheelsets for
> significantly less than the total price of the components bought
> separately. If you buy a set already made, you don't have to worry about
> matching components (spoke length, etc.), you don't have to lace, all
> you have to do is tension, stress relieve and true (see the FAQ). Those
> are necessary skills to learn, anyway.
>
> kups on complete bikes are much lower than kups on components, so
> building a complete bike from purchased components is kind of like
> building a car from the auto parts place. If you're a real good shopper
> you can maybe match/beat the price on an equivalent new bike, but it's
> very hard. As with wheels, a good compromise might be to buy a bike
> that's close to what you need and upgrade a few things. Used bikes
> depreciate like a rock, so there are bargains to be found, but there are
> also a lot of people with an unrealistic idea of what their bike is
> worth. I've done very well on Ebay, but it's definitely caveat emptor.

Thanks for your help. I'm aware aluminum can be strong, my hardtail
MTB is proof in frame & componentry. I just worry that aluminum road
frames were built with weight as the priy factor. I figure the way
I will treat this bike would qualify as "abuse" to a road bike, and
"very light use" to a MTB.

I've looked into building my own wheels before, and found the same:
It costs more for the same product. If I do end up purchasing wheels
separate from bike, I will buy them complete & relive/tension them
myself.

I'm also aware of the kup, and the discount buying a complete
bike. The object here seems it may be if I can find a bike with enough
of what I want that the upgrades won't negate the discount of buying
complete. If I were to go with an older lugged steel frame I may have
enough left to buy components I couldn't otherwise, but If I buy new
I suspect complete will be the way to go. Unfortunately, I'm not
confident I have the knowledge to mix-match brifters, brakes,
derailers, cranks & freewheels to a near-perfect result. Adding ebay
to the equation may not be wise. I assume all these things need to
match just right in order to perform properly?

Thanks again,

Dan

Date: 18 Jan 2007 15:56:54
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2:14 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Bikes are loaded with aluminum, and most of it is in places that present
>> much more danger than the frame (cranks, bars, stem, seatpost, etc.).
>> This is not an academic distinction, many here have suffered broken
>> components. As for frames, I've broken 2, both were lugged steel. Most
>> frame failures are pretty benign. Although both of my frames were a
>> total loss, I rode them home.
>>
>> Others have advised building your own wheels and/or buying a frame and
>> populating it with components. Having done both, I can tell you it's an
>> expensive way to go. You can generally find factory-built wheelsets for
>> significantly less than the total price of the components bought
>> separately. If you buy a set already made, you don't have to worry about
>> matching components (spoke length, etc.), you don't have to lace, all
>> you have to do is tension, stress relieve and true (see the FAQ). Those
>> are necessary skills to learn, anyway.
>>
>> kups on complete bikes are much lower than kups on components, so
>> building a complete bike from purchased components is kind of like
>> building a car from the auto parts place. If you're a real good shopper
>> you can maybe match/beat the price on an equivalent new bike, but it's
>> very hard. As with wheels, a good compromise might be to buy a bike
>> that's close to what you need and upgrade a few things. Used bikes
>> depreciate like a rock, so there are bargains to be found, but there are
>> also a lot of people with an unrealistic idea of what their bike is
>> worth. I've done very well on Ebay, but it's definitely caveat emptor.
>
> Thanks for your help. I'm aware aluminum can be strong, my hardtail
> MTB is proof in frame & componentry. I just worry that aluminum road
> frames were built with weight as the priy factor. I figure the way
> I will treat this bike would qualify as "abuse" to a road bike, and
> "very light use" to a MTB.
>
> I've looked into building my own wheels before, and found the same:
> It costs more for the same product. If I do end up purchasing wheels
> separate from bike, I will buy them complete & relive/tension them
> myself.
>
> I'm also aware of the kup, and the discount buying a complete
> bike. The object here seems it may be if I can find a bike with enough
> of what I want that the upgrades won't negate the discount of buying
> complete. If I were to go with an older lugged steel frame I may have
> enough left to buy components I couldn't otherwise, but If I buy new
> I suspect complete will be the way to go. Unfortunately, I'm not
> confident I have the knowledge to mix-match brifters, brakes,
> derailers, cranks & freewheels to a near-perfect result. Adding ebay
> to the equation may not be wise. I assume all these things need to
> match just right in order to perform properly?
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Dan
>

Yeah, compatibility issues can be a nuisance. Some things are just a
matter of doing homework, but there can be gotchas. The areas I've had
trouble with are: headset/frame fit, crank/BB axle match, brake reach,
and sometimes front derailer swing. Sometimes old frames can give
problems, spreading a frame for modern wheels is usually not difficult,
but non-standard BB and headset sizes can be.

One of the things I try to do is to use MTB parts on my road bike
wherever possible. Obviously this is limited, but things like MTB rear
derailers, hubs, seatposts, etc. seem to be cheaper and more rugged.

Ebay can be great, I've had some major scores and no duds so far. One
thing you might keep in mind if you do the "build up a frame" approach
is the availability of new frames there. I got a new Fuji (welded steel)
touring frame & fork for $90 not long ago. There are lots of new
aluminum frames for sale in that price range, too. Some aluminum frames
are made "stupid light", but I think those are mostly high-end racer
stuff. You know the rule: light, reliable, cheap -- pick any 2.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 11:31:30
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Jan 18, 1:20 pm, "Art Harris" <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> You might want to consider buying a good used lugged-steel frame (or
> bike) and building it up to meet your unique preferences. I ride frames
> from the '80's, but with modern 9-speed drivetrains and STI "brifters."
> I find that to be the best of both worlds, and not overly expensive.
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/upgrade.html

