Collateral Damage

This is a bike blog -- and I don't really want to digress into politics in it. But right now, politics and my favorite pastime have inadvertently collided. Due to the government shutdown, the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail, part of which traverses the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, has been closed.

Although I primarily consider myself a "road" cyclist, I enjoy riding the towpath a lot, especially when I ride with my kids. It's a great route, relatively flat, with fantastic scenery, and nicely maintained for riding, jogging, or walking. As the name implies, the Towpath Trail follows the route of the old Ohio & Erie Canal, which once carried goods and materials from the heart of Ohio to markets in Akron and Cleveland. It attracts cyclists from all over the state, and the CVNP is kind of a cycling mecca for both trail and road riders.

Due to the shutdown, the park service is operating with minimal staff, and apparently some are even working without pay. That in itself is a shame. Some people are ignoring the signs and riding the path anyhow, but if they are caught (and the Rangers who are still working ARE patrolling when they can) there are fines to pay.

But beyond the immediately obvious effects of the shutdown, with so-called "non-essential" government employees either being furloughed or having to work without pay, there is also a lot of "collateral damage." Many people who don't work for the federal government at all are still being affected. Case in point, my favorite local bike shop.

Century Cycles, in Peninsula, is located right beside the Cuyahoga River and the Towpath -- and pretty much right in the middle of the national park. Considering how many people converge on the park to ride, a better location for a bike shop could not be possible. In addition to the usual sales and service, Century Cycles also does a lot of business in renting bikes to people who come to ride the Towpath. On a normal weekend this time of year, the shop's parking lot is overflowing, and the tiny shop floor is packed with customers who are drawn in for their riding needs while they're visiting the park, or to rent a bike, or even just to visit with the shop's amiable and knowledgeable staff.

Today, I took my kids out for a ride. There are parts of the Towpath that are outside of the national park's control, so we kept ourselves legal and stayed off the closed portion. I'm all for small acts of harmless rebellion, but getting pulled over by an overworked and stressed Ranger (who may even be working without pay) and getting fined in front of my two young kids isn't high on my list of "things to do." Afterwards, we drove over to the bike shop to pick up a couple things I needed, and the shop was practically deserted. I was told that it's been like that pretty much since the shutdown began. While I'm sure that the shutdown will eventually get settled, and the shop will be OK, I wonder how many other businesses are similarly affected, and how many of them might not be OK? How many employees at the bike shop, or other businesses will see their hours cut, or worse, if this thing drags on?

One of the 24-hour news networks has been trying to downplay the effects of the shutdown by calling it a "slim down." I saw a news report where people proudly calling themselves "tea partiers" were praising the shutdown, saying basically that if all these workers are "non-essential," then why do they even have jobs in the first place? How incredibly short-sighted. I've heard people say, or seen thoughtless posts on Facebook, that the shutdown doesn't matter -- apparently because they themselves don't feel the effects.

I'm trying not to get too political in this post (hard for me, because I'm as opinionated on politics as I am on bicycles), but I think it's pretty clear what's happening. Regardless of the rhetoric or whatever reasons these politicians have for digging in their heels, our whole country and our economy are being held hostage over political dogma. It really is no wonder that Congress's approval rating is now in single digits. I just hope that they can get their act together before they do too much collateral damage that can't be reversed.

Carbon Forks - No Way

In No Carbon for Me, Thanks, I laid out my problems with carbon fiber in general, as used for frames, forks, and components. In this post, I want to focus just on the forks. The fork of a bicycle is a particularly vulnerable part of the frame system, absorbing a lot of the force of many kinds of impacts -- often like the "front line" of an assault. In addition, the fork is like a large lever, which can magnify the forces put upon it. Many bikes today come with carbon forks -- including many bikes that have frames made of steel, aluminum, or titanium. To me, the notion of making the most vulnerable part of the frame, and a part that is particularly important for controlling the bike, out of a material as sensitive to damage as carbon fiber (especially when that damage can be so difficult to assess), is ludicrous.

In researching for this post, I happened upon this article in VeloNews. In it, Lennard Zinn answers readers' questions about carbon forks. In response to a question on the life span of carbon forks, Zinn got answers from several manufacturers. Here's one from True Temper:

True Temper’s . . . test is a ramped load, meaning the load is increased periodically until failure occurs. Starting at 180 lbs, the load is increased 45 lbs. every 5000 cycles. Every fork will eventually break. Strong forks will last more than 10,000 cycles with a load of 270 lb. But our minimum standard begins at over 15,000 at 315 lbs. for road forks and 18,000 for cross forks and tandem. But our production forks are stronger than that, often going into the 20-25K range and beyond at loads of 360-405 lbs.

Even I have to admit, that sounds pretty impressive. In lab tests, carbon beats everything -- even steel. Then again, there's more to the story. The rep from True Temper continues:

Obviously, crashes are uncontrolled events and it is not easy to guess what loading was applied to a component by the speed or violence of the crash. After any crash it is important to thoroughly inspect the frame and components for visible cracks, dents, and bends. An Alpha Q fork that has been damaged (usually evident as a crack) should be replaced.

The question anyone should be asking is what about the damage one can't see? Short of getting the fork X-ray'd (and even that might not reveal anything) how is one to know that a carbon fork that appears to have completely "shrugged off" an accident is actually sound? A steel fork will bend, or it may show a crack that will spread slowly. The carbon fork may show that crack as evidence of structural damage -- but it may not. Then days, maybe weeks, maybe months later, it can break suddenly.

