About Framebuilders!
Velocipedesalon.com is a great community for anyone who loves bikes and biking. It's also home to "Smoked Out" where various custom builders maintain threads about themselves and their work, and you can post questions and get feedback! There's nothing else like it in the world.
Currently, the headliner is Nick Crumpton who is famous for his custom carbon frames. You can find him at www.Velcipedesalon.com/forum.
If you'd like to see all the builders threads, just go to http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f22/
Remember you heard it hear first!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Checking In
I'm almost done creating an odd format racer. It's taken lots of thinking, but I think its dialed in correctly.
By odd format, I'm referring to the fact that the seat height is 770mm, w/ a 520mm effective toptube. It's a big short bike - to fit a long legged rider with limited reach. The drop is about 3.5 inches, so that's not a problem - just limited material between his hips and shoulders.
So how would you design this frame? Note that the rider does road races and crits in souther CA (although he's currently on his way over to ride the Stelvio). He likes both, and is probably best at the crits - he doesn't have a classic climbers build. On the other hand, he seems to put out pretty good watts - and can sprint pretty hard.
Based on power, weight and height, I chose a 2X oversized steel tube frame. 35mm downtube, 31.7mm seat and top tubes, 36mm headtube. All fairly light, but large diameter and stiff. The rear triangle is similar - and looks strong.
Unlike bike manufacturers, I have the luxury of building chainstays to the length I chose, not what's fashionable. While short, the chainstays are 410mm - the minimum I think will offer good shifting over the range of gears. Let's face it, everyone ends up in cross-over gears sometimes, and for races that may be even more true as they need to be selective about when to do a double (front and back) shift.
The BB drop is about 70mm, but I don't think it would make much difference if it were 65 or 75 mm. The 70mm, combined with a 6 degree sloping top tube will make sure he has comfortable top-tube clearance.
I don't like lots of spacers topped with an upward pointed stem - it doesn't look pro. So he has a long headtube (about 175, plus a conventional threadless headset). If needed, he can about a centimeter off the headtube - but this is computed to work with his preferred drop and and a downward (relative) pointing stem.
But the real key to all of this is front end geometry. Depending on the source, there is a limited range of appropriate trail and/or head-angle and/or rake. Others maintian front center distance is the critical element to handling. Most all hold that different head-angles require different trial numbers. But some emphasize widely varying trail via a constant rake, while others insist that's poor design and adjust rake to limit the range of trail figures. And some limit the range of head-angles to avoid this question.
My rider excels at crits, but has to ride some very technical descents in the LA area. So, stability and predictability trump quickness for his front end. Some builders argue that there's shouldn't be a difference between a crit and road course bike. I won't go so far. I'll say that one bike can be good at both, but that the disciplines do push different handling dynamics. Moreover, the kings of road course design are (IMO) the Italians. That doesn't mean a Pinarello can't compete well at a crit, just that I expect it to be at its best on a road course.
I didn't want the front center squished by the short top-tube. Which means that the head-tube has a relatively shallow angle. That's a given to keep the fundemental handling solid. But where I originally was thinking of a longer rake to manage the trail, I've looked closely a Colnagos, De Rosas, and Pinarellos, and how they handle a similar front end. Based on this, the fork will have 43mm of rake - which is leading to lots of trail - which should give that stable, predictable, handling on descents. And it'll still be a great crit bike.
So it's back to the frame - which still needs a brake-bridge and chain-stay bridge before its cleaned up and painted. Hope to have some pix soon.
By odd format, I'm referring to the fact that the seat height is 770mm, w/ a 520mm effective toptube. It's a big short bike - to fit a long legged rider with limited reach. The drop is about 3.5 inches, so that's not a problem - just limited material between his hips and shoulders.
So how would you design this frame? Note that the rider does road races and crits in souther CA (although he's currently on his way over to ride the Stelvio). He likes both, and is probably best at the crits - he doesn't have a classic climbers build. On the other hand, he seems to put out pretty good watts - and can sprint pretty hard.