Interesting you mention that. My whole interest in the subject came
from my love of my 70's (I think) Rudge SS. At first, I was just going
to put an 10 speed drivetrain & brifters on it & call it a day. Then I
got caught up with technology, 700cc wheels, lighter parts, etc. Then
I realized I wasn't willing to lose the simplicity of the SS for foul
weather, and decided to get another bike.
There is a fixie bianchi w/ front & rear brakes for ~$140 I know of
that I could use to get started...
I end up worried that I'll either find the older stuff unable to work
with the things I want, or I'll end up spending so much on an old beat
ride that I could be riding the state of the art equivalent. I may
have to revisit the subject if I can't find something to fit my
rather unique requirements.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:37:30
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Art Harris wrote:
> > Canti's have more clearance for wide tires and fenders. Race bikes now
> > come with "dual pivot" brakes which look similar to the older single
> > pivot sidepulls that came on older racing bikes. The dual pivots
> > provide more mechanical advantage for easier braking. The downside:
> > much less tire clearance, pads must be adjusted closer to the rim,
> > won't track an out of true rim (if you break a spoke), cosine error
> > causes one side to ride up towards the tire as the pads wear (need to
> > re-adjust the pad position).
>
> Braking "ease" is not just determined by the brakes, but brake and lever
> combinations. All brakes basically have the same net leverage, since
> they all have the same amount of range of motion of the lever. There is
> not much room for change there, since that is determined by our hands.
>
I was specifically comparing single-pivot and dual-pivot road brakes.
There's no question that dual-pivots have a greater mechanical
advantage, and require much less hand effort for a given amount of
braking force. That feature comes at the expense of the other
characteristics described above.

>
> Also, all brakes except for hydrolic ones have what you call cosine error.
> On caliper brakes, as the pad wears the contact point moves up, towards
> the tire. With canti's or v-brakes, it moves down, towards the spokes.
> In both cases you need to adjust the pad position as the brake wears.
>
Again, I was comparing single vs. dual pivot brakes. The cosine error
on the "short" arm of a dual-pivot caliper is much worse than a single
pivot.

See:
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/brakes.html

Art Harris

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:20:34
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:
> > Canti's have more clearance for wide tires and fenders. Race bikes now come with "dual pivot" brakes which look similar to the older single pivot sidepulls that came on older racing bikes. The dual pivots provide more mechanical advantage for easier braking. The downside: much less tire clearance, pads must be adjusted closer to the rim, won't track an out of true rim (if you break a spoke), cosine error causes one side to ride up towards the tire as the pads wear (need to re-adjust the pad position).
>
> Comprehensive answer, thanks. Sounds like I could go either way,
> assuming the double pivots will allow for a 32mm tire.
>
The typical short-reach, dual-pivot calipers required by most modern
road frames would not have clearance for 32 mm tires.

You might want to consider buying a good used lugged-steel frame (or
bike) and building it up to meet your unique preferences. I ride frames
from the '80's, but with modern 9-speed drivetrains and STI "brifters."
I find that to be the best of both worlds, and not overly expensive.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/upgrade.html

Art Harris

Date: 18 Jan 2007 12:07:23
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:37:05 -0800, Dan in Dover wrote:

>> You won't find _any_ 36 spoke wheels on a "racing" bike. Possibly on a Cross or touring bike.
> I'll keep that in mind. I'm afraid I may not find a wheelset like
> I want on anything new and in my price range. I could leave a couple
> hundred left over, and upgrade the wheels at purchase I suppose.

Or you could build your own. It is not rocket science.

>> Canti's have more clearance for wide tires and fenders. Race bikes now come with "dual pivot" brakes which look similar to the older single pivot sidepulls that came on older racing bikes. The dual pivots provide more mechanical advantage for easier braking. The downside: much less tire clearance, pads must be adjusted closer to the rim, won't track an out of true rim (if you break a spoke), cosine error causes one side to ride up towards the tire as the pads wear (need to re-adjust the pad position).
> Comprehensive answer, thanks. Sounds like I could go either way,
> assuming the double pivots will allow for a 32mm tire.

No, they probably won't.

--

David L. Johnson

Date: 18 Jan 2007 12:02:00
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:08:16 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

> Canti's have more clearance for wide tires and fenders. Race bikes now
> come with "dual pivot" brakes which look similar to the older single
> pivot sidepulls that came on older racing bikes. The dual pivots
> provide more mechanical advantage for easier braking. The downside:
> much less tire clearance, pads must be adjusted closer to the rim,
> won't track an out of true rim (if you break a spoke), cosine error
> causes one side to ride up towards the tire as the pads wear (need to
> re-adjust the pad position).

Braking "ease" is not just determined by the brakes, but brake and lever
combinations. All brakes basically have the same net leverage, since
they all have the same amount of range of motion of the lever. There is
not much room for change there, since that is determined by our hands.

Also, all brakes except for hydrolic ones have what you call cosine error.
On caliper brakes, as the pad wears the contact point moves up, towards
the tire. With canti's or v-brakes, it moves down, towards the spokes.
In both cases you need to adjust the pad position as the brake wears.

--

David L. Johnson

Date: 18 Jan 2007 11:56:17
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:35:54 -0800, Dan in Dover wrote:

>>Touring bikes... *and cantilever brakes*. None of this...
>
> Why do touring bikes come with canti's, and what to "race" bikes
> come with?

Cantelever brakes have clearance for wider tires, which cyclocross racers
use. Road bikes come with standard caliper brakes.

--

David L. Johnson

Don't forget: income taxes due.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 09:17:06
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:18:37 -0500, Matt O'Toole
> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> may have said:
>
> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:27:35 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 Jan 2007 06:09:49 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> >> <peter@vecchios.com> may have said:
> >>
> >>>... I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
> >>>nothing, just for info to this newish rider.
> >>
> >> Carbon stays do one thing. They increase the price...
> >>
> >> (sorry, couldn't resist.)
> >
> >In the volume they're being manufactured these days, that's probably not
> >true.
> >
> >One can hardly buy anything else, except with entry level bikes.
>
> I said "price", not "cost"...

