Comments on S&S Couplers



I

IanD

Guest
All,

Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier...

Thanks,

Ian in SD
 
IanD wrote:

> Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
> couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
> retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier...

I don't have them myself, but I know a couple of people who do. I've played
with the couplers and ridden the bikes. They're everything they claim to be --
terrific. The only downside is the expense.

Matt O.
 
"IanD" <[email protected]> wrote
> Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
> couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
> retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier...

"90,000 miles and still going strong"
"Virtually everything but the S&S Coupling has worn
out or broken on this bike, at one time or another."
http://www.sandsmachine.com/a_syc_r1.htm
http://www.sandsmachine.com/index.html#coment

I have never even seen a bike with S&S couplings
in the flesh.. this is just one page that stuck in my
memory that mentioned them..

hth
hippy
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (IanD) writes:

>Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
>couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
>retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier..

My wife and I have Bilenky touring bikes that have them. Each bike packs in an
airline legal suitcase. The bikes feel absolutely solid in use. It takes me
about an hour to get mine back together again, but my wife's bike only takes
about 30 minutes. Mine is larger and I have to take more off of it to get it
into the case.

How big is your bike?

Tom Gibb <[email protected]>
 
In article <[email protected]>, IanD
<[email protected]> wrote:

> All,
>
> Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
> couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
> retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian in SD

I've had S&S stainless couplers retrofitted to one of my rides. Went on
a 2+ week 2000km tour with the bike this summer and the best compliment
I can pay the couplers is that I didn't realize they were there. They
didn't loosen or noticeably affect handling.

The couplers are complication free and look sharp too! Assembling and
disassembling the bicycle is a matter of minutes (cable splitters are
recommended). In short, they're proving to be all that they've claimed
to be.

Not a necessarily a minus: The couplers ship with 'Dupont Teflon
Bearing Grease'. S&S insist that this type of lubricant be exclusively
applied to the couplers.


Cost
$500 CDN for stainless couplers and installation.
Installer
Framebuilder Jody Lee based in Welland, Ontario, Canada.
Incidentals
Budget for a localized or complete frame repaint. And IIRC, (3)
cablesplitters cost me $35. And, of course, the case...

The costs do add up. Occasionally I do see S&S coupled frames/bicycles
on ebay and other online bicycle forums.

Regards
luke
 
[email protected] (IanD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> All,
>
> Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
> couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
> retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian in SD

In 1995 I had S&S Couplers retrofitted to my 1983 Peugeot UO14 touring
bike by Bilenky in Philadelphia. After the retrofitting it felt and
performed just as it had before, perhaps handling a bit better because
it had been realligned as part of the retrofit. It had probably not
been alligned so well when it was new. In 1996 I took this bike to
England for two CTC tours and it performed beautifully. In 1997 I
rode this bike on the U.S. Transcontinental ride and again it
performed beautifully. The couplers were incidental on this trip
since I drove my van to the start in Astoria, OR, the van was used to
carry luggage for the cycling group (we took turns driving), and I
drove the van back home from Yorktown, VA at the end. The couplers
werre never unscrewed, I just preferred this bike. I took this bike
on a number of plane flights to other bike tours with no problems.

In 1998 I had Bilenky build a custom frame of unpainted Columbus
stainless steel tubing (with S&S Couplers) and I rode that bike on the
End-to-End in the British Isles in 1999 and to a couple of CTC tours
in Scotland in 2001.

Pluses:

1. Makes it much easier to take a bike along on a plane flight

2. Has no adverse effect on the way the bike rides. My good bike
retrofitted with the Couplers was still just as good as before.

Minuses:

1. Cost. Not only must you pay for the retrofitting but the bike
needs to be repainted at least in part (and it's best to have a whole
new paint job)

2. Very small weight increase. Not relevant to me.

My Peugeot did not need to have any tubes replaced and I wouldn't
think most bikes would unless built of some very light and delicate
tubing.

Retrofit worked (and works) just great for me.

Bob
 
Two issues to consider when retrofitting:

1. Couplers are available in several different diameters but only fit
round tubing. For example that fancy flower-shaped Colnago tubing will
not fly.

2. On bikes where the butted sections are very short to achieve low
weight, the couplers would need to be grafted into the thin sections
of the tubes, which is against S & S's recommendations.

Fred Roses
 
[email protected] (IanD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> All,
>
> Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
> couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
> retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian in SD

I had similar thoughts about having my Colnago Super (Columbus SL)
retrofitted. I contacted Waterford to inquire about the cost and
feasibility, and Richard Schwinn responded that he would not feel
comfortable with the installation of couplers to that frame. He said
that the stress risers created in the new joint areas would not result
in a durable product. I passed on that conversion, and later bought a
Gunnar frame through ebay for a price similar to the cost of
conversion. It rides fine.
 
