Lightweight randonneur bike

[fd3]

Am I missing the "news" in this?

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/j-p-weigle-for-the-concours-de-machines/?utm_source=Retail+Customer+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3f578a569d-Concours_2017_07_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f74fbd5ca8-3f578a569d-32963801&mc_cid=3f578a569d&mc_eid=37dbf285a9

I have a (steel) Audax bike which is about 9kg, without dynamo lights and my commuter is about the same +/- a kg depending on tyres and luggage (but only has the two gears). 

I would have thought that 9kg steel audax bikes would be doable off the peg and you could go a good kg less if you throw time and money at it.

(or am I just nor measuring accurately enough?)

[Samuel D]

You’re likely not weighing accurately enough. I have accurately weighed a few bicycles, and in every case they weighed more than the owner thought.

Secondly, the weights are with dynamo, lights, rack, long mudguards, pump, bell, and pedals (the latter – and all the others! – usually omitted from specified weights of bicycles). As Heine says here, the bicycle weighs the same as a carbon-fibre Open U.P. without mudguards, racks, or lights.

Weigle and Heine’s bicycle was actually the lightest in the Concours de Machines. Of course it would be easy to make a lighter bicycle, but I think they already went a bit far. There are other, more important qualities to a good bicycle.

[Brucey]

I think they maybe went a bit too far, too. The Ti pedals, BB, and sprockets are all parts that will wear out quickly and/or be liable to premature breakage.  They do save about 1lb in weight though.

BTW I agree that the eyebolts in the cantis are OK in Ti though; IIRC the original MAFAC ones were brass, for which Ti is a perfect substitute in this instance.  The brake design itself though.... meh.... I don't think it has enough MA; the arms look shorter than the old MAFAC design, if anything, and they are barely powerful enough even with high MA levers.

cheers

[zigzag]

i'd be afraid to push the pedals on this bike, it looks like it's made for the show rather than riding.

[yoav]

Ooooh, the return of drillium 😮

[mzjo]

This is very much a copy of the french touring bike trials of the 1930's. Unfortunately for Jan Heine he does not seem to have made a lot of progress for 80 years of development. Barral was at this level and for the period more technologically interesting. Pederson had a steel touring bike weighing about this much at the turn of the last century (with a very wide ratio 3speed hub) (and a tandem weighing 11.5kgs IIRC, although with a crew weight limit).
Where in the 30's the idea was to test progress I get the impression that the idea now is to showcase nostalgia. But that's just me I expect.

[giropaul]

The owner could have saved a lot of weight by making it the right size! It's huge for that saddle height.

[Biggsy]

A smaller frame would need a longer seatpost and fork steerer/stem, which have to be made of heavier stuff per inch than frame tubing.  The seatpost was probably trimmed to the minimum needed.

[cameronp]

Also, Jan is clearly a fan of French-style bike fit, where you ride the largest frame you could swing your leg over.

As for the weight, I'm pretty sure my alu road bike weighs close to 10kg when it's in full Audax mode - including dyno lights, pump and pedals but no racks or guards ('cos I am not from Britain or Seattle). 9.1kg for a steel bike ready to ride long days over dirt roads carrying luggage is bloody impressive in my book. No interest in riding anything with cantis ever again though, and the drillium is more than a little ridiculous.

[Samuel D]

i'd be afraid to push the pedals on this bike, it looks like it's made for the show rather than riding.

Would you elaborate on that? The bicycle completed the technical trial with Heine on it (not all entrants did), so it can’t be very fragile.

Where in the 30's the idea was to test progress I get the impression that the idea now is to showcase nostalgia. But that's just me I expect.

No, I think most cyclists share your view. I don’t entirely agree with them, though. The engineer and bicycle academic Rob Van der Plas has an interesting couple of phrases near the beginning of his 1991 book, Bicycle Technology:

“[Historical and technical knowledge] will facilitate a sober look at concepts that are presented as new, revolutionary improvements. Only too often, these represent non-solutions for problems that are incorrectly perceived.”

And:

“[…] lest we waste time and resources trying to solve problems that don’t exist or that are fixed by the laws of nature.”

A lot of innovation in bicycles over the last half century or so has been along these misguided lines. Of course much of it has also been good or necessary, but the J. P. Weigle incorporates important elements of that; it’s actually quite different from a 1930s machine in detail if not in outline. And the outline is sound and hard to improve in a meaningful way. Plus, I suspect the quality of the Weigle’s materials and construction is usefully higher than even the best machines of that era.

But it also has arguably pointless innovation such as the lamp switch on the stem. At least it doesn’t have indicators in the bar ends like the Cyfac did.

[P Walsh]

I can forgive drilling chain rings for a competition. It would be super daft for real life, of course. You've only to think of all the mud those holes would collect. And all the effort to save 10g.

