OldRoads.com

This is an archive of Vintage Bicycle Information.
For current Discussions, go to our main site: OldRoads.com

If you are trying to determine the genealogy of your bicycle by it's features, go to our Vintage Bicycle Price Guide
which details bicycle features, wheel sizes, brake types, etc., as well as showing a price estimate for your old bicycle.

If you are trying to determine the make and model of your bicycle, go to our Vintage Bicycle Picture Database
which details bicycle features, wheel sizes, etc., as well as showing a price estimate for your vintage bicycle.

Archived: Vintage Lightweights







FOR SALE:   Bianchi Vespa F&F posted by: Ray on 12/13/2003 at 4:56:22 AM
I just put up a very used Bianchi frame and fork on ebay. Check it out.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=7298&item=3645517849







AGE / VALUE:   SunTour "Accushift 6000" posted by: JONathan on 12/12/2003 at 5:22:31 AM
I took in a stop at the thrift store with darkness setting in fast, but I spied a Peugeot AO-8 ('80's) leaning against the pile of hulks.
As they were closing up I bought the bike for $10 US and left it there. It was a bit impulsive, but the bike had really good Vainqueur 999's (610/750) and the SunTour "Accushift" rear derailer and Huret front. I really only wanted the Vainqueurs, but tthe SunTour smacks of quality. Would it be a Peugeot AO-8 OEM?
It had some other nice goodies, too. Rigida alloy rims with reinforced spoke eyes...heavy duty rims. The seat-post was ribbed, alloy. The SunTour has an unusually long cage for a 52/44 chainring and 14-32 freewheel. Could this be a good derailer for a triple ring? I'm thinking about using it on a Raleigh "Record Ace" with a TA triple ring with a granny low freewheel (34T large cog).
The Shimano "crane" has been clipped a few times and while it shifted great originally, it is starting to act up. It is the cage, but rather than swap it out, the "accushift" would be easier to slap on. The problem with these setups for touring is that the cage sticks down close to the ground, which is OK for blacktop, but on dirt chuck-holed roads it is another story.
Thanks,
JONathan


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   SunTour posted by Kevin K on 12/12/2003 at 12:46:04 PM
Hi. Personally I would have bought the bike as I'm a sucker for Rigida wheelsets, not to mention Huret items. As for the frame, offer it away or...........I also have Suntour on 80% of my bikes. Nice, quality pieces. Sounds like a great parts bike. Kevin

     SunTour posted by John E on 12/12/2003 at 3:06:45 PM
The Huret front -- SunTour rear combination is HIGHLY unlikely as OEM. Almost every Peugeot I have seen originally came with Simplex. With a 52-44 chainring set, I would use (and indeed have used!) a 14-16-18-20-23-26 or 14-16-18-20-22-25-28 cogset. Yes, your long-cage SunTour rear derailleur should be able to handle almost any "normal" triple chainring set quite nicely; I still believe SunTour set the standard for wide-range rear derailleurs.

   RE:  SunTour posted by JONathan on 12/12/2003 at 5:09:33 PM
Kevin K., the wheels spin true and they show little signs of edge wear from braking. I agree, they can be a great upgrade for my UE-8 tourer which has steel rims, OEM. I can't wait to get those mounted up.
Thanks for the expert opinion, John E., about the derailer hook up. The "crane" grinds a bit, probably the cage and pulleys. I like the setup as the bike handles the long steep hills in the redwoods, Coast Range. It's not fast, but I never have to get out and walk, either.
The XCD-6000 ("Accushift") came out in 1988 as a higher-end derailer. This was in the "First Flight Bicycle" web pages about SunTour products. I'm encouraged to go ahead with a winter refit. Strangest thing about opting to wheel into the store, when I hadn't been there in a while, on the very same day this bike emerged into pile of junkers.
I hope to get there to pick it up, this evening. A weekend project, par excellance!
Thanks, again.
JONathan

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   SunTour posted by Rob on 12/13/2003 at 12:20:50 AM
Nice find, JONathan...I don't think I have any Accushifts in my derailleur collection...

I tend to favor the SunTour/Dia Compe/Sugino setups...most of my favorite bikes (but not all) seem to be set up with Cyclone/Cyclone MK 2, V/V-luxe-GT/Vx, AR/ARX...I've got a few Superbes in my collection, too, and a few XC's and Mountechs, and I think an Alpha...Anything SunTour that's light, I tend to grab if I can...but I won't turn down a good deal on Titlist, Dura-Ace/Crane, and 600EX/Ultegra either.

And like, Kevin I'm a sucker for any Huret items...I would say, in fact, any of the old French stuff...I found, recently, thrown out, a cottered steel Durax crank 52/36 with some type of Lyotard pedals(rattrap, is it?...I forget...the boxy, rectangular type pedals), all in pretty good shape with no rust...the thought of these things going to the landfill, or being melted down is too much for me...:) .... and so it goes...

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   SunTour posted by T-Mar on 12/13/2003 at 4:03:38 AM
The April 1988 issue Bicycling has a review of the XCD6000 group. The group consisted of front and rear derailleurs, combination shift/brake levers, roller cam brakes, pedals, seatpost and (drum roll please) a 28/38/48T crankset.

The article states that the rear derailleur can accomodate freewheels with up to a 32T rear cog, but does not mention the total capacity. However, 1988 was the year I bought my first ATB, so I checked some old catalogues and the widest XCD gearing that I found was on a Cannondale with 14-30T on the back and 28/38/48T up front. So it would appear that the rear derailleur capacity is at least 36T. However, if you switch to a triple, I suspect that the front derailleur was designed for a double and it may not have the necessary capacity or throw.

As John E. suggests, the Suntour is probably a later addition. The Peugeot is probably much older. I can't say that I recall A08s in the 80s, but then again the Canadian models were being domestically manufactured at that time and may have differed from what was offered elsewhere.

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   SunTour posted by JONathan on 12/13/2003 at 7:12:33 AM
Thanks a lot for the product information. Well, I got the truck started and picked up the bike. I was looking at a Raleigh "Twenty" from the '70's. Maybe next week.
The sad part of this operation was that after everything was done, I have a perfectly good frame that could go into the soup-pot. The frame is internally lugged and the forks are full paint; no chrome. I concluded it was the AO-9...I really don't know.
The '80's was when the faux welded looking frames appeared, I think. This frame is perfectly sound, good paint and no rust...anywhere. I guess I'll bag it and start a stack somewhere. Everytime I start looking for the pipe cutter, my conscience hits. It must cost a lot of fuel and raw materials, labor, etc. to build a frame like this.
Taking it to a dump is out of the question. Maybe if I hang on to the rejects long enough, they'll be useful commodities. Right now, I'm trying to talk my brother into brazing, or welding, a bike trailer of my exclusive design using a couple of reject frames. Who knows, maybe that's the answer. Maybe a bicycle "taxi"?
Thanks, again.
JONathan






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by: Gralyn on 12/11/2003 at 3:06:59 PM
I've started on my 2 Ross's. I've noticed that the front fork - rather than having the usual slot for the front axle - has like a wider, open slot area. It's like, maybe the axle can be attached at the bottom end...or maybe at the top end of the drop-out.

Is anyone familiar with these front fork drop-outs? What was the purpose for having them like this? I have never seen them on any other bike except my Ross Gran Tours.


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by JONathan on 12/11/2003 at 5:20:16 PM
Interesting. Maybe that was to provide for greater containment of the axle...you know, for improperly tightened bolts?
Like the "keepers" that are on some front forks. Could it be to accommodate different size wheels? Just guessing, here.
I know that it might help discourage a duffer from ever taking the front wheel off if the axle does not seat at the apex of the dropout.
Nothing surprises me, the more I learn about VLW's.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by Gralyn on 12/11/2003 at 5:57:17 PM
Each of the front wheels had QR axles. I will have to look at it and see if the wheel gets closer to the fork in either position.

      Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by John E on 12/11/2003 at 10:51:44 PM
The bikes may indeed have come with additional CPSC wheel retainer hardware, which somehow clipped or otherwise mounted on the fork end.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by T-Mar on 12/12/2003 at 12:32:31 AM
I have seen some bikes that had fork drop-outs that resembled the rear drop-outs. That is to say that they had a horizontal slot, open at the front and with adjusters at the rear. The logic was to allow the rider to tailor the fork geometry (and wheeelbase?) to suit his liking. I can't recal the makes though I believe they were ATB models.

I realize this is not the same as Gralyn's drop-outs, but if they had inserts, that could be used to position the wheel vertically, then it could be used to fine tune the head angle. The change would be quite small, unless the slots were very long. JOnathan's and John E.'s explanations are more more plausible, but it was a good excuse to bring up the horizontal, adjustable, front drop-outs, which were very unique.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by JONathan on 12/12/2003 at 2:42:02 AM
Hi, Tom. Interesting. You jnow, I was thinking about horizontal dropouts on the front and I concluded (without any testing) the setup is a bit risky. If one takes the rear dropouts, there are two reinforced connectons. On a fork blade..what is there to keep the dropout from shearing off the end of the blade? This would be under high impact, but I know that forks can be bent just from braking...given that certain combination of elements occur simultaneously...well almost simultaneously.
I have come very close with under-inflated tires and a "grabby" brake...I mean real sudden grabbiness. But, then, I'm at the upper end of the mass scale (220#) for a LW bike. I think those horizontal dropouts on the forks, are not a great idea under all conditions...or maybe not any. They sure make for a collectible bike, to be sure. Now, if they were gussetted into the blade ends...I wonder. Impulse forces working on the forks can get reach surprising magnitudes, based on a couple of studies conducted.
Made me a less reckless rider.
JONathan

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by Joe on 12/12/2003 at 7:36:35 AM
The fork ends Graylyn speaks about are often refered to as "lawyer lips" and were used in conjunction with keyed tab washers to ensure that a loose or a suddenly released Q/R lever would not allow the wheel to drop out. The wheel should be located in the upper portion of the dropout. The forks used on those bikes were usually made by Akisu.
If you were to position the wheel in the lower part of the dropout, the axle would have no upper support, and have a tendency to slip upward in the opening.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by Gralyn on 12/12/2003 at 3:43:05 PM
Yes, "Lawyer Lips" - that best describes how those fork drop outs look. I will make sure I have the QR positioned in the upper portion of the drop out rather than the lower.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by Mark C. on 12/12/2003 at 6:12:41 PM
I have a Ross Gran Tour and it has the fork drop outs as Gralyn described. In my short time as a VLW collector this is the only bike I have seen these on. I thought them unusual but I noticed they took a little wrangling to remove the axle so I assumed from an engineering point of view that if an axle decided to get loose it may tend to drop into the lower area rather than pop out all together. And this is without adding an extra part or two to meet the safety requirements and in engineering any time you can eliminate parts, that makes the design less expensive and makes the boss happy.

In a related subject the above mentioned Ross GT I have is much too large for me (it's about a 22" or 23" frame -BB to top tube maybe larger). I have removed the parts I wanted from the bike but the frame and fork are in very good condition if anyone is interested in them they can have it for the cost of shipping (I'm in the Philadelphia area). Leave me a post and email address and I'll get in touch with you.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by Ken on 12/15/2003 at 7:47:22 PM
For those who haven't seen these: I rode a Ross Super Gran Tour (full Shimano 600) for a number of years; the front dropouts were not the typical "lawyer lips" but were C-shaped with the opening of the C facing front, so that if you lifted the bike with the QR open, the axle would fall to the bottom of the C, but stay on the bike. This was a better design than the lips which required unscrewing the QR; the Q actually meant quick. Note that although the frame was made in Allentown PA, the fork was Japanese.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Front Fork drop-out - unusual posted by Ken on 12/15/2003 at 7:55:10 PM
For those who haven't seen these: I rode a 79 Ross Super Gran Tour (full Shimano 600) for a number of years; the front dropouts were not the typical "lawyer lips" but were C-shaped with the opening of the C facing front, so that if you lifted the bike with the QR open, the axle would fall to the bottom of the C, but stay on the bike. This was a better design than the lips which required unscrewing the QR; the Q actually meant quick. Note that although the frame was made in Allentown PA, the fork was Japanese.






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Seat post question posted by: Robert on 12/11/2003 at 12:27:43 AM
I need to get a longer seatpost. Nashbar sells some ATB and Road . Is there really a difference ?? Or just marketing hype. The one I want to get looks like a " road style" to me but is labeled ATB .

Thanks



   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Seat post question posted by T-Mar on 12/11/2003 at 2:25:32 AM
Go with whichever post suits your needs. Don't worry about an ATB or road moniker, so long as it provides the necessary leg extension, frame insertion length (to insertion mark on post or blow the top tube junction, whichever is greater) and is the correct diameter.

Originally, ATBs required longer posts because most riders select an off-raod frame that is about 3"-4" smaller than their road frame. While their are numerous advantages to rding smaller ATB frames, the original reason was the extra crotch clearance for sudden, unvolunatary dismounts, on rough terrain. These days with, the introduction of compact frames, road seatposts are getting longer and the frames smaller. One of the theories for compact frames, is that a longer (read flexier)seatpost will provide a more comfortable ride on a stiff, aluminum frame.

Traditional road seatposts also have a setback saddle mounting. However, the zero setback mounting, which was an ATB innovation, finds use on several roadbikes, particularly with triathletes.

      Seat post question posted by John E on 12/11/2003 at 2:29:04 AM
A smallish frame with a moderate amount of seat post showing is good, but a very long seat post can break, and a seat post with less than 5cm of insertion can break the frame, as well.

   RE:   Seat post question posted by JONathan on 12/11/2003 at 4:11:05 AM
Thanks, Tom and John E. My 25" road frames pose no questions about seat-post elevation, but I must check on a couple 23's that I ride with a good amount of freeboard below the seats.
Now, I have to check the stems in front and the seat-posts in the back. As for the MTB's, the posts are up and down depending on conditions and the pipes are longer. Is that 2" rule still applicable for those?
Learn a lot, here, I do.
JONathan

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Seat post question posted by T-Mar on 12/11/2003 at 4:41:29 AM
I would think that the length of seatpost showing should not be a factor in it's failure, provided it is inserted past the engraved limit markings. I would expect any modern seatpost to be engineered so that it will not fail under expected conditions. If there was any expectation for the post to fail, they would not have made it that long in the first place. The potential awards for a lawsuit in such a case should assure that products are engineered to exceed intended use.

The old rule of thumb of 5cm / 2 inches of seatpost insertion is no longer applicable, unless your riding a vintage post/frame combination. The other old rule of inserting the post far enough that you cannot see the end in the slot cut on the back of the seatlug is no longer applicable either. Newer, longer posts require more insertion and you'll often see that the limit engravings on the seatpost require more insertion than 5 cm. Also, many modern bicycles have seat tubes that extend several inches above the top tube. Unless the post is inserted past the bottom of the top tube junction, the force on the seatpost can cause the front of the seat tube to rupture. The top tube junction reinforces the seat tube and many ATBs even have a reinforcing collar on the seat tube that extends downwards just past the top tube junction. So the revised rule is to insert the seatpost at least to the engraved limit on the seatpost, or past the top tube junction, whichever provides greater insertion.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Seat post question posted by JONathan on 12/11/2003 at 7:38:18 AM
Thanks, Tom. I never paid much attention to the MTB seat-post as long as it felt solid, I just clamped it and jumped on. I guess I've been lucky. Sometimes that post is 6-8 inches above the lug.