Here's the response from Deda:

Carbon lasts longer than metal. Only love is stronger than carbon. Bonding is a different story. I believe that a good glue (epoxy) can last for 2000 hours of work, or about 800 days, not in continuous daylight, and below 35 Celsius. Whenever a carbon “part” has crashed, even if you cannot see a failure, if there is any reasonable doubt about having surpassed the elongation limit, the part must be replaced.

This isn't making me any more confident. Keep in mind, when they talk about "bonding" it goes beyond joining the fork blades to the crown, or joining the crown to the steerer (not that that isn't totally critical -- it is). The carbon fibers themselves are bonded with some form of epoxy just to hold them all together and give the tubing its shape. What does that mean, "a good glue (epoxy) can last for 2000 hours of work, or about 800 days, not in continuous daylight, and below 35 celsius"? I mean, now we're not even talking about crash damage -- we're just talking about too much sunlight, or temperatures being too hot or cold, breaking down the integrity of this very critical frame component. And 800 days? That's barely over two years! I can only hope that this is just some language barrier, or maybe I'm misinterpreting the answer -- because this doesn't sound so impressive.

I liked this answer from Look:

There is no limitation because carbon has a natural flexibility. It can be used a hundred years while maintaining the same stiffness.

That kind of ignores the whole "composite" nature of carbon fiber as it is actually used in the manufacturing of a fork, frame, or other component. It also sidesteps the real concern -- carbon itself may not lose stiffness, but what keeps it all from de-laminating, which is where the plastic/epoxy/resin or whatever it is "lets go," leaving the carbon fibers free to come apart? Remember, without that plastic "matrix" holding the carbon fibers together and giving the tubing its shape, it would be like trying to ride a bicycle made of string.

In further reading, I found this blog post by Isolatecyclist. In his argument for carbon forks, he cites the above-mentioned Zinn article from VeloNews pretty extensively. He then goes on to say:

If carbon forks are so prone to catastrophic failure, why are there no high profile carbon bike or fork class action lawsuits circulating on the internet? In a litigious society like the U.S. at least one carbon fork manufacturer would have been sued out of existence by now. Instead, many carbon fork manufacturers offer a lifetime warranty on their forks. Just from a business standpoint, if the failure rate was high, they would go out of business.

Now, I don't want to sound like some kind of conspiracy theorist whack job, but the lack of news about lawsuits in relation to broken carbon forks isn't that hard to explain. All one has to do is look at the examples from other, much larger and very successful industries, such as the auto industry. Somebody gets hurt because of a defect in your product, pay them whatever it takes to settle any possible lawsuit, then have them sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of the settlement. In terms of the bike industry, obviously I have no proof whatsoever that they take this route (and I'd like to think they don't), but it's what a lot of other industries do, so why wouldn't they? And if they did, the whole point of non-disclosure agreements is that people don't talk about them, so there is no proof.

And the thing is, there ARE lawsuits against the manufacturers. But since bicycling is still, in the big scheme of things, considered by many to be something of a "fringe" activity, the lawsuits aren't going to make big headlines. Nevertheless, here's an article about one such lawsuit: Carbon Fiber Forks on Bicycle Can Hold an Insidious Danger. In it, one can read the actual settlement (spoiler alert: the plaintiff won).

Regarding those lifetime warranties, considering all the disclaimers about crash damage and abuse, they don't have to honor the lifetime warranty if they can show that the fork was either in an accident, or the owner didn't follow specified guidelines for use. What kind of guidelines? How about these, from Trek, released after a string of fork failures?

1) Always use a torque wrench, and never over-tighten stem clamp bolts.

2) Always use spacers above and below the stem. Although less obvious than correct torque, a minimum of 5mm and a maximum of 40mm spacers under the steerer, plus a 5mm spacer above the stem are required. Riders should factor in these spacers when sizing their bike.

3) Use only the stem brand and model that came with the bike, because not all stems will work with carbon steerers. Often the lighter the stem, the less chance it will be compatible with a carbon steerer. Weight-relieving cutouts on the stem clamp and steerer interface can create stress risers.

So now a rider can't even change stems unless he uses the exact same make and model of stem that the bike came with from the factory. Otherwise the warranty is voided. Great. It's nice to know that carbon forks are so much better than steel. Such an improvement. And only love lasts longer.

Isolatecyclist (please don't think I'm attacking him -- he's not an expert -- just a blogger like me) also pointed out this interesting note about the reports of broken carbon forks:

Most of the "unexplained catastrophic fork failure" reports are located on personal websites or in bike forums. There aren't well-known consumer or professional cycling websites warning consumers about the "dangers" of carbon forks.

Of course, the "well-known consumer or professional cycling websites" aren't going to take a shrill "sky is falling" tone about carbon fork dangers (remember who actually pays them and keeps them in business) -- but the stories are there. The reports are more than just anecdotes from faceless, nameless nobodies on forums. How about this story from VeloNews: "Steered Wrong? Racers Concerned About Broken Carbon Steerer Tubes. In it we get to see Trek blame the owners for their broken forks because they were using the "wrong" stems (i.e., not the Trek-owned Bontrager ones) with their carbon forks. Then there's this one, also from VeloNews: Cervelo Founder Calls for Industry-Wide Fork Steerer Test. Here's a quote:

The cycling industry isn't doing enough to prevent fork steerer failures.

That’s the opinion of a man who would know: Cervélo co-founder Phil White, whose company suffered a large fork recall in 2008 following fork failures that resulted in multiple crashes and injuries.

Cervélo is not alone in that sorry episode.

The cycling industry has seen a rash of fork steerer-related problems in the last few years, from nearly every major brand sold in North America. Big brands with big test labs have experienced consumer injuries and expensive recalls that the manufacturers say resulted from a mix of engineering and manufacturing flaws. 

