Author Topic: touring build  (Read 2496 times)

honesty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
touring build
« on: September 17, 2012, 07:41:39 pm »
I have a 59cm claud butler frame in my shed sans forks and headset, along with wheels, brakes, drop bars, rear cassette (slx 11 - 32), saddle and post, stem, and the top brake levers.

Now the frame was probably a little large when In drop bar config (I'm 5' 11"), but I'm thinking for putting some money aside and rebuilding this bike as a flat bar tourer using thorn forks, bars, stem, etc. as I'm thinking that this is not going to be as stretched out as when I was using the drop bars.

Im also thinking of getting a shorter stem, fatter tyres (dureme 40mm if they fit!), and really going for a loaded tourer style.

so what do you think? Is it viable to do?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 07:45:09 pm by honesty »

honesty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: touring build
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2012, 07:48:07 pm »
Sorry, posting through my phone and it posted early!

Shopping list and questions:
Flat bar shifters
Chain set - I'm thinking a mtb Deore set at 22-32-44
Flat bar or thorn comfort bar or something else?
New stem, but what length and what angle?
New tyres
Low loaders
Maybe a thud buster seat post
Also, which forks? And whic headset?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 07:51:51 pm by honesty »

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: touring build
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2012, 08:03:33 pm »
Hi Adam!

It is always nice to keep old bikes on the road or return them to use, but there can be problems as standards and dimensions change over time and it can be difficult to fully "modernize" (perhaps I should say "contemporize") the vintage frames as you'd like.

For example, you mentioned the frame was a little large...wider tires will also be taller by the same amount, and that may well reduce standover to nil or less if that dimension is close. If you find the frame too large in terms of feeling stretched-out, then the problem will likely be resolved with a shorter stem and straight 'bars.

There are several other things to keep in mind for a project of this sort (its always nice to keep old bikes:

= If you had the original fork, I do think it's clearance would be problematic for 40mm tires while allowing enough sidewall room to accommodate an out-of-true wheel. The original fork would very likely be problematic running both wide tires and mudguards. I'd figure on using tires with a section width/profile of about 35mm...32mm with fenders. Many of these problems could be solved with a new fork with wider crown clearance. If you go this route, you will probably need one that has a threaded 1" steerer. Getting a threadless with a 1" steerer is now a bit more problematic and headset selection won't be as good. There's plenty of good forks with threaded steerers left on the market, and many really nice ones can be had used. You may have to experiment with the geometry a bit and try several forks of the handling turns out to be a bit wonky in practice.

= Where the frame currently uses a 6-sp cassette, I would guess OLN spacing is around 126mm rather than 135mm. If you ever wish to update the gearing to 9-sp, for example, you will need to respace the chainstays and realign the dropouts. With the current setup, there is no problem. I have and am still running bikes with 120mm rear spacing as well as 126mm and they are perfectly happy running older drivetrain components (freewheels!). [EDIT: Oh, I see my mistake; I read "slx" as "six"; sorry!]

I'd say if you wish to simply update and sorta-kinda restore the bike to make it usable, your plan is a good one. Most of the needed parts are there already, and they are the important ones. So, in terms of viability, I'd say "Yes!" to your plan for making it a good runner and even tourer. "Maybe!" if you're thinking of running relatively wide tires, and "Ummmmno" if you are going for really wide tires; the latter two answers depending on whether you pan to also fit mudguards. As far as the drop-'bar to flat-'bar conversion, a hearty "Oh, yes!" there; no problem.

Hope this helps,

Dan.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 08:51:15 pm by Danneaux »

honesty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: touring build
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012, 08:19:42 pm »
I should have said its a 2011 frame, and the front forks are bent which is why they're in the bin. The rear cassette is 9 speed shimano slx.

On the stem, how short can you go? What problems would a very short stem create?

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: touring build
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2012, 08:41:53 pm »
Quote
I should have said its a 2011 frame, and the front forks are bent which is why they're in the bin. The rear cassette is 9 speed shimano slx.

