Lightweight randonneur bike

[fd3]

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.

Could you not have a steel fork and a CF frame?  Sounds off I know, but you would get the mystic magical comfort of a CF frame, lower weight and steel forks are just as comfortable (maybe?) and essentially as light (maybe).

[Samuel D]

are the rules available anywhere online in English?

Here. (PDF)

And it's a £7 grand bike. Mind you, I expect the Weigel is too!

The Weigel might be even more than that if it was available to the public. There’s a lot of expensive equipment, expensively modified, on it. (For example, the cranks are $435 before modifications.) Not to mention the special frame, which must be very light. Maybe 1.3 kg?

I took a look at the video

Link? I didn’t easily find that video.

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.

This ungenerous criticism equally applies to all sorts of commercial endeavour nowadays. I find this grass-roots stuff preferable to the arbitrary fads foisted on the uncritical public by the mainstream players in the bicycle industry. At least the Weigel has conceptual cohesion, style, and a bit of history going for it. In contrast, why would you buy a £7k Trek with gimmicks that already look outdated a year after it went on sale?

[Brucey]

BITD this sort of competition had enough entrants to stimulate the manufacture of some pretty special bikes. IIRC some were a fair bit lighter yet, still fully equipped.

cheers

[Cudzoziemiec]

Old trends are just as trendy as new ones.

[Samuel D]

Trends are in themselves neither good nor bad. It depends on the trend. What is problematic is solving imaginary or insignificant problems with solutions that create their own, real and significant problems. Today the bicycle industry specialises in this, having apparently run out of good, marketable ideas.

As a result, old designs are sometimes functionally better than new ones. What’s the problem with that, unless you’re trying to sell bicycles to people with more money than sense? There are good reasons why no-one is trying to reinvent the wheel.

I have a different opinion from Heine on some details of bicycle design, but his preferred bicycles are based around a cohesive set of functional requirements. That is always appealing to me.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Trends are in themselves neither good nor bad. It depends on the trend. What is problematic is solving imaginary or insignificant problems with solutions that create their own, real and significant problems.

Yes!

Today the bicycle industry specialises in this, having apparently run out of good, marketable ideas.

But I'm not sure this is any more true today than at any other time.

[Exit Stage Left]

I took a look at the video

Link? I didn’t easily find that video.

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.

This ungenerous criticism equally applies to all sorts of commercial endeavour nowadays. I find this grass-roots stuff preferable to the arbitrary fads foisted on the uncritical public by the mainstream players in the bicycle industry. At least the Weigel has conceptual cohesion, style, and a bit of history going for it. In contrast, why would you buy a £7k Trek with gimmicks that already look outdated a year after it went on sale?

The video is fairly easy to find. http://www.concoursdemachines.fr/en/news/concours-de-machines-2016-video-la-montagne.html

Victor Decoard appears early on, he's wearing a 'Look Mum No Hands' cap. He makes an appearance in the 'Brevet' film, which is being screened at 'Look Mum No Hands' next Thursday. He's a handy rider, having completed PBP in just under 50 hours, in the company of J.P. Gualbert, organiser of PBP.

The revival of the 'Concours de Machines' is well structured, operating on the level of Rapha. YACF is the place where it's most likely to be deconstructed, as there's a preference for the 'non-commercial'.

The main criticism I'd have of the bikes is that many have a single chainwheel. Triples give you at least three gears if you have problems with the shifters, cable or rear mech. You can stick the rear mech in a variety of gears with an adjustable cable tie.

[Brucey]

arguably all derailleur gears are a mechanical abomination, but single-ring systems are (IMHO) especially abominable.

Front shifting is a cause of much trouble, especially with inexperienced riders, so I can see why manufacturers might want to get rid of it, especially if it seems to offer cheaper, lighter, simpler bikes.

However front shifting -ghastly though it is in principle- is at least something that is within the rider's control.  You don't have to mangle everything every time you shift.

By contrast the shortcomings of single ring gearing are more or less inescapable.  The main issues are as follows;

1) Uneven gear intervals.  In percentage terms any single-ring setup is going to have unevenly spaced gears. Not everyone thinks this is a big deal but enough do that it is worth a mention.

2) You are forced to use stupid chainlines.  These cause premature wear and they are also a significant source of inefficiency. Of particular concern is that when the chain is usually seeing the highest load, (in bottom gear, in part  because the cadence is usually lower) the chainline is at its absolute worst.

3) You are forced to use stupid chainring and sprocket sizes.  A ~40T chainring will not last as long as a ~50T chainring (given like for like gear ratios).

4) You are forced to use stupid chainring and sprocket sizes.  A normal 'most used' gear of 40/16 (say) is significantly less efficient than (say) 50/20 gearing (same ratio).