Bingo!! In fact, it has been suggested that carbon seatstays actually
simplify construction, thus lowering the cost of manufacture.

Costs less, sells for more - no wonder the keteers love 'em!

>
> If the carbon stays are what differentiates the low end from the
> middle now, then they're contributing to increasing the price, as
> suggested.
>

Date: 18 Jan 2007 08:37:05
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

> It depends on the wall thickness and diameter of the aluminum. As I said earlier, the original mid '80s Cannondale aluminum frames were extremely strong, although not any lighter than a steel frame.
Appreciate the input. I'd still have a hard time trusting a 15 year
old aluminum road frame, even if it is in my head. I won't rule it
out completely but I think I'll feel better about steel (or ti if I
luck out), especially used.

> I don't think you mentioned your weight, although you imply you're not a lightweight.
Weight is "closer to 200lbs than it should be" per my fist post.
189.5 as of this AM to be precise, which is moving in the proper
direction. I'll also be riding on & over lousy, beat roads as well
as cobblestone, bricks & curbs. Oh, and the potholes that sneak past
my headlight every so often.

> Don't chose a frame size based on inseam alone. Top tube length is more important.
So I've heard. I can use my SS as a general guide as it's
comfortable, but aside from that I'm not sure the best way to address
top tube length other than riding the bike. The problem there is I
don't anticipate finding what I want at any LBS', so I'll likely
be either at the local recycled sports place, in the local for-sale
papers or on the web. I've also read that stem length can adjust for
top tube length quite a bit?

> You won't find _any_ 36 spoke wheels on a "racing" bike. Possibly on a Cross or touring bike.
I'll keep that in mind. I'm afraid I may not find a wheelset like
I want on anything new and in my price range. I could leave a couple
hundred left over, and upgrade the wheels at purchase I suppose.

> Tire pressure should decrease at wider widths. 100 psi might be a bit high for true 28 mm tires. That's what I run in my 25 mm tires. You're not going to see much more rolling resistance with wider tires and slightly lower pressure. You will appreciate the better comfort, traction, and stability compared to the "standard" 23 mm "racing" tires.
The tires on my SS claim to be 1.125"x26", which translates to
28mm. I can't verity that with a real-world measurement right now.
They're cheap tires, Bontrager Sport IIRC, and rated for 90psi. It
could be partially in my head, but I feel that I need to pedal
substantially harder at the ~85psi that the tires naturally deflate to
over a couple days than I do with them at my preferred 95-100psi to
cover the same ground at the same speed. There is definitely a visible
difference in how the tire deforms under my weight.

> Canti's have more clearance for wide tires and fenders. Race bikes now come with "dual pivot" brakes which look similar to the older single pivot sidepulls that came on older racing bikes. The dual pivots provide more mechanical advantage for easier braking. The downside: much less tire clearance, pads must be adjusted closer to the rim, won't track an out of true rim (if you break a spoke), cosine error causes one side to ride up towards the tire as the pads wear (need to re-adjust the pad position).
Comprehensive answer, thanks. Sounds like I could go either way,
assuming the double pivots will allow for a 32mm tire.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:13:40
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:

> Weight is "closer to 200lbs than it should be" per my fist post.
> 189.5 as of this AM to be precise, which is moving in the proper
> direction. I'll also be riding on & over lousy, beat roads as well
> as cobblestone, bricks & curbs. Oh, and the potholes that sneak past
> my headlight every so often.

I doubt an AL frame and 32 spoke wheels will really cause
you any problem at 200 lbs weight.

Of course there's a lot to be said for extra confidence in
a beefier bike frame and wheels.

SMH

Date: 18 Jan 2007 14:14:51
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:

> Appreciate the input. I'd still have a hard time trusting a 15 year
> old aluminum road frame, even if it is in my head. I won't rule it
> out completely but I think I'll feel better about steel (or ti if I
> luck out), especially used.

Bikes are loaded with aluminum, and most of it is in places that present
much more danger than the frame (cranks, bars, stem, seatpost, etc.).
This is not an academic distinction, many here have suffered broken
components. As for frames, I've broken 2, both were lugged steel. Most
frame failures are pretty benign. Although both of my frames were a
total loss, I rode them home.

Others have advised building your own wheels and/or buying a frame and
populating it with components. Having done both, I can tell you it's an
expensive way to go. You can generally find factory-built wheelsets for
significantly less than the total price of the components bought
separately. If you buy a set already made, you don't have to worry about
matching components (spoke length, etc.), you don't have to lace, all
you have to do is tension, stress relieve and true (see the FAQ). Those
are necessary skills to learn, anyway.

kups on complete bikes are much lower than kups on components, so
building a complete bike from purchased components is kind of like
building a car from the auto parts place. If you're a real good shopper
you can maybe match/beat the price on an equivalent new bike, but it's
very hard. As with wheels, a good compromise might be to buy a bike
that's close to what you need and upgrade a few things. Used bikes
depreciate like a rock, so there are bargains to be found, but there are
also a lot of people with an unrealistic idea of what their bike is
worth. I've done very well on Ebay, but it's definitely caveat emptor.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 08:08:16
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:

> One of the surprising things I'm hearing here is the support for
> strength in aluminum frames. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to
> trust an aluminum road frame, but I won't rule it out if shopping
> new. I still have a hard time picturing an aluminum frame holding my
> weight & abuse, though part of that may have to do with the low spoke
> wheels and carbon forks I tend to see attached to them.