Based on power, weight and height, I chose a 2X oversized steel tube frame. 35mm downtube, 31.7mm seat and top tubes, 36mm headtube. All fairly light, but large diameter and stiff. The rear triangle is similar - and looks strong.
Unlike bike manufacturers, I have the luxury of building chainstays to the length I chose, not what's fashionable. While short, the chainstays are 410mm - the minimum I think will offer good shifting over the range of gears. Let's face it, everyone ends up in cross-over gears sometimes, and for races that may be even more true as they need to be selective about when to do a double (front and back) shift.
The BB drop is about 70mm, but I don't think it would make much difference if it were 65 or 75 mm. The 70mm, combined with a 6 degree sloping top tube will make sure he has comfortable top-tube clearance.
I don't like lots of spacers topped with an upward pointed stem - it doesn't look pro. So he has a long headtube (about 175, plus a conventional threadless headset). If needed, he can about a centimeter off the headtube - but this is computed to work with his preferred drop and and a downward (relative) pointing stem.
But the real key to all of this is front end geometry. Depending on the source, there is a limited range of appropriate trail and/or head-angle and/or rake. Others maintian front center distance is the critical element to handling. Most all hold that different head-angles require different trial numbers. But some emphasize widely varying trail via a constant rake, while others insist that's poor design and adjust rake to limit the range of trail figures. And some limit the range of head-angles to avoid this question.
My rider excels at crits, but has to ride some very technical descents in the LA area. So, stability and predictability trump quickness for his front end. Some builders argue that there's shouldn't be a difference between a crit and road course bike. I won't go so far. I'll say that one bike can be good at both, but that the disciplines do push different handling dynamics. Moreover, the kings of road course design are (IMO) the Italians. That doesn't mean a Pinarello can't compete well at a crit, just that I expect it to be at its best on a road course.
I didn't want the front center squished by the short top-tube. Which means that the head-tube has a relatively shallow angle. That's a given to keep the fundemental handling solid. But where I originally was thinking of a longer rake to manage the trail, I've looked closely a Colnagos, De Rosas, and Pinarellos, and how they handle a similar front end. Based on this, the fork will have 43mm of rake - which is leading to lots of trail - which should give that stable, predictable, handling on descents. And it'll still be a great crit bike.
So it's back to the frame - which still needs a brake-bridge and chain-stay bridge before its cleaned up and painted. Hope to have some pix soon.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
The following was posted by me at a forum, but is worth repeating.
I'm going to step on some toes here. It's not my intention, but hard to avoid given the subject matter.
Anyone, including Brendan, is entitled to his/her opinion and to share same.
ATMO, not too many folks really know all that much about frame design, from established (even relished) handbuilders to product designers at major bike manufacturers. Don't get me wrong, they know enough to make a decent bike. But let me offer a few illustrations.
Years back, when I participated more on the framebuilders list, virtually no one could speak to their rules of thumb for determining the right combination of tubing diameter/wall thickness. Richard Sachs and Freddy Parr could offer insightful input on this topic, but no one else then participating could. At least not beyond the opinions that might be offered up here by riders (as opposed to builders). Mind you, all the builders here weren't participating then on the list: so please don't make any assumptions about any particular builders. Anyhow, the lack of input really opened my eyes up a bit - especially when I saw the range of solutions that recieved glowing reviews through various online/print venues.
In another example, its hard to find anyone who can really speak well to the pro/cons of different front geometries re handling. That includes builders and other industry participants who too often bluster their way through the topic. Let me illustrate some of what I mean, but first a warning that a lot of facts about specific designs are hard to find. For example, look at EPS geometries on Colnago's website: head-tube angle, rake, and trail aren't listed. It's a deep secret.
But, some secrets can be unraveled. Using a combination of resources (BikeCad, Anvil Trail Calculator, Excel), and keeping to a limited range of sizes (55-56CM top-tubes), it's possible to make fairly accurate projections of how these key measures vary by brand. I picked the size range based on it being toward the mid-point of sizes, and presumably less succeptible design anomolies that might be present at the ends of the size ranges.
NOTE: there are precision errors in published data - plus some companies may intentionally misrepresent specs. Anyone who can, is welcome to improve the accuracy of the numbers that follow.
Colnago EPS HTA=72 Rake=43 Trail=64.
Dedacciai Scuro HTA=72 Rake=44.5 Trail=62.
Cannondale's 'comfort' fit HTA=72.5 Rake=44 Trail=59.
Trek's 'performance' fit HTA=73.5 Rake=40 Trail=58.
Trek's 'comfort' fit HTA=73.5 Rake=40 Trail=58.
Cannondale's 'comfort' fit HTA=73 Rake=44.1 Trail=56.
Specialized 'performance' fit HTA=73.5 Rake=43 Trail=56.
Specialized 'competition' fit HTA=72.5 Rake=40 Trail=56.
Pinarello Dogma HTA=73.5 Rake=43 Trail=55.
We see the EPS with a trail of of 64mm while the Dogma has a trail of 55mm. Both are considered great handling bikes. An easy out would be to suggest that the Dogma is a crit bike - but I don't think Pinarello considers it such. Moreover, if there are different handling paradigms for different events, why don't more builders/manufacturers offer clearly deliniated models with different geometries for different events?
Instead, many lines carry the same geometry through broad portions of their line. Others that don't, make no attempt to suggest differing uses for models with different geo's.
In fact, looking at most of the literature, the debate re designs-for-events focuses on the question of weight versus stiffness. ATMO, that's an artificial distinction, but that's what prevails in the market today.
Meanwhile, I can come up with quite a list of venerated existing/retired builders who will simply say to keep the trail between 57-58mm and everything will be fine.
Going back to the sometimes deified Colnago, I believe that they stick to a 43mm rake throughout the size range. With the variations of HTA that occur across sizes, this will lead to different handling characteristics between their smaller and larger frames.
Where an I going with all this? The thoughtfulness and care provided by your builder is more important than tenure in role. And that's ATMO.
I'm going to step on some toes here. It's not my intention, but hard to avoid given the subject matter.
Anyone, including Brendan, is entitled to his/her opinion and to share same.
ATMO, not too many folks really know all that much about frame design, from established (even relished) handbuilders to product designers at major bike manufacturers. Don't get me wrong, they know enough to make a decent bike. But let me offer a few illustrations.
Years back, when I participated more on the framebuilders list, virtually no one could speak to their rules of thumb for determining the right combination of tubing diameter/wall thickness. Richard Sachs and Freddy Parr could offer insightful input on this topic, but no one else then participating could. At least not beyond the opinions that might be offered up here by riders (as opposed to builders). Mind you, all the builders here weren't participating then on the list: so please don't make any assumptions about any particular builders. Anyhow, the lack of input really opened my eyes up a bit - especially when I saw the range of solutions that recieved glowing reviews through various online/print venues.
In another example, its hard to find anyone who can really speak well to the pro/cons of different front geometries re handling. That includes builders and other industry participants who too often bluster their way through the topic. Let me illustrate some of what I mean, but first a warning that a lot of facts about specific designs are hard to find. For example, look at EPS geometries on Colnago's website: head-tube angle, rake, and trail aren't listed. It's a deep secret.
But, some secrets can be unraveled. Using a combination of resources (BikeCad, Anvil Trail Calculator, Excel), and keeping to a limited range of sizes (55-56CM top-tubes), it's possible to make fairly accurate projections of how these key measures vary by brand. I picked the size range based on it being toward the mid-point of sizes, and presumably less succeptible design anomolies that might be present at the ends of the size ranges.
NOTE: there are precision errors in published data - plus some companies may intentionally misrepresent specs. Anyone who can, is welcome to improve the accuracy of the numbers that follow.