      Seat post question posted by John E on 12/11/2003 at 10:57:22 PM
T-Mar, my main concern is that the longer the exposed portion of the seat post, the greater the torque the rider's weight exerts on the frame's seat cluster and on the insertion point of the seat post itself. Since the intersection of the top tube and the seat stays provides strength and structural stability, there is a point at which lowering this point and increasing the exposed length of seat post weakens the post-and-frame system.

   RE:   Seat post question posted by JONathan on 12/12/2003 at 2:57:34 AM
I see. Torque limits the height, after a point, where it acts somewhat independent of overlap of the post inside the seat-tube. I had not thought of that condition...which must be important to a heavy rider.
I know it's too high if I start to get seasick from the motion! Fortunately for me, this higher seat extension is an issue with MTB's which seem to have been designed to handle overloading. If the seat breaks off...that's criticality-one, is it not?
Thanks for that timely advice.
JONathan

   RE:   Seat post question posted by T-Mar on 12/12/2003 at 2:54:56 PM
I agree that a longer the post and a heavier rider will place more more torque on the seatpost. It will be increased even more if the saddle is slid as far back as possible and the frame has slck seat tube angle. However, the majority of the load is directed straight down the post and carried by the pinch bolt/seat collar. Only about 30% is transferred into pure torque. Now, I don't profess to know the exact loads that the designers use to engineer their seatposts and frames. However, I'm pretty sure that they design using the heaviest expected cyclist as a model, factor in the dynamic loads and then slap a healthy safety factor on top. They'd be crazy not to, given the potential lawsuits.

I also agree that the intersection of the top tube and the seat stays provides strength and structural stability, and that lowering this point and increasing the exposed length of seat post weakens the post-and-frame system. However, in engineering such a compact frame design, the engineers are aware that a longer seatpost will be used and design the frame appropriately, to compensate for the increased loads. Again, most frames would be designed around a worst case scenario (i.e. longest commericailly available seatpost, heaviest expected rider, etc.)

Having said that, there are some commercial, performance oriented frames and components that specify certain weight limits, life expectancies, etc. For instance, Columbus has always reccommended maximum weight limits for certain tubesets and I can think of some lightweight handlebars that specify life expectancies. I won't go into a whole spiel on failure analysis, but you can be sure that the majority of these parts could be used past their stated limits, though how far past is the $64,000 question. Yes, you will hear of a few cases of failure within the limits, but that is to be expected, given the statistics. The bottom line with these components is that if you exceed the manufacturer's stated limitations, then you do so at your own risk. It's a case of the manufacturers protecting themselves via due diligence warning.

However, I find it difficult to imagine failures of the type that John E. proposes, within the stated limits and normal life expectancy of a frame or seatpost, provided there is sufficient insertion and overlap. Yes, I suppose it could happen, but I think it would be an exceptional case that would be compounded by several other factors.

John E. is a perhaps the most knowledgable of all our posters. I personally value and respect his opinions, but this is just one of these cases where we will have to agree to disagree. This is nothing personal John E, I continue to hold you in my highest esteem. Keep up the good work!




    Seat post question posted by John E on 12/12/2003 at 3:27:04 PM
Thanks much for the kind words and for the vote of confidence, T-Mar. May I use you as a reference if I ever run for Encinitas City Council or Traffic Commission?

Actually, I do have one (tall) friend who has cracked the seat lug of an aluminum frame, but I agree that this may be a statistical outlier, rather than conclusive evidence of any engineering defect.

You do raise the very troubling, fundamental question of reliability versus performance. Has today's obsession with minimizing component and frameset mass reached the point that transportation and recreational cyclists are no longer being served properly? Are modern manufacturers compromising our safety, reliability, and longevity to appease the sponsored racers who get a new bike every season, or perhaps to appeal to a somewhat naive buying public which equates light weight with high quality? This trend may be one factor in the enduring popularity of vintage lightweights, whose geometries, ride qualities, prices, and "fun factor" continue to suit us non-racers beautifully. (I have never been bothered by my 1981 Bianchi's 22lb/10kg, or my 1959 Capo's 24lb/11kg, total mass.)

I do know of at least one modern framebuilder, Harald Cap (www.capo.at), from whom one can order a custom-designed, FEA-optimized frameset which tailors the weight/reliability tradeoff to the owner/rider's size, application, and riding style, but this is, of course, not practical in mass production.

   RE: Seat post question posted by JONathan on 12/12/2003 at 5:39:55 PM
What's been created here, IMHO, is an increased awareness in my mind of critical elements effecting a ride.
Everyone has to assume some judgement, and although experience is a fine teacher, I defer some experiences for expert opinion..and common sense.
I used to think; "If it rolls, I can ride it", and I did just that all the time. I realize that it is not simply a question of "motor-mapping" how to ride the bike.
I just more aware of what can break, and how. These discussions have made me a better rider in that sense.
Performance vs. reliability has gone past the conjunction point where "lighter and stronger" (discussed earlier) relate positively to reliability issues.
It's taken on a level of independence from the reasons stated, IMHO. OTH, I have chosen to regard VLW's as a pinnacle of bicycle evolution.
They are light, strong and reliable. The only issue is metal fatigue, in my way of looking at it. Awareness is all I can hope for, and the discussions, even when in disaggreement, have viable content.
I understand a bit more, but new questions are raised. Vintage LW's are definitely cool.
JONathan

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Seat post question posted by T-Mar on 12/12/2003 at 7:53:56 PM
It's often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to distinguish quality control related material or fabrication failures from poor design engineering. However, I feel that to-day's manufacturers do a better job than ever of engineering the bicycles and controlling the quality. The consumer lawsuits of the seventies ensured that the products would be adequately tested to meet their design criteria. If something is overlooked and failure occurs at more than the expected rate, or if it is of a critical nature, then the product is quickly recalled. No longer do we have manufacturers that are so irresponsible that dangerous equipment is on the road long enough to develop reputations as "death stems", "death forks", etc.

Unfortunately, the consumer wants a bicycle that is light, strong and inexpensive. It was that way in the seventies, is still that way and always will be. I believe it was Keith Bontrager who so succintly paraphrased that you can have any two of those characteristics, but not the third. There is no doubt that consumer pressure is forcing manufacturers to compromise strength/reliability in order to achieve lightness at less cost. Fortunately, this occurs primarily with high end equipment and I do not believe it is a concern for owners of low and mid range bicycles. The saving grace is that manufacturers are stating restrictions with their high end equipment, so buyer be aware. The UCI has also seen this follie and have curtailed the spiral somewhat by placing minimum weight limits on the bicycles the professionals can use. These are all good moves to protect the consumer.


   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Seat post question posted by JONathan on 12/12/2003 at 11:49:37 PM
Well said. To me, the development of incrediblly strong steel alloys has allowed the bike to assume less massive construction...with the same, or better, reliability.
Where the system breaks down has to be the point, as you stated so well, where the trade off of some of that strength and reliability occurs for a slight advantage of
mass desuction uin the frame. I wouldn't be surprised if my 21#, quad-butted "Team Fuji" wasn't as reliable as a 40# Schwinn "varsity" under most normal conditions. Of course, if the frame runs broadside into things, that's different.
The heavy stuff can be pounded out because the "toughness" of the steel is higher...i.e., more ductile. A lot of the Team Fuji is craftsmanship and design to approach what I call the "optimum state" for a LW. It is when things progress past that point, where the "trade-off" rule comes into play.
Also, lighter bikes pick up road noise, so it is hard to have comfort and lightness maximized, IMHO. Of course, geometry has a lot to do with it. Interesting about the weight rules for the TDF.
Reminds me of the 12Meter America's Cup formula. In a way, I like the idea of being creative within design constraints.
JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Seat post question posted by JONathan on 12/12/2003 at 11:54:10 PM
I meant to say; "mass reduction". Did I inadvertantly invent a word?