5) You are forced to use stupid chainring and sprocket sizes.  40/11 gearing (say) is both less efficient and faster wearing than (say) 52/13 gearing.

6) You can't get  a really wide range of gears with a single ring setup. Yes  it is 'enough' for many purposes, but certainly not all.

7) as pointed out above, in the event of rear mech troubles, at best you have one emergency gear with a single ring setup.

With a double or a triple setup, many of the above issues can be greatly reduced. Yes there are gears with worse chainlines, but those need not be used.

if you scratch the surface of this 1x11 or 1x12 gearing, vs the benefits of a small weight saving and simpler shifting pattern, you might find that the gear ratios, efficiency, longevity etc on offer are actually significantly inferior than those you might achieve using (say) an ancient 3x c6 half-step + granny setup.  The latter system can have a much stronger rear wheel (less dish at any OLN)  , and even a similar chainline/Q value (on a road bike).

cheers

[zigzag]

Victor Decoard appears early on, he's wearing a 'Look Mum No Hands' cap. He makes an appearance in the 'Brevet' film, which is being screened at 'Look Mum No Hands' next Thursday. He's a handy rider, having completed PBP in just under 50 hours, in the company of J.P. Gualbert, organiser of PBP.

i remember one guy riding in our "a" group on pbp on a silver singer bike, could well be him. considering the type of bike he was riding he was doing very well to keep up, at least for the first couple couple hundred km.

[cameronp]

@Brucey; while in principle all of those are fine engineering reasons to dislike 1X, in practice I don't think most riders are fussed about them, at least not the ones considering a 1X system. Modern components seem to tolerate cross-chaining pretty well - 11s chains are narrow and flexy and don't seem to last that long no matter what you do. I ride my tourer (with a 3x9 setup) in the middle ring 99% of the time, which should give me the same kind of problems with chainlines and sprocket sizes, but in practice has survived my abuse and neglect perfectly well for years. An 11s cassette with 11-42 has the same cogs as the 9s 11-32 I happily use on my tourer, plus two extra bailout gears. So if you're happy with the decreased total range and big gaps between gears, I can see 1X being a reasonable solution for a lot of people.

The big manufacturers have almost completely discontinued triples - not to mention that they're tragically unhip - and there seems to be a big hole in the market at the moment for touring-oriented doubles. So that's just further encouragement for people to use 1X for fast touring / randonneuring / gravel grinding / hipster contrarianism.

[zigzag]

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.

i don't want to name particular parts, but some of them are not fit for purpose. reminds me when i spoke to one of the custom steel frame builders at one bike show, where they had a lightweight (<7kg) steel show bike. they said it's not really rideable (unless very gently), but to make potential customers impressed with the (lack of) weight.

[amedias]

i don't want to name particular parts, but some of them are not fit for purpose.

Ah come on, you can't make statements like that without backing it up! 

Name them, which bits and which purpose aren't they suitable for?

[nobby]

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

Thanks for explaining that Brucey and Jakob. I don't know what Rinkoing is but gdoes it need to be done quickly?

[mattc]

...

The big manufacturers have almost completely discontinued triples - not to mention that they're tragically unhip - and there seems to be a big hole in the market at the moment for touring-oriented doubles. So that's just further encouragement for people to use 1X for fast touring / randonneuring / gravel grinding / hipster contrarianism.

The main reason for selling "1x" systems is money - not the benefit of riders.

"fast touring", gravel bikes etc were once tragically unhip. Everything comes round again, ESPECIALLY sound engineering solutions.
Look at tyre widths.

I didn't get where I am today by avoiding tragically unhip fashions!

[bobb]

No flap on the rear guard 

 

[sojournermike]

No flap on the rear guard 

 

Second place overall

[Jakob W]

are the rules available anywhere online in English?

Here. (PDF)

Thanks - I can't see any explicit reference to innovation there, but maybe this is covered in the French?

Thanks for explaining that Brucey and Jakob. I don't know what Rinkoing is but gdoes it need to be done quickly?

It's basically a method of packing the bike down for travel; you end up with a package not that much bigger than a square round the wheels. There's a picture on one of Heine's posts about the bicycle here: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/j-p-weigle-for-the-concours-de-machines/ When designing a bike for rinko the idea is generally to require as few special tools as possible; I think (having seen Heine's descriptions of other rinko bikes) the aim is to pack it in about 15-20 minutes (and that includes removing the bars and forms), so quick-release tricks are always welcome.

Regarding the longevity of the bike, Heine mentioned somewhere online what the design life was; I think it may have been 100,000K? He's quite a powerful rider, too, though I gather he's got a nice smooth pedalling style which should help - I think his major reservation was with the Ti BB.

[Brucey]

Thanks for explaining that Brucey and Jakob. I don't know what Rinkoing is but does it need to be done quickly?

'Rinko' is the Japanese term for routinely partially dismantling your touring bike so that it can be carried on Japanese trains (which only allow baggage of certain size or something) . The handlebars, forks, wheels, mudguards, pedals etc all come off, using QD fittings that require minimal tools (often just one or two  allen keys) and with practice a suitable bike can be rendered into a bundle (strapped together using toe straps in a particular way such that parts are not damaged by rubbing) in about fifteen minutes.

 One of the cunning adaptations is that a 1" threaded headset's threaded parts can have a short length of tube brazed on to them, so that they may be tightened using allen keys as tommy bars. Provided the bearings are cartridge or caged type (not loose), the headset parts are quite happy rattling around on the steerer in transit. Sometimes clever fixings using captive wing nuts are used for the mudguards and so forth. 

Somewhere online there is a nice English language article about Rinko. I'd actually done a near-identical thing myself several times when touring, decades ago, without realising it was 'a thing', but not in Japan. In Italy (I think) the rule used to be that you could carry anything that would 'fit on a luggage rack'; my disassembled touring bike (with the aid of a few bungies, admittedly) passed muster in this way!

edit- again cross-posted with Jakob!

cheers

[Jakob W]

Ha - days of miracles and wonders; I'd not expect to best Brucey a third time!

If I ever get round to building a custom tourer I'd certainly spec some rinko-like features; given the small effort required, the ability to be able to (eg.) take your bike on the Eurostar would seem to be a no-brainer.

[Samuel D]

JP Weigle pricing indication from 2011.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Makes Mercian or Argos seem absolute bargains!

[Brucey]

If I ever get round to building a custom tourer I'd certainly spec some rinko-like features; given the small effort required, the ability to be able to (eg.) take your bike on the Eurostar would seem to be a no-brainer.

It is worth looking at other schemes for doing this sort of thing, too. The (older style) Montague/Rudge BiFrame scheme could be made more elegant and built into a nice touring frame, for example. Also,  Rob English makes frames that pack down small (primarily intended for air travel) and his solution is to have seatstays that detach at the seat lug (binder bolt) and chainstays that swivel around the BB shell on clamps.  This allows the rear triangle to swing over the front triangle and for the whole frame to fit into a small case.  He has certainly built some nice road frames with this style of folding, and the resultant bikes ride well and weigh just 100g more than conventional ones. I don't see why a touring machine couldn't be made in the same way. I think that the rear fold might well be easier than taking the forks out, too.

cheers

[Efrogwr]

If I ever get round to building a custom tourer I'd certainly spec some rinko-like features; given the small effort required, the ability to be able to (eg.) take your bike on the Eurostar would seem to be a no-brainer.

It is worth looking at other schemes for doing this sort of thing, too. The (older style) Montague/Rudge BiFrame scheme could be made more elegant and built into a nice touring frame, for example. Also,  Rob English makes frames that pack down small (primarily intended for air travel) and his solution is to have seatstays that detach at the seat lug (binder bolt) and chainstays that swivel around the BB shell on clamps.  This allows the rear triangle to swing over the front triangle and for the whole frame to fit into a small case.  He has certainly built some nice road frames with this style of folding, and the resultant bikes ride well and weigh just 100g more than conventional ones. I don't see why a touring machine couldn't be made in the same way. I think that the rear fold might well be easier than taking the forks out, too.

cheers

Rob English builds very impressive frames. He has built a touring frame, including a rack, that folds as described. How well will the clamped, rather than welded, bottom bracket/chainstay junction work in practice?

RE's Folding Concept would comply with Eurostar's crappy size limit for bikes.

[Brucey]

Rob English builds very impressive frames. He has built a touring frame, including a rack, that folds as described. How well will the clamped, rather than welded, bottom bracket/chainstay junction work in practice?

I think there is a risk that the frame may be less laterally stiff in the chainstays than a conventional one, not least because (IIRC) in order for the fold to work, there cannot be a conventional chainstay brace.  However there is also a fair bit of devil in the detail, too; if the clamps are not very well toleranced, the interface could even be wobbly in fact. However I think that RE's parts will be machined to the nth degree and won't suffer from this possible flaw at any rate.

 In a road racing frame the chainstays may be so short a brace might not do much anyway; however a touring machine may be a different matter.

cheers

[fd3]

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).

Just checked with the luggage scales and I am indeed out, my fixie is 12kg with the saddlebag full, 11.4 without.  Still, it's a pompino with Dynamo hub, lights, longflap mudguards and will have cost about £700 all in (including Dynamo and lights).  I reckon I could shave a kg off for less than a grand and probably get very close to 10kg if I got a custom frame made.

... not weighed the Argos audax bike as it is out on a long term loan.