Colnago EPS HTA=72 Rake=43 Trail=64.
Dedacciai Scuro HTA=72 Rake=44.5 Trail=62.
Cannondale's 'comfort' fit HTA=72.5 Rake=44 Trail=59.
Trek's 'performance' fit HTA=73.5 Rake=40 Trail=58.
Trek's 'comfort' fit HTA=73.5 Rake=40 Trail=58.
Cannondale's 'comfort' fit HTA=73 Rake=44.1 Trail=56.
Specialized 'performance' fit HTA=73.5 Rake=43 Trail=56.
Specialized 'competition' fit HTA=72.5 Rake=40 Trail=56.
Pinarello Dogma HTA=73.5 Rake=43 Trail=55.
We see the EPS with a trail of of 64mm while the Dogma has a trail of 55mm. Both are considered great handling bikes. An easy out would be to suggest that the Dogma is a crit bike - but I don't think Pinarello considers it such. Moreover, if there are different handling paradigms for different events, why don't more builders/manufacturers offer clearly deliniated models with different geometries for different events?
Instead, many lines carry the same geometry through broad portions of their line. Others that don't, make no attempt to suggest differing uses for models with different geo's.
In fact, looking at most of the literature, the debate re designs-for-events focuses on the question of weight versus stiffness. ATMO, that's an artificial distinction, but that's what prevails in the market today.
Meanwhile, I can come up with quite a list of venerated existing/retired builders who will simply say to keep the trail between 57-58mm and everything will be fine.
Going back to the sometimes deified Colnago, I believe that they stick to a 43mm rake throughout the size range. With the variations of HTA that occur across sizes, this will lead to different handling characteristics between their smaller and larger frames.
Where an I going with all this? The thoughtfulness and care provided by your builder is more important than tenure in role. And that's ATMO.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Las Vegas - Capital of the Dada Anti-life
Well… Here I sit waiting for my first seminar of my first Interbike. This, btw, is related to a new entrepreneurial venture that I’m trying to kick off for 2010 – not frame-building. Stay tuned here to be among those who first find out about it.
A rain delay in Dallas meant I got to my room at 2:30AM (my time). In Vegas, the dispatcher for the ground-transport company was convinced thought that being contrary and contradictory was really funny for weary travelers. Then, the registration desk at the hotel was very backed up – after all time of day hasn’t much meaning in Vegas. Finally I made the mistake of thinking that Vegas was only 1 hour ahead of Chicago – meaning I got up earlier than necessary.
The hotel is the Imperial Palace. The best aspect of these digs is that they reinforce my sense of entrepreneurial spirit (in other words its cheap). It’s rated 3 stars, the middle of the Vegas range. I’d hate to see the lower rated venues. Seriously, I’ve been in Motel 6s that seemed nicer. But, at the rates I got – it’s probably a fair value.
Having criticized the hotel, I should point to the objectionable elements. While my floor appears to be no-smoking, the ventilation system recycles the smells of tobacco smoke and air freshener. Not cool for anyone with sinus/allergy issue. Also, the room is old. How old? The shower still uses separate hot and cold faucets – one of which fits loosely enough that water sprays behind it and the fiberglass surround. Also, the shower and sink drains don’t – at least not beyond a trickle. The balconette faces a roof and two walls of windows – it’s almost impossible to see sky (fair enough that this is due to pricing). The cost of food is astronomical. I understand that the whole $2 buffet thing is long gone from Vegas, but $10 for a cafeteria croissant and small cupa is just a bit high. Especially in a place where one has traverse a floor of crazy, smoking gamblers to get in and out. Not my idea of the place for a vacation.
Being a newbie to Vegas, I am amazed that it exceeds any image I had of this town. In fact, I assumed that much of its reputation was a caricature – but that simply isn’t so. You’re welcome to laugh at me for being so naive, but there it is.
Yep, the characters in the hotel are pure Vegas. There are lots of bored looking people playing penny slots without really paying attention to their machine, or the people around them. It’s almost as if they’re catatonic. There were a few obvious prostitutes in the mix, some looking for action while others appear to be on their way home. I don’t know if they’re legal of not – but it feels strange to see them in a regular hotel.
On the other hand, the sun was shining (naturally) and it was 90 degrees this morning. I didn’t head to the Outdoor Demo Days: this morning was dedicated to journalists – and I wanted to attend seminars in the afternoon.
Instead it was time to get some fresh air (really important after the casino/hotel) and enjoy the dry heat. Walking past the Venetian (walking is probably a lower class thing to do in Vegas), the neighborhood looks nice and upper class. But I was hailed by a hooker, who wouldn’t give up after just one try. At 8:30AM Vega time. It was weird.
Coming back in the afternoon, there was a fellow selling "new Sony & Apple laptops" out of his shopping bags on the sidewalk in front of the Pallatzo and across the street from Dior. Down near Harrah's, someone was hawking CDs from a bag. Further down, there was a little gauntlet of people doing a rhythmic thing of slapping tickets on there wrist (making a slapping sound) and then thrusting them out in front of the pedestrians. At the last moment, they'd retract their arms if the walker wasn't a taker - starting the slapping cycle over. Based on their t-shirts, it looks like they were marketing a strip show. Again, weird.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
More on tires and wheels and such
Today I finally got out on the updated carbon bike. The core of the ride was 32.63 miles in 1:57:32 - or a bit over 16.8 mph, with a total ride of 42 miles. That's pretty good for me, riding solo, on a breezy day. And the route was as hilly as its possible to find around here (although this isn't very hilly).
Initial impressions of the SRAM group. All parts worked correctly. The brakes do have enough modulation for my taste, along with good stopping power. The shifters shift reliably, as do the derailers (Force has replaced the Campy front derailer). The chain and cassette don't seem loud, although they are a bit louder than Campy when cross chained.
The grip around the base of the levers felt good; my initial impression was that it was better than Campy (due in part to its greater width). The end of the hoods have a larger and more pronounce hump than Campy. I like to ride with my palm on the hump with Campy, but all the weight is concentrated on the tall nub with the SRAM shifters. Overall, I was having more Ulnar nerve issues today than usual - but I'll need more rides to determine if this is related to SRAM shifters, or something else. Going forward, I may put on a longer stem to compensate for not riding on the shifter nub.
Overall, I'd say that the tires lived up to expectations - but I have to qualify it for now because the wheels are also new. The tubeless ride is definitely smoother riding - with this being most obvious on sharp-edged bumps. Its not quite like a high-quality tubular, but it's clearly a step up from an open tubular.
One other observation re the tires: They are very nicely concentric on the rims. Recently, I was using some Michelin Pro3Race on test wheels while building the rear-wheel fairing on a tri bike. It was almost scary how far from concentric these (expensive) tires are - so much so that I took them off and remounted them just to make sure that the beads were seated properly. Of course, when testing for clearances, this makes a great worst case example. But while riding, concentric tires roll more smoothly with less rolling resistance. So, again, I am impressed with the concentricity of the Hutchinson tubeless tires (based on a sample of 2).
While my time today was good, I suspect that it had more to do with my current conditioning and a need to burn off psychic energy. I'm sure, at least for now, that the wheels weren't really doing their job.
There is a nice downhill run where I test my rollout. My usual wheels are either an older pair of Campy Zonda (with the steel spokes rather than aluminum), or some MA3's laced up to Record hubs. With these wheels, no one out-rolls me, and I pass up many folks going down this hill.
The Easton EA70s were clearly not competitive going down this hill. I don't know whether this is seal drag, drag in the rachet of the freehub, or a bearing issue. Note that these wheels didn't even have a mile on them when I started this morning - and less than seven miles when I reached the coasting hill. Its entirely possible that the issue is just one of breaking in the bearing seals. Subjectively, the wheels felt as if they were rolling better towards the end of the ride. Guess I'll have post further on this issue after I get a few hundred miles on these wheels.
Over all, I enjoyed this mornings ride. With the gears working correctly, I could better enjoy the ride and the handling of my frame and fork. This really is a nice frame, and handles beautifully. Today was a super morning to enjoy it. It was still a little dark when I started and about 54 degrees. By the time I got home it was 65 degrees, sunny with blue sky.
And that's a wrap for today.
Initial impressions of the SRAM group. All parts worked correctly. The brakes do have enough modulation for my taste, along with good stopping power. The shifters shift reliably, as do the derailers (Force has replaced the Campy front derailer). The chain and cassette don't seem loud, although they are a bit louder than Campy when cross chained.
The grip around the base of the levers felt good; my initial impression was that it was better than Campy (due in part to its greater width). The end of the hoods have a larger and more pronounce hump than Campy. I like to ride with my palm on the hump with Campy, but all the weight is concentrated on the tall nub with the SRAM shifters. Overall, I was having more Ulnar nerve issues today than usual - but I'll need more rides to determine if this is related to SRAM shifters, or something else. Going forward, I may put on a longer stem to compensate for not riding on the shifter nub.
Overall, I'd say that the tires lived up to expectations - but I have to qualify it for now because the wheels are also new. The tubeless ride is definitely smoother riding - with this being most obvious on sharp-edged bumps. Its not quite like a high-quality tubular, but it's clearly a step up from an open tubular.
One other observation re the tires: They are very nicely concentric on the rims. Recently, I was using some Michelin Pro3Race on test wheels while building the rear-wheel fairing on a tri bike. It was almost scary how far from concentric these (expensive) tires are - so much so that I took them off and remounted them just to make sure that the beads were seated properly. Of course, when testing for clearances, this makes a great worst case example. But while riding, concentric tires roll more smoothly with less rolling resistance. So, again, I am impressed with the concentricity of the Hutchinson tubeless tires (based on a sample of 2).
While my time today was good, I suspect that it had more to do with my current conditioning and a need to burn off psychic energy. I'm sure, at least for now, that the wheels weren't really doing their job.
There is a nice downhill run where I test my rollout. My usual wheels are either an older pair of Campy Zonda (with the steel spokes rather than aluminum), or some MA3's laced up to Record hubs. With these wheels, no one out-rolls me, and I pass up many folks going down this hill.
The Easton EA70s were clearly not competitive going down this hill. I don't know whether this is seal drag, drag in the rachet of the freehub, or a bearing issue. Note that these wheels didn't even have a mile on them when I started this morning - and less than seven miles when I reached the coasting hill. Its entirely possible that the issue is just one of breaking in the bearing seals. Subjectively, the wheels felt as if they were rolling better towards the end of the ride. Guess I'll have post further on this issue after I get a few hundred miles on these wheels.
Over all, I enjoyed this mornings ride. With the gears working correctly, I could better enjoy the ride and the handling of my frame and fork. This really is a nice frame, and handles beautifully. Today was a super morning to enjoy it. It was still a little dark when I started and about 54 degrees. By the time I got home it was 65 degrees, sunny with blue sky.
And that's a wrap for today.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Old & New
Spent yesterday working in the shop. Busy day. Finished it by updating my personal carbon ride. It's been equipped with Record 10s w/ a long cage rear derailer. Of late, it's not shifting right. The cassette is fine, the chain is new, and the derailer tab checks out as straight. So... looks like the derailer is bent. I tried straightening the cage a bit, but there are so few flat surfaces on it that I couldn't get a good read on the alignment table.
Meanwhile, I've been meaning to test out some Hutchinson tubeless clinchers. Supposedly, with Stan's tape and fluid, they work well on Easton rims. And I happened to have a spare set of EA-70s lying around (don't know quite why). The wheels, however, are set up for a Shimano cassette - so a no go-on my Campy bikes.
However, I also have a bit of spare SRAM gear lying around including some 1st gen Rival shifters and rear derailer. Which, of course, would work with Easton rims.
So, I did the only bike-geek respectable thing possible: I've converted the old bike to SRAM.
For now, I can only offer initial thoughts - I don't have any meaningful mileage on this setup. But, here's what I have.
1) Stan's tape was easy to apply - using my truing stand. Without a stand, I think it would have been a pain because the tape is really made for a wider (MTB) rim. It requires tension and a wiggling motion to get it seated properly down below the bead.
2) Unlike with regular tubes, the threaded nut on the valve stem is necessary. Without it, the stem doesn't pull in tightly enough to prevent leakage. Using the nut cranks the stem down nicely.
3) Stan's instructions are right on, but the video is the way to learn the proper install method.
4) It takes tire levers to mount the Hutchinsons (at least on the EA70 rims). I understand the concern about tires blowing off (or at least of having tires loosen enough to loose air), hence the use of a carbon fiber bead that won't stretch. But I have to wonder if the Stan's tape is contributing to this issue. I'm going to have to try tubeless on a set of Ksyriums where rim tape isn't necessary.
5) The tires pumped right up with a floor pump, even without the water and soap suds seal at the rim. After inflating them, I put them in the sink to work in the suds (see Stan's video for explanation). Actually, I couldn't pump the tires up until the valve stems were tight. But, once this was done, the tire beads seemed leak-free. BTW, the next morning, the tires still felt full when squeezed.
6) Installing the fluid wasn't too hard, but because the applicator looks like a big syringe, I thought to draw in fluid and then squirt into the valve stem. Doesn't work that way - too big a nozzle, too thin a fluid: it all spills out. So, I used the applicator more as a funnel - connecting it to the stem - and pouring fluid into it.
7) The initial test rides seemed very plush, but I need to go back and check pressures and try again with some actual miles. Also, I need to get out the tire gauge and see how long the tires hold pressure.
8) The old style (silver) Rival shifters have a nice looking finish. I don't know if its painted or polished and anodized, or? But it looks nice. It will be interesting to see how durable it is. These shifters don't have all the adjustments available on newer SRAM shifters, but seem to fit my hands just fine.
9) For now, I'm using a Campy front derailer. This isn't working well - I can't seem to dial in the shifting. Next stop, Rival front shifter.
10) The rear is shifting nicely. It's so nice to have every cog available to me again. Too bad I didn't have a cassette with a 26t or 27t available. Now I just have to train myself in SRAM shifting. Let's acknowledge here that these 1st gen, lower level, shifters don't sound or feel as nice as Campy. But they are much cheaper and seem to be shifting great with the Rival derailer.
11) The brakes are 1st generation Force. Again, attractively finished. Good braking power - still checking out modulation. Fit of the Q/R impedes easy access to adjust the brake shoe on the cable side - but not outrageously so. These brakes don't have the centering screw of later versions - a loss, but not a major one. The rear brake feels more spongy than I'd like, may have to reduce the toe-in.
12) I haven't weighed anything, but suspect that the SRAM components are lighter or equal in weight to the Campy ones that were swapped out.
13) The cassette has an attractive looking spider inside of the cogs. Otherwise, the cassette just works - nothing to write home about.
14) The ratchet in the rear freehub seems rather draggy. It's not noisy, and the issue may just be too much grease. I'll have to wait and find out if these wheels roll ok, or not. If the hubs roll, then its a great bargain of a wheel set - complete with nice (low drag) stainless spokes. But if the hubs are friction factories, I'm not going to be very happy with these wheels. Perhaps I'll have to check out the Easton website regarding how to adjust the bearings.
That's all for now. I'll provide some more feedback once I have some miles on this combo.
Meanwhile, I've been meaning to test out some Hutchinson tubeless clinchers. Supposedly, with Stan's tape and fluid, they work well on Easton rims. And I happened to have a spare set of EA-70s lying around (don't know quite why). The wheels, however, are set up for a Shimano cassette - so a no go-on my Campy bikes.
However, I also have a bit of spare SRAM gear lying around including some 1st gen Rival shifters and rear derailer. Which, of course, would work with Easton rims.
So, I did the only bike-geek respectable thing possible: I've converted the old bike to SRAM.
For now, I can only offer initial thoughts - I don't have any meaningful mileage on this setup. But, here's what I have.
1) Stan's tape was easy to apply - using my truing stand. Without a stand, I think it would have been a pain because the tape is really made for a wider (MTB) rim. It requires tension and a wiggling motion to get it seated properly down below the bead.
2) Unlike with regular tubes, the threaded nut on the valve stem is necessary. Without it, the stem doesn't pull in tightly enough to prevent leakage. Using the nut cranks the stem down nicely.
3) Stan's instructions are right on, but the video is the way to learn the proper install method.
4) It takes tire levers to mount the Hutchinsons (at least on the EA70 rims). I understand the concern about tires blowing off (or at least of having tires loosen enough to loose air), hence the use of a carbon fiber bead that won't stretch. But I have to wonder if the Stan's tape is contributing to this issue. I'm going to have to try tubeless on a set of Ksyriums where rim tape isn't necessary.
5) The tires pumped right up with a floor pump, even without the water and soap suds seal at the rim. After inflating them, I put them in the sink to work in the suds (see Stan's video for explanation). Actually, I couldn't pump the tires up until the valve stems were tight. But, once this was done, the tire beads seemed leak-free. BTW, the next morning, the tires still felt full when squeezed.
6) Installing the fluid wasn't too hard, but because the applicator looks like a big syringe, I thought to draw in fluid and then squirt into the valve stem. Doesn't work that way - too big a nozzle, too thin a fluid: it all spills out. So, I used the applicator more as a funnel - connecting it to the stem - and pouring fluid into it.
7) The initial test rides seemed very plush, but I need to go back and check pressures and try again with some actual miles. Also, I need to get out the tire gauge and see how long the tires hold pressure.
8) The old style (silver) Rival shifters have a nice looking finish. I don't know if its painted or polished and anodized, or? But it looks nice. It will be interesting to see how durable it is. These shifters don't have all the adjustments available on newer SRAM shifters, but seem to fit my hands just fine.
9) For now, I'm using a Campy front derailer. This isn't working well - I can't seem to dial in the shifting. Next stop, Rival front shifter.
10) The rear is shifting nicely. It's so nice to have every cog available to me again. Too bad I didn't have a cassette with a 26t or 27t available. Now I just have to train myself in SRAM shifting. Let's acknowledge here that these 1st gen, lower level, shifters don't sound or feel as nice as Campy. But they are much cheaper and seem to be shifting great with the Rival derailer.
11) The brakes are 1st generation Force. Again, attractively finished. Good braking power - still checking out modulation. Fit of the Q/R impedes easy access to adjust the brake shoe on the cable side - but not outrageously so. These brakes don't have the centering screw of later versions - a loss, but not a major one. The rear brake feels more spongy than I'd like, may have to reduce the toe-in.
12) I haven't weighed anything, but suspect that the SRAM components are lighter or equal in weight to the Campy ones that were swapped out.
13) The cassette has an attractive looking spider inside of the cogs. Otherwise, the cassette just works - nothing to write home about.
14) The ratchet in the rear freehub seems rather draggy. It's not noisy, and the issue may just be too much grease. I'll have to wait and find out if these wheels roll ok, or not. If the hubs roll, then its a great bargain of a wheel set - complete with nice (low drag) stainless spokes. But if the hubs are friction factories, I'm not going to be very happy with these wheels. Perhaps I'll have to check out the Easton website regarding how to adjust the bearings.
That's all for now. I'll provide some more feedback once I have some miles on this combo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
