Your favourite piece of VINTAGE BICYCLE equipment?

On 6/13/2014 2:09 PM, Duane wrote:


I keep the old Bianchi Volpe in working order. I put it on the trainer
over the past winter. I've put so many miles on this bike that I'm
hesitant to donate it to charity.

One guy I know has two bikes: a two-year-old carbon fiber wonderbike,
and a 1980-era Japanese steel framed bike of the old "sport touring"
(i.e. generic) geometry.

This year, he plans to ride the Great Allegheny Passage from Pittsburgh
to DC, and he was asking for advice. Based on my experience, it's a
good thing he's got a bike that can take 32 mm (or actually, 1 1/4")
tires. It should be nearly perfect for that ride.

The Pittsburgh to Cumberland, MD leg is almost all crushed limestone
rail-trail, quite smooth. One could probably ride it on 20mm tires,
although they wouldn't be optimum. But the Cumberland to DC is pretty
much a mule path. A mountain bike isn't required, knobbies aren't
required, but you want something that will swallow bumps from occasional
tree roots and 4" rocks. The minimal frame clearances disqualify the CF
bike.

And as a further benefit, he can actually put racks on the old Japanese
bike.

There's something to be said for versatility.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:27:55 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Otherwise, I'm down to a reasonably modern fleet that can be
maintained and repaired with current production parts and minimal
effort. Not much room for retro.

Hmm, very little in my fleet is current. My newest bike is a 2002
Burley tandem (in terms of components; my newest bike is put together
on a frame I built 6-8 years ago and is fitted with a Sachs/SRAM 3 speed
hub, along the lines of a classic late-50s British club bike, but
nothing else other than tires and tubes is remotely current production).

My favorite classic bike things are my Campy 8 mm T wrench and my Nuovo
Record rear derailleur. Timeless classic beauties, even though one of
them has little use any more and the other has been superceded by better
designs (I use Sun Tour Superbe/Superbe Pro derailleurs on the bikes I
ride and the Nuovo Record sits prettily on a shelf...).

I'm still using MA-2 rims, old Sun Tour components, Brooks saddles and a
command line newsreader. I'm in danger of joining Chris Kvale in the
ranks of analog men in a digital universe.

On 6/13/2014 3:00 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
... I use Sun Tour Superbe/Superbe Pro derailleurs on the bikes I
ride...

Yep, most of my derailleurs are SunTour.

I'm still using MA-2 rims, old Sun Tour components, Brooks saddles and a
command line newsreader. I'm in danger of joining Chris Kvale in the
ranks of analog men in a digital universe.

The thing is, most bike parts last a really long time, on the order of
decades. Newer stuff may be better by some measurements (lighter?
easier to use?), but IMO the incremental benefit is minor.

Example: When I have to adjust the cantilever brakes I have on most
bikes, it's an exercise in patience to get all 10 degrees of freedom (or
however many there are) simultaneously correct. But it's an operation
I have to do only once per year. I'm willing to endure the fussiness in
return for the tremendous adjustability.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:29:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:09 PM, Duane wrote:





I keep the old Bianchi Volpe in working order. I put it on the trainer

over the past winter. I've put so many miles on this bike that I'm

hesitant to donate it to charity.



One guy I know has two bikes: a two-year-old carbon fiber wonderbike,

and a 1980-era Japanese steel framed bike of the old "sport touring"

(i.e. generic) geometry.



This year, he plans to ride the Great Allegheny Passage from Pittsburgh

to DC, and he was asking for advice. Based on my experience, it's a

good thing he's got a bike that can take 32 mm (or actually, 1 1/4")

tires. It should be nearly perfect for that ride.



The Pittsburgh to Cumberland, MD leg is almost all crushed limestone

rail-trail, quite smooth. One could probably ride it on 20mm tires,

although they wouldn't be optimum. But the Cumberland to DC is pretty

much a mule path. A mountain bike isn't required, knobbies aren't

required, but you want something that will swallow bumps from occasional

tree roots and 4" rocks. The minimal frame clearances disqualify the CF

bike.



And as a further benefit, he can actually put racks on the old Japanese

bike.



There's something to be said for versatility.


Is this a criticism or an observation? It seems obvious that a racing bike with tight clearances is not your best option for loaded touring or trail riding.

By the way, nothing swallows bumps from roots and 4" rocks except for suspension or, perhaps, some Big Fat Larry tires on a Moonlander. The difference between a 25mm tire (probably max size for the CF bike) and a 32 mm tire running at, say, 80psi, is that the latter will flat less and give better footing. Suspension differences will be minimal. On clean pavement, the latter will be slower climbing.

I ride 23mm tires on various trails cutting through the West Hills. It's do-able, but you run a high flat risk and traction is sketchy in places -- like 20% climbs on rocks and dirt. OTOH, running 35mm CX tires over non-stop baby-heads does not make for a plush ride, but footing is much better and you can keep your speed up.

BTW, I've done this on 23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbWCFwIxgnw The guy doing the video is on a CX bike, but the tires look like maybe 25mm. It's common to cut through Forest Park to get to Skyline or the other paved roads through the West Hills, so dirt riding on narrow tires is part of road riding around here. I've never flatted in Forest Park, but I flatted three times on one deep gravel road: http://bikeportland.org/2012/08/13/g...ler-road-75905 http://tinyurl.com/pzh7txz Sucked! I was digging in to the patch kit. I was happy to hit paved road, as were the guys who were waiting for me (all on CF wonder-bikes but with tougher 25mm tires).

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/13/2014 4:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:29:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:09 PM, Duane wrote:





I keep the old Bianchi Volpe in working order. I put it on the trainer

over the past winter. I've put so many miles on this bike that I'm

hesitant to donate it to charity.



One guy I know has two bikes: a two-year-old carbon fiber wonderbike,

and a 1980-era Japanese steel framed bike of the old "sport touring"

(i.e. generic) geometry.



This year, he plans to ride the Great Allegheny Passage from Pittsburgh

to DC, and he was asking for advice. Based on my experience, it's a

good thing he's got a bike that can take 32 mm (or actually, 1 1/4")

tires. It should be nearly perfect for that ride.



The Pittsburgh to Cumberland, MD leg is almost all crushed limestone

rail-trail, quite smooth. One could probably ride it on 20mm tires,

although they wouldn't be optimum. But the Cumberland to DC is pretty

much a mule path. A mountain bike isn't required, knobbies aren't

required, but you want something that will swallow bumps from occasional

tree roots and 4" rocks. The minimal frame clearances disqualify the CF

bike.



And as a further benefit, he can actually put racks on the old Japanese

bike.



There's something to be said for versatility.


Is this a criticism or an observation? It seems obvious that a racing bike with
tight clearances is not your best option for loaded touring or trail riding.

It's an observation. But I'll note that the guy who owned the bikes was
asking me about which he should use.

I've mentioned this guy before, though. He's a very casual rider in a
very flat state. He got the fancy bike because he got an amazing buy on
it. But soon after, he was contacting me, puzzled about how he could
put a rear rack on his CF wonderbike. For his use, I'd have recommended
something less racey.


By the way, nothing swallows bumps from roots and 4" rocks except for suspension
or, perhaps, some Big Fat Larry tires on a Moonlander. The difference
between a
25mm tire (probably max size for the CF bike) and a 32 mm tire running
at, say,
80psi, is that the latter will flat less and give better footing.
Suspension
differences will be minimal. On clean pavement, the latter will be
slower climbing.

Sorry if that bit about the rocks wasn't clear. I'm not talking about
the rocks sitting on top of the ground. I'm talking about 4" diameter
rocks sticking up perhaps an inch, sometimes two.

IME, the C&O towpath is rideable by a fairly ordinary road bike, at
least when it's dry. In places, it's rough enough that I'd stand to
reduce shock on the wheels & tires. But I'm sure that if I were running
20mm tires, I'd have been pinch flatting pretty frequently.

But about the slower climbing on 32s: We all (I hope) understand how to
quantify the difference weight makes. But I think rolling resistance is
more complicated. For example, I think if a road is not super-smooth,
it's easy for wider & slightly softer tires to have less _practical_
rolling resistance than narrow, harder ones. If harder and narrower
were always best, we could dispense with pneumatic tires.


I ride 23mm tires on various trails cutting through the West Hills.
It's do-able, but you run a high flat risk and traction is sketchy in
places
-- like 20% climbs on rocks and dirt. OTOH, running 35mm CX tires over
non-stop baby-heads does not make for a plush ride, but footing is much
better and you can keep your speed up.

BTW, I've done this on 23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbWCFwIxgnw

Heh. I did some wider dirt roads that I think were in Forest Park (not
sure of its boundaries) on a Bike Friday. I did it without the bad
music, though. ;-)

Also, our local nature preserve has stuff very much like that, although
not hilly. I pass through there very frequently on one or another of my
road bikes.

The guy doing the video is on a CX bike, but the tires look like maybe
25mm.
It's common to cut through Forest Park to get to Skyline or the other paved
roads through the West Hills, so dirt riding on narrow tires is part of
road
riding around here. I've never flatted in Forest Park, but I flatted three
times on one deep gravel road:
http://bikeportland.org/2012/08/13/g...ler-road-75905
http://tinyurl.com/pzh7txz Sucked! I was digging in to the patch kit.
I was happy to hit paved road, as were the guys who were waiting for me
(all on CF wonder-bikes but with tougher 25mm tires).

One of our club members used to chide me for leading rides on rough
roads, sometimes with unpaved sections. He said those roads beat him
up. He was on a CF Kestrel at the time. I was on my Cannondale touring
bike, the one with howitzer-sized tubes.


--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:29:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:09 PM, Duane wrote:





I keep the old Bianchi Volpe in working order. I put it on the trainer

over the past winter. I've put so many miles on this bike that I'm

hesitant to donate it to charity.



One guy I know has two bikes: a two-year-old carbon fiber wonderbike,

and a 1980-era Japanese steel framed bike of the old "sport touring"

(i.e. generic) geometry.



This year, he plans to ride the Great Allegheny Passage from Pittsburgh

to DC, and he was asking for advice. Based on my experience, it's a

good thing he's got a bike that can take 32 mm (or actually, 1 1/4")

tires. It should be nearly perfect for that ride.



The Pittsburgh to Cumberland, MD leg is almost all crushed limestone

rail-trail, quite smooth. One could probably ride it on 20mm tires,

although they wouldn't be optimum. But the Cumberland to DC is pretty

much a mule path. A mountain bike isn't required, knobbies aren't

required, but you want something that will swallow bumps from occasional

tree roots and 4" rocks. The minimal frame clearances disqualify the CF

bike.



And as a further benefit, he can actually put racks on the old Japanese

bike.



There's something to be said for versatility.


Is this a criticism or an observation? It seems obvious that a racing
bike with tight clearances is not your best option for loaded touring or trail riding.

By the way, nothing swallows bumps from roots and 4" rocks except for
suspension or, perhaps, some Big Fat Larry tires on a Moonlander. The
difference between a 25mm tire (probably max size for the CF bike) and a
32 mm tire running at, say, 80psi, is that the latter will flat less and
give better footing. Suspension differences will be minimal. On clean
pavement, the latter will be slower climbing.

I ride 23mm tires on various trails cutting through the West Hills. It's
do-able, but you run a high flat risk and traction is sketchy in places
-- like 20% climbs on rocks and dirt. OTOH, running 35mm CX tires over
non-stop baby-heads does not make for a plush ride, but footing is much
better and you can keep your speed up.

BTW, I've done this on 23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbWCFwIxgnw
The guy doing the video is on a CX bike, but the tires look like maybe
25mm. It's common to cut through Forest Park to get to Skyline or the
other paved roads through the West Hills, so dirt riding on narrow tires
is part of road riding around here. I've never flatted in Forest Park,
but I flatted three times on one deep gravel road:
http://bikeportland.org/2012/08/13/g...ler-road-75905
http://tinyurl.com/pzh7txz Sucked! I was digging in to the patch kit. I
was happy to hit paved road, as were the guys who were waiting for me
(all on CF wonder-bikes but with tougher 25mm tires).

-- Jay Beattie.

Just put together my new Uberbike. Look at the tire clearance. A 23 mm tire
in mounted.

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oC...o/IMG_2315.JPG

I'm not into that vintage crap
--
Lou

On Friday, June 13, 2014 12:27:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2014 3:00 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

... I use Sun Tour Superbe/Superbe Pro derailleurs on the bikes I

ride...



Yep, most of my derailleurs are SunTour.



I'm still using MA-2 rims, old Sun Tour components, Brooks saddles and a

command line newsreader. I'm in danger of joining Chris Kvale in the

ranks of analog men in a digital universe.



The thing is, most bike parts last a really long time, on the order of

decades. Newer stuff may be better by some measurements (lighter?

easier to use?), but IMO the incremental benefit is minor.



Example: When I have to adjust the cantilever brakes I have on most

bikes, it's an exercise in patience to get all 10 degrees of freedom (or

however many there are) simultaneously correct. But it's an operation

I have to do only once per year. I'm willing to endure the fussiness in

return for the tremendous adjustability.

And ****ty stopping, particularly with STI levers -- at least compared to practically any dual pivot. In the time it takes you to adjust your cantis, I can change the pads on four bikes, including one with discs.

In less than a decade of use, I broke five "vintage" cranks (4 NR, 1 Ofmega), two seatposts, one pedal (snapped axle), three steel frames, hub axles, hub flanges (failed 70s Phil and early 80s Dura Ace), many "brinelled" BBs and headsets (party my fault, perhaps). These are failures and not just problem parts, like the Cinelli 1R or other exotic oldie parts (Deltas and Modo plastic speed modulators (not worthy of the name "brake")). Not that I haven't had problems with modern equipment, but the old stuff was not bullet proof, at least for me.

The benefit of some modern equipment is questionable, and some not. I will never go back to DT shifting, quill/cage pedals, loose bearing BBs or headsets, quill stems, NR-style or single bolt seat posts. You will have to pry my Thompson Elite (with set-back) out of my cold, dead hands. I like compact cranks -- a huge range without going to a triple or pie-plate cogs. My discs are a savior for five or six months a year.

OTOH, I could still use an E2/MA2, but my Velocity touring discs seem to be working well on my disc-equipped commuter, and there are modern (or retro modern) equivalents. A Turbo equivalent (maybe a little lighter) would be nice. There probably is such a saddle, but I'm too cheap to pay for it. That's what I miss the most -- cheaper saddles.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:46:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2014 4:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:

On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:29:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/13/2014 2:09 PM, Duane wrote:











I keep the old Bianchi Volpe in working order. I put it on the trainer



over the past winter. I've put so many miles on this bike that I'm



hesitant to donate it to charity.







One guy I know has two bikes: a two-year-old carbon fiber wonderbike,



and a 1980-era Japanese steel framed bike of the old "sport touring"



(i.e. generic) geometry.







This year, he plans to ride the Great Allegheny Passage from Pittsburgh



to DC, and he was asking for advice. Based on my experience, it's a



good thing he's got a bike that can take 32 mm (or actually, 1 1/4")



tires. It should be nearly perfect for that ride.







The Pittsburgh to Cumberland, MD leg is almost all crushed limestone



rail-trail, quite smooth. One could probably ride it on 20mm tires,



although they wouldn't be optimum. But the Cumberland to DC is pretty



much a mule path. A mountain bike isn't required, knobbies aren't



required, but you want something that will swallow bumps from occasional



tree roots and 4" rocks. The minimal frame clearances disqualify the CF



bike.







And as a further benefit, he can actually put racks on the old Japanese



bike.







There's something to be said for versatility.





Is this a criticism or an observation? It seems obvious that a racing bike with

tight clearances is not your best option for loaded touring or trail riding.



It's an observation. But I'll note that the guy who owned the bikes was

asking me about which he should use.



I've mentioned this guy before, though. He's a very casual rider in a

very flat state. He got the fancy bike because he got an amazing buy on

it. But soon after, he was contacting me, puzzled about how he could

put a rear rack on his CF wonderbike. For his use, I'd have recommended

something less racey.





By the way, nothing swallows bumps from roots and 4" rocks except for suspension

or, perhaps, some Big Fat Larry tires on a Moonlander. The difference

between a

25mm tire (probably max size for the CF bike) and a 32 mm tire running

at, say,

80psi, is that the latter will flat less and give better footing.

Suspension

differences will be minimal. On clean pavement, the latter will be

slower climbing.



Sorry if that bit about the rocks wasn't clear. I'm not talking about

the rocks sitting on top of the ground. I'm talking about 4" diameter

rocks sticking up perhaps an inch, sometimes two.



IME, the C&O towpath is rideable by a fairly ordinary road bike, at

least when it's dry. In places, it's rough enough that I'd stand to

reduce shock on the wheels & tires. But I'm sure that if I were running

20mm tires, I'd have been pinch flatting pretty frequently.



But about the slower climbing on 32s: We all (I hope) understand how to

quantify the difference weight makes. But I think rolling resistance is

more complicated. For example, I think if a road is not super-smooth,

it's easy for wider & slightly softer tires to have less _practical_

rolling resistance than narrow, harder ones. If harder and narrower

were always best, we could dispense with pneumatic tires.





I ride 23mm tires on various trails cutting through the West Hills.

It's do-able, but you run a high flat risk and traction is sketchy in

places

-- like 20% climbs on rocks and dirt. OTOH, running 35mm CX tires over

non-stop baby-heads does not make for a plush ride, but footing is much

better and you can keep your speed up.



BTW, I've done this on 23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbWCFwIxgnw



Heh. I did some wider dirt roads that I think were in Forest Park (not

sure of its boundaries) on a Bike Friday. I did it without the bad

music, though. ;-)



Also, our local nature preserve has stuff very much like that, although

not hilly. I pass through there very frequently on one or another of my

road bikes.



