25 or bigger?

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

Since it was given to me by the bike shop last September I have
changed (in chronological order) the crankset, saddle, bottom bracket,
downtube shifters, brake levers, handlebars, fork, cassette, chain,
rear derailleur, wheelset, crankset, bottom bracket, front derailleur,
and stem.

It still has the original frame, headset, seat post, handlebar tape,
brakes, pedals and front inner tube.

Triple up front, mountain bike 11-28 on back, friction downtube for
the front derailleur, indexed downtube for the rear derailleur. The
current tires are 700x23 Bontrager Race X-Lites.

I'm thinking of going with wider tires and another new fork that is a
little bit taller and that has eyelets for a front rack so I can be
prepared in the event of ever having the time to do a fully loaded
tour. The current Bontrager tires can then be spares for the race
bike and I'll be less worried about flats (and more comfortable) when
I take the bike on the bad roads. Before spending the last two weeks
in Qinghai I had this idea (hope/dream/plan) of maybe riding this bike
to Tibet some day but I did not altitude adapt well when I was up
there and I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to go high like that by
bike.

The bike shop says I can go as wide as 700x25 without changing my
current brakes. I'm willing to change my current brakes. On an
aluminum Giant frankenbike with Dura Ace bolts holding the Ultegra
granny gear to the FSA octalink crankset, a Brooks saddle, a Tiagra
front derailleur an Alivio rear derailleur and 105 wheels ... there
are very few reasons against changing the brakes. Why not go Tektro?

Seriously, how big a comfort difference am I going to get by changing
the tires from 700x23 to 700x25? Would it be a better idea to go even
wider or are 25s wide enough for roads that haven't been repaved or
maintained since the mid 1960s? I've done these same roads with the
23s and while it hurt it was doable.

-M

[landotter]

On Jul 24, 10:54 am, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Seriously, how big a comfort difference am I going to get by changing
> the tires from 700x23 to 700x25?

Not much, but you'll be able to run a few psi lower. I find 28mm to be
the point where the width difference is truly palpable. I run a bike
with 23mm tires and one with 30mm tires. While the 23mm tired ride
feels a bit nippier off the line, the 30mm tired bike feels much more
confident and comfortable.

Mount the fattest you can fit, which hopefully will be a 28mm tire. It
does sort of shock me that modern road bikes have gone to such
unnecessary tight clearances that we have to have this conversation at
all.

[Zoot Katz]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:54:09 -0000, "marian.rosenberg@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> asked:
\
>Seriously, how big a comfort difference am I going to get by changing
>the tires from 700x23 to 700x25? Would it be a better idea to go even
>wider or are 25s wide enough for roads that haven't been repaved or
>maintained since the mid 1960s? I've done these same roads with the
>23s and while it hurt it was doable.

Personally, given enough clearance, I'd go to at least 28mm for the
loads and roads involved in touring.

I've toured on 1 1/8" and 1 1/4" tires and found the 1 1/4" less
troublesome.

So, if you've got room for 32mm don't be a weight-weenie over the
issue. It's easier to save weight by leaving stuff at home when
you're touring.
--
zk

[Booker C. Bense]

In article <1185292449.258466.297850@x35g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
marian.rosenberg@gmail.com <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The bike shop says I can go as wide as 700x25 without changing my
>current brakes. I'm willing to change my current brakes.
>

You can't change brakes w/o changing the bike frame. The bike
frame is designed to a specific brake reach and size. If you
put on brakes with a longer reach, you have to get smaller
wheels ( See various 650B rants. )

> Why not go Tektro?
>

I dunno, I've been very happy w/mine. They lack snob appeal and
the chrome bits are subject to cosmetic rust, but they stop the bike just
fine.

>Seriously, how big a comfort difference am I going to get by changing
>the tires from 700x23 to 700x25?

Depends how much you weigh, if you can run 25's at a lower than
average PSI ( like 90 or so ) you might get a significant
benefit. The quality of the tire matters as well, some tire are
bricks[1] and some are much nicer. The other thing to be attentive
to is that tire sizing is often very misleading. Two tires marked
700x25 can actually have significantly different widths when
mounted on the rims.

> Would it be a better idea to go even
>wider or are 25s wide enough for roads that haven't been repaved or
>maintained since the mid 1960s?

_ Not for me, I like 32mm tires for bad roads, I can live with
25mm tires if the sections aren't too long, or are all uphill.

> I've done these same roads with the
>23s and while it hurt it was doable.
>

There is a tire made for exactly your problem, it's called the
Rivendell Rolly-Polly. It's about the biggest tire that will fit
in current short reach brakes ( most true 28mm are too tall ).

http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/tires/622.html

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- Generally the more "puncture resistant" the tire claims to
be the worse it rides. Stiff sidewalls make for poor riding
tires.

