Help with frame related questions

[Ian H]

Do you have a link for this pic? I am always interested in how others do it 

here:

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=49308.msg1147848#msg1147848

You are a remarkable search engine, Mr V.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Do you have a link for this pic? I am always interested in how others do it 

here:

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=49308.msg1147848#msg1147848

Cheers for that Mr M. I think this just backs up my statement that there are as many ways of building frames as there are framebuilders. The Woodrup marque have always produced excellent frames, when I were a lad there were quite few in the North East. There was a shop in Newcastle, Denton Cycles, that always had a few in stock.
I would guess from the pic that this fixture is used purely for tacking the joints as there appears to be limited access to the back of the joints. If this is the case then the main brazing will be done out of the fixture allowing the structure to "move" with the heat. I use this technique when fillet brazing ie tack in the jig and do the joints in the vice.



My jig that has seen lots of frames through it, probably around 2500, ish, give or take a few. The frame will be fillet brazed in the vice. The joints have had one pass to ensure full penetration then I will shotblast and do the fillets with no additional flux other than the gasfluxer. All round access, tubes not clamped, works for me 

Dave Yates

[mzjo]

Your jig looks very much like one that was at Argos when I visited them (gave them something to do!) in the late 1980's. Same concept anyway.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Your jig looks very much like one that was at Argos when I visited them (gave them something to do!) in the late 1980's. Same concept anyway.

I have never seen the Argos jig but I am not surprised. Longstaffs have a similar set up with a third axis of rotaion and the capacity for trikes.

Dave Yates

[AndyH]

Hi Dave, I've put this in Tandems, but you may be able to give me some guidance on the practicalities of the (hopefully simple) alterations I might want done.

About 5 years ago my uncle gave me this late 30s / 40s Claud Butler USWB frame.

He had started to restore it some years earlier, realised that it wasn't going to happen, so it became mine when he moved house. It's sat ignored in my shed since then.

It's 22 1/2" Centre to top for both captain & stoker, 126mm OLN at the back, and the canti bosses are for 27" wheels. No bottle cage bosses, the EBB at the front is very narrow (60mm) the stokers BB is 70mm, both BB axles are for cottered cranks and the steerer appears to be 1 1/8. It has no gear hanger. The wheels in the picture are 700c, and the back one is not in the dropouts properly.





I'm not really sure what to do with it. I guess the options are as follows:

1. Sell it as it is
2. Build it up as it is, trying to find all the right period parts
3. Send it to a frame builder to get the following work done:- Re-set the rear end to 130 or 135mm, remove the pump pegs, move the canti bosses so I could run it with 700c wheels, put some bottle cage bosses on, change the rear dropouts, & I'd probably go for a braze on front mech, as it'd probably be hard to properly mount a band on one on the curved rear set tube.

Any advice / opinions / offers welcome. Cross posted in both Tandems & Bicycle repair man's thread.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Now then Andy,

Interesting project (possibly  ) I have worked on a number of these beasts in the last 30 odd years. They are well built solid tandems and yours appears in pretty good nick. I am not, nor ever have been,  a tandem rider so I cannot speak from experience but I understand the stoker has a somewhat crunched position and a jarring ride on these due to the rear wheel being so close.
Of your two options for keeping it, the first ie finding period parts could be a long term job as there is a diminishing supply of this sort of stuff and it commands a premium. In terms of function IMHO period equipment is nowhere near modern stuff. So, again only my opinion, you would end up with an expensive old tandem that had limited functionality.
Modifying it to take modern gear will be even more expensive. The braze ons you mention would be no problem apart from the front mech hanger. The hanger is designed to sit on a conventional straight seat tube to position the chaincage in its design position. A new hanger would have to be fabricated with an extension plate to take it back to this position that allows the chaincage to follow the perimeter of the chainrings with the trailing edge low enough to clear the chain on the small ring. You then need to arrange a fairly tortuous route for the cable to clear everything.  I have done this a few times, both on this sort of tandem and TT frames with curved seat tubes so it can be done but time consuming and therefore expensive.
There are three other areas of concern. First the rear dropouts, there is no need to replace them as the slots can be opened up to take a 10mm axle quite safely as there is plenty of metal there and a gear hanger can be welded on. The lower front edge would need to be relieved by about 10-12 mm to allow the wheel free access. Second the headset is probably 1 1/8" x 26 tpi, chances of finding anything to fit are slim so some mdification work may have to be done in this area. The other area is the BB fittings. I cannot see from the pics but if, as was common, they are Chater Lea fittings then you will have a major problem. Everything was bigger on these fittings. They were designed to take 5/16" balls as opposed to 1/4" and hence the cups are a bigger diameter so nothing modern will fit. I seem to remember that the Tandem Club used to sell adaptors that screwed into a Chater BB shell to allow modern cups ie 1.37 x 24tpi to fit. Failing that some could probably be made but as a one off would be expensive. An ex eployee of mine many years ago had a saying "You dont get much engineering for a pound".
 I did a similar job on a Higgins tandem back in the 80s and that cost over £300 then so I would guess you are looking at at least double that, probably more and even going down that route you still have the stoker comfort problem.

You pays your money etc

Cheers

Dave Yates

[mzjo]

Hi Dave, I've put this in Tandems, but you may be able to give me some guidance on the practicalities of the (hopefully simple) alterations I might want done.

About 5 years ago my uncle gave me this late 30s / 40s Claud Butler USWB frame.

He had started to restore it some years earlier, realised that it wasn't going to happen, so it became mine when he moved house. It's sat ignored in my shed since then.

It's 22 1/2" Centre to top for both captain & stoker, 126mm OLN at the back, and the canti bosses are for 27" wheels. No bottle cage bosses, the EBB at the front is very narrow (60mm) the stokers BB is 70mm, both BB axles are for cottered cranks and the steerer appears to be 1 1/8. It has no gear hanger. The wheels in the picture are 700c, and the back one is not in the dropouts properly.





I'm not really sure what to do with it. I guess the options are as follows:

1. Sell it as it is
2. Build it up as it is, trying to find all the right period parts
3. Send it to a frame builder to get the following work done:- Re-set the rear end to 130 or 135mm, remove the pump pegs, move the canti bosses so I could run it with 700c wheels, put some bottle cage bosses on, change the rear dropouts, & I'd probably go for a braze on front mech, as it'd probably be hard to properly mount a band on one on the curved rear set tube.

Any advice / opinions / offers welcome. Cross posted in both Tandems & Bicycle repair man's thread.

My tuppence (FWIW)
1. Contact the Tandem Club spares service. If the headset is the Brampton usually fitted to tandems of this period, up until very recently they had the replaceable lug races in stock (and yes the bits you need to replace press in and come out for replacement; no need to replace the whole of the upper race/clamp, just the race that is in it)
2. From the main source they may still have a replacement front eccentric for pre-war tandems that allows you to use modern bbs.
3. At the back reducer sleeves to convert to 1.37"x24 bb thread and a bit of work to reduce the width to 68mm. I had this done on my anonymous tandem by Argos in 1989, very worth while mod.
4. Go to a front changer system à la français, which puts your front changer at  the pilot's end and so on a straight tube. Just need to check that the chain has enough room not to foul on the rear rh crank.

In all cases the first stop is the Tandem Club spares service to see what is available and plan from there.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

In all cases the first stop is the Tandem Club spares service to see what is available and plan from there

Excellent advice. Its a long time since I had any contact with the Tandem Club so I was not sure how good bad or indifferent the supplies are. Definitely worth asking.

DY

[AndyH]

Many thanks for the advice. I think a sympathetic restoration without a front mech may be the way to go, i.e 5, 6 or 7 speed on the back.

[mzjo]

Something that I forgot to mention but is worth remembering is that modern tandem rear hubs are wide, 140mm IIRC. I would agree that a 5 or 6sp set up is very appealing; I ran my pre-war tandem for over a decade with only 5 gears, including camping with a trailer. You may find yourself choosing between increasing the rear width to use a modern tandem hub or using a solo freewheel with a very limited choice in terms of quality (but finding a NOS quality freewheel may be easier than I make out  I hope so).

[rogerzilla]

Cheap 5 speed freewheels are usually OK.  They might be a bit wobbly when freewheeling, and poorly sealed, but this doesn't reduce pedalling efficiency and there's no indexing to worry about, hence no need for nicely-shaped teeth.

Keep them flushed with light oil and they will normally run for ever.

[Buzz]

Run it fixed just for the excercise in experiencing terror.

[Biggsy]

For Chocolatebike re http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=57899:

Dear Dave,

What do you think of springing open a 132.5mm titanium frame to take a 135mm hub?  Ok with all?, or ill-advisable with some/all?

[Bicycle Repair Man]

For Chocolatebike re http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=57899:

Dear Dave,

What do you think of springing open a 132.5mm titanium frame to take a 135mm hub?  Ok with all?, or ill-advisable with some/all?

Sorry about delay in replying, been away since Monday. Grandaughter's first birthday, could'nt miss that !!!
As a matter of princilple it is ill advised to fit any sort of oversize / undersize (o.l.d) hub into any frame as the risk of breakage is increased dramatically. I know lots of you will jump up and say words to the effect of "been doing it for years and its fine". That does not alter the fact that you are putting the rear end of the frame under unecessary stress.
Consider this, if the frame has been built properly then the rear dropout faces are parallel at the decreed O.L.D. If you force a wheel of more or less than that O.L.D. into the frame the chainstays will pivot about their fixed end thus taking the dropout faces out of parallel. You then tighten your nuts (painful ) or Q.R. and in effect force the dropouts towards parallel again thus imposing a static stress on the structure. You then get on your bike and ride it. This puts a dynamic stress over the static stress already imposed and is thus an excellent recipe for a fatigue failure, usually somewhere in the region of the dropout or on a TIG welded frame it will seek out any weakness or imperfection in the welds.
Now I have no experience of Ti other than using bits of tube to make stuff totally unrelated to bicycles and I understand that some grades of Ti have no fatigue limit but is it worth the risk? Take advice from the builder as he is the man on the spot and it is his name going on the frame.

Cheers

Dave Yates

[Biggsy]

Thanks Dave.  I don't mind doing it with my 1980s 531 steel frame that owes me nothing, but I can appreciate it's a different matter when specifying a brand new posh bike.  I'd want it to be as near to "right" as possible, too.  It'll be interesting to see what the particular builder advises, and what Chocolatebike goes for.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Now then people,

I was about to reply to a request for some info on a new frame and I discover its gone 
Has it been moved / deleted. Was I imagining things. Do we really exist or are we some figment of the galactic cartoonists imagination. I have been a bit slow responding as a) I have a framebuilding course this week and b) I am stricken with the lurgie (or possibly Patagonian Black Swamp fever) courtesy of my grandaughter.
If whoever posted the request wants to re-post or PM me I will see what I can do to help.

Cheers

Dave Yates

[SteelRules]

Hi Dave,

I appreciate that you offer to answer some questions, despite being quite busy.

My question relates to the difference between the Classique and the Classique 853.
Not sure whether I can simplify their differences by just noting that the main tubes are different.

Intended use: road cycling. I would like to fit 25c tyres.
About myself: 184cm height, 90cm inseam, 155cm up to sternum, reach from knuckles to shoulder 67cm.
Weight 95kg and hopefully coming down. Currently riding chromoly 4130 double butted and love it.
Preferred joint method: lugs. Colour of my choice straight orange, possibly without decals. Lug lining black.

Aim: Work on reducing my weight and have a road bike which is comfortable, fits me well and allows me
many hours in the saddle. I cannot demand the speed that I do not have.   

My concise questions for you are:

1. The classique 853 uses tubing of that series entirely or you also use 725 for the rear stays?

2. Do you have more alternatives with Reynolds 853 in terms of tube diameters and shapes in
contrast with 631 for the main tubes?

3. How does 725 compares to 853 for the rear stays?

4. You mention that with an 853 you finished and audax battered. There is really that much of a difference in
pliability between the two? If so, what is the difference due to, wall thickness, tubing diameter or strength?

5. What is in your opinion the difference in function between curved and straight fork blades?
What tubes would you consider for the fork?

6. If silver melts at lower temperatures and the tubes are heated less, then silver it is.

Hopefully I have typed sensible questions, without the usual myths and clichés.

Many thanks for your time and contribution.
SteelRules.

P.S. I have been typed in a text editor first to avoid being lost in transition...

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Now then Mr Steelrules (6", 12" or 3ft?)

1. The classique 853 uses tubing of that series entirely or you also use 725 for the rear stays?

  This particular starting point is 853 main, 725 rear. I build custom frames so each of the models mentioned on the website are "starting points". I rarely build anything exactly as the spec on the website.

Do you have more alternatives with Reynolds 853 in terms of tube diameters and shapes in
contrast with 631 for the main tubes?

  631 is 853 without the heat treatment so physical sizes are the same. ie same metal but 853 is heat treated to a higher tensile strength.

How does 725 compares to 853 for the rear stays

Dont know, I have never ridden a frame with 853 stays. I would assume slightly stiffer structure. not good for comfort.

You mention that with an 853 you finished and audax battered. There is really that much of a difference in
pliability between the two? If so, what is the difference due to, wall thickness, tubing diameter or strength?

Stiffness of the structure, and the construction method (tig welded)

What is in your opinion the difference in function between curved and straight fork blades?
What tubes would you consider for the fork?

Straight fork blades are the work of the Devil, evil devices that rattle your eyballs out. If you ride over a 5p you can tell whether it is heads or tails. Avoid like the plague if you want comfort. I always use Reynolds "R" curved blades.

If silver melts at lower temperatures and the tubes are heated less, then silver it is.

Wrong !!! 853 and 631 are both air hardening steel that need to be heated above 800C to make this happen. They need to be brass brazed to get the best out of the material. Conventional chrome moly and manganese moly steels anneal (soften) after heating hence a lower temperature is seen by some as beneficial. The 853, 631 stuff works the opposite way.

Hopefully I have typed sensible questions, without the usual myths and clichés

Close

You say you want comfort not speed, for a rider of your size I would recommend 631 TT / ST 853 DT with 725 stays and "R" fork blades and a decent pair of conventional spoked wheels.

Cheers

Dave Yates

Ed 15/4/12 Typo

[SteelRules]

There and back again, Mr Yates:

Thanks for correcting the typo, I guessed you meant top tube.
Illuminating answers. Nice to know that on a first post, I was close..

I have read somewhere that Eddy Merck asked Reynolds for more compliant tubes than 725 for his
Grand Tour frames. Reynolds apparently came up with the idea of 653 for rear stays and fork. Not sure if
myth or urban legend.. I am surprised that the Oracle remains so quiet. May be I am the one who knows nothing.

i) I will dare to ask for similarities between R fork blades and 631 fork blades. If 631 is cold-drawn possible to
curve the blades on cold by brute force?

Kind Regards from Skintland
Steel indeed Rules..

[Bicycle Repair Man]

I have read somewhere that Eddy Merck asked Reynolds for more compliant tubes than 725 for his
Grand Tour frames. Reynolds apparently came up with the idea of 653 for rear stays and fork. Not sure if
myth or urban legend.

Big Ted may have asked Reynolds for something but it certainly was not for something different to 725. That did not exist then, but 753 did so it was possibly that if it happened at all.
The 653 set was 531 main triangle drawn to a higher tensile strength of 60 tons/sq inch hence the "6" in 653. The rear stays were 753.

I will dare to ask for similarities between R fork blades and 631 fork blades. If 631 is cold-drawn possible to
curve the blades on cold by brute force?

All Reynolds tube is cold worked to reach its final physical shape. All Reynolds fork blades are bent cold I have no idea what the difference between the standard R blades and 631 is as I have a) never ridden on any 631 forks and b) never made any !!! I would guess slightly stiffer and hence slightly less comfort.

Cheers

Dave Yates

[Biggsy]

Linky:   Frame building pictures - from a Dave Yates course.

[Arno]

Hi Dave,

do you have an opinion about curves vs straight seat stays? Do you think choosing a frame with curved seat stays increases the comfort (all other things being equal) or is it just a gimmick?

Thanks,

Arnaud.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

do you have an opinion about curves vs straight seat stays? Do you think choosing a frame with curved seat stays increases the comfort (all other things being equal) or is it just a gimmick?

Hi Arnaud,

I would guess that curved seat stays would take any harshness out of the back end. Cant say for certain as a) I have never ridden such a frame and b) I have never made such a frame.
Best advice I can give is try and get a ride on one and see what you think. If it suits your style of riding then fine !!

Cheers

Dave Yates

[Andrew Br]

For completeness sake:-

Sorry for the late conclusion to this and thanks again for all the feedback.

Justin (Burls, the frame designer) echoed what Dave said; the 132.5mm mid point setting would always stress the frame and the dropouts would never be parallel to the hubs.

The frame is now on order with 130mm spacing and I've already got the wheels (Fulcrum 5) which we Helen's Xmas present from me.
When the frame arrives, it's going to be sent off for spraying and then the LBS will build it up with 105.
She's hoping to have it for the Manchester-Morecambe FNRttC.

[clarion]

Dave, stop being so damned open minded and reasonable!  Surely if you play up the cantankerous old didact image it will play to your advantage?  Look at the examples of <REDACTED>, <REDACTED> or <REDACTED>