Updating a 1980s 27 1 1/4 10 speed (long)

[Pete Biggs]

Matthew Haigh wrote:

> Just about anything would be better than the current brakes!
> Seriously, thanks for those links, especially the kind-of
> recommendation for the latter ones.

Also consider changing the brake *levers*. Find comments about brake levers
on www.sheldonbrown.com

Note that Alhonga deep drops have toooo much drop for some bikes. If that's
the case, look out for Tektro brakes on eBay etc.

~PB

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Matthew Haigh wrote:
>
>> Just about anything would be better than the current brakes!
>> Seriously, thanks for those links, especially the kind-of
>> recommendation for the latter ones.
>
> Also consider changing the brake *levers*. Find comments about brake
> levers on www.sheldonbrown.com

If following the suggestion of "stay with friction shifters", then perfectly
serviceable "aero" brake levers can be had for under £15, Shimano branded.

I'd also add, that if doing up the brakes, buy new brake cables throughout.


- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Matthew Haigh]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Matthew Haigh wrote on 15/04/2007 16:39 +0100:
>>> Thanks. As the rears are listed as 7,8 or 9 speed I thought there may
>>> have been an issue with the width of the frame.
>
>> Only with the cassette/freewheel or the shifters. The derailleur is
>> universal.
>
> There is a difference in cage width with the different "speeds" with some
> makes/models - sometimes a problem when using a wider chain.
>
> "8-speed" mechs and chains are relatively cheap and work with 5, 6 and 7sp
> blocks as well as 8sp. The mech could also be used with a 9sp block with a
> 9sp chain.
>
> Sticking with friction levers will save a lot of money and hassle. This can
> make the difference between the project being worthwhile or not. Once you
> get into indexed shifting, especially with 8 to 10sp, you'll experience the
> domino effect badly where changing one component means another has to be
> changed (or would be nice if it was changed) and so on, until the only
> original bits that remain are the frame and forks. I have been there and
> done that with an 80s bike. Would have been economic madness if I hadn't
> already had some spare components to use.
>
> Re brakes & wheels: blocks will only need lowering by 4mm to change from
> 27" to 700C. Filing the bottom of the slots a bit can do the trick if
> you're almost there otherwise.
>

I *think* my existing ones will be fine - there is plenty of downwards
adjustment, but depending upon performance it may be worthwhile changing
later (which is when knowing about the others is worthwhile).

Matt

 

[Matthew Haigh]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>> Matthew Haigh wrote:
>>
>>> Just about anything would be better than the current brakes!
>>> Seriously, thanks for those links, especially the kind-of
>>> recommendation for the latter ones.
>> Also consider changing the brake *levers*. Find comments about brake
>> levers on www.sheldonbrown.com
>
> If following the suggestion of "stay with friction shifters", then perfectly
> serviceable "aero" brake levers can be had for under £15, Shimano branded.
>
> I'd also add, that if doing up the brakes, buy new brake cables throughout.

I agree, and I've got some nice new high quality Shimano ones sitting in
my parts box ready to go. Obviously the same with gear cables, it's
amazing how sticky and horrible they get!

 

[Matthew Haigh]

TerryJ wrote:
>> http://images.marketworks.com/fullView.asp?id=62487016&fc=1&img=http:...
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2006-Viking-V...ryZ33503QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>
> All this talk of new wheels, alhonga deep drop brakes , wondering what
> strange things might happen when you get different cassettes, new
> dérailleur.......
>
> But a new viking would be £250 and better, much better for a
> little more.It's even got Sora gear/brake handles and final assembly
> would take you 5mins.
>
> Then you can use old faithful in it's less desirable state for
> shopping and railway station trips.

I know exactly what you are saying - but as I said at the start this is
not really a financial issue. I've got a reasonably highly specced and
very reliable (touch wood!) bike, I can afford the time to tinker, find
doing that enjoyable, and as long as I'm careful with component choice
then at worst they can all go into the parts box if I do end up buying a
new bike.

Looking at it financially, a basic patch-it-up-and-ride of two new
wheels, tyres etc. will be around £100 for wheels of similar spec to the
Viking. At the moment the only part of the drive that needs replacing is
the rear derailleur, but I have a fully functional 7 speed in the parts
box, or a new one is under £20. That should see me through the summer,
at which point I can decide whether to upgrade the drivetrain (with a
summer's knowledge of what I really need in terms of ratios, etc,),
leave everything alone and replace bits as they wear or go into buying a
new bike with more idea of what I really want out of a road bike, rather
than 20 year old memories of long distance riding and my more recent MTB
experience.

Matt

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Haigh
?@?.? says...

> The special order bit is what I'm trying to get away from; I was in the
> situation last year where I had catastrophic failure of my front tyre -
> if that happens again I'd want to walk into the nearest bike shop
> knowing they would have at least something vaguely suitable as a
> replacement.
>
Just keep some spares in stock - if you store them properly folded in a
cool dry dark place they'll last a very long time.