   Seat post question posted by Elvis on 12/13/2003 at 5:49:13 AM
Never had a seatpost problem with road bikes. Most frames I come across are actually too tall for me or just suitable [only 5'8"]. However, a few years ago I bent a couple BMX and mountainbike seatposts. In fact, on one BMX frame, the lip into which the post inserts was stretched back.
Most [older, anyway] seatposts are marked with a minimum insertion height line. When putting a seat into a smaller road frame [if I'm lucky enough to find one!] I usually leave an extra inch or two after the minimum mark just to err on the side of caution -- if I can I try to leave at least half the post in the seat tube.






MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by: brent on 12/10/2003 at 4:34:34 PM
Since all the bikes were $1, I decided to stop by. I found an older Grand Prix that I figured was worth a buck. I started looking closer at it and realized that it had been upgraded some. Older Cinelli bars and stem, a Dura Ace front deraileur, Grand Compe brakes, and a really cool looking 3T seatpost and an Ideale 80 in good shape. I think I got my moneys worth.


   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by Rob on 12/10/2003 at 5:46:14 PM
Gee...I would say, 'you've done good!!!'. When I found the 3-pulley ARX yesterday(post below), I also found an early Dura-Ace front der., cage gouged up a bit, but it looks good, and is still quite tight....but I had to pay $5CDN for it...With old bikes it's a good idea to always keep your eyes open...often I'm looking for one thing and find another...When I found the 3-Pulley SunTour and the Dura-Ace, I was looking for a hanger bolt for very nice late '70s Cyclone rear der. and a handlebar clamp bolt for an early '70s GB stem...I didn't find those on that trip...

Oh, and the Grand Compe brakes...nice...I'm looking for a caliper retractor spring, I broke, probably from corrosion...the springs on those are a somewhat different configuration...but eventually I'll stumble on to one...low priority at the moment... Lots of fun!!!

   RE:RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by JONathan on 12/10/2003 at 6:24:51 PM
Nice. Every once in a while, a nice one gets salted into the stack for the savvy shopper.
I'm getting good at quick scanning. Those vintage LW's have a distinct "signature". They stand taller, have drop-bars with shredded tape indicating they were road tested for you (burned-in) and....those leather saddles are a give-away. That sounds like a shove-out, rather than a close-out price!
Most I can hope for is $15 and that's at the 1/2-price day. Done good!
JONathan

   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by brent on 12/10/2003 at 7:16:45 PM
Well, I just got done stripping all the parts off. It turns out to be a full early Dura Ace drivetrain with a Crane rear. There's a decal on the lower seattube that says it was made under license to NV Gazelle in Holland. I don't recall having seen that on any other Raleigh I've come across. The fork looks like it had been replaced as it was a japanese Rampar. It also has 24 tpi threaded BB, which doesn't seem right. The Raleigh badging is the older style, so something doesn't seem to add up.

   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by Rob on 12/11/2003 at 12:01:47 AM
Rather intriguing bike...check out this site:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/'hadland/raleigh.htm#_Toc485366702

Try a "Find", using the word, "Gazelle"...a bit of history. Sounds like the bike was made in the Netherlands and shipped to the USA, but why it has all the nice components??? With Crane, Dura-Ace and Grand Compe, I would have to guess it's from about 1975... It's hard to believe someone would have upgraded a Grand Prix in such a way. Any tubing decals...Reynolds??? or maybe Raleigh??? Probably worn off... How about the rims and hubs...what are they???

   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by Rob on 12/11/2003 at 12:18:08 AM
And another site:

http://dura-ace.shimano.com/publish/content/duraace/en/home/history/original_dura-ace.html

Dura-Ace was introduced in 1973...Thanks for bringing up the subject...I now know that what 'Dura-Ace' means...'Dura' = 'Duralumin', the alloy type used and 'Ace' means, of course 'the best'...:)

   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by Rob on 12/11/2003 at 12:22:55 AM
More research...I would push my date guess back to maybe 1973...

http://www.cyclepublishing.com/dcsam.htm

   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by T-Mar on 12/11/2003 at 3:59:21 AM
Brent, the 24TPI does not suprise me. While most of the lower end Raleighs use 26TPI, the frames built at the Carlton shop used 24TPI. Typically, these were the better frames, using Reynolds 531 tubing. However, some of the earlier Grand Prix were also made at Carlton. If Carlton had subcontracted some of these frames, then I would expect them to have specified a 24TPI bottom bracket.

Based on the components, it sounds like someone extensively updated it, sometime between 1974 and 1977. The Dura Ace rear dearilleur was introduced in 1978, so I am asuming (a dangerous thing) that if the upgrade was done in 1978, the owner would have opted for one over a Crane. Raleigh was still using European manufacturers on their lightweights until 1977, when they switched to SunTour. All this points to a customer upgrading the components. Of course, the frame itself could be older.

Rob, thanks for the reference to the Dura Ace site. Some of the info seems to be early by one year. I wonder if the discreapancy is a case their quoted introduction year being a fall manufacturing start or showing, but the components didn't hit the market until the following spring?

   RE:RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by JONathan on 12/11/2003 at 4:25:20 AM
Brent, "under license to NV Gazelle" means what? That the bike was built by Raleigh (or Carlton) to specifications of Gazelle in Holland. or that Gazelle built the bike for Raleigh to be sold in the Netherlands?
Seems to me that Gazelle was absorbed by Derby...date? The older GP's could well be 531 butted, as were the '73''74 RRA's. Then they switched to the heavy 20-30 stuff after that. The time frame seems to fit. I have not seen any
mention of 531 tubing in the GP's, but I have a European component GP that is very light, even with cottered cranks! The decals are long gone except for the painted ones. I think it is lighter than my '77 GP with alloy cranks and SunTour
branded components, but with steel wheels. The seat-stays on the older one are cool. They wrap around the seat-lug.
Dura-Ace is good stuff, too. Man, that was a find and a half!

   RE:RE:RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by brent on 12/11/2003 at 2:43:16 PM
Well, after giving the frame a bath and going over it with a fine tooth comb, so to speak. I found the remnants of a 2030 decal and it looks the other decal means it was made in Holland. It has what I would consider semi-fancy lugs and the upper headtube lug has 72 and another number on the other side. A quick search of the catalogs says that if the frame was a '72, it would have Carlton lugs. The frame has the wrap-around stays that JONathon was talking about. I'll take a couple of pics this afternoon and post them @ http://homepages.udayton.edu/'coeericl/ebay/raleigh.jpg
http://homepages.udayton.edu/'coeericl/ebay/raleigh2.jpg

   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by Rob on 12/11/2003 at 8:25:09 PM
Well, I guess that would kind of "cinch" it...and the frame pretty well looks like a '72 to me. When Dura-Ace came out, based on Tom's comments, likely in early '74, Shimano offered a derailleur set with Dura-Ace front der and other components and a Crane rear der.

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Japan/Shim_DA_d_set.htm

It would appear someone may have switched out the components when the bike was a few years old, or the frame may have been sold new with these components in '74 or '75 say...Quite a surprising find for such a 'plain jane' frame...Nicely done!!!


   RE:MISC:   I love dollar bike day at the GW posted by T-Mar on 12/12/2003 at 12:52:03 AM
Brent, I wouldn't assume the frame is a 1972 based on a 72 stamped on the head lug. I would think that this is an indicator for the angle of the lug. Presumibly, the lug manufacturer would stock these for a least a couple standard angles and would mark them with the appropriate angles so they were distinguishable from each other once they left their bins. From what I recall, 72 degrees is a pretty common head tube angle on a vintage lightweight. Anybody else have an opinion on this?

Unfortunately, most of the early Dura Ace components do not have date codes. I've searched my 2 pair of 1974 brakesets high and low for one, but came up empty handed.






AGE / VALUE:   Collection reduction... posted by: Randy on 12/10/2003 at 9:47:24 AM
In the past year I have collected quite a few bicycles. You can see almost all that I have on my web page. The address is: http://www.geocities.com/randyjawa/index.html
I am starting to put these bikes up for sale on eBay simply because I have too many and I know that I will try to find more. I am offering two Bianchis, one Holdsworth, one Dawes, two Torpados, three Raleighs, several Peugeots, one Motobecane, one Gitane, two Chiordas... I'm sure there are others, but I can't remember them all right now. Please have a look and, if interested, drop me an e-mail. I also have quite a selection of parts that might interest some people. I am very open to the notion of trading as opposed to just selling.







AGE / VALUE:   HIAWATHA posted by: LEROY on 12/10/2003 at 2:22:32 AM
BOUGHT A HIAWATHA AT A AUTION . CAN'T FIND ANY INFO LOOKING FOR HELP! IT'S A MALE,SHIMANO THUMB 3SPEED HUB PAT.#3021728,RIMS SAY MO M.F.G. COM. , BOTH TIRES 26/1 3/8 , SHIMANO TOURNEW BRAKES , HEADLIGHT-WESTERN FLYER 6v 3w , REAR METAL BASKETS COLOR IS SIMULAR TO OLIVE GREEN , CHAIN GAURD IS CHROME THAT READS HIAWATHA ,FRONT AND REAR CHROME FENDERS , DIRECTIONAL LIGHTS C BATTERIES , SERIAL # AS FAR AS I CAN TELL IS 06-021110P0008100,DECALS READ- BMA/6 CERTIFIED , IT'S LICENSED THROUGH CANON CITY Co. I THINK THATS ALL I HAVE , OTHER THAN THE FRAME, HANDLE BAR AND SEAT STYLE WHICH I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DISCIBE IT'S A REALLY NICE BIKE IN GOOD CONDITION. IS THERE ANYONE WHO CAN HELP?


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   HIAWATHA posted by marc on 12/10/2003 at 7:08:05 AM
well I'm not sure when hiawatha went out of business, but telling from the tire size and shimano hub, this bike is probably from no early then the 60's. Without seeing a pic its hard to put a value on it, but if it was up on ebay I'd guess it might fetch between 50 and 100 bucks. Don't know how much you paid for it but the most important thing is if you like it or not.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   HIAWATHA posted by Ron on 12/11/2003 at 12:07:27 PM
The BMA-6 decal came out in the early '70s, maybe 1973 or so. It stands for Bicycle Manufacturers Association, and it means the bike had all the reflectors and safety equipment recommended by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.






AGE / VALUE:   Unusual Derailleur posted by: Rob on 12/10/2003 at 1:12:21 AM
I came across a rear derailleur of design I hadn't seen before. The main body is a SunTour ARX (date coded "AH"...Aug 1984, I think). It has three pulleys in an alloy cage in a roughly triangular arrangement...the furthest one out is slightly smaller than the other two. What would this arrangement have been for? Must be something to do with chain wrap?? A wide range touring bike? What make and model of bike could it have been on? Any ideas? Anyway, I decided at $5CDN, it was cheap enough to buy for the novelty factor...


   RE:AGE / VALUE: Unusual Derailleur posted by Warren on 12/10/2003 at 4:40:58 AM
The Suntour 3 pulley derailleurs also came in a Cyclone model...I believe it was model 6800. The Arx derailleurs were a line just below Cyclone in the early 80's. I think this mid-timeline Cyclone group morphed into Arx after they made some further mods to the Cyclone line. This happened at a time when Suntour was starting to panic as Shimano roared up the food chain. As you guessed, these were an attempt to make a long cage touring derailleur while maintaining crisp shifting. I put one on my wife's road bike...it works well but I find it slightly noisier than other comparable Suntour gears. I haven't tried it on drivetrain requiring big chainwrap. An interesting component, somewhat collectable in good condition. I traded an NIP one for a nice Williams steel crankset. Funny, I've had three of them and now yours...all from Canada.

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: Unusual Derailleur posted by mike on 12/11/2003 at 12:40:57 PM
Had the same type of derailer (ar model I think) on a Nishiki (designed by Norco) touring bike. I was a 3x6 with drilled chain rings and centre-pull brakes. I found the derailer worked quite well and the bike had a dealer sticker from Edmonton Ab.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Unusual Derailleur posted by John R on 12/12/2003 at 4:06:16 AM
Amazing coincidence. A couple of weeks ago I bought an unidentified mid 80s chrome mountain bike at a yard sale that has a Suntour Le Pree rear derailleur with three pulley wheels. The price was right and since I had never seen a three pulley derailleur before, took the bike home. Yesterday while haunting my local thrift store I located an early 90s Nishiki Riviera GT with the same derailleur. Here I've been interested in bicycles for 20 plus years and stumble over two LePrees within weeks of each other. It looks like they were on bikes from the mid 80s to early or mid 90s. Does anyone have any additional information regarding the Le Prees?

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Unusual Derailleur posted by TimW on 12/18/2003 at 12:29:04 AM
I pulled one of the Suntour ARX 3-pulley derailleurs off of a Nishiki International that I updated for my wife. It is a loaded touring frame, with triple crank. The ARX derailleur is a nifty historical piece, but I have moved to a DX mountain derailleur on my wife's bike for smooth indexed shifting.

The ARX will go on an old Norco 5-spd cruiser that I am building up for high novelty interest, somewhere to show off unusual parts. I love finding strange experiments in bicyclery.






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Brake Reach posted by: jack on 12/9/2003 at 6:59:39 AM
Anyone know why the brake reach should be different front to rear? My '71 Paramount Touring and a no-name bike I got today both have Campy sidepulls. Both also have correct brake reach on front yet need/use a dropbolt for rear. Why the difference?



   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Brake Reach posted by JONathan on 12/9/2003 at 8:20:59 AM
Could be they wanted a shorter reach brake for the rear wheel. A bike that can accommodate fenders needs more clearance between the apex of the calipers and the top of the wheel. Some bikes were setup for 27" (or 28") wheels and if a 700 wheel is fitted, there is need for a dropbolt...depending on the brakes that are being used. The idea behind the shorter reach is to get more efficient brake action. since the pivot bolt acts like a fulcrum (reverse?) that multiplies the force used to create friction between the rim and the pads. That's how I see it.
The drop-bolts reduce the distance overwhich the brake reaction force is working. My Vainqueur "999" caliper brakes are strong enough to work efficiently without need of the drop bolts...and smaller caliper brakes, of course. These are my thoughts about it. There are I'm sure, a lot of reasons that could explain what you have observed.

      Brake Reach posted by John E on 12/9/2003 at 5:56:36 PM
For many years, typical English, American, Italian, Austrian, and British bikes featured a longer brake reach on the rear than on the front. A very typical setup would comprise a Weinmann 750 Vainqueur 999 caliper in the back, with a 630 in front. (As I recall, French bikes used comparable reaches front and rear, just as they used 36 spokes per wheel when the British were still using their sensible 32 front / 40 rear combination.) JONathan has alreadly alluded to mudguard clearance, but another argument for shorter reach in front is that one should apply more braking force there, and the asymmetrical caliper reaches will achieve this automatically. Also, the rear caliper's longer reach will prevent bottoming of the control lever in response to compression of that brake's long cable housing.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Brake Reach posted by Corey on 12/11/2003 at 4:14:07 AM
Hi Jack,
Heres another scenario (assuming the bike now has 700c diameter wheels); this happened to me. Perhaps it originally had 27" (I don't know how likely that is) wheels. Perhaps the 27" fork was bent in a crash and replaced with a 700c fork, then fitted later with more modern 700c wheels, requiring a drop bolt in the rear.

