Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for shim anchored w/JB Weld?



D

ddog

Guest
Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for
shim anchored w/JB Weld?

This is the perfect size for 22.3 to 26mm handlebar shim conversion,
but did not know if AL rectangles would splinter up on .064 - 6061 AL
sheet metal: if 22.3mm is NOT too tight a diameter for .064 - 6061 AL
to bend around slowly anchored by JB Weld.

An easier $40 + JB Weld alternative is to get 22.3/25.4mm shims and
25.4/26mm shims and JB Weld to bar which does not sound the best, but
workable if 22.3mm is too tight a diameter for .064 - 6061 AL to bend
around slowly anchored by JB Weld.

Another alternative would be to get thinneer AL Crimped seperator
sheets and wrap with JB Weld in between, which is a widely variable and
undeterminable result due to many layers of JB Weld but still may work.
It would be harder work, constant measurement, a more exact fit, and
possible scrapped bars.

Before I go and get threadless stem converter, adjustable stem, and new
bars, I'd like to experience what is already equipped with to make
reasonable comparisons later. It may be perfect with stock oem bars and
current threaded stem, so would like to make the current handlebars fit
my aerobars firmly: for more force in new grip pressure forward of
handlebar axis - greater control and flexible ergonomic body
positioning with aerobars.

A new threadless stem converter, adjustable stem, and new bars would be
opening up a new can of worms in unknown fit variables, without
knowing if I even need that headache now.


Thank You!
 
On 26 Jan 2007 04:30:02 -0800, "ddog" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for
>shim anchored w/JB Weld?
>


Why don't you try it and come back and tell us?

If it cracks on that radius of bend, anneal it and try.
 
http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?pid=1212&step=4&showunits=inches

Got 4 cut 1-3/8" perfect 6061 AL pipes cut same exact thickness for $16
w/ shipping ($11 shipping).
Sheesh, wish I'd seen this a long time before. I will either cut with
sharp snips or hacksaw to bread pipe pieces into
2 halves each. Only needed 2 sets of shims, but for $11 shipping,
figured I'd get another set to be sure.



[email protected] wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2007 04:30:02 -0800, "ddog" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for
> >shim anchored w/JB Weld?
> >

>
> Why don't you try it and come back and tell us?
>
> If it cracks on that radius of bend, anneal it and try.
 
> Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for
> shim anchored w/JB Weld?
>
> This is the perfect size for 22.3 to 26mm handlebar shim conversion,
> but did not know if AL rectangles would splinter up on .064 - 6061 AL
> sheet metal: if 22.3mm is NOT too tight a diameter for .064 - 6061 AL
> to bend around slowly anchored by JB Weld.
>
> An easier $40 + JB Weld alternative is to get 22.3/25.4mm shims and
> 25.4/26mm shims and JB Weld to bar which does not sound the best, but
> workable if 22.3mm is too tight a diameter for .064 - 6061 AL to bend
> around slowly anchored by JB Weld.


Why would you want to risk your life on something like this? Your handlebar,
stem & fork are the items on your bike which, if they fail, can cause
serious injury or worse. Improvisation on a handlebar clamp is not a good
way to go; even the slightest distortions can lead to the clamping bolt
bending and breaking.

Still not sure exactly what you're trying to do though. Sounds like you want
to put a 22.2 cheapie steel handlebar into a stem made for 26.0. You can
pick up inexpensive handlebars at your LBS in 26.0, so why all the fuss?

> Before I go and get threadless stem converter, adjustable stem, and new
> bars, I'd like to experience what is already equipped with to make
> reasonable comparisons later. It may be perfect with stock oem bars and
> current threaded stem, so would like to make the current handlebars fit
> my aerobars firmly: for more force in new grip pressure forward of
> handlebar axis - greater control and flexible ergonomic body
> positioning with aerobars.


Now I'm really confused. Is it the aero bar that's 22.2?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



"ddog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for
> shim anchored w/JB Weld?
>
> This is the perfect size for 22.3 to 26mm handlebar shim conversion,
> but did not know if AL rectangles would splinter up on .064 - 6061 AL
> sheet metal: if 22.3mm is NOT too tight a diameter for .064 - 6061 AL
> to bend around slowly anchored by JB Weld.
>
> An easier $40 + JB Weld alternative is to get 22.3/25.4mm shims and
> 25.4/26mm shims and JB Weld to bar which does not sound the best, but
> workable if 22.3mm is too tight a diameter for .064 - 6061 AL to bend
> around slowly anchored by JB Weld.
>
> Another alternative would be to get thinneer AL Crimped seperator
> sheets and wrap with JB Weld in between, which is a widely variable and
> undeterminable result due to many layers of JB Weld but still may work.
> It would be harder work, constant measurement, a more exact fit, and
> possible scrapped bars.
>
> Before I go and get threadless stem converter, adjustable stem, and new
> bars, I'd like to experience what is already equipped with to make
> reasonable comparisons later. It may be perfect with stock oem bars and
> current threaded stem, so would like to make the current handlebars fit
> my aerobars firmly: for more force in new grip pressure forward of
> handlebar axis - greater control and flexible ergonomic body
> positioning with aerobars.
>
> A new threadless stem converter, adjustable stem, and new bars would be
> opening up a new can of worms in unknown fit variables, without
> knowing if I even need that headache now.
>
>
> Thank You!
>
 
On Jan 26, 11:18 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now I'm really confused. Is it the aero bar that's 22.2?
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Mike,

My 1971 Raleigh has stock 40cm outside width 22.3cm dia AL bars.
My Profile Century bars has 26/31.8 plastic conversion shims going to
JB Weld in it.

So with low bar shims jb welded to low bars in above post link, I will
effectly have no shims.
 
ddog wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 11:18 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Now I'm really confused. Is it the aero bar that's 22.2?


> My 1971 Raleigh has stock 40cm outside width 22.3cm dia AL bars.
> My Profile Century bars has 26/31.8 plastic conversion shims going to
> JB Weld in it.


You're trying to shim 35 year old aluminum bars to fit in modern
equipment? It's probably time for new handlebars anyway. Aluminum
handlebars do wear out, and the failure mode can be ugly.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
 
[email protected] writes:

>On 26 Jan 2007 04:30:02 -0800, "ddog" <[email protected]> wrote:


>>Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for
>>shim anchored w/JB Weld?
>>


I actually don't think an AL sheet metal handlebar shim is a problem,
since many bars come with shims built-in anyway, and some get loose
but are still usable, but i wouldn't use JB weld in the interface.
You want a uniform thickness so that the clamp pressure is evenly
spread across the bar/stem interface, and once you use JB weld you
will have high spots and low spots, resulting in less friction. I
trust a roughed-up friction interface much more than I trust JB weld.

I were shimming a handlebar I'd get a nail or a rasp file and a hammer
and roughen up the shim all over to ensure a good "grip" on the
handlebar clamping area. Then I'd tighten the bars until they are
just barely movable under extreme force. If I couldn't get them
there, then I'd bag the shim idea and buy handlebars of the correct
size.

Based on some old 1970's magazine or book i once read, I tighten both
my bars and stem so that under very high forces either can be moved.
During a crash, this lets the bars "give" (so your thigh bones doesn't
have to, for example). I have ridden for days with bars not quite
perfectly tight, where the result of hard pedaling and pulling was for
the bars to "tilt" slightly. That's not harmful as long as you fix it
soon before you've stripped the grooves from your bars.

I have at times had the gall to ride no-handed and 'whack' the bars on
one side to get them aligned straight ahead ( too lazy to stop the
bike, clamp front wheel with legs, and straighten the bars myself -
don't try this at home, folks ... )

Anyway, the point being, it pays to know how tight a handlebar pinch
bolt should need be clamped - and no tighter! - and it pays to know
how easy it should be to move the bars at this tightness, and it also
pays to know how tight to tighten a stem, so as not to overdo it (as
this can damage a steerer tube on a 1" threaded steering column.)

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
 
dvt <[email protected]> writes:

>You're trying to shim 35 year old aluminum bars to fit in modern
>equipment? It's probably time for new handlebars anyway. Aluminum
>handlebars do wear out, and the failure mode can be ugly.


On the contrary, you can either use those 35 year old aluminum bars
every day for the next four decades, or you can upgrade to "modern"
bars which must be replaced every 2 years under all circumstances...
There is a world of difference and reliability between 350 gram 1970's
bars and today's stupid-light 210 gram handlebars.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
 
Thanks Dave!

I'll take note of that. But just want to see where I'm at now.
The current handlebar setup is known and comfortable and I just want to
isolate the aerobar variables first.

But if I can make confirmed relationships of aerobar angles, it will
reduce the combination effects
of a completely new stem/bar arrangement that may reduce response
variables investigated by up to 10 fold.
The JB welded shims on bars will reenforce the bars at a structural
suspect postions, on either side of the stem.

I will be going to Campy rear derailleur soon, and am considering going
ergo while I'm at it.
Either way, when new brake levers go on, whether same stem or
threadless conversion, new bars will be there.
First things first, but I'll keep an eye on bar deflection now that you
pointed it out.

Thanks for the Safety Heads up!


On Jan 26, 3:42 pm, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:
> ddog wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 11:18 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Now I'm really confused. Is it the aero bar that's 22.2?

> > My 1971 Raleigh has stock 40cm outside width 22.3cm dia AL bars.
> > My Profile Century bars has 26/31.8 plastic conversion shims going to
> > JB Weld in it.You're trying to shim 35 year old aluminum bars to fit in modern

> equipment? It's probably time for new handlebars anyway. Aluminum
> handlebars do wear out, and the failure mode can be ugly.
>
> --
> Dave
> dvt at psu dot edu
 
> On the contrary, you can either use those 35 year old aluminum bars
> every day for the next four decades, or you can upgrade to "modern"
> bars which must be replaced every 2 years under all circumstances...
> There is a world of difference and reliability between 350 gram 1970's
> bars and today's stupid-light 210 gram handlebars.



I've got one word for you.

Belleri.

If you think older bars are so much stronger than modern ones, trust me, I
have yet to see a modern bar, as commonly used as the Belleri, that was
anywhere near as likely to fail. There were others as well. Bar failure back
in the day was more common, not less, than it is today. The difference is
that it was nearly always on less-expensive bikes; no issue with higher-end
equipment that I can recall.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > On the contrary, you can either use those 35 year old aluminum bars
> > every day for the next four decades, or you can upgrade to "modern"
> > bars which must be replaced every 2 years under all circumstances...
> > There is a world of difference and reliability between 350 gram 1970's
> > bars and today's stupid-light 210 gram handlebars.

>
>
> I've got one word for you.
>
> Belleri.
>
> If you think older bars are so much stronger than modern ones, trust me,

I
> have yet to see a modern bar, as commonly used as the Belleri, that was
> anywhere near as likely to fail. There were others as well. Bar failure

back
> in the day was more common, not less, than it is today. The difference

is
> that it was nearly always on less-expensive bikes; no issue with

higher-end
> equipment that I can recall.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>


No 3: Belleri, Pivo & AVA.

Some of them didn't fail right off, they just started to sag down on both
sides of the stem.

Chas.
 
>> If you think older bars are so much stronger than modern ones, trust me,
> I
>> have yet to see a modern bar, as commonly used as the Belleri, that was
>> anywhere near as likely to fail. There were others as well. Bar failure

> back
>> in the day was more common, not less, than it is today. The difference

> is
>> that it was nearly always on less-expensive bikes; no issue with

> higher-end
>> equipment that I can recall.
>>

>
> No 3: Belleri, Pivo & AVA.
>
> Some of them didn't fail right off, they just started to sag down on both
> sides of the stem.
>
> Chas.


Doh!!! You're right, those things were sad indeed.Pivo & AVA were both, if I
recall correctly, French. Was Belleri Italian? And wasn't there some English
bar that was pretty bad too?

Don't you love it when people think everything old was great and everything
new is terrible?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> If you think older bars are so much stronger than modern ones, trust

me,
> > I
> >> have yet to see a modern bar, as commonly used as the Belleri, that

was
> >> anywhere near as likely to fail. There were others as well. Bar

failure
> > back
> >> in the day was more common, not less, than it is today. The

difference
> > is
> >> that it was nearly always on less-expensive bikes; no issue with

> > higher-end
> >> equipment that I can recall.
> >>

> >
> > No 3: Belleri, Pivo & AVA.
> >
> > Some of them didn't fail right off, they just started to sag down on

both
> > sides of the stem.
> >
> > Chas.

>
> Doh!!! You're right, those things were sad indeed.Pivo & AVA were both,

if I
> recall correctly, French. Was Belleri Italian? And wasn't there some

English
> bar that was pretty bad too?
>
> Don't you love it when people think everything old was great and

everything
> new is terrible?
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>


Belleri was French. I have a Belleri stem from my 1971 Gitane Super Corsa.
It broke clean off just above the split for the cone. Luckily I was going
slow so I was able to stop the bike while holding the bars in my hands.

I replaced the cheap Pivo stem that came on the bike with the Belleri
which had a recessed socket head stem bolt. They were both cheap aluminum
castings.

That's when I bought my first Cinelli stem.

Chas.
 
"Donald Gillies" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>
> >On 26 Jan 2007 04:30:02 -0800, "ddog" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>Can bend .064 - 6061 AL sheet metal piece around 22.3mm handlebar for
> >>shim anchored w/JB Weld?
> >>

>
> I actually don't think an AL sheet metal handlebar shim is a problem,
> since many bars come with shims built-in anyway, and some get loose
> but are still usable, but i wouldn't use JB weld in the interface.
> You want a uniform thickness so that the clamp pressure is evenly
> spread across the bar/stem interface, and once you use JB weld you
> will have high spots and low spots, resulting in less friction. I
> trust a roughed-up friction interface much more than I trust JB weld.
>
> I were shimming a handlebar I'd get a nail or a rasp file and a hammer
> and roughen up the shim all over to ensure a good "grip" on the
> handlebar clamping area. Then I'd tighten the bars until they are
> just barely movable under extreme force. If I couldn't get them
> there, then I'd bag the shim idea and buy handlebars of the correct
> size.
>
> Based on some old 1970's magazine or book i once read, I tighten both
> my bars and stem so that under very high forces either can be moved.
> During a crash, this lets the bars "give" (so your thigh bones doesn't
> have to, for example). I have ridden for days with bars not quite
> perfectly tight, where the result of hard pedaling and pulling was for
> the bars to "tilt" slightly. That's not harmful as long as you fix it
> soon before you've stripped the grooves from your bars.
>
> I have at times had the gall to ride no-handed and 'whack' the bars on
> one side to get them aligned straight ahead ( too lazy to stop the
> bike, clamp front wheel with legs, and straighten the bars myself -
> don't try this at home, folks ... )
>
> Anyway, the point being, it pays to know how tight a handlebar pinch
> bolt should need be clamped - and no tighter! - and it pays to know
> how easy it should be to move the bars at this tightness, and it also
> pays to know how tight to tighten a stem, so as not to overdo it (as
> this can damage a steerer tube on a 1" threaded steering column.)
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA


Years ago when good stems and HBs were hard to get, I broke a few 3TTT and
Cinelli pinch bolts trying to tighten them enough to fit undersize bars.
There were no guidelines at least not in English. It was trial and error.

I never felt comfortable with a shim. Once I was road testing a customer's
bike with a shimmed bar. When I hit the brakes hard, the bar slipped down
and almost threw me over the HBs.

Let's not mention "don't try this at home folks" behaviors, especially in
this thread. Been there, done that. ;-)

Chas.
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:

>If you think older bars are so much stronger than modern ones, trust me, I
>have yet to see a modern bar, as commonly used as the Belleri, that was
>anywhere near as likely to fail. There were others as well. Bar failure back
>in the day was more common, not less, than it is today. The difference is
>that it was nearly always on less-expensive bikes; no issue with higher-end
>equipment that I can recall.


Ok, now you're scaring me as I have 2 TREKs with belleri bars (1984
trek 510, and 1985 trek 500 .. still looking for a 1986 trek 490
.... oh never mind ...)

any particular failure mode ?? do the engravings go "just a little
too deep" on these bars ??

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA, USA
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:

>Don't you love it when people think everything old was great and everything
>new is terrible?


Mike don't get me started. You're the guy who sold me my TREK 2300
whose frameset lasted less than 4k miles. I suppose now that a 1998
TREK 2300 is "something old that was great" because now it has failed?

I _do_ think that a 350 gram set of vintage bars is practically
indestructable, as long as the maker didn't do something stupid. I
don't have a single set of bars newer than 22 years old, on my vintage
stable of bicycles ...

I do have a set of GB map-of-britain bars that are starting to sag on
both sides. If these were carbon bars, I'd have already had 3
surgeries to reconstruct my face ...

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
 
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:
>> If you think older bars are so much stronger than modern ones, trust me, I
>> have yet to see a modern bar, as commonly used as the Belleri, that was
>> anywhere near as likely to fail. There were others as well. Bar failure back
>> in the day was more common, not less, than it is today. The difference is
>> that it was nearly always on less-expensive bikes; no issue with higher-end
>> equipment that I can recall.


Donald Gillies wrote:
> Ok, now you're scaring me as I have 2 TREKs with belleri bars (1984
> trek 510, and 1985 trek 500 .. still looking for a 1986 trek 490
> ... oh never mind ...)
> any particular failure mode ?? do the engravings go "just a little
> too deep" on these bars ??


Some French bars had an internal sleeve which, after failure, may be
seen off to one side, not under the stem

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
"Donald Gillies" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >If you think older bars are so much stronger than modern ones, trust

me, I
> >have yet to see a modern bar, as commonly used as the Belleri, that was
> >anywhere near as likely to fail. There were others as well. Bar failure

back
> >in the day was more common, not less, than it is today. The difference

is
> >that it was nearly always on less-expensive bikes; no issue with

higher-end
> >equipment that I can recall.

>
> Ok, now you're scaring me as I have 2 TREKs with belleri bars (1984
> trek 510, and 1985 trek 500 .. still looking for a 1986 trek 490
> ... oh never mind ...)
>
> any particular failure mode ?? do the engravings go "just a little
> too deep" on these bars ??
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA, USA


I can't remember of seeing any problems with Belleri bars as they weren't
very common. The stems, at least the ones up through the mid 70s were cast
aluminum (versus forged) and they're what I've seen fail at the bottom of
the quill.

I remember seeing quite a few droopy GB bars along with the French made
Pivo bars and the generic 36-38cm alloy bars of the bike boom era.

The bars I've seen that cracked or broke did so at the start of the bulge
or at the joint between the sleeve and the bar on sleeved models.

I used to talk customers into changing out droopy bars for cosmetic
reasons. ;-)

Chas.
 
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:08:03 -0800, Donald Gillies wrote:

> dvt <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>You're trying to shim 35 year old aluminum bars to fit in modern
>>equipment? It's probably time for new handlebars anyway. Aluminum
>>handlebars do wear out, and the failure mode can be ugly.

>
> On the contrary, you can either use those 35 year old aluminum bars
> every day for the next four decades, or you can upgrade to "modern"
> bars which must be replaced every 2 years under all circumstances...
> There is a world of difference and reliability between 350 gram 1970's
> bars and today's stupid-light 210 gram handlebars.


This is true, but if those old bars are aluminum and have tens of
thousands of miles on them, you're probably better off with the new ones.

Matt O.
 
>>Don't you love it when people think everything old was great and
>>everything
>>new is terrible?

>
> Mike don't get me started. You're the guy who sold me my TREK 2300
> whose frameset lasted less than 4k miles. I suppose now that a 1998
> TREK 2300 is "something old that was great" because now it has failed?


And 35 years ago *I* could have sold you a Mercier that might have failed
you after only 1000 miles... and guess what, it was made of hefty steel
tubing, brazed by hand. The world's a terrible place where things sometimes
fail that shouldn't. A small sample size of something produced in very large
qty doesn't demonstrate either bad design or even prove poor quality. It
only shows that something was defective. It shouldn't have been, but it was.
And it most certainly doesn't indicate that a 1998 TREK 2300 is less durable
than something built years before. It indicates that your particular bike
was, yes.

> I _do_ think that a 350 gram set of vintage bars is practically
> indestructable, as long as the maker didn't do something stupid. I
> don't have a single set of bars newer than 22 years old, on my vintage
> stable of bicycles ...


You are wrong. Harsh words, I know, and I usually wouldn't say something
quite so abrupt. But you are wrong. There were a few bars that were very
tough, very durable. And there were many more that were ABSOLUTE JUNK. Stock
handlebars on old Gitanes, Peugeots, Merciers (hmm, is there a pattern
here?) and Dawes were dreadfully bad and prone to bending and/or failure.
And those were not light bars. Just junky bars. Poor-quality alloys, badly
formed. After what I saw both at the shops I worked and my racing, I made it
a point to ride only Cinelli or 3TTT bars.

> I do have a set of GB map-of-britain bars that are starting to sag on
> both sides. If these were carbon bars, I'd have already had 3
> surgeries to reconstruct my face ...


And you suggest that because? I have yet to see a carbon bar fail that
wasn't involved first in a crash. But then, we're talking about a sample
size distortion here as well, because the only ones I see are those that
come into our store. Could be issues out there that occur that I don't know
about, on product I don't sell.

The fact that you are still riding a GB bar that's sagging is quite scary.
In all seriousness I would replace them before you can claim that you're
only ahead 2 surgeries to your face instead of 3.

(For what it's worth, I've never had a bar fail. Only stems. Several stems.
Stem failures aren't a fun thing either.)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA