99 Schwinn Peloton 650B candidate?



G

gooserider

Guest
I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
me.

Mike
 
L

Luke

Guest
In article <U%[email protected]>, gooserider
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
> bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
> B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
> I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
> difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
> are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
> has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
> rack, but what can I do for fenders?


Faced with a similar situation here's what I did. Using an inexpensive
Planet Bike full fender kit, I modified the front fender stainless
stays, fashioning the loops (meant for fastening by bolt to the
eyelets) into a hook which then was clipped just above the fork dropout
- no hardware required for mounting and the setup was quite secure. The
mounting hole within the front fender's tab intended for fastening to
the fork crown required enlargement with a rat tail file to accommodate
the brake caliper's recessed Allen mounting nut.

As for the rear fender, a dollar or two worth of all purpose clamps
mounted on the seatstays will serve as pseudo eyelets. On the right
seatstay, position the clamp so that it doesn't interfere with the
chain. If the frame lacks a chainstay bridge (near the bottom bracket),
you can either dispense with fastening the fender at this point, and
possibly trimming it so that it fits tightly between the chainstays
directly aft of the BB shell; or, tie the fender down using a cord (or
twist tie) routed through the bracket and underneath the chainstays.

This is one of those tasks requiring jiggling, bending, and filing;
but, if done properly, works just as well as on a bike with the
requisite fittings.

Luke
 
N

Nate Knutson

Guest
gooserider wrote:
> I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
> bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
> B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
> I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
> difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
> are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
> has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
> rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
> to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
> Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
> run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
> worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
> me.
>
> Mike


As was mentioned, you can eventually get fenders working on it fine by
going nuts with p-clamps, taking diagonal cutters to the fenders to get
it fitting right everywhere, getting it secured crudely with zip ties
in various places, etc. You can actually do this without going to 650B
by using/making special fender-splitting brackets to get around the
brakes
(http://www.rivercitybicycles.com/product_info.php?cPath=130&products_id=613),
but you still wouldn't be able to run larger than a 28 tire probably.

I haven't ridden a 650B conversion and don't really know what can be
expected as far as how the bike's handling will change. The steering
trail on 650B conversions is reduced, which is generally the opposite
of what one wants to get out of the deal, and that bugs me although I
don't know how big of a deal it is in practice.

Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.
 
gooserider wrote:
> I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
> bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
> B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
> I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
> difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
> are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
> has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
> rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
> to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
> Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
> run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
> worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
> me.
>
> Mike


I agree with the others in saying P-clips and such can easily and
securely mount a rack and fenders to a bike without eyelets. I used
four P-clips to mount a rack onto a bike for brevets. I used P-clips
to mount fenders onto my touring bike. It does not have a chainstay
bridge so I used #12 electrical wire, hot, between the chainstays where
the bridge should be. Works just fine. And it all looks OK too.

Now, if you are really just asking for encouragement to get a new bike
and build it up. Then do it. Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
price.
 
L

landotter

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
> gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
> frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
> driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
> price.


The Surlys are mostly double butted 4130 double butted cromoly, hardly
"gas pipe". I would agree if someone ventured to comment that they're
overpriced--a simple powder coated steel frame brazed up in Taiwan
shouldn't cost more than $200-250.

I'd also consider a Soma Smoothie ES:

http://store.somafab.com/somasmoothiees.html

Fully butted Reynolds for about $375, and somewhere in the style
between an Audax bike and a Touring ride. Accepts 32mm tires with
fenders, and uses long reach brakes.
 
N

Nate Knutson

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> gooserider wrote:
> > I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
> > bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
> > B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
> > I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
> > difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
> > are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
> > has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
> > rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
> > to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
> > Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
> > run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
> > worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
> > me.
> >
> > Mike

>
> I agree with the others in saying P-clips and such can easily and
> securely mount a rack and fenders to a bike without eyelets. I used
> four P-clips to mount a rack onto a bike for brevets. I used P-clips
> to mount fenders onto my touring bike. It does not have a chainstay
> bridge so I used #12 electrical wire, hot, between the chainstays where
> the bridge should be. Works just fine. And it all looks OK too.