I did this on a touring Cannondale (ST-500) I had that had 27" wheels. First the fork was bent in a crash, then replaced with a 700c fork (and I didn't know the difference, being new to this at the time). I later changed the wheels to 700c clinchers.

Or maybe the fork, wheels and rear drop bolt were changed/added at all the same time? Equally likely I suppose.

Have fun!
Corey

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Brake Reach posted by Corey on 12/11/2003 at 4:51:06 AM
...and rear brake drop bolts typically run around $25-30 each at retail.

   RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Brake Reach posted by JONathan on 12/11/2003 at 7:54:30 AM
I've not seen a drop-bolt setup, but I would want a crosspiece to fit against the seat-stays to retard rotary forces working on the brake bridge with condierable mechanical advantage. Is it just a striaght bolt sticking down fastened to the anchor bolt hole in the bridge?
The front has the whole fork crown to buttress the action. I bent the seat-stays once right where the caliper pivot-bolts hit. Cranked the whole rear triangle, but it ran OK. It was an old Bottechia...wish I had kept it!
JONathan

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Brake Reach posted by T-Mar on 12/11/2003 at 1:46:04 PM
John E's statement of mixed brake reach lengths on several bicycles is correct, for the reasons stated both by himself and JONathan.

John E. is also correct about the standard compents mix being Campagnolo NR, except for the brakes, which were usually a Schwinn approved version of the Weinmann 999 Vainqueur. Camapgnolo brakes would have been an option. I suspect that the bike orignally came with the Schwinn approved centre-pull brakes, but that original owner eventually decided to upgrade the brakes so that everything matched. Aftermarket brakes would have been sold in matching pairs, necessitating the purchase of a drop bolt. If the bicyle had come factory equipped with the Campagnolo brakes, I suspect that they would have installed a long reach brake on the rear.

Most Schwinn literature for the period shows centre-pull equipped Paramounts, but I have one road test showing a Paramount with Campagnolo brakes. The photo depicts a longer reach rear brake on the rear, rather than a standard reach with drop-bolt.

JONathan, there is no concern about drop bolts rotating on the brake bridge. The brake mounts using a standard bolt that passes through the hole in the brake bridge to prevent rotation. The boss between the brake bridge and caliper arms is enlarged or elongated so that the shaft which passes through the caliper arms can be offset relative to the brake bridge bolt. It's hard to describe, but imagine a single cylinder crankshaft that has been cut in the middle of a throw. The main bearing shaft would be the brake bridge bolt, while the throw (proper term?)where the piston rod mounts would be the shaft where the caliper arms mount. Hope I haven't confused you?

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Brake Reach posted by JONathan on 12/11/2003 at 5:05:43 PM
Thanks, Tom. I am easily confused, but as it reaches astral proportions...everything looks crystal. Like Chaos Theory.
Applies well to vintage LW's IMHO. Yes, I see now what the deal is on those bolts. I was interested in trying that on a Schwinn "Sports Tourer" that has a 27" (that's right, 27) frame. I mean it's head and shoulders (bars and seat?) yowering above the herd, like some kind of lookout.
If I went to 700C wheels, even the Vainqueurs (Schwinn Approved) may not handle the reach. The bike may handle a bit funny, I don't know, but it'll look cool. Would this have been a special order bike? Right now, the bike is torn down for rebuild...it has had a tough life, it appears. The frame is true and the paint is holding up fairly well.
Why would someone leave this quality of bike to rot behind the barn? I have no clue who could ride this monster, except it will be a conversation piece to be sure.
Thanks for the great explanation.
JONathan






AGE / VALUE:   Tubing Decals for Sale posted by: T-Mar on 12/8/2003 at 7:25:25 PM
In re-organizing my work area, I realized I have approximately 50 tubeset decals. These decals are new, old stock. Prices are $US. Free shipping.

Columbus SLX ($12), Columbus SPX ($12), Columbus Cromor ($10), Columbus Cromor fork decals ($2 per pair), Columbus Matrix ($8), Columbus Matrix fork decals ($2 per pair), Tange 2 ($10), Tange Infinity ($6), Tange 900 ($6), Tange MTB ($10), Tange MTB fork decals ($2 per pair), Tange MTB OS ($8), Tange Infinity MTB ($6). Limit of one decal, per type, per customer.







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Gentleman 81 posted by: Gralyn on 12/8/2003 at 1:10:03 PM
I have a Gentleman 81 front wheel - with a high flange hub. I would like to locate a rear wheel to match it. Or, if anyone out there needs a front wheel to match a rear one they have. Anyway, I have one that needs a mate - it's just not doing all that well to have a single wheel.


......but, you never really know: I had a bike that had rear Schumann....then later, I found another bike that had a front Schurmann.....now I have a set! The same thing happened with a Samir Saminov!.......But it's not happened with the Gentleman 81 yet.







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Tire / rim fit problems posted by: Gralyn on 12/8/2003 at 12:56:56 PM
I got started on my Ross project: taking the best of 2 Ross's to put on one bike. I started with the wheels. One of the wheelsets uses alloy Weinmann rims - 27 X 1 1/4. Getting the old tires off them was quite a challenge. First, I deflated them. But, they still felt as though they had air in them. I thought maybe someone had filled them with "fix-a-flat" of something. Well, it turns out - this was not the case. Actually, the tires were just that hard. Carlaisle Supers - something like that. Anyway, I could not get them off. I ended up having to cut them off. I had to cut the wire beads with wire cutters. (I thought the wire bead would be one steel wire - but there were actually 4 steel wires each side - that I had to cut. Once the tires were off, I cleaned and polished the wheels, etc. Then, attempted to install new tires. I could not get the tires to go on. Not even the first side. I checked everything again - yes, it was all the correct sizes. I then tried a different set of tires - still, no fit. I kept working and struggling with them - I ended up pinching 2 tubes. Finally, I got them on.

I had just put a set of tires - all same sizes - on a set of Shurmann, German rims the other day - the tires seemed pretty loose on the rims. I suppose there is just a lot of variation in the sizes of rims out there.

It seems I remember reading a post about putting wax on the rims in order to get the tires on easier. Does this work? Next time I run into this problem - I may try something like that.


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Tire / rim fit problems posted by Rob on 12/8/2003 at 6:16:28 PM
Most of the time I don't have too much trouble with tires...but occasionally...on one of my favorite bikes, my brother had put on a new tire before I got the bike...front wheel...Mavic 27 x 1 1/4 (I forget the model)...I dread getting a flat, a real struggle getting the tire both off and on...yet the markings on the tire indicate that it's the right size...my fingers are absolutely fatigued after wrestling with that tire...the next flat, particularly if it happens at home (ie slow leak or such), will probably be it for that tire...of course, it might fit some other rim just fine... And, another tire, hardly used, on my daily commuter, from a well-known high-end maker, gave me about half a dozen flats over the period of about a week...I absolutely could not find the problem...even when I carefully isolated the problem area, and used a 10x loupe...that was enough...even a cheapskate like myself decided to chuck the tire... I don't want to 'jinx' myself, which I probably am doing, but I've gone, I think, close to four months without a flat, and I commute daily to and from work!!! I think this is my longest flat-free period....

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Tire / rim fit problems posted by Ken on 12/8/2003 at 6:41:12 PM
I have a squirt bottle of Simoniz or something, probably a silicone base made for detailing cars, on my bench, and when mounting a tire I spray some on a rag and wipe the tire beads with it. Makes tires much easier to work with. The trick is to keep it off the rims; that's why the rag.

     Tire / rim fit problems posted by John E on 12/8/2003 at 9:56:41 PM
Been there, done that. I do like the Continental Ultra 2000 700Cx23s on my Bianchi, but they are such a tight fit on my NOS Campag. Omega rims that I plan to replace them with something else next time around. A tyre/rim combination which requires tyre levers for BOTH beads is going to be a pain someday during an on-the-road repair.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Tire / rim fit problems posted by paul on 12/9/2003 at 12:14:53 AM
My son and I both have several bicycles. One day I was having problems with a 27inch wheel and tire....he was having a similar problem....tires were lumpy and wouldn't seat......we swapped my 27 and 1/8 for his 27 and 1/4...no more struggle, no more bad seating of the bead...hope this helps the next person! paul

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Tire / rim fit problems posted by JONathan on 12/9/2003 at 3:47:19 AM
That soumds like the tires aren't supposed to be put on the rims...I have bunged up a lot of tires doing that.
One thing that helps my cause in these tough ones is a set of high quality tire irons, not the plastic blunt ones or cheapo steel with squarish edges and thick ends. I wish I could find another set.
I have used warm water in a plastic tub to soften the tires on cold days. Temperature makes a difference in the pliability of the harder compounds, but the irons have to be thin and strong to get those tight beads over the rim.
A fun one is an Avocet "20" on a Weinmann 2113 rim. I needed all three irons. Performance has its downside, I guess.
JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Tire / rim fit problems posted by Joe on 12/9/2003 at 7:28:32 AM
The worst rims I've run across so far is a set of Wolber Gentlemans. Some tires fit better than others but all are extremely tight on these rims.
I have a set of Rigida 1320's with a set of higher end 27 x 1" skinwalls that are a hassle to mount and dismount as well. There are always slight differences in sizing among tire manufacturers, and some rims due to their sidewall design and relief area that are particularly difficult to mount a tire on. The more the middle of the rim drops away from the bead seat area, the easier it is to get the beads over the sidewall of the rim. On the tough one's, I use a little soap and water for lube, this rises away and doesn't affect the braking surface.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Tire / rim fit problems posted by Fred on 12/9/2003 at 11:21:04 PM
I remove and replace tires and tubes on about 30 bikes a year. A fair number of these jobs involve tires that are too loose or too tight. Given my choice I prefer, that if there is a problem, it be with tires that are too tight. In the event a tire won't seat correctly when dry, I squirt a good amount of soapy water on the tire and rim and pressure them up until they seat, or no more than 10 psi over the limit. If that doesn't work I place 4 clamps at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions around the wheel with the tube deflated. I soap up again and slowly pressure up making sure that the tire and rim are concentric. In all my experience, only one tire has defeated me. if the tire is too loose and seats with a high spot it will blow when pressurized. Neighbors still rib me about the time I blew two tubes and caused a near panic in our RV park. My solution is to pressure up a litle and work the tire even all around, then pressure up a litle higher until the tire is at recommended pressure. If you are lucky this will work. The problem is that any number of things can throw the tire out of place at some point around the bead resulting in a blowout. As for tire levers, I use a 10 year old set of Park blue plastic levers that I can pry with all my strength and they will not break or. A friend of mine bought a nice Fuji road bike last winter. He brought it down for me to mount a new tire on the rear. Knowing little about bikes he assumed that some idiot had foolishly glued the tire on the rim. I sent him to a good shop in town and they did the job for about twice what my friend paid for the bike. I have a feeling that I will get a nice Fuji on the occasion of his next flat.






AGE / VALUE:   aluminum cannondale posted by: marc on 12/8/2003 at 4:05:06 AM
a friend wants to sell me a bike. It looks like a cannondale frame. It's aluminum, no paint, or decals, not sure what model it is. It has shimano components; crank, shimano xtr derailers. Rear wheel is a rolf, front is a mavic rim with a specialized hub. I don't remember what the stem was, the handlebars were hybrid type, they are composite. It's a cool looking bike and very light, I'm sure its less than 20 pounds. He's asking 250, is this a good price? I mainly ride vintage bikes but I've been meaning to get something newer. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


   RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by jack on 12/9/2003 at 3:55:15 AM
Practically everyone I've ever asked says Al frame w/racing geometry are stiff (read not comfortable). As far as styling, they have no panache, machine welded in orient. Of course I'm old-fashioned so someone in his/her 20's may view steel frames with the same disdain. As far as price, how can you lose if that's what you really want. What is it...that we really want?

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by JONathan on 12/9/2003 at 6:36:35 AM
I got my first Aluminum bike this year; Raleigh-USA "technium" about 1990 (Thanks, Tom) vintage.
The lugged frame is a bit different from TIG welded species. This one is "thermally bonded". Cannondales are excellent bikes form all that I've heard from owners.
Before forking out that kind of dough, or any kind of dough, I check the frame and forks for fatigue or damage, especially for Al frames. I have to guess how a bike has been treated since they are usually from rummage sales or charity store lots.
You have some information, there. I think Cannondales were over-built, I mean, take a look! A good candidate for buying used. Thirdly, I look at how the bike fits. A good fit is probably the first thing I would check, before bothering with anything.
Next, how much do you ride? If you ride everyday...my goal...then $250 is not a lot to fork out. I see a lot of Cannondales around here on the road. Probably could do a lot worse on price, but my "technium" was $35 and it was hardly used...somebody just wanted a cool bike to look at.
Bottom line? Cannondales are quality bikes and if it is in good shape, you like it (that's important) and you have the bucks and can help a friend out...I would give it a go.
Just my 2.
JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by marc on 12/9/2003 at 7:32:53 AM
thanks for the advice. The bike fits and it is a sweet ride. I do like to ride everyday when possible, not always so here in chicago, but I usually ride as long as there's no snow on the ground. And just so everyone knows, I love vintage bikes, I have about 20. Steel doesn't bother me. I have a great raleigh record ltd that is my favorit ride. This cdale just caught my eye. My thing is, I haven't really dealt with any bikes like this. I guess I'm just really wondering if the components on the frame are worth the price? rolf and mavic wheels for instance. are these quality components? how about the shimano xtrs?

   RE:RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by JONathan on 12/9/2003 at 4:38:52 PM
Yes, the Raleigh "LTD" is a great ride. I have Wolber 700C heavy-duty touring wheels on mine with a 3-sp. SA hub; MTB handlebars; bluemel fenders and Blackburn rack with panniers. These are great "Frankenbike" material.
I know what you mean about the C-dales. I see a lot on the road, but not vintage bikes. Some frames look pretty stout; like they weren't taking any chances. They are pretty fast, too. I can't catch them on my "Traveler" unless they have to make a stop!
My aluminum tubed "technium" is a very balanced bike. Whoever designed it obviously rode bicycles a lot...same with the C-dales, I would think. As for the dullness attributed to Al frames. The larger tubed models probably have something to differentiate them from steel, but I notice only a slight difference on the "technium".
I'm used to steel frames, so I tend to favor the softer ride, but I'm not racing either. The true test is on a longer ride. I wouldn't (couldn't) tour with my "technium". The tires are too small (23-622) for commuting. As a quick spin on the paths or in the hills, beating darkness home, it's a winner!
I think the XTr stuff is pretty decent. It's more a question of condition. Unless you race, why go for top-of-the-line, when the value increase is miniscule for the increase in price...unless a few seconds over 100 miles makes a big difference!
JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by JONathan on 12/9/2003 at 4:56:03 PM
Oh, the wheels! Mavic is a major make. Some of their rims are leading-edge technology. The Rolf's were used on Treks, if I'm not mistaken. Trek is a quality bike, too. Since there is such a wide spectrum of wheel quality and condition is probably the most important issue in used stuff...from a brand that has quality throughout the line.
I'm interested in learning about the Rolf wheels. I know that wheelsets aren't cheap...probably near the $200 mark right there for higher end. Scares me a bit to look at the prices.

