Galen
From: classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org
Reply-To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Classicrendezvous Digest, Vol 48, Issue 134
Date:
31 Dec 2006 20:37:52 -0800
>Send Classicrendezvous mailing list submissions to
> classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.bikelist.org/
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> classicrendezvous-owner@bikelist.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Classicrendezvous digest..."
>CR
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Fwd: [CR]Anyone heard from Baron C? (John Thompson)
> 2. BB height, etc. (Joseph Bender-Zanoni)
> 3. Re: Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc. (John Betmanis)
> 4. RE: BB height, what's considered high or low? (Ken Freeman)
> 5. RE: Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc. (Ken Freeman)
> 6. RE: BB height, etc. (Ken Freeman)
From: John Thompson <JohnThompson@new.rr.com>
Reply-To: john@os2.dhs.org
To: List CR <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [CR]Anyone heard from Baron C?
Date:
Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:12:39 -0600
>Baron sometimes takes a while to deliver, but he's never let me down.
>Give it some time is my advice.
From: Joseph Bender-Zanoni <joebz@optonline.net>
To: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
CC: CR RENDEZVOUS <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]BB height, etc.
Date:
Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:52:40 -0500
>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/getmsg.asp?Filename=classicrendezvous.10612.
>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Classicrendezvous mailing
list
>>>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>>>
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Classicrendezvous mailing
list
>>>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>--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
>>
>>
>
From: John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net>
To: "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc.
Date:
Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:12:43 -0500
>At 05:36 PM 12/31/06 -0800, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
> >I agree about the cornering advantage of a low BB, leaving aside the pedal
>clearance. The broomstick analogy nontwithstanding, I think it is well
>established that a low center of mass aids cornering
>
>Agreed. The stability of a bicycle is largely a functiion of the gyroscopic
>effect of the wheels turning. THe broomstick principle would only apply to
>trackstands.
>
>
>
>John Betmanis
>Woodstock, Ontario
>Canada
From: "Ken Freeman" <freesound@comcast.net>
To: <oroboyz@aol.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: RE: [CR]BB height, what's considered high or low?
Date:
Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:20:45 -0500
>I opined to Chuck that a bbd of 8cm is in my mind a low BB and a 6.5 cm one
>is a high bb, assuming 700C tubulars with (let's just say) a 336.5 mm
>radius, corresponding to a 22 mm tire, 22.622.
>
>Dale's threshold height for "low" is 10.5 inches, or 26.7 cm. His threshold
>for "high" is 10.75 inches or 27.3 cm. Using my 22.622 tire radius, the BBD
>for a low bb is 6.95 cm, and the BBD threshold for "high" is 6.35 cm. My
>idea for high does not agree with Dale's, and my idea for low does. I
defer
>to Dale's experience as a builder, whereas I just play with math.
>
>Ken Freeman
>Ann Arbor, MI USA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
>[mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of oroboyz@aol.com
>Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 5:35 PM
>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: [CR]BB height, what's considered high or low?
>
> OK, let's state some accepted practices:
>
> Generally speaking, for traditional road bikes:
> - below 10 1/2" is in the "low" range..
> - 10 1/2" -10 3/4 " is moderately normal
> - above 10 3/4" is high...
>
> 'Course all things are relative. Obviously tire size can change things
>
Dale Brown
> Greensboro, North Carolina USA
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chuckschmidt@earthlink.net
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Sent: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc.
>
> 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