Flimsy little vinyl-coated P-clamps for lower rack eyelets? Even on a
lightly loaded rack, I'd be sketched about that...

> Now, if you are really just asking for encouragement to get a new bike
> and build it up. Then do it. Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
> only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
> loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
> gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
> frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
> driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
> price.


I don't know what gas pipe is made of, but if it's butted cromo then
I'd happily ride it in my frame. Surly's markup is high for Taiwanese
butted cromo frames, and most of that is indeed because Q wants to make
money, but cromo frames cost more to produce than al and Surly doesn't
sell a huge volume of them, which makes the frames cost them more and
forces them to sell each higher to cover their costs. The other thing
is that, other than the instigator, they all come as framesets with
nice-quality forks that retail for $80-$100 anyway, although that'd be
more like $60-80 for comparable non-Surly-branded forks. Few of the
other cheap frames out there come with forks. And then there's the fact
that all the Surly frames are marked by the fact that they have stuff
going for them that's pretty unique, which is the real reason why they
manage to get so many people to pay the high markup.
 
C

Chalo

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
> only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
> loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
> gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
> frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
> driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
> price.


Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
they are equally well-made.

I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.

Chalo Colina
 
L

Luke

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Nate Knutson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
> bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
> geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
> do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.


All versatile frames. Peripheral to the topic, I don't understand why
Surly spec'ed the Long Haul with vertical dropouts. Double eyeleted
horizontal dropouts, a la the Crosscheck, would've added the option of
SS/FG conversion to the LHT's list of attributes without conferring any
liabilities or extra cost.

Luke
 
Chalo wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
> > only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
> > loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
> > gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
> > frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
> > driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
> > price.

>
> Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
> materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
> dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
> they are equally well-made.


But why make it out of poor materials? I looked at the Surly website.
The 58 cm c-t Pacer road frame is TIG welded and lists a weight of 4.75
pounds. My Waterford 1200 lugged steel frame, 58 cm c-t, is 4 pounds.
Why did Surly use extra, extra heavy gauge pipe for the frame? TIG
welded frames should be much lighter than lugged frames due to the
weight of the lugs. I figure there is 1 pound of extra steel in the
Surly pacer tubing. Why? Is this one of those desirable features you
mention?

The fork for the Pacer is listed at a bit over 2 pounds. My Reynolds
531 fork is 1.5 pounds. The Pacer fork does have 1.125" steerer
compared to 1" on mine. But still that is a lot of extra steel in the
Pacer fork. Why use such heavy gauge pipe for a fork?

I understand this desirable features thing. But when QBP puts these
desirable features on a frame made out of heavy gauge pipe, doesn't
that defeat the purpose? QBP is selling the options and accessories on
the Surly frames, not a quality frame. And the people who buy them are
paying for options and accessories, not a quality frame. Do you buy a
car based on the options only? If it has air conditioning and
automatic, and moonroof, and V8 engine, its a great car? Never mind
its a Pinto or Citation or Gremlin or Pacer. I know these cars did not
have many or any of these options.

I'd prefer to buy a plainer but high quality frame and forego the
options and accessories on a Surly, given the same price point.
Ideally I'd get a quality frame with the options too.

>
> I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
> 23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
> has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
> lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.
>
> Chalo Colina


I have a 58 cm c-t Nashbar aluminum road frame. 57.5 cm top tube.
73.5 head, 72.5 seat. Pretty close to perfect geometry. It carried me
successfully through 400 km one day. And shorter rides too. No
eyelets, but 4 P-clips mounted a rear rack to the frame easily and
securely for brevets. With the bike I own, and have ridden thousands
of miles, I do not find any obvious design faults or other issues.
 
G

gooserider

Guest
"Luke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200120061757598187%[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nate Knutson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
>> bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
>> geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
>> do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.

>
> All versatile frames. Peripheral to the topic, I don't understand why
> Surly spec'ed the Long Haul with vertical dropouts. Double eyeleted
> horizontal dropouts, a la the Crosscheck, would've added the option of
> SS/FG conversion to the LHT's list of attributes without conferring any
> liabilities or extra cost.
>
> Luke


Especially since the bike is designed to be fendered. I think changing a
rear tire on a fendered, fully loaded LHT would be much easier with
Cross-Check dropouts. Any bike designed for fenders should have front-entry
horizontal dropouts, if it has horizontal dropouts. Seems like a no-brainer.
I don't understand the obsession with rear-entry dropout "track ends".
 
C

Chalo

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
> > > gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
> > > frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
> > > driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
> > > price.

> >
> > Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
> > materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
> > dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
> > they are equally well-made.

>
> But why make it out of poor materials? I looked at the Surly website.
> The 58 cm c-t Pacer road frame is TIG welded and lists a weight of 4.75
> pounds. My Waterford 1200 lugged steel frame, 58 cm c-t, is 4 pounds.
> Why did Surly use extra, extra heavy gauge pipe for the frame? TIG
> welded frames should be much lighter than lugged frames due to the
> weight of the lugs. I figure there is 1 pound of extra steel in the
> Surly pacer tubing. Why? Is this one of those desirable features you
> mention?


If the desire is for a stiff, rugged frame rather than a light, limber
frame, then that implies a different choice of tubing diameters and
gauges. You don't know whether the properties of Surly's alloy aren't
actually superior to that of your Waterford, now do you? I haven't
bent my 1x1 frame yet, so I really can't say how strong it is except,
"probably strong enough". For me, that's better than average. I bent
the fork while fooling around doing nose wheelies, but that's par for
the course for the OEM forks I've had.

Dave Bohm spared no expense to make my bike's custom frame from the
best available butted tubing that would do the job. It weighs 7.25
lbs., but that is not a reflection on its build quality or materials.
It fits me better and rides better than my 5.4 lb. Surly frame, but I
guess since it's heavier it must be made of lesser materials. Right?

Note that Nashbar's cheap steel MTB frame weighs 1.2 lbs. more than the
superficially similar Surly 1x1 frame in an equivalent size. Both are
made from butted 4130 CrMo steel; I'd guess that the Nashbar one is
built heavier to make it easier to miter and weld quickly. The Surly's
weight savings come a lot cheaper than your Waterford's, but the
Nashbar frame is probably the stiffest, strongest, and most durable of
the three-- and only $130 for a 6.2lb. frame and 3.1 lb. fork.

> The fork for the Pacer is listed at a bit over 2 pounds. My Reynolds
> 531 fork is 1.5 pounds. The Pacer fork does have 1.125" steerer
> compared to 1" on mine. But still that is a lot of extra steel in the
> Pacer fork. Why use such heavy gauge pipe for a fork?


Maybe because it's stiffer and that feels right for the application;
maybe because it cuts down on JRA-type failures. Maybe because it's
cheaper to make that way. And maybe, just maybe, because the material
is weak enough that it must be that heavy to do its job. But I
wouldn't bet on the latter option. 4130 chromoly tubing and Reynolds
531 have almost identical tensile strength-- both about 120,000 psi
ultimate.

> I understand this desirable features thing. But when QBP puts these
> desirable features on a frame made out of heavy gauge pipe, doesn't
> that defeat the purpose?


No, it doesn't. No matter how strong the material might be, the
stiffness of a frame (and thus its resistance to twisting and flexing)
is directly related to how much material is in it. If you want to make
a steel bike of a given size stiffer, you can use one of two
approaches: make the tubes thicker-walled, or make the tubes larger in
diameter. Larger diameter means the tubes will be much easier to dent
or buckle, and much more expensive. But the only downside to making
the tubes thicker is that they get heavier, roughly in proportion to
how much stiffer they get.

The market that includes folks who want single speed MTBs-- and fixies
that can take fat tires, and 'cross bikes that can take _really_ fat
tires, etc.-- is not one that generally would trade durability for an
insignificant decrease in frame weight. Nor is it, I'd guess, a market
of folks who think a flexible frame is a sign of quality construction.


For an official Surly view on frame weight, see this rant:
http://www.surlybikes.com/spew1.html

> QBP is selling the options and accessories on
> the Surly frames, not a quality frame. And the people who buy them are
> paying for options and accessories, not a quality frame.


I think you underestimate the degree to which features (though not
necessarily _useful features) drive the price of most frames. And I
think you grossly overestimate the degree to which frame weight is an
indication of material quality.

Chalo Colina
 
G

gooserider

Guest
"gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Luke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:200120061757598187%[email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Nate Knutson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
>>> bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
>>> geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
>>> do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.

>>
>> All versatile frames. Peripheral to the topic, I don't understand why
>> Surly spec'ed the Long Haul with vertical dropouts. Double eyeleted
>> horizontal dropouts, a la the Crosscheck, would've added the option of
>> SS/FG conversion to the LHT's list of attributes without conferring any
>> liabilities or extra cost.
>>
>> Luke

>
> Especially since the bike is designed to be fendered. I think changing a
> rear tire on a fendered, fully loaded LHT would be much easier with
> Cross-Check dropouts. Any bike designed for fenders should have
> front-entry horizontal dropouts, if it has horizontal dropouts. Seems like
> a no-brainer. I don't understand the obsession with rear-entry dropout
> "track ends".

Err, please disregard. The LHT has vertical dropouts. It's the Karate Monkey
that has "track ends" and eyelets. My mistake.

>
 
N

Nate Knutson

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> But why make it out of poor materials? I looked at the Surly website.
> The 58 cm c-t Pacer road frame is TIG welded and lists a weight of 4.75
> pounds. My Waterford 1200 lugged steel frame, 58 cm c-t, is 4 pounds.
> Why did Surly use extra, extra heavy gauge pipe for the frame? TIG
> welded frames should be much lighter than lugged frames due to the
> weight of the lugs. I figure there is 1 pound of extra steel in the
> Surly pacer tubing. Why? Is this one of those desirable features you
> mention?


Is that a reasonable comparison given that the Waterford is made out of
much higher end tubes and has a much higher end price? Again, it's true
that Surly's are expensive for what they are in a lot of ways, but they
pretty much weigh what butted cromo frames with an eye towards
versatility, hard use, and lifespan weigh.
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
> [email protected] wrote:
>>Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
>>only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
>>loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
>>gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
>>frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
>>driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
>>price.


Chalo wrote:
> Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
> materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
> dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
> they are equally well-made.
> I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
> 23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
> has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
> lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.


I'm sorry, could you explain? I'm not an expert on offroad
geometry. I just looked at Bianchi's Oetzi offroad geometry
where the seat tube is 21" and the very sloped top tube is
effectively 24 inches ( imaginary horizontal top tube).

Are you saying that 23x23 is too short a top tube?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
C

Chalo

Guest
A Muzi wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote
> >
> > I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
> > 23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
> > has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
> > lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.

>
> I'm sorry, could you explain? I'm not an expert on offroad
> geometry. I just looked at Bianchi's Oetzi offroad geometry
> where the seat tube is 21" and the very sloped top tube is
> effectively 24 inches ( imaginary horizontal top tube).
>
> Are you saying that 23x23 is too short a top tube?


That's right. 23x23 would be good for a road bike, but it way too
short in the top tube for any MTB ordinarily proportioned rider who
needs a 23" frame. Consider that their 15" frame-- 8 inches shorter in
the seat tube-- has a top tube just 1.75 inches shorter.

Chalo Colina