The guy doing the video is on a CX bike, but the tires look like maybe

25mm.

It's common to cut through Forest Park to get to Skyline or the other paved

roads through the West Hills, so dirt riding on narrow tires is part of

road

riding around here. I've never flatted in Forest Park, but I flatted three

times on one deep gravel road:

http://bikeportland.org/2012/08/13/g...ler-road-75905

http://tinyurl.com/pzh7txz Sucked! I was digging in to the patch kit.

I was happy to hit paved road, as were the guys who were waiting for me

(all on CF wonder-bikes but with tougher 25mm tires).



One of our club members used to chide me for leading rides on rough

roads, sometimes with unpaved sections. He said those roads beat him

up. He was on a CF Kestrel at the time. I was on my Cannondale touring

bike, the one with howitzer-sized tubes.

It's not the roughness of the deep gravel that bothers me, it's the fact that I can't get traction. I squirm up the hills with gravel shooting out from under my rear wheel like water from a sternwheel, and on the way down, I feel like I'm boot-skiing. The good CX riders and mountain bikers drop me like I'm standing still.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/13/2014 4:05 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:29:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:09 PM, Duane wrote:





I keep the old Bianchi Volpe in working order. I put it on the trainer

over the past winter. I've put so many miles on this bike that I'm

hesitant to donate it to charity.



One guy I know has two bikes: a two-year-old carbon fiber wonderbike,

and a 1980-era Japanese steel framed bike of the old "sport touring"

(i.e. generic) geometry.



This year, he plans to ride the Great Allegheny Passage from Pittsburgh

to DC, and he was asking for advice. Based on my experience, it's a

good thing he's got a bike that can take 32 mm (or actually, 1 1/4")

tires. It should be nearly perfect for that ride.



The Pittsburgh to Cumberland, MD leg is almost all crushed limestone

rail-trail, quite smooth. One could probably ride it on 20mm tires,

although they wouldn't be optimum. But the Cumberland to DC is pretty

much a mule path. A mountain bike isn't required, knobbies aren't

required, but you want something that will swallow bumps from occasional

tree roots and 4" rocks. The minimal frame clearances disqualify the CF

bike.



And as a further benefit, he can actually put racks on the old Japanese

bike.



There's something to be said for versatility.


Is this a criticism or an observation? It seems obvious that a racing
bike with tight clearances is not your best option for loaded touring or trail riding.

By the way, nothing swallows bumps from roots and 4" rocks except for
suspension or, perhaps, some Big Fat Larry tires on a Moonlander. The
difference between a 25mm tire (probably max size for the CF bike) and a
32 mm tire running at, say, 80psi, is that the latter will flat less and
give better footing. Suspension differences will be minimal. On clean
pavement, the latter will be slower climbing.

I ride 23mm tires on various trails cutting through the West Hills. It's
do-able, but you run a high flat risk and traction is sketchy in places
-- like 20% climbs on rocks and dirt. OTOH, running 35mm CX tires over
non-stop baby-heads does not make for a plush ride, but footing is much
better and you can keep your speed up.

BTW, I've done this on 23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbWCFwIxgnw
The guy doing the video is on a CX bike, but the tires look like maybe
25mm. It's common to cut through Forest Park to get to Skyline or the
other paved roads through the West Hills, so dirt riding on narrow tires
is part of road riding around here. I've never flatted in Forest Park,
but I flatted three times on one deep gravel road:
http://bikeportland.org/2012/08/13/g...ler-road-75905
http://tinyurl.com/pzh7txz Sucked! I was digging in to the patch kit. I
was happy to hit paved road, as were the guys who were waiting for me
(all on CF wonder-bikes but with tougher 25mm tires).

-- Jay Beattie.

Just put together my new Uberbike. Look at the tire clearance. A 23 mm tire
in mounted.

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oC...o/IMG_2315.JPG

I'm not into that vintage crap


Nice looking bike. Nothing wrong with modern race bikes but
a very happy customer just rode here from Chicago on his
1963 Team RIH with full original Record. That's a nice Dutch
bike too! Tastes vary and that's a good thing.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

old parts last.....5000 miles.


http://goo.gl/D3tfRf

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trks...7294&_from=R40

LOOK FOR A 3 RIB FRONT TIRE....GOLLY DAZE SELLIN 3/8TH'S Kendas !

JB, wanna buy a Cosworth piston ?