It depends on the wall thickness and diameter of the aluminum. As I
said earlier, the original mid '80s Cannondale aluminum frames were
extremely strong, although not any lighter than a steel frame. I don't
think you mentioned your weight, although you imply you're not a
lightweight.

>
> To answer a few questions about me, I'm 5'10. The book-in-crotch
> method puts me on a 56.5cm C-T or 55-55.5 C-C bike, which I translate
> to 56cm.

Don't chose a frame size based on inseam alone. Top tube length is more
important.

> ride the tires at a minimum of 100psi., with a width of 28mm (this is
> what I keep my SS at and am happy on & off road with it). I suppose I
> should leave room for 32mm just in case.

Tire pressure should decrease at wider widths. 100 psi might be a bit
high for true 28 mm tires. That's what I run in my 25 mm tires. You're
not going to see much more rolling resistance with wider tires and
slightly lower pressure. You will appreciate the better comfort,
traction, and stability compared to the "standard" 23 mm "racing"
tires.

> That said, I think I need to
> ride a cross bike & a "race" bike back to back.

Good idea.

>
> I'm sold on 36H. I'm sold on brass nips & DB spokes. I'm
> concerned about finding this setup on any new complete bike in my price
> range.

You won't find _any_ 36 spoke wheels on a "racing" bike. Possibly on a
Cross or touring bike.

> Why do touring bikes come with canti's, and what to "race" bikes
> come with?

Canti's have more clearance for wide tires and fenders. Race bikes now
come with "dual pivot" brakes which look similar to the older single
pivot sidepulls that came on older racing bikes. The dual pivots
provide more mechanical advantage for easier braking. The downside:
much less tire clearance, pads must be adjusted closer to the rim,
won't track an out of true rim (if you break a spoke), cosine error
causes one side to ride up towards the tire as the pads wear (need to
re-adjust the pad position).

Art Harris

Date: 18 Jan 2007 07:35:54
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Thanks for all the input.

One of the surprising things I'm hearing here is the support for
strength in aluminum frames. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to
trust an aluminum road frame, but I won't rule it out if shopping
new. I still have a hard time picturing an aluminum frame holding my
weight & abuse, though part of that may have to do with the low spoke
wheels and carbon forks I tend to see attached to them.

To answer a few questions about me, I'm 5'10. The book-in-crotch
method puts me on a 56.5cm C-T or 55-55.5 C-C bike, which I translate
to 56cm. This is to be my "Sunday" bike, which to me means I'll
ride it whenever the roads are clear & dry and I'm not going out to
the trails. This will be more often than I'd like, since I've yet
to find anything worth taking the MTB on that doesn't involve a car
ride since got the new place.

I know a bit about BMX & MTB's, but very little about road bikes. I
grew up a hater, then I rode one & was bitten.

I don't want to sacrifice speed or any of my leg effort on this bike
in an attempt to make it multi-function. It won't see fenders, as I
have a SS road commuter for a bad weather bike. It won't see real
trails, as I've got a MTB I'm very fond of for that. I want to
ride the tires at a minimum of 100psi., with a width of 28mm (this is
what I keep my SS at and am happy on & off road with it). I suppose I
should leave room for 32mm just in case. That said, I think I need to
ride a cross bike & a "race" bike back to back. If a cross bike
really won't be notably slower or more work on a 100K ride, that may
be the solution.

I'm sold on 36H. I'm sold on brass nips & DB spokes. I'm
concerned about finding this setup on any new complete bike in my price
range.

Surly has come up a couple times now, and from what I've read seems
to be a Clyde's favorite when on a budget. I'll definitely keep my
eye out. I'll keep Habanero in mind as well if the return comes in
high & the home repairs come in low.

>Touring bikes... *and cantilever brakes*. None of this...

Why do touring bikes come with canti's, and what to "race" bikes
come with?

Thanks again,

Dan

Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:10:36
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:

> I don't want to sacrifice speed or any of my leg effort on this bike
> in an attempt to make it multi-function. It won't see fenders, as I
> have a SS road commuter for a bad weather bike. It won't see real
> trails, as I've got a MTB I'm very fond of for that. I want to
> ride the tires at a minimum of 100psi., with a width of 28mm (this is
> what I keep my SS at and am happy on & off road with it). I suppose I
> should leave room for 32mm just in case. That said, I think I need to
> ride a cross bike & a "race" bike back to back. If a cross bike
> really won't be notably slower or more work on a 100K ride, that may
> be the solution.

You might have a problem finding a non-Cross or Touring bike that
will handle 32mm (possibly even 28mm) tires. The 28's are a strange
size. You don't see them a lot.

Road bikes will typically have 20-25mm tires on them, so ask the
seller if a 32mm will fit before buying.

> I'm sold on 36H. I'm sold on brass nips & DB spokes. I'm
> concerned about finding this setup on any new complete bike in my price
> range.

The 36 spoke wheels will be standard on touring bikes. Not
certain about cross bikes. I like them too. You'll likely
have to arrange a wheel [and tire???] swap from the LBS when
you buy any non-touring/cross bike.

> Surly has come up a couple times now, and from what I've read seems
> to be a Clyde's favorite when on a budget. I'll definitely keep my
> eye out. I'll keep Habanero in mind as well if the return comes in
> high & the home repairs come in low.
>
>>Touring bikes... *and cantilever brakes*. None of this...
>
> Why do touring bikes come with canti's, and what to "race" bikes
> come with?

They accommodate wider tires/rims better than the caliper
brakes that come on the race bikes.

SMH

Date: 17 Jan 2007 10:02:49
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:
> I'm thinking of using a piece of the upcoming tax return to add my
> first real road bike to the collection. While I'd like something
> reasonably lightweight my main concern is strength. I weigh in closer
> to 200lbs than I should and do not have the lightest riding style in
> the world. I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
> up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
> thrown into a daylong road ride.
>
> Now for the questions:
> 1) Am I correct in assuming that I should be looking for a steel frame
> and fork?

