Olmo

On 2017-07-05 12:58, wrote:
Olmo factory in Celle Ligure, Italy.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek0uuvy5jb...olmo1.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0hbg81pe1v...olmo2.jpg?dl=0


They could invest in some paint for their building ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 10:35:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 12:18, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-7, Doug Landau wrote:
Tom are Olmos any good
Any chance this Olmo is a Basso?
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/bik/6185998403.html

Olmo's were as a rule were on a level of Basso or Colnago. I think that they are still made today.

While that particular Olmo is VERY reminiscent of a Basso Gap, it is it's own maker.


What was the big difference in frames back then? I know Italian ones
were usually considered more fancy but my Dutch Gazelle frame looks
nearly identical to this one. Ok, Reynolds steel instead of Columbus.

The wheelbases and rake and trail were quite different and it makes a remarkable difference in feeling and ride. The difference between my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra and the Basso Lotto is noticeable on the second pedal stroke.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:44:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 10:35:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 12:18, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-7, Doug Landau wrote:
Tom are Olmos any good
Any chance this Olmo is a Basso?
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/bik/6185998403.html

Olmo's were as a rule were on a level of Basso or Colnago. I think that they are still made today.

While that particular Olmo is VERY reminiscent of a Basso Gap, it is it's own maker.


What was the big difference in frames back then? I know Italian ones
were usually considered more fancy but my Dutch Gazelle frame looks
nearly identical to this one. Ok, Reynolds steel instead of Columbus.

The wheelbases and rake and trail were quite different and it makes a remarkable difference in feeling and ride. The difference between my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra and the Basso Lotto is noticeable on the second pedal stroke.

I read an article about different handling between different bikes.
The author and his buddy, a frame maker, even cobbled up a fork with
adjustable trail.

Anyway, they found that the Italian frames tended toward lower bottom
bracket heights, in other words lower C/G, which they attributed to a
more stable feeling bike.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2017-07-07 01:25, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:44:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 10:35:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 12:18, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-7, Doug Landau
wrote:
Tom are Olmos any good Any chance this Olmo is a Basso?
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/bik/6185998403.html

Olmo's were as a rule were on a level of Basso or Colnago. I
think that they are still made today.

While that particular Olmo is VERY reminiscent of a Basso Gap,
it is it's own maker.


What was the big difference in frames back then? I know Italian
ones were usually considered more fancy but my Dutch Gazelle
frame looks nearly identical to this one. Ok, Reynolds steel
instead of Columbus.

The wheelbases and rake and trail were quite different and it makes
a remarkable difference in feeling and ride. The difference between
my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra and the Basso Lotto is noticeable on the
second pedal stroke.


Yes, there could be minor differences in the dimensions which make a
noticeable difference. On the photo they aren't visible. This is the
same frame I ride, same color but larger geometry:

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/234710/

For some reason those still fetch good money at auction.


I read an article about different handling between different bikes.
The author and his buddy, a frame maker, even cobbled up a fork with
adjustable trail.

Anyway, they found that the Italian frames tended toward lower
bottom bracket heights, in other words lower C/G, which they
attributed to a more stable feeling bike.


I can't imagine the BB to be even lower than on the Dutch frame I ride.
Every time I switch back from the MTB (very high ground clearance) to
the road bike I have to watch during dirt road stretches not to run into
a pedal strike.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 7:44:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 10:35:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 12:18, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-7, Doug Landau wrote:
Tom are Olmos any good
Any chance this Olmo is a Basso?
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/bik/6185998403.html

Olmo's were as a rule were on a level of Basso or Colnago. I think that they are still made today.

While that particular Olmo is VERY reminiscent of a Basso Gap, it is it's own maker.


What was the big difference in frames back then? I know Italian ones
were usually considered more fancy but my Dutch Gazelle frame looks
nearly identical to this one. Ok, Reynolds steel instead of Columbus.

The wheelbases and rake and trail were quite different and it makes a remarkable difference in feeling and ride. The difference between my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra and the Basso Lotto is noticeable on the second pedal stroke..

I think that after LeMond and by the '90s, you see more variation in the geometry used by the Italian builders. In the '70s, for example, the differences were minor except for Rigi and some Gios frames. The Bassos, Olmos, Pinarellos, Colnagos, etc. were pretty cookie-cutter, IMO. It was hard to differentiate between some of them with the paint off.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:25:30 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

I read an article about different handling between different bikes.
The author and his buddy, a frame maker, even cobbled up a fork with
adjustable trail.

Anyway, they found that the Italian frames tended toward lower bottom
bracket heights, in other words lower C/G, which they attributed to a
more stable feeling bike.

I attribute the Corsa Extra handling to be for one-day races in which sprinting is more important than fast descents. The difference between the Basso and the Merckx is pretty easy to feel.

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:17:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 01:25, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:44:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 10:35:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 12:18, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-7, Doug Landau
wrote:
Tom are Olmos any good Any chance this Olmo is a Basso?
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/bik/6185998403.html

Olmo's were as a rule were on a level of Basso or Colnago. I
think that they are still made today.

While that particular Olmo is VERY reminiscent of a Basso Gap,
it is it's own maker.


What was the big difference in frames back then? I know Italian
ones were usually considered more fancy but my Dutch Gazelle
frame looks nearly identical to this one. Ok, Reynolds steel
instead of Columbus.

The wheelbases and rake and trail were quite different and it makes
a remarkable difference in feeling and ride. The difference between
my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra and the Basso Lotto is noticeable on the
second pedal stroke.


Yes, there could be minor differences in the dimensions which make a
noticeable difference. On the photo they aren't visible. This is the
same frame I ride, same color but larger geometry:

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/234710/

For some reason those still fetch good money at auction.


I read an article about different handling between different bikes.
The author and his buddy, a frame maker, even cobbled up a fork with
adjustable trail.

Anyway, they found that the Italian frames tended toward lower
bottom bracket heights, in other words lower C/G, which they
attributed to a more stable feeling bike.


I can't imagine the BB to be even lower than on the Dutch frame I ride.
Every time I switch back from the MTB (very high ground clearance) to
the road bike I have to watch during dirt road stretches not to run into
a pedal strike.

If you compare your photo with https://www.google.com/search?q=Bass...t5ITOtNTl_igM:

you can see a rather large difference in BB height. This difference is so dramatic that you have to learn to ALWAYS have your inside pedal up to keep it from dragging on the ground and possibly dumping you at speed.

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:32:49 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 7:44:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 10:35:24 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 12:18, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-7, Doug Landau wrote:
Tom are Olmos any good
Any chance this Olmo is a Basso?
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/bik/6185998403.html

Olmo's were as a rule were on a level of Basso or Colnago. I think that they are still made today.

While that particular Olmo is VERY reminiscent of a Basso Gap, it is it's own maker.


What was the big difference in frames back then? I know Italian ones
were usually considered more fancy but my Dutch Gazelle frame looks
nearly identical to this one. Ok, Reynolds steel instead of Columbus.

The wheelbases and rake and trail were quite different and it makes a remarkable difference in feeling and ride. The difference between my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra and the Basso Lotto is noticeable on the second pedal stroke.

I think that after LeMond and by the '90s, you see more variation in the geometry used by the Italian builders. In the '70s, for example, the differences were minor except for Rigi and some Gios frames. The Bassos, Olmos, Pinarellos, Colnagos, etc. were pretty cookie-cutter, IMO. It was hard to differentiate between some of them with the paint off.

The Colnago didn't have the low bb. It handled more like the Merckx and I believe that Merckx for awhile bought Colnagos and rebadged them.

On 7/7/2017 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:

I read an article about different handling between different bikes.
The author and his buddy, a frame maker, even cobbled up a fork with
adjustable trail.

Anyway, they found that the Italian frames tended toward lower bottom
bracket heights, in other words lower C/G, which they attributed to a
more stable feeling bike.

As I've said many times, I'm far from being a connoisseur of bike
handling. But it doesn't make sense to me that a lower center of
gravity would make a bike feel more stable.

First, the effect would seem to be minuscule if it existed. The center
of mass of a bike+rider is generally somewhere around the saddle, i.e.
maybe 40" high. I'd think lowering the center of mass by half an inch
would make a tiny difference compared to other changes.

But more important: To me, stability in a bike means it requires less
frequent and energetic steering corrections to maintain balance. And in
that respect, an "ordinary" or "high wheeler" is far, far more stable
than a normal bike. Likewise, a recumbent is far less stable. The
first time I road an ordinary, I was able to easily balance at 2 mph.
The first time I rode a recumbent, I couldn't even balance. Someone had
to run alongside and hold me up as I flopped left and right, until I
could relax and let the bike work properly.

The difference is polar moment of inertia about the axis along the
ground between the two tire contact patches. With the "ordinary's"
rider mass at about five feet or more, the sideways rotation needed for
a fall begins much more slowly. There's plenty of time to correct even
the tiniest deviation from vertical. By contrast, with a recumbent's
center of mass at maybe 18", the sideways rotation initiates quickly.

The same effect can be observed by trying to balance a yardstick (or
meter stick) on its edge, vs. trying to balance a 6" (or 15 cm) ruler.
Or trying to vertically balance a shovel or hammer with heavy side up
vs. down.

So if a higher center of mass is more stable for ordinaries, yardsticks
and other objects, I don't see why it would be opposite for bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:10:54 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2017 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:

I read an article about different handling between different bikes.
The author and his buddy, a frame maker, even cobbled up a fork with
adjustable trail.

Anyway, they found that the Italian frames tended toward lower bottom
bracket heights, in other words lower C/G, which they attributed to a
more stable feeling bike.

As I've said many times, I'm far from being a connoisseur of bike
handling. But it doesn't make sense to me that a lower center of
gravity would make a bike feel more stable.

First, the effect would seem to be minuscule if it existed. The center
of mass of a bike+rider is generally somewhere around the saddle, i.e.
maybe 40" high. I'd think lowering the center of mass by half an inch
would make a tiny difference compared to other changes.

But more important: To me, stability in a bike means it requires less
frequent and energetic steering corrections to maintain balance. And in
that respect, an "ordinary" or "high wheeler" is far, far more stable
than a normal bike. Likewise, a recumbent is far less stable. The
first time I road an ordinary, I was able to easily balance at 2 mph.
The first time I rode a recumbent, I couldn't even balance. Someone had
to run alongside and hold me up as I flopped left and right, until I
could relax and let the bike work properly.

The difference is polar moment of inertia about the axis along the
ground between the two tire contact patches. With the "ordinary's"
rider mass at about five feet or more, the sideways rotation needed for
a fall begins much more slowly. There's plenty of time to correct even
the tiniest deviation from vertical. By contrast, with a recumbent's
center of mass at maybe 18", the sideways rotation initiates quickly.

The same effect can be observed by trying to balance a yardstick (or
meter stick) on its edge, vs. trying to balance a 6" (or 15 cm) ruler.
Or trying to vertically balance a shovel or hammer with heavy side up
vs. down.

So if a higher center of mass is more stable for ordinaries, yardsticks
and other objects, I don't see why it would be opposite for bikes.

Well you're wrong. Firstly the saddle is also lower since the saddle height is measured from the pedal center. And in many high speed corners you put your weight on the outside pedal which is lower. Also the arc through which it passes is lower. There is about an inch difference in height and it is very noticeable believe me.