IanD wrote:

> All,
>
> Looking for peeps who have retrofitted their bikes with these S&S
> couplers. Looking for pluses and minuses. I'm thinking about
> retrofitting by Colnago mexico with these to make traveling easier...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian in SD
I install them and have nothing bad to say. They're well
made, install in a straightforward manner and work just
great for frequent travelling such as a small plane owner
would require.

If your bike has standard round steel tubes it's a
reasonable choice.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
RE/
>I install them and have nothing bad to say. They're well
>made, install in a straightforward manner and work just
>great for frequent travelling such as a small plane owner
>would require.
>
>If your bike has standard round steel tubes it's a
>reasonable choice.

Also, perhaps a minor point, but my impression is that they are just as solid
when the connecting nuts are loose as they are when tight.
--
PeteCresswell
 
I have these on a cyclocross frame and they've been fine. I don't notice that they're there, except a few occasions when they've loosened on their desire. Had I torqued them as recommened, that wouldn't have happened.

Here's the problem: if you're close to a big frame (mine is 57cm, and I think of it as big in this respect), a bit of disassembly is required. Putting it together isn't an issue; getting everything into a single airline size box is. I can put everything together in about 20 minutes regardless of disassembly. If you've got two luggage bags, that'll help immensely as you can throw the handlebars in there where they virtually take no space sandwiched in clothes.

The other problem inherent in this type of design is what kind of effect will this frequent assembly/disassembly have on your components and/or frame threads. I'm not sure what typ of assmbly/disassbly lifetimes the component manufacturers have designed into them. Anyone know?

It's a huge investment in money. I spent $400 getting a $250 frameset mod'ed and don't have a clue if I could get that out of it were I to sell it. I think steel sucks for travelling for paint chip / rust reasons. I also have a custom Ti frame with the couplers and that's been so less thought consuming.

Look at Dahon's new Allegro that is based on Ritchey's designs. Less risk in frame investment and quite worth the parts if you sum them.

http://dahon.com/allegro.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>, "(Pete Cresswell)"
<[email protected]> writes:

>Also, perhaps a minor point, but my impression is that they are just as solid
>when the connecting nuts are loose as they are when tight.

How loose? It's good to keep an eye on them. The first sign (for my wife
anyway) of a loose coupling on the downtube is funky shifting.

Tom Gibb <[email protected]>
 
>>I install them and have nothing bad to say. They're well
>>made, install in a straightforward manner and work just
>>great for frequent travelling such as a small plane owner
>>would require.
>>If your bike has standard round steel tubes it's a
>>reasonable choice.

(Pete Cresswell) wrote:
> Also, perhaps a minor point, but my impression is that they are just as solid
> when the connecting nuts are loose as they are when tight.

I don't know that I'd encourage riding with the lockrings
loose, but, yes, their design is very fault-tolerant. The
actual coupler has twelve self-aligning tapered splines on
each side and locks together snugly even before the outer
compression ring is tightened. It's not at all 'fussy' such
that a non-technical rider can use them without fear.

http://tinyurl.com/553gp

We were hesitant at first but, in spite of the usual
vicissitudes of travel, we've never had a customer complaint
in six years. And we have quite a few out there, including
tandems. Even an 8-coupler tandem loses no frame integrity.

It is an odd feeling to be poised over a perfectly good race
bike in a frame plate with a hacksaw. . .

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
jasong wrote:

> It's a huge investment in money. I spent $400 getting a $250 frameset
> mod'ed and don't have a clue if I could get that out of it were I to
> sell it. I think steel sucks for travelling for paint chip / rust
> reasons. I also have a custom Ti frame with the couplers and that's
> been so less thought consuming.

Good point about Ti. However, aren't the Ti couplers more expensive still?

> Look at Dahon's new Allegro that is based on Ritchey's designs. Less
> risk in frame investment and quite worth the parts if you sum them.
>
> http://dahon.com/allegro.htm

I agree. BTW, the frame's exactly the same as the Ritchey, but with Dahon paint
and decals. The rest of the gear is cheaper but funcitonally identical -- 105
vs. Ultegra, etc. The gray color is good for travel too, probably not showing
chips and scrapes as much, plus being more low-key (a more low-key brand name,
too).

Matt O.
 
RE/
>Dahon's new Allegro that is based on Ritchey's designs. Less
>risk in frame investment and quite worth the parts if you sum them.

I've got the Ritchey system on a Curtlo hardtail. I got it on faith - Curtlo
didn't do S&S and said Ritchey was just as good.

Frankly, I get scared just *looking* at this thing. There's just this crummy
little ring and 4mm cap screw holding it all together. The butt joint under
the ring is already rusting quite a bit, the cap screw is rusting a *lot*, and
there's a PITA factor in adjusting the saddle (two bolts instead of one).

If I had known how this thing was before buying, I never, *ever* would have made
the purchase.
--
PeteCresswell
 
[email protected] (TBGibb) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "(Pete Cresswell)"
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >Also, perhaps a minor point, but my impression is that they are just as solid
> >when the connecting nuts are loose as they are when tight.
>
> How loose? It's good to keep an eye on them. The first sign (for my wife
> anyway) of a loose coupling on the downtube is funky shifting.

That's my experience as well. I've never had trouble with the
coupler on the top tube, but the one on the down tube will loosen
itself on bumps if it isn't fairly tightly torqued down to begin with.

Dennis Ferguson
 
Dennis Ferguson writes:

>>> Also, perhaps a minor point, but my impression is that they are
>>> just as solid when the connecting nuts are loose as they are when
>>> tight.

>> How loose? It's good to keep an eye on them. The first sign (for
>> my wife anyway) of a loose coupling on the downtube is funky
>> shifting.

> That's my experience as well. I've never had trouble with the
> coupler on the top tube, but the one on the down tube will loosen
> itself on bumps if it isn't fairly tightly torqued down to begin
> with.

I suspect the loosening has less to do with bumps in the road than
pedaling forces whose torsion is taken primarily by the largest
diameter tube. This would not affect the top tube nearly as strongly
as the downtube that has a larger torsional stiffness roughly by the
square of the difference in diameters. This is another of those
fretting motions that move interfaces with invisibly small motion.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Dennis Ferguson writes:

>>>> Also, perhaps a minor point, but my impression is that they are
>>>> just as solid when the connecting nuts are loose as they are when
>>>> tight.

>>> How loose? It's good to keep an eye on them. The first sign (for
>>> my wife anyway) of a loose coupling on the downtube is funky
>>> shifting.

>> That's my experience as well. I've never had trouble with the
>> coupler on the top tube, but the one on the down tube will loosen
>> itself on bumps if it isn't fairly tightly torqued down to begin
>> with.

> I suspect the loosening has less to do with bumps in the road than
> pedaling forces whose torsion is taken primarily by the largest
> diameter tube. This would not affect the top tube nearly as strongly
> as the downtube that has a larger torsional stiffness roughly by the
> square of the difference in diameters. This is another of those
> fretting motions that move interfaces with invisibly small motion.

I don't see how the S&S coupler could loosen unless it was loose to begin with.
There are tapered teeth on each piece that mesh together when the coupling ring
is tightened. If the ring is tight enough the teeth should prevent any twisting
motion that could loosen the ring.

I wonder about the Ritchey setup though, which has nothing bolstering against
this twisting of the downtube. Maybe it doesnt matter if it moves a little, as
long as the coupler is retightened occasionally.

Matt O.
 
Matt O'Toole writes:

>>>>> Also, perhaps a minor point, but my impression is that they are
>>>>> just as solid when the connecting nuts are loose as they are
>>>>> when tight.

>>>> How loose? It's good to keep an eye on them. The first sign
>>>> (for my wife anyway) of a loose coupling on the downtube is funky
>>>> shifting.

>>> That's my experience as well. I've never had trouble with the
>>> coupler on the top tube, but the one on the down tube will loosen
>>> itself on bumps if it isn't fairly tightly torqued down to begin
>>> with.

>> I suspect the loosening has less to do with bumps in the road than
>> pedaling forces whose torsion is taken primarily by the largest
>> diameter tube. This would not affect the top tube nearly as
>> strongly as the downtube that has a larger torsional stiffness
>> roughly by the square of the difference in diameters. This is
>> another of those fretting motions that move interfaces with
>> invisibly small motion.

> I don't see how the S&S coupler could loosen unless it was loose to
> begin with. There are tapered teeth on each piece that mesh
> together when the coupling ring is tightened. If the ring is tight
> enough the teeth should prevent any twisting motion that could
> loosen the ring.

As I said, these are metals and metals are elastic. Therefore, there
are fretting motions, similar to those that make pedals loosen with
right hand threads on left cranks, or Italian BB cups to unscrew.

> I wonder about the Ritchey setup though, which has nothing
> bolstering against this twisting of the downtube. Maybe it doesn't
> matter if it moves a little, as long as the coupler is re-tightened
> occasionally.

I am not familiar with that connector.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IanD
Comments regarding S&S Couplers
Replies
2
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
satanas
satanas
D
Has anybody used the shimano rp4 road shoe? (or comments on boa vs. ratchets?)
Replies
2
Views
3K
Cycling Equipment
6fhscjess
6fhscjess
G
Just bought Shimano SH-R087 Road Bike Shoes w/ PD-R540 any comments?
Replies
3
Views
4K
Cycling Equipment
grandamn
G
lgbran
Cygolite Lights:any comments
Replies
2
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
jackjones
jackjones
larrynipon
Di2 Updates, Comments, etc.
Replies
53
Views
6K
Cycling Equipment
alienator
alienator
Top Bottom Back