I'd say fork, yes, frame, not necessarily.

> 2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
> Material or model suggestions?

Depends how you ride and how the roads are.

> 3) Are touring bikes generally stronger than race bikes?

Yes.

> 4) Is the same rider generally faster or a race bike?

No. A lighter bike will climb slightly faster, no difference on the flats.

> I've read of riders such as Jobst successfully using road bicycles on
> rides with a couple miles of trail thrown in and logging many thousands
> of miles. I've not heard anything about Jobst's weight or chosen
> ride but am still encouraged by this.

You didn't mention your height. Jobst (and I) are tall. Tall riders are
generally better off with longer chainstays/wheelbase and stiffer
frames. The former make a bike more stable -- less prone to "wheelie",
and the latter less prone to shimmy at high speeds.

For heavy riders, the major issue is tire size and what the bike's frame
and brake clearances will allow. Most "club" riders seem to prefer 23mm
tires. Heavier riders seem to prefer 25-28mm tires. If you want to go on
dirt roads a lot you may want even wider tires. Many "racing" bikes are
very limited in the tire size they can use. Tires affect both ride
quality and wheel longevity (bigger being better for both).

I like touring frames because they tend to be stiffer, have longer
wheelbase and accept larger tires. There is a slight weight penalty. I
have a couple of steel and a couple of aluminum touring framed bikes.
All in all, I prefer the aluminum for its stiffness and lighter weight.
All my bikes have steel forks, I believe them to be more crash worthy
than carbon and more fatigue resistant than aluminum.

I'd say if you're tall or want to go off pavement a lot, look at touring
bikes/frames, if not just be careful that the bike you buy can take
something other than minimum width tires.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 06:09:49
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

nash wrote:
> 5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
> > world?
>
>
> Sure do. Trek 1500. Guarantees frame for a life time to original owner
> only. Luckily I am not rough on my preowned bike.
>
> Has carbon forks and seat stay also.

GREAT warranty but I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
nothing, just for info to this newish rider.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 11:27:35
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On 17 Jan 2007 06:09:49 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
<peter@vecchios.com > may have said:

>... I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
>nothing, just for info to this newish rider.

Carbon stays do one thing. They increase the price...

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 14:18:37
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:27:35 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:

> On 17 Jan 2007 06:09:49 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <peter@vecchios.com> may have said:
>
>>... I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
>>nothing, just for info to this newish rider.
>
> Carbon stays do one thing. They increase the price...
>
> (sorry, couldn't resist.)

In the volume they're being manufactured these days, that's probably not
true.

One can hardly buy anything else, except with entry level bikes.

Matt O.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 19:23:40
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:18:37 -0500, Matt O'Toole
<mattotoole@letterboxes.org > may have said:

>On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:27:35 -0600, Werehatrack wrote:
>
>> On 17 Jan 2007 06:09:49 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> <peter@vecchios.com> may have said:
>>
>>>... I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
>>>nothing, just for info to this newish rider.
>>
>> Carbon stays do one thing. They increase the price...
>>
>> (sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
>In the volume they're being manufactured these days, that's probably not
>true.
>
>One can hardly buy anything else, except with entry level bikes.

I said "price", not "cost"...

If the carbon stays are what differentiates the low end from the
middle now, then they're contributing to increasing the price, as
suggested.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 17:08:42
From: nash
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

"qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1169042989.226448.229250@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> nash wrote:
>> 5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
>> > world?
>>
>>
>> Sure do. Trek 1500. Guarantees frame for a life time to original owner
>> only. Luckily I am not rough on my preowned bike.
>>
>> Has carbon forks and seat stay also.
>
> GREAT warranty but I think you need to mention that carbon stays do
> nothing, just for info to this newish rider.

Forgive me I meant seat post. I was just giving the specs but why would a
seat post not make the bike stronger? That is where all your weight ends
up.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 06:05:44
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:
> qui si parla Campagnolo said:
> >Or titanium, well made.
> Great suggestion, but outside of my budget this time around.

Haberero, less than $1000
>
> qui si parla Campagnolo said:
> >NO payback for 36h wheels.
> No payback? I'm not fully understanding, but get the gist that I must
> ride 36.

No reason to NOT use 36h, is my point. Why people skimp on spokes,
making wheels, just good enough', mystyfies me.
>
> qui si parla Campagnolo said:
> >Waterford, Lynskey, Moots, Ginnar, Habanero
> Again, thanks. I'll keep my eyes open, but the small guys may be out
> of my price range for this one.
>
> qui si parla Campagnolo said:
> >Yes but lots more differences than that.
>
> Anything else that may make a big difference to me? I won't need racks
> of fenders on this particular bike, just a couple waterbottle cages and
> a saddlebag.
>
>
> qui si parla Campagnolo said:
> >The ones I mentioned are lifetime.
>
> I'll look more carefully. I may be able to stretch the budget a bit
> farther for a lifetime warranty on the frame/fork.
>
>
> qui si parla Campagnolo said:
> >A 'road' bike with room for fatter tires is a great idea...see Waterford and Gunnar.
>
> I will. Thanks again.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 14:32:12
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:05:44 -0800, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Dan in Dover wrote:

>> qui si parla Campagnolo said:
>> >NO payback for 36h wheels.

>> No payback? I'm not fully understanding, but get the gist that I must
>> ride 36.

> No reason to NOT use 36h, is my point. Why people skimp on spokes,
> making wheels, just good enough', mystyfies me.

Well, they think fewer spokes are more aero and lighter, and that this
makes a difference.

