Classic Touring Frames

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:36:24 -0700, Forbes B-Black wrote:

On Jun 5, 9:59 pm, Pilgrim wrote:

The early Treks have really got my attention. The 610, and 720 seem to
be really solid frames. Does anyone have any opinions about these
frames, or know of any similar ones?

They are glorious, wonderful frames. I had several friends ride
across America on old lugged Treks. Never any (frame) problems.

Bridgestones are also great. if you can find an old RBT, snatch it
up.

I don't see what's so great about them. In particular, the RBT is a full
pound or two heavier than some of its contemporaries. And now,
Bridgestones are trendy, making them expensive on the used market.

Bridgestone MTB frames are nice because they have steep (72 deg) head
angles, making them more suitable for suspension forks than the other MTB
frames from the early 90s that originally came without suspension. The
steeper head angles are nicer on the road, too.

Fuji and Centurion made some decent bikes and you can pick them
up CHEAP (although they are not quite as nice as Treks or B'Stones).
If you can find an old Miyata touring frame, that's another excellent
candidate.

All better bets. There are a lot of old frames around that are
nicer and a better value than Bridgestones. So why all the hype? Some
trendy cult thing I guess.

Matt O.

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:36:38 -0400, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:33:02 -0600, carlfogel wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:20:42 -0400, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

[snip]

I doubt you'd find too many 27" tires around anymore. You could 20
years ago (when the sensibilities of many of this newsgroup's
participants were formed) but not now. If you want to be able to find
tires in hardware and department stores these days, you're better off
with 26" MTB-size wheels.

Matt O.

Dear Matt,

Good grief, I'm out of touch!

I stopped by WalMart this evening to check that they still favor 27-inch
tires over 700c. Sure enough, there were 27-inch tubes, but where were
the 27-inch tires?

Come to think of it, where were _any_ tires?

http://i17.tinypic.com/4koyav4.jpg

Since the last time that I paid attention, WalMart has said to hell with
crummy wire-bead tires. The tires were right in front of my face in
boxes not much bigger than the tube boxes--everything that they sell now
is Kevlar belt and folding-bead.

I'm surprised that wire beaded tires have lasted this long. I've always
wondered when they'd finally disappear. It has to be cheaper to ship and
store folded tires. Kevlar beads may cost a few pennies more than steel
wire, but I'm sure this is moot compared to the other costs.

[snip]

Matt O.

Dear Matt,

Sorry, my mistake.

As Gary Young pointed out, these damn tires are still wire-bead.

The box boasts about a Kevlar belt, and I mistakenly assumed that they
also had a wire bead because they're rolled up. Reading the small
print on the back of the box the next day showed that they have
carbon-steel beads, confirmed by a magnet.

I suppose that the roll-up saves on shipping space and material. It's
not quite as tight as the roll-up for real Kevlar bead tires.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Jun 9, 4:53 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:36:24 -0700, Forbes B-Black wrote:

Bridgestones are also great. if you can find an old RBT, snatch it
up.

I don't see what's so great about them. In particular, the RBT is a full
pound or two heavier than some of its contemporaries. And now,
Bridgestones are trendy, making them expensive on the used market.


snipped



Fuji and Centurion made some decent bikes and you can pick them
up CHEAP (although they are not quite as nice as Treks or B'Stones).
If you can find an old Miyata touring frame, that's another excellent
candidate.

All better bets. There are a lot of old frames around that are
nicer and a better value than Bridgestones. So why all the hype? Some
trendy cult thing I guess.


Bridgestone had a guy who wrote good ad copy. He also "invented" a
character (Pineapple Bob) and the BOB club.

Now he toils for a bicycle company run, apparently, by hobbits and he
flogs overpriced bike bags and odd size wheels and tires.

Pilgrim wrote:
I have looked into bridgestones. Does anyone know if the MBs have the
needed braze ons? I'd imagine their wheel clearance is fine, but what
about the bottome bracket height and angles? The XOs are probably
better for that, but they seem to be kinda collectible. Thanks!

My '93 MB-3 frame has braze-ons for rear rack, fenders and 2 water
bottle cages. I've built it into an excellent winter commuter/town bike
with studded tires and a hub generator, and I'm looking forward to
taking it out on the dirt this summer with knobbies and without the
fenders and lights. I'm not sure how well it would work for touring
though, the chainstays seem a bit short to carry rear panniers.

On Jun 8, 11:04 pm, "* * Chas" wrote:
"Pilgrim" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jun 5, 9:59 pm, Pilgrim wrote:
I'm planning to build a retro touring/cyclocross bike. I was earlier
looking into the Surly "Long Haul Trucker" frame, but decided against
it. It's a great frame, but I've come to realize that they've been
making frames like it for decades, and I'd rather build up an old
frame. Also, they are kind of plain. I'm looking for a lugged steel
frame, with long chainstays, a long wheelbase, laidback touring
angles, clearance for wide tires and fenders, braze-ons and holes for
fenders, front and rear racks, cantilever brakes, downtube shifters,
pump, and bottle cages. What popular bikes in the past have rocked
these features?

The early Treks have really got my attention. The 610, and 720 seem to
be really solid frames. Does anyone have any opinions about these
frames, or know of any similar ones?

Jesse

After reading Sheldon's article about them, I'm starting to consider
the old fillet-brazed Schwinns. Not to sound like a poser, but I
really like the idea of an American built frame, especially a
handbuilt one. I guess if I'm being honest, this bike's as much a
fashion statement as it is transportation. But then, I live in San
Francisco, and half the kids here ride bikes with no brakes just to
look cool. A little "Made in America" sticker isn't too bad is it?

Anyhow, about the Schwinns; I don't see braze-ons for racks on any of
the ones on eBay, and they don't appear to have cantilever brakes.
Anyone know about tire/fender clearance on these bikes. is it possible
to braze on your own brake, pump, and rack fittings? I've done a
little brazing, so it seems doable.

The old filet brazed Schwinns were 40 Lb. tanks made from very heavy wall
thickness tubing. There was probably 1/2 Lb. of brazing material on each
frame.

There were one or two models made with alloy steel and one made with
thinner wall thickness tubes; the rest were made from gas pipe.

One of the big problems with the old Schwinns was/is they used undersized
tubing and better quality components don't fit the seat and downtube
without modification. Another could be getting quality modern wheels to
fit.

Here's what could be a good deal on a Centurion lugged steel frame touring
bike from the late 70s or early 80s. It has good touring components from
the pre-index days and what looks to be a good frame. Tange #2 double
butted tubing was comparable to Reynolds 531 and Columbus SL tubes.

It appears that someone put on a cheap set of 27" bolt on wheels. That can
be easily fixed with some better wheels.

I have nothing to do with this auction, I just ran across it today and
thought it matched what you were looking for.

http://cgi.ebay.com/56-CM-Centurion-...15-MENS-15-spe...

Chas.

Hey, thanks for the link. Funny thing, my daily rider is a Centurian.
Totally decent bike. But that one's a bit small. I'm 6'2" with long
legs. I'm looking for something in the 60-64cm range.

On Jun 9, 2:53 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:36:24 -0700, Forbes B-Black wrote:
Bridgestones are also great. if you can find an old RBT, snatch it
up.

I don't see what's so great about them.

I like B'stones because I know that some thought went into the
design. Take my 198? Bridgestone/Kabuki Skyway 12, f'rinstance. Here
we have a cheap, high tensile steel frame with bulge-formed lugs and
other hints that it was manufactured using inexpensive materials.

The frame is 67cm. I have seen a few 67cm Fujis, and one 67cm
"Terranaut." These other bikes were made from pricier tubing, they
had nice, forged dropouts, and other hints that they were "higher
quality."

The top tube on the Terranaut was 56cm. The top tube on the big Fujis
is ~59cm. The top tube on my "cheapo" B'stone is 61.5cm, so it is the
only frame in the bunch that I am comfortable riding at 6'6".