Ah! That changes much, and favorably! You no longer have to worry so much about compatibility of components.

First thing I would do is determine the original frame's intended use -- sport-touring? Touring? Cyclo-cross? That geometry and intended use will give you a good starting point for evaluating your build. Not every bike has geometry optimized for touring, with or without a load.

Once that is determined, I would check the frame very closely for any damage. Usually, an impact forceful enough to bend the forks often results in a bulge appearing on the underside of the top- and downtubes and sometimes paint-flaking on the tops of both those same tubes. If there is any sign of damage in those places, then I would be reluctant to proceed further.

If the frame is sound and fit for the purpose, then I'd feel much better about proceeding.

You asked...
Quote
On the stem, how short can you go? What problems would a very short stem create?

As far as fitting a stem, you can go as short as is available. Downhill bikes are coming out with stems that are perilously close to zero-reach, with the clamp parked nearly atop the steerer, but those are for a specialized purpose. As far as how short you should go, two immediate concerns are 1) handling and 2) clearance (particularly between handlebars and knees).  Both are somewhat problematic to predict in advance. A stem with too-long reach tends to give a "tiller" effect to the steering and places much more of the rider's weight over the front hub, which does not always result in the best handling. The common concern with a stem having extremely short reach is it does not provide enought leverage to safely steer the bike, and this can be made worse with a heavy front touring load or bad roads. I'm not convinced this is the case in reality, as leverage is more generally determined by the width of the handlebars as that moment arm is what provides the leverage, not the stem offset or reach.

I can share that I have had success in days past fitting bikes for other people by installing stems as short as 50mm and 60mm. In the "olden days" of the 1970s and 1980s, bikes commonly came with the same length top tube and varied only in the length of the seat tube. The only way to "fit" a bicycle was to alter stem reach and hope it would be enough, as many production frames only came in sizes "Small", "Medium" and "Large" (21", 23", 25" c-t seat tubes). Even when used with handlebars bags, I never had reports of poor handling that were attributable to short stem reach, whereas I have sometimes has reports of problems when reach was "too long".

In my own personal experience, I currently run quill stems with 80mm reach on several of my single bikes with no problem, and I am currently using a Kalloy Uno stem with 90mm reach on the Nomad (and brake levers placed about 1cm higher than usual); the Sherpa had a shorter top tube and used a 110mm stem that resulted in the same effective handlebar placement.

An adjustable stem would go far in helping you dial-in your desired position before committing to a stem with fixed reach and angles. Many good ones are available at relatively low cost, and would be a good first step toward determing what your needs are. That's the course I'd take.

Hope this helps,

Dan.

honesty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: touring build
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2012, 10:25:23 pm »
The dalesman is a standard tourer, like the galaxy (actually same company, so probably assembled in the same factory as well...) so I'm probably not going to be going full off road, but cycle path and mud track would be doable.

I'll definitely examine those areas for damage. My cursory examination didn't show anything on the frame but the fork steerer tube was off centre when I held the forks up against another set and there was a crack (with rust showing) in the paint running round the inside of one fork.

So to summarise, too long makes steering worse, too short makes steering harder. Too short seems fine to me. Thorn do a nice looking 40mm stem with a 40 degree rise. I'm tempted!

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: touring build
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2012, 01:57:07 am »
Quote
I'm tempted!

Sounds like you're set to give it a go! Best of luck on the project; it sounds fun and worthwhile and should get the bike to your liking for only a modest outlay. Can't beat that!

Best,

Dan.

honesty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: touring build
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2012, 08:23:36 am »
Yep, though even this modest expense has to be drip fed past my wife ;)

I'm aiming to build the bike up ready for a short Devon tour next April/May time. I'm planning on cycling the newish Devon coast to coast and as I understand it that is mostly cycle path/unsealed path so larger tyres and a bit of comfort are probably going to be better than with my Audax.

My only other concern about the bike build after the stem is which forks to use. I'm thinking the club tour forks from Thorn seem closest to what I need but don't know for sure.