36h is great and gives an extra gin of safety, but 32h is good enough
with a sturdy rim like a CXP33, plus being dead-standard and therefore
cheaper and more widely available. 36h usually requires a special order,
paying full MSRP, and waiting, while 32h components are usually on hand,
and often on sale. If you kill a rim while out of town it's likely you'll
find a replacement 32h at a local shop, but not a 36h.

The best MTB wheels I ever had were 36h Mavic 230, about the lightest rim
available at the time. In two years of hard use I never had to true them
once. Thanks Chuck (at Rainbow Bikes in Laguna Beach)!

Matt O.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 21:11:29
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:32:12 -0500, Matt O'Toole
<mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote:
>
>36h is great and gives an extra gin of safety, but 32h is good enough
>with a sturdy rim like a CXP33, plus being dead-standard and therefore
>cheaper and more widely available. 36h usually requires a special order,
>paying full MSRP, and waiting, while 32h components are usually on hand,
>and often on sale. If you kill a rim while out of town it's likely you'll
>find a replacement 32h at a local shop, but not a 36h.

If you mean finding components at an LBS, 32h seems to be occasionally
available around here. But be ready to pay MSRP. If you're going to
mail order, 36 hole stuff is widely available.

>The best MTB wheels I ever had were 36h Mavic 230, about the lightest rim
>available at the time. In two years of hard use I never had to true them
>once. Thanks Chuck (at Rainbow Bikes in Laguna Beach)!

Thus neatly proving the point that 36 hole wheels can be made almost
bullet-proof.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 18:42:36
From: nash
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
> world?

Sure do. Trek 1500. Guarantees frame for a life time to original owner
only. Luckily I am not rough on my preowned bike.

Has carbon forks and seat stay also.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:31:26
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:09:13 -0800, Dan in Dover wrote:

> I'm thinking of using a piece of the upcoming tax return to add my
> first real road bike to the collection. While I'd like something
> reasonably lightweight my main concern is strength. I weigh in closer
> to 200lbs than I should and do not have the lightest riding style in
> the world. I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
> up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
> thrown into a daylong road ride.

Well, stop riding off the curbs, and you will end some of your problems.
>
> Now for the questions:
> 1) Am I correct in assuming that I should be looking for a steel frame
> and fork?

Don't concentrate so much on the materials as on the design. You could
get a steel bike that is more fragile than many carbon ones. You
obviously don't want to go stupid-light with anything, but you also don't
need to ride a tank.

I am a bit lighter than you, and trying to get even lighter..., but... My
road bike is a Habanero, which I recommend. Very strong, reasonably
light, and relatively inexpensive. It's titanium, which means no fuss
with paint or rust. Most ti frames are much more expensive, and perhaps a
bit lighter, but this strikes a good balance between weight, strength, and
affordability, with the emphasis on strength.

As for a fork, what I believe is the strongest fork available in any
material is the Wound-Up carbon fork. Very, very stiff, which is good in
my opinion. I have two of these now, one on my road bike and the other on
my track bike.

> 2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill? Material or
> model suggestions?

36 spokes is good. You can't find road hubs with more, anyway. I would
go with a V-shaped rim for strength, and maybe an OCR rear. Get decent
hubs; Shimano are hard to beat, or Campy if yo use campy
derailleurs/shifters. Get double-butted spokes (14/15 gage), not straight
gage, since they produce a stronger wheel.

Avoid boutique wheels.

> 3) Are touring bikes generally stronger than race bikes?

In general, yes, but it depends on what you mean by a "race bike".
Touring bikes are also more set up for carrying loads, with mounts for
racks, room for bigger tires and fenders, and cantilever brakes. None of
that, except for the bigger tires, should matter to you unless you want to
do touring. On the other hand, a real racing bike tends to the
stupid-light, so you don't want that. Most road bikes are not really
racing machines, though, so you should look at both.

> 4) Is the same rider generally faster or a race bike?

Than on a touring bike? Yes, but not by all that much.

> 5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road
> bike world?

Sure they do. Trek has a good warrantee. So does Habanero.

> I've read of riders such as Jobst successfully using road bicycles on
> rides with a couple miles of trail thrown in

Lots of us do that. "Trails" can mean many things, though, from
packed-earth bike paths that are smoother than most roads, to rocky
cross-country trails. I've ridden my road bike on plenty of trails that
were fairly rough. A typical cobblestone street is rougher than most
mountain-bike riding, and there are road races that use them.

--

David L. Johnson

__o

Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:25:11
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On 16 Jan 2007 07:09:13 -0800, "Dan in Dover" <danindover@gmail.com >
may have said:

>I'm thinking of using a piece of the upcoming tax return to add my
>first real road bike to the collection. While I'd like something
>reasonably lightweight my main concern is strength. I weigh in closer
>to 200lbs than I should and do not have the lightest riding style in
>the world. I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
>up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
>thrown into a daylong road ride.
>
>Now for the questions:
>1) Am I correct in assuming that I should be looking for a steel frame
>and fork?

You'll probably be safer that way, but your options will be limited.
I wouldn't discount aluminum.

>2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
>Material or model suggestions?

In order; Yes, no, avoid certain Mavics [Google for mavic crack]

>3) Are touring bikes generally stronger than race bikes?

IME, they are more durable in everyday use, but not necessarily
"stronger".

>4) Is the same rider generally faster or a race bike?

I assume you meant "on". Sometimes, as long as it's the right bike.

>5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
>world?

Yes. Most of them, for that matter, but only to the original
purchaser. The frame is less likely to fail than you might think,
though. The components I look at most closely are the wheels. I
personally find the ubiquitous low-spoke-count "squirrel dicers"
unsuitable for everyday usage. This does not keep large numbers of
riders from using them every day without problems.

>I've read of riders such as Jobst successfully using road bicycles on
>rides with a couple miles of trail thrown in and logging many thousands
>of miles. I've not heard anything about Jobst's weight or chosen
>ride but am still encouraged by this.

Jobst's experiences must be viewed in the light of his long time in
the saddle. I would not suggest trying to take a skinny-tire bike
into an off-road environmment where significant amounts of loose sand,
soft dirt. or deep gravel will be encountered; the narrow tires tend
to make a bike difficult to control in such circumstances. A very
skillful and observant rider can often cope with such developments,
often without even thinking about it, but the punter or mid-level
rider may find out too late that they didn't use sufficient caution
when approaching an obstacle that a fat-tire bike might have rolled
over with no problem.

Much depends on where you ride. You'll have to weigh the factors
yourself.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 08:46:28
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover wrote:
> 1) Am I correct in assuming that I should be looking for a steel frame
> and fork?

I'm a big fan of lugged steel frames, but these days you won't find an
inexpensive one (unless used). Aluminum will give the best bang for the
buck. Just avoid ultra light aluminum. The old Cannondale aluminum
frames were bomb proof.

> 2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
> Material or model suggestions?

That's what I ride, though you'll have a better choice of 32 spoke
wheels. More important is the quality of the build (proper spoke
tension, stress relieved, etc.).

> 3) Are touring bikes generally stronger than race bikes?

Yes, in general. But also somewhat wider tires at lower pressure. That
helps on rough pavement or dirt roads. They also have more clearance
between tires and brakes / chainstays.

> 4) Is the same rider generally faster or a race bike?

Not much.

> 5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
> world?

I hear Trek has a good warranty policy.

>
> I've read of riders such as Jobst successfully using road bicycles on
> rides with a couple miles of trail thrown in and logging many thousands
> of miles. I've not heard anything about Jobst's weight or chosen
> ride but am still encouraged by this.

Jobst is pretty light for a tall guy, and he rides a steel bike built
with long chainstays and some beefed up tubes and as I recall.

http://mly.smugmug.com/photos/73060129-M.jpg

Art Harris

Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:53:48
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Fritz said:
> Surly Pacer Road bike with steel fork
> Open Pro mavic 36 hole rims with double butted spokes
> Tire size 28 or 32
> Bullet proof.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Concise and specific, I like. Any idea what that setup may set me back
with a midrange groupset? Any warranty on the Pacer frame?

Thanks.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:45:30
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

qui si parla Campagnolo said:
>Or titanium, well made.
Great suggestion, but outside of my budget this time around.

qui si parla Campagnolo said:
>NO payback for 36h wheels.
No payback? I'm not fully understanding, but get the gist that I must
ride 36.

qui si parla Campagnolo said:
>Waterford, Lynskey, Moots, Ginnar, Habanero
Again, thanks. I'll keep my eyes open, but the small guys may be out
of my price range for this one.

qui si parla Campagnolo said:
>Yes but lots more differences than that.

Anything else that may make a big difference to me? I won't need racks
of fenders on this particular bike, just a couple waterbottle cages and
a saddlebag.

qui si parla Campagnolo said:
>The ones I mentioned are lifetime.

I'll look more carefully. I may be able to stretch the budget a bit
farther for a lifetime warranty on the frame/fork.

qui si parla Campagnolo said:
>A 'road' bike with room for fatter tires is a great idea...see Waterford and Gunnar.

I will. Thanks again.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:37:23
From: Dan in Dover
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Claire Said:
> If you do like going off-road from time to time, maybe you'd be happiest with a cyclo-cross bike?

A cross bike is an interesting suggestion. Would I be notably slower
on the road riding a cross bike when compared to a touring or racing
bike? I assume the cross bike would be notably stronger? Are most/all
CX bikes steel frame/fork?

Claire Said:
> You mention "racing" bikes, but nowhere in your post do I see you're interested in racing.

While I don't see myself ever being a full-blown racer, I would like
to hook up with a club and do a couple group rides this summer. I also
want to enter a beginner's race this fall. That said, I don't
think I need a "racing" bike. I just want to take the fun of
putting away 100K while working on my average speed to the next level.
When I went from my MTB to my current 1970's SS road bike for my road
rides last spring and the difference was amazing. I see a geared
semi-racy bike as the step after the SS. That, and I don't think I
could hang on a club ride without gears <g >.

Claire Said:
> What's your budget?

It should be $700ish. I could stretch it a bit. Someone tempted me
with a leftover KHS for (IIRC) ~$850 recently, but as pretty as it was
it looked fragile. Much higher than that may create a war at home.
Less would be great. Much depends on the price of the upcoming home
repairs, which is why I'm just trying to get my research done now.
If I luck out with the house, I could have $1000. If luck outs me, I
could be shopping used for $500.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 14:31:10
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Dan in Dover <danindover@gmail.com > wrote:
> Claire Said:
>> If you do like going off-road from time to time, maybe you'd be happiest with a cyclo-cross bike?
>
> A cross bike is an interesting suggestion. Would I be notably slower
> on the road riding a cross bike when compared to a touring or racing
> bike? I assume the cross bike would be notably stronger? Are most/all
> CX bikes steel frame/fork?

Many are steel. More importantly, any in your price range are almost
certainly going to be steel.

You will not be noticably slower on a cross bike. In fact, yesterdays
'race' bikes are very very similar to todays entry cross bikes. Plus
using a cross frame means you have room for fenders. Fenders are
necessity if you wish to ride when it's raining. A 'race' bike is a
pain in the butt to fit them.

I like the Surly CrossCheck personally. And I can testify that they do
stand behind the frame warranty. Though the bike shop I bought it from
said mine was the first Surly frame warranty return they've handled.

You could probably get away with 32 spokes on the rear. I'd recommend
36, and I prefer more personally. But then, I destroy parts out of
proportion to my size and weight.