 

[Matthew Haigh]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Haigh
> ?@?.? says...
>
>> The special order bit is what I'm trying to get away from; I was in the
>> situation last year where I had catastrophic failure of my front tyre -
>> if that happens again I'd want to walk into the nearest bike shop
>> knowing they would have at least something vaguely suitable as a
>> replacement.
>>
> Just keep some spares in stock - if you store them properly folded in a
> cool dry dark place they'll last a very long time.

That's fine as long as I'm close to home!
To be fair, I've only had that happen to me once and I was only a mile
or so away from home - but I'm not sure it's a good idea remaining
locked into special order parts when there is the opportunity to change
away at little or no additional cost beyond what I'd have to pay anyway.

Matt

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Matthew Haigh ('?@?.?') wrote:

> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Matthew Haigh wrote:
>>> That sounds encouraging. I'll be riding this bike in to work next
>>> week, I think I'll have to take a tape measure and compare
>>> measurements of brakes etc. with other bikes in the shed.
>>
>> From what you've said earlier in the thread, you will need deep drop
>> brakes. That rules out any Campag models (they are hardly deep enough
>> for mudguards in frames designed around 700c wheels!).
>
> I may be lucky as my existing ones appear to have plenty of adjustment,
> but hopefully someone at work will have 700c wheels so I can do some
> measurements with the bikes side to side.

You should be able to swap the front ones - front axle length hasn't
changed.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, TerryJ
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
>> http://images.marketworks.com/fullView.asp?id=62487016&fc=1&img=http:...
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2006-Viking-V...ryZ33503QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>
> All this talk of new wheels, alhonga deep drop brakes , wondering what
> strange things might happen when you get different cassettes, new
> dérailleur.......
>
> But a new viking would be £250 and better, much better for a
> little more.It's even got Sora gear/brake handles and final assembly
> would take you 5mins.

You know, I really, really don't agree. Cheap is not at all the same as
good. Of course I don't know how good the OP's frame is, but good brazed
steel frames of that vintage are a lot better than cheap modern aluminium
ones. They're lighter, and considerably more comfortable to ride. They're
also repairable if damaged (although this probably isn't economic, these
days).

The thing about buying a cheap bike is that, no matter how much you upgrade
the parts, you've still got a not very good frame, and the frame is the
heart of the bike. Whereas if you've got a good frame - no matter how old
it is - you've got the basis of a good bike.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

 

[squeaker]

On 15 Apr, 17:05, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doing up and running an old bike can be fun, I've got an 1970's machine
> still on 27 1/4's. But if you end up replacing most bits it will be
> expensive compared to a very good new bike. I've a plan to do up a mid
> 1980's machine I've been offered (if the frame is really as good as it
> sounds); that one will end up as a hub gear bike for winter use.
>
> Tyres, I run Schwalbe Marathon's on my 27 1/4 bike. Special order at the
> local bike shop, though no difficulty for them and arrived in a few days.
> Probably too chunky for Audaxing, but I find ideal for general short ride
> commuting.

That's similar to what I did with my 70's Carlton Corsa
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/crokeracousticsltd/Corsa2.jpg
S/H 5-spd SRAM hub (even managed to 'fit' a modern Shimano BB) gives
31" to 78" which is fine for shopping trips (an 8 or 9-spd hub would
give a wider range).

 

[John Halliwell]

In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Haigh <?@?.?> writes
>That's the thing, modern bikes are quite inexpensive (relatively
>speaking) - but it seems like such a waste to replace the whole bike,
>which is why I'm dithering! I don't mind working on bikes; it's quite
>therapeutic to do something mechanical in the evenings, and I like to
>know how things went together and are set up - that way if things go
>wrong in the dark and pouring rain I'll have a better idea if/how I can
>fix it (knowing I've got all the right size tools, etc.).

Hi Matthew,

I'm currently resurrecting my 80's 10 speed Dawes Windsor, I could
easily buy another bike (and might eventually buy a tourer), but find it
hard to scrap the old one. Once I'd managed to get all ten gears to
select without too much grating, I realised it wasn't in too bad shape.

Since then I've taken it on a 32 mile run with no problems (although I
think I need a longer seat post). It's still faster and much better
suited than my MTB on the road, and as I found out quite able to tackle
'light' off roading (it helps that it was never intended to be a 'racer'
so has some quite low gears).

I found a 27x1.25 tyre in a Halfords the other day, didn't check it out,
but was surprised to see it.

I've decided to use it as a run around at least, it looks so old,
unfashionable and tatty I doubt even lowlifes would be motivated to
steal it. It has mud guards and rack, so would also make a great bike
for commuting.

Basically I'm trying to justify a new Galaxy, and every time I get the
Windsor out I struggle to find good enough reasons.

--
John

 

[John Halliwell]

In article <[email protected]>, Simon
Brooke <[email protected]> writes
>You know, I really, really don't agree. Cheap is not at all the same as
>good. Of course I don't know how good the OP's frame is, but good brazed
>steel frames of that vintage are a lot better than cheap modern aluminium
>ones. They're lighter, and considerably more comfortable to ride. They're
>also repairable if damaged (although this probably isn't economic, these
>days).

Is it likely this could be the case with old basic steel tubing?

Maybe that's why the cheap (but very sleek) modern road bike I recently
looked at was an awful lot heavier than it looked, especially after the
spotty youth had explained how much lighter road bikes are now. I was
expecting something much lighter.

IIRC back in the 80's a light 'racer' (at a price point practical enough
to ride it to school and back) would have been about 28lbs, how have
things progressed?

--
John

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, John Halliwell
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Simon
> Brooke <[email protected]> writes
>>You know, I really, really don't agree. Cheap is not at all the same as
>>good. Of course I don't know how good the OP's frame is, but good brazed
>>steel frames of that vintage are a lot better than cheap modern aluminium
>>ones. They're lighter, and considerably more comfortable to ride. They're
>>also repairable if damaged (although this probably isn't economic, these
>>days).
>
> Is it likely this could be the case with old basic steel tubing?
>
> Maybe that's why the cheap (but very sleek) modern road bike I recently
> looked at was an awful lot heavier than it looked, especially after the
> spotty youth had explained how much lighter road bikes are now. I was
> expecting something much lighter.
>
> IIRC back in the 80's a light 'racer' (at a price point practical enough
> to ride it to school and back) would have been about 28lbs, how have
> things progressed?

My Dolan - a carbon fibre frame with a lot of expensive light weight bits -
weighs a smidge under 20lbs without tribars (just over 20lbs with
tribars). Getting weight down further is possible but costs a lot of
money. My full suspension Cannondale mountain bike weighs about 27lbs, and
again spending a lot of money could scrape a bit more off. But these are
not at price points you could ride to school and back, they're both
effectively £2,000 bikes. The sort of road bike you can buy for £300
weighs around 26lbs, and has a slightly harsher ride than an old steel
frame (but is stiffer and thus ever so slightly more efficient); the sort
of mountain bike you can get for £300 weighs in excess of 30lbs.

And, saying that, the bike Eddie Merckx rode certainly didn't weigh 28lbs.
Even the most expensive modern bikes weigh only ounces less than their
equivalents of thirty years ago.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

 

[Matthew Haigh]

John Halliwell wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew Haigh <?@?.?> writes
>> That's the thing, modern bikes are quite inexpensive (relatively
>> speaking) - but it seems like such a waste to replace the whole bike,
>> which is why I'm dithering! I don't mind working on bikes; it's quite
>> therapeutic to do something mechanical in the evenings, and I like to
>> know how things went together and are set up - that way if things go
>> wrong in the dark and pouring rain I'll have a better idea if/how I can
>> fix it (knowing I've got all the right size tools, etc.).
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> I'm currently resurrecting my 80's 10 speed Dawes Windsor, I could
> easily buy another bike (and might eventually buy a tourer), but find it
> hard to scrap the old one. Once I'd managed to get all ten gears to
> select without too much grating, I realised it wasn't in too bad shape.
>
> Since then I've taken it on a 32 mile run with no problems (although I
> think I need a longer seat post). It's still faster and much better
> suited than my MTB on the road,

I've been running it to work this week; the wheels aren't as bad as I
remembered (especially after doing a bit of tweaking), but I'll
certainly be looking for at least a new front one before the weather
turns so I'm not on steel rims for the winter (just considering dynohubs
now...).
It is a lovely ride, definitely faster than my hardtail MTB (even when
that was running on 26*1.5 slicks at 80psi over the winter). There are a
couple of things need sorting, but I've done over 60 miles with no drama
of any kind.

> and as I found out quite able to tackle
> 'light' off roading (it helps that it was never intended to be a 'racer'
> so has some quite low gears).

I'm not sure about the gearing on mine; I must count the teeth but as I
remember it is 52/48 and 26-12 six speed on the back. I'm managing
happily on my commute with a couple of reasonable hills, but a bit extra
in reserve may be nice for runs with more climbs (especially to avoid
mashing). Perhaps a megarange, or go to a front triple, but I'm going
to ride for a while before deciding if that is really needed. I always
used to manage the hills (the first time I managed the A635 Greenfield
to Holmfirth or the Sychnant Pass between Penmaenmawr and Conwy non-stop
was an amazing feeling, both done on this bike with the current gearing)
- but I was a good 20 years younger with knees in rather better condition!

> Basically I'm trying to justify a new Galaxy, and every time I get the
> Windsor out I struggle to find good enough reasons.

I'm tending the same way having ridden it again all week. The frame
feels flex free and light, perhaps a touch twitchy on the steering, and
the saddle needs replacing, but I'm having a great time on it

Matt