Clearly, the industry is aware of the problem. But they keep chasing the chimera of lighter weight, knowing full well that weight-obsessed roadies will pay a premium to be used as crash test dummies. Many of these riders will try to dismiss the reports as unimportant, unconvincing "anecdotes" from faceless nobodies who didn't take care of their bikes, or who crashed and ignored the obvious signs of damage. They'll remain certain that their own forks are sound. They'll hope or expect that engineering or manufacturing flaws, such as voids buried deep in between the layers in the carbon layup, only happen to "other" brands, but not the one they've chosen. But the problems seem to be happening with every brand.

Here's another sign that carbon forks are known to be problematic, and have been from the beginning. Look at the way the dimensions of forks have changed so much in the last few years. Note that steerers for steel forks were 1-in. diameter for generations. Then 1 1/8-in. after the advent of mountain bikes. It wasn't necessary for steel forks on road bikes to go larger, but when steerers started showing up made of aluminum, the additional diameter was needed for strength. But the junction between aluminum steerers and carbon fork crowns was problematic. Different materials with different properties. Add salty sweat into the bonded joint between those different elements and it becomes battery acid -- galvanic corrosion could eat at the joint. Then the manufacturers started making the whole fork out of carbon fiber, but the strength was still at issue. The "step" or transition between the crown and the steerer was thought to be a weak point -- so we now are seeing tapered steerers with 1 1/4-in. at the fork crown, and 1 1/8-in. at the top. They're still more prone to failures. It makes me wonder what we'll see next.

Of course, the ads will never say "We had too many of 'em breaking before, so now we're making the steerers bigger." But the strength issue and failure rate is why carbon forks are evolving in the way we're seeing. There isn't really a better explanation for it.

Can steel forks fail? Yes. There have been recalls on defective steel forks due to manufacturing errors. But it's a much rarer thing. Accident damage with a steel fork can be seen and diagnosed much more readily. Damage that goes unseen tends to develop more slowly, giving more time and more clues before failure. I'm not trying to be some kind of Cassandra, stirring up irrational fears of carbon -- but for me, the safety and reliability of a good steel frame and fork are worth a lot more than a couple pounds.

No Carbon For Me, Thanks

When it comes to bicycles, there is nothing more cutting-edge than carbon fiber. Carbon fiber has promises of lighter weight, excellent stiffness, shock dampening, and so much more. People tout carbon fiber as the be-all and end-all of bicycle design — the answer to every quest. But is it really so great?

Carbon fiber is used in almost every part on some bicycles today. Frames, forks, cranks, handlebars and stems, pedals, seatposts, saddle rails, and hubs and rims. Some wheels are now even being made with CF spokes. All together, these things can combine to build a bike that weighs as little as 15 lbs.

When it comes to building bicycles, three things one needs to consider are strength, stiffness, and weight. Carbon-pushers love to extol the virtues of carbon fiber as being both stronger and stiffer than steel. I've seen sources saying CF is 5x stronger and 2x stiffer than steel. It is also a fraction of the weight of steel for a given volume. Ideal for bicycles, right? Wrong.

What the carbon-pushers tend to leave out is that these claims of superior strength and stiffness to weight ratios are based on lab test of raw materials. For example, a strand of carbon fiber can withstand more pounds of tension force per square inch without breaking than a piece of steel of equal weight. However, all these lab test results don’t necessarily translate into superiority when built into a bicycle. Nobody really rides “carbon fiber” as it is tested in the lab. Carbon fiber is, as the name implies, a fiber — think “string” or “thread” — it is really only strong when in tension (pulling) but has no resistance to compression (pushing) or torsion (twisting). Nor does it have the ability by itself to hold a shape (unless you count "string-shaped" as a shape). Carbon fiber, as used in tubing and for bicycles, must first be woven into some kind of fabric, mesh, or perhaps a felt-like material — then soaked in some type of resin (plastic) and molded to hold it all together and give it shape. The orientation or grain of the fibers is important so the frame or the component can withstand the types of forces put on it. Unfortunately, a bicycle as a structure undergoes a number of different forces from many different directions as the bicycle is ridden — from twisting in one direction to the other, bending, compression and tension. These forces cannot always be predicted accurately (even in sophisticated computer models — although they keep getting better).  And if the bicycle is subjected to forces that cannot be predicted (such as an accident or crash) the result can be catastrophic. A small nick or scratch in the plastic that holds all that carbon fiber together (a scratch perhaps barely visible to the eye) can spread quickly and without warning, suddenly leaving the rider riding a bicycle that has no structural integrity. Imagine riding a bike made of, well, string.

Stronger than steel? Hmmmm. A steel bike can be ridden with a dent, and that dent will not spread or break apart without warning. A sharp dent — one that creases the steel — can turn into a crack over time if repeatedly ridden. But that crack will develop gradually and won’t suddenly appear and then break apart in the middle of one ride. Yes, if one continued to ride the bike, it could fail eventually. But who is going to keep riding the bike when they can see this crack developing?

Occasionally, riders of carbon fiber bikes will claim that they were “just riding along” when suddenly the bike broke apart. First, it is probably more likely that the bike was in a minor incident — and after being inspected by the rider, it appeared that nothing happened to the bike. But the damage could be basically undetected, hidden deep inside the layup of carbon. Then on another ride, maybe a day, maybe a couple weeks, or maybe even a couple of months later (after the incident is long forgotten) the tiny imperceptible damage suddenly spreads and the bike is broken. Still, it isn’t all that uncommon that the CF bike (or component) fails and there was no accident damage as the cause. It could be poor design, or just a minor flaw in the manufacturing. Often, the flaw can be hidden and completely undetectable. 