> Claire Said:
>> You mention "racing" bikes, but nowhere in your post do I see you're
>> interested in racing.
>
> While I don't see myself ever being a full-blown racer, I would like
> to hook up with a club and do a couple group rides this summer. I
> also want to enter a beginner's race this fall. That said, I don't
> think I need a "racing" bike. I just want to take the fun of putting
> away 100K while working on my average speed to the next level. When I
> went from my MTB to my current 1970's SS road bike for my road rides
> last spring and the difference was amazing. I see a geared semi-racy
> bike as the step after the SS. That, and I don't think I could hang
> on a club ride without gears <g>.

You would have no problem doing group rides on a cross bike. As for
needing gears, that depends on the group and terrain. But it's a silly
discussion to get into. Tangential at best.

> Claire Said:
>> What's your budget?
>
> It should be $700ish. I could stretch it a bit. Someone tempted me
> with a leftover KHS for (IIRC) ~$850 recently, but as pretty as it was
> it looked fragile. Much higher than that may create a war at home.
> Less would be great. Much depends on the price of the upcoming home
> repairs, which is why I'm just trying to get my research done now. If
> I luck out with the house, I could have $1000. If luck outs me, I
> could be shopping used for $500.

Used is great if you do know bikes (it sounds like you might) and if
you're in a good area for that sort of thing. Seattle (where I am) is
good and bad. There's lots of bike turnover, but there's lots of
competition.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
It was then I realized how dire my medical situation was. Here I was,
a network admin, unable to leave, and here was someone with a broken
network. And they didn't ask me to fix it. They didn't even try to
casually pry a hint out of me. -- Ryan Tucker , in the Monastery

Date: 16 Jan 2007 10:25:14
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:17:36
From: Fritz
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On 16 Jan 2007 07:09:13 -0800, "Dan in Dover" <danindover@gmail.com >
wrote:

>I'm thinking of using a piece of the upcoming tax return to add my
>first real road bike to the collection. While I'd like something
>reasonably lightweight my main concern is strength. I weigh in closer
>to 200lbs than I should and do not have the lightest riding style in
>the world. I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
>up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
>thrown into a daylong road ride.
>
>Now for the questions:
>1) Am I correct in assuming that I should be looking for a steel frame
>and fork?
>2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
>Material or model suggestions?
>3) Are touring bikes generally stronger than race bikes?
>4) Is the same rider generally faster or a race bike?
>5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
>world?
>
>I've read of riders such as Jobst successfully using road bicycles on
>rides with a couple miles of trail thrown in and logging many thousands
>of miles. I've not heard anything about Jobst's weight or chosen
>ride but am still encouraged by this.
>
>
>Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions,
>
>Dan

Surly Pacer Road bike with steel fork
Open Pro mavic 36 hole rims with double butted spokes
Tire size 28 or 32

Bullet proof.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 22:49:02
From: aeiouy
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

>
>
> Surly Pacer Road bike with steel fork
> Open Pro mavic 36 hole rims with double butted spokes
> Tire size 28 or 32
>
> Bullet proof.

I like your ideas and am interested in subscribing to your newsletter :)

Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:17:46
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 18:00:17
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:17:46 -0800, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Dan in Dover wrote:

>> I'm thinking of using a piece of the upcoming tax return to add my
>> first real road bike to the collection. While I'd like something
>> reasonably lightweight my main concern is strength. I weigh in closer
>> to 200lbs than I should and do not have the lightest riding style in
>> the world. I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
>> up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
>> thrown into a daylong road ride.

>> Now for the questions:
>> 1) Am I correct in assuming that I should be looking for a steel frame
>> and fork?
>
> Or titanium, well made.
>
>> 2) I'm thinking 36 spoke wheels. Is that enough? Overkill?
>
> NO payback for 36h wheels.
>> Material or model suggestions?
>
> Waterford, Lynskey, Moots, Ginnar, Habanero
>> 3) Are touring bikes generally stronger than race bikes?
>
> Yes but lots more differences than that.
>
>> 4) Is the same rider generally faster or a race bike?
>
> Nope, weight differences are small and vastky over played.
>
>> 5) Do any manufactures warranty their frames & forks in the road bike
>> world?
>
> The ones I mentioned are lifetime.
>>
>> I've read of riders such as Jobst successfully using road bicycles on
>> rides with a couple miles of trail thrown in and logging many thousands
>> of miles. I've not heard anything about Jobst's weight or chosen
>> ride but am still encouraged by this.
>
> A 'road' bike with room for fatter tires is a great idea...see
> Waterford and Gunnar.

The Gunnar Crosshairs looks like a great all-around frame. There's no
reason you couldn't use it for everything from road racing to sport riding
to trail riding to cyclocross to light touring. I almost bought one
myself before finding a really good deal on something else.

Repairability is nice, but a good warranty may be just as good. Shop
rates being what they are (especially including paint), it makes little
economic sense to repair frames anymore. But if you're stuck in the
sticks, a frame that can be repaired by a local muffler shop, etc., could
be an advantage. This probably means a heavier, older-style steel
frame with thicker-walled tubing.

On that note, a 20 year old sport touring frame might be perfect,
and a whole lot cheaper!

Matt O.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:13:57
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Advise on frame & fork materials for strong road bike?

"Dan in Dover" <danindover@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168960152.121567.70150@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> I weigh in closer
> to 200lbs than I should and do not have the lightest riding style in
> the world. I'm concerned that an aluminum frame & fork will not hold
> up to my weight riding off city curbs or the occasional trail detour
> thrown into a daylong road ride.

If you do like going off-road from time to time, maybe you'd be happiest
with a cyclo-cross bike? A touring bike's another possibility. You mention
"racing" bikes, but nowhere in your post do I see you're interested in
racing.

What's your budget?

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky