Joe, do you have any of the other measurements for your Cilo? With what you describe, I wonder what the trail and wheelbase are.
Ken Freeman Ann Arbor, MI USA
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bender-Zanoni Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:53 PM To: Chuck Schmidt Cc: CR RENDEZVOUS Subject: [CR]BB height, etc.
OK, I'll wade in. With some numbers. I have owned a lot of frames and pay a lot of attention to BB height. I'll use BB height numbers although drop is maybe more correct but just assume I mean with 21mm tubulars on sew-up rims. The extremes tell the story.
I have a Cilo with a 10" BB height. I love this bike for general riding and centuries. When you are tired, it just tracks. Nothing else would recommend this bike. It is a a journeyman metric tubed 531 frame. Like all my frames, it is well aligned within any reasonable standard. If you can feel a half millimeter anywhere, great, lets do a blindfold test.
I think this issue of exhaustion is very important. No matter how great your technique, if you ride a long ways, your technique gets worse.
I have owned a few Drysdales. Drysdale was a high BB fanatic. 11" on a road bike. I find these bikes irritating.
I like steep tracks. This presents a problem because hitting a pedal is bad news. I have been shocked at the low BB heights on certain track bikes. 10 5/8" on a 1964 Schwinn Paramount was just too low and they should have known better. Certain pedals and cutting them down can yield large advantages. Suntour Suberbe is nice and the last generation Dura-Ace pedals are incredible. Big bucks with the proper cleats though.
So if you like to ride long distances deep into exhaustion, I think its worth coasting through corners with a 10" BB height. On a general purpose track bike for riding on a 45-50 degree track, you had better have a 10 3/4" BB and fiddle with the pedals. I would not have more than a 10 3/4" on a road bike, even a crit bike.
Joe Bender-Zanoni Great Notch, NJ
Chuck Schmidt wrote:
> A fascinating aspect to this whole discussion of high and low BB
> height is that there hasn't been a single dimension mentioned as to
> what would be considered a high or low BB.
>
> Hilarious...
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, CA
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2006, at 6:41 AM, oroboyz@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Hey Ken:
>>
>> I can't help but wonder about a couple of things you wrote here:
>>
>> << Mine (1980, pre-TSD) also has a high BB, the drop is about 6.4
>> cm. Compares
>>
>> to about a cm more for my Trek and others. I think this contributes
>> to the
>>
>> Woodrup's sense of stability. >>
>>
>>
>>
>> "In Theory" the lower the BB, the more stable and of course the
>> opposite for
>>
>> higher BBs.
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact, if I remember correctly, that is one of Richard Sach's
>> unique
>>
>> characteristics in his frames... He has used quite a bit lower bb
>> height
>>
>> and while you may not be able to pedal through the curves quite as
>> much,
>>
>> that is a well considered trade-off that results in a more secure
>> control
>>
>> (stability)while cornering.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that much of the sought after stability and steering accuracy
>> is part
>>
>> of accurate frame alignment and dishined wheels... So many frames, of
>> all quality
>>
>> levels, are not straight.. Just a 1/2 CM in misalignment can make a
>> huge
>>
>> difference and we tend to blame other factors (frame angles,
>> dimensions)
>>
>> when in fact, if the frame were carefully aligned, would make the
>> bikes
>>
>> ride ever so much better....
>>
>>
>>
>> << My theory is that both of my frames are small frames, and subject
>> to
>>
>> compromises inherent in minimizing toe overlap and gettign adequate
>> front
>>
>> tire to downtube clearance, without extremely long top tubes. One
>> design
>>
>> feature to address this is to raise the BB, and another is to lay
>> back the
>>
>> head tube to perhaps 72 degrees. >>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my (limited) experience, the reason many builders/manufacturers
>> make
>>
>> a higher BB in smaller frame is to solve the problem/save a lot of
>> work
>>
>> in joinery at the compacted head tube /head lugs area...
>>
>> By raising the BB, that allows raising the upper head lug, allowing
>> quick and unmodified use of the stock lugs. I.e., no cutting or
>> fitting, etc. Another solution to this was a one-piece head lug that
>> allowed the top tube & down tube to intersect...
>>
>> On road bikes of any size, I don't think the clearance of the down
>> tube vs tire is much concern...
>>
>> 'Course I could be wrong. It is fun the theorize about all this
>> mysterious stuff!
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> Dale
>>
>>
>> Dale Brown
>> Greensboro, NC USA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: freesound@comcast.net
>> To: jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net; hydelake@verizon.net;
>> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Sent: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 7:43 PM
>> Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Mine (1980, pre-TSD) also has a high BB, the drop is about 6.4 cm.
>> Compares
>> to about a cm more for my Trek and others. I think this contributes
>> to the Woodrup's sense of stability. The SOH on mine is 77.6 cm,
>> seat tube is 53.5 c-t, 52 cm c-c.
>>
>> My '84 or so Mondonico (sure looks on-topic, but I can't be sure!)
>> has a BB drop of 7.2, 52 cm c-c seat tube, and 78.3 cm SOH. Both
>> bikes seem to have high BBs, so I don't think national style is
>> necessarily being illustrated here. My theory is that both of my
>> frames are small frames, and subject to compromises inherent in
>> minimizing toe overlap and gettign adequate front tire to downtube
>> clearance, without extremely long top tubes. One design feature to
>> address this is to raise the BB, and another is to lay back the head
>> tube to perhaps 72 degrees. My Woodrup and Mondonico respectively
>> have head tube angles of 72.0 degrees and 72.4 degrees (I have less
>> confidence in this latter number).
>>
>> Both bikes are sort of a French fit for me.
>>
>> Ken Freeman
>> Ann Arbor, MI USA
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
>> [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Jerome &
>> Elizabeth Moos
>> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:56 AM
>> To: Barb & Dan Artley; Classic Rendezvous
>> Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
>>
>> I have an early/mid 80's Woodrup. Nice bike, but does have a very
>> high bottom bracket. Haven't measured the actual BB height, but the
>> standover height is what I'd expect on a bike with a seat tube about
>> 2 cm longer. No one else has mentioned this, but were high BB's
>> typical of Woodrup?
>> On the
>> other hand I also have a 52 cm ctc 1988 Mercian KOM with a standover
>> height about the same as a 55 cm French of Italian frame, so maybe
>> the high BB's were a British thing in the 80's.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jerry Moos
>> Big Spring, TX
>>
>>
>>
>> Barb & Dan Artley <hydelake@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I can't say how pleased I am hearing so much of Woodrup Cycles. A
>> Woodrup was my first really nice race bike replacing what I
>> considered more of a tourer, my PX-10 (Sorry Peter K.). It was
>> unfortunately crashed, badly repaired and sold, but recently
>> repurchased. I'm hoping that someday it will get the restoration it
>> deserves for the fond memories of my only race season back in 1973.
>> Thanks to all who've provided this information. Does anyone know if
>> they are still building keepers of the flame in lugged steel?
>> ...
>> More?
>>
>> Dan Artley in Parkton, Maryland
>>
>> Archive-URL:
>> http://search.bikelist.org/
>> 1653.eml
>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:57:24 -0500
>> Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
>> From: Doug Fattic
>>
>> The subject of Woodrup frames reminds me of my own experiences
>> visiting their framebuilding shop when I was learning to build at Ellis
Briggs.
>> I
>> wanted to learn how to do a fluted seat stay top like what was on my
>> Masi and Jack Briggs rang up Woodrup to see if one of them would be
>> willing to show me how. What I vaguely remember Jack Briggs telling
>> me was that somehow Jack's father helped Woodrup get started. The
>> date around 1953 or 4 sticks in my mind from our conversation about
>> it. Leeds is about 15 miles to the east from the much smaller town of
>> Shipley where Ellis Briggs is located.
>> The good size city of Bradford is about 3 miles to the south.
>> In
>> other words, these places are one big megalopolis. 15 British miles
>> is not
>> 15 American miles. The roads are not laid out on a square because of
>> the shape of the land and going to Leeds seemed like a big trip. It
>> was lots of stop and go city driving on winding roads in my old
>> Morris Minor. This generosity (to help others when it wasn't to his
>> own advantage) was part of Jack's character too and something I've
>> been deeply grateful for (since he did the same for me).
>>
>> I was a little shy going in the door and was glad Jack had asked
>> permission for me. One of the sons (I don't remember which one) spent
>> several hours of the afternoon showing me what to do. That day he was
>> the only one there. I had some seat stays with me and he demonstrated
>> how to miter the end and braze another piece of tubing in that place
>> and then file off the excess. I looked around a bit and realized they
>> did things a bit differently than Briggs. I also remember him
>> suggesting to me that there wasn't much need now days (as in 1975) to
>> pin frames together before brazing since hearth brazing was replaced
>> with oxyacetylene brazing. As he explained, a spot isn't likely to
>> break or move. All in all a valuable and pleasant afternoon. As a
>> newbie, I was respectful of his advice and didn't try to argue how we
>> did things a bit differently at Briggs. My impression was that
>> Woodrup was a bit more production oriented - meaning that they
>> concentrated on getting a certain number of frames made in a decent
>> way in a week.
>> It
>> was the primary thing that brought in money for them. The frame shop
>> at Briggs when I was there was a bit more of an extension of the
>> bigger business. There was the regular retail sales on the ground
>> floor with several sales people. There were the regular Raleigh and
>> other bikes and another area had pro stuff. In the back was the
>> repair shop with 2 workers.
>> Upstairs in one room was Bill and Rodney the painters and in another,
>> Andrew mostly made the frames one at a time to a particular person.
>> The result of not having framebuilding be the center of the business
>> was that it allowed a bit more individual attention to be paid to
>> each frame being made. Jack never pressured Andrew to be more
>> productive, he just wanted him to make them right. Jack himself also
>> helped out in there but mostly he and his wife kept an eye on the
>> entire business. When he was in the frame shop, it was primarily to
>> teach me and share his considerable knowledge or finalize
>> instructions about another frame for Andrew to build. Those
>> circumstances really were a benefit to me which I have always deeply
>> appreciated.
>> Another
>> advantage was the ability to wander into the paint room next door and
>> observe all the steps in painting. Bill and Rodney always enjoyed
>> company and Andrew and I also ate our lunch in there.
>>
>> There are lots more memories of that time but not more time to write
>> about them now. About the other framebuilders in West Yorkshire and
>> the area itself.
>>
>> Doug Fattic
>> Niles, Michigan USA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> ___ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
>> security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
>> across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> --No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:
> 12/31/2006