I used to sell B'stones (and Giants, and others). It was always hard
to sell the B'stones, because it was hard to find people who
appreciated the design differences enough to kick down the extra $$,
especially since the B'stones did not tend to be the lightest bikes in
the store. But the people who bought them always seemed happy with
them. I don't think it had to do with cults or hobbits. I just think
that some folks liked the way the B'stones were designed. They were
different from the other bikes. More thought went into designing the
frames and spec'ing the components. They weren't for everyone, but
they worked perfectly for a lot of people.

- FBB

"Forbes B-Black" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 9, 2:53 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:36:24 -0700, Forbes B-Black wrote:
Bridgestones are also great. if you can find an old RBT, snatch it
up.

I don't see what's so great about them.

I like B'stones because I know that some thought went into the
design. Take my 198? Bridgestone/Kabuki Skyway 12, f'rinstance. Here
we have a cheap, high tensile steel frame with bulge-formed lugs and
other hints that it was manufactured using inexpensive materials.

The frame is 67cm. I have seen a few 67cm Fujis, and one 67cm
"Terranaut." These other bikes were made from pricier tubing, they
had nice, forged dropouts, and other hints that they were "higher
quality."

The top tube on the Terranaut was 56cm. The top tube on the big Fujis
is ~59cm. The top tube on my "cheapo" B'stone is 61.5cm, so it is the
only frame in the bunch that I am comfortable riding at 6'6".

I used to sell B'stones (and Giants, and others). It was always hard
to sell the B'stones, because it was hard to find people who
appreciated the design differences enough to kick down the extra $$,
especially since the B'stones did not tend to be the lightest bikes in
the store. But the people who bought them always seemed happy with
them. I don't think it had to do with cults or hobbits. I just think
that some folks liked the way the B'stones were designed. They were
different from the other bikes. More thought went into designing the
frames and spec'ing the components. They weren't for everyone, but
they worked perfectly for a lot of people.

- FBB

Yes, you're probably correct about Bridgestones at that time.

The cult following comments refer to today's interest in these older bikes
and the Rivendell connection with all of the cutesy marketing names they
have for their products (someone there read too many "xxxx For Dummies"
books). I cringe when I hear grown men using babytalk terms referring to
bike components.

In the 1970s we sold European bikes over the more flashy, better finished
Japanese bikes of the time.

The (pre-Cyclone, pre-Dura-Ace) Japanese bikes with Suntour rear
derailleurs shifted better but the frame geometries generally didn't
handle or ride very well.

There wasn't a big market for 10 speed bikes or sport cycling in Japan.
They had Keirin track racing with paramutual betting (which is more like
horse racing than cycling sport) but most Japanese rode 50 Lb. one or
three speed rod brake clunkers. Also, the Japanese people were of a much
smaller stature overall than the average American or European.

The Japanese bikes coming into the US were made to the specs given them by
half a dozen or so bicycle importers/distributors some of whom where just
trying to cash in on the American Bike Boom.

Brand names like Azuki (a small bean), Takara (a plum), Nishiki (made up
to sound Japanese), Sekine. Shogun, Lotus and a slew of other Japanese
sounding words didn't exist as bicycle companies in Japan. Fuji,
Bridgestone, Panasonic and Miyata were actual manufacturers (after a
sort).

The early Japanese bike were mostly made from very heavy gage gas pipe
tubing. A standard Japanese 10 speed with steel rims and cranks weighed 32
to 38 Lbs. vs. 28 Lbs. for a comparably equipped European bike. The top
tubes were either too long or too short for the frame size. Some had a 75°
or 76° head tube with a 2.5" or 3" fork rake so they rode and handled like
a wheelbarrow.

By the late 1970s the frame designs improved drastically when they started
copying European geometry.

Sheldon has a lot of info on this:

http://sheldonbrown.com/japan.html#kabuki

I lived in Japan in 1964 and 65. I had a Bridgestone light weight 10 speed
with European components that I rode all over central Japan on.

Chas.