Stands

[energyman]

How easy would it be for frame designers to allow for stands when building bikes ?

[Danneaux]

How easy would it be for frame designers to allow for stands when building bikes ?

Very easy!

What is usually involved is simply brazing or TiG-welding a plate across the forward end of the chainstays, with or without a chainstay bridge being present (if the bridge is absent, the lower end of the rear mudguard attaches to the 'stand plate).  The plate usually has cupped edges to prevent the kickstand from rotating. The beauty of it is, one can tighten the kickstand mounting bolt as securely as desired with no risk of crushing the 'stays -- because the kickstand mounts to the plate...which is brazed to the 'stays.

Alternatively, a CNC-milled or investment-cast mounting plate can be used, as on Steve's R&E tandem.

Adding a bracket at time of manufacture solves "most" of the potential problems of a BB-mount kickstand, but not all.

If the kickstand mounting bracket is in the usual place, it can still be fouled by the left crankarm if the stand is down when the bike is wheeled backward. Even this would not usually be a problem unless the bike has been left in low gear. It is astonishing how much force can be generated due to the mechanical advantage afforded by low gearing. On the examples I repaired, both the alu crankarm and the stand were deeply embossed by contact with each other, and the mounting plates has been torqued off the stays.

Also, if the plate has been essentially tack-brazed to the stays, it can tear off the stays when required to support a heavy touring load or a seated rider (Why?!? do people sit on bikes supported by kickstands? well, they just...do). I have seen it happen, and I know of at least one manufacturer who has advised their factory mounting plate not be used if required to support a touring load; they instead suggest mounting a kickstand to the rear stays, where it has a better bracing angle due to a slightly higher mount. People really shouldn't sit on bikes with 'stands near the dropout, and they almost never do, 'cos the stand is too far rearward to be actuated while on the bike. It is a human-factors issue.

Here's Rivendell's take on the matter: http://www.rivbike.com/category-s/335.htm

Here's a photo of what a good, plate-type kickstand mount with anti-rotation flanges looks like:

For reasonable use, the brazed-on kickstand plate solves a number of problems presented by clamp-on stands in the BB location. A kickstand mounted near the left dropout between the seat- and chainstays is far less problematic, as well.

Best,

Dan.

[energyman]

Thanks.

Now will all frame builders please take note !!

[il padrone]

I know of at least one manufacturer who has advised their factory mounting plate not be used if required to support a touring load; they instead suggest mounting a kickstand to the rear stays, where it has a better bracing angle due to a slightly higher mount.

ESGE give their rear stay-mounted Multi-zoom stand a load rating of 18 kgs (including the bike)!



My bike on its own weighs more than that..... then there's the 30kgs of camping gear and food that is a standard touring load. In the NT at times I had 55-60 kgs plus the bike  .

I guess the stand did well to survive so long, but I will order another one.

[JimK]

On the Erie Canal ride I saw one of these:

http://www.breezerbikes.com/bikes/details/greenway_elite

It looked like a brazed- or welded-on plate for the kickstand back at the rear dropout.

The Breezer Greenway sure looks like a nice bike!
 

[il padrone]

Some of the best quality European touring bike manufacturers (Santos?, Tout Terrain) also have brazed-on rear kickstand mounts.

[Andre Jute]

There are several detail photographs in this document http://coolmainpress.com/AndreJute'sUtopiaKranich.pdf of the way upmarket European bike makers insist on fitting the stand. Stop a moment on the front page and check out the apparent chain stay brace. It isn't a brace but a tube cut longitudinally in half to act as a router for the brake and light cables. The chainstays are special custom butted types from Columbus and only about 0.7mm thick there; you can't attach anything without risk of crushing the stays, and you'd lose your valuable ten-year guarantee.

Notice on the pictures of the stand and its tag that they are just far enough forward not to interfere with the gearbox and possible disc brakes (I use rim hydraulics) but well inside the strengthening brace for disc brakes. On my bike, a crossframe mixte braced by umpteen triangles in all directions, there is not a snowball's chance of the thing twisting the frame, but it's still an engineering atrocity, and I bet it twists many less stiff frames than mine. And, clearly, it's balance will never be anything but deplorable.

If you take my bike touring (it's rated at 170kg all up, and has many circumnavigations to its credit), you have to fit a second stand from Tubus, which attaches to the lowrider racks for which there are fittings on the fork. I bet the two stands together weigh more than the famous Hebie two-leg stand, which is known to be heavy but to last forever.

The Esge single leg rear stand works, but marginally even before you load up for touring or with shopping, and I refuse to fit a second stand because an entire industry has a bee in its bonnet about centre stands. I'd rather have a two-foot stander under the bottom bracket like Il Padrone's Hebie. It makes more engineering sense, too.

