Custom build

[Brendo]

I remeasured last night. Last time I posted I said I had a 93cm
inseam, it's actually 97cm, and I'm 195cm tall. I've been looking
at various 'frame guides' and most of them recommend 63-65cm c-c
frames. It seems I may need to go custom. (Or rather I just think
I'd like to)

Two part question.

1)Anybody had a road frome built in or around Perth?

2) Would sending measurements to a builder on the dark side of
the continent, as opposed to actually being at the workshop, give
just as good a result.

I'm still looking at spending around $2k, inclusive of fork and
getting all the bits transfered from the 60cm frame I have
(mostly Ultegra/105 bits).

Cheers

Brendo

 

[Gags]

"Brendo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I remeasured last night. Last time I posted I said I had a 93cm inseam,
>it's actually 97cm, and I'm 195cm tall. I've been looking at various 'frame
>guides' and most of them recommend 63-65cm c-c frames. It seems I may need
>to go custom. (Or rather I just think I'd like to)
>
> Two part question.
>
> 1)Anybody had a road frome built in or around Perth?
>
> 2) Would sending measurements to a builder on the dark side of the
> continent, as opposed to actually being at the workshop, give just as good
> a result.
>
> I'm still looking at spending around $2k, inclusive of fork and getting
> all the bits transfered from the 60cm frame I have (mostly Ultegra/105
> bits).
>
> Cheers
>
> Brendo

Brendo,

Might not be much good to you as I am in Melbourne but I am going to be
selling my Cecil Walker roadie soon......it's an 853 Reynolds frame that I
think is about 63cm or so (I am also 195cm). The frame is about 7 years old
but I had it resprayed about 18 months ago and it looks really schmick. It
currently has a 9spd Chorus groupset on it but it is pretty worn and
although it works fine, it could do with replacing. Let me know if you
might be interested and I will go out and measure all the relevant
dimensions for you (I need to do this anyway to put it on ebay)....here is a
picture of it - unlike the photo the bike is now clean:

http://img64.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imgp1267tl4.jpg

Let me know if you would like some more info.

Gags

 

[SomeGuy]

You may need to up your budget a bit if you are looking at custom. I wouldn't hesitate to look at builders interstate though. I went to Warwick of Thylacine Cycles for my custom steel hardtail frame, and while it is nice to be able to chat face to face many of his customers are not just interstate but overseas. He's about you're height, so he'll understand the trouble you're having finding a stock frame too.

My frame hasn't arrived yet so I can't comment on it but I've been very happy with him through the building process. The feedback on MTBR is positive too: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=220368 .

 

[Nick Payne]

"Brendo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I remeasured last night. Last time I posted I said I had a 93cm inseam,
>it's actually 97cm, and I'm 195cm tall. I've been looking at various 'frame
>guides' and most of them recommend 63-65cm c-c frames. It seems I may need
>to go custom. (Or rather I just think I'd like to)
>
> Two part question.
>
> 1)Anybody had a road frome built in or around Perth?
>
> 2) Would sending measurements to a builder on the dark side of the
> continent, as opposed to actually being at the workshop, give just as good
> a result.
>
> I'm still looking at spending around $2k, inclusive of fork and getting
> all the bits transfered from the 60cm frame I have (mostly Ultegra/105
> bits).

Rivendell (www.rivbike.com) have off the shelf frames in sizes up to 68cm.
But they're decidedly not "racing" frames, if that's what you're after. And
the shipping to Australia can be a bit expensive.

Nick

 

[rooman]

You may need to up your budget a bit if you are looking at custom. I wouldn't hesitate to look at builders interstate though. I went to Warwick of Thylacine Cycles for my custom steel hardtail frame, and while it is nice to be able to chat face to face many of his customers are not just interstate but overseas. He's about you're height, so he'll understand the trouble you're having finding a stock frame too.

My frame hasn't arrived yet so I can't comment on it but I've been very happy with him through the building process. The feedback on MTBR is positive too: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=220368 .

customs start at around $900-$1000.... add a good carbon fork and you should be well under $1500 ..... not all bike shop made bikes are customs...., many are still stock dimensions, like the Cecil Walker mentioned , even though it was was most likely a Paconi built frame, ,... biggest variable in your cost will be your tubeset...and whether you see an advantage having super light ( exy) or moving up the scale to not so light...(not so exy)

More importanly, if your fit was done by someone who actually is a bike fit specialist then you have a good head start to getting a custom and actually having it close to right for you...if it was done by some one who even looked crosseyed at a piece of string,.....start again...I'd even try and get a low cost flt , take a break and fly east or get the boss to fund you on a junket trip to the dark side and fly to Syd or Melb and see either Steve Hogg in Sydney at Pedal Pushers in Randwick or John Kennedy at Cyclefit in Black Rock Melbourne.... Hogg uses Baum and Teschner mainly so they will be on the exy side...but Kennedy uses Wigan at Paconi to build to his spec ( not Walkers specs- which are quite different)... or at least call them and discuss..both do no obligation over the phone and could direct you....you could even get your flt, the frame and fork for under 2K if you pick the right tubeset...

 

[Brendo]

rooman wrote:
> SomeGuy Wrote:
>
>>You may need to up your budget a bit if you are looking at custom. I
>>wouldn't hesitate to look at builders interstate though. I went to
>>Warwick of Thylacine Cycles for my custom steel hardtail frame, and
>>while it is nice to be able to chat face to face many of his customers
>>are not just interstate but overseas. He's about you're height, so
>>he'll understand the trouble you're having finding a stock frame too.
>>
>>My frame hasn't arrived yet so I can't comment on it but I've been very
>>happy with him through the building process. The feedback on MTBR is
>>positive too: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=220368 .customs start at around $900-$1000.... add a good carbon fork and you
>
> should be well under $1500 ..... not all bike shop made bikes are
> customs...., many are still stock dimensions, like the Cecil Walker
> mentioned , even though it was was most likely a Paconi built frame,
> ,... biggest variable in your cost will be your tubeset...and whether
> you see an advantage having super light ( exy) or moving up the scale
> to not so light...(not so exy)
>
> More importanly, if your fit was done by someone who actually is a bike
> fit specialist then you have a good head start to getting a custom and
> actually having it close to right for you...if it was done by some one
> who even looked crosseyed at a piece of string,.....start again...I'd
> even try and get a low cost flt , take a break and fly east or get the
> boss to fund you on a junket trip to the dark side and fly to Syd or
> Melb and see either Steve Hogg in Sydney at Pedal Pushers in Randwick
> or John Kennedy at Cyclefit in Black Rock Melbourne.... Hogg uses Baum
> and Teschner mainly so they will be on the exy side...but Kennedy uses
> Wigan at Paconi to build to his spec ( not Walkers specs- which are
> quite different)... or at least call them and discuss..both do no
> obligation over the phone and could direct you....you could even get
> your flt, the frame and fork for under 2K if you pick the right
> tubeset...
>
>
And the tubesets seem to be the major difference. Given that I
don't ride much over 100km a week, I doubt whether I could tell
the difference between the different steel grades. (I think steel
will be the metal of choice).

A few I have seen have come in around the 2k mark for frame and
fork, Armalite (www.armalitecycles.com.au in Perth, too)and
another called Pave (www.pavebikes.com in Margaret River). I also
looked at Thylacine Cycles, they look schmick, but are a bit
above budget for even the base steel model ($2500 plus fork). I
am sure that they are worth the money, but you can only get what
you can afford.

Brendo

 

[rooman]

And the tubesets seem to be the major difference. Given that I
don't ride much over 100km a week, I doubt whether I could tell
the difference between the different steel grades. (I think steel
will be the metal of choice).

A few I have seen have come in around the 2k mark for frame and
fork, Armalite (www.armalitecycles.com.au in Perth, too)and
another called Pave (www.pavebikes.com in Margaret River). I also
looked at Thylacine Cycles, they look schmick, but are a bit
above budget for even the base steel model ($2500 plus fork). I
am sure that they are worth the money, but you can only get what
you can afford.

Brendo

why not call a few makers over east and offer to fax or email them your specs and discuss your needs and tubeset to fit the budget...some of the steel tubesets are great, some make good farm gates... certainly shop around....Alum is a fine tubeset as well and could be a lighter lower cost option...a Columbus Zonal ridden 200-300 plus klms a week should give you a good 10 years of joy without metal "memory" hassles and you should get change for frame and fork...I know Kennedy (and possibly Hogg too) ships a lot of frames overseas, so a parcel to the coast of sun, wine and surf, shouldnt be hard.

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> a Columbus Zonal ridden 200-300 plus klms a week
> should give you a good 10 years of joy without metal "memory" hassles

'metal "memory" hassles'?

--
Shane Stanley

 

[rooman]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> a Columbus Zonal ridden 200-300 plus klms a week
> should give you a good 10 years of joy without metal "memory" hassles

'metal "memory" hassles'?

--
Shane Stanley

my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same dimension... AFAIAA.... my understanding is...equiv dimension steel lasts longer than alum...just likely to be heavier

the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less rigid, and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the steel tubeset..

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory
> metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider
> it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets
> show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same
> dimension

Who builds them to the same dimensions?

> the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you
> think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset
> may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less rigid,
> and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the
> steel tubeset..

It might be a common view, but the reality is that a frame's lifespan
owes more to its design than the material used. Of course, the design
often reflects the choice of material -- that's why aluminium frames are
designed to avoid fatigue failures (something that's not hard to do).

There's a lot to be said for steel frames, especially the aesthetics
they allow the frame designer. It seems a shame that those who like them
often resort to pseudo-scientific attacks on the alternatives, though.
There are still people around who believe aluminium frames "go soft".

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Resound]

"rooman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > a Columbus Zonal ridden 200-300 plus klms a week
>> > should give you a good 10 years of joy without metal "memory" hassles
>>
>> 'metal "memory" hassles'?
>>
>> --
>> Shane Stanley
> my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory
> metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider
> it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets
> show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same
> dimension... AFAIAA.... my understanding is...equiv dimension steel
> lasts longer than alum...just likely to be heavier
>
> the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you
> think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset
> may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less rigid,
> and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the
> steel tubeset..
>

Who on earth would use the same size aluminium and steel tubes?

 

[rooman]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
> my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory
> metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider
> it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets
> show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same
> dimension

Who builds them to the same dimensions?

not suggesting that... just comparing apples... alloy tubesets appear bigger dimensioned than steel , but if they were the same the alloy (fill in space)...

> the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you
> think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset
> may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less rigid,
> and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the
> steel tubeset..

It might be a common view, but the reality is that a frame's lifespan
owes more to its design than the material used. Of course, the design
often reflects the choice of material -- that's why aluminium frames are
designed to avoid fatigue failures (something that's not hard to do).

There's a lot to be said for steel frames, especially the aesthetics
they allow the frame designer. It seems a shame that those who like them
often resort to pseudo-scientific attacks on the alternatives, though.
There are still people around who believe aluminium frames "go soft".

--
Shane Stanley

fair enough..(thought that was what I suggested..guess not).... I am not disagreeing, but I dont accept that alloy will not fail merely because its beefier( if that's what you mean by design, or are you suggesting extra cross members in the chainstay and thicker tubeset, and bottom bracket area ?..........(what are you suggesting?)

I have a "design" life on my alloy R1 bike of approx 10 years...as a result of section lengths, tubeset and layout combinations that should reflect the of the bike mainly as a performance bike in that time....that's what I was told to expect and if I get more great... I have another alloy bike, a beefy ( make that very beefy C2- that will probably outlive mankind, but it does weigh a hefty amount, but I also have four steel bikes... R2-aged 2 year2, C1-3years, T1-4 years, and Classic1-55 years respectively, all going strong and I expect they will all outlive the alloy framed R1 by decades.

My preference is for steel first, ( I just like the ride)...but I do have a Ti frame on order so I put Ti second, then Al and one day maybe ( big maybe) a carbon frame, but not in a hurry to go carbon...may change my mind...have to have a lot of wine first....meantime happy to watch other's carbons get thrown away after they get a bust up...

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am
> not disagreeing, but I dont accept that alloy will not fail merely
> because its beefier( if that's what you mean by design, or are you
> suggesting extra cross members in the chainstay and thicker tubeset,
> and bottom bracket area ?..........(what are you suggesting?)

Design, as in an engineer calculating what's needed to avoid stress
failures. In some places that amounts to making things "beefier", but
not always.
>
> I have a "design" life on my alloy R1 bike of approx 10 years...as a
> result of section lengths, tubeset and layout combinations that should
> reflect the of the bike mainly as a performance bike in that
> time....that's what I was told to expect and if I get more great...

It's certainly possible to design a frame that won't last, although
stating it in terms of years is unfortunate (but understandable) --
hours of use would make more sense.

(Given that you're spreading your time between six, and it appears soon
to be seven, bikes, and that hours in a day are limited, even a
compromised design might last you a lot longer than you think.)

> but I
> also have four steel bikes... R2-aged 2 year2, C1-3years, T1-4 years,
> and Classic1-55 years respectively, all going strong and I expect they
> will all outlive the alloy framed R1 by decades.

Yes, but you're comparing them to a frame you've just told us is
compromised in terms of lifespan.

> My preference is for steel first, ( I just like the ride)...

Fine -- enjoy it, and don't go hunting for other justifications.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[TimC]

On 2007-02-21, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory
>> metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider
>> it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets
>> show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same
>> dimension
>
> Who builds them to the same dimensions?
>
>> the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you
>> think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset
>> may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less rigid,
>> and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the
>> steel tubeset..
>
> It might be a common view, but the reality is that a frame's lifespan
> owes more to its design than the material used. Of course, the design
> often reflects the choice of material -- that's why aluminium frames are
> designed to avoid fatigue failures (something that's not hard to do).
>
> There's a lot to be said for steel frames, especially the aesthetics
> they allow the frame designer. It seems a shame that those who like them
> often resort to pseudo-scientific attacks on the alternatives, though.
> There are still people around who believe aluminium frames "go soft".

I see a connection between this and aluminium cookware. Aluminium
doesn't cause Alzheimers; it was a claim invented by a steel cookware
maker who saw his sales drop off because of cheaper and better
aluminium. So he came up with a "research" paper that showed
aluminium causes Alzheimers. Within months, there were 5 peer
reviewed papers refuting the claim, but the damage had been done --
people still think, 20 years on, that aluminium cookware causes
alzheimers.

--
TimC
Error in operator: add beer

 

[rooman]

us is
compromised .....

(snip)

justifications.

--
Shane Stanley

compromise?...you might think that!......I am not the least bit comprised with the alum frame , it is exactly what I wanted, and represents very good value for money over time....

justifications... dribble.... all in your head !

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> I see a connection between this and aluminium cookware. Aluminium
> doesn't cause Alzheimers; it was a claim invented by a steel cookware
> maker who saw his sales drop off because of cheaper and better
> aluminium. So he came up with a "research" paper that showed
> aluminium causes Alzheimers. Within months, there were 5 peer
> reviewed papers refuting the claim, but the damage had been done --
> people still think, 20 years on, that aluminium cookware causes
> alzheimers.

Does anybody know what causes Alzheimers? Somebody told me once but my mum
used aluminium pots and I don't remember.
If you're going to absorb aluminium, you are more likely to do it from your
deoderant.

Theo

 

[Russ]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> If you're going to absorb aluminium, you are more likely to do it from your
> deoderant.

Very true. Aluminium, by itself, doesn't cross the blood brain barrier.
For this reason, some argue that aluminium couldn't possibly cause
Alzheimer's disease, since it can't get to the brain in the first place.

However, one of the toxic effects of fluoride is to make that barrier
permeable to aluminium. Fluoride allows the uptake of aluminium into
your brain.

That aluminium is harmful to the brain is well accepted, at least in
animal studies (a collection of references:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/).


Supposedly one group of researchers tested the aluminium/fluoride link
by administering it to rats intravenously, killing all their "low dose"
group before they ever got to the "high dose" group. They were expecting
small, measurable differences between the groups.


Cycling is fun.


Russ, always on topic.

 

[Friday]

Russ wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> If you're going to absorb aluminium, you are more likely to do it from
>> your deoderant.
>
> Very true. Aluminium, by itself, doesn't cross the blood brain barrier.
> For this reason, some argue that aluminium couldn't possibly cause
> Alzheimer's disease, since it can't get to the brain in the first place.
>
> However, one of the toxic effects of fluoride is to make that barrier
> permeable to aluminium. Fluoride allows the uptake of aluminium into
> your brain.
>
> That aluminium is harmful to the brain is well accepted, at least in
> animal studies (a collection of references:
> http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/).
>
>
> Supposedly one group of researchers tested the aluminium/fluoride link
> by administering it to rats intravenously, killing all their "low dose"
> group before they ever got to the "high dose" group. They were expecting
> small, measurable differences between the groups.
>
>
> Cycling is fun.
>
>
> Russ, always on topic.

Isn't the dangers of Fluoride something thought up by the bottled water
manufacturers?

And isn't the dangers of aging plastic bottles something thought up by ...

And so on....

Use a wooden spoon in your aluminum pots and it's not a problem.


Friday

 

[Russ]

Friday wrote:

> Isn't the dangers of Fluoride something thought up by the bottled water
> manufacturers?

If only... That it was an enzymatic poison was known decades before its
use on humans.

One might say that the /benefits/ of fluoride was thought up by the
aluminium manufacturers, given that the *chemical waste given off by the
process to make aluminium... is creatively used in tap water


It would be nice if it were just FUD; it'd be much more simpler to
believe that.


> And isn't the dangers of aging plastic bottles something thought up by ...
>
> And so on....
>
> Use a wooden spoon in your aluminum pots and it's not a problem.

Or just use stainless-steel coated aluminium. The steel industry say the
chromium isn't bad for you And it probably isn't, based on the best
available evidence.


Russ.

*(also "...in the form of either fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) or sodium
silicofluoride (Na2SiF6), both of which are obtained from the untreated
waste liquor from cleaning the scrubbers in phosphate fertiliser
manufacturing plants. This source of fluoride contains traces of
arsenic, cadmium and other toxic chemicals..." - Dr Mark Diesendorf -
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3014)