But my main concern with that outwardly nice bike is the frame tubes. How thin do the tube walls have to be to get to the weight? And could a numpty like me avoid denting tubes like that? 

[Jakob W]

I'm slightly bemused by the 'innovation' criterion; fundamentally the diamond-frame bicycle is a mature piece of technology, so anything in that line is going to be fiddling at the edges. (Edit: are the rules available anywhere online in English?) From an innovation point of view I'd be more interested in seeing what you might get if you cross Battle-Mountain-style performance HPVs and the technical trials with their requirements for a certain amount of rough terrain - suspended faired trikes with semi-monocoque CF shells?

Or even just what you might get with a modern aero-tubed CF frame with the aerodynamics optimised for luggage and mudguards at fast randonneuring speeds - would you (e.g.) end up with wide tyres and deep-section rims?

[Brucey]

re the frame size. Arguably having the frame size such that the handlebars end up the right height/reach without a lot of faff is as good a way of determining the right frame size.

Considerations such as standover height are important on MTBs, much less so on touring bikes.

It is worth noting that larger sized steel diamond frames are a good deal more flexible and therefore comfortable.  If one is of a medium height, you can (just about) sensibly try riding 'the same bike model' in a small (20" with horizontal TT) size all the way to a large size (say 25" or 26").  Whenever I've done this I would have described the bikes as being 'unrecognisable as the same type' in terms of ride quality.

As Biggsy pointed out earlier, notions of smaller frames being lighter don't necessarily apply; it all depends on how the bits that are bolted to it are made, too.

cheers

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Mr Heine's preferred frame geometry is all predicated on using a loaded handlebar bag (compromising unloaded handling IMHO). It mandates a long top tube and short stem. A larger frame makes it easier to use a single hand to shift both down tube gear levers and a standard handlebar stem doesn't need a huge quill.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I'd like to ride that bike and see how it handles. The head tube/fork geometry looks odd, to modern eyes.

[cameronp]

Mr Heine's preferred frame geometry is all predicated on using a loaded handlebar bag (compromising unloaded handling IMHO). It mandates a long top tube and short stem. A larger frame makes it easier to use a single hand to shift both down tube gear levers and a standard handlebar stem doesn't need a huge quill.

Interesting ... don't Heine's handlebar bags actually sit on a front rack, anchored to the fork rather than the bars? Not sure how this affects top tube and stem length? I do know he makes a big song and dance about low trail forks though.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'm not quite sure why, if your aim is to create a practical bike at the lowest weight possible, you use steel rather than carbon fibre. I quite like the look of the bike, but I doubt I'd want to own it – even if it wasn't a one off. And aspects of it, like the drillium and the cut out crown race, do seem ridiculous. I think the light switch on the stem is neat though! I love the fact I can turn my lights on and off front and rear by just pressing the button on the back of the headlight; with a handlebar bag on a JH-approved decaleur rack, it would be impossible to reach the headlight, so the switch allows you to light up without stopping. Of course you could just put the front light on the bars or stem, but that would not fit the aesthetic.

[Brucey]

re the steering geometry, I think that the logic runs something like this; to avoid toe overlap whilst having a steep head angle ( which supposedly makes the steering better with a front load on) the top tube can end up longer than it might otherwise. This in turn may lead to a shorter stem than might be used otherwise.

I think that you can make a nice bike in CF but that (as well as concerns about damage resistance and repairability etc) it doesn't lend itself so well to many of the design features that folk might want or need on machines of this type.  Steel frames can be made infinitely varied in terms of their geometry, and can easily have any conceivable attachment or special fitting added at the whim of the builder/customer. These things can be achieved without a large investment in tooling and so forth.

   Unless you are going to start manufacturing carbon forks, most folk start designing a frameset around an available carbon fork, if that is what is to be used. This greatly restricts the range of geometries and fittings that can be used. By contrast you can have whatever you can imagine, more or less, if it is made in steel.

Folk have often said (in a derogatory way) that making steel frames is just 'glorified plumbing'. However in a way, it isn't a bad analogy; no-one in their right mind would start laying up composite material in-situ when (say) installing the pipework in a house, it is much easier to use versatile fittings that can be assembled in any format, modified if necessary.

BTW the drilling near the lower head race appears to be through the head tube wall into the down tube.  This part of the head tube isn't so loaded, so removing material at this point (in a lugged and brazed frame) is fair game, if you can be bothered with it.  It also helps to ventilate the frame better; I have seen several steel frames that have (after decades) suffered condensation-induced internal corrosion at the top of the down tube. I think this would be less likely with drillings at this point.