[Camilo]

Have you actually tried the 28 mm tires? The reason I say this is I
have a full on race type bike (Cannondale CAAD7) with Ultegra brakes.
I can squeeze 28 mm in there. The clearance of the brakes is tight,
but I can get them through the brake pads using only the quick
release. The brake adjustment itself is pretty "normal", not
unusually wide. The frame has plenty of clearance on the seat stays.
This particular frame is kind of tight with the 28's as far as the
seat tube goes - the tire goes pretty close to the front derailleur
bracket on the seat tube. This is a chain stay length issue - if the
chain stays were just a cm. longer it wouldn't even be close.

My old bike, a Bianchi racing type frame, with very similar frame and
brake clearances to the cannondale also ran 28s happily for many
years.

If your main issue for using the 28's is the brake clearance, I would
try it before giving up.

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 25, 12:38 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
24...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <1185292449.258466.297...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>
> marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The bike shop says I can go as wide as 700x25 without changing my
> >current brakes. I'm willing to change my current brakes.
>
> You can't change brakes w/o changing the bike frame. The bike
> frame is designed to a specific brake reach and size. If you
> put on brakes with a longer reach, you have to get smaller
> wheels ( See various 650B rants. )

I'm not changing the frame. I've changed too much on this bike
already.

> > Why not go Tektro?
>
> I dunno, I've been very happy w/mine. They lack snob appeal and
> the chrome bits are subject to cosmetic rust, but they stop the bike just
> fine.

Ahh, that was tongue in cheek. I've got so many other brands on this
bike, and if I could, in fact, figure out something to make Sora I'd
have the entire Shimano road line-up represented.

> >Seriously, how big a comfort difference am I going to get by changing
> >the tires from 700x23 to 700x25?
>
> Depends how much you weigh, if you can run 25's at a lower than
> average PSI ( like 90 or so ) you might get a significant
> benefit. The quality of the tire matters as well, some tire are
> bricks[1] and some are much nicer. The other thing to be attentive
> to is that tire sizing is often very misleading. Two tires marked
> 700x25 can actually have significantly different widths when
> mounted on the rims.

I'm hovering around 90kg. My current 700x23s are ~100rmb Bontrager
Race X-Lites and they're quite nice compared to, say, the ~30rmb Chen
Shin Tires I had on before.

> > Would it be a better idea to go even
> >wider or are 25s wide enough for roads that haven't been repaved or
> >maintained since the mid 1960s?
>
> _ Not for me, I like 32mm tires for bad roads, I can live with
> 25mm tires if the sections aren't too long, or are all uphill.

The specific bad road that I am most likely to ride this bike on is a
415 km stretch of semi-coastal highway with some mountains going from
Sanya to Haikou. The 280km route is currently being repaved. The
310km route is half mountain. Also, I'd like to take this bike
touring some day and that could mean bad roads.

(Tibet plans were previously a in-the-future thing and have since been
put even more on hold until we find out why my heart rate and blood
pressure and EKG were normal but I still managed to collapse in the
middle of the street from oxygen deprivation while walking in Qinghai)

> > I've done these same roads with the
> >23s and while it hurt it was doable.
>
> There is a tire made for exactly your problem, it's called the
> Rivendell Rolly-Polly. It's about the biggest tire that will fit
> in current short reach brakes ( most true 28mm are too tall ).
>
> http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/tires/622.html
>
> _ Booker C. Bense
>
> [1]- Generally the more "puncture resistant" the tire claims to
> be the worse it rides. Stiff sidewalls make for poor riding
> tires.

I don't seem to get many punctures. Pinch flats. Sidewall blowouts.
But not punctures.

-M

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 25, 2:37 am, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:54:09 -0000, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
> <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> asked:
> \
>
> >Seriously, how big a comfort difference am I going to get by changing
> >the tires from 700x23 to 700x25? Would it be a better idea to go even
> >wider or are 25s wide enough for roads that haven't been repaved or
> >maintained since the mid 1960s? I've done these same roads with the
> >23s and while it hurt it was doable.
>
> Personally, given enough clearance, I'd go to at least 28mm for the
> loads and roads involved in touring.

We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.

Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
putting in a new one higher up?

And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?

-M

[Booker C. Bense]

In article <1185335620.579198.145660@z24g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
marian.rosenberg@gmail.com <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>The specific bad road that I am most likely to ride this bike on is a
>415 km stretch of semi-coastal highway with some mountains going from
>Sanya to Haikou. The 280km route is currently being repaved. The
>310km route is half mountain. Also, I'd like to take this bike
>touring some day and that could mean bad roads.

Well, people tour on just about anything, but you wouldn't catch
me trying to do loaded touring on a bike that could only take
25mm tires even on good roads.

All the bits from your current bike[1] will work just fine on a newer
frame ( or older frame ) that will work with bigger tires.

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- Except the brake calipers.

