Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Topic started by: Oxford_Guy on 11 June, 2018, 10:16:58 pm
-
Hi - I made the trip to Derby last week for a bike fit at Mercian Cycles (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/) - it's my 50th birthday next year (which is when the bike will be ready) and will also be 10 years since I got rid of my last car (and all the associated expenses) so I've decided to treat myself.
I was greeted by Grant, who first of all asked me some questions about what i was looking for from the bike (said I wanted a relatively light, but traditional, lugged steel road/sportive/club bike for spring/summer use, to complement my all-weathers 9-year old Hewitt Cheviot tourer - which I had with me) and if I already had one of their specific frame models in mind or not - I'd pretty much already decided on their Strada Speciale (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/strada-speciale/), in non-oversized tubing with a 1" threaded stem and a non-sloping top tube, onto which I'll be putting a silver alloy 10-speed Campagnolo setup. After discussing tubing material and my requirements with Grant, I ended up choosing Reynold 853 Pro Team, which Grant thought would work well in that configuration for my size (I'm 5'8", 74Kg) and requirements (even over 953 steel!), but said he doesn't recommend 853 Pro Team non-oversize for much taller/heavier riders on large frames. I did consider as an alternative a King of Mercian, but with "road" geometry, but the Strada seems to be more what I'm after.
Also, one of his first questions after I said I was looking for a road/sportive frame was "how do you feel about toe overlap?", which was not something I was expecting, so didn't quite know how to answer, though my understanding is that it's not usually a big issue in practice - not sure if it will be for this frame or not, as forgot to ask him again about that later...
We then moved onto discussing some basics of the frame and add-ons - 130mm OLN was agreed for the rear, vertical drop-outs, braze-ons on the seatpost tube and downtube for water bottles, no rack braze-ons (I might carry a saddlebag on this bike, but would use my tourer if wanting to carry serious loads and use a rack), clearance for just 39/49mm (or Campag 40/50mm...) brakes (not long drop - I know...), but mudguard clearance (for 23mm tyres only) and drillings/braze-ons for them- TBH I will probably run 25mm tyres on this bike without mudguards, as it's for spring/summer use only, and want something quite stripped-down to the basics, but also wanted the option still to be there for mudguards.
Some things I wasn't sure about:
* when asked whether I wanted to run the rear brake cable (with full outer) through three brazed-on guides on the top of the top tube (the traditional approach), or just to run an exposed cable between two stops on the bottom left of the top tube I wasn't sure - the bike is deliberately going to be quite retro-looking, but the latter setup I thought would look neater, so that's what I said (for now). The other option would be internal routing, but that would cost quite a bit more and I didn't really like the idea. I still have time to change my mind, though, if this seems like a bad idea!
* I asked about whether to have a braze-on for the front-derailleur, as thought that might look neater than a band-on, but Grant said it would be stronger to use a band-on adapter (even with a braze-on FD), and if I was using the FD with a triple (more on that below) would be even more advisable(?).
Anyway, he looked at the old drawings I had from my Hewitt Cheviot bike fit to get a general ball-park for my sizing (though obviously the geometry is different for a touring bike), then told me to pop on their fitting jig. Unfortunately although I had the pedals I would be putting on the bike (Campagnolo Pro Fit), I didn't have the shoes (not bought them yet!), so for sizing had to just use the pedals with toe clips they had fitted.
First off was measuring up the frame/seatpost heights - he asked how much visible seatpost I would be expecting to see, and said about a "handful" is what he usually recommends these days (i.e. more than was traditional, though less than you see on most modern road bikes or even my Hewitt), Grant said doing this would also then leave enough room for a saddlebag etc., especially as it will be a quite small frame (I'm only 5'8" or so) - I said I'd go with his suggestion. Sometime was spent with me pedaling on the jig and grant observing my stance as I pedaled, me getting off whilst he made adjustments, then repeating this until he felt that I was "looking good" and it also felt right to me.
We then moved onto trying to get the measurements right for my reach at the front of the bike and height of the stem, this took a lot longer, partly because one of the indicators Grant would look at for a good fit is the curvature of the rider's spine, but the middle part of my back is very flat (always has been, genetics..), so it was a bit difficult for him to gauge and lots of different adjustments were tried. I also have chronic (if low-grade) lower back pain (partly a consequence of my flat back), so the level of the handlebar below the saddle I can cope with is not as low down as most "road" cyclists would probably want (I told Grant this), though still lower than on my touring bike (on which I'm fine, even on the drops for reasonable distances). I think in the end we got to a position that felt about right and Grant thought looked okay, though I still have a slight nagging doubt that it's not perfect for me. One potential reason is that I haven't ridden a true road bike since my teens, so my "muscle memory" is more used to the position of my touring bike and anything else feels a little strange. In the end I think he said they would need to extend the head tube above top tube slightly more than they usually would to get a good fit for me, but said they've done this for other riders and that it should still look okay.
We talk a bit about wheels and Grant suggested silver Mavic Open Pros on silver Miche hubs - which sounded okay, though I haven't fuly decided on the wheels/hubs yet, and may change my mind.
One thing that did come up - I was intending to use a silver Campagnolo 50/40/30 Comp Triple chainset on the bike, which I'd bought on ebay not the long ago, but Grant thought the 175mm cranks would be way too long for me, and that I should look for 170mm ones - there's a long thread about this here (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=108301.0). He also seemed to think putting a triple on a road bike was a bad idea and that I should go for a 50/34 Compact instead - I'm less convinced about this, partly because I don't like the idea of the big jumps between the chain rings (and also rear cogs - as I'd need a wider range cassette than with a triple), but also because it would mean fitting the awkward to maintain Power Torque bottom bracket, if sticking with Campagnolo cranks. As mentioned earlier, I also have quite a bad back and not great knees (have had arthroscopy operations on both), so to date have been more used to spinning on hills than honking up them. The road bike fashionista would not be impressed, though. Perhaps I will find hills less challenging on a road bike than an (unloaded) tourer? Anyway, that decision doesn't have to be made right now, I guess.
Grant then sat down and put his measurements to paper - here's what he came up with:
(https://i.imgur.com/TJRlTeX.jpg)
Regarding seat post height etc. he was basing this on me using a leather saddle (e.g. like the Gilles Berthoud saddle I have on my Hewitt), as that's what I will likely be using.
Other measurements not on this - (quill) stem length 90mm, handlebar width 42cm (though Grant also seemed to think 40cm could be worth a try - I have 42mm on my touring bike, though).
I guess I should post the measurements of my Hewitt Cheviot for comparison when I have time to take a picture.
We then had a discussion about paint and other possible finishing options (e.g. "barber's pole" or not, screw-on metal headbadge vs sticker, old style badge/sticker vs. new etc.), but I'll save that for another post - I made a tentative suggestion, but think I might change that and ask for some feedback here.
Anyway, apologies for rambling, hope this is interesting/helpful for some!
-
FWIW I agree a braze-on mech mount is a thing that is best avoided on that type of bike, and a band-on adaptor is arguably a better, certainly more versatile solution.
cheers
-
Interesting read and it does sound like a good experience. I wonder about the brake drop and potential for mudguards, running 23mm tyres with guards is okayish but if starting from scratch as you are I wonder if you're limiting your options unnecessarily. Having a long drop brake would give you the option of 28mm or more without guards and 25 or possibly 28mm with guards. I run 23mm on one bike with guards and do miss the wider tyres ... the roads aren't getting any smoother!
-
That sounds like a nice bike in the making, I’ll watch with interest.
-
...
* when asked whether I wanted to run the rear brake cable (with full outer) through three brazed-on guides on the top of the top tube (the traditional approach), or just to run an exposed cable between two stops on the bottom left of the top tube I wasn't sure - the bike is deliberately going to be quite retro-looking, but the latter setup I thought would look neater, so that's what I said (for now). The other option would be internal routing, but that would cost quite a bit more and I didn't really like the idea. I still have time to change my mind, though, if this seems like a bad idea!
...
This may not be an issue, but I have a three-guide (full length outer) ttube steel frame, and find it easier to strap tri-bags etc to the top tube. This compared to another bike with exposed tt cable run, where the cable, being close to the frame, slides on the straps. My retro MTB with three exposed cables - is too tricky to bother.
-
I would run full length outers as per reason above. It also makes running rear dynamo cable (should you decide to add a dynamo in the future) under the top tube neater as it blends with the full length outer (you can use bits of electrical tape to join the cable outers together rather than zip ties along top tube).
As for triples, I am just building up a bike with a triple. Having had a loan bike with a compact chainset I did not like it, too much shifting up front and the back simultaneously rather than a middle ring choice which I can sit in most the time.
-
...
* when asked whether I wanted to run the rear brake cable (with full outer) through three brazed-on guides on the top of the top tube (the traditional approach), or just to run an exposed cable between two stops on the bottom left of the top tube I wasn't sure - the bike is deliberately going to be quite retro-looking, but the latter setup I thought would look neater, so that's what I said (for now). The other option would be internal routing, but that would cost quite a bit more and I didn't really like the idea. I still have time to change my mind, though, if this seems like a bad idea!
...
This may not be an issue, but I have a three-guide (full length outer) ttube steel frame, and find it easier to strap tri-bags etc to the top tube. This compared to another bike with exposed tt cable run, where the cable, being close to the frame, slides on the straps. My retro MTB with three exposed cables - is too tricky to bother.
Do you run the full length outers underneath or on top of the top tube? Sounds like you're suggesting the former, but that didn't seem to be an option.
-
Depends on where the cable guides are. On mine they run under the top tube as well as down tube. But on cyclo cross bikes cables will often run on top of top tube to aid shouldering the bike during an event.
-
On my steel frame (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/41328080195/sizes/k/) the guides are on top, this is possibly due to the frame fit pump fitting directly under the top tube, with pump peg braze-on on head tube.
-
I could be tempted to go the full-outers on top tube approach, then - guess it would quite suite the retro look of the bike....
-
That sounds like a nice bike in the making, I’ll watch with interest.
Thanks, when I originally bought my Hewitt Cheviot I didn't know much about "proper" bikes, having only had mediocre hybrids previously, fortunately that turned out to be a pretty good choice for what I wanted to use it for mostly i.e. commuting, social rides and touring, but I now want to have some lighter and faster that I can use for club rides and sportives and solo exercise, but I just can't get excited about aluminium and carbon frames and love the look of traditional steel road bikes with narrow tubing. Still mulling over ideas for paint etc., but I'll post about some of my thoughts about that soon.
-
FWIW I agree a braze-on mech mount is a thing that is best avoided on that type of bike, and a band-on adaptor is arguably a better, certainly more versatile solution.
Thanks, that's what I was thinking - a braze-on fitting FD can be used with an adaptor clamp, but if I later wanted to use a FD with a band-on adaptor then the braze on would be a pointless appendage, or worse, get in the way of the band. Also I've read in some places that brazing at that point on the frame can weaken the seatpost tube.
-
I prefer bare brake cable along the top tube to full length outer. Eventually the full cable wears away the paint and encourages corrosion.
-
the top used to be the favoured place for the brake cable at one time, either with campag band-on clips or braze-ons. I have found that on frames that are made this way, if you stand with one leg over the frame, the cable housing (or the bare cable if it is made that way) tends to scuff the paint on the top tube.
Mounting at the 5 or 7 O'clock position is better from this POV and does not really get in the way of having a pump under the top tube. It used to be that the position of the cable meant that you have chosen your brakes, too, since some were RH and some were LH, but modern DPs are nearly all made the same way and a LH cable mount is normal.
Needless to say a RH cable run makes for better routing of the rear brake cable with the usual brake setup; this is how Holdsworths etc were done BITD. The top cable run will work as well with brakes of either type and indeed with the levers set up either way too.
You can have three braze-ons put on the frame and if the end ones are robustly built, you can use a full housing or a bare cable between the ends, simply by using stepped ferrules or not in the end fittings. If the end fittings are slotted, this makes for easy cable maintenance (you can relube without much faff) but on a road bike brake it is no big deal.
If you are planning to use the bike mostly without mudguards then 50mm drop calipers might be OK. But if it is mostly with mudguards then 60mm drop calipers are pretty much a no-brainer.
Other things that spring to mind
- do you make the gear cable stops slotted or not?
- do you have DT lever bosses with adaptors so that you can fit DT levers if required?
- why not have the frame built 132.5mm so that you have a wider range of hubs that you can use?
- do you have the fork made so that you can easily run a dynamo cable internally?
- ditto dynamo cabling to the rear?
- a pump peg on the back of the head tube is a useful thing but then so is a race number braze-on...?
- two sets of bottle bosses or three?
- do you have a chain hanging peg on the inside of the RH seatstay?
- do you have mudguard fittings that allow you to QD the mudguards?
- 74 degree seat angle is too steep for a lot of combinations of saddle and seat pin; there is no way I could use that with most leather saddles for example, because they don't slide as far back as far a lot of other saddles.
- do you have double eyes and seat stay mounts so that you can fit a rack if needs be, or will it (if at all) be a minimalist one with a single centre mount at the top?
- if you are fairly sure of the reach but expect to want to move the handlebars up and down a bit, and/or you really want the retro look (steel fork and all), there is much to be said for a quill stem and a 1" steerer. [I can't say as I have yet seen an A-head setup on a steel framed bike like this that I like the look of in the slightest, and a 1-1/8" steel steerer is complete overkill.]
- you could (bearing in mind the sporty intent of this frame) easily go 10mm shorter in the chainstays and even 20mm might be possible
- have you checked for toe overlap at the front, with/without mudguards?
- Barber's pole? Why not? [BTW you may or may not want one of the stripes to be the same colour as the mudguards]
Probably you have already made your mind up on a lot of these things but maybe not all of them?
cheers
-
Interesting read and it does sound like a good experience. I wonder about the brake drop and potential for mudguards, running 23mm tyres with guards is okayish but if starting from scratch as you are I wonder if you're limiting your options unnecessarily. Having a long drop brake would give you the option of 28mm or more without guards and 25 or possibly 28mm with guards. I run 23mm on one bike with guards and do miss the wider tyres ... the roads aren't getting any smoother!
To be honest, this (along with whether to go for a triple or not, but that's a less permanent decision) is perhaps the hardest thing I've been trying to make my mind up about. I think I mostly want to run this bike without mudguards, on 25mm tyres - partly because they can get in the way when transporting the bike (e.g. to a sportive) inside a (hire) car or in a bike bag on a plane, but also because they can add weight and (albeit minimal) drag and rattle if not setup well. Also allowing for long-drop brakes may adversely affect the geometry of a short wheelbase lightweight race-frame like this. The other reason is more aesthetic - I think a road bike looks much better without guards and with closer-fitting brakes (but then a wet, muddy line up my back would not be a good look either...)
BTW this is not meant to be a commuter or touring bike or a winter bike - I already have my Hewitt Cheviot (and a Brompton with mudguards) for those duties - although I might want to use this road bike for ultra-lightweight credit card touring in France in summer and guess I could get caught out by rain there...
BUT - I'm still not certain about this choice, obviously mudguards *do* protect you from the worst of the wet, and I'm aware that even if not actually raining, the roads can still be wet. Also if normally running 25mm tyres, I'd have to change to 23mm ones to run the bike with mudguards, if using short-drop brakes, which would be a pain....
I guess mounting guards more or less permanently would also mean less paint chips on the downtube from loose stones and less muck in the drivetrain and brakes too. Argh! Decisions, decisions...
How odd would it look to run long-drop brake with 25mm tyres without mudguards most of the time? Wouldn't there be a big gap?
I think on this Strada Speciale frame with the "shot-in" seat stays I'd probably still only be able to fit 25mm tyres with or without guards, as it looks like the stays would limit the tyre width a bit, but I'm fine with that - however I do realise there is quite a comfort difference between 23mm and 25mm tyres. If going for long-drop brakes, it might make sense to specify a different frame (e.g. King of Mercia, but setup for "road" geometry)?
-
I prefer bare brake cable along the top tube to full length outer. Eventually the full cable wears away the paint and encourages corrosion.
Hmmm, yes that's a point, especially as with a high flat top tube I'll be more or less sitting on it when stationary and off the sadddle...
-
re the FD mount; a band on adaptor allows you to use any braze-on FD or any band on FD. Perhaps most importantly is places no restriction on the size/shape of the chainrings.
To get a band-on adaptor and braze-on FD to fit perfectly, the adaptor can be filed a little so that the angle (when viewed from the side) varies a bit if necessary.
With any single braze-on FD on a braze-on mount, you can vary the chainring size by ~4T and it can be made to work. There are also different braze-on FDs that are meant for different big rings on a standard mount; (for example I have a few rare ones squirrelled away which easily allow a 46T big ring triple on a frame that was meant for a 52T big ring originally). But if you might ever go outside of that you might be in trouble.
In this age of some folk wanting to use oval 53T chainrings and others wanting to use tiny 40T big rings, a braze-on mount certainly seems to be somewhat restrictive.
BTW with modern mechs, chains, and cassettes, good shifting seems to be possible even if the mech hanger is miles away from the cassette; witness the popularity of 'wolf-tooth' gear hangers and the like, which allow bigger sprockets for any given rear mech. It occurs to me that if you wanted a bit more flexibility in the design of your frame re future transmissions, you might want to consider a longer gear hanger from the start, but I don't know if this is something that they offer or not.
cheers
-
Hmmm, yes that's a point, especially as with a high flat top tube I'll be more or less sitting on it when stationary and off the sadddle...
High! Not at all. I too am your height but I ride larger frames, usually something like 56cm with horizontal top tube - most of my frames are custom. Yours looks to me as if it is following a a lot of modern fashion. Small frame, lots of seat tube, low bars offset by pointing the stem upwards. Not knocking it because it is your choices.
-
Brucey - thanks for your helpful response and questions - I've thought about some of those things, but not all. I'll reply in more detail about them when I have more time later. Regarding barber's pole and paint finish - I'll probably create a separate thread for that, as well as some pics of a few ideas.
-
Hmmm, yes that's a point, especially as with a high flat top tube I'll be more or less sitting on it when stationary and off the sadddle...
High! Not at all. I too am your height but I ride larger frames, usually something like 56cm with horizontal top tube - most of my frames are custom. Yours looks to me as if it is following a a lot of modern fashion. Small frame, lots of seat tube, low bars offset by pointing the stem upwards. Not knocking it because it is your choices.
Well I don't want too much seat tube showing - perhaps they've overdone it in that regard?
-
My 'bargain' second hand Mercian turned out to have a broken drive-side dropout. However, it was the excuse I needed for a new paint job and braze-ons:
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn6/gaydisco/DSCF2464.jpg)
I deeply regret not getting a pump peg brazed on to the head tube. Maybe next time...
Oh, and there's a thread on Mercian paint options somewhere. I'll dig it out for you.
-
re mudguards and bike transport. You can, if you are prepared to put your mind to it, come up with all kinds of things that make this less of a schlep.