Crash damage involving CF is spectacular. Whereas steel bikes, and to a similar extent aluminum, may get bent, twisted or dented in a serious crash, a CF bike can break apart completely. It’s possible that the steel bike may still be un-rideable after a serious crash, but it is almost certain that the CF bike will not be ridden again.

And then there is repairability. A damaged steel frame (particularly if built with lugs) can be repaired at the fraction of the cost of replacement. And the repair will not compromise the frame’s integrity in any way — with a new paintjob, it can literally be as good as new. I've heard of people who say they can repair carbon frames, but I cannot imagine there would be any way to ensure that the repaired section would be truly as good as new.

A decently built steel frame should last a lifetime. But a CF frame really needs to be seen as a disposable purchase.

What about weight? Certainly, a bike built with a CF frame and with some CF components can easily shed 4 - 5 pounds from a complete bike. That weight is instantly noticeable when one picks up the bike. But I've covered in other posts how that weight loss doesn't necessarily make as much of a difference as the perception. If one actually races, it might be important -- but if one doesn't race, it's pretty insignificant. Speaking for myself, I have other priorities that make shaving a few seconds off the ride time pretty meaningless. Factor in the total weight of the bicycle and the rider, and those 4 - 5 pounds mean very little.

I go round and round with fellow cyclists on the point of carbon fiber frames, forks, and components. Some probably get sick of hearing it, but CF is simply not for me.

Retrogrouch's New Old Bike: Dave Moulton Fuso

I just picked up a "new" old bike the other day -- a bike that I've wanted since I first saw one back in 1985: A Dave Moulton Fuso.

1986 Dave Moulton Fuso - 27 years old, but still
looking good.

Dave Moulton was a highly respected frame builder originally from Worcester, England (where he built bicycles full-time from 1974 - 1978 -- though his frame building experience goes back a lot farther), who later moved his frame building operation to the USA (from 1981 - 1993). Today, Dave is retired from the bicycle industry and is a successful writer and blogger. He built quite a few custom-built bicycles with his own name, as well as some very nicely hand-built production bikes under different brand names to distinguish them from the more exclusive custom-built bikes. One of these hand-built production bikes was the Fuso.

The Fuso line was launched in 1984 and continued until Dave retired from frame building in 1993. The name Fuso was an Italian twist on Dave's last name. The bike has an Italian vibe to it -- or at least, Dave felt that Italian bikes like Colnago, DeRosa, and Cinelli were the main competition. The word Fuso is Italian for molten. Clever. The head-tube logo features an image of molten metal being poured into a mold. On the bike I just acquired, which is from 1986, that head-tube logo is a classy enameled badge. Later ones used a decal instead of a badge.

Nice-looking head badge.

I first learned of the bike from a magazine article in 1985 -- I believe the magazine was the now-defunct Bicycle Guide -- and they did ride tests of several production bikes built by men primarily known at the time for their custom-built frames; people like Dave Moulton, Ben Serotta, Ray Gasiorowski (Romic Cycles), and others. (by the way, if any readers out there can dig up a copy of that article, let me know -- I'd love to get a scan of it). The editors loved Moulton's Fuso, saying it was a great bike for all kinds of fast riding and racing. (Update 4/15/2014: I have managed to track down that article -- it was actually Bicycling Magazine, 5/85)

Several color combinations were available in the Fuso line, and the example I found is the classy red and charcoal gray which was always my favorite. It is completely built with what was then the newly introduced Shimano Dura Ace SIS group. In 1986, I would have scoffed at the indexed shifting (yes, I was a Retrogrouch even back then -- though the name had yet to be coined). I suppose after about 27 years, it's proven itself effective, but part of me is still tempted to put on a pair of 80s vintage Simplex Retrofriction shift levers (I have a spare set somewhere). It's what I would have done back then. Actually, if I were the original owner, buying a Fuso frame in 1986 and selecting components for it, if I couldn't have gotten Campagnolo at the time, I almost certainly would have picked SunTour Superbe Pro -- I always preferred SunTour over Shimano. But now, after all these years, Dura Ace is still around, and SunTour is pretty much gone. And the Dura Ace of that generation undeniably looks and works great.

I really like the look of the seat-lug/seat-stay cluster. The seat-stay treatment is unique and lovely. The Dura Ace seat post is a classic-looking piece, and the Selle Italia Turbo saddle was the perfect choice in 1986. 

That is a monster-long stem -- 13 cm! I think I'm going to need to change that before I can ride this. 
It's over an inch longer than any stem I'd be tempted to ride on. My arms just aren't that long.

Dura Ace brakes, and a Chris King headset. Those headsets were available in 1986, but I'm certain 
this one was installed later in this bike's life.

Dura Ace drivetrain shows signs of use, but still looks pretty good for a 27-year-old bike.

Dura Ace SIS shifters. I still could put on some retrofriction levers. 
It would be a total Retrogrouch thing to do.

"From the Frame Shop of Dave Moulton." The original bike shop decal is still on the seat-tube, too. The bike needs a pair of pedals. I've looked for 80s vintage Dura Ace pedals, but they're ungodly expensive today. The Shimano 600 (pre-dates the Ultegra group) pedals are similar in style to the Dura Ace, but sell for a good bit less today. I could swear I had a pair of the 600 pedals buried in a box somewhere, in need of a rebuild, but I can't find them anywhere. They would be an acceptable choice.

One might ask what was the difference between a hand-built production bike and a custom-built one. That can vary a bit from builder to builder, but in this case, I think I can give a decent explanation. The Fuso line of bikes was hand-built to a standardized design, with standardized measurements and angles in a range of different sizes. A customer ordering one could select the size they needed, and pick from a set range of colors (though the palette of choices expanded over the years). Because most of the design was standardized, Dave could build a number of frames and keep some in stock, to be painted in the selected color when an order would come in. A fully custom-built frame, on the other hand, was built specifically to a customer's order -- likely made-to-measure. With a custom-built bike, things like tubing gauge and specific measurements and angles could be varied for the customer's particular needs, riding style, and weight. It's also possible that certain details could be selected by the customer, such as lug style, or braze-ons for things like water bottles, or whether or not to have fittings for fenders. Exactly how much input a customer would have on a custom-built bike would really depend on the builder. Dave Moulton was first and foremost a builder of racing bikes, so a customer probably didn't get to go too crazy with special requests. But the cost for a custom-built frame would be a good bit higher than the production Fuso.

As previously stated, Dave Moulton retired from frame building in 1993. I've read articles on his blog where he explains that one of the things that affected that decision was the popularity of the mountain bike. By the late 80s and early 90s, sales of road bikes really suffered as mountain bikes surged. I remember visiting bike shops at that time and being struck by how few road bikes, whether for racing or touring, there were on the showroom floors. (A similar phenomenon happened not long afterwards where one would go to a car dealership or an auto show and find nothing but SUVs.). Dave did try his hand at making some mountain bikes -- which were very different from the competition's. He approached the mountain bike from a road bike perspective, making it lighter and more nimble, with much steeper angles and shorter wheelbase than the MTB norm of the day. I guess they didn't sell well (though I sure wouldn't mind finding one), and road racing bikes were really his thing. Eventually, it just wasn't economically viable to keep him going.

An interesting note on the Fuso bicycles is that the brand has been revived in recent years by Russ Denny, who was once an apprentice to Dave. He still builds bikes out of steel, some with lugs -- some more traditional in design, and some with a more modern aesthetic. Here's wishing him the best of luck.

Addendum: A coincidence. As I was writing this, 10/07/13, I was double-checking a fact on Dave Moulton's site and found that his latest blog post is all about how and why he left the bike business. Apparently it was 20 years ago this month.

Threadless and Quill Stems

Bicycle headsets and stems have changed a lot in the last couple of decades. For most of the bicycle's history, the standard was the 1-in. fork steerer and threaded headset with a quill stem. There were variations in headset threading; British (which essentially became ISO), Italian, French, JIS (used on some Japanese bikes), and even a few others; and small differences in stem dimensions (22.2 mm for most, 22.0 for French, for example). Although those variations make it a little tricky sometimes when repairing or retrofitting vintage bikes, by the late 80s, things became much easier as British/ISO became the main standard that supplanted most others. Only Italian remained, and it was more or less interchangeable with ISO, so it didn't matter. The 1-in. steerer was (and still is) plenty strong enough for steel-framed bikes.

I know I used this picture in a different post, but that Nitto
I-beam stem is just a gorgeous piece of forged metalwork.

In the late 80s, the rise of mountain bikes brought the first major change in headsets: the increase in diameter from 1-in. to 1 1/8-in. The way I recall it (though someone is bound to tell me I'm wrong) is that the change was made not so much because the 1-in. steel steerer wasn't strong enough for MTBs -- but rather because the increase in size would improve the life of the headset bearings. The added strength of the fork was a bonus. Yes, I could be remembering it wrong. In time, some MTBs even started appearing with 1 1/4-in. headsets (if big is good, bigger must be better). In the 1990s came the threadless headsets with stems that bolt onto the outside of the steerer, rather than quill stems being inserted and tightened with an expander wedge inside the steerer.

While the threadless headset/stem system first swept the mountain bike market, they took a little longer to take over the road bike market, but they did more or less take over. Today it is hard to find a bike that still takes a threaded headset and quill stem. Although there are certain advantages to the threadless headset system, the advantages are, I believe, more heavily tilted to the manufacturers than the consumers. Easier installation, and less variation in stock - manufacturers no longer needed to keep forks with different lengths of threaded steerers -- it became a one-size-fits-all world (at least for a while -- I'll come back to that).

Threadless stem - 1 1/8-in. -- Although the Velo-Orange
polished aluminum stem is one of my favorites for road bikes,
some might find it a bit proportionally large for a steel frame.
What is worse though, is the thickness of the spacers --
making the steerer look as big as the head-tube. Since this
photo was taken, I had a set of silver spacers thinned
down by a machinist. It looks a lot better now. Why doesn't
 someone just make thinner headset spacers for steel frames?

I don't really have major issues with threadless headsests -- even as a Retrogrouch. They do adjust easily; they give a more "solid" connection between the stem and the steerer; and the stems can even be a little lighter and stronger at the same time. On the other hand, they don't allow for as much adjustability in height. Once the fork steerer is cut to length the options become limited. And on some bikes, especially classic-proportioned steel bikes, they can really throw off the aesthetics. Install a steep-angled stem to get the bars higher, and the look gets pretty weird.

By the way, as far as aesthetics and proportions go, nothing looks "weirder" to me than a carbon fork (usually with hugely oversized blades) on a steel frame. The fork shouldn't be larger than the frame tubes IMO. The stem shouldn't be larger than the frame tubes, either -- but many/most threadless stems are.

Most of the bikes I own have 1-in. headsets and quill stems. All of my bikes are steel; all of them lugged. Quill stems are svelte and have the right proportion for steel bikes. That alone is enough for me.

Early 70s 3ttt Record stem -- beautiful proportions
for a classic steel bike. 

