I think CR had this "standards" discussion quite a while back, and it was not possible as I recall to come to a consensus on chainstay. My strongest recollection, which is weak, is that it was necessary to declare the measurement conventions you use (where significant) if you publish frame measurements. The most significant questions in getting and comparing measurements are related to seat tube/frame size, chainstay length, and teh entire head tube and fork areas.
I have to admit I worked with Dave just a little bit on a contribution to his website, a short article on a method for measuring frames using simple tools. My method is not free of error, but it can be applied consistently. It does not have the certainty that a skilled framebuilder can achieve using precision tools on a reference table. I'm sure of this because I had the priveledge of watching Doug Fattic work one day.
I tend to like the stay intersection method for both chainstay and wheelbase, but that's really just because it gives me a way to find the measurement point, and to be consistent in my own work.
Ken Freeman Ann Arbor, MI USA
_____
From: oroboyz@aol.com [mailto:oroboyz@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:28 PM To: freesound@comcast.net; damann@mitre.org; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]Was: intro... now: frame geometry
<< I really don't see any basis for preferring one way over another, but maybe someone else does ... ? >> Sure, no strong opinion from me about which is "right", but w/o an agreed upon standard, it hurts communication if everyone is talking about something different... Dale Brown Greensboro, North Carolina USA
-----Original Message----- From: freesound@comcast.net To: oroboyz@aol.com; damann@mitre.org; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Sun, 20 May 2007 6:51 PM Subject: RE: [CR]Was: intro... now: frame geometry
As a friend of Dave's, Dale I'm glad to see you like his work.
Regarding chainstay, here's another method: measure from the center of the
crank to the point where the seatstay and chainstay centerlines intersect,
if the axle slot allows it. I think Trek did it this way in their early
days.
One of the problems with looking for a "logical" location or just measuring
to the actual axle position (yes, a 5th option!) is that the best wheel
installation position, in a slotted dropout, can be a result of gearing
choice. When fitting a 13-26 to my short-short Masi, I have to tweak the
wheel position and the chain length together to optimize shifting. (can do,
but not sure it's worth the trouble!!) Of course this situation is not
limited to Masi's!
I really don't see any basis for preferring one way over another, but maybe
someone else does ... ?
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA
-----Original Message-----
From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(>
[mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(> ] On Behalf Of oroboyz@aol.com <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:19 PM
To: damann@mitre.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(> ; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(>
Subject: [CR]Was: intro... now: frame geometry
Welcome Dan, you sound like you are a super addition to our strange
assembly of cycling aficionados!
The frame geometry web site shown on your e-mail signature interested me..
http://home.comcast.net/
Pretty much fun trying to catalog and categorize that information!
My first thoughts were how bikes with almost-the-same geometry (assuming
"identical" is impossible) often "seem" to ride differently... The whole
process of "ride" is so subjective and not able to be measured. Lordy, many
have tried and tried to evaluate "ride" but it is still an elusive art...
The other thought that might be fun to hear others discuss is that of chain
stay length, or rather, how one measures that dimension on horizontal drop
out bike frames (road, not addressing track dropouts) ...
You suggest measuring to the linear extensions of the seat & chain stays/
Other approachs:
- The mathmatical mid point in the drop out slot.
- The center of the derailleur hanger (McLean Fonvielle used this method.)
- The spot where the rear axle might most logically be positioned (hard to
say sometimes!)
Are there other approaches?
Dale Brown
Greensboro, North Carolina USA
-----Original Message-----
From: damann@mitre.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(>
Sent: Sun, 20 May 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: [CR]New Member Intro
Hey folks,
I've just joined the list so I thought I would post up my official
introduction post.
My name is Dave Mann and I live in the Boston area.
I got into bikes when I was in high school in central Ohio. A kindly guy
who ran the local bike shop talked me through the task of renovating my
suffering bike. When I was finished and got it working well enough, he
offered me a job in his shop. That was 30 years ago.
That kind soul's name is Chuck Harris. And while the shop has been closed,
I'm glad report that he's still producing and selling his wonderful mirrors.
Chuck was a huge influence in my cycling. The first time I rode from one
town to another was one a group ride. And I still remember the day he
dropped everything he was working on to help a coast-coast tourist who
limped into town with a blown bottom bracket. Those experiences expanded my
horizons about riding which eventually led me to the wonderful world of bike
touring.
I'm insanely interested in lightweight sport touring bikes.
Especially the early Japanese and American frames and great Japanese
components.
This is firmly based in the first experiences selling and working on
Japanese Fujis and Miyatas in Chuck's shop. It's also based on the set of
bikes that I've owned which has
included:
1978 Fuji Grand Tourer SE (traded in on a...),
1979 Fuji Royale II (sold to pay for a...),
1982 Trek 600 (which I rode for over a decade including
a transcon tour before I crunched it under a car
port and replaced it with a...),
1995 Trek 1220 (aluminum race frame which I finally
got rid of when I found this on eBay...),
1979 Trek 510 (a bike that I just adore) and a
1983 Trek 311 (my errand bike).
I'm particularly interested in pre 1984 Trek sport touring bikes. Some
older pics of my 510 are here although please note that the components have
been changed significantly (some new, some old) since these pictures were
posted: http://www.vintage-trek.com/
Lastly and perhaps most importantly, I'm very, very, very interested in
older frame geometries and to that end I've been standing up a web projected
devoted to compiling a list of bike geometries. My primary interest is to
document older geometries from the 60s, 70s and 80s so that a) they aren't
forgotten and b) that we might better understand the influence of these
geometries and their relevance for today.
If you post about an older bike of yours, I warn you ahead of time that I
may e-mail you off list asking you to measure up the frame. Many of these
bikes have geometries that are entirely undocumented. IMO, we're in danger
of collectively forgetting so much.
-Dave Mann, Boston, MA
=========================
=========================
================
THE BIKE GEOMETRY PROJECT
A community effort to document and compare bike geometries
http://home.comcast.net/
=========================
=========================
================
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(>
http://www.bikelist.org/
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org <javascript:parent.ComposeTo(>
http://www.bikelist.org/
_____
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437 AOL.com.
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/