Goodbye carbon stays and integrated headsets...

[Helmut Springer]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hub gears have, however, been marginal in the US and Europe for 35
> to 60 years. Once the derailleur was reliable (1930s) it rapidly
> supplanted the inefficient and slippy S-A tin cans. Except in
> England, which may be related to (1) Made in Britain and (2)
> weather.

You forget Germany and (Fichtel&)Sachs.


--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:37:31 -0500, Luke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What of my favourite, barcons? Bulletproof as a d/t shifter, with the
>friction option too! The time is right for a barcon resurgence
>(insurgence?).

No.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Ron Ruff wrote:
> >> >> Just noticed that Litespeed has ditched both of these "features" on
> >> >> their new bikes.
> >> >
> >> > Geee, headsets that are inside the frame and BBs that are outside....
> >> >
> >> > Integrated HS hopefully will go away...carbon rear ends are
> >> > marketing...ti frames with carbon plugs are also-The more things
> >> > change, the more they stay the same.
> >>
> >> Yeah, like those steel forks and friction shifting on all the high-end
> >> bikes! j/k just busting your chops.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Phil, Squid-in-Training
> >
> > You would be surprised how many down tube shifter bikes we sell....not
> > a lot but a few every year, some with friction as well...lever mounted
> > shifteing is 'nice' but certainly not essential.
> >
>
> Out of curiosity, are they equipped as such, or are they custom-ordered that
> way? How old are these buyers?
>
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training

Well, we buy no complete bicycles, only frames and build all we sell in
the shop, along with wheels also(sold 3 boxed wheels in 2005, built
about 400).

Young guy(30s) wanted a Waterford with friction shifters, another a
Mondonico with DT index Campagnolo, that guy is in his mid 50s.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:14:32 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote:

> I've been riding bikes for, what, 40 years now and have been a bike
> nut for most of that time. I've never seen a broken friction shifter,
> but I've seen a dozen broken STI shifters and two broken Ergo
> shifters.

Oh, there were plenty of cheap bikes with lousy friction shifters back in
the 70s. They wouldn't hold their settings and stay in gear. In fact the
memory of these was probably a major factor in people getting back into
biking, when reliable indexed shifting appeared in the 80s, and especially
the early 90s.

Even the cheapest Wal-Mart bikes have reliable indexed shifting these
days. When I was a kid, most people's bikes had one to three gears that
worked.

Matt O.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Helmut Springer <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hub gears have, however, been marginal in the US and Europe for 35
>> to 60 years. Once the derailleur was reliable (1930s) it rapidly
>> supplanted the inefficient and slippy S-A tin cans. Except in
>> England, which may be related to (1) Made in Britain and (2)
>> weather.
>
> You forget Germany and (Fichtel&)Sachs.

Good point. I probably overlooked them because they are relatively
rare in the US and that's my sphere of reference for better or worse.
The F&S Torpedo was quite popular with the French "porteur" bicycles,
and were something of an exception to the French preference for the
derailleur. When I was in Paris in 2002 and 2003, I saw quite a few
hub gears on Brompton folding bikes. I was amazed to see dozens of
these bikes there- the French riding British bikes!

 

[Tim McNamara]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:14:32 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> I've been riding bikes for, what, 40 years now and have been a bike
>> nut for most of that time. I've never seen a broken friction
>> shifter, but I've seen a dozen broken STI shifters and two broken
>> Ergo shifters.
>
> Oh, there were plenty of cheap bikes with lousy friction shifters
> back in the 70s. They wouldn't hold their settings and stay in
> gear. In fact the memory of these was probably a major factor in
> people getting back into biking, when reliable indexed shifting
> appeared in the 80s, and especially the early 90s.

Lots of really expensive bikes had fiction shifting, too. But you
can't use cheap bikes as a standard by which to judge friction
shifting when:

> Even the cheapest Wal-Mart bikes have reliable indexed shifting
> these days.

Actually have crappy shifting that is not reliable and stops
functioning in short order. Cheap goods are cheap goods, whether in
1976 or 2005.

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:37:31 -0500, Luke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>What of my favourite, barcons? Bulletproof as a d/t shifter, with the
>>friction option too! The time is right for a barcon resurgence
>>(insurgence?).
>
> No.
>
> JT

LOL agreed.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[[email protected]]

So, I can see that carbon rears are mostly marketing. (Besides, if you
want a carbon bike, why not get a carbon bike?) But, can someone tell
my why an integrated headset is a bad thing? I've got two bikes, one
with (3 year old Orbea Zonal) and one without (an old steel Kona road
bike that I've refinished and got rolling again with a threadless
carbon fork). It seemed to me that other than the shape, there was not
really much difference between the two headsets. I can't say that I
would care one way or the other if the IS went away, but why does it
matter?

Thanks,
Tad

 

[Ron Ruff]

[email protected] wrote:
> I can't say that I
> would care one way or the other if the IS went away, but why does it
> matter?
>

>From the Chris King website:
http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_2.html

"What is an "Integrated" headset?

It is a bicycle frame, fork and bearing system designed to eliminate
the humble headset cup. To integrate means to combine and hopefully to
simplify. What has been "integrated" by the integrated headset? The
bearings now rest inside the frame instead of inside pressed-in cups.
All of this trouble and confusion is to remove two 12 gram headset cups
from the front of your bicycle. True, an integrated headset can give
the bike a nice, smooth looking front end, but the consequences of this
change to your bicycle are significant. Simply put, the performance and
lifetime that you expect from your new bicycle will be reduced, most
severely in aluminum mountain bikes.

All bicycle frames that use integrated headsets will ultimately have
substantial performance and reliability problems due to the inherent
flaws in this design. The largest flaw is a bearing system that does
not positively attach the bearing to the frame, leaving the bearing to
"float" resulting in wear and impact damage to the frame. As an
additional complication, each manufacturer seems to be doing their own
thing, with no real standardization to date. As a result, there are
multiple bearing types and sizes (some of which have been discontinued
with no replacement options) and the frame builders and bearing makers
are not all working from the same drawings."

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I can't say that I
>> would care one way or the other if the IS went away, but why does it
>> matter?
>>
>
>> From the Chris King website:
> http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_2.html
>
> "What is an "Integrated" headset?
>
> It is a bicycle frame, fork and bearing system designed to eliminate
> the humble headset cup. To integrate means to combine and hopefully to
> simplify. What has been "integrated" by the integrated headset? The
> bearings now rest inside the frame instead of inside pressed-in cups.
> All of this trouble and confusion is to remove two 12 gram headset
> cups from the front of your bicycle. True, an integrated headset can
> give the bike a nice, smooth looking front end, but the consequences
> of this change to your bicycle are significant. Simply put, the
> performance and lifetime that you expect from your new bicycle will
> be reduced, most severely in aluminum mountain bikes.
>
> All bicycle frames that use integrated headsets will ultimately have
> substantial performance and reliability problems due to the inherent
> flaws in this design. The largest flaw is a bearing system that does
> not positively attach the bearing to the frame, leaving the bearing to
> "float" resulting in wear and impact damage to the frame. As an
> additional complication, each manufacturer seems to be doing their own
> thing, with no real standardization to date. As a result, there are
> multiple bearing types and sizes (some of which have been discontinued
> with no replacement options) and the frame builders and bearing makers
> are not all working from the same drawings."

For integrated headset, yes, these are problems.

For internal headsets, however, scaremongering is all it is. Bearings are
readily available (and really cheap), are easier to replace, generally work
very well, and cups are available.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Ron Ruff]

Luke wrote:
>
> What of my favourite, barcons? Bulletproof as a d/t shifter, with the
> friction option too! The time is right for a barcon resurgence
> (insurgence?).
>

I have mine mounted under the brake levers, with modified Paul's
Thumbie clamps. Shifts are easy from the hoods or the drops. I'd really
like to make some adapters especially for that location, though.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

[email protected] wrote:
> So, I can see that carbon rears are mostly marketing. (Besides, if you
> want a carbon bike, why not get a carbon bike?) But, can someone tell
> my why an integrated headset is a bad thing? I've got two bikes, one
> with (3 year old Orbea Zonal) and one without (an old steel Kona road
> bike that I've refinished and got rolling again with a threadless
> carbon fork). It seemed to me that other than the shape, there was not
> really much difference between the two headsets. I can't say that I
> would care one way or the other if the IS went away, but why does it
> matter?
>
> Thanks,
> Tad

As long as the bearings for the IH are made, and it doesn't somehow
deform the headtube of that aluminum frame...no problem. But if in 5
years the bearings are no longer available, you are SOL..Kinda like the
threadless BB shells of Klein and Merlin...

ALL the frame materials have 'goods and others', but no bicycle frame
is going to make a huge difference in your cycling performance,just
considering material. Very little about the bicycle of today really
will. Something CAN make you slower, as in something breaks, but little
to nuthin will make you significantly faster, stronger. The bicycle is
the smallest part of the cycling equation..

 

[Diablo Scott]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

>
> As long as the bearings for the IH are made, and it doesn't somehow
> deform the headtube of that aluminum frame...no problem. But if in 5
> years the bearings are no longer available, you are SOL..Kinda like the
> threadless BB shells of Klein and Merlin...
>

Not cheap, but hardly SOL... at least for Klein. http://tinyurl.com/d73m8
Never read a bad thing about Reset Racing's problem solvers.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> As long as the bearings for the IH are made, and it doesn't somehow
> deform the headtube of that aluminum frame...no problem. But if in 5
> years the bearings are no longer available, you are SOL..Kinda like
> the threadless BB shells of Klein and Merlin...
>
> ALL the frame materials have 'goods and others', but no bicycle frame
> is going to make a huge difference in your cycling performance,just
> considering material. Very little about the bicycle of today really
> will. Something CAN make you slower, as in something breaks, but
> little to nuthin will make you significantly faster, stronger. The
> bicycle is the smallest part of the cycling equation..

Not just being contrary, I don't know about that, Peter. I had a recent
(and unexpected) different experience. I got a winter bike that was
equipped the same as my LOOK 461. The winter bike, 7005 alu, with carbon
fork, was set up to the exact same position. I expected it, especially as
it is cold and grey, to provide a slower, less comfortable ride. Fact is
(wherein the disappointment, of a kind) that I managed the first 30 km of a
standard loop 4 minutes quicker. This section ends with a 3.3 km climb of
about 5%, which I managed to do 70% en danseuse. The LOOK, on the other
hand, just about tells you that you sit for that climb, and the way the
bikes react in many sections is strikingly different. 4 minutes, or 7% less
time is a lot, especially when you expect the opposite effect.

You can still refuse to sell me anything - I just figured you'd be willing
to listen to the story.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:09:56 -0800, Feng Chen <[email protected]>
wrote:

>FWIW, since the early '80s, I've broken two friction shifters:
>a Simplex downtube shifter, and a Deore thumbshifter, both for
>the rear changer. These are both retrofriction shifters, and
>on both the return spring fatigued and broke. Unfortunately,
>friction alone wasn't enough to hold the derailleurs in low
>gear.

I've got a Tourney thumbie that, while functional, lost several
components. Does that count as broken?

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:40:24 -0500, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ron Ruff wrote:

>> "What is an "Integrated" headset?
>>
>> It is a bicycle frame, fork and bearing system designed to eliminate
>> the humble headset cup. To integrate means to combine and hopefully to
>> simplify. What has been "integrated" by the integrated headset? The
>> bearings now rest inside the frame instead of inside pressed-in cups.
>> All of this trouble and confusion is to remove two 12 gram headset
>> cups from the front of your bicycle. True, an integrated headset can
>> give the bike a nice, smooth looking front end, but the consequences
>> of this change to your bicycle are significant. Simply put, the
>> performance and lifetime that you expect from your new bicycle will
>> be reduced, most severely in aluminum mountain bikes.
>>
>> All bicycle frames that use integrated headsets will ultimately have
>> substantial performance and reliability problems due to the inherent
>> flaws in this design. The largest flaw is a bearing system that does
>> not positively attach the bearing to the frame, leaving the bearing to
>> "float" resulting in wear and impact damage to the frame. As an
>> additional complication, each manufacturer seems to be doing their own
>> thing, with no real standardization to date. As a result, there are
>> multiple bearing types and sizes (some of which have been discontinued
>> with no replacement options) and the frame builders and bearing makers
>> are not all working from the same drawings."
>
>For integrated headset, yes, these are problems.
>
>For internal headsets, however, scaremongering is all it is. Bearings are
>readily available (and really cheap), are easier to replace, generally work
>very well, and cups are available.

Yeah, but that's totally and completely irrelevant, since that's not what
the thread was about.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 2 Dec 2005 08:01:10 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As long as the bearings for the IH are made, and it doesn't somehow
>deform the headtube of that aluminum frame...no problem. But if in 5
>years the bearings are no longer available, you are SOL..Kinda like the
>threadless BB shells of Klein and Merlin...

Except the bearings are extremely widely available and even the spindles
are available, if only at premium prices.

Jasper

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2005 08:01:10 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >As long as the bearings for the IH are made, and it doesn't somehow
> >deform the headtube of that aluminum frame...no problem. But if in 5
> >years the bearings are no longer available, you are SOL..Kinda like the
> >threadless BB shells of Klein and Merlin...
>
> Except the bearings are extremely widely available and even the spindles
> are available, if only at premium prices.
>
> Jasper

Today, Try to find bearings for a Schwinn Fasbac or the bass boat
Schwinn MTBs made about 3 years ago. Bearings for Merlins? don know
about that.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 4 Dec 2005 07:02:22 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On 2 Dec 2005 08:01:10 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >As long as the bearings for the IH are made, and it doesn't somehow
>> >deform the headtube of that aluminum frame...no problem. But if in 5
>> >years the bearings are no longer available, you are SOL..Kinda like the
>> >threadless BB shells of Klein and Merlin...
>>
>> Except the bearings are extremely widely available and even the spindles
>> are available, if only at premium prices.

>Today, Try to find bearings for a Schwinn Fasbac or the bass boat
>Schwinn MTBs made about 3 years ago. Bearings for Merlins? don know
>about that.

Do they use different ones to the 6003s that seem to be standard? I
recently found out my beater bike, a no-brand department store bike from
'83, has a similar BB to the Klein. 6003 press-in bearings, solid spindle
to fit them.

Anyway, my point was that the kleins & co used industry standard bearings
which will never be discontinued in any of our lifetimes, unlike all the
current IH designs. I admire the Klein design a lot, actually, it's so
*awfully* simple. 2 standard bearings and a spindle that's not much more
than a machine-turned billet/pipe, and that's it.


Jasper

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2005 07:02:22 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jasper Janssen wrote:
> >> On 2 Dec 2005 08:01:10 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As long as the bearings for the IH are made, and it doesn't somehow
> >> >deform the headtube of that aluminum frame...no problem. But if in 5
> >> >years the bearings are no longer available, you are SOL..Kinda like the
> >> >threadless BB shells of Klein and Merlin...
> >>
> >> Except the bearings are extremely widely available and even the spindles
> >> are available, if only at premium prices.
>
> >Today, Try to find bearings for a Schwinn Fasbac or the bass boat
> >Schwinn MTBs made about 3 years ago. Bearings for Merlins? don know
> >about that.
>
> Do they use different ones to the 6003s that seem to be standard? I
> recently found out my beater bike, a no-brand department store bike from
> '83, has a similar BB to the Klein. 6003 press-in bearings, solid spindle
> to fit them.
>
> Anyway, my point was that the kleins & co used industry standard bearings
> which will never be discontinued in any of our lifetimes, unlike all the
> current IH designs. I admire the Klein design a lot, actually, it's so
> *awfully* simple. 2 standard bearings and a spindle that's not much more
> than a machine-turned billet/pipe, and that's it.
>
>
> Jasper

Agree but my point is that standard dimensions of a frame, like the ID
of the headtube and threaded portion of a BB shell is a much better
idea than a ton of unique to that frame HS and BB dimensions, like
Klein, Merlin and many frames with IH.