RE: [CR]Was 753, now is stiffness desirable?

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Chater-Lea)

Subject: RE: [CR]Was 753, now is stiffness desirable?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:39:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <00c501c6a87b$ab3970f0$2f01a8c0@Perry>
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Thread-Topic: [CR]Was 753, now is stiffness desirable?
Thread-Index: AcaoczV7k6VqKpgLSMydc7tdVk8pVgAALiMA
From: "Mark Bulgier" <Mark@bulgier.net>
To: "John T.Pergolizzi" <jtperry1@verizon.net>, <oroboyz@aol.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


John T.Pergolizzi called me on something I wrote:
> "unusual angles"
>
> ?

Well it's true that the angles were kinda "out there", compared to the road frame angles that commercially-available lugs are made to. If that were the only problem, road lugs can be blacksmithed to different angles, or in more extreme cases, cut and welded to just about any angle. So I guess I shouldn't say that's why I didn't use lugs on these frames - the main problem was the big tube diameters, complicated by the ovalization used in a couple of areas.

I don't remember the actual angles but I seem to recall they were very steep, I wanna say 77° seat, 76° head?

For those coming in late, we're talking about a small number of custom track sprint frames I made in the late 80s - early 90s. Possibly off-topic but Dale seems to be tolerating the discussion so far. It should be wrapping up soon, I think we've about covered it!

Mark Bulgier
Seattle WA USA