What to Expect From a Bike Painter?, How About A Builder?

[Peter P.]

The "What To Expect From A Bike Painter" thread stuck in my head when I came across a blog whose author wrote of a custom frame he had built.

I won't mention the author or the builder, but suffice it to say the builder is a highly respected one who has been recommended many times on this forum, and has an excellent reputation on other forums as well.

So, the author has a custom frame built by X. The author spec'd the frame "to be designed for standard reach brakes to be used with 28mm tires with fenders or 32mm tires without". Instead, X built the frame for short reach brakes. X accepted the frame back without a qualm, cut off the bridge and put a new one on in the correct position.

EXCEPT he missed the 57mm spec by about 1/2mm, so the author had to file the caliper slots to accommodate the necessary pad position. But it's not over. One of the frame photos implies that the brake bridge was not square to the frame, so the caliper and thus the brake pads did not sit parallel to the rim walls. Instead of returning the frame again, the author bent either the brake arms into alignment.

I thought today's custom builders held "machine grade" tolerances on their frames, yet I wonder whether some builders would find these construction errors acceptable AND normal/common, and tell the customer to live with them. Or, should we expect more? Would you send the frame back?

[eddief]

if this side of the story is true, the builder should not quit his day job.

[Louis]

Let's ignore the fact that if it were my ox being gored this is probably the first place I'd come to vent. Having said that, I'm always a bit uncomfