Re: [CR] Crank and Stem Lengths

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing:Falck)

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:53:18 -0800
From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
To: CR Mailing List <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, George Allen <jgallen@lexairinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B44C4C5.40100@lexairinc.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Crank and Stem Lengths


I have a 1969/70 Pro which is 21" and it has 172.5 as well. Maybe they were trying to use a single crank size for all frame sizes just as some French makers used the same toptube length for a wide range of frame sizes. Not sure what they saved by this though. Surely Raleigh was already getting the largest possible volume discount from Campagnolo and didn't have to order only a single length to get a better price. I suppose there would be some savings on parts inventory, as you could stock a bit fewer if they were all the same length. And the assembling process would be simplified by not needing to assure the crank length was matched to the frame size, and the risk of installing the wrong crank size eliminated. But these are the kind of efficiencies pursued in modern highly automated manufacturing operations, which doesn't apply to Raleigh in the early 70's. I don't know what company actually deserves credit for poineering mode Quality Assurance and Just In Time Inventory, but I doubt seriously it was Raleigh.

Regards,

Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA


--- On Wed, 1/6/10, George Allen wrote:


> From: George Allen <jgallen@lexairinc.com>
> Subject: Re: [CR] Crank and Stem Lengths
> To: "CR Mailing List" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 11:13 AM
> Just about every Raleigh
> International or Pro I've seen from the early 1970's 22-1/2
> inches and up came with 172.5 cranks. I'm not sure about the
> smaller models. I have no idea why except it was Raleigh.
>
> George Allen
> Lexington, Ky
> USA
>
>
> On 1/6/2010 4:00 AM, verktyg wrote:
> > Lane,
> >
> > To answer your 1st question, I've seen metric quill
> (22.0mm) Cinelli 1a, 3TTT Record and later 3TT Record Mod. 1
> stems in at least 120mm length.
> >
> > We sold Gitanes in the 70s and had one of Lucien van
> Impe's Gitane Team bikes that he rode in the 1976 Tour de
> France on display at our shop.
> >
> > I was disappointed when the bike arrived because it
> looked like a beat up, off the shelf all Campy bike!
> >
> > There's a website devoted to Gitanes:
> <GitaneUSA.com>
> >
> > I'm not familiar with a Gitane "Professional" model
> from 1975.
> >
> > What kind of dropouts does it have? Are both the forks
> and rear triangle 1/2 chrome plated? What kind of tubing?
> >
> > Most of the mid range to better quality Gitanes from
> mid 1974 until about 1977 used Huret "honeycomb" rear
> dropouts.
> >
> > Gitane Pacific took over US distribution in mid 1974.
> They focused on the fast fading entry level Bike Boom
> market, consequently there weren't many better quality
> Gitanes imported after 1974.
> >
> > In the mid 70s there were several top model Gitanes
> that were only offered in their French catalog. A few of
> these probably made it to the US.
> >
> > They were the all Campy Super Olympic model, the Campy
> equipped Olympic model with Mafac brakes and the Champion Du
> Monde model with mostly French components including
> Stronglight cranks. All 3 models had Cinelli bars and
> stems.
> >
> > These frames were all Reynolds 531 with 1/2 chrome
> plated forks and stays. Most had the Huret honeycomb rear
> dropouts but I've seen a few from those years with Campy
> dropouts too.
> >
> > From mid 1974 until 1976 the Gitane Tour de France
> frames had only the 3 main tubes made of Reynolds 531 tubing
> and the rear stays were painted. They had mostly French
> components with Campy Nuovo Tipo high flange hubs and 27"
> clinchers (Michelin Elan tires om Mavic Module-E rims).
> >
> > There's a picture of Jay Dubiel's 1976 Tour de France
> with Stronglight 93 cranks and Huret Success derailleurs in
> the CR Gitane section:
> >
> > *http://www.classicrendezvous.com/France/bicycles/Gitane/Gitane_tdf_JD.htm*
>
> >
> >
> > Almost all production bikes that I saw in the 70s used
> 170mm cranks (except for Sugino 171mm crank arms).
> >
> > Stronglight 93 cranks were made in lengths from 165m
> to 180mm. From time to time 175mm model 93 crank arms show
> up on eBay. The more recent model 105 crank arms were more
> readily available in longer lengths. I had a set of 180s but
> traded them for 170s.
> >
> > I just finished assembling a 1974 Gitane Tour de
> France. I used Huret Challenger derailleurs instead of the
> more common Simplex Criterium derailleurs most of those
> bikes came with.
> >
> > Chas. Colerich
> > Oakland, CA USA
> >
> >
> > Lane Wilkinson wrote:
> >> I am in the process of restoring a '75 Gitane
> Professional and looking for among other things a crank set
> in 175 cm and a stem in a 120 or 130.  My first
> question is who made a French sized stem in a 120 or
> 130?  I have never seen lengths longer than 105 from
> Pivo, Atax, of Philippe.  Did Cinelli make stems in a
> 22.0 French size in longer lengths?
> >> Second, almost every vintage crank I see is a 170
> length.  Even my 63cm Motobecane Grand Record, 63cm
> Bottechia Professional, and 63cm Peugeot PKN were specced
> with 170 cranks.  Having worked in the cycling industry
> I know it is easier to spec the same parts on all sizes of a
> bike model.  Was this the case with most on topic bikes
> or was there less emphasis on sizing crank and stem
> length?   I know different manufacturers and
> even different countries had different notions of how bikes
> should fit and these notions have changed over time, but how
> much effort was put into choosing specific components based
> on the frame size?
> >> So anyone have a Stronglight 93 in a 175cm or a
> long reach French stem (110-130)?  Also looking for
> Front and Rear Huret Success deraileurs.
> >>
> >> The colective knowledge and experiences of this
> list never cease to amazes me, thanks for great reading!
> >> Lane Wilkinson
> >> Seattle, WA
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
>
>
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.