For example on one bike that travelled every weekend, I had slotted mounts at the brakes, and double nuts on nutted brakes; the mudguards were QD as a result, just by loosening the outer nut. [The stay mounts on the frame were done with wing nuts, but these days I'd probably use secu-clips front and rear]. The result was that the mudguards could be on or off inside two minutes.
However there are other options; for example using brackets that are about 2" long and are captive on the hub axles, you can mount mudguards to the wheels. You loosen the joint at the other end of the 2" bracket to a) let the chain out and b) allow the mudguard to be strapped close to the tyre during transit. Again QD mounts at the brakes are required. The benefit of this scheme is the mudguards are much less hassle in transit; there are no loose parts to flap about or get lost.
The usual SKS chainstay mount is naturally a spring clip type; provided the brace is protected (eg by using tape) the mudguard can be quickly removed at this point. However if you mount the mudguard so that it protrudes downwards below the chainstays, you can fit the clip upside down and this makes it easier to remove the mudguard if the brake mount is in the usual place (on the front side of the seatstay brace).
Another option (which works best with wider clearances and deeper drop brakes), is to split the rear mudguard into two sections and leave the section between the stays mounted all the time. A splice joint in the mudguard with a fastener of some kind allows a sound joint just ahead of the brake mount.
There are also brackets for QD mudguards that have a sliding barb connection beneath the fork crown; again these only work well if you have generous clearances.
So there is more than one way of skinning this cat!
cheers
-
Oh, and there's a thread on Mercian paint options somewhere. I'll dig it out for you.
It seems that the interactive frame-builder has gone. https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=35817.0
New website: https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/
-
My 'bargain' second hand Mercian turned out to have a broken drive-side dropout. However, it was the excuse I needed for a new paint job and braze-ons:
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn6/gaydisco/DSCF2464.jpg)
I deeply regret not getting a pump peg brazed on to the head tube. Maybe next time...
Oh, and there's a thread on Mercian paint options somewhere. I'll dig it out for you.
BTW *think* that looks about the amount of seatpost showing that Grant said we show for my build, unless the day swing suggests otherwise?
I'd have frame pump peg on a tourer (I have one on one of the seat stays on my Hewitt), but think will just carry a small pump on the road bike
-
re mudguards and bike transport. You can, if you are prepared to put your mind to it, come up with all kinds of things that make this less of a schlep.
For example on one bike that travelled every weekend, I had slotted mounts at the brakes, and double nuts on nutted brakes; the mudguards were QD as a result, just by loosening the outer nut. [The stay mounts on the frame were done with wing nuts, but these days I'd probably use secu-clips front and rear]. The result was that the mudguards could be on or off inside two minutes.
However there are other options; for example using brackets that are about 2" long and are captive on the hub axles, you can mount mudguards to the wheels. You loosen the joint at the other end of the 2" bracket to a) let the chain out and b) allow the mudguard to be strapped close to the tyre during transit. Again QD mounts at the brakes are required. The benefit of this scheme is the mudguards are much less hassle in transit; there are no loose parts to flap about or get lost.
The usual SKS chainstay mount is naturally a spring clip type; provided the brace is protected (eg by using tape) the mudguard can be quickly removed at this point. However if you mount the mudguard so that it protrudes downwards below the chainstays, you can fit the clip upside down and this makes it easier to remove the mudguard if the brake mount is in the usual place (on the front side of the seatstay brace).
Another option (which works best with wider clearances and deeper drop brakes), is to split the rear mudguard into two sections and leave the section between the stays mounted all the time. A splice joint in the mudguard with a fastener of some kind allows a sound joint just ahead of the brake mount.
There are also brackets for QD mudguards that have a sliding barb connection beneath the fork crown; again these only work well if you have generous clearances.
So there is more than one way of skinning this cat!
cheers
Brucey,
You've posted about this before, and its something I'd like to do. Do you by chance have any pictures of these arrangements? (and the moon on a stick??)
-
I mentioned about three different schemes, is there one that you are most interested in?
FWIW this is a type of sliding joint used to leave part of the rear mudguard on the bike
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_C1XrRVl3W8k/S-2RvQdSd7I/AAAAAAAAKUI/qi2mDwipcTI/s1600/rinko-1.jpg)
popular with rinko types, I believe. To make this kind of joint it is useful to have a captive nut in one half of the joint; the nut is made and sold separately so that you can adapt mudguards to suit.
cheers
-
re mudguards and bike transport. You can, if you are prepared to put your mind to it, come up with all kinds of things that make this less of a schlep.
For example on one bike that travelled every weekend, I had slotted mounts at the brakes, and double nuts on nutted brakes; the mudguards were QD as a result, just by loosening the outer nut. [The stay mounts on the frame were done with wing nuts, but these days I'd probably use secu-clips front and rear]. The result was that the mudguards could be on or off inside two minutes.
However there are other options; for example using brackets that are about 2" long and are captive on the hub axles, you can mount mudguards to the wheels. You loosen the joint at the other end of the 2" bracket to a) let the chain out and b) allow the mudguard to be strapped close to the tyre during transit. Again QD mounts at the brakes are required. The benefit of this scheme is the mudguards are much less hassle in transit; there are no loose parts to flap about or get lost.
The usual SKS chainstay mount is naturally a spring clip type; provided the brace is protected (eg by using tape) the mudguard can be quickly removed at this point. However if you mount the mudguard so that it protrudes downwards below the chainstays, you can fit the clip upside down and this makes it easier to remove the mudguard if the brake mount is in the usual place (on the front side of the seatstay brace).
Another option (which works best with wider clearances and deeper drop brakes), is to split the rear mudguard into two sections and leave the section between the stays mounted all the time. A splice joint in the mudguard with a fastener of some kind allows a sound joint just ahead of the brake mount.
There are also brackets for QD mudguards that have a sliding barb connection beneath the fork crown; again these only work well if you have generous clearances.
So there is more than one way of skinning this cat!
cheers
Brucey,
You've posted about this before, and its something I'd like to do. Do you by chance have any pictures of these arrangements? (and the moon on a stick??)
Quick removal full mudguards would definitely be of interest and would make me much more tempted to go down the deep-drop brake route (e.g. silver Shimano BR-650s), if I could understand how to get this to work! I want to be able to remove the whole thing, though (even if it means removing the wheels first)
-
I mentioned about three different schemes, is there one that you are most interested in?
FWIW this is a type of sliding joint used to leave part of the rear mudguard on the bike
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_C1XrRVl3W8k/S-2RvQdSd7I/AAAAAAAAKUI/qi2mDwipcTI/s1600/rinko-1.jpg)
popular with rinko types, I believe. To make this kind of joint it is useful to have a captive nut in one half of the joint; the nut is made and sold separately so that you can adapt mudguards to suit.
Looks like there's more details on the Rinko-type mudguards here: https://velo-orange.blogspot.com/2010/05/rinko-fenders.html
Very pricey, though, unless you have the skills (I don't!) to make something similar homemade. Also unclear whether they come in narrower (e.g. 35mm) sizes suitable for road bikes.
-
I mentioned about three different schemes, is there one that you are most interested in?
The cheapest of course :P
(my hunch is that using something like chromoplastics, but with clever fittings - such as your wing-nut idea - is the most attractive. But to be honest I'm clueless about which direction to go ...
Incidentally, as the only cars I use are other peoples', I haven't often had a need to shorten the rear of the bike - but I'm contemplating another av-gas based trip in August, so plane-compatibilty could be desirable ...
Oh and of course trains.)
-
...
* when asked whether I wanted to run the rear brake cable (with full outer) through three brazed-on guides on the top of the top tube (the traditional approach), or just to run an exposed cable between two stops on the bottom left of the top tube I wasn't sure - the bike is deliberately going to be quite retro-looking, but the latter setup I thought would look neater, so that's what I said (for now). The other option would be internal routing, but that would cost quite a bit more and I didn't really like the idea. I still have time to change my mind, though, if this seems like a bad idea!
...
This may not be an issue, but I have a three-guide (full length outer) ttube steel frame, and find it easier to strap tri-bags etc to the top tube. This compared to another bike with exposed tt cable run, where the cable, being close to the frame, slides on the straps. My retro MTB with three exposed cables - is too tricky to bother.
My personal preference is for the rear brake cable to run under the top tube (and I like the classicism of the two outer stops and the bare wire) but this is because I like the computer on the top tube just behind the head tube. Of course this was originally because I use a wired computer running off the rear wheel for the turbo but it also has the advantage on the road that if you have to turn the bike upside down it won't be resting on the computer fixed to the bars.
-
Thanks for posting this, Oxford_Guy. I look forward to seeing your finished bicycle (and hope you don’t subject Mercian to fourteen changes of mind before you get there!).
I think one reason frame builders are often keen to usher customers in a particular direction (not that Grant sounds too pushy here) is that their customers are often pretty clueless despite ordering an expensive, custom frame. Their advice increases the odds of a happy customer in that case.
They can’t immediately know you’re a bicycle nerd who’s spent ages polishing your idea of what you want from a frame. If you want a triple, I say stick to your guns about that. It’s not a permanent decision anyway, especially if you go for a band-on front derailleur.
I'd have frame pump peg on a tourer (I have one on one of the seat stays on my Hewitt), but think will just carry a small pump on the road bike
So already you’ve made a compromise here. Compromises are fine! Every meaningful choice is a compromise and I’m often happiest with products that are clearly compromised in pursuit of a focused ideal. Following this line of thought might well justify short-reach brakes. There is certainly far greater choice of brake if you go with a short-drop frame.
[…] it also has the advantage on the road that if you have to turn the bike upside down it won't be resting on the computer fixed to the bars.
But do you ever have to turn the bicycle upside-down? I haven’t come across a good reason to do so, although I often see people do that to fix a puncture! I find it easier to remove a rear wheel with the bicycle upright … and easier not to do the needless work of tipping a bicycle over twice.
-
the top used to be the favoured place for the brake cable at one time, either with campag band-on clips or braze-ons. I have found that on frames that are made this way, if you stand with one leg over the frame, the cable housing (or the bare cable if it is made that way) tends to scuff the paint on the top tube.
Mounting at the 5 or 7 O'clock position is better from this POV and does not really get in the way of having a pump under the top tube. It used to be that the position of the cable meant that you have chosen your brakes, too, since some were RH and some were LH, but modern DPs are nearly all made the same way and a LH cable mount is normal.
Needless to say a RH cable run makes for better routing of the rear brake cable with the usual brake setup; this is how Holdsworths etc were done BITD. The top cable run will work as well with brakes of either type and indeed with the levers set up either way too.
I wonder if putting the rear brake cable on the LH is partly a cosmetic thing, as the the "drive" side of a bike is the "glamour" side that you always see in photographs, and I guess it looks neater for it not to be seen :-)
-
I'm just reading Tony Oliver's _Touring Bikes_, and he recommends routing the rear brake along the lower RH side of the crossbar - he says he likes to lean against the top tube and that cables make this uncomfortable, and that having the cable on the right makes it easier to shoulder the bike. I have a frame pump mounted under the top tube, and it does make lifting the bike a bit more unwieldy; if I were going custom I'd probably ask for a pip on the NDS seatstay.
-
I'm just reading Tony Oliver's _Touring Bikes_, and he recommends routing the rear brake along the lower RH side of the crossbar - he says he likes to lean against the top tube and that cables make this uncomfortable, and that having the cable on the right makes it easier to shoulder the bike. I have a frame pump mounted under the top tube, and it does make lifting the bike a bit more unwieldy; if I were going custom I'd probably ask for a pip on the NDS seatstay.
That's exactly where I have a pump peg (not pip) on my Hewitt Tourer, though it do find it can mean the pump gets covered quite a bit in muck and my Zefal HPX frame pump does show quite a bit of corrosion. I've recently started carrying a smaller pump with a screw-on fitting on a hose that has an integrated pressure gauge. It seems to be able to reach quite decent pressures:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Pump-Gauge-Pro-Tool/dp/B01ELNBSSO
There's a review here: https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/reviews/biking/frame-pump/pro-bike-tool-mini
-
It does sound a pretty thorough process. It'll be interesting to see the end result, and perhaps even more so what decisions you make on the way.
-
It does sound a pretty thorough process. It'll be interesting to see the end result, and perhaps even more so what decisions you make on the way.
I'll post further updates and also ask for some further feedback on specification choices.
-
That's exactly where I have a pump peg (not pip) on my Hewitt Tourer, though it do find it can mean the pump gets covered quite a bit in muck and my Zefal HPX frame pump does show quite a bit of corrosion. I've recently started carrying a smaller pump with a screw-on fitting on a hose that has an integrated pressure gauge. It seems to be able to reach quite decent pressures:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Pump-Gauge-Pro-Tool/dp/B01ELNBSSO
There's a review here: https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/reviews/biking/frame-pump/pro-bike-tool-mini
Interesting - where is the corrosion on the HPX? With guards fitted I wouldn't have thought there'd be that much spray coming back there; though I must confess I don't check over my HPX as much as I perhaps should - it just lives on the bike.
-
That's exactly where I have a pump peg (not pip) on my Hewitt Tourer, though it do find it can mean the pump gets covered quite a bit in muck and my Zefal HPX frame pump does show quite a bit of corrosion. I've recently started carrying a smaller pump with a screw-on fitting on a hose that has an integrated pressure gauge. It seems to be able to reach quite decent pressures:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Pump-Gauge-Pro-Tool/dp/B01ELNBSSO
There's a review here: https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/reviews/biking/frame-pump/pro-bike-tool-mini
Interesting - where is the corrosion on the HPX? With guards fitted I wouldn't have thought there'd be that much spray coming back there; though I must confess I don't check over my HPX as much as I perhaps should - it just lives on the bike.
On the metal lever for securing the pump to the valve, and where it joins the pump body. This is for a pump on the LH seatstay, not the top tube. The bike in question is used as an all-weathers commuter
-
If you are planning to use the bike mostly without mudguards then 50mm drop calipers might be OK. But if it is mostly with mudguards then 60mm drop calipers are pretty much a no-brainer.
This is probably the most important thing I need to make a final decision about for the frame, but will come back to this...
Other things that spring to mind
- do you make the gear cable stops slotted or not?
- do you have DT lever bosses with adaptors so that you can fit DT levers if required?
On my Hewitt Cheviot the gear cable stop underneath the RH chainstay has a slot, not sure if they would unless I ask on the Mercian - will check. Would you advise this (also for the STI/Ergo stops if I go for those - see below)? I guess it makes fitting a new gear cable a little easier.
I specified STI/Ergo braze-ons, as I don't think I will ever be using DT shifters on this bike (bar end shifters I don't mind, though) and the Mercian implementation of these looks quite neat. Having said that, even though I don't use DT shifters on my Cheviot, I do find that, on bike racks on the street, I tend to lean the bike on the silver anodised DT bosses/cable stops, rather than directly on the frame, to try to avoid scratching the latter, whereas if I tried to do this with STI braze-ons, I'd probably chip the paint on them... Not sure if that is enough reason to change for these, though - maybe! Also, maybe I will decide I love DT shifters one day... Hmmm
- why not have the frame built 132.5mm so that you have a wider range of hubs that you can use?
So I could fit either 130mm or 135mm hubs? Is there any disadvantage to doing this, e.g. additional stress on the stays due to having to bend a little either way?
- do you have the fork made so that you can easily run a dynamo cable internally?
- ditto dynamo cabling to the rear?
No, I won't be running a dynamo on this bike (unlike on my Hewitt Cheviot and Brompton) - would've have been nice to have had internal dynamo cable routing on my Cheviot, though! I don't think I will be using this bike for rides that require extended night time use (e.g. long audax events), would use my Cheviot instead, and want to keep it light.
- a pump peg on the back of the head tube is a useful thing but then so is a race number braze-on...?
Don't think I want to mount a full length frame pump on this bike, and I won't be racing...
- two sets of bottle bosses or three?
Just two should be enough, and probably not much room for a third underneath the downtube. I do have three on my Cheviot, though.
- do you have a chain hanging peg on the inside of the RH seatstay?
I haven't asked for one, but it does sound like quite a neat idea - how useful is it in practice? Would the paint on such a peg get easily chipped, though? I guess it might help reduce chain scratches on the chainstay.
Sheldon Brown didn't seem to be a fan:
"Some bikes have a small brazed-on peg facing inward near the bottom of the right seat stay. This is intended to support the chain when the rear wheel has been removed for some reason. This is, in practice, a pretty useless feature." - http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ch.html#chainhanger
I've usually been using a Pedro's Chain Keeper (https://pedros.com/products/clean-and-lube/clean-andlube-tools-and-kits/chain-keeper/) when working on the bike with the rear wheel off, but obviously it's not something I carry about when riding
BTW I've even seen some photos of bikes with two pegs:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3327842645_1ec51249d6.jpg)
- do you have mudguard fittings that allow you to QD the mudguards?
I'm not sure what I would be asking for - they said they would put a drilling underneath the seat stay cross piece, and also on the chainstay cross piece, as well as fittings on the front and rear drop-outs, so think I could remove the mudguards without disturbing the brakes too much. What else would help to make them QD?
- 74 degree seat angle is too steep for a lot of combinations of saddle and seat pin; there is no way I could use that with most leather saddles for example, because they don't slide as far back as far a lot of other saddles.
Grant seemed to think it would be okay, I said I would probably be using a Gilles Berthoud saddle, think they slide back slightly more than a Brooks. Wouldn't a seatback seat post also help? BTW don't forget I'm quite short, so the angle may not be as exaggerated as for a taller rider
- do you have double eyes and seat stay mounts so that you can fit a rack if needs be, or will it (if at all) be a minimalist one with a single centre mount at the top?
I didn't ask for either, as don't envisage carrying large loads on the bike - would use my Cheviot in those situations - if lightweight credit card touring on the Mercian, would probably just use a large saddlebag and bagman, or do the bikepacking thing.
- if you are fairly sure of the reach but expect to want to move the handlebars up and down a bit, and/or you really want the retro look (steel fork and all), there is much to be said for a quill stem and a 1" steerer. [I can't say as I have yet seen an A-head setup on a steel framed bike like this that I like the look of in the slightest, and a 1-1/8" steel steerer is complete overkill.]
Well that's definitely what I want to go for, so that's all good :-)
- you could (bearing in mind the sporty intent of this frame) easily go 10mm shorter in the chainstays and even 20mm might be possible
Really? I think this is to allow for fitment of mudguards (and band-on for FD derailleur) - also if I do go for long drop brakes might even have to go longer?
- have you checked for toe overlap at the front, with/without mudguards?
No - but how can I check this until they build the bike? Grant seemed to be implying there would be some, but am not sure how much of an issue this would be in practice.
- Barber's pole? Why not? [BTW you may or may not want one of the stripes to be the same colour as the mudguards]
It's a serious consideration, but more on the paint job later...
-
the top used to be the favoured place for the brake cable at one time, either with campag band-on clips or braze-ons. I have found that on frames that are made this way, if you stand with one leg over the frame, the cable housing (or the bare cable if it is made that way) tends to scuff the paint on the top tube.