[Booker C. Bense]

In article <1185367736.921954.127020@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
marian.rosenberg@gmail.com <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
>tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
>stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.
>
>Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
>rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
>an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
>putting in a new one higher up?

You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.

>
>And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
>(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>

Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
the vibration to the hands. See

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html#mixing

You might also consider various shock
absorbing seat posts. They add weight, but the good
ones do take some of the harseness out of the road.

_ Booker C. Bense

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <1185367736.921954.127...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
>
> marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
> >tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
> >stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.
>
> >Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
> >rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
> >an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
> >putting in a new one higher up?
>
> You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
> rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
> techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.

****. This particular bike is special to me and with having a race
bike and mountain bike in my stable the niche it currently fits into
is daily bike and trainer. I was hoping I could make it fit into
touring category as well because even if I'm not likely to do real
loaded touring for a while yet I don't want to need a fourth bike to
do it


> >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
> >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>
> Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
> the vibration to the hands. See

28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
front before things are wonky.

> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html#mixing
>
> You might also consider various shock
> absorbing seat posts. They add weight, but the good
> ones do take some of the harseness out of the road.

I've got a Brooks saddle so I'm pretty good on shock absorbing.

-M

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:36:20 -0000, "marian.rosenberg@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
>25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> In article <1185367736.921954.127...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
>>
>> marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
>> >tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
>> >stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.
>>
>> >Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
>> >rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
>> >an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
>> >putting in a new one higher up?
>>
>> You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
>> rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
>> techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.
>
>****. This particular bike is special to me and with having a race
>bike and mountain bike in my stable the niche it currently fits into
>is daily bike and trainer. I was hoping I could make it fit into
>touring category as well because even if I'm not likely to do real
>loaded touring for a while yet I don't want to need a fourth bike to
>do it
>
MIG welding isn't that hard to find these days. I don't know that I'd
want to weld a new brake bridge so close to where the other had been.
More frequently tubes break adjacent to the weld and that metal in
the seat stay has already been distorted by the previous welding.
>
>> >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
>> >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>>
>> Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
>> the vibration to the hands. See
>
>28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
>front before things are wonky.

The wider front tire should always give you better steering and
braking on loose surfaces. When running one studded tire on snow,
it's the front one.
>
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html#mixing
>>
>> You might also consider various shock
>> absorbing seat posts. They add weight, but the good
>> ones do take some of the harseness out of the road.
>
>I've got a Brooks saddle so I'm pretty good on shock absorbing.
>
When I started reading this group leather saddles were widely
disparaged by the masses. Lately I've been seeing them and hearing of
other people using them more and more frequently. A Brooks boinger
usually cuts weight over most suspension seat posts sporting a
gel-filled wide saddle.
--
zk

[Booker C. Bense]

In article <1185417380.387203.21790@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
marian.rosenberg@gmail.com <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
>25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
>> >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>>
>> Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
>> the vibration to the hands. See
>
>28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
>front before things are wonky.
>

I'd guess at least 25-35 would be okay. At some point you are
going to create enough height difference that you'll change the
handling of the bike (this is not good or bad just different.)

If you have an older hard tail MTB, that actually might make a
better canidate for conversion to Frankentourer.

_ Booker C. Bense

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Jul 25, 10:36 pm, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
>
>
>
>
>
> 25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > In article <1185367736.921954.127...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
>
> > marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
> > >tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
> > >stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.
>
> > >Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
> > >rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
> > >an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
> > >putting in a new one higher up?
>
> > You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
> > rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
> > techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.
>
> ****. This particular bike is special to me and with having a race
> bike and mountain bike in my stable the niche it currently fits into
> is daily bike and trainer. I was hoping I could make it fit into
> touring category as well because even if I'm not likely to do real
> loaded touring for a while yet I don't want to need a fourth bike to
> do it
>
> > >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
> > >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>
> > Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
> > the vibration to the hands. See
>
> 28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
> front before things are wonky.
>
> >http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html#mixing
>
> > You might also consider various shock
> > absorbing seat posts. They add weight, but the good
> > ones do take some of the harseness out of the road.
>
> I've got a Brooks saddle so I'm pretty good on shock absorbing.
>
> -M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Hi there Marian.

For loaded touring you might be far better off to convert your Mtb to
drop bars. You would not have the concerns you do about possibly
having a frame failure due to re-welding an aluminium brake bridge on
your current aluminium bicycle. You can get very narrow tires for it.
I have a pair of Mtb Schwalbe tires on order that wil be nearly
identical in width to my Schwalbe 700C x 32 mm cyclocross tires. I
have run 1.5 in slicks on the converted Mtb I have on dirt roads
without any problems.

Here is a link to an image of my converted Mtb:

>http://www.flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/911266852/<

I have since replaced the V-brakes with Avid Shorty cantilevers and
replaced the Dia-Compe brake levers and the Shimano Ultegra 8 speed
bar end shifters with Campy Mirage 9 Speed Ergos matched to a new 9
Speed Campy Mirage long cage rear derailleur and a SRAM 9 speed
cassette and chain. The Ergos shift the Shimano Mtb front derailleur
just fine.

Cheers from Peter

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

On Jul 25, 10:01 pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
> Marian "Mountain Rose" Rosenberg wrote:
> >Booker C. Bense wrote:
> >> Marian "Mountain Rose" Rosenberg wrote:
>
> >> >We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
> >> >tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
> >> >stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.
>
> >> >Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
> >> >rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
> >> >an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
> >> >putting in a new one higher up?
>
> >> You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
> >> rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
> >> techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.
>
> >****. This particular bike is special to me and with having a race
> >bike and mountain bike in my stable the niche it currently fits into
> >is daily bike and trainer. I was hoping I could make it fit into
> >touring category as well because even if I'm not likely to do real
> >loaded touring for a while yet I don't want to need a fourth bike to
> >do it
>
> MIG welding isn't that hard to find these days. I don't know that I'd
> want to weld a new brake bridge so close to where the other had been.
> More frequently tubes break adjacent to the weld and that metal in
> the seat stay has already been distorted by the previous welding.

Most aluminium alloy frames are TIG welded. The real issue is proper
post-weld heat treatment, which is not something most welding shops
can do.

On could likely put in a new brake bridge with structural adhesives,
but that generally also requires specialized methods to work properly.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 26, 11:01 am, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:36:20 -0000, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
> >25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> In article <1185367736.921954.127...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
>
> >> marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
> >> >tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
> >> >stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.
>
> >> >Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
> >> >rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
> >> >an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
> >> >putting in a new one higher up?
>
> >> You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
> >> rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
> >> techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.
>
> >****. This particular bike is special to me and with having a race
> >bike and mountain bike in my stable the niche it currently fits into
> >is daily bike and trainer. I was hoping I could make it fit into
> >touring category as well because even if I'm not likely to do real
> >loaded touring for a while yet I don't want to need a fourth bike to
> >do it
>
> MIG welding isn't that hard to find these days. I don't know that I'd
> want to weld a new brake bridge so close to where the other had been.
> More frequently tubes break adjacent to the weld and that metal in
> the seat stay has already been distorted by the previous welding.

Let's try asking this question, since I'm moving more into the tech
and theoretical and less into the likely to try it on -this- bike
realm...

How important (structurally) is the brake bridge? Is it just there to
provide a point to attach the brakes to? If it were removed entirely
(like with a hacksaw) and the new brake mounting point were, instead
of welded, attached by some kind of bracket would the ride be forever
compromised?

> >> >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
> >> >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>
> >> Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
> >> the vibration to the hands. See
>
> >28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
> >front before things are wonky.
>
> The wider front tire should always give you better steering and
> braking on loose surfaces. When running one studded tire on snow,
> it's the front one.

Loose surfaces are an occasional problem, bumpy surfaces are a worse
and more frequent problem.

> >>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html#mixing
>
> >> You might also consider various shock
> >> absorbing seat posts. They add weight, but the good
> >> ones do take some of the harseness out of the road.
>
> >I've got a Brooks saddle so I'm pretty good on shock absorbing.
>
> When I started reading this group leather saddles were widely
> disparaged by the masses. Lately I've been seeing them and hearing of
> other people using them more and more frequently. A Brooks boinger
> usually cuts weight over most suspension seat posts sporting a
> gel-filled wide saddle.

This one isn't even a sprung Brooks but, of the three bikes, it is the
most comfortable saddle wise. I'm still on the quest for the right
saddle for the mountain bike. I've found the right saddle for the
race bike but I haven't ordered one of my own yet. (It was among the
other 'good stuff'' that the original owner took away or swapped
before he sold me the bike.)

I've got a vague silly plan to someday get a flying pigeon lookalike
lugged steel work bike done out of Reynolds tubing and equip it with a
sprung Brooks, a Rohloff 9 speed internal hub, and a generator hub up
front. Methinks the only thing more fun than that would be to have
enough contacts and clout to get a flying pigeon lookalike work bike
made out of carbon. China Post green of course.

-M

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:43:46 -0000, "marian.rosenberg@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
>> >> >rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
>> >> >an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
>> >> >putting in a new one higher up?
>>
>> >> You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
>> >> rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
>> >> techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.
>>
>> >****. This particular bike is special to me and with having a race
>> >bike and mountain bike in my stable the niche it currently fits into
>> >is daily bike and trainer. I was hoping I could make it fit into
>> >touring category as well because even if I'm not likely to do real
>> >loaded touring for a while yet I don't want to need a fourth bike to
>> >do it
>>
>> MIG welding isn't that hard to find these days. I don't know that I'd
>> want to weld a new brake bridge so close to where the other had been.
>> More frequently tubes break adjacent to the weld and that metal in
>> the seat stay has already been distorted by the previous welding.
>
>Let's try asking this question, since I'm moving more into the tech
>and theoretical and less into the likely to try it on -this- bike
>realm...
>
>How important (structurally) is the brake bridge? Is it just there to
>provide a point to attach the brakes to? If it were removed entirely
>(like with a hacksaw) and the new brake mounting point were, instead
>of welded, attached by some kind of bracket would the ride be forever
>compromised?

