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

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>>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 ??

They would fail where the "reinforcement" sleeve ended, if I recall
correctly. Not an issue with engravings (nor, for that matter, have I seen a
bar fail due to someone using a razor blade to trim the tape and
unintentionally scoring the bar, but I take it on faith that it's not
worthwhile tempting fate).

If those bars have a bunch of miles, yes, I would replace them. In fact, I'd
suggest replacing any bar with over 25k miles, although I have to admit I've
gone considerably further than that myself. There's nothing magical about
that number, by the way, I've just pulled it out of a hat and base it only
partially on experience with bars we've seen fail at the shop. But obviously
your mileage may vary; a light person who doesn't climb or sprint much (and
doesn't crash) is going to stress a bar far less than someone like me.

> - Don Gillies

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

 

[A Muzi]

Don Gillies:
>>> 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?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> 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.

Don Gillies:
>> 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 ...

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> 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.

Don Gillies:
>> 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 ...

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> 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.)

I'm with Mike. I do a LOT of frame repair here and USA Trek frames, even
yes 400 series, have a very low failure rate*. My first race bike was a
beloved Mercier #300 but Mike's right - they were slapped together ( as
Gitane, Jeunet, Cazenave, Urago, etc etc) and DO have a lot of errors.
Not to mention flat-out cheating as when 'Reynolds' seamless tubes open
on a seam. (Mfr: "Oh, did we put a Reynolds label on that frame?").

And the classic French bars and stems have injured more riders than you
want to know = bars snapped off 'JRA', stems too and not only when set
too high.

*If you have a pre-1985 Trek USA-built _fork_, I'd look closely at the
top of the blades around the crown for cracks right now. (Not every fork
of course but much higher than Tange-built and the stakes are bigger)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[* * Chas]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>

> And the classic French bars and stems have injured more riders than you
> want to know = bars snapped off 'JRA', stems too and not only when set
> too high.

<snip>
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org

Not all of the French made bars and stems were junk... just most of them.
Phillipe for example, I never saw a problem with their forged stems. I
have a set of Milremo internal reinforced bars that I've used since the
mid 70s without any problem. They are retired to a stationary bike now.

There were a lot of French bikes brought in to the US during the bike
boom. Good metric stems were almost impossible to find. I have several
metric Cinelli stems but they were super rare. When Belleri came out with
their socket head screw stems, they looked like a solution for French
bikes. I had one break on me while riding. Also, the socket head on the
expander bolts were brazed on. I had the top come off on one that I was
installing.

It's amazing more people weren't injured from these bars and stems. CPSC
did nothing to address these problems either (but we were protected from
dangerous Campy components). ;-)

Chas.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I'm with Mike. I do a LOT of frame repair here and USA Trek frames, even
> yes 400 series, have a very low failure rate*. My first race bike was a
> beloved Mercier #300 but Mike's right - they were slapped together ( as
> Gitane, Jeunet, Cazenave, Urago, etc etc) and DO have a lot of errors. Not
> to mention flat-out cheating as when 'Reynolds' seamless tubes open on a
> seam. (Mfr: "Oh, did we put a Reynolds label on that frame?").

The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was famous/infamous with
shops for having a cheapie fork column... what was the name of the cheapie
tubing of the day? Don't think it was Durifort, but something else. And,
funny thing, those fork columns would bend if you just pointed your bike in
the general direction of a pothole. Of course, the frame and fork both
carried Reynolds 531 stickers, and, if you repainted your frame and checked
the bare tubes, you generally found they were, in fact, Reynolds 531. So the
question became, just how little money was saved by using an el-cheapo fork
column???

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

 

[* * Chas]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > I'm with Mike. I do a LOT of frame repair here and USA Trek frames,
even
> > yes 400 series, have a very low failure rate*. My first race bike was
a
> > beloved Mercier #300 but Mike's right - they were slapped together (
as
> > Gitane, Jeunet, Cazenave, Urago, etc etc) and DO have a lot of errors.
Not
> > to mention flat-out cheating as when 'Reynolds' seamless tubes open on
a
> > seam. (Mfr: "Oh, did we put a Reynolds label on that frame?").
>
> The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was famous/infamous
with
> shops for having a cheapie fork column... what was the name of the
cheapie
> tubing of the day? Don't think it was Durifort, but something else. And,
> funny thing, those fork columns would bend if you just pointed your bike
in
> the general direction of a pothole. Of course, the frame and fork both
> carried Reynolds 531 stickers, and, if you repainted your frame and
checked
> the bare tubes, you generally found they were, in fact, Reynolds 531. So
the
> question became, just how little money was saved by using an el-cheapo
fork
> column???
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>

A Gitane Super Corsa was my first pro bike.

It wasn't just Gitane, quite a few other name brand bikes of the era used
a piece of straight gage pipe with a 2"-3" long internal sleeve at the
bottom where it went into the crown. How much could a taper gage steering
tube cost? The French were noted for being cheap but I saw that on British
and Italian bikes too.

The forks on the old Peugeot UO-8 and PR-10 bikes weren't even made of
tubing. They were rolled up sheet metal that had a brazed seam down the
back side. I found that out the first time I tried to straighten out a
bent Peugeot fork. The braze broke and the fork blade split like a banana
peel.

During the US bike boom craze, the European bike makers were cranking out
bikes as fast as they could shove them out the door but that was no excuse
for shoddy design and workmanship.

Chas.

 

[peter]

* * Chas wrote:

> 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.
>
Brings back memories. We also had a Belleri stem on our Gitane
(Tandem Sport model), and it failed in the same place. Fortunately
the bolt kept everything together, but it felt like I was driving a
car with bad power steering where you have to turn the wheel quite a
ways before it starts to affect the direction. Not a secure feeling
when riding a tandem in city traffic.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:40:30 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

Anecdote: I had a Kestrel carbon bar which cracked above the hood
when I hit a deep pothole at about 28 mph while riding in a paceline
(meaning the rider in front of me didn't point, and I rode right into
and over the hole, with no time to make any defensive moves). The
incident also resulted in double pinch flats and a trashed rear rim.

Kestrel said "it couldn't happen" but would not warrant the bar since
I bought it on e-bay (albeit "new-in-box"). I did send the evidence
to Kestrel in the box that my new Easton carbon bar came in, so that
Kestrel's engineers could marvel at this miracle of technological
impossibility.

Note: the incident did nothing to sway my faith in carbon bars. I
chalked it up to a freaky and unlikely to be duplicated confluence of
events.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was
> famous/infamous with shops for having a cheapie fork column... what
> was the name of the cheapie tubing of the day? Don't think it was
> Durifort, but something else. And, funny thing, those fork columns
> would bend if you just pointed your bike in the general direction of
> a pothole. Of course, the frame and fork both carried Reynolds 531
> stickers, and, if you repainted your frame and checked the bare
> tubes, you generally found they were, in fact, Reynolds 531. So the
> question became, just how little money was saved by using an
> el-cheapo fork column???

Suppose they saved the equivalent of $1.00 per bike. Multiply that by,
say, a half million bikes. It adds up.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:40:30 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >(For what it's worth, I've never had a bar fail. Only stems. Several
> >stems. Stem failures aren't a fun thing either.)
>
> Anecdote: I had a Kestrel carbon bar which cracked above the hood
> when I hit a deep pothole at about 28 mph while riding in a paceline
> (meaning the rider in front of me didn't point, and I rode right into
> and over the hole, with no time to make any defensive moves). The
> incident also resulted in double pinch flats and a trashed rear rim.
>
> Kestrel said "it couldn't happen" but would not warrant the bar since
> I bought it on e-bay (albeit "new-in-box"). I did send the evidence
> to Kestrel in the box that my new Easton carbon bar came in, so that
> Kestrel's engineers could marvel at this miracle of technological
> impossibility.
>
> Note: the incident did nothing to sway my faith in carbon bars. I
> chalked it up to a freaky and unlikely to be duplicated confluence of
> events.

Hitting a pothole at speed is an unlikely confluence of events? Wow.
Where do you live that the roads are in such good repair? Around here
you could have such an incident several times per ride.

 

[Bill Westphal]

Mike Jacoubowsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm with Mike. I do a LOT of frame repair here and USA Trek frames, even
>> yes 400 series, have a very low failure rate*. My first race bike was a
>> beloved Mercier #300 but Mike's right - they were slapped together ( as
>> Gitane, Jeunet, Cazenave, Urago, etc etc) and DO have a lot of errors. Not
>> to mention flat-out cheating as when 'Reynolds' seamless tubes open on a
>> seam. (Mfr: "Oh, did we put a Reynolds label on that frame?").
>
> The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was famous/infamous with
> shops for having a cheapie fork column... what was the name of the cheapie
> tubing of the day? Don't think it was Durifort, but something else. And,
> funny thing, those fork columns would bend if you just pointed your bike in
> the general direction of a pothole. Of course, the frame and fork both
> carried Reynolds 531 stickers, and, if you repainted your frame and checked
> the bare tubes, you generally found they were, in fact, Reynolds 531. So the
> question became, just how little money was saved by using an el-cheapo fork
> column???
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>

Gitane Tour de France is my favorite rain bike. Maybe I'm a heathen,
but I like it's handling in the mtns almost as much as my Calfee
Dragonfly, i.e. a lot. I got the frame/fork a few years back for $25,
tossed the fork, got all new components. The "fork column" is part of
the fork, I take it? What, the steerer? Pls tell me it's not part of
the frame.

Sheldon Brown in his French bike article(s) seems to differeniate the
Tour de France and one other, I think, from a lot of trashy
mass-produced French stuff from the era. How would you compare the
Tour de France to modern frames? At least I can fit 28c tires on it
for a lot of the connecting dirt roads around here. I think of it as
my cross bike, till I get the real thing.

Bill Westphal

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Jan 28, 11:55 am, "Bill Westphal" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sheldon Brown in his French bike article(s) seems to differeniate the
> Tour de France and one other, I think, from a lot of trashy
> mass-produced French stuff from the era. How would you compare the
> Tour de France to modern frames? At least I can fit 28c tires on it
> for a lot of the connecting dirt roads around here. I think of it as
> my cross bike, till I get the real thing.

I would assume the other bike would be the Peugeot PX-10. Full 531,
very steep geometry (~74/74 on my 56cm), and I've fit 30mm tires
without fenders, 28mm with.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:40:30 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >(For what it's worth, I've never had a bar fail. Only stems. Several
> > >stems. Stem failures aren't a fun thing either.)
> >
> > Anecdote: I had a Kestrel carbon bar which cracked above the hood
> > when I hit a deep pothole at about 28 mph while riding in a paceline
> > (meaning the rider in front of me didn't point, and I rode right into
> > and over the hole, with no time to make any defensive moves). The
> > incident also resulted in double pinch flats and a trashed rear rim.
> >
> > Kestrel said "it couldn't happen" but would not warrant the bar since
> > I bought it on e-bay (albeit "new-in-box"). I did send the evidence
> > to Kestrel in the box that my new Easton carbon bar came in, so that
> > Kestrel's engineers could marvel at this miracle of technological
> > impossibility.
> >
> > Note: the incident did nothing to sway my faith in carbon bars. I
> > chalked it up to a freaky and unlikely to be duplicated confluence of
> > events.
>
> Hitting a pothole at speed is an unlikely confluence of events? Wow.
> Where do you live that the roads are in such good repair? Around here
> you could have such an incident several times per ride.

A pothole big enough to flatten two tires and wreck a rim? How many
spare rims do you carry on your rides?

I dunno about the warranty implications, but that sounds like a pretty
unusual pothole.

I have done the pinch-flat-and-kill-rim thing once, but it was when I
unsuccessfully bunny-hopped a foot-high hard-edged, immovable obstacle
on my mountain bike at speed. The rear wheel went into the edge at
pretty much full speed and momentum, but I didn't fall down. The
handlebar sustained no damage.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[A Muzi]

I ([email protected])wrote:
>> I'm with Mike. I do a LOT of frame repair here and USA Trek frames, even
>> yes 400 series, have a very low failure rate*. My first race bike was a
>> beloved Mercier #300 but Mike's right - they were slapped together ( as
>> Gitane, Jeunet, Cazenave, Urago, etc etc) and DO have a lot of errors. Not
>> to mention flat-out cheating as when 'Reynolds' seamless tubes open on a
>> seam. (Mfr: "Oh, did we put a Reynolds label on that frame?").

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was famous/infamous with
> shops for having a cheapie fork column... what was the name of the cheapie
> tubing of the day? Don't think it was Durifort, but something else. And,
> funny thing, those fork columns would bend if you just pointed your bike in
> the general direction of a pothole. Of course, the frame and fork both
> carried Reynolds 531 stickers, and, if you repainted your frame and checked
> the bare tubes, you generally found they were, in fact, Reynolds 531. So the
> question became, just how little money was saved by using an el-cheapo fork
> column???

Durifort seamless tubes include Rubis brand seamless columns.

I was thinking of the wrapped and welded columns. And the split-open
welded main tubes.

For that matter, wrapped/seamed brake bridges that split, seat lug ears
which crushed, stamped casing stops which bent/folded/snapped, etc etc.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Westphal" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I'm with Mike. I do a LOT of frame repair here and USA Trek frames, even
> >> yes 400 series, have a very low failure rate*. My first race bike was a
> >> beloved Mercier #300 but Mike's right - they were slapped together ( as
> >> Gitane, Jeunet, Cazenave, Urago, etc etc) and DO have a lot of errors. Not
> >> to mention flat-out cheating as when 'Reynolds' seamless tubes open on a
> >> seam. (Mfr: "Oh, did we put a Reynolds label on that frame?").
> >
> > The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was famous/infamous with
> > shops for having a cheapie fork column... what was the name of the cheapie
> > tubing of the day? Don't think it was Durifort, but something else. And,
> > funny thing, those fork columns would bend if you just pointed your bike in
> > the general direction of a pothole. Of course, the frame and fork both
> > carried Reynolds 531 stickers, and, if you repainted your frame and checked
> > the bare tubes, you generally found they were, in fact, Reynolds 531. So
> > the
> > question became, just how little money was saved by using an el-cheapo fork
> > column???
> >
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >
> >
>
> Gitane Tour de France is my favorite rain bike. Maybe I'm a heathen,
> but I like it's handling in the mtns almost as much as my Calfee
> Dragonfly, i.e. a lot. I got the frame/fork a few years back for $25,
> tossed the fork, got all new components. The "fork column" is part of
> the fork, I take it? What, the steerer? Pls tell me it's not part of
> the frame.
>
> Sheldon Brown in his French bike article(s) seems to differeniate the
> Tour de France and one other, I think, from a lot of trashy
> mass-produced French stuff from the era. How would you compare the
> Tour de France to modern frames? At least I can fit 28c tires on it
> for a lot of the connecting dirt roads around here. I think of it as
> my cross bike, till I get the real thing.

Frames that don't break are good frames.

In terms of comparison to modern stuff, well, your frame is going to be
"good enough." There are many modern frames (in many materials) that
either weigh less, are more durable, or both. But don't let that stop
you. the differences are not great.

It also must be said that a Gitane Tour de France was pretty much the
nicest frame Gitane made at the time, and must qualify as one of the top
production frames of the era. In other words, that's as good as it got.

As good as it got, if my crude web research amounts to anything, was
that a Peugeot PX-10 frame (checked because I was more sure of finding
the numbers) weighed about 4 pounds, 4 ounces. That's about 1900 grams.
Let's make a fair guess that your Gitane is close to that weight.

Nashbar sells an aluminum road frame that weighs 4.1 pounds in a 54 cm
size. List is $150, though it's cheaper at the moment. That frame, by
modern standards, is oddly heavy: Nashbar sells a cyclocross frame for
$50 more that weighs notably less.

Surly sells a 4130 welded steel road frame (Pacer) that weighs even more
(2020 g quoted weight), but again, not a pricey frame, and Surly makes a
point of selling solidly built steel frames.

Andrew Muzi has frequently cited current nice steel frames as being
built to about 3.5 pounds.

High-end racing frames are routinely quoted at 1300g or less; virtually
every racy bike maker is now touting a top model with a sub-1000g weight
(virtually all in carbon fibre, with a few Ti and Al or multi-material
frames). Scott, Cervelo, Cannondale, et cetera. Litespeed says its
Ghisallo model weighs 770g in a size medium (though that bike also seems
to be unusually flexible).

So compared to high end frames of today, the Gitane probably weighs
nearly twice as much, and maybe three times as much as the bleeding
edge. Compared to the best steel frames of today, it weighs about
200-400g more.

I shouldn't speculate, but my guess is that a modern carbon frame
weighing about half what the Gitane does would usually be stiffer and
stronger than the Tour de France.

So yes, the old stuff isn't bad, but the new stuff is better.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Anecdote: I had a Kestrel carbon bar which cracked above the
> > > hood when I hit a deep pothole at about 28 mph while riding in a
> > > paceline (meaning the rider in front of me didn't point, and I
> > > rode right into and over the hole, with no time to make any
> > > defensive moves). The incident also resulted in double pinch
> > > flats and a trashed rear rim.

<snip>

> > > Note: the incident did nothing to sway my faith in carbon bars. I
> > > chalked it up to a freaky and unlikely to be duplicated
> > > confluence of events.
> >
> > Hitting a pothole at speed is an unlikely confluence of events?
> > Wow. Where do you live that the roads are in such good repair?
> > Around here you could have such an incident several times per ride.
>
> A pothole big enough to flatten two tires and wreck a rim? How many
> spare rims do you carry on your rides?

Less than one. But there are plenty of potholes big enough to do that
kind of damage. But we tend to have a pretty good freeze-thaw cycle in
these parts, so we get lots of potholes. All it takes is a moment's
inattention or riding in a paceline with less-than-helpful riders to
whack one.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was famous/infamous
>> with shops for having a cheapie fork column... what was the name of the
>> cheapie tubing of the day? Don't think it was Durifort, but something
>> else. And, funny thing, those fork columns would bend if you just pointed
>> your bike in the general direction of a pothole. Of course, the frame and
>> fork both carried Reynolds 531 stickers, and, if you repainted your frame
>> and checked the bare tubes, you generally found they were, in fact,
>> Reynolds 531. So the question became, just how little money was saved by
>> using an el-cheapo fork column???
>
> Durifort seamless tubes include Rubis brand seamless columns.
>
> I was thinking of the wrapped and welded columns. And the split-open
> welded main tubes.
>
> For that matter, wrapped/seamed brake bridges that split, seat lug ears
> which crushed, stamped casing stops which bent/folded/snapped, etc etc.
> --
> Andrew Muzi

And don't forget non-mitered tubes coming into the bottom bracket, some of
which didn't protrude very far into the lug at all, others that seriously
interefered with being able to use a bottom bracket sleeve (those plastic
thingees that kept the contents of the rusting tubes from falling into your
bearings).

I'll never forget my amazement at tearing apart a Cal Clipper, the very
first Japanese bike that came into our shop. Oh my gosh, the tubes all
seemed to end a precise distance just a bit away from the inside of the
shell. As if someone had actually designed it that way. What a concept!

Oh heck, why stop there. How about those horrifyingly-bad steel chainrings
with teeth going every which way, such that you had to have someone really
experienced with either a home-made tool or the... what was it called,
lejeuse?... equivalent to try and bend them into the same plane so the chain
wouldn't come off and get jammed between them. And then they came out with
the plastic thingee in-between that was supposed to keep that from
happening.

What it comes down, in my book, is this. The really good stuff back then? It
was really good, and can still be appreciated today. Today's good stuff is
functionally better in most cases, due to improved designs etc., but the
really good stuff of old was still... good. But the moderate stuff? Today's
moderate (and even cheap) stuff blows it away.

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

 

[* * Chas]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I ([email protected])wrote:
> >> I'm with Mike. I do a LOT of frame repair here and USA Trek frames,
even
> >> yes 400 series, have a very low failure rate*. My first race bike was
a
> >> beloved Mercier #300 but Mike's right - they were slapped together
( as
> >> Gitane, Jeunet, Cazenave, Urago, etc etc) and DO have a lot of
errors. Not
> >> to mention flat-out cheating as when 'Reynolds' seamless tubes open
on a
> >> seam. (Mfr: "Oh, did we put a Reynolds label on that frame?").
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > The Gitane "Tour de France" (my first racing bike) was famous/infamous
with
> > shops for having a cheapie fork column... what was the name of the
cheapie
> > tubing of the day? Don't think it was Durifort, but something else.
And,
> > funny thing, those fork columns would bend if you just pointed your
bike in
> > the general direction of a pothole. Of course, the frame and fork both
> > carried Reynolds 531 stickers, and, if you repainted your frame and
checked
> > the bare tubes, you generally found they were, in fact, Reynolds 531.
So the
> > question became, just how little money was saved by using an el-cheapo
fork
> > column???
>
> Durifort seamless tubes include Rubis brand seamless columns.
>
> I was thinking of the wrapped and welded columns. And the split-open
> welded main tubes.
>
> For that matter, wrapped/seamed brake bridges that split, seat lug ears
> which crushed, stamped casing stops which bent/folded/snapped, etc etc.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org

Andy,

Durifort was actually seamed tubing that was rolled and drawn over a
mandrel which corrected for the weakness in seamed tubing. It was a low
alloy steel which made it less sensitive to overheating during brazing.
The wall thickness of Durifort tubing was the same as Columbus SP: 1.0mm x
..7mm butting in the main tubes.

Rubis was also called 888, it was .8mm straight gage Durifort.

My all time favorite bike had a 1975 Andre Bertin C34 amateur racing frame
made of Durifort. I put more miles on that than any other bike I've owned.
I sold it because it was a little too small for me.

I forgot about the seamed tubing steering tubes.

Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Westphal" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Gitane Tour de France is my favorite rain bike. Maybe I'm a heathen,
> > but I like it's handling in the mtns almost as much as my Calfee
> > Dragonfly, i.e. a lot. I got the frame/fork a few years back for $25,
> > tossed the fork, got all new components. The "fork column" is part of
> > the fork, I take it? What, the steerer? Pls tell me it's not part of
> > the frame.
> >
> > Sheldon Brown in his French bike article(s) seems to differeniate the
> > Tour de France and one other, I think, from a lot of trashy
> > mass-produced French stuff from the era. How would you compare the
> > Tour de France to modern frames? At least I can fit 28c tires on it
> > for a lot of the connecting dirt roads around here. I think of it as
> > my cross bike, till I get the real thing.
>
> Frames that don't break are good frames.
>
> In terms of comparison to modern stuff, well, your frame is going to be
> "good enough." There are many modern frames (in many materials) that
> either weigh less, are more durable, or both. But don't let that stop
> you. the differences are not great.
>
> It also must be said that a Gitane Tour de France was pretty much the
> nicest frame Gitane made at the time, and must qualify as one of the top
> production frames of the era. In other words, that's as good as it got.
>
> As good as it got, if my crude web research amounts to anything, was
> that a Peugeot PX-10 frame (checked because I was more sure of finding
> the numbers) weighed about 4 pounds, 4 ounces. That's about 1900 grams.
> Let's make a fair guess that your Gitane is close to that weight.
>
> Nashbar sells an aluminum road frame that weighs 4.1 pounds in a 54 cm
> size. List is $150, though it's cheaper at the moment. That frame, by
> modern standards, is oddly heavy: Nashbar sells a cyclocross frame for
> $50 more that weighs notably less.
>
> Surly sells a 4130 welded steel road frame (Pacer) that weighs even more
> (2020 g quoted weight), but again, not a pricey frame, and Surly makes a
> point of selling solidly built steel frames.
>
> Andrew Muzi has frequently cited current nice steel frames as being
> built to about 3.5 pounds.
>
> High-end racing frames are routinely quoted at 1300g or less; virtually
> every racy bike maker is now touting a top model with a sub-1000g weight
> (virtually all in carbon fibre, with a few Ti and Al or multi-material
> frames). Scott, Cervelo, Cannondale, et cetera. Litespeed says its
> Ghisallo model weighs 770g in a size medium (though that bike also seems
> to be unusually flexible).
>
> So compared to high end frames of today, the Gitane probably weighs
> nearly twice as much, and maybe three times as much as the bleeding
> edge. Compared to the best steel frames of today, it weighs about
> 200-400g more.
>
> I shouldn't speculate, but my guess is that a modern carbon frame
> weighing about half what the Gitane does would usually be stiffer and
> stronger than the Tour de France.
>
> So yes, the old stuff isn't bad, but the new stuff is better.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/

The Super Corsa was the top of the line Gitane in the early 70s. They had
Campy dropouts and came full Campy except for Mafac brakes. Campy brakes
were optional for $100 extra.

The Tour de France was the same frame but with Simplex dropouts. They came
with Simplex Criterium derailleurs, Mafac brakes, Stronglight 93 or Sugino
Mighty Comp cranks and either Normandy Luxe Competition HF hubs or Campy
Nuovo Tipo HF hubs, cheap tubulars and cheap rims. They had a straight
tube steel or aluminum seatpost and an ass hatchet plastic seat like all
of the cheaper Gitane models.

Both were nice riding bikes built to the classic road racing geometry of
the 1960s and early 70s. You could ride them all day long and still feel
comfortable (with a good replacement seat of the TdF bikes).

I never liked the way PX-10s handled, The early 70s bikes had too much
fork rake for the head tube angles and felt like pushing a wheel barrow.
The later models seemed more like squirrelly handling criterium frames.

I'm not sure where you got your specs on frame weights but production pro
model lugged steel road bike frames from the 1970s weighed in between 5 to
6 1/2 Lbs.

There were a few under 5 Lb. road frames but they weren't very common. The
average pro bike with sewups weighed between 21 and 22 1/2 Lbs.

Chas.

Chas.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 28, 8:07 pm, "* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Westphal" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > Gitane Tour de France is my favorite rain bike. Maybe I'm a heathen,
> > > but I like it's handling in the mtns almost as much as my Calfee
> > > Dragonfly, i.e. a lot. I got the frame/fork a few years back for $25,
> > > tossed the fork, got all new components. The "fork column" is part of
> > > the fork, I take it? What, the steerer? Pls tell me it's not part of
> > > the frame.
>
> > > Sheldon Brown in his French bike article(s) seems to differeniate the
> > > Tour de France and one other, I think, from a lot of trashy
> > > mass-produced French stuff from the era. How would you compare the
> > > Tour de France to modern frames? At least I can fit 28c tires on it
> > > for a lot of the connecting dirt roads around here. I think of it as
> > > my cross bike, till I get the real thing.
>
> > Frames that don't break are good frames.
>
> > In terms of comparison to modern stuff, well, your frame is going to be
> > "good enough." There are many modern frames (in many materials) that
> > either weigh less, are more durable, or both. But don't let that stop
> > you. the differences are not great.
>
> > It also must be said that a Gitane Tour de France was pretty much the
> > nicest frame Gitane made at the time, and must qualify as one of the top
> > production frames of the era. In other words, that's as good as it got.
>
> > As good as it got, if my crude web research amounts to anything, was
> > that a Peugeot PX-10 frame (checked because I was more sure of finding
> > the numbers) weighed about 4 pounds, 4 ounces. That's about 1900 grams.
> > Let's make a fair guess that your Gitane is close to that weight.
>
> > Nashbar sells an aluminum road frame that weighs 4.1 pounds in a 54 cm
> > size. List is $150, though it's cheaper at the moment. That frame, by
> > modern standards, is oddly heavy: Nashbar sells a cyclocross frame for
> > $50 more that weighs notably less.
>
> > Surly sells a 4130 welded steel road frame (Pacer) that weighs even more
> > (2020 g quoted weight), but again, not a pricey frame, and Surly makes a
> > point of selling solidly built steel frames.
>
> > Andrew Muzi has frequently cited current nice steel frames as being
> > built to about 3.5 pounds.
>
> > High-end racing frames are routinely quoted at 1300g or less; virtually
> > every racy bike maker is now touting a top model with a sub-1000g weight
> > (virtually all in carbon fibre, with a few Ti and Al or multi-material
> > frames). Scott, Cervelo, Cannondale, et cetera. Litespeed says its
> > Ghisallo model weighs 770g in a size medium (though that bike also seems
> > to be unusually flexible).
>
> > So compared to high end frames of today, the Gitane probably weighs
> > nearly twice as much, and maybe three times as much as the bleeding
> > edge. Compared to the best steel frames of today, it weighs about
> > 200-400g more.
>
> > I shouldn't speculate, but my guess is that a modern carbon frame
> > weighing about half what the Gitane does would usually be stiffer and
> > stronger than the Tour de France.
>
> > So yes, the old stuff isn't bad, but the new stuff is better.
>
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau [email protected]://www.wiredcola.com/The Super Corsa was the top of the line Gitane in the early 70s. They had
> Campy dropouts and came full Campy except for Mafac brakes. Campy brakes
> were optional for $100 extra.
>
> The Tour de France was the same frame but with Simplex dropouts. They came
> with Simplex Criterium derailleurs, Mafac brakes, Stronglight 93 or Sugino
> Mighty Comp cranks and either Normandy Luxe Competition HF hubs or Campy
> Nuovo Tipo HF hubs, cheap tubulars and cheap rims. They had a straight
> tube steel or aluminum seatpost and an ass hatchet plastic seat like all
> of the cheaper Gitane models.
>
> Both were nice riding bikes built to the classic road racing geometry of
> the 1960s and early 70s. You could ride them all day long and still feel
> comfortable (with a good replacement seat of the TdF bikes).
>
> I never liked the way PX-10s handled, The early 70s bikes had too much
> fork rake for the head tube angles and felt like pushing a wheel barrow.
> The later models seemed more like squirrelly handling criterium frames.
>
> I'm not sure where you got your specs on frame weights but production pro
> model lugged steel road bike frames from the 1970s weighed in between 5 to
> 6 1/2 Lbs.

I think Ryan was speaking of frame sans fork. As a reality check, I
just weighed a ca. 1975 Motobecane Grand Jubile frame, 57cm ST, c-to-
c. 531 butted main tubes and "run-of production" stays. It's 4lbs
12oz, and there were surely somewhat lighter frames of that size at
that time.

I assume you are including the fork in the figures you give(?). If so,
that 5 pounder must be a real small frame made of 531C or something
similar.
>
> There were a few under 5 Lb. road frames but they weren't very common. The
> average pro bike with sewups weighed between 21 and 22 1/2 Lbs.
>
> Chas.
>
> Chas.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:40:30 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:


Of course old stuff is always better. This is RBT. Who are you,
Lance Armstrong?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************