Mounting at the 5 or 7 O'clock position is better from this POV and does not really get in the way of having a pump under the top tube. It used to be that the position of the cable meant that you have chosen your brakes, too, since some were RH and some were LH, but modern DPs are nearly all made the same way and a LH cable mount is normal.
Needless to say a RH cable run makes for better routing of the rear brake cable with the usual brake setup; this is how Holdsworths etc were done BITD. The top cable run will work as well with brakes of either type and indeed with the levers set up either way too.
I wonder if putting the rear brake cable on the LH is partly a cosmetic thing, as the the "drive" side of a bike is the "glamour" side that you always see in photographs, and I guess it looks neater for it not to be seen :-)
The side of the top tube for the brake cable should reflect the brake stirrup used.It used to be different for, e.g. Campagnolo or Weinman. Now that most makes are left cable fixing it follows that the cabling should be central or on the left.
-
the top used to be the favoured place for the brake cable at one time, either with campag band-on clips or braze-ons. I have found that on frames that are made this way, if you stand with one leg over the frame, the cable housing (or the bare cable if it is made that way) tends to scuff the paint on the top tube.
Mounting at the 5 or 7 O'clock position is better from this POV and does not really get in the way of having a pump under the top tube. It used to be that the position of the cable meant that you have chosen your brakes, too, since some were RH and some were LH, but modern DPs are nearly all made the same way and a LH cable mount is normal.
Needless to say a RH cable run makes for better routing of the rear brake cable with the usual brake setup; this is how Holdsworths etc were done BITD. The top cable run will work as well with brakes of either type and indeed with the levers set up either way too.
I wonder if putting the rear brake cable on the LH is partly a cosmetic thing, as the the "drive" side of a bike is the "glamour" side that you always see in photographs, and I guess it looks neater for it not to be seen :-)
The side of the top tube for the brake cable should reflect the brake stirrup used.It used to be different for, e.g. Campagnolo or Weinman. Now that most makes are left cable fixing it follows that the cabling should be central or on the left.
I'll either be using Campagnolo brakes (probably the pre-skeleton sort from the mud-2000s) or else Shimano BR-R650s, if I end up going with long drop brakes after all
-
the RHS cable run for the rear brake makes for a better cable run at the front (if you have the rear brake on the left) but nearly all DP calipers need the cable set to the left at the rear, which means that the cable run from the RHS of the top tube is not so good at the back.
BTW if you are going late '80s retro and short reach (but not with ergos or STIs) then there is something to be said for campag monoplanar calipers; these suit a front right/rear left brake lever setup really well, because the cable run to the rear brake is angled. This allows a RHS cable run along the top tube in many cases.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4095/4737836020_21252bd7e5_b.jpg)
The use of DT lever bosses and ergo adaptors (which would be the retro thing BTW) has another advantage; it allows an easily accessible barrel adjuster to be used. The only more accessible barrel adjuster for the gears is one that is fitted to the side of the head tube, but this looks a bit ugly IMHO.
If you want the fork and frame to be dynamo wire compatible for the future, it is (visibly anyway) a matter of having a few reinforcements (smaller than bottle bosses, little more than washers really) brazed to the tubes. These can be left plain and drilled out later when/if you fit a dynamo wire. In addition the upper part of the fork blade (pref inside the socket joint to the crown) and the fork crown itself can be drilled so that the wire emerges at the base of the steerer. [A similar scheme might apply if you ever thought you would use Di2 and wanted the wiring to be neat.]
For the mudguards to be QD there is no need for an underside drilling to the seatstay brace; you can't use it without using up valuable clearance anyway, the fastener only has about three threads in it if you have a caliper brake fitted, and is bloody fiddly to reach. You can use Sheldon fender nuts on the brakes and you can have eyes brazed on to the inside of the seat stays and the fork blades 2-3" above the hub. This allows a clean look to the bike (if you don't ever want to fit a rack, you don't have to have dropouts with eyelets at all...) When you are QDing mudguards, leaving secu-clips in the eyelets is the thing to do. Be wary of the clearance to the spokes though; if you use a LF front hub, you may need a sheet metal bracket from the eyelet to the secu clip.
Slotted cable stops are convenient; the most common gear cable maintenance task is to clean/relube the housing run to the rear mech and this is made very much easier with slotted guides (although DT/ergo bosses can help here too). Unfortunately slotted guides must be made thicker walled and they can (on a handbuilt lightweight) end up looking a little lumpen. [In contrast to this, for an IGH cable run, I have used cable stops that are 4.0mm bore and 0,5mm wall thickness; there is virtually nothing to them.]
132.5mm allows 130mm or 135mm hubs to be used without trauma in most cases. Some hubs can be permanently respaced but usually they just go in without trouble. Plenty of frames are made this way these days BTW.
To check for toe overlap, mock up an extant bike with similar cranks etc and see if the front centre measurement gives clearance with the tyres/mudguards you intend to use.
If the frame were a traditional road racing frame then 400mm chainstays would be about normal. These can give (just) enough room for a band-on FD, 23mm tyres and mudguards.
The paint on the chain hanger peg does soon get damaged, but better this than a knackered chainstay, I would say. If you want the peg can be made of stainless steel or can be a screw-in one (e.g.to a bottle boss fitting) but anyway if it is used regularly the chain lube stops the worst of the rust.
BTW a scheme that might appeal to you is to make the frame 'convertible'. In this scheme the dropouts (front and rear) have longer slots than normal and can be fitted with stainless adaptors that contain a protrusion that enters the dropout slot, a bit like chain tug plates, but with a slot rather than a hole, if you see what I mean. They can be held captive by two small csk crews. There would be a choice of plain adaptors or ones with the lugs on. The lugs, when fitted, would prevent the wheel from going as high as normal, thus increasing the wheel spacing to the brakes by ~5mm or so. This would allow you to run close clearances if you wanted to, or wider clearances to suit fatter tyres and/or mudguards. A long drop brake could be simply adjusted to either configuration and if you wanted you could run ~50mm drop calipers in the short reach configuration only. The downside is that the parts for this would have to be specially made but if you really can't make your mind up it would allow you to keep your options open.
cheers
-
the RHS cable run for the rear brake makes for a better cable run at the front (if you have the rear brake on the left) but nearly all DP calipers need the cable set to the left at the rear, which means that the cable run from the RHS of the top tube is not so good at the back.
BTW if you are going late '80s retro and short reach (but not with ergos or STIs) then there is something to be said for campag monoplanar calipers; these suit a front right/rear left brake lever setup really well, because the cable run to the rear brake is angled. This allows a RHS cable run along the top tube in many cases.
I will be running Ergos though...
The use of DT lever bosses and ergo adaptors (which would be the retro thing BTW) has another advantage; it allows an easily accessible barrel adjuster to be used. The only more accessible barrel adjuster for the gears is one that is fitted to the side of the head tube, but this looks a bit ugly IMHO.
The way Mercian seem to do it looks like this (at least on the Strada), aren't these spring-loaded screw-in adjusters on the downtube basically doing the same thing as barrel adjusters, or is there much of a difference?:
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/28A7788-683x1024.jpg)
Think these are the adjusters they would use: https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/online-shop/accessories/stainless-steel-cable-adjusters/
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IMG_2395-800x600.jpg)
The alternative (which I'm not ruling out) would be to use these:
https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/online-shop/campagnolo-ergospares/ec-re001/
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IMG_3531-e1507816849798.jpg)
If you want the fork and frame to be dynamo wire compatible for the future, it is (visibly anyway) a matter of having a few reinforcements (smaller than bottle bosses, little more than washers really) brazed to the tubes. These can be left plain and drilled out later when/if you fit a dynamo wire. In addition the upper part of the fork blade (pref inside the socket joint to the crown) and the fork crown itself can be drilled so that the wire emerges at the base of the steerer. [A similar scheme might apply if you ever thought you would use Di2 and wanted the wiring to be neat.]
Thanks for the tips - don't think I'll do this for my Mercian (and Di2 is really not my thing), but maybe when I decide to get my Hewitt Cheviot resprayed in a few years time I might get such alterations made, assuming it would be possible to do that retrospectively, after the frame has been shot-blasted?
For the mudguards to be QD there is no need for an underside drilling to the seatstay brace; you can't use it without using up valuable clearance anyway, the fastener only has about three threads in it if you have a caliper brake fitted, and is bloody fiddly to reach. You can use Sheldon fender nuts on the brakes
I hadn't heard of these before, I assume you mean these? They seem to come in various lengths - I can see how they would allow a little more clearance, I think - would be interested to see a photo of how they look on a bike, but I think I get the general idea:
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brakes/problem-solvers-sheldon-fender-nuts-10-13-mm-per-pair/
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brakes/problem-solvers-sheldon-fender-nuts-10-32-mm-per-pair/
The ones shown in the photos above look a but rusty, though!
I assume you'd use these with a mudguard bridge on the rear? e.g.
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/mudguards/35mm-sks-stainless-steel-rear-mudguard-bridge-each/
and you can have eyes brazed on to the inside of the seat stays and the fork blades 2-3" above the hub. This allows a clean look to the bike (if you don't ever want to fit a rack, you don't have to have dropouts with eyelets at all...)
Yes, that sounds like a possible idea, if Mercian are able to do that. Should most mudguard be compatible with fittings like this above the normal drop-out positions? Would brazing on the stays/forks, rather than the drop-outs potentially weaken the stays at all, though? Am just aware the 853 Pro team steel is very thin...
When you are QDing mudguards, leaving secu-clips in the eyelets is the thing to do. Be wary of the clearance to the spokes though; if you use a LF front hub, you may need a sheet metal bracket from the eyelet to the secu clip.
Assuming LF = Large Flange, I think I understand what you mean, by secu clips I take it these things:
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/products/FE83-3_1600x.jpg?v=1471030010)
Slotted cable stops are convenient; the most common gear cable maintenance task is to clean/relube the housing run to the rear mech and this is made very much easier with slotted guides (although DT/ergo bosses can help here too). Unfortunately slotted guides must be made thicker walled and they can (on a handbuilt lightweight) end up looking a little lumpen. [In contrast to this, for an IGH cable run, I have used cable stops that are 4.0mm bore and 0,5mm wall thickness; there is virtually nothing to them.]
Okay, going slotted or not doesn't sound like a something to be too concerned about, though I can understand the utility. The stays are going to be pretty skinny, so might look better with non-slotted ones.
132.5mm allows 130mm or 135mm hubs to be used without trauma in most cases. Some hubs can be permanently respaced but usually they just go in without trouble. Plenty of frames are made this way these days BTW.
Though aren't most road hubs 130mm, or is this no longer necessarily the case?
To check for toe overlap, mock up an extant bike with similar cranks etc and see if the front centre measurement gives clearance with the tyres/mudguards you intend to use.
Okay, I could try that on my Cheviot - how much of an issue is some toe overlap in practice? BTW my feet are size 9, so not huge.
If the frame were a traditional road racing frame then 400mm chainstays would be about normal. These can give (just) enough room for a band-on FD, 23mm tyres and mudguards.
Interesting! I might ask about that...
The paint on the chain hanger peg does soon get damaged, but better this than a knackered chainstay, I would say. If you want the peg can be made of stainless steel or can be a screw-in one (e.g.to a bottle boss fitting) but anyway if it is used regularly the chain lube stops the worst of the rust.
Good points, something to think about. BTW I was possibly thinking of fitting a sacrificial (though hopefully removable) chainstay card on the RH, though it might just look naff:
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0105/7312/products/CHN15NOS_Campagnolo_NOS_Chainstay_Protector.jpg?v=1481313483)
BTW a scheme that might appeal to you is to make the frame 'convertible'. In this scheme the dropouts (front and rear) have longer slots than normal and can be fitted with stainless adaptors that contain a protrusion that enters the dropout slot, a bit like chain tug plates, but with a slot rather than a hole, if you see what I mean. They can be held captive by two small csk crews. There would be a choice of plain adaptors or ones with the lugs on. The lugs, when fitted, would prevent the wheel from going as high as normal, thus increasing the wheel spacing to the brakes by ~5mm or so. This would allow you to run close clearances if you wanted to, or wider clearances to suit fatter tyres and/or mudguards. A long drop brake could be simply adjusted to either configuration and if you wanted you could run ~50mm drop calipers in the short reach configuration only. The downside is that the parts for this would have to be specially made but if you really can't make your mind up it would allow you to keep your options open.
Clever idea, though sounds complicated! I probably just need to make my mind up...
-
BTW this is not far off the look I'm aiming to achieve (but without the chromed forks/stays!), though my frame will be smaller (and shifters/drive train will be Campag), and I might go for a "barber's pole" on the seat tube. Not sure of the colour yet, was thinking of red or deep orange (as in the photo of the modern Strada below), but that shade of blue looks pretty nice:
(click to enlarge)
(https://vintagebicycle.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fit2207.jpg) (https://vintagebicycle.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fit2207.jpg)
Though the frame shown is an earlier version of the Strada (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/strada-speciale/): https://vintagebicycle.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/mercian-strada-speciale-c-1989-my-first-new-build/
I don't see the side lug cut-outs on the modern Strada, but maybe that depends on the headtube size? I guess I could ask...
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/28A7788-683x1024.jpg) (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/28A7788-683x1024.jpg)
The gold-lined lug cut-outs are nicely done, nicer than black I think.
(https://vintagebicycle.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fit2211.jpg) (https://vintagebicycle.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fit2211.jpg)
BTW I wouldn't have the cable guides on the headtube like shown here - I have similar ones on my Cheviot and found that they just wore out the cable outers at that point more quickly - I'd probably just used some Fibrax silicone spiral wraps (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/FIBRAX-SPIRAL-SOFT-SILICONE-BIKE-FRAME-PROTECTORS-CABLE-OUTER-BRAKE-GEAR-HOSE/302210217787) around the cable to reduce cable rub on the headtube instead:
-
BTW one other thing that has been abit on my mind, when I was measured for the Mercian, Grant asked me to put my hands where I would normally ride (when cruising), so I put them not on the hoods themselves, but set back from them, where the bars start to curve forward, with my thumbs hooked under the top bar - as this is how I generally ride (except in busy traffic/in town/going down hill) on my touring bike (and how I was measured up by Paul Hewitt for my Cheviot, as that's what he suggested). So I think Grant my have measured my "optimal" riding position to their rather than on the hoods, but on a road bike, are you generally meant to be on the hoods pretty much 90% of the time? In which case, am I likely to be a bit stretched on the hoods? I've also only tended to use the drops for downhill or headwinds or if just really going for it on a long straight. Having said that, I don't think I felt too stretched-out on the hoods (or drops) on the jig.
My Veloce Ergos are comfortable to ride on the hoods (I used to have them on my Cheviot before I switched to bar end shifters on that, before I sent them off for a complete overhaul) it's just not how I've been riding on my Cheviot most of the time.
-
BTW here's the drawing I have of my Hewitt Cheviot tourer's geometry (some measurements missing, though e.g. chainstays, which are much longer! This was not a completely custom frame, though) compared to the Mercian ones (2nd):
(click to enlarge)
(BTW note the 74 degree seat tube angle - I don't find this a problem with my Gilles Berthoud leather saddle)
(https://i.imgur.com/Z9hKBse.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Z9hKBse.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TJRlTeX.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TJRlTeX.jpg)
(recommend stem was 90mm, handlebar width 42 or even just 40cm)
BTW my Hewitt in it's current configuration looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/fTA68AT.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/fTA68AT.jpg)
-
re the DT cable stops; the ones you are looking at have a spring to prevent them from moving under their own steam; others (such as the shimano ones) have detents that positively locate. I think the latter are less likely to move, and are sometimes more likely not to seize up once greased.
Ergo boss adaptors on lever bosses work kind of as a proxy for slotted cable guides; unscrewing the adaptor generates a load of slack in the cable which can allow inspection/regreasing of the cables to some extent.
Frame mods after shot blasting can be done with no trouble. However the neatest dynamo cable routing through the fork crown is (in some cases) best done when the frame is built in the first place.
BTW putting mudguard eyes into the lower part of stays or fork blades is usually no problem; the tubes are usually smaller diameter and thicker walled in these regions. I have converted several road racing frames to (unobtrusively) accept mudguard eyes in this way.
BTW in the 1950s mudguards were usually fixed to tabs that stood proud of the stays/fork blades about 3" up; so mounted the chances of getting a mudguard jam are much reduced because as soon as anything is carried around by the wheel and starts to lift the mudguard up, the gap to the wheel widens and the object may just fall out.
Mudguard stays that are mounted level with or below the axle height (with no secu-clips) are the most dangerous, because they jam against the wheel more and more if there is a small jam of any kind. Recently some poor blighter died in Oxford and it looks like his front mudguard was the culprit; short reach brakes, no secu-clips, stuff-all clearance and stay mounts at axle height....
cheers
-
re the DT cable stops; the ones you are looking at have a spring to prevent them from moving under their own steam; others (such as the shimano ones) have detents that positively locate. I think the latter are less likely to move, and are sometimes more likely not to seize up once greased.
Presumably Campagnolo Ergo boss adaptors would also be less likely to move (and therefore change cable tension) on their own steam too? If so, there may be practical (as well as retro-aesthetic reasons) for going that route.
Ergo boss adaptors on lever bosses work kind of as a proxy for slotted cable guides; unscrewing the adaptor generates a load of slack in the cable which can allow inspection/regreasing of the cables to some extent.
Do you mean undoing the screw on the boss itself, rather than turning the cable tension knob?
Frame mods after shot blasting can be done with no trouble. However the neatest dynamo cable routing through the fork crown is (in some cases) best done when the frame is built in the first place.
Okay, but it can be done? Cable tie-ing the dynamo cable to the forks and frames is a bit unsightly and sometimes the cable (under the downtube) does catch on things.
BTW putting mudguard eyes into the lower part of stays or fork blades is usually no problem; the tubes are usually smaller diameter and thicker walled in these regions. I have converted several road racing frames to (unobtrusively) accept mudguard eyes in this way.
BTW in the 1950s mudguards were usually fixed to tabs that stood proud of the stays/fork blades about 3" up; so mounted the chances of getting a mudguard jam are much reduced because as soon as anything is carried around by the wheel and starts to lift the mudguard up, the gap to the wheel widens and the object may just fall out.
Mudguard stays that are mounted level with or below the axle height (with no secu-clips) are the most dangerous, because they jam against the wheel more and more if there is a small jam of any kind. Recently some poor blighter died in Oxford and it looks like his front mudguard was the culprit; short reach brakes, no secu-clips, stuff-all clearance and stay mounts at axle height....
Eek! What a dreadful story, in my hometown too :-(
I do use secu-clips on my Hewitt BTW, and they did what they were supposed to do when something got caught in rear wheel once (i.e. they popped out)
-
BTW here's the drawing I have of my Hewitt Cheviot tourer's geometry (some measurements missing, though e.g. chainstays, which are much longer! This was not a completely custom frame, though) compared to the Mercian ones (2nd):
(click to enlarge)
(BTW note the 74 degree seat tube angle - I don't find this a problem with my Gilles Berthoud leather saddle)
(https://i.imgur.com/Z9hKBse.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Z9hKBse.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TJRlTeX.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TJRlTeX.jpg)
(recommend stem was 90mm, handlebar width 42 or even just 40cm)
BTW do you think it's odd at all that the drawings indicate a 52cm frame for the Mercian, but a 54cm for my Hewitt, especially as they both have the same seat tube angle of 74 degrees?
Also with the recommend 90mm stem for the Mercian, the reach seems longer on the Hewitt, which is the opposite of what I would expect for a road bike - or am I not taking into account other differences in geometry - shorter seat stays, different headtube angle/fork trail, horizontal top tube (Mercian) vs sloping "compact" top tube (Hewitt) etc., which may affect the riding position? They did say that the riding position they've spec-ed is not as aggressive as they normally would do for the Strada, because of my comfort issues (bad back etc.), but I'd understood would still be more "race-like" than my Hewitt. It's also a bit hard to see how the measurements and angles would look in practice without a CAD drawing, not sure if this is something Mercian would do, though.
Just a little concerned that the bike fit may not be quite right, which obviously is a worry if spending a load on a custom frame! I guess I could visit them again to make sure, but that would cost me more time and money.
-
You could compare the geometries using a visual tool? This one was mentioned in a thread the other day: http://gearinches.com/blog/misc/bike-geometry-comparator
-
You could compare the geometries using a visual tool? This one was mentioned in a thread the other day: http://gearinches.com/blog/misc/bike-geometry-comparator
I'll take a look, though I don't think I have all the necessary measurements for both bikes
-
BTW one other thing that has been abit on my mind, when I was measured for the Mercian, Grant asked me to put my hands where I would normally ride (when cruising), so I put them not on the hoods themselves, but set back from them, where the bars start to curve forward, with my thumbs hooked under the top bar - as this is how I generally ride (except in busy traffic/in town/going down hill) on my touring bike (and how I was measured up by Paul Hewitt for my Cheviot, as that's what he suggested). So I think Grant my have measured my "optimal" riding position to their rather than on the hoods, but on a road bike, are you generally meant to be on the hoods pretty much 90% of the time? In which case, am I likely to be a bit stretched on the hoods? I've also only tended to use the drops for downhill or headwinds or if just really going for it on a long straight. Having said that, I don't think I felt too stretched-out on the hoods (or drops) on the jig.
My Veloce Ergos are comfortable to ride on the hoods (I used to have them on my Cheviot before I switched to bar end shifters on that, before I sent them off for a complete overhaul) it's just not how I've been riding on my Cheviot most of the time.
"Are you generally meant to be on the hoods 90% of the time?" A lot of people do ride like that but there's no "should" about it. If you prefer to ride with your hands a bit further back most of the time, I can't see why that shouldn't be right for you. After all, you were asked to put your hands where you normally have them, not on the hoods. On the hoods (or the drops for that matter) obviously saves a split second in braking or shifting, but apart from that, does it matter?
-
If you are intending to ride this bike in a bunch, I would expect you to want to be able to brake without having to move your hands?
-
If you are intending to ride this bike in a bunch, I would expect you to want to be able to brake without having to move your hands?
Well I was thinking of using it for club rides, though not racing
-
I think I may have quite a list of questions for Grant, though I understand that email communication is not (or at least wasn't) Mercian's forte...
-
re frame size; I think (purely on aesthetic grounds) that many people are riding frames with horizontal top tubes that are too small, and that anytime you are planning to have as much or more exposed seat pin vs the length of the head tube, the frame starts to look a bit small.
Practically speaking you need to be able to straddle the frame without being castrated (and you may only need about 2" of exposed seat pin for this) and you need to be able to put the handlebars at the right height. If you are racing and need the bars very low then this might be a good reason for having a smaller frame size but you might as easily need to go the other way. My guess is that with a 52cm frame you might struggle to get the handlebars level with the saddle unless you use a stem that is longer than normal, and that the lowest adjustment is a lot lower than you might ever use. If that is right then a frame that is 1-2cm longer in the seat tube might be a good idea; it would arguably fit better with the retro aesthetic too.
Again on a practical note, the shorter the head tube is, the greater the load is in the headset bearings; small frames tend to have more headset troubles than medium sized ones for this reason. For similar reasons the ride of a small sized frame is always less comfortable than a slightly larger one if the fork flex is the greater part of the total flex in the front end of the frame (and it usually is). It may not look like it but the flex at the fork tips arises from the deflection in the fork blades, bending in the main frame (i.e. top tube and down tube) and cantilever bending in the steerer tube. In some cases each of the three things can make a similar contribution to the total movement. The cantilever bending angle (i.e. the angle through which the headset races are required to articulate) is extremely sensitive to steerer length and in very large racing frames built with 1" steerers it can easily become excessive (witness Jobst Brant's many diatribes on the inadequacies of/wear within headsets; had he not had a frame with a ~10" head tube and a light-built steerer he'd have had no worries; as it was two or three balls at the front of the lower race took a massive load because the steerer flexed so much...). Anyway increasing the cantilever length (i.e. separation of the headset races) by 20% increases the cantilever deflection by over 70% so just changing the frame size by 2cm can completely transform the way the bike rides the bumps.
Note that because the steerer is butted internally, it isn't unusual for the downwards adjustment of a quill stem on a small frame to be limited by the bottom of the stem clashing with the top of the butt; you may not have as much downwards adjustment (or total range) as it appears and again a slightly larger frame would perhaps have been better idea. The framebuilder ought to ask about the required handlebar adjustment range if there is a danger of a clash like this, since the fork can be built with a slightly different trim on the steerer tube if necessary, i.e. it may be trimmed more than normal at the base of the steerer. [Small OTP frames are often very compromised in this regard, e.g. because they have the same trim as normal on the steerer; I have several times seen bikes with only ~1cm of legitimate height adjustment; any lower and there is a clash with the butt; any higher and the limit mark appears....]
cheers
-
Threadless stems are cheap if you need to muck about with the reach. It's rare to get it right first time. On various frames, I've had stems from 30mm to 135mm.
As a rule of thumb for a road racing frame, the frame size is wrong if you don't have a 10-12cm stem in a medium 21-23" frame, an 8-10 on a small frame (say 20" or smaller) and a 12-14 on a large frame (say 23.5" plus). However, that was based on 1970s Italian geometry and times have changed. Plus, 70s Italian racers fitted a 14cm stem regardless of ergonomics, because it looks cool to have a long quill stem.
-
Threadless stems are cheap if you need to muck about with the reach. It's rare to get it right first time. On various frames, I've had stems from 30mm to 135mm.
Yes, but I want a threaded stem...
As a rule of thumb for a road racing frame, the frame size is wrong if you don't have a 10-12cm stem in a medium 21-23" frame, an 8-10 on a small frame (say 20" or smaller) and a 12-14 on a large frame (say 23.5" plus). However, that was based on 1970s Italian geometry and times have changed. Plus, 70s Italian racers fitted a 14cm stem regardless of ergonomics, because it looks cool to have a long quill stem.
I think I remember Grant at Mercian saying (not his exact words) about not liking to spec a bike frame so that it would require a very long stem. He seemed to think 9cm would work with the frame specification produced.
-
re frame size; I think (purely on aesthetic grounds) that many people are riding frames with horizontal top tubes that are too small, and that anytime you are planning to have as much or more exposed seat pin vs the length of the head tube, the frame starts to look a bit small.
I'm inclined to agree and confused by the drawing Mercian gave me, which seems to suggest 17,3cm from the top of the seat tube to the top of the saddle, which I think is way more exposed seatpost than it looked on the jig in the shop (that was more like a large hands-width - and even at the time I thought that was perhaps a little much seatpost showing) - in fact on my sloping compact frame Hewitt it's only 0.6cm more, and that has loads of seatpost showing!
Practically speaking you need to be able to straddle the frame without being castrated (and you may only need about 2" of exposed seat pin for this) and you need to be able to put the handlebars at the right height. If you are racing and need the bars very low then this might be a good reason for having a smaller frame size but you might as easily need to go the other way.
You can also get quill stems that point downwards at a steeper angle, which would be another way to lower the bars
I think one of the reasons for having a bit of exposed seatpost was to allow space above the wheel/stays for a saddle bag, but wouldn't increasing the seat tube have a similar effect?
My guess is that with a 52cm frame you might struggle to get the handlebars level with the saddle unless you use a stem that is longer than normal, and that the lowest adjustment is a lot lower than you might ever use. If that is right then a frame that is 1-2cm longer in the seat tube might be a good idea; it would arguably fit better with the retro aesthetic too.
I think he was suggesting adding some tube height to the headtube *above* the level of the top tube, but I'm not exactly sure what he meant or how this would look
I really don't understand how a non-compact frame can be smaller than the compact one on my Hewitt and still fit me, though. Seems odd!
-
I think he was suggesting adding some tube height to the headtube *above* the level of the top tube, but I'm not exactly sure what he meant or how this would look
It's not that unusual, if you put "Mercian extended head tube frame" into Google images you'll see some examples.
-
I think he was suggesting adding some tube height to the headtube *above* the level of the top tube, but I'm not exactly sure what he meant or how this would look
It's not that unusual, if you put "Mercian extended head tube frame" into Google images you'll see some examples.
I'd sooner have a slightly larger frame than that TBH, but it is all in the eye of the beholder...
cheers
-
I think he was suggesting adding some tube height to the headtube *above* the level of the top tube, but I'm not exactly sure what he meant or how this would look
It's not that unusual, if you put "Mercian extended head tube frame" into Google images you'll see some examples.
I'd sooner have a slightly larger frame than that TBH, but it is all in the eye of the beholder...
I think I would to e.g. I think this frame has an extended headtube, but looks like the top bar could just be a bit higher? Although I guess that would change the position of the seat stays?:
(click to expand image)
(https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/117ce79881d182b1da631a5c796799a9e508f3f0.JPG) (https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/117ce79881d182b1da631a5c796799a9e508f3f0.JPG)
Also in that picture note non-use of secu-clips, short drop brakes and close-fitting mudguards! \o/
BTW If I'm reading the geometry diagram from Mercian correctly, it seems to be suggesting a height of 17.3cm (6.8") from the top of the seat tube to the top of the saddle, which sounds an awful lot of exposed seatpost for a bike with non-compact geometry, even taking into account the increased height above the saddle rails a leather saddle top like the Gilles Berthoud I'm thinking of using would have compared to a modern road bike saddle. If the seat tube was 54cm instead of 52cm this would still be 15.3mm (6"), which sounds like more than enough, no?
-
That Ron Cooper definitely has an extended head tube - look at the top lug.
A Nitto Technomic is another solution.
-
That Ron Cooper definitely has an extended head tube - look at the top lug.
A Nitto Technomic is another solution.
The Nitto Technomic does indeed look very tall, but not sure that would be a good look either: https://www.hubjub.co.uk/nitto-stem-technomic-deluxe-153-p.asp
I suspect I may have to pay another visit to Mercian to discuss, I'm also not 100% sure whether how the reach is configured going to be right for me and still haven't made my mind up yet about the whole mudguards/long-drop brakes issue... argh!
It's possible I'm not making things easy for them, by choosing a "road" model, but not wanting an overly bent-over riding position (due to issues with a bad back). Perhaps the (less pretty) Audax Special (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/audax-special/)would have been a more sensible choice, but I was deliberately wanting quite a different and sportier bike than my Hewitt Cheviot tourer, which as configured (with 32mm Marathon Supreme tyres and relatively high 46/34/24 and 11-32 gearing), isn't far off an Audax-style bike (well, apart from the very long chain stays, heavy stainless steel Tubus rack, full hub dynamo setup and heavy-duty DT Swiss TK540 36 spoke wheels... <ahem>)
I was originally considering a (fillet-brazed) Rourke...
-
(https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/117ce79881d182b1da631a5c796799a9e508f3f0.JPG) (https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/117ce79881d182b1da631a5c796799a9e508f3f0.JPG)
That is the current frame sizing fashion, ie very low top tube for no real reason except for fashion. The only reason for a low top tube is if you want very low bars, the extreme version would be a lo-pro frame.
That frame with that position without the extended seat and head tubes would not be even usable using that seatpin and stem because they would be higher than the minimum insertion.
In Mercian's drawing:
top of saddle to bottom bracket - 693mm
seat tube (centre to top) - 520mm
if you use a typical quill stem, eg Cinelli 1A, even at max height, the bars will be quite low.
I'm a bit shorter than the OP, my bike is a 40 year old steel frame, 530mm seat tube c-t, top of saddle to bottom bracket is about 680mm, and I would not want the top tube any lower.
-
(https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/117ce79881d182b1da631a5c796799a9e508f3f0.JPG) (https://lfgss.microco.sm/api/v1/files/117ce79881d182b1da631a5c796799a9e508f3f0.JPG)
That is the current frame sizing fashion, ie very low top tube for no real reason except for fashion. The only reason for a low top tube is if you want very low bars, the extreme version would be a lo-pro frame.
That frame with that position without the extended seat and head tubes would not be even usable using that seatpin and stem because they would be higher than the minimum insertion.
In Mercian's drawing:
top of saddle to bottom bracket - 693mm
seat tube (centre to top) - 520mm
if you use a typical quill stem, eg Cinelli 1A, even at max height, the bars will be quite low.
I'm a bit shorter than the OP, my bike is a 40 year old steel frame, 530mm seat tube c-t, top of saddle to bottom bracket is about 680mm, and I would not want the top tube any lower.
Interesting, and you find it okay to straddle the top tube without having to sit on it? Sounds like I could go up to at least a 530mm or even 540mm seat tube, raising the headtube below the top tube by a similar amount - there'd still be reasonable amount of seat post showing, and am pretty sure the stem would be low enough (I don't think I would want the bars as far beneath the saddle as in the photo of the Cooper), though I guess whether I'd be able to straddle the top tube comfortably would depend a little on the bottom bracket height (which I couldn't tell when in the jig, as that was high off the ground).
The seat stays wouldn't be in the same position, though, which I guess could change the feel of the bike?
-
I'm a bit shorter than the OP, my bike is a 40 year old steel frame, 530mm seat tube c-t, top of saddle to bottom bracket is about 680mm, and I would not want the top tube any lower.
Do you have a picture of your bike?
-
...Interesting, and you find it okay to straddle the top tube without having to sit on it? Sounds like I could go up to at least a 530mm or even 540mm seat tube, raising the headtube below the top tube by a similar amount - there'd still be reasonable amount of seat post showing, and am pretty sure the stem would be low enough (I don't think I would want the bars as far beneath the saddle as in the photo of the Cooper), though I guess whether I'd be able to straddle the top tube comfortably would depend a little on the bottom bracket height (which I couldn't tell when in the jig, as that was high off the ground).
The seat stays wouldn't be in the same position, though, which I guess could change the feel of the bike?
the blue bike in the photo above would still have a head tube longer than the exposed seat pin if it were built ~1" bigger, so would fail my (admittedly highly subjective and maybe retro) rule of thumb. More practically speaking with frame sizing like that only a tall stem would give you a handlebar anywhere near level with the handlebars.
Years ago (before the use of a-head on road bikes) I realised that the exposed part of the quill stem was pretty flexy so I had a road bike built with an extended steerer and used a spacer between the threaded and adjusting races of the headset. This meant that there was less flex. [It also meant that I could have raised the stem to a level where the wedge was close to - and therefore stressing more- the threaded part of the steerer, which would have been a bad thing; in reality I accepted a smaller range of height adjustment in return for a bit of added stiffness.] This scheme had the advantage that a few minute's work could transform the steerer to a 'standard one', whereas shortening an extended head lug is a bit more involved.
Re straddling the top tube; because of how the saddle height is usually set, on a road bike the distance from the pedals to the ground can be about the same as the distance of the saddle top to the top of the top tube, and you can still straddle the top tube OK. This minimum is thus about 4" or so, in contrast to the ~8" or so that might be the current trend when you are fitted on a frame of about that size.
Fashions vary; a long time ago (in the 1950s) the fashion in the UK appears to have been to use as large a frame as possible, more or less. If you had more than ~3" of seat pin showing you were in danger of running out of it (seat pins were built short back then) and might be advised to get a frame 1" bigger. Fit-wise this made little difference since frames were often built with hardly any variation in top tube length. I also wonder if in fact this was entirely pragmatic, bearing in mind that larger frames ride so much better (more comfortably) even if they are built in fairly heavy gauge tubes.
In the 1980s IIRC campag built their aero-styled seat pins in two different styles; one with a 'long' aero section (for racing bikes) and one with a short aero section (for touring bikes, very small frames or for those adhering to a fit using a larger frame size). The long version allowed the saddle (varying with rail height etc) to be between ~6" and ~8" above the top tube and the short version was about 2" lower than that.
So (bearing in mind you don't want to use very low set handlebars) I think you might be OK with a drop from the saddle to the top tube (of a standard frameset i.e. one that does not have extended lugs) of about 6"-7" . Very much less than this and you are going to run into straddling issues and very much more than this and you will not be able to use a standard quill stem, probably. I dunno how that compares with the frame design as you have it at present.
cheers
-
That Ron Cooper definitely has an extended head tube - look at the top lug.
A Nitto Technomic is another solution.
The Nitto Technomic does indeed look very tall, but not sure that would be a good look either: https://www.hubjub.co.uk/nitto-stem-technomic-deluxe-153-p.asp
They are (intentionally) tall, but they are shiny, so I think they look fine (please ignore the badly installed aero bars):
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4594/24317840117_f2ed74981a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/D3ThDt)IMG_20171220_154515 (https://flic.kr/p/D3ThDt) by duncancmartin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90461577@N00/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4726/25313257608_03cf764a25_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EyR4A1)IMG_20171220_154313 (https://flic.kr/p/EyR4A1) by duncancmartin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90461577@N00/), on Flickr
This is close to the top of the range of adjustment of the stem (but I haven't set the saddle up as high as I need it as I'm not riding it any more).
-
this bike
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UHWEpACVHyI/U9DPgOGhKQI/AAAAAAAAC7Y/sy7yODfkv-g/s1600/TdF+York-Harrogate+Etape+1+025.JPG)
IMHO fitted its rider (Tommy Simpson) very well.
IIRC Peugeots of this type used ~72 degree seat angles. With the saddle and seat pin used, I don't think the saddle could go more than ~10mm further back than it is and a 74 degree seat angle would not have been possible unless the saddle and seat pin were changed.
The bars look quite high (for racing) until you clock the depth of the bars; they are enormous drops! Also when getting down to it on the hoods/tops, it was expected that your forearms would be about horizontal; no need for the tops to be super-low if you ride like that.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/41/fc/78/41fc78ca3ccbf6abb21984c1ebec15e2--tom-simpson-tandem.jpg)
a decade on and the bike setup wasn't that much different
(http://www.italiaanseracefietsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/giosrdv.jpg)
de Vlaeminck's bike is an interesting case in point simply because he rode such great distances on it; he would often ride 100km plus to early season races, race, and then ride home, making for days that involved 350km plus in the saddle.