I've seen some entirely dubious work done to bicycle frames.They were
all steel frames where failure is generally a bit more predictable.
It cracks and then bends. Aluminium cracks and separates.

The brake bridge helps hold the seat stays relationship to each other
against the forces of cantilever brakes. Other than that, you could
ride brakeless without one. It doesn't add anything to the strength
of the rear frame.

I'd not trust a mechanically attached brake bridge for mounting a
caliper brake.
--
zk

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Marian "Mountain Rose" Rosenberg wrote:
>
> I've got a vague silly plan to someday get a flying pigeon lookalike
> lugged steel work bike done out of Reynolds tubing and equip it with a
> sprung Brooks, a Rohloff 9 speed internal hub...

Where did the other 5 gears go?

<http://www.rohloff.de/en/products/speedhub/index.html>

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Road Dog]

marian.rosenberg@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Let's try asking this question, since I'm moving more into the tech
> and theoretical and less into the likely to try it on -this- bike
> realm...
>
> How important (structurally) is the brake bridge? Is it just there to
> provide a point to attach the brakes to? If it were removed entirely
> (like with a hacksaw) and the new brake mounting point were, instead
> of welded, attached by some kind of bracket would the ride be forever
> compromised?

I doubt it. Just look at the reinforcement arm of a coaster brake
to see that the forces generated are within the limits of a stay.
The trick is making the arm long enough. I would connect the new
"bridge" to each stay in two places as far apart from each other
as possible. Don't clamp the tubes any tighter than necessary.

But if it were me, I'd go with a newly welded brake bridge. Once
you find a welder, the job will actually be much quicker than
hacking up a clamped brake bridge. Yes, I would hack off the
bridge, not unweld it. I don't think proper welds would weaken
the bike, but you could weld on reinforcement sleeves and weld
the bridge to them, if you wanted to be super careful. You could
almost certainly reuse the brake bridge. I'd find a TIG welder,
if it were me. You could run the hacked up version until you
found such a welder.

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 26, 1:55 pm, Camilo <campasc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Have you actually tried the 28 mm tires? The reason I say this is I
> have a full on race type bike (Cannondale CAAD7) with Ultegra brakes.
> I can squeeze 28 mm in there. The clearance of the brakes is tight,
> but I can get them through the brake pads using only the quick
> release. The brake adjustment itself is pretty "normal", not
> unusually wide. The frame has plenty of clearance on the seat stays.
> This particular frame is kind of tight with the 28's as far as the
> seat tube goes - the tire goes pretty close to the front derailleur
> bracket on the seat tube. This is a chain stay length issue - if the
> chain stays were just a cm. longer it wouldn't even be close.
>
> My old bike, a Bianchi racing type frame, with very similar frame and
> brake clearances to the cannondale also ran 28s happily for many
> years.
>
> If your main issue for using the 28's is the brake clearance, I would
> try it before giving up.

I'm going to try putting a wheel with 25s in first to take a look but
the very biggest issue with 28s is that I have to special order them
(the small shop in Sanya, the pro shop in Haikou, and the enemy camp
in Haikou, doesn't matter where I go I still need to special order
them) and the shop doesn't think there is enough clearance at the
brake mount.

I've currently got huge clearance between tire and seat tube BUT I've
also got a bridge between the two chainstays that is about the same
non-distance from the tire as the brake mounting bridge.

-M

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 26, 10:28 pm, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
26...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <1185417380.387203.21...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
>
> marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
> >25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
> >> >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>
> >> Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
> >> the vibration to the hands. See
>
> >28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
> >front before things are wonky.
>
> I'd guess at least 25-35 would be okay. At some point you are
> going to create enough height difference that you'll change the
> handling of the bike (this is not good or bad just different.)
>
> If you have an older hard tail MTB, that actually might make a
> better canidate for conversion to Frankentourer.

This bike is already used for light touring and, multiple 250km
weekends let me know that with that one last tweak to the geometry in
the form of a taller fork it will be -perfect- for days of back to
back to back to back riding at pretty much any grade so long as the
road is reasonably well paved makes me want this bike as my tourer.

(The taller fork will let me have a slightly more upright position
that is more suitable for long distance riding and will have eyelets
for a front rack. Added bonus is that it will also move the
handlebars up just enough that my big handlebar bag won't brush
against the tire when full.)

It's irrational but it's an I want thing and most things that are I
wants are irrational.