There really aren't that many "drawbacks" to the traditional quill stem. One argument I hear for threadless over threaded is that you can adjust a threadless headset with allen wrenches which can be carried on a ride, as opposed to the large open-end wrenches needed for threaded headsets. OK - but if the headset is adjusted properly to begin with, there won't be a need to adjust it on the road. Some like to point out that an over-tightened quill stem can bulge the steerer tube. Yes -- so don't over-tighten it. (Interestingly, some of the same people who would make that complaint don't seem deterred by carbon fork steerers that can be crushed by over-tightened threadless stems.) Then there's the issue of stems becoming "frozen" in the steerer because of sweat and corrosion. Yep. That's what grease and maintenance are for. I've only ever seen it happen on seriously neglected bikes.

Here's a 1-in. threadless stem -- fillet brazed
from chrome-moly tubing. It had to be custom-
made, but it does offer a more "classic"
proportion for a steel-framed bike.

Back to that one-size-fits-all world. On road bikes, even as threadless headsets took over, the 1-in. fork remained common for a while. As I pointed out, the 1-in. steel fork steerer was more than strong enough. But as forks and steerers started being made in other materials -- first aluminum, then carbon -- the strength of the steerer became more of an issue. In time, 1 1/8-in. became more common on road bikes too -- partly because of the strength issue (at least with non-steel forks), but again, I suspect it makes things easier for the manufacturers -- fewer variations to keep in stock. But now with the all-carbon wunderbikes, there have still been plenty of failures, and the fork-crown/steerer junction seems to be a weak link. It's an issue that gets all-too much ignored. But one should ask themselves why so many carbon-steerer forks are now made 1 1/4-in. at the bottom, tapering to 1 1/8-in. at the top. It's obviously a strength issue, but don't expect to read that in the ads. Anyhow -- I'm starting to digress, so carbon forks are just going to have to be a subject for another post.

Retrogrouch Renovation: Vintage Trek

In Bucking the Trend, I pointed out several new road bikes available today that are more versatile than a lot of the narrowly focused bikes that are just too much influenced by the racing gene. Most of the bikes I mentioned are available as frame sets so they can be built up with sensible and simple components. One other option for riders looking for a classic-style road bike is to actually find a vintage classic-style road bike -- dig something out of the past -- and renovate it.

I've done a few renovations over the years -- taking older bikes that have maybe lost some luster but formed a good base for taking to a new level. Literally, a new birth. There are many bikes from the 70s and 80s that were good bikes in their day, though not particularly valuable or collectible today; bikes that have spent most of their lives in basements and garages; bikes that can be had for next-to-nothing today. Many of these bikes have nicely brazed lugged frames, often made with good quality tubing, and geometry that makes them adaptable to many kinds of riding.

Here is a renovation that I did recently for my wife. The basis was a 1984 Trek 420L mixte, which was one of the lower-priced Treks from that time, but it had a nice lugged frame built from butted manganese alloy steel (Tange Mangaloy). This was good-quality frame tubing, but typically spec'd on less expensive frames than chrome-moly. The Trek was originally designed for 27" wheels, which were common on American-market road bikes in the 80s. It had long-reach centerpull brakes with a fair amount of clearance, even for fenders. The bike was a good basis for a renovation.

Scan from the 1984 Trek catalog
(with permission from www.vintage-trek.com)

First thing one should know is that my wife doesn't ride very often. I did once buy her a nice road bike; one that was supposedly a comfortable "sport-touring" type of bike, but in reality was not as versatile or comfortable as it should have been. Certainly nothing like the "sport touring" bikes of the past. It really didn't suit her needs. It didn't fit tires beyond about 25 mm, the gearing was pretty high (it had a triple crank, but it was what they call a "racing triple" -- she was NEVER going to use that big ring), the bars didn't come up high enough for her comfort, and she just could not get the hang of the STI integrated brake and shift levers. When I found the Trek mixte, I figured I could affordably custom-build her something that would really fit her and the kind of riding she might actually do.

I found the Trek on eBay for only about $200 including shipping. The frame was straight and true, with no damage. The original paint was OK, but not great. To begin the renovation, I stripped all the parts off the frame and took it to a local powder coater. Powder coat is a good choice for a bike like this since it looks good, is durable and inexpensive, and the bike isn't exactly a valuable collectors piece that needs the careful attention to detail that comes with a high-quality (and more expensive) wet paint job. Powder coating a bicycle can often be done for as little as $100 -- including all the prep work. Because there are certain details that make painting bicycles different from painting car wheels and garden furniture, I recommend talking to a few sources in your area for powder coat -- find out how much experience they have with doing bicycles. If the answer you get is "I can coat anything that's metal" you might want to keep looking. Ask local riders and bike shops to see if there is anyone they recommend.

Renovated Trek 420L. New wheels, new paint, different
bars and saddle, hammered fenders, and topped off with
a wicker basket.

I decided to replace the 27" wheels, which are verging on obsolete (tires are still available, but the choices are shrinking), with the current road bike standard 700c. That opened up a much larger choice and availability for tires. Since 700c wheels are slightly smaller than 27" (622 mm vs. 630 mm), switching also meant increasing tire/fender clearance slightly. I thought of possibly going all the way to 650b wheels (584 mm), but I don't know that this was the best frame for that kind of conversion. The bottom bracket on the frame was already pretty low to begin with, and I wasn't sure I wanted to lower it even more. Also, I was going to need to switch the rear brake to an extra-long reach (75 mm) model to better reach 700c rims, and I wasn't certain that even those extra-long reach brakes would be enough to reach a 650b rim (my measurements said it was going to be awfully close). Clearance for large-volume tires with fenders was going to be pretty good with 700c, so I decided to stick with that.

Formerly triple crank, converted to single - with
Velo-Orange chainguard.

In the interest of simplicity, I took the triple ring crankset and converted it to a single. I'd have a wide range 7-sp. freewheel on the back wheel. My wife isn't going to be doing any serious hills, and it's hard to beat the simplicity of one shifter. Switching the crank to a single also allowed me to fit a classic-looking art deco style chainguard, which was modeled on a vintage French design, from Velo-Orange.

For the shifting, I used a set of Shimano Finger Tip spring-loaded levers. Since I only needed one lever, I removed the left side lever and replaced it with a bell -- this took a little work, as the mounting bolts were different sizes and threading. I fabricated a little adapter to make it possible. I really like the functional symmetry the setup provides.

Stem mounted shift lever and bell.

For the stem and bars, I used a vintage Nitto I-beam stem, which has a great look for this style of bike, and Left Bank upright bars from Velo-Orange.

I added a tiny Gran-Compe ENE mini rack, which mounts right to the front brake. The rack adds a bit of support and stability to the wicker basket. I also installed the hammered fenders from V-O, which add a nice finishing touch.

For the saddle, I went with a Brooks B-67S (the shorter-nosed "ladies" model). The springs take the shock out of bumps, the saddle is wide and comfortable, and it looks fantastic. Also, using Brooks saddles is a way to always have my name on my bikes. I then made hand grips out of brown cotton tape and hemp twine coated in shellac. They match the saddle.

I was able to get reproduction Trek decals from Velocals.com which offers a huge array of decals for vintage bikes. The headbadge was re-useable -- I just carefully removed the sticky backing and replaced it with new double sided 3M adhesive tape. As a finishing touch, I outlined the lugs in gold paint.

My wife was thrilled with the bike when I gave it to her for our anniversary. She was particularly happy that I was able to equip it in such a way that it should really suit her needs and wishes. The bike is a real head-turner and gets complements anywhere we go. It has classic French style, is comfortable, and versatile. The original bike was a good and inexpensive place to begin, but in the end, it is even nicer in many ways now than it was when new. With new paint and wheels, along with assorted new parts and accessories, the total cost for the bike ended up being around $750. Considering just the cost of a lugged steel frame today, I think it was a pretty good deal.

Bucking the Trend

In my previous post, No Such Thing as Junk Miles, I wrote about how a lot of road bikes today are overly influenced by racing -- making them too narrowly focused for the needs of many people who otherwise could be well served by a good-quality road bike, but instead get steered into mountain bikes, "comfort" bikes, and cruisers because they don't want something that essentially boils down to a racing bike. There are exceptions, of course, and I thought I'd highlight a few bikes available today, to fit a range of budgets, that buck the current trends in bicycle design by being simple, comfortable, and versatile.

Surly Pacer (photo used with permission from Surly.)

Surly Bikes, a brand from Quality Bicycle Products (QBP -- which supplies many bike shops around the country), offers a couple of bikes that fit my description of versatile road bikes. They also are pretty affordable. Using chrome-moly frames, welded construction, and single-color powder coated finishes, they are not particularly fancy, but should prove to be durable and enjoyable. The Pacer is Surly's answer to the question "Why can't I just find a sporty, no-nonsense, comfortable road bike?" Something like this would be a good choice for someone who wants a nice road bike for spirited riding -- but who isn't trying to be the next big thing in Cat 5 racing. Then again, it's about as racy as a lot of high-end racing bikes from my youth. The folks at Surly say it's a bike for "all-day rides" and it will fit tires up to 32 mm, which is a nice thing. Tires make a huge difference in comfort. It has eyelets so one could add fenders (though I'm guessing it would only take 28 mm tires with fenders). Available as a complete bike, or as a frame set for a truly customized set-up. I've seen Pacer frame sets sell for around $500 - $550, and complete bikes about $1400.

Long Haul Trucker (photo used with permission from Surly)

Also from Surly is their Long Haul Trucker. This bike would be a great choice for long distance, loaded touring, commuting, and more. With slightly heavier-gauge tubing, it should handle heavy loads and anything else a person can throw at it as well. It can accept fenders and racks of all kinds and configurations. One particularly interesting thing about the LHT is that in many frame sizes, it can be ordered in either a 26" wheel or a 700c wheel version. (26" available from 42 to 62 cm frame, 700c available from 56 to 64 cm.). Considering that an awful lot of people out there ride mountain bikes that never leave the pavement, I really think that many people who might think they need a mountain bike would probably be suited just fine with a 26" wheeled LHT. Like the Pacer, it can be purchased as a complete bike, or as a frameset, which gives a person lots of options for tailoring the bike to their own specific needs. Equip it as modern or as "Retro-grouchy" as you like. Complete LHTs seem to average around $1300, while frame sets are likely to be found for $450 - $500.

A Velo-Orange Polyvalent, built to completion
with a lot of V-O branded components.
(photo used with permission from V-O)

Velo-Orange offers several models of nice road bike frames for buyers on a reasonable budget. Their Polyvalent and Campeur frame sets are both welded with butted chrome-moly tubing and painted in single-color paint jobs with tasteful, understated graphics. The Velo-Orange designs tend to have a classic French flavor, being influenced by great French road/touring bikes of a golden age. According to the V-O description, the Polyvalent Mk II (French for "general purpose") is designed for "cyclo-touring, brevets, and fast club rides." It is designed for 650b wheels (a size about half-way between 26" and 700c) which is a size that was often used on those golden-age French touring, or Randonneuring bikes. The Polyvalent is only available in four sizes, between 51 - 60 cm, which means very short or very tall riders may need to look to one of the other models. The Campeur frame is designed to be a very versatile bike, capable of loaded touring, or riding on pavement or path. It is designed for 700c wheels, and is available in sizes from 51 - 63 cm. Both bikes can be built up in a variety of configurations to suit many types of riding styles, and Velo-Orange can supply most of the parts needed to complete the bike (V-O has a full line of classic and traditional styled parts and accessories -- many with their own brand name). Some new, or newly re-designed models are in the works at V-O, like the Pass Hunter, and Camargue, and should be worth checking out once they're available. Current frame sets sell for about $500.

Soma San Marcos -- available as a frame set, but shown
here as a complete bike. (photo used with permission from Soma)

Soma Fabrications offers their San Marcos as a frame set so it can be built in a variety of ways, to suit anyone's particular needs or desires. Designed in conjunction with Rivendell (and also available from Rivendell) the San Marcos is built in Taiwan with lovely brazed lug construction and Tange Prestige chrome-moly tubing (excellent quality, heat-treated, butted tubes). It has provisions for racks and fenders, and room for large-volume tires (up to 35 mm) with long reach side-pull or center-pull brakes. This bike would be a great way to get the beauty of a lugged frame with Rivendell pedigree on a modest budget. With a smart nod to good frame fit and proportion, the San Marcos is designed for 650b wheels in the smaller frame sizes, and for 700c wheels in the larger ones. The two largest frame sizes have a double top-tube design to add strength. The San Marcos frame and fork sell for about $900, which is a bargain for a nice quality lugged frame. I should also point out that Soma has other frame sets available, a little more budget-conscious, that would be of interest to people shopping for classic-styled versatile bikes, like the Stanyan (which is also lugged steel), and the Buena Vista Mixte.

Sam Hilbourne (photo used with permission from Rivendell)

From Rivendell Bicycles comes the Sam Hillbourne, a Taiwanese-built frame and fork embodying Grant Petersen's design sensibility and Rivendell's lugs and fork crown. Described by Rivendell as a bike in-between a loaded tourer and a "roadish country bike," the Hillbourne should suit many kinds of riding on the road and even some trails -- a true all-arounder bike. Like the Soma San Marcos, it is designed for 650b wheels in the smallest size (51 cm), while the two largest sizes (58 cm and 62 cm) have the double top-tube for added strength. Compared to the Soma San Marcos, the Sam Hillbourne should fit slightly larger tires, has a little more "deluxe" detailing in the build and a fancier 2-tone paint job. It can be purchased as a frame set for $1,225, or as a built-to-order complete bike from Rivendell who can advise on component choices to fit the owner's preferences. The folks at Rivendell say a typical complete build would run approximately $2600, but it could vary depending on component choices.

A nice AHH example, outstanding in its field
(used with permission from owner Mel Hughes)

For riders after an extra nice, deluxe road bike, built from great materials, with a fantastic design, and brazed by some of the best craftsmen around (at Waterford in Wisconsin), there is Rivendell's A. Homer Hilsen. An uncommon name, but an uncommonly nice bike. For the same price as a "popped out of a mold" carbon fiber bike that's good for going fast and not much else, a person can get the AHH and have a timeless, durable, classic-looking bike that does all kinds of things well. In its design and geometry, the AHH is very similar to the Rivendell Long & Low that I've been riding and enjoying for the past 12 years -- the biggest difference being that the AHH takes long reach side-pull brakes instead of cantilevers. The AHH is a production-made bike, but it is about as close to fully custom as one can get without having a frame made-to-measure. It comes in a huge range of sizes -- between 47 and 71 cm. (typically in about 2 cm increments). Not many bikes are available beyond 65 cm (if even that) -- I'm not sure I can impress upon readers just how large that is -- if you're a 7 footer, this might be the only production frame you can find to fit. Sizes from 47 - 58 are built for 650b wheels, while larger sizes are designed for 700c. Sizes from 65 - 71 include the double top-tube design, which really makes sense in frames that large. The frame and fork cost $2300 (frames from 65 cm - 71 cm are $2400). It comes only in blue, but one may be able to order different colors for an extra charge.

All the bikes I've mentioned here would be much more versatile than many of the road bikes out there today that take too much of their design influence from racing bikes. The Surly Pacer is probably the "sportiest" bike I've listed, and it's still miles more versatile than most carbon-fiber wunderbikes on the showroom floors. Most of the bikes I've mentioned will take pretty large volume tires (a huge boon for comfort) and can fit fenders easily. All of them are built from chrome-moly steel which is tough, safe, durable, and repairable. They should all be good for a lifetime of riding.

Of all the bikes I've highlighted here, the Surly bikes may be the easiest to find at a local bike shop as they have a pretty extensive dealer network, and because QBP supplies so many shops around the country. Soma bicycles don't have as large of a dealer network so it's possible they might not have a dealer in everyone's area -- but their online web store is easy to use. Velo-Orange has a growing dealer network, and everything they sell is also available from their website -- I've ordered a lot from V-O over the years and their packing and shipping are first rate. Rivendell does have dealers scattered around the country, though not many -- but their website sales and over-the-phone customer service are tops.

It's possible that someone might want one of the bikes or brands I've mentioned, but not have a dealer in their area. If that person isn't confident in their ability to order the "right" bike/frame/components for their needs, and because I strongly value supporting local bicycle dealers, I'd suggest asking a favorite dealer if they'd be willing and/or able to help with or handle the order, even if they aren't regularly a dealer of that brand (it can't hurt to ask) -- and be willing and ready to pay for their assistance -- it will be worthwhile.