   :RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by Warren on 12/9/2003 at 9:29:34 PM
Rolf Vector wheelsets are currently running around $800. Unless you're racing, you don't want these. About the Cannondale...if you've never had a high end race bike, buy it. It's cheap at the price and they are wonderfully quick and responsive. If you really like steel frames, you'll come back to them and get your money back for the C-dale.I had two C-dales...a T-1000 loaded tourer and an R500 done up with all retro friction components and it was fun. Doesn't rust in the winter although there wasn't clearance for fenders. I finally found a couple of other steel frames that replaced the two Cannondales and I don't miss them...but they were still fine bikes.

   RE::RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by marc on 12/9/2003 at 10:57:57 PM
thanks again for the advice guys. My raleigh record ltd is set up all original, except for the tape and tires. It's a real looker too, even has the "r" bolts. Made in england, has the suntour raleigh badged derailers. Best of all, I paid 10 bucks for it at the salvation army. It was well taken care of, maybe someone's pretty bike to look at. when I got it home I aired up the tires and took it for a spin and fell in love. I haven't been able to find much info on it. It's definately of higher quality then the record model. I think the record had cottered cranks, not to many brazed joints, my ltd is cotterless with brazing throughout. I think it's from the mid seventies.

Well about the c-dale, I think I'm going to get it and give it a good go. I am confident I can make my money back on it if I decide its not for me. Maybe I'll break it up, upgrade some of my other bikes and sell the frame.

   RE:RE::RE:AGE / VALUE: aluminum cannondale posted by JONathan on 12/10/2003 at 12:04:22 AM
Thanks for the info, Fred. I see C-dales as a blur going by. They flat out burn, possibly due to the riders.
Most pass me without a lot of goofy antics, not foolng around. Usually they're by me before I'm aware they are coming up.
I guess if I weighed in at 150# and rode one, things might be different. I'm used to reeling in the MTBs and LW's with poor maintenence, especially the ones running low air.
I agree, they are cool looking bikes. I hope it works out. Good luck.
JONathan






FOR SALE:   leather saddles posted by: Bob on 12/8/2003 at 1:02:59 AM
I have three leather saddles i would like to sell i want $40.00+ shipping i think one is french two are english


   leather saddles posted by John E on 12/8/2003 at 9:58:03 PM
Brands/models/condition? I could use another Brooks Pro or two ...






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by: Beth on 12/7/2003 at 6:17:43 AM
Hi everyone,
A while ago I ran across a Licoln manufactured in Chicago. It was completely unfamiliar to me as a brand. This example was a mens frame single speed w/ coaster brake. And I think it may have had 28" wheels. I have been doing at little research. I believe they were involved with Schwinn, and can find no mention of this maker past c.1950, but nothing else. Does anyone have any information on these bikes? Or could anyone point me in the direction of some? Even a better place to post would be welcome. Thank you.
Beth


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by andym on 12/7/2003 at 10:55:04 AM
Beth,I've never heard of the "Lincoln" brand but it could very well be a Schwinn. Arnold,Schwinn & co. rebadged many of their bicycles with the name of whatever store was selling them or any name that store wanted put on the bicycles that they sold.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Kevin K on 12/7/2003 at 6:44:37 PM
Hi. What names dis Schwinn use when they rebadged their bikes? Kevin

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by JONathan on 12/7/2003 at 8:16:40 PM
Does it look anything like this one?....http://www.ann-arbor-bicycleshow.com/images/60.jpg
Is there a serial number on the head-tube? Try the Schwinn serial number chart listed at this site.
There were several bikes named after cars and usually the luxury models, like Packard, Cadillac and Lincoln.
Wow! You may have a very collectible bike. Check the "balloon tire" pages or search the archives using "lincoln".
JONathan

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by JONathan on 12/7/2003 at 8:28:10 PM
I just checked the archives of "Balloon and Middleweights", searching with "Lincoln". I got back a lot of posts!
The serial number would be under the bottom bracket most likely. That is the large tube that supports the crank, that's the large chainring and pedal assembly.
Good luck, I hope this helps.

   RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Beth on 12/8/2003 at 1:37:39 AM
Thanks everyone. Your response has been great. I am still a bit confused as this bike is not a balloon tire job. At least I don't believe so. The tires are shreads on the rims. It is however a simple diamond frame design. I will try posting to the middles weights. Sorry I don't have any info on serial numbers or what not.
Thank you.
Beth

   RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Ken on 12/8/2003 at 6:50:46 PM
Beth, Kevin and all, the expression "Schwinn-built" means made by Schwinn in Chicago for other distributors. Schwinn didn't rebadge them, the distributors put their own badge on. There are lots of older Schwinns with Lincoln badges. In some cases, distributors sold bikes made by more than one company with the same badge - Chicago Cycle Supply sold Schwinns and Murrays with the Liberty badge - so don't take it for granted. If you have a lightweight Lincoln, I'd like to see a picture. Have you checked the picture database? MAybe you'll see something similar.

   RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Joel on 12/8/2003 at 8:56:55 PM
Schwinn used the Lincoln badge and many others before WWII. Is yours a track, touring, or cruiser bike? Got pix?

Here's a 34 Packard track bike...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/5529/VSGMYXACGOLW[GUTZWNE-badge.jpg

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Beth on 12/8/2003 at 11:26:46 PM
Joel,
Your pic is very close. The badgeing doesn't match and the handle bars were on the other way up. The only two listed in the database don't have pics.
I do not actually have this bike, it was part of a load of props from a haunted house. I have no idea if I could track it down again. It was also in VERY rough shape. I was curious about it and as to its value, if any. I just have a whistful feeling this will be my "one that got away".

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Beth on 12/8/2003 at 11:27:53 PM
PS. Joel, I'd call it a touring frame like a typical single or 3 speed Schwinn, Raleigh etc.

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Corey on 12/9/2003 at 5:46:09 AM
Here is a bit more on Lincoln: This from "Collecting and Restoring Antique Bicycles" by G. Donald Adams. In the listing of "2100 bicycle brands" in appendix C, it lists two Lincoln manufacturers/brands: 1st is the Climax Cycle Co., of Chicago, "first notice 1896"; 2nd is Frank W. Swett Mfg. Co., of Chicago, "first notice 1898". If it was any of those, it was long before the balloon tire era. Hope that adds to the knowledge/confustion base.

Corey

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Corey on 12/9/2003 at 5:48:19 AM
Er, knowledge/confusion base...

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Joel on 12/9/2003 at 3:31:43 PM
I was assuming this was a Schwinn bike since it had Chicago on the badge. Maybe it is an earlier bike. Anything made before the early 30s would have 28" glue-on tires.

It is certainly worth tracking down. Post a picture if you find it.

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Corey on 12/10/2003 at 2:07:45 AM
"...early 30s would have 28" glue-on tires."
Not all the tires (or even most), this is interesting; an 1895 Rambler clincher rim used a wooden rim with a tubular tire that had edges of the casing turned outward engaging the inwardly turned edges of the rim (no glue), sort of like the modern clincher.

The modern TUFO Tubular/Clincher does sort of the same thing, where the tire is a tubular but with a clincher casing that goes on a normal clincher rim. (Supposedly is more pinch flat resistant and cyclocross tires can be run at lower pressures.)

Sorry for getting off topic; back to Chicago Mfg's. There were many, many Chicago builders before 1900.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Lincoln Bicycle posted by Ken on 12/10/2003 at 7:20:53 PM
There's a clear pic of a Chicago Cycle Supply Lincoln badge on Jim Langley's site
http://www.jimlangley.net/brake/usplatesleftdetail2.html
He says it's one of his favorites...