It's also because I'd like, should I someday find myself facing an
upcoming free week (or two, or three) to be able to pack the panniers,
arrange someone to feed the cat, hop on the bike and GO, without
having to build a touring bike or have a fourth bike already added to
my stable.

Let's try throwing a couple more questions out there...

What are the real size differences between 27", 700C, and 650B wheels
or where can I go to find out?
If 700C wheels are a bit tight on clearance will 27" wheels give me
enough clearance?
Can inner tubes for 700C fit inside 650B tires?
If I change the wheelset to another size, is there anything that needs
to be done other than changing the brakes?

If I do get a different wheelsize I'm slightly more in favor of 27"
than 650B since I can find 27" inner tubes and replacement tires and
whatnots on the road without ordering them, while even 700C is rare
here outside of bike clubs.

-M

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Jul 26, 10:01 pm, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 10:28 pm, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
>
>
>
>
>
> 26...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > In article <1185417380.387203.21...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
>
> > marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
> > >25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > >> >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
> > >> >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>
> > >> Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
> > >> the vibration to the hands. See
>
> > >28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
> > >front before things are wonky.
>
> > I'd guess at least 25-35 would be okay. At some point you are
> > going to create enough height difference that you'll change the
> > handling of the bike (this is not good or bad just different.)
>
> > If you have an older hard tail MTB, that actually might make a
> > better canidate for conversion to Frankentourer.
>
> This bike is already used for light touring and, multiple 250km
> weekends let me know that with that one last tweak to the geometry in
> the form of a taller fork it will be -perfect- for days of back to
> back to back to back riding at pretty much any grade so long as the
> road is reasonably well paved makes me want this bike as my tourer.
>
> (The taller fork will let me have a slightly more upright position
> that is more suitable for long distance riding and will have eyelets
> for a front rack. Added bonus is that it will also move the
> handlebars up just enough that my big handlebar bag won't brush
> against the tire when full.)
>
> It's irrational but it's an I want thing and most things that are I
> wants are irrational.
>
> It's also because I'd like, should I someday find myself facing an
> upcoming free week (or two, or three) to be able to pack the panniers,
> arrange someone to feed the cat, hop on the bike and GO, without
> having to build a touring bike or have a fourth bike already added to
> my stable.
>
> Let's try throwing a couple more questions out there...
>
> What are the real size differences between 27", 700C, and 650B wheels
> or where can I go to find out?
> If 700C wheels are a bit tight on clearance will 27" wheels give me
> enough clearance?
> Can inner tubes for 700C fit inside 650B tires?
> If I change the wheelset to another size, is there anything that needs
> to be done other than changing the brakes?
>
> If I do get a different wheelsize I'm slightly more in favor of 27"
> than 650B since I can find 27" inner tubes and replacement tires and
> whatnots on the road without ordering them, while even 700C is rare
> here outside of bike clubs.
>
> -M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Hi again Marian.

If you were going from 27 in wheels to 700C wheels you would be
*GAINING* clearance with a smaller wheel. If you use 27 in wheels
there will be less clearance than you have now. In fact the 27 in
wheel and tire might not even fit your frame because of the brake and
chainstay bridges.

Going to 650B might give you enough clearance to run a wider tire. I
can not think of any thing else that would need to be done other than
changing the brake callipers. You might get lucky and may be able to
still use them if you can lower the brake pads far enough.

Btw, on the Mtb I converted to drop bars I use an adjustable stem. I
can raise it a fair bit for upright riding on rough roads and lower it
to get a better aero position on paved roads. That is a very versatile
bicycle.

Cheers from Peter

[Paul O]

marian.rosenberg@gmail.com wrote, On 7/26/2007 10:01 PM:
<snip>
>
> What are the real size differences between 27", 700C, and 650B wheels
> or where can I go to find out?
> If 700C wheels are a bit tight on clearance will 27" wheels give me
> enough clearance?
> Can inner tubes for 700C fit inside 650B tires?
> If I change the wheelset to another size, is there anything that needs
> to be done other than changing the brakes?
>
<snip
>

Marian,
Everything you ever wanted to know about tire dimensions and tire size
nomenclature can be found on Sheldon Brown's website. See:

<http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html>


I hope this helps.

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 27, 10:39 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 10:36 pm, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 1:27 am, Booker C. Bense <bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Jul.
>
> > 25...@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <1185367736.921954.127...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
>
> > > marian.rosenb...@gmail.com <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >We've taken a closer look at the frame. No problem with the front
> > > >tire. That can go as big as I want. But the brake bridge on the seat
> > > >stays is way too close for anything bigger than 25mm.
>
> > > >Now comes the question, if one were so inclined, and one actually
> > > >rather liked the frame, what are the chances of completely destroying
> > > >an aluminum frame if one were to remove that brake bridge and try
> > > >putting in a new one higher up?
>
> > > You might as well trash the frame at that point. Steel can be
> > > rebrazed, but aluminum alloys require special inert gas welding
> > > techniques. It would be far cheaper just to buy a new frame.
>
> > ****. This particular bike is special to me and with having a race
> > bike and mountain bike in my stable the niche it currently fits into
> > is daily bike and trainer. I was hoping I could make it fit into
> > touring category as well because even if I'm not likely to do real
> > loaded touring for a while yet I don't want to need a fourth bike to
> > do it
>
> > > >And the next question, is it worthwhile to have a wider tire up front
> > > >(cause I can) and just have a 25 in back (cause it's the best I can)?
>
> > > Better than nothing. I've run bikes that way and it does reduce
> > > the vibration to the hands. See
>
> > 28? 32? if I can't go wider than 25 in back, how wide can I go in
> > front before things are wonky.
>
> > >http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html#mixing
>
> > > You might also consider various shock
> > > absorbing seat posts. They add weight, but the good
> > > ones do take some of the harseness out of the road.
>
> > I've got a Brooks saddle so I'm pretty good on shock absorbing.
>
> > -M- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi there Marian.
>
> For loaded touring you might be far better off to convert your Mtb to
> drop bars. You would not have the concerns you do about possibly
> having a frame failure due to re-welding an aluminium brake bridge on
> your current aluminium bicycle.

At this point I have no intention of hacksawing and welding the
frame. I might do it to some other frame but not this one. This one
is special. The mountain bike I use, while admittedly hardtail, would
require a great many changes to make it a touring bike and I am happy
with it as the mountain bike it is.

I'm beginning to think, from this conversation that I'll either need
to accept narrow tires (25s aren't so bad, are they?) or will need to
add another bike if I want to have a tour bike.

Still curious about the 650Bs, do they accept the same tubes as 700Cs?

-M

[Dane Buson]

marian.rosenberg@gmail.com <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Still curious about the 650Bs, do they accept the same tubes as 700Cs?

I've seen a 26" tube in a 16" wheel. As long as the rim is smaller, you
can stuff just about anything successfully in there and it will work.
Depending on how much of a difference, you might or might not notice a
bump.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"I reached for sleep and drew it round me like a blanket muffling pain
and thought together in the merciful dark."
--Mary Stewart English novelist, The Hollow Hills, 1973

[Zoot Katz]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:53:18 -0000, "marian.rosenberg@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm beginning to think, from this conversation that I'll either need
>to accept narrow tires (25s aren't so bad, are they?) or will need to
>add another bike if I want to have a tour bike.
>
Get yourself three of the largest 25mm tires that will fit and go for
it. If your current bike works out for the type of touring you're
doing then you don't need a fourth bike.

>Still curious about the 650Bs, do they accept the same tubes as 700Cs?

I think a 26 x 1 3/8" three speed roadster tube might be a closer
match.
--
zk

[marian.rosenberg@gmail.com]

On Jul 27, 3:23 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:53:18 -0000, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
>
> <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm beginning to think, from this conversation that I'll either need
> >to accept narrow tires (25s aren't so bad, are they?) or will need to
> >add another bike if I want to have a tour bike.
>
> Get yourself three of the largest 25mm tires that will fit and go for
> it. If your current bike works out for the type of touring you're
> doing then you don't need a fourth bike.

With the 700x23 tires it works (albeit uncomfortably and slowly on the
bad roads) for the kind of touring I'm currently doing. Since I'm now
tweaking this bike I thought I'd do my best to make it ready for the
kind of loaded touring I'd like to do in the future.

-M

[Zoot Katz]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:19:51 -0000, "marian.rosenberg@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 27, 3:23 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:53:18 -0000, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
>>
>> <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I'm beginning to think, from this conversation that I'll either need
>> >to accept narrow tires (25s aren't so bad, are they?) or will need to
>> >add another bike if I want to have a tour bike.
>>
>> Get yourself three of the largest 25mm tires that will fit and go for
>> it. If your current bike works out for the type of touring you're
>> doing then you don't need a fourth bike.
>
>With the 700x23 tires it works (albeit uncomfortably and slowly on the
>bad roads) for the kind of touring I'm currently doing. Since I'm now
>tweaking this bike I thought I'd do my best to make it ready for the
>kind of loaded touring I'd like to do in the future.
>
Touring bikes are special animals but make fine all-rounders too.

Far be it from me to ever discourage anyone from acquiring another
bicycle. In fact, I consider four bikes the bare minimum.

There's four winds, four directions, four seasons, and four elements:
Road, Street, Dirt and Track.

Well, actually five is a better number because one always needs a
project bike, extra loaner or clever folding one.

Okay, maybe seven is even a better number yet: seven continents,
seven seas, seven days in a week, seven ages of man etc.

