Happy New Year to all! I've been enjoying the BB height posts. Dale has it closest IMO with why the bikes were so high off the ground to begin with. These general consumption bikes were made like this because it was cheaper to do so. We laughed like hell when the people advertised small frames for shorter folks and then had done nothing but raise the BB's for the frame size and the TT was still so high it was like a soprano rehearsal session if the rider missed getting the toes on ground to catch themselves the first time when stopping. Not to mention the TT length!!?? Maybe before we should agree on what wheel radius we are using when talking about BB height. What say you, framebuilders? We got out of the drop measurement for our everyday use many years ago and got into BB height as easier for riders to understand. I never liked to go to 165/167.5 cranks for regular road riding. I always tried to fit people with 170 and had no difficulty with shorter legged riders. It seemed to make more sense for hill climbing and general pace maintanence for smaller people to be able to keep up with the big bruisers. We also thought the BB center to FT wheel center measured point to point was more realistic to riding as the toe clip would be closest to the wheel radius along that line. Our BB heights and what we considered them best for: 260mm: Usually for smaller frames and touring folks, easier to reach ground and very comfortable ride. Used mostly with 170 cranks. Lower BB and / or longer cranks was too liable to touch ground. 265mm: Older stage bikes, longer road races. Nicer comfort and could use longer cranks for road cornering. 270mm: All around BB for best general use. We called this the Road / Criterium height. 275mm: Criterium / Road height. Great for cornering and OK for smooth roads, but somewhat stiffer / harsher in riding long distances. 280mm and higher: For track racing. This is where depending on discipline we would use 165 or longer cranks. By explaining the BB heights and the reasons this way it was easy for riders of all experience levels to understand the basics as we saw them. It made our customers feel like we we speaking with them and not down to them with bike babble and an elitist attitude. We didn't lose too many sales , either. Dave Moulton is correct with his comment on the chainstay length and ride being affected accordingly with raising the BB. We also never did see the use for anything steeper than 74 for even the small frames for road riding. Steeper seat angles made it too difficult to get a proper knee position. The head angle could then be set 2 to 3 degrees shallower and with proper fork rack the bike could still handle nicely with minimal toe overlap. Some of these smaller bikes wouldn't be quite as "snappy" as the larger frames but it allowed the riders full size wheels with comfortable handling and easy getting used to. These posts have been a great ending to and beginning for the new year. Again, it shows the cumulative knowledge of the CR list. Thanks, Dale. Nice to see the varied and corroborating commentary. Happy New Year! Ted Ernst. Palos Verdes Estates CA USA
cember 31, 2006 6:41 AM Subject: [CR]Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc.
> 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.