***

As a side note, I'd not mind in the least if cranks were to be made with a wider tread to clear two-leg central standers. I like a good wide Q factor. There is in any event no reason that a central stand should be wider than the chain stays, under which it can nestle, for much longer than any conceivable crank length.

Andre Jute

[Danneaux]

There are several detail photographs...of the way upmarket European bike makers insist on fitting the stand.

Well yes, Andre, and Utopia Velo have done an admirably fine job of it on your wonderful Kranich. Tout Terrain and several others have too, typically by placing a plate in or near the stay end or -- as in your case -- via a threaded extension of the original left-hand dropout. Unfortunately, these well-engineered approaches are the exception to the rule, and so not many riders can enjoy such benefits. Their otherwise fine bicycles lack them, either deliberately or through oversight.

If you take my bike touring...you have to fit a second stand from Tubus, which attaches to the lowrider racks...and I refuse to fit a second stand

Chances are, that second stand wouldn't do what you wish anyway, Andre. The Dutch friend I spent 5 weeks touring The Netherlands and Belgium with had this setup on his Avaghon; the front stand was specially fitted to his Tubus Tara front pannier rack (see attached photo). Though he had a kickstand plate brazed on behind the BB, the builder advised against its use, instead fitting a Hebie clamp-on 'stand to the rear stays near the left-rear dropout. My friend's bike toppled a half-dozen times while parked during our tour, causing damage on a couple occasions; the foam handlebar grips were torn in one, and in the other, the Brooks saddle was scarred across its top as the bike fell against a WWII memorial to downed fliers we had stopped to see. A real shame.

The front stand really did nothing except prevent the front wheel from turning to the left side on level pavement, and really added very little if any to stability. The bike seemed to stand -- or occasionally fall -- equally well with it deployed as with it stowed. He simply doesn't use this front stand anymore, and leaves it on so the bolts and clamps will fill the mounting holes in the rack. Really, a toe strap (or velcro strap) around the front wheel and downtube (as JimK occasionally uses) would have been preferable 'cos it would also have stopped the bike from rolling. His rear stand alone was a success when parked on pavement. However, on wet grass or on The Netherlands' many sand roads, the whole lot was pretty unstable. I do believe a double-legged center stand such as Hebie offer would have been far preferable, but then we run up against the matter of forces exceeding recommended loads on the brazed kickstand plate (he carried big loads at the rear, including a 3+kg tent).

D'you think you might someday fit a Hebie double-legged center stand, Andre? Can you find one narrow enough to clear both your cranks with their existing Q-factor? I am given to understand there is some lifting (or perhaps "jacking") involved in using the Hebie double-legged center-stands. Would this be a limiting factor compared to your existing deploy-with-a-toe-then-tilt, single-legged rear stand?

All the best,

Dan.

[il padrone]

The Esge single leg rear stand works, but marginally even before you load up for touring or with shopping, and I refuse to fit a second stand because an entire industry has a bee in its bonnet about centre stands.

There is a correct technique to standing up a loaded bike with a rear side stand, and I have never really found any need for a second stand on the front low-rider. Just drop the stand, then turn the handlebars to the right a little bit (judgement called for) to balance the bike nicely. I almost never find my loaded bike toppling over, even on rough track surfaces.

[Andre Jute]

Thanks for the tip, Il Padrone. I'll remember it if I ever load my bike as much as yours. I bet you aren't too pleased when your beautiful bike falls over, though.

Dan: The designers have solved the wrong problem, "How can we attach a stand to the frame ends?" rather than, "How can we strengthen the frame so the best stand solution, a central, two-leg stand can be attached?" Several solutions to support a standplate between the chain stays appear after ten seconds of thought by the clock on my screen: longer butts in the chainstays at the bottom bracket end, sleeving either internally or externally before assembly of the bicycle, and longer lugs on the bottom bracket which on my bike is anyway custom made and can therefore the more easily be altered.

All the same, I won't be fitting the Hebie twin leg. There's nowhere to fit it where it won't damage the frame, and even if it doesn't, I don't hate the Esge stand enough to give up a valuable 10-year warranty for a HEBIE stand.

Andre Jute

[il padrone]

Nothing beats the versatility and load capacity of 'The Stick' (tm). But it is still possible to trip it up, and the bike crash down (to much hilarity) 

[swc7916]

Well, it is a bit like the Great Helmet Debate; some like 'em, others despise 'em, and it is a matter of individual choice

...it is a preference thing.

It appears that your argument against kickstands can be summed up as: (1) they can damage your bike, (2) even if they don't damage your bike they can void the manufacturer's warrantee and (3) your bike can fall and end up on the ground anyway (as well as damaging it.)
To me, rolling the bike backwards and sitting on the bike while the kickstand is down are non-issues.  I mean, I’m not going to say to myself:  “I’m not putting a kickstand on my bike because I might get stupid and sit on it.”

I can agree on the damage point; I wouldn't put a kickstand on any of my bikes if I had to clamp it onto the chainstays.  They can damage the paint, crush the tubes and - if they get loose (which they inevitably will) - rotate out and interfere with the crankarm.   I’ve seen a tandem that was propped up with a Click Stick fall on the pavement as the owner was walking away.  I wanted the utility of a kickstand and that's why I ordered my bikes equipped with kickstand mounts.  (To be fair: The kickstand mount on my Rohloff tandem DID break off.   In order to route the cable past the kickstand mount, R+E had to stand the mount off of the chainstays, increasing the leverage on the mount.  I took the bike back to R+E and they stripped the components from the frame, welded and reinforced the kickstand mount, repainted the frame and re-installed the components all in less than a week-and-a-half at no cost to me.  The kickstand is much stiffer than it was before.)

I kind of disagree on the "debate" and "preference" issue.  The only debate is whether a kickstand is worth the trouble.  As far as preference is concerned,  I believe that most people in most instances would rather park their bikes upright rather than lay them on the ground.  Cyclists without kickstands almost without fail will look for something – a wall, fence, tree, whatever – to lean it against rather than lay in on the ground.

What if you could attach an anti-gravity device to your bike that would hold your bike vertically anywhere and under any load without any risk of damaging your bike?   Would you not install one?

Edit: Since this is the tandems forum, it seems to me that discussions of standard one-legged kickstands is not vaild.

[Danneaux]

What if you could attach an anti-gravity device to your bike that would hold your bike vertically anywhere and under any load without any risk of damaging your bike?   Would you not install one?

Speaking for myself, the answer would be, "Oh, of course! In a heartbeat!"

I think you've summed-up the whole issue very nicely, Steve. If the "perfect" uh, means of propping a bike came standard on *every* bike and lacked the drawbacks that attach in some degree to all current methods...I think everyone would be much happier.

...I believe that most people in most instances would rather park their bikes upright rather than lay them on the ground.  Cyclists without kickstands almost without fail will look for something – a wall, fence, tree, whatever – to lean it against rather than lay in on the ground.

Absolutely agreed! Plus there is the matter of foul weather and bearing shielding. Nearly every bearing in a bicycle (including cartridge bearings with shields) are designed to do their job with the bike standing upright. Laying the bike down often creates a direct pathway for water contamination/infiltration of the bearings, shortening their livespan.

Nicely written summation!

Best,

Dan.

[il padrone]

Since this is the tandems forum, it seems to me that discussions of standard one-legged kickstands is not vaild.

Not sure why you would say that. A BB-mounted one-legged stand is what we use on our tandem. It woks very well. Being relatively closer to the rear wheel than when used on a single bike it gets much less instability from the lean and turn of the front wheel. The tandem stands much like a single with a rear-mounted stand.

[Danneaux]

Not sure why you would say that. A BB-mounted one-legged stand is what we use on our tandem. It woks very well.

I concur with Pete. Here in Eugene, OR -- former home of Burley Design Co-Op and current home of Co-Motion, if I see a tandem with a kickstand (rare), it generally has one leg. Tandems with double-legged kickstands are scarce as hen's teeth; I think I've only ever seen one here and a couple in Corvallis (both the latter were recumbent tandems).

Most tandems here (including my own) have no kickstand or means of support and are leaned against fixed objects or laid on the ground when left alone. I always set my bar-con actuated Arai drag brake when parked so the bike won't shift position when leaned against a wall, post, tree, fence, building, etc., and it works nicely to keep the bike from rolling. A lovely Co-Motion was leaning against the side of the Rolf Prima building here the other day, apparently getting a new set of wheels: http://www.rolfprima.com/products-TandemDisc.php Decent wheels, priced nicely at USD$1099 base; options and accessories extra. More here for those who are interested: http://www.rolfprima.com/techinfo.php

Eugene is also home to Bike Friday, and their tandems are the most eclectic of the bunch, though tend to split evenly between rear and center 'stands if they have 'em at all.

There's a *lot* of tandems in Eugene, former home to the annual Burley Tandem Races.

Best,

Dan. (Tandems + kickstands = a rarity here'bouts, but single-leggers outnumber their double-legged brethren)