Myself, I'm keeping it at one less than a dozen so I don't feel I
might need a twelve-step program.

hmm, cycling is a rational choice on so many levels that might be why
it's always so easy to rationalise getting another bike.
--
zk

[Patrick Lamb]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:59:53 -0700, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com>
wrote:
>Touring bikes are special animals but make fine all-rounders too.
>
>Far be it from me to ever discourage anyone from acquiring another
>bicycle. In fact, I consider four bikes the bare minimum.
>
>There's four winds, four directions, four seasons, and four elements:
>Road, Street, Dirt and Track.
>
>Well, actually five is a better number because one always needs a
>project bike, extra loaner or clever folding one.
>
>Okay, maybe seven is even a better number yet: seven continents,
>seven seas, seven days in a week, seven ages of man etc.
>
>Myself, I'm keeping it at one less than a dozen so I don't feel I
>might need a twelve-step program.
>
>hmm, cycling is a rational choice on so many levels that might be why
>it's always so easy to rationalise getting another bike.

Darn. Made the mistake of reading this post to my wife; now she says
I can't consult with Zoot when I want to buy another bike.

Pat

Email address works as is.

[Dane Buson]

Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:59:53 -0700, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>>Touring bikes are special animals but make fine all-rounders too.
>>
>>Far be it from me to ever discourage anyone from acquiring another
>>bicycle. In fact, I consider four bikes the bare minimum.
>>
>>There's four winds, four directions, four seasons, and four elements:
>>Road, Street, Dirt and Track.
>>
>>Well, actually five is a better number because one always needs a
>>project bike, extra loaner or clever folding one.
>>
>>Okay, maybe seven is even a better number yet: seven continents,
>>seven seas, seven days in a week, seven ages of man etc.
>>
>>Myself, I'm keeping it at one less than a dozen so I don't feel I
>>might need a twelve-step program.
>>
>>hmm, cycling is a rational choice on so many levels that might be why
>>it's always so easy to rationalise getting another bike.
>
> Darn. Made the mistake of reading this post to my wife; now she says
> I can't consult with Zoot when I want to buy another bike.

See, I knew better. Of course, I'm planning on acquiring a new frame
later next month when my wife is (coincidentally) out of town...

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Remember, when it comes to commercial TV, the program is not the product.
YOU are the product, and the advertiser is the customer."
-- Mark W. Schumann in the monastery.

[catzz66]

Dane Buson wrote:
> Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:59:53 -0700, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Touring bikes are special animals but make fine all-rounders too.
>>>
>>>Far be it from me to ever discourage anyone from acquiring another
>>>bicycle. In fact, I consider four bikes the bare minimum.
>>>
>>>There's four winds, four directions, four seasons, and four elements:
>>>Road, Street, Dirt and Track.
>>>
>>>Well, actually five is a better number because one always needs a
>>>project bike, extra loaner or clever folding one.
>>>
>>>Okay, maybe seven is even a better number yet: seven continents,
>>>seven seas, seven days in a week, seven ages of man etc.
>>>
>>>Myself, I'm keeping it at one less than a dozen so I don't feel I
>>>might need a twelve-step program.
>>>
>>>hmm, cycling is a rational choice on so many levels that might be why
>>>it's always so easy to rationalise getting another bike.
>>
>>Darn. Made the mistake of reading this post to my wife; now she says
>>I can't consult with Zoot when I want to buy another bike.
>
>
> See, I knew better. Of course, I'm planning on acquiring a new frame
> later next month when my wife is (coincidentally) out of town...
>

Hey, a frame is just a (very large) part, right?

[Zoot Katz]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:19:21 -0500, catzz66
<catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote:

>Dane Buson wrote:
>> Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:59:53 -0700, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Touring bikes are special animals but make fine all-rounders too.
>>>>
>>>>Far be it from me to ever discourage anyone from acquiring another
>>>>bicycle. In fact, I consider four bikes the bare minimum.
>>>>
>>>>There's four winds, four directions, four seasons, and four elements:
>>>>Road, Street, Dirt and Track.
>>>>
>>>>Well, actually five is a better number because one always needs a
>>>>project bike, extra loaner or clever folding one.
>>>>
>>>>Okay, maybe seven is even a better number yet: seven continents,
>>>>seven seas, seven days in a week, seven ages of man etc.
>>>>
>>>>Myself, I'm keeping it at one less than a dozen so I don't feel I
>>>>might need a twelve-step program.
>>>>
>>>>hmm, cycling is a rational choice on so many levels that might be why
>>>>it's always so easy to rationalise getting another bike.
>>>
>>>Darn. Made the mistake of reading this post to my wife; now she says
>>>I can't consult with Zoot when I want to buy another bike.
>>
>>
>> See, I knew better. Of course, I'm planning on acquiring a new frame
>> later next month when my wife is (coincidentally) out of town...
>>
>
>Hey, a frame is just a (very large) part, right?

To paraphrase an old sailing axiom:
A frame is merely the exotic material bordering a hole in the street
into which one throws their money.
--
zk