BTW bikes that win prizes at shows are very rarely the kinds of bikes that people own and use on a daily basis (in the same way perhaps as you wouldn't wear the crown jewels down the pub, or leave your team Sky replica pinarello locked up outside the supermarket...). They do however show (for good or ill) what can be done; one can admire the craftsmanship and dedication involved, even if the end result leaves you cold, or isn't practical for everyday use.

cheers

[Cudzoziemiec]

At Bespoked bike show a few years ago someone was showing off an amazing lattice work carbon fibre frame. It was literally a series of CF triangles arranged into tube-like positions; a bit as if a really, really fat-tubed frame had had most of its material cut away (but that's not how it was made). It was hand made, incredibly light, extremely expensive. And probably highly impractical other than for racing. But an interesting idea.

On a more practical level, things like the Trek Domane and Giant Defy seem to achieve randonneur practicality from mass produced carbon frames and I'm guessing they weigh less too. There seem to be several happy audaxers on Domanes on this forum, anyway. Hang on! I've found a review with weight: 7.6kg for a 56cm Domane SLR as tested. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/reviews/road-bikes/trek-domane-slr But that hasn't got mudguards or lighting so those are going to bring it up to around the same as the JP Weigel. And it's a £7 grand bike. Mind you, I expect the Weigel is too!

[nobby]

Why use a wingnut at the mudguard bridge? It's got to weigh more than an ordinary nut.

[Jakob W]

The rear half of the back mudguard can be taken off to 'rinko' the bike; it's got a tongue that slides inside the front half and is clamped by the wingnut. As it acts as the fixing point as well, it's lighter than a separate nut to join the mudguard halves (which is the usual rinko design.)

[Brucey]

Why use a wingnut at the mudguard bridge? It's got to weigh more than an ordinary nut.

the bike is meant to be easily 'rinkoable'. The wingnut allows the joint in the mudguard to be quickly separated; IIRC the part of the mudguard behind the seat tube stays put, and the part behind the seat stays comes away.

edit cross posted with Jakob

cheers

[LittleWheelsandBig]

It is kind of silly to have a switch for dyno head and tail lights when a Senso headlight takes care of the whole problem automatically.

French-style large handlebar bars generally fit snugly in front of the bars, not under the bars. Otherwise the map holder gets obscured and it is difficult to open the bag while riding (a major advantage of a handlebar bag). The bag is supported by a mini-rack but stabilised by a decaleur, usually mounted off the stem or headset. The handlebar bag needs to be mounted as close as possible to the centre-line of the headset, otherwise the increased radius of gyration stuffs up the steering. Hence, a short stem works best.

[Kim]

It is kind of silly to have a switch for dyno head and tail lights when a Senso headlight takes care of the whole problem automatically.

To a point, Lord Cooper:  There's been a trend amongst more recent B&M lights^[1] to have the sensor switch automagically between "daylight be-seen" and "night time illumination" modes, rather than between 'on' and 'off'.

After installing an IQ-X with what I later discovered to be a fault (rather than poor design) causing the switch to only work while the bike was in motion, I ended up fitting a switch^[2] at the handlebars on my recumbent, to save having to do awkward touch-your-toes manoeuvres when setting off in the dark.  I've since returned the light for one that will switch on while stationary, but kept the handlebar switch for convenience^[3].  (While I don't mind using lights in daylight when conditions justify it, it seems pointless running them all the time, and is actively contraindicated if trying to use the dynamo to charge batteries).

I wouldn't bother on an upright as it's just another potential point of failure (albeit one that's easy enough to bodge around at the roadside), unless there was a bag in the way preventing access.


_{[1] The Cyo T Senso Plus and IQ-X both do it.
[2] eBay cheapo auxiliary headlight switch for motorbikes.  Takes the quick-drying approach to waterproofing, so is reasonably lightweight - especially after un-soldering the supplied trailing leads in favour of connecting directly to some of that lovely Schmidt coax.
[3] Initially the convenience of not having to re-do the relevant wiring.}

[Exit Stage Left]

This 'Concours de Machines' idea is interesting. it seems to coincide with Randonee events that are of two different lengths, and both mass start and time trials. The whole feel is akin to the 'International Six Day Trials' in motorcycling. I took a look at the video, and saw Victor Decoard, who I filmed at PBP. where he was riding for the 'Singer' team. On this event he was with Gilles Berthoud. I spotted his other half, who featured in the German 'Brevet' film, she was in Singer colours.

These bikes are doing the same job as typical 1980s Audax bikes, but with bigger tires than 27x1 1/4. I'm reminded of Peter Simon's modified Raleigh Record Ace I saw on the Mille Pennines in 2016. I described that to Aidan Hedley, and his response was that he could do the same to a bike in his shed and save himself £3,500.

So it seems to be a carefully structured marketing exercise, seeking to channel some of the appeal of the Eroica, and produce coverage in the upmarket bike mags and on social media.