Only a pro rider would be able to maintain this low body position
(http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/races06/zurich06/preview-roger.jpg)
but you can see that it is achieved without having the bars set low; he was comfortable for long periods like this and of course very fast. Doubtless if he was set up in the modern vogue he would be riding a frame 3cm smaller with the bars set lower, but if he were I think he would be less comfortable and very probably slower, too.
cheers
-
I'm a bit shorter than the OP, my bike is a 40 year old steel frame, 530mm seat tube c-t, top of saddle to bottom bracket is about 680mm, and I would not want the top tube any lower.
Do you have a picture of your bike?
(https://i.imgur.com/cFimDPx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/t70hYIg.jpg)
the top of the saddle to top of seat tube is 135mm.The top tube just about touches when I straddle the bike. The cranks are 165mm.
I've measured the frame again, it's actually 53.5cm c-t and 52cm c-c.
This blue bike is 54cm c-t or 52.5cm c-c. Standover height is 5mm higher than the first silver bike but still not a problem.
(https://i.imgur.com/xT69sOL.jpg)
I think the exposed seatpin is a bit short relative the the head tube length purely from an aesthetic point of view (only 5mm or so), but better for higher bars though. Cranks are also 165, 170 would lower the saddle by 5mm and I think that would make the exposed seat pin appear too short.
Actually, I've also got a 51cm c-c frame and a 50cm c-c frame, I bought them new and left the steerer long and fitted headset spacers. The 50cm c-c frame definitely needs the spacer otherwise the bars would be too low even with the quill stem at the max height.
All are steel frames with horizontal top tubes with threaded headsets.
-
The changes in frame sizing and set up:
top tubes got lower
head tubes got shorter
bar tops got lower
brake levers mounted further up the bars (sometimes higher than bar tops)
drops got shallower
stems point upwards
straight arms
lots of headset spacers
-
The changes in frame sizing and set up:
top tubes got lower
head tubes got shorter
bar tops got lower
brake levers mounted further up the bars (sometimes higher than bar tops)
drops got shallower
stems point upwards
straight arms
lots of headset spacers
For this bike I think I mostly want the opposite of all that, :-)
-
head tubes got shorter
And then they recently got longer again, although this time with short seat tubes and sloping top tubes to square that circle.
bar tops got lower
[…]
drops got shallower
A combination that effectively reduces the range of positions available, but no-one cares since they have a bicycle for every occasion whether fast rides, slow, or anything between. If you have one bicycle that you use for everything, it still makes sense to have the bar tops higher and use handlebars with a good dollop of drop and reach.
Vroomen has some observations on handlebar height over the years in these short blog posts. Read them in order:
- One (https://gerard.cc/2011/07/26/2-points-lubberding/)
- Two (https://gerard.cc/2011/07/29/body-vs-bar-1/)
- Three (https://gerard.cc/2011/08/02/body-vs-bar-2/)
- Four (https://gerard.cc/2011/08/08/body-position-vs-bar-height-part-3/)
Ideally you’d know the basic arrangement you want before going to a frame builder, but I suppose they’re used to customers changing their mind a few times.
If you want high handlebars, a larger frame seems a more natural starting point. I think standover height is talked about more than it deserves. Even if you can’t strictly stand over the upright bicycle with both feet on the ground, you’ll soon get used to leaning the bicycle to lower the top tube and/or standing on the toes of one foot only. Millions of ten-year-olds automatically mastered this when they learned to ride on adults’ bicycles.
-
head tubes got shorter
And then they recently got longer again, although this time with short seat tubes and sloping top tubes to square that circle.
I think short short tube came about with compact frames and threadless headsets. Hence the spacers, upward pointing stems and brake levers and rotated bars on most current bikes.
There's a natural limit on how short head tubes can be with quill stems.
-
I think I may have quite a list of questions for Grant, though I understand that email communication is not (or at least wasn't) Mercian's forte...
I won't bore you with a boring story, but my personal experience is that the only chance of getting what you asked for from Mercian is to go there in person. Email is a black hole.
-
I think I may have quite a list of questions for Grant, though I understand that email communication is not (or at least wasn't) Mercian's forte...
I won't bore you with a boring story, but my personal experience is that the only chance of getting what you asked for from Mercian is to go there in person. Email is a black hole.
This is pretty much what I was expecting. Seems to be a trait of a number of bike builders...
-
re frame size; I think (purely on aesthetic grounds) that many people are riding frames with horizontal top tubes that are too small, and that anytime you are planning to have as much or more exposed seat pin vs the length of the head tube, the frame starts to look a bit small.
Practically speaking you need to be able to straddle the frame without being castrated (and you may only need about 2" of exposed seat pin for this) and you need to be able to put the handlebars at the right height. If you are racing and need the bars very low then this might be a good reason for having a smaller frame size but you might as easily need to go the other way. My guess is that with a 52cm frame you might struggle to get the handlebars level with the saddle unless you use a stem that is longer than normal, and that the lowest adjustment is a lot lower than you might ever use. If that is right then a frame that is 1-2cm longer in the seat tube might be a good idea; it would arguably fit better with the retro aesthetic too.
The thing there is that some times the seat tube needs to be a bit longer in order to be able to attach saddle bags. The Ortlieb saddle bag I use on my bike needs 150mm of exposed seat post to attach to. This limits how close to horizontal I can get my top tube. I'm quite short, and my standover height isn't particularly high.
This thread is really interesting as I'm going through a similar decision process for my new bike.
J
-
re frame size; I think (purely on aesthetic grounds) that many people are riding frames with horizontal top tubes that are too small, and that anytime you are planning to have as much or more exposed seat pin vs the length of the head tube, the frame starts to look a bit small.
Practically speaking you need to be able to straddle the frame without being castrated (and you may only need about 2" of exposed seat pin for this) and you need to be able to put the handlebars at the right height. If you are racing and need the bars very low then this might be a good reason for having a smaller frame size but you might as easily need to go the other way. My guess is that with a 52cm frame you might struggle to get the handlebars level with the saddle unless you use a stem that is longer than normal, and that the lowest adjustment is a lot lower than you might ever use. If that is right then a frame that is 1-2cm longer in the seat tube might be a good idea; it would arguably fit better with the retro aesthetic too.
The thing there is that some times the seat tube needs to be a bit longer in order to be able to attach saddle bags. The Ortlieb saddle bag I use on my bike needs 150mm of exposed seat post to attach to. This limits how close to horizontal I can get my top tube. I'm quite short, and my standover height isn't particularly high.
This thread is really interesting as I'm going through a similar decision process for my new bike.
I'd like to be able to use a saddle bag, but just a small one like a Carradice Super C Audax or similar
-
Vroomen has some observations on handlebar height over the years in these short blog posts. Read them in order:
- One (https://gerard.cc/2011/07/26/2-points-lubberding/)
- Two (https://gerard.cc/2011/07/29/body-vs-bar-1/)
- Three (https://gerard.cc/2011/08/02/body-vs-bar-2/)
- Four (https://gerard.cc/2011/08/08/body-position-vs-bar-height-part-3/)
Ideally you’d know the basic arrangement you want before going to a frame builder, but I suppose they’re used to customers changing their mind a few times.
I'm not sure about Vroomen's arm position observations. He says that a common reason people ride with straight arms is to support their weight because their back alone is not strong enough, which seems likely. Given this, it's only ever going to be a fit and fast minority who will be able to ride with bent arms (unless they have very high bars and an upright position).
-
Vroomen has some observations on handlebar height over the years in these short blog posts. Read them in order:
- One (https://gerard.cc/2011/07/26/2-points-lubberding/)
- Two (https://gerard.cc/2011/07/29/body-vs-bar-1/)
- Three (https://gerard.cc/2011/08/02/body-vs-bar-2/)
- Four (https://gerard.cc/2011/08/08/body-position-vs-bar-height-part-3/)
Ideally you’d know the basic arrangement you want before going to a frame builder, but I suppose they’re used to customers changing their mind a few times.
I'm not sure about Vroomen's arm position observations. He says that a common reason people ride with straight arms is to support their weight because their back alone is not strong enough, which seems likely. Given this, it's only ever going to be a fit and fast minority who will be able to ride with bent arms (unless they have very high bars and an upright position).
I don't think he mentions backs, just that locking your arms straight requires less effort than bent arms.
The lower your back goes, the more weight is on your arms, so it could be that straight arms are actually more "comfortable" than bent arms when trying to ride with a low position.
-
I am the same height as OP and have lower back issues also. I approached my bike purchase from a slightly different angle, that is deciding the position I needed to be on the bike then finding one that met the criteria whilst being aesthetically pleasing (to me at least!))
Having previously had a bike fit I was able to take the required measurements from my old bike. So I knew that I needed:
A seat angle of less than 74deg or I'd need a seatpost with more than 25mm setback
A virtual top tube of 54cm to give correct reach with a 100mm stem
A tallish headtube to get bar height without resorting to flipping stem or spacer stack
I preferred steel, wanted clearance for 25s with full mudguards, deep drop brakes and a triple chainset
This is the bike chose, which I know is exactly what OP doesn't want, but I think is handsome. I have swapped my 9-speed drivetrain over to it and it's a joy to ride.
http://2015.konaworld.com/kapu.cfm (http://2015.konaworld.com/kapu.cfm)
My point is that if you start out with a particular style of bike and try to make it fit, you are going to come up against challenges in trying to bring the style and fit together (as seen in previous threads). Although going custom should be the answer, it isn't guaranteed. Sometimes compromises are needed but I don't think it should be in the fit. My main objective was to be able to continue enjoying my cycling in the future - which means ensuring there is also room for adjustments to be made in the future.
I wish OP well and hope he ends up with his ideal bike. :)
-
You don't need very strong arms to ride without your elbows locked! Look how puny some of the pros are up-top. But locked elbows take away almost ALL of the shock absorption in your arms.
Anyway, you don't need big muscles to support a gentle load for long periods - its about practice. The human body adapts, and the first adaptation is very quick; so riding a very different bike can seem very odd/tiring at first, but get on it a week later and suddenly you've magically become an elite gymnast that can sustain a couple of hours in this "extreme" position without fatigue :thumbsup:
-
You don't need very strong arms to ride without your elbows locked! Look how puny some of the pros are up-top. But locked elbows take away almost ALL of the shock absorption in your arms.
Exactly. It seems to me that riding with locked arms is a modern fashion that goes along with shallow bars, the insistence on riding the drops all the time and a big drop from saddle to bars. I started club riding and racing back in the 1960's and we were all capable of bending our arms to get lower (chew the handlebar stem) or for suspension. I still do it and I am a puny 10 stone pensioner, that's 64kg in newspeak.
-
- 74 degree seat angle is too steep for a lot of combinations of saddle and seat pin; there is no way I could use that with most leather saddles for example, because they don't slide as far back as far a lot of other saddles.
- you could (bearing in mind the sporty intent of this frame) easily go 10mm shorter in the chainstays and even 20mm might be possible
BTW I was just checking on the Mercian web page (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/strada-speciale/) about the Strada Speciale frameset again and was interested to note that for frame sizes 50cm to 55cm they specify as standard "73 degree head angle – 75 degree seat angle" (but for 56cm to 66cm 74 degree head angle – 74 degree seat angle), so for the 52cm frame they specified for me, they have already "relaxed" this a little to a 72 head angle and 74 degree seat angle. BTW when I was measured for the bike, think it had a Brooks Team Pro saddle on the jig.
Also looks like for small frames a 40mm fork rake is usual, but they've specified 45mm for me.
I also noticed that the standard chainstay length is 410mm -so they've only gone an extra 10mm for my measurements, to 420mm - presumably to allow for the mudguard clearance I asked for.
I think the main thing I would question is the frame size - 52cm seems a bit too small, with a lot of seatpost showing and an extension needed for the headtube about the top tube - so I may ask if they can reconfigure for 53cm or even 54cm
-
one thing I noted many years ago is that (for some reason I still don't understand, probably to do with the way lugged frames are brazed up in sequence) careful measurements of a number of frames indicated that it was common for the actual seat angle to be 0.5 degrees steeper than the specification required.
I was (as usual) in danger of running out of saddle adjustment so when I ordered a frame years ago (from an un-named but reputable source) I asked for it to be built with a certain seat angle. I said that if the seat angle was likely to turn out 0.5 degrees steeper than specified (as my measurements showed was likely to happen) they were very welcome to aim for 0.5 degrees slacker to start with, because 0.5 degrees slacker would be OK, but 0.5 degrees steeper would be a disaster.
Imagine my dischuffment when the poxy thing (inevitably) turned up with a seat angle 0.5 degrees steeper than I had specified; to rub salt into the wounds this had rendered the frame virtually the same as the 'standard build' would have been, so as far as I could tell I'd just paid a healthy premium to have a custom frame geometry only to be given what was basically similar (in one of the key dimensions that I'd specified) to an OTP frameset.... Grrrrr….
As a general rule one of the things that determines the maximum seat angle is how hard you push on the pedals; basically this unweights your hands and allows a modicum of comfort. The further back the saddle is, the less hard you need to push to give this unweighting effect and therefore give your hands, arms and shoulders a comfortable time of it. When you are tired you can often feel this instantly; when you stop pedalling there is a significant increase in the load on the handlebars.
Steeper seat angles are thus tolerated by more powerful riders and for any given rider the most appropriate seat angle may vary depending on the intensity and duration of the envisaged usage. So a seat angle of 75 (or even 76) degrees may be appropriate for a short TT or on a typical track bike but the same rider might be better off with a 72 degree seat angle (and a slightly more rearward-set saddle) for longer races, audaxes, six-day track events etc.
I'd therefore urge caution in specifying a seat angle that is likely to be appropriate for shorter length races on (say) a bike that you hope to be comfortable all day long. If you have not experimented with moving your saddle around, (a surprising number of experienced riders have not) now is probably the time to do so, before the die is cast.
Note also that the flare in the saddle (not to mention the rivets on a leather one) can stop you from sliding back in the saddle but during high intensity efforts the natural urge is to slide forwards towards the saddle nose (almost regardless of its original position) so that a slacker seat angle is almost invariably less of an impediment than one that is too steep.
cheers
-
one thing I noted many years ago is that (for some reason I still don't understand, probably to do with the way lugged frames are brazed up in sequence) careful measurements of a number of frames indicated that it was common for the actual seat angle to be 0.5 degrees steeper than the specification required.
I was (as usual) in danger of running out of saddle adjustment so when I ordered a frame years ago (from an un-named but reputable source) I asked for it to be built with a certain seat angle. I said that if the seat angle was likely to turn out 0.5 degrees steeper than specified (as my measurements showed was likely to happen) they were very welcome to aim for 0.5 degrees slacker to start with, because 0.5 degrees slacker would be OK, but 0.5 degrees steeper would be a disaster.
Imagine my dischuffment when the poxy thing (inevitably) turned up with a seat angle 0.5 degrees steeper than I had specified; to rub salt into the wounds this had rendered the frame virtually the same as the 'standard build' would have been, so as far as I could tell I'd just paid a healthy premium to have a custom frame geometry only to be given what was basically similar (in one of the key dimensions that I'd specified) to an OTP frameset.... Grrrrr….
As a general rule one of the things that determines the maximum seat angle is how hard you push on the pedals; basically this unweights your hands and allows a modicum of comfort. The further back the saddle is, the less hard you need to push to give this unweighting effect and therefore give your hands, arms and shoulders a comfortable time of it. When you are tired you can often feel this instantly; when you stop pedalling there is a significant increase in the load on the handlebars.
Steeper seat angles are thus tolerated by more powerful riders and for any given rider the most appropriate seat angle may vary depending on the intensity and duration of the envisaged usage. So a seat angle of 75 (or even 76) degrees may be appropriate for a short TT or on a typical track bike but the same rider might be better off with a 72 degree seat angle (and a slightly more rearward-set saddle) for longer races, audaxes, six-day track events etc.
I'd therefore urge caution in specifying a seat angle that is likely to be appropriate for shorter length races on (say) a bike that you hope to be comfortable all day long. If you have not experimented with moving your saddle around, (a surprising number of experienced riders have not) now is probably the time to do so, before the die is cast.
Note also that the flare in the saddle (not to mention the rivets on a leather one) can stop you from sliding back in the saddle but during high intensity efforts the natural urge is to slide forwards towards the saddle nose (almost regardless of its original position) so that a slacker seat angle is almost invariably less of an impediment than one that is too steep.
Interesting! Although I can't say I've had any problems with the 74 degree seat angle on my Hewitt Cheviot, but I do use a seatpost with a 20mm seatback (with a Giles Berthoud leather saddle - BTW the rivets on this are at the sides, not on top, so can wriggle around anywhere on the saddle without discomfort, also has less flare than a Brooks) - would a seatback seatpost be a bad idea on a road bike, though?
I may well make a point that a 74 degree angle is the absolute steepest angle I want, though, and slacker rather than any steep would be preferable!
-
The changes in frame sizing and set up:
top tubes got lower
head tubes got shorter
bar tops got lower
brake levers mounted further up the bars (sometimes higher than bar tops)
drops got shallower
stems point upwards
straight arms
lots of headset spacers
Also bars rotated up.
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=17.msg2297946#msg2297946
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/887/42912932212_ba3b0ae2a5_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28o4ZFA)20180623_072029 (https://flic.kr/p/28o4ZFA) by rogerzilla (https://www.flickr.com/photos/41286375@N07/), on Flickr
;D
-
….I do use a seatpost with a 20mm seatback (with a Giles Berthoud leather saddle - BTW the rivets on this are at the sides, not on top, so can wriggle around anywhere on the saddle without discomfort, also has less flare than a Brooks) - would a seatback seatpost be a bad idea on a road bike, though?
I may well make a point that a 74 degree angle is the absolute steepest angle I want, though, and slacker rather than any steep would be preferable!
There is one good (or bad) reason for setting the bike up so that you use most of the rearward adjustment of the saddle in your 'normal' position; it allows more flex in the saddle rails. This can be bad (if you tend to break saddles anyway) but otherwise it is good, because it has a marked effect on comfort.
IMHO it matters little whether you get the seat clamp in any given place via choice of seat pin or choice of seat angle. Full-on racing frames can have fractionally shorter chainstays if the seat angle is a bit steeper, but that is about it, provided you make appropriate adjustments to the top tube length and so forth.
cheers
-
Oxford_Guy
Have you sorted your bike yet?
-
Oxford_Guy
Have you sorted your bike yet?
Not yet, I sent a long email to Merican, which Grant said he'd read but said it would be best for me to come back to the shop for another appointment, which is fair enough. Haven't booked it said, but will probably do so tomorrow and see them again in a few weeks. I think I have a bit better idea what I'm looking for now.
-
I think that blue and white Strada Speciale was originally owned by me. I did have one built that was exactly the same as that one in 1989 but no longer have the frame number for it. Great to see it again though after all this time. It was originally a dark red with silver panels but I had it resprayed in about 1991 and later sold it through the CTC website in about 1993.
Not yet had time to read all postings but for now, I have never ridden with a triple chainset and find that a compact 34/48 or 34/50 works fine for me even though I dont get up the hills anywhere near as quick as I once did!
-
I think that blue and white Strada Speciale was originally owned by me. I did have one built that was exactly the same as that one in 1989 but no longer have the frame number for it. Great to see it again though after all this time. It was originally a dark red with silver panels but I had it resprayed in about 1991 and later sold it through the CTC website in about 1993.
Intriguing!
Not yet had time to read all postings but for now, I have never ridden with a triple chainset and find that a compact 34/48 or 34/50 works fine for me even though I dont get up the hills anywhere near as quick as I once did!
I'm still considering my options, might go for a triple, might go for a compact, if I can find a suitable Ultra Torque chainset. What cassette do you use with a compact? Was thinking either 12-27 or 12-30, 13-29 gives a closer spread in the higher gears, but think I want a higher gear than 13/50
-
I normally use a 13/26 cassette with my compact chainset of 34/50 though I do also have a bike with a 13/29 set up. I have rarely ever needed my top gear of 50/13.
-
I normally use a 13/26 cassette with my compact chainset of 34/50 though I do also have a bike with a 13/29 set up. I have rarely ever needed my top gear of 50/13.
Nice tight ratios on the 13-26 all the way up to 19T, I think, but 50/13 is only about 100 gear inches I think, which I think I would spin out of quite easily on not that steep downhills - I certainly used to on 42/11 which is similar. Am on 46/11 now on that bike, which I find better, though 44/11 probably would have been more useful
-
Never understood what people have against triples. Difference in weight between a triple and compact, taking SPA chain sets for instance is only 65g. So neither here nor there. Whole range of lower gears you can have with a close ratio rear cassette if you want, or keep a wide range cassette for super low gears for touring or fatigued on long rides.
-
Never understood what people have against triples. Difference in weight between a triple and compact, taking SPA chain sets for instance is only 65g. So neither here nor there. Whole range of lower gears you can have with a close ratio rear cassette if you want, or keep a wide range cassette for super low gears for touring or fatigued on long rides.
The weight difference is a bit more comparing Square Taper BB Campag with Campag UltraTorque BB, as well as a somewhat stiffer BB spindle. Smaller Q-factor too. Not saying triples are a bad thing, far from it, but there are some advantages to an UT Compact.
If I was running a triple I'd probably put a 12-25 cassette on it for a road bike
-
re triples, I don't understand it either.
Only serious objection (which matters more to some than others) is that of Q value, but that can be overcome by careful design on road bikes; one of my bikes has a triple chainset and by using carefully chosen parts the Q value is appreciably less than you might get on a modern compact double, and the chainline is about the same (or better) on the bigger chainrings as would be had on a compact double too.
Given that so many folk only use top gear when running downhill, yet might use bottom gear for considerably longer (both in time and pedal revolutions) there is much to be said for road bikes with
- at least 135mm OLN hubs
- 8/9/10s cassette (centre chainline of ~46mm to 47mm on 135mm OLN) or shortened cassette on a 7s freehub body
- chainrings set at ~34, 42, 50mm chainlines (won't fit on every frame since inner chainring is centred on the end of a 68mm BB shell)
Whilst on the bigger rings his gives freedom to use the sprockets as if you were riding a double setup (more or less) and leaves the inside chainring for emergencies, during which time you would only use it with the larger 2/3rds of the sprockets anyway. The chainline onto the smallest sprocket isn't great but that is no big deal given that you would only ever use it going down hills.
So for example even a 7s cassette gives a good range of gears on a triple this way, e.g. 13,15,17,19,21,24,28 and chainrings of 30,42,52 gives me enough gears for every (unladen) circumstance and on the big ring the 17 and 19T sprockets give near-perfect chainlines and are good gears (for me) to ride briskly on, being both measurably more efficient (than I'd use with smaller chainrings) and more hard-wearing.
The same freehub body will accept up to nine 10s sprockets if seven isn't enough for some reason. A 135mm/7s wheel has almost no dish which means that you can have a very strong and lightweight wheel indeed.
Contrast that with a compact double (2x11 or 2x10) with 130mm OLN wheels and you have at least as much weight in the sprockets/chainrings etc, a rear wheel that is weaker, heavier (or both), lower efficiency (because the chainrings/sprockets are smaller for any given gear ratio) and worse chainlines more of the time.
Sod fashion, I reckon a triple (set thusly) works better for me and a lot of other riders too.
BTW re chainset weight; I think a third chainring could be added to a campag UT double chainset (using a tripleizer ring and a very slight offset to the cups in the BB) and the 'extra weight' would be 100g, tops, to be traded against lighter/fewer sprockets.
cheers
-
I miss the ' half step +granny' on my Audax Bike
It's the sourcing of shifters that made me switch in the end. I liked the old micro shift campag ones.
So now I run a double but don't use the 11t.
I didn't like the big step from outer to inner.
So I've lowered the outer to 46 and increased the inner to 36.
But if I have a hilly ride I can fit a 34 inner.
Maybe I should get 3 chainset options from spa cycles and fit as required.:)
-
On my Mercian audax special which was meant to be a custom build - due to the delays in production I ended up getting an off the peg and seeing what adjustments had to be made to fit me re stem length, seatpost and saddle height - I find that the band-on adaptor doesnt work well with triples (getting into the smallest chainring is sketchy at times) so maybe a band on is advantageous. Also that the frame had a 1 inch threadless fork which pretty much limits you to a campag record headset....23mm tyres with mudguards, 25 without (the specs at the time of purchase some 8 years ago) however limits the choice of tyre and comfort factor now...
These niggles aside it still is the most comfortable bike I own for over 200km, and I'll never part with it :o
-
quite a few 1" threadless headsets here
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/headsets-1-ahead/ (https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/headsets-1-ahead/)
and campag besides.
cheers
-
Chris King do a 1” threadless - by far the best headset I’ve ever had.
-
I'll be putting a 1" Campagnolo Record threaded headset on my Mercian Strada BTW
-
Does it have cartridge bearings these days? If not, consider a Tange FL250C (Falcon) as this is pretty much fit-and-forget and should never develop "indexing". Stack height 35.3mm but you can use a thinner spacer and lose another mm. On a new bike, I'd always specify at least 40mm stack height anyway - those 1990s forks cut right down for Shinano 32mm height headsets are really limiting now.
-
Does it have cartridge bearings these days? ….
of course not; if it ain't broke, why 'fix' it? To get the same strength in a typical cartridge bearing construction, you would need to have one about three times the volume. If it is set up and lubricated correctly a Camppag threaded headset should last the life of the bike.
cheers
-
I know you don't believe him but I think Jobst Brandt was right on the money about false brinelling. Nothing with loose races suffers from this, whether it's cartridges or the loose races of a Stronglight A9. Headsets really need a plain angular contact bearing interface to accommodate fork flex.
-
Would 53/39/30 chainrings and a 13/26 cassette be a not completely insane idea for a road bike like this? Would give a gear range of 30.4" to 107.5", which sounds about right to me. The cassette goes 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26 - so straight through to 19T. Found a set of 170mm Record Triple cranks I might use.
Alternatively a 50/34 compact chainset with a 12-30 cassette would give a similar range - 29.5" to 109.9" or with a 13-29 cassette 30.9" to 101.5", but not sure that the latter would be high enough a road bike/
-
I know you don't believe him but I think Jobst Brandt was right on the money about false brinelling. Nothing with loose races suffers from this, whether it's cartridges or the loose races of a Stronglight A9. Headsets really need a plain angular contact bearing interface to accommodate fork flex.
For many years JB had a 1" steerer about a foot long and it flexed so much it would knacker any normal headset because the loads were no longer evenly distributed. What he had (and didn't believe he had; he should have known better) was much closer to real brinelling than he thought. He thought he didn't have real brinelling because he couldn't see a ridge of displaced material around the wear marks, but he hadn't done his sums properly; you can have 10um deep dents and the raised area around the holes might only be about 1um high, which would of course be very difficult to detect.
I have seen endless A9s that are knackered through....you guessed it.... fretting wear and in fact I have not seen one that has been used for any distance that wasn't worn unevenly, because the races move and then sit at a funny angle. Folk have even sent me their 'good' A9 headsets to look at and they have been worn just like the others... IMHO the A9 is the epitome of a terrible headset; it needs a lot of preload in order not to rattle and once so preloaded it binds slightly, even if the raceways are in perfect condition. If you want a built-in steering damper maybe that is OK but if you don't I think it makes for a horrid bike to ride.
[BTW there is a simple experiment you can do; at the end of a ride with an A9 headset, stop in a straight line using the rear brake, i.e. without turning the handlebars. Pick the bike up at the front and carefully turn the steering. Very often the first turn will be rather bindy and after that the movement will be slightly more free. This happens because the raceways settle into a new position when the steering is first turned in any new loading situation. Unless the road is as smooth as a billiard table the loading is changing all the time as you ride and the inevitable result is a mixture of binding and fretting....ugh...]
Modern cartridges are often built very weakly (too few balls, too small) but a few use a full complement of loose balls of decent size; these headsets are bulkier and heavier than they need be. The ability of the lower race to articulate can be useful if you have a flexy steerer, but in order not to rattle the preload again needs to be high. Swings and roundabouts....
If you have a good quality traditional loose ball headset (Campag, Tange, etc) fitted to a 'normal' sized bike, IME if it dies it has been murdered rather than natural causes, every time...
cheers
-
Would 53/39/30 chainrings and a 13/26 cassette be a not completely insane idea for a road bike like this? Would give a gear range of 30.4" to 107.5", which sounds about right to me. The cassette goes 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26 - so straight through to 19T. Found a set of 170mm Record Triple cranks I might use.
Alternatively a 50/34 compact chainset with a 12-30 cassette would give a similar range - 29.5" to 109.9" or with a 13-29 cassette 30.9" to 101.5", but not sure that the latter would be high enough a road bike/
the first set of gearing is such that I'd end up running cross-chained most of the time. You know what gears you use most of the time; my suggestion is that you use a setup that, if possible, does not leave you running cross chained under 'normal' conditions. So for racing having 13-19 in 1T intervals is quite desirable but for pretty much everything else I'd live with 2T intervals in that range if it got me out of a cross-chaining hole.
cheers
-
Would 53/39/30 chainrings and a 13/26 cassette be a not completely insane idea for a road bike like this? Would give a gear range of 30.4" to 107.5", which sounds about right to me. The cassette goes 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26 - so straight through to 19T. Found a set of 170mm Record Triple cranks I might use.
Alternatively a 50/34 compact chainset with a 12-30 cassette would give a similar range - 29.5" to 109.9" or with a 13-29 cassette 30.9" to 101.5", but not sure that the latter would be high enough a road bike/
the first set of gearing is such that I'd end up running cross-chained most of the time. You know what gears you use most of the time; my suggestion is that you use a setup that, if possible, does not leave you running cross chained under 'normal' conditions. So for racing having 13-19 in 1T intervals is quite desirable but for pretty much everything else I'd live with 2T intervals in that range if it got me out of a cross-chaining hole.
Okay, what about 12-27 (12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-27) on 50-40-30 rings, does that look any better? Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/4adVVZj.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/4adVVZj.jpg)
One of the problems I'm having with working out what gearing is going to work, is that I've never had a (relatively) lightweight road bike previously, only a touring bike (and a Brompton), so I don't really have anything to directly compare it to. On my touring bike I find 11-32 and 46/34/24 works fine, but I rarely use the 24T ring except for really brutal (over 10%) hills (unloaded) or on moderate hills when loaded touring. On the flat I guess I'm mostly in the 65-75 gear inches range.
-
well if you intend to ride using the 15 and 17 sprockets on the big ring a lot of the time (which you might, say, in a fast-ish group ride even if you don't normally) then you can have a perfect chainline.
However if in reality it is more often the 19 and 17 sprockets then the standard chainline isn't so good; arguably the 12T sprocket is redundant for many forms of non-competitive cycling, and (if you have enough larger sprockets anyway) you could be better off with either
a) a 13-up cassette or
b) a shortened cassette/freehub body (i.e. nine sprockets rather than ten) and a less dished (and this possibly lighter) wheel.
You can do the latter with a shimano-based cassette/hub system, but it is a lot less easy with a campag-based one.
cheers
-
Thanks Brucey, well as for going for a 13T starting cog, AFAIK the two 10-speed Campagnolo options would be Veloce 13-26 (which I think you'd already dismissed, at least for a 53/39/30 triple) and 13-29:
13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29
I'm a bit loathe to give up the 50-12 top, though, 50-13 looks a bit too low.
The other option of course is to go for a compact double, which might give a better chain line, though probably only in a narrower range of gears (?). Also would likely mean accepting the servicing issues of Power Torque, unless can eventually find a suitable NOS Ultra Torque compact chainset.
-
Okay, I made another trip up to Mercian Cycles in Derby again today to discuss adjusting the frame-sizing, some other minor adjustments to spec (e.g. adding a chain-hanger pip to the inside of the RH seat stay) and the most difficult bit, what colour(s) to paint my Strada Speciale...
So, if you've been following the discussion, the main contentious points seemed to be the frame sizing (52cm centre-to-top) in particular perhaps too much seat post showing, for this style of road bike, and the perhaps ugly 10mm extension to the head tube above the top tube that was specified. Also as a reminder, I'm about 5'8", with a 29-30" inside leg, and about 74kg.
The sizing of the frame is also influenced, though, by:
a) Me not wanting quite as bent over a riding position as "standard" (I am almost 50, with some moderate chronic back pain), hence not wanting the bars too low (though a bit lower than my tourer)
b) Having enough space between saddle and rear wheel to fit a small saddlebag, for longer day/weekend rides. BTW will likely be using a Gilles Berthoud Aspin/Aravis leather saddle, as my bum seems to like these, though I might go for something lighter.
c) Having sufficient standover height to not do myself an injury (the lugged top tube is horizontal), obviously only an issue when stationary and if not actually on the saddle.
So, Grant set the jig up with my previous measurements, I hopped on it and span the pedals and all felt good (re-assuringly) - sporty, but comfy. Then for comparison he increased the frame size by 1cm to 53cm, but lowered the seat post by basically the same amount. Unsurprisingly, the riding position felt exactly the same.
Increasing the frame size would mean - 1cm less seatpost showing (obviously) and no need for the 10mm extension to the headtube. On the flipside, it allows a little less space for a saddle bag or seat pack, though I think a Carradice Barley or similar would probably still fit.
Regarding standover height - they had a 52cm frame in store for me to check this on, but not a 53cm one. With 52cm I could *just* feel the frame touch the bottom of my cycling short fabric, but not pressing in. I was wearing very thin-soled Addidas trainers, though, not 3-bolt cleat cycling shoes, which is what I will be wearing when riding the bike, which I guess would probably raise my standover height slightly.
If I bent down roughly a cm, the 52cm frame still did not quite actually touch *me*, but was very close.
I had to make a call on this, so in the end I said to go for the larger 53cm frame. I hope the standover height will not be a problem in practice... Does it sound like it will be too close, or do you think I'll be okay with this, based on what I described?
Next update post by me in this thread will be about the paint job etc...
-
I think it will be fine. For me, stand-over height is practically irrelevant. There is never a situation where I need to or even wish to have both feet on the ground while straddling the perfectly upright bicycle.
In the old days and in poorer countries today, ten-year-olds learn to ride adult roadsters with the top tube a foot taller than their inseam!
-
I think the 53cm frame will be fine, too.
BTW regarding the gear ratios, a 12T vs a 13T will enable you to pedal to a speed ~2mph faster, probably down hills only. If you really feel you need a 12T sprocket, you can add it to a 13 up cassette in place of the 13T. You will be left with 12-14T gap but that is probably preferable to the other possibilities.
cheers
-
Sorted. Hit us with the paint job details!
-
I think the 53cm frame will be fine, too.
BTW regarding the gear ratios, a 12T vs a 13T will enable you to pedal to a speed ~2mph faster, probably down hills only.
Of course 12T for down hills only, I can't push that gear at any sensible cadence on the flat. That extra 2 mph downhill can be quite fun, though, and possibly needed if trying to keep up with a group downhill on a fast club ride. Not so needed for sportives etc. though.
If you really feel you need a 12T sprocket, you can add it to a 13 up cassette in place of the 13T. You will be left with 12-14T gap but that is probably preferable to the other possibilities.
Now a 13T cog is definitely something I would not want to loose, think that would be about 101.5 gear inches (109.9" for 12T), assuming a 50T big ring.
BTW this is the list of all Campagnolo Veloce and Centaur 10-speed cassettes, though the Centaur ones I think are being slowly discontinued (though most are still easily available). The Centaur ones have a different/nicer finish (some sort of matte-silvery grey coating, the Veloce have a shiny silver finish), are a little lighter than the same size Veloce and have aluminium carriers, which I'm not sure the Veloce cassettes do. But I guess a cassette is a cassette...
I've marked in bold the only ones possibly of interest to me - 11T is a pointless cog for a 50T chain ring and 23T is too high a bottom gear for me. I would prefer to use a genuine Campagnolo non-custom cassette ideally.
Veloce
• 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25
• 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23
• 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25
• 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26
• 13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29
Centaur
• 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23
• 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25
• 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25
• 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-27
• 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-27-30
Chainrings will either be a 50/34 compact or 50/40/30 triple - I haven't fully decided yet, but am actually leaning towards a compact currently (this bike won't be a heavy load carrier, I'm not even having rack mounts...), though would prefer Ultra Torque to Power Torque, and UT Centaur or Veloce chainsets in 170mm are not easy to find... I guess Power Torque is not so bad if I get my local bike shop to do bearing changes.
My current thinking is 12/27 or 12/30 or else 13/26 or 13/29...
Anyway - will start putting my thoughts to keyboard about paint etc. shortly...
-
So - onto the complex and (for me) difficult to decide matter of paintwork colours and other finishing options.
Merican's colour options are here, though some of them actually look a bit different "in the flesh" on the actual bike frames I saw:
https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/colours/ (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/colours/)
[click to expand]
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/colors-new.png) (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/colors-new.png)
I should perhaps state that both my current bikes are British Racing Green, my Hewitt Cheviot a *very* dark green, my Bromption quite a bit lighter. I like green, but want this bike a different and probably lighter colour.
As a reminder, all components will be silver and will probably have a brown or honey leather saddle and possibly bar tape too..
I initially was going to get it in #63 - orange pearl (flamboyant) and silver (much like here: https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/strada-speciale/ (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/strada-speciale) ), the Strada does look pretty nice in that, but think I've changed my mind...
Instead, I'm now thinking of a light-to-mid blue - #12 - Metallic Blue Polychromatic in fact, though I was a little dissappointed to see it looks quite a bit lighter on the bikes I actually saw in this (apparently the actually shade can vary quite a bit). Never-the-less, this is what I've now asked for...
Other colours I quite liked were a bianchi-esque turquoise e.g. #15 Green Polychromatic or #35 Bianchi Blue Enamel), or somewhat differently, flamboyant red (which is actually quite dark, not bright). I'm still not 100% decided, argh!
I definitely don't want just a single solid colour, I want a contrasting colour head tube and seat tube - for the later with either a "barber's pole" or panel and stripes (contrasting with the main colour) - see below for more on this... For the contrasting colour I've now decide to go for #46 White Pearl (instead of silver or just flat enamel white), also for the main lug lining and also to fill the clover-leaf lug cutouts and fork lug cut outs. I've asked for the lug cutout lining and headtube lug lining (against the white at the front) to be in gold, instead of the more usual black.
I've also asked for the gothic Merican downtube logo to be in white, with gold edging.
Other options:
1) Barber's Pole or just panels and stripes on the seat tube? I guess this one is a bit 'Marmite", but for me a barber's pole spiral stripe on the seat tube is so classic Mercian, I just had to go for it (in white pearl, with gold edge lining), though I also do really like the look of one big panel and a smaller stripe top and bottom too - for comparison:
Barber's Pole:
(https://i.imgur.com/q5qiH02.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/q5qiH02.jpg)
Panel and Stripes (BTW I think this was done in #41 French Blue Enamel - quite like this, actually...)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MQEQti.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/1MQEQti.jpg)
2) Headtube transfer/badge options - Modern "World Over" Mercian transfer (or enamel badge) or retro "Olympic" one (or enamel badge). I chose the retro "Olympic" logo, though just as a transfer, not enameled badge - easier to clean and less likely to rub on cables on a small frame, I'm thinking. Also cheaper. Though the retro "Olympic badge" *is* rather nice... BTW if going for the Barber's Pole (which is what I've asked for) I *wouldn't* put a second badge/transfer on that (which is what they do standard).
Retro transfer:
(https://i.imgur.com/gfP4vBa.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/gfP4vBa.jpg)
Retro badge (would be screwed, not riveted these days)
(https://i.imgur.com/T1zXg3j.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/T1zXg3j.jpg)
Modern transfer:
(https://i.imgur.com/TEhr78O.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TEhr78O.jpg)
Modern badge (would be screwed, not riveted these days):
(https://i.imgur.com/D0GiK1R.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/D0GiK1R.jpg)
So to summarize - what I've now asked for (unless I change my mind *again*) is -
a) Main colour #12 - Metallic Blue Polychromatic
b) Barber's pole (#46 White Pearl, with gold edge lining) seat tube, against the main #12 blue (with the Reynolds sticker at the top, just below the top tube)
c) #46 White Pearl headtube, with gold lug lining
c) #46 White Pearl main (and fork) lug lining and lug cutout fills, with gold inner lug cutout lining
d) Gothic Merican downtube logo to be in white, with gold edging
e) Retro "Olympic" headtube (-only) logo transfer
How does that sound? If the blue is quite light, maybe black, rather than gold edging would stand out better?
-
Thoughts on the paint job etc.? BTW wheels will be silver Mavic Open Pros on silver 32 hole Campagnolo Chorus hubs from 2001 (NOS). at least that's the current plan and I showed the hubs to Grant and he seemed to like them!
-
Thoughts on the paint job: It's highly subjective so anyone's opinion other than yours may not mean much! Personally, I'd always go for a solid head badge rather than a transfer, given the choice; it just seems more, well, solid. More like a permanent part of the bike, as opposed to something that's liable to wear off. And three-dimensional!
I'd probably prefer panels or even just a plain seat tube to a barber's pole, but I think your reasoning – that it is quintessentially Mercian – makes sense. So much so that if I were ever to have a Mercian made I'd go for the same!
-
I heartily recommend a barber's pole - it's what I went for on my tourer when I had it resprayed at Bob Jackson, and nothing says 'classic British' like it. WRT colours, metallics are more fragile than standard enamels, but for a best bike they make sense. If it were my bike, I'd possibly go for something slightly lairy; to my mind, part of the classic lightweight look (and Mercian in particular as exponents of this) is a metallic or flam paint scheme in colour combinations that you'd think might look horribly loud, but in practice work beautifully, e.g. 57/26; 36/30; 16/7* - the orange/silver falls into this category for me. I'd possibly be tempted by a solid headbadge, too.
*See also the Paul Smith Mercian frames.
-
I heartily recommend a barber's pole - it's what I went for on my tourer when I had it resprayed at Bob Jackson, and nothing says 'classic British' like it. WRT colours, metallics are more fragile than standard enamels, but for a best bike they make sense. If it were my bike, I'd possibly go for something slightly lairy; to my mind, part of the classic lightweight look (and Mercian in particular as exponents of this) is a metallic or flam paint scheme in colour combinations that you'd think might look horribly loud, but in practice work beautifully, e.g. 57/26; 36/30; 16/7* - the orange/silver falls into this category for me. I'd possibly be tempted by a solid headbadge, too.
*See also the Paul Smith Mercian frames.
I think you might be right, the colour scheme I've suggested is perhaps too "tame", more suited to a tourer? I do like the white headtube and barber's pole and lug lining, though... The bike will have very skinny, non-oversize tubing BTW. It's also quite a small frame. Will have a think.
-
Btw regarding the solid headbadge, when I saw it on a non-oversize headtube (1" steerer) it looked too big and didn't wrap around the tube properly, had gaps either side - think it's shaped for larger headtubes. I might be mistaken, but this put me off a bit.
-
Increasing the frame size would mean - 1cm less seatpost showing (obviously) and no need for the 10mm extension to the headtube. On the flipside, it allows a little less space for a saddle bag or seat pack, though I think a Carradice Barley or similar would probably still fit.
Er, why? Space for a saddlebag is dependent on the gap between the top of the wheel (or mudguard) and the saddle - this won't change because you've got 1cm more seat tube and 1cm less seatpost.
I can see that a shorter exposed length of seatpost *might* limit your choice of seatpack, depending on how exactly they mount, but I'd have thought that wouldn't be too much of a constraint.
-
Depending how the saddlebag hangs, it could also rub on the top of the seat stays. More likely with one that loops round the saddle rails than hangs from saddle loops.
-
Btw regarding the solid headbadge, when I saw it on a non-oversize headtube (1" steerer) it looked too big and didn't wrap around the tube properly, had gaps either side - think it's shaped for larger headtubes. I might be mistaken, but this put me off a bit.
Somewhat surprised that Mercian do headtubes larger than 1"!
-
Depending how the saddlebag hangs, it could also rub on the top of the seat stays. More likely with one that loops round the saddle rails than hangs from saddle loops.
Yes, that's probably back better explanation of the issue than mine - obviously the gap between the saddle and the wheel is the same in both cases.
Anyway, back to the important stuff - paintwork!
Any other thoughts / suggestions? I did have one slightly crazy idea for the seat tube/barber's pole in red and white, but keeping the rest of the frame light blue (white headtube)- there was something a bit like this in one of the older Mercian catalogues on their website, only with red bands instead of Barber's Pole...I'll try to post an image here later.
I do now think for a road bike I perhaps need something a bit more striking than my original light blue suggestion...
-
I have resprayed an old Holdsworth frame in gloss black, with a barber's pole in a metallic Mauve colour and old English white. The head tube is also in the Mauve colour and the head lugs are picked out in the white. To me it looks pretty good, and it will be easy to touch up if I get chips in the black or the white. The frame won't ever look dull because it has chrome ends (and fortunately the chrome is in good condition).
The other way you can give the frame a 'lift' away from a base colour that isn't fancy enough is to let in panel(s) in a contrasting colour; for example I did think about letting in panels in the white colour, just large enough to work as backings for the main transfers.
BTW this paint job smacks of being 'traditional' in a subtle way; in times past (and to some extent this is true to this day) the metallic colours are difficult and expensive to work with, so might only be used to give a lift/contrast to a paint job that is mainly in the (cheaper, easier to apply, easier to live with) flat colours used elsewhere.
The flat/main colours need to be chosen so that they don't clash/blend overly with the colours in the decals/badges and those you might use for accessories. So for example if you like white bar tape, a white barber's pole and/or a white head tube might set everything off nicely. Similarly if you use a Honey coloured saddle, not every frame colour might work with that. Think about mudguards, think about your favourite tyres; if they are coloured (or could be).
I have seen barber's poles applied in two contrasting metallic colours, on top of a frame that is in a third bright metallic or pearlescent paint. Very eye catching for sure, but maybe one is best off sat on a bike like that, so that one's gaze might be averted elsewhere....
FWIW if you want to give the bike a funky modern twist, you could make one colour in the barber's pole a 'flip-flop' paint; this is in a way in the spirit of times past, in that this is an expensive paint, difficult to work with.
Apologies if this is your bike but this
(http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/hanczyc/mercian/45882/45882full.jpg)
is (IMHO) an example of a bike where the frame would have perhaps looked OK by itself but the net result lacks cohesion. Not everyone will agree what is 'good' but just imagine what it would have looked like with white instead of the goldy colour in the frame, white head tube (or head lugs) white bar tape and white-walled tyres; my points are really that it is the whole bike you need to be thinking of, and also that tiny changes can make a big difference.
edit; this looks better to me
(http://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FinishedMercian.jpg)
and a honey-clooured saddle would probably go even better than the white one, a bit like this
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YvqWf9M8Iaw/UvU1AKTjB1I/AAAAAAAABdE/UrFbXeDkwms/s1600/mcgregor+vincitore.jpg)
even the tyre sidewall colour is an improvement
cheers
-
simple can be good too;
(http://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/IMG_0375.jpg)
trading the light colour for silver and using silver transfers would have rendered it almost monochromatic, but quite striking and cohesive nonetheless.
Here;
(http://thebikestand.com/mercian-59-bronze-3.jpg)
panels that are not brilliant white are arguably a better match for (almost inevitably) off-white bar tape. Similar logic was behind my own choice of old english white; 'white' bar tape would look clean for a bit longer than when placed next to brilliant white panels etc.
This one
(http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7111/13154396263_b0c0d66886.jpg)
badly needed a white head tube or something, IMHO
Say 'no'
(http://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/WP_20170609_11_50_13_Pro-600x338.jpg)
to blue bar tape unless it is the same blue as the frame....?
cheers
-
The other way you can give the frame a 'lift' away from a base colour that isn't fancy enough is to let in panel(s) in a contrasting colour; for example I did think about letting in panels in the white colour, just large enough to work as backings for the main transfers.
Yes, that's something I was thinking as a possibility too
BTW this paint job smacks of being 'traditional' in a subtle way; in times past (and to some extent this is true to this day) the metallic colours are difficult and expensive to work with, so might only be used to give a lift/contrast to a paint job that is mainly in the (cheaper, easier to apply, easier to live with) flat colours used elsewhere.
I think I do want quite a "traditional" look to the paint job, but think what I've asked for is perhaps too subtle - so if keeping the same (or similar, but possibly just enamel) main colour, am considering also using something else contrasting that is more bold/striking.
In terms of ease of living with, I guess the main areas that are prone to chipping/scratches tend to be the top tube (because it's what you lean the bike against), the forks and the stays. The seat post tube and to a lesser extent the down tube (because of gravel chips) are less likely to get bashed up.
The flat/main colours need to be chosen so that they don't clash/blend overly with the colours in the decals/badges and those you might use for accessories. So for example if you like white bar tape, a white barber's pole and/or a white head tube might set everything off nicely. Similarly if you use a Honey coloured saddle, not every frame colour might work with that. Think about mudguards, think about your favourite tyres; if they are coloured (or could be).
Yes, that's one of the reasons I was slightly put off orange or even red as the main colour - a honey/brown saddle might blend or clash too much. On the other hand, I don't necessarily hate the idea of a black saddle. White bar tape might be nice for a "best bike" like this, though does require regular cleaning otherwise can look grubby quite quickly.
If/when I do use mudguards, would probably be using silver SKS ones (or painted white). Tyres not sure about yet, though I don't mind all black ones.
Thanks for the other tips/pointers!
I'll post some other ideas soon
-
oh, I forgot to mention, white panels are a safe choice because cable housing is nearly always available (in the quality that you want to use) in white. Black cable housing is OK but is a bit dull on most bikes, and coloured housing may be a PITA to source in the right shade later on, even if you can get it to start with.
cheers
-
Some other possible ideas - variations on using red/white on the seat tube etc., but a different base colour elsewhere (could be done as bands or barber's pole) - these are from some of the older Mercian catalogues - Good ideas or terrible ideas?
[click to expand]
Partial red/white, but still some base colour on seat tube, white panel on down tube (ignore the forks...)
(https://i.imgur.com/IONhv3g.png) (https://i.imgur.com/IONhv3g.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3SOdnmp.png) (https://i.imgur.com/3SOdnmp.png)
Full length red/white seat tube variations:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y2KVJdc.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Y2KVJdc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bLYhZwh.png) (https://i.imgur.com/bLYhZwh.png)
-
oh, I forgot to mention, white panels are a safe choice because cable housing is nearly always available (in the quality that you want to use) in white. Black cable housing is OK but is a bit dull on most bikes, and coloured housing may be a PITA to source in the right shade later on, even if you can get it to start with.
Thanks, yes I was considering white cable housing, and even the genuine Campagnolo housing seems to be readily available in this.
-
I have a soft spot for the blue frame - red and white barber's pole colour scheme, though I think it would also look good against a dark green frame; I think the top green above looks a bit washed out.
Some pictures (of varying quality) of my frame in this thread here: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/300040/ - it would be nice if the guards were slightly off-white to better match the shade on the frame.
-
...
Panel and Stripes (BTW I think this was done in #41 French Blue Enamel - quite like this, actually...)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MQEQti.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/1MQEQti.jpg)
...
Have to say that I do like this colour scheme, yes, prob with cream rather than brilliant white. Though if without the chrome fork/stays, I'd possibly keep the head tube blue, and leave the cream for the bands on the seat tubes. (on a purely personal preference note :) )
(not with tan saddle / tape for me though)
-
I have a soft spot for the blue frame - red and white barber's pole colour scheme, though I think it would also look good against a dark green frame; I think the top green above looks a bit washed out.
By "blue" do you meant the purple one or bottom (Professional) one?
Also if going for a red and with barber's pole, could also use red to outline the inner white-filled clover leaf lug cut-outs for further splashes of a colour, could still keep the main lug lining in white.
Still not 100% sure about the red seat tube bands/barber's pole idea, though. It is perhaps a little "novelty", though some fun is not necessarily a bad thing.
BTW 95% sure I do want a white (or maybe cream) headtube and contrast colour for the barber's pole, though.
Some pictures (of varying quality) of my frame in this thread here: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/300040/ - it would be nice if the guards were slightly off-white to better match the shade on the frame.
Looks very nice, though I would like a non-dark green frame for this bike, due to owning two already!
-
hey Jakob, looking good there!
BTW IIRC the rear end is set to 135mm and the 135/7s cassette hub (which is further modified to give a leftwards offset to the sprockets on the freehub body and thus even lower wheel dish with the hub suitably respaced) is used to give minimal wheel dish; this allowed the use of a retro-tastic 500g Araya rim to build a strong wheel that (unlike modern ones of this weight) has decent braking surface thickness. I figured (rightly or wrongly) that an 11T sprocket would be of little value to you, hence a 13-32 or 12-32 cassette could be made by deleting the 11T from a standard 9s cassette and this (I hope) gives a really good chainline on the most used sprockets on the big ring. BTW because the modified freehub body splines are slightly longer than is normal for a 7s freehub body, you should be able to use a 9s cassette (from a shortened 10s) or a 10s cassette (from a shortened 11s) if you so desire.
I probably mentioned all this when I sold you the bike, but it may not have made much sense to you at the time. FWIW that particular frame is one of the most comfortable I have ever ridden; if it were my size I would have kept it without any doubt.
Suggestion; you might want to splash out ten quid on these
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brake-levers/weinmann-mafac-style-cane-creek-road-brake-lever-hoods-black/ (https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brake-levers/weinmann-mafac-style-cane-creek-road-brake-lever-hoods-black/) but then again you have clearly gone a long way without so maybe you don't really need them.
I'm glad I didn't have the frame refinished before I sold it to you; now you have the exact colour scheme you really want, which you wouldn't have had otherwise- nice though it is I probably wouldn't have chosen that colour!
cheers
-
I have a soft spot for the blue frame - red and white barber's pole colour scheme, though I think it would also look good against a dark green frame; I think the top green above looks a bit washed out.
By "blue" do you meant the purple one or bottom (Professional) one?
I meant the KoM - I just glanced at it, and I've seen photos of that colour scheme with a royal blue frame, so I assumed that was it.
Looks very nice, though I would like a non-dark green frame for this bike, due to owning two already!
Oh, absolutely - as I said, if I went for something more Lightweight and speedy I'd be thinking about a slightly more lairy scheme!
Brucey: I'm still very happy with it - it's a supremely comfortable mileeater, and very happy even with a substantial weight in the saddlebag (I haven't tried loaded panniers yet). The only reason I can think to go custom would be to have a slightly slacker seat angle (the saddle is back on the rails), a slightly longer top tube, and maybe canti or centrepull bosses and low-rise brazeons for the front fork (though would a beefier fork be less comfy?).
I'm also happy with the gearing - my normal cruising gear is in the middle of the cassette or one higher, and only rarely do I feel the need for a higher top gear (I think it's 50/13). If I were doing lots of loaded touring I might think about fitting a triple, but as it is I'm happy - I guess the only fly in the ointment for the future is the continued availability of NOS 7-speed hubs (I can't remember whether this one is 130 or 135mm, and I've not checked - I know we discussed both options when you sold me the bike).
And yes, I keep meaning to get some brake hoods - though I'm fine for most of my rides, after 100 miles they do start to beat your hands between thumb and forefinger.
-
I'm pretty sure it is 135mm; there didn't seem any point in half measures. If the freehub body eventually develops a little free play it can be adjusted (just send the freehub body to me if you want me to do it). 7s freehub bodies can still be bought (but would need to be machined to be identical to the one you have) and 7s freehub bodies will still fit onto some current 8/9/10s hubs (like LX ones for example). So you are basically covered I think, even discounting the possibility of good used parts being employed. That said, I would expect the hubs to go at least another 30000 miles without giving trouble, provided they are kept correctly adjusted and lubricated.
FWIW a stiffer fork would be a bit less comfy. If you need to carry a front load, the 'correct' front rack for your fork/bike is this Jim Blackburn one
(https://bicyclebug.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/budget-404.jpg)
which (as the photo shows) works best with CPs rather than cantis. They crop up at bike jumbles and on e-bay for not much money. There is a similarly made 'vetta' model too, IIRC, which is not as good as the blackburn one but it is OK. FWIW, IME having the weight a few inches lower down is not such a massive advantage, whereas being able to strap stuff on the top of the carrier definitely is (it can in part double for a decaleur/bar bag support in fact), so for the amount I use a front carrier, this sort suits me very well. Trivially, panniers which are joined together (like the old karrimor ones meant for this design) work on this rack too, which means that you are effectively carrying one bag less when the luggage is off the bike.
cheers
-
Let's not get side-tracked chaps! Sounds like a fantastic setup, though!
So any other suggestions for a traditional, but also a bit lairy paint job for my Strada lightweight road bike?
-
...
Panel and Stripes (BTW I think this was done in #41 French Blue Enamel - quite like this, actually...)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MQEQti.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/1MQEQti.jpg)
...
Have to say that I do like this colour scheme, yes, prob with cream rather than brilliant white. Though if without the chrome fork/stays, I'd possibly keep the head tube blue, and leave the cream for the bands on the seat tubes. (on a purely personal preference note :) )
(not with tan saddle / tape for me though)
I'd keep the white headtube even without the chrome (which I didn't fancy), but that's personal preference
What would you have gone for bar tape / saddle colour on that bike - white for both? Limits saddle choice a lot, though. White bar tape would look quite nice on that and be more of a "genuine" retro look I guess, would still work with a honey saddle I reckon.
That bike reminds me of this old Legano:
https://www.bricklanebikes.co.uk/legnano-road-bike-blue
(https://www.bricklanebikes.co.uk/content/images/thumbs/0020143_legnano-road-bike-blue.jpeg) (https://www.bricklanebikes.co.uk/content/images/thumbs/0020143_legnano-road-bike-blue.jpeg)
Pretty close, eh?
-
The 'white' bar tape on my all grey metallic steel bike (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/41507304964/sizes/c/), gets pretty grubby (especially after roadside repairs etc) and occasionally I try and spruce it up with some wipes. If it were my choice, I prolly go with black saddle and black tape (black STI hoods). Black saddle & tape 'balancing', with the white head tube & seat tube bands... probably, YMMV :) If no white head tube - may be more tempted with 'white' tape, but in any event white tape may be good too.
-
This white leather bar tape sounds nice (and so it should at the price): http://lehcyclinggoods.com/packages/white-leather-bar-tape
BTW I'll be using Campagnolo Ergos with black hoods and silver levers (Veloce 2006-era 10-speed).
-
Pic of someone's Mercian (from search) https://www.flickr.com/photos/hillspecial/4241612456/in/album-72157623129910486/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/74418119@N00/2151959328
-
Pic of someone's Mercian (from search) https://www.flickr.com/photos/hillspecial/4241612456/in/album-72157623129910486/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/74418119@N00/2151959328
Not so keen on the first purple-ish one, more liking the second blue one
-
Idly following links from one of the photos andyoxon posted led me to this group, which has some interesting vintage colour schemes in there: https://www.flickr.com/groups/oldcycles_/pool/
E.g. in the first couple
of pages: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95190820@N03/27420259768/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (lairy!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/41506201135/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (nice colour-matching on the mudguards)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/27400813708/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (as above)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/95190820@N03/23823472268/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (fancy lugs; lairy!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/36859796600/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (v. ornate)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/36600537760/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (I wouldn't have chosen these colours, but they work)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylebrooks/33370164960/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (green and red Mercian)
-
Am quite liking some of the examples I've seen with a red and white seat tube, but different base colour - what are people's thoughts on this? If doing this, bands/panels may work better, as a full red and white barber's pole might be a bit *too* much and distracting. For example, this one, but perhaps in a light/mid blue?:
[click to expand]
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140509_161929-1-1024x576.jpg) (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140509_161929-1-1024x576.jpg)
-
Idly following links from one of the photos andyoxon posted led me to this group, which has some interesting vintage colour schemes in there: https://www.flickr.com/groups/oldcycles_/pool/
E.g. in the first couple
of pages: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95190820@N03/27420259768/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (lairy!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/41506201135/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (nice colour-matching on the mudguards)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/27400813708/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (as above)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/95190820@N03/23823472268/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (fancy lugs; lairy!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/36859796600/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (v. ornate)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/36600537760/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (I wouldn't have chosen these colours, but they work)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylebrooks/33370164960/in/pool-oldcycles_/ (green and red Mercian)
None of those really do it for me, except perhaps the last one, I said I didn't want green, but I quite like that one, is very different from my BRG bikes. Though if going for something like that, would probably do it with a white head tube and seat tube (with red bands), or something like that. I wonder is that's #62 - Leaf Green Pearl?
-
Also quite liking the red (not the white panels so much) on this Conalgo that Mercian restored (it's in their gallery), pretty sure the Strada Speciale is based on an Italian-style design (even down to the clover leaf lug cutouts), so wouldn't be entirely inappropriate:
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/unnamed-1024x768.jpg) (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/unnamed-1024x768.jpg)
-
This one is nearer to my original thoughts, though a bit darker/greener:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16322923@N08/23238510874/in/pool-oldcycles_/
-
Actually, thinking about it, there used to be a Mercian in the bike racks at my OH's work that was the same red as that Colnago, but with a cream head tube and barber's pole. That looked lovely, and red bikes are supposedly faster...
TBH I think with any of the classic options you are weighing up it will be impossible to get a bad-looking bike, so you may end up just flipping a coin...
-
Actually, thinking about it, there used to be a Mercian in the bike racks at my OH's work that was the same red as that Colnago, but with a cream head tube and barber's pole. That looked lovely, and red bikes are supposedly faster...
TBH I think with any of the classic options you are weighing up it will be impossible to get a bad-looking bike, so you may end up just flipping a coin...
Yes, the problem is, I used to be indecisive, now I'm not sure :-)
-
Think I've basically narrowed it down to these main options:
1) #62 Orange Pearl (Flamboyant) (which is actually now darker and much brighter, like here (https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/frames/strada-speciale/)), or red, e.g. #2 Red Flamboyant or #43 Flame Red pearl, with #46 White Pearl or #19 Cream Enamel "barber's pole" and head tube.
2) A light-mid blue or light-mid blue/green with bands or barbers pole and head tube in white or cream
3) A light-mid blue or light-mid blue/green main colour, but with contrasting bands or barbers pole in red and white or cream - either full length on the seat tube, or with the main colour still showing the top/bottom 1/4.
Option 1) would probably look a bit more "modern", option 2) or 3) more "retro", with 2) being the most subdued
-
Actually, thinking about it, there used to be a Mercian in the bike racks at my OH's work that was the same red as that Colnago, but with a cream head tube and barber's pole. That looked lovely, and red bikes are supposedly faster...
Came across this pic, the frame does look pretty spiffing in red and white with barber's pole, if you ignore the inappropriate pedals and aero rims, that is...
(https://i.imgur.com/kFDfrlB.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/kFDfrlB.jpg)
Would also probably lose the 2nd Merican sticker on the seat tube that covers the mid-section of the barber's pole...
Also looking pretty good in orange (and with much more appropriate rims and tyres). This was actually my original choice, hmmm...
(https://i.imgur.com/MB0yiVO.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/MB0yiVO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Ntn3KGS.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Ntn3KGS.jpg)
Would probably look better with white bar tape and black saddle (or white, though not at all practical), though
-
Bit of thread necromancy, but I said I would post an update when I had more news on my Strada Speciale order - just heard from Jane at Mercian "I am preparing some frame orders ready for the builders, the orders are approaching the top of the queue and yours is one of them." - exciting! My original order was made back in June 2018 - i.e. about 9 months ago.
The only thing I haven't finally confirmed with them is the paint job, which I've changed my mind about a number of times, but need to make a final decision now.
Currently thinking of going for #7 Ruby Flamboyant, with white enamel head tube, down tube lettering, lug lining and a white panel with black horizontal (not stacked) Mercian lettering on the seat tube, some gold accents (e.g. panel / head tube / lug cut out lining) . Perhaps not particularly traditional for a Mercian, but it is a road bike, rather than a tourer/audax machine. And I've never had a red bike before.
I did toy with some of the polychromatic and pearl colours (e.g. Turqouise Pearl), but realised that I'm really not so keen on how the very visible "grain" in the metallic paints look, but do very much like the "flamboyant" (green) finish on my Hewitt Cheviot, where you only really see the underlying metallic grain in strong sunlight.
Hopefully I will get the finished bike by May, or possibly earlier, ready for the summer! :-)
-
Just to chuck something in the pot, somewhat gratuitous picture of the colour scheme I went for when I had Mercian respray mine eight years ago. The good news is that it still looks like that :thumbsup:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/89scegpc0hgswc9/Mercian_small.jpg?raw=1)
I like the barber's pole too, but I couldn't justify the extra cost on top of all the nice things I'd had done already :-\
-
drossal - now that I think I've decided on the ruby/white colour scheme, I think I've gone off the idea of having a barber's pole done - with red it just seems a bit too much like a candy cane or, well, an actual barber's pole...
I think my favourite look is actually with a panel and twin bands, like this track bike:
[click to expand]
(https://i.imgur.com/p4wIM4p.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/p4wIM4p.jpg)
But if I want a second set of bottle bosses (which I think I do), on a relatively small (53cm c-t) frame like mine, I think this may not work so well, I'd probably have to either have to push whole the panel/bands set up away from the centre of the seat tube towards the seat pin, and/or mount the Mercian badge off centre at the top of the panel, neither of are ideal.
So I was thinking of maybe a design more like this Basso, but with horizontal text on the seat tube (and a white head tube), as the second set of bottle bosses would not interfere with the design. But I guess it's not so traditionally "Mercian":
(https://i.imgur.com/nqJBRCV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/nqJBRCV.jpg)
Or I could just go for double white panels/black text on both the seat and down tube - something like this (but with different colours, obviously):
(https://i.imgur.com/jYkGWgS.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/jYkGWgS.jpg)
Or I could just forgo the 2nd set of bottle bosses and get the design I actually like most - from what I've seen, this actually seems quite common on smaller frames that want to go the panels and/or bands approach e.g. this one looks about my frame size:
(https://i.imgur.com/HDAenMO.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/HDAenMO.jpg)
Could be a problem on longer/hotter rides, though...
-
drossal - now that I think I've decided on the ruby/white colour scheme, I think I've gone off the idea of having a barber's pole done - with red it just seems a bit too much like a candy cane or, well, an actual barber's pole...
I think my favourite look is actually with a panel and twin bands, like this track bike:
[click to expand]
(https://i.imgur.com/p4wIM4p.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/p4wIM4p.jpg)
Nice, but I can see the problem re small frames. Question: What is that rubbery thing around the top tube?
(I think possibly in your position I'd go the panel without bands and definitely keep the second bottle bosses)
-
drossal - now that I think I've decided on the ruby/white colour scheme, I think I've gone off the idea of having a barber's pole done - with red it just seems a bit too much like a candy cane or, well, an actual barber's pole...
I think my favourite look is actually with a panel and twin bands, like this track bike:
[click to expand]
(https://i.imgur.com/p4wIM4p.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/p4wIM4p.jpg)
Nice, but I can see the problem re small frames. Question: What is that rubbery thing around the top tube?
It's to stop the bars hitting the frame, I think, as there are no cables to stop this happening on a track bike
(I think possibly in your position I'd go the panel without bands and definitely keep the second bottle bosses)
That's what I'm thinking, maybe with whole panel moved up a little (I don't mind moving the Reynolds 853 badge to the bottom of the seat tube) and the bottle bosses mounted as low as possible (BTW I went for a braze-on front mech hanger in the end), rather than centralising the panel and offsetting the badge - want to avoid this look, if possible (BTW the photo is of a 53cm frame):
(https://i.imgur.com/ZUndUQA.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ZUndUQA.jpg)
-
I'd go for something more subtle, with just a discreet transfer on the down tube, and badge on head tube, maybe badge on front of seat tube, tubing stickers, single colour flam. Like this but without the chrome bits:
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_0274-1024x768.jpg)
Although I also really like white panels:
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/unnamed-1024x768.jpg)
Personally I don't like the barber pole, I think because it's not symmetrical and there's no "natural" end to the spiral.
In the end it's all a matter of taste, and small things can change hugely how a bike looks. To me, the above two bike have brake cables that are too long, saddles that are much too far out of the frame. The Colnago has brake levers at a ridiculous angle meaning the brakes are probably unusable from the drops.
-
I'd go for something more subtle, with just a discreet transfer on the down tube, and badge on head tube, maybe badge on front of seat tube, tubing stickers, single colour flam. Like this but without the chrome bits:
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_0274-1024x768.jpg)
I know what you mean, but I don't want it to be *that* subtle, it's a road bike, not a tourer, and I do like how some white panels can lift a dark-ish colour and make it look a bit less drab. I'm even considering white bar tape (not cork) - I know, I know...
I also actually considered getting the forks (only) chromed, or maybe just the fork crown, though think I've just about talked myself out of that. Perhaps not a good idea with paper thin 853 tubing anyway...
Although I also really like white panels:
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/unnamed-1024x768.jpg)
Yes, I like white panels too and I do very much like the styling (and colour) of that Colnago's (typical) paint job, was part of the reason I've gone for the Ruby Flam and white to be honest, White panels with black MERCIAN writing on both the seat and down tube would be the easy way out, I guess, but I do also want the bike to look like a Mercian and not just a wannabe Colnago, if you see what I mean?
BTW the seat tube panel on that Colnago is actually not centred and is offset a bit towards the saddle - that what I was thinking of doing with the panel for my Mercian, so that the design would work better with a second set of bottle bosses.
Personally I don't like the barber pole, I think because it's not symmetrical and there's no "natural" end to the spiral.
LOL! I don't mind them, but think it might be a bit too much for my tastes in ruby/white
In the end it's all a matter of taste, and small things can change hugely how a bike looks. To me, the above two bike have brake cables that are too long, saddles that are much too far out of the frame. The Colnago has brake levers at a ridiculous angle meaning the brakes are probably unusable from the drops.
My saddle won't be sticking out nearly as much as that, especially as I made them increase the frame size from 52cm to 53cm,partly to avoid having to have an upstand on the headtube. I agree with you on those brakes, especially regarding the Colnago!
-
Double white panels does make the bike look a bit more "race", though, which would not be entirely inappropriate (not suggesting that colour scheme, though!), and I prefer the look of sideways horizontal writing on the seat tube to stacked letters:
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/zKsAAOSwHVdcb~j9/s-l1600.jpg) (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/zKsAAOSwHVdcb~j9/s-l1600.jpg)
-
But if I want a second set of bottle bosses (which I think I do), on a relatively small (53cm c-t) frame like mine, I think this may not work so well, I'd probably have to either have to push whole the panel/bands set up away from the centre of the seat tube towards the seat pin, and/or mount the Mercian badge off centre at the top of the panel, neither of are ideal.
My frame's not as small as yours but yes, I had that issue, and I ended up with exactly what you describe - the badge as high as possible in the band, and the bottle-cage bosses just fitting within it below the badge. It's not as obvious as you'd think, because the cage itself hides the big area of (in my case) blue below the badge.
-
But if I want a second set of bottle bosses (which I think I do), on a relatively small (53cm c-t) frame like mine, I think this may not work so well, I'd probably have to either have to push whole the panel/bands set up away from the centre of the seat tube towards the seat pin, and/or mount the Mercian badge off centre at the top of the panel, neither of are ideal.
My frame's not as small as yours but yes, I had that issue, and I ended up with exactly what you describe - the badge as high as possible in the band, and the bottle-cage bosses just fitting within it below the badge. It's not as obvious as you'd think, because the cage itself hides the big area of (in my case) blue below the badge.
Thanks for the feedback, yes I think I can see how when you have the cage mounted, that would not look so odd, though I don't want to *have* to mount the second cage all the time for it to look okay.
Wouldn't moving the whole panel upwards a few cm be another option, allowing to keep the badge central to it, if the panel is kept relatively small? I've seen this done on other (modern) bikes. e.g. here's a more extreme example on a Rourke:
(https://www.rourke.biz/new/Gallery/Rourke%20Frames/Rourke_builds_september-26.jpg) (https://www.rourke.biz/new/Gallery/Rourke%20Frames/Rourke_builds_september-26.jpg)
I can see why some are attracted to the barber's pole, it's not really an issue with that, you can even leave the transfer off completely and it'll still look okay. But I've ruled that out now...
The other option is having twin seat tube / down tube panels, with MERCIAN writing on the side of both, which avoids this problem entirely and arguably may look more suited for a sporty road bike e.g.
(https://www.rourke.biz/img/slide-1.jpg) (https://www.rourke.biz/img/slide-1.jpg)
Seems popular to do this for the Pro-Lugless model:
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/IMG_2031.jpg)[/url
(https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/IMG_2031.jpg)
-
Yes, though I suspect that would actually look less balanced, because the positioning of the bands is much easier to see than that of a badge covered by a bottle cage. Personally, I rarely use a second bottle, but I'd never bother removing a cage!
-
Yes, though I suspect that would actually look less balanced, because the positioning of the bands is much easier to see than that of a badge covered by a bottle cage. Personally, I rarely use a second bottle, but I'd never bother removing a cage!
Yes, I think I can see what you mean. Seems a bit of a shame to have a badge, but then to keep it covered, though.
I did think of only going for one cage, as most of the time I can probably do a 40-50 mile ride with just one 750ml bottle, but if it's hotter and I'm on a longer ride where it's not so easy to stop at will for a refill (e.g. longer clubs rides, sportives without feed stops etc.), then I'd need the second bottle.
Of course the other option is just to go for an all-white seatpost (and head tube), which I guess would look okay - looks alright on this orange Mercian:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2051/2057804901_62d0b3e5a1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/48QMGR)
-
FWIW I'd echo the comments above re several of the frames above showing 'too much seat pin', at least for a frame with a horizontal TT and a quill stem, that is.
I think that in the 1980s, race teams pushed this as far as it was sensible to do so, perhaps a touch more. For example this photo of Hinault shows a lot of seat pin
(https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/14/1415962439130/bf195606-2312-4930-a40f-56fc593eebac-1443x2040.jpeg)
and the stem is as far out of the steerer as would be allowable, for a conventional stem, anyway, so really there is no adjustment remaining. And he was racing; if you are not racing you likely won't be wanting the bars that low.... In some years I think Hinault may have used a frame even smaller than that. No wonder Nitto make extra-long quill stems these days....
cheers
-
Of course the other option is just to go for an all-white seatpost (and head tube), which I guess would look okay - looks alright on this orange Mercian:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2051/2057804901_62d0b3e5a1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/48QMGR)
Actually, having considered this further and also having sought the opinion of Mrs Oxford_Guy, think I'm drawn back to this simple orange flamboyant / white head tube/seat tube look and may actually go for this - probably with white enamel, rather than pearl white, as think I'm not so keen on the flake in the latter. If nothing else, it'll show off the lugs nicely (which are even nicer on the Strada Speciale than the model shown) and the colour / contrasts are suitably loud enough for a road bike...
-
It seems that whenever Mercian owners get in touch, they exchange bike photos :thumbsup:
Maybe a Mercian invitation ride is called for, when yours arrives :)
-
It seems that whenever Mercian owners get in touch, they exchange bike photos :thumbsup:
Maybe a Mercian invitation ride is called for, when yours arrives :)
I like the sound of that, as long it doesn't require getting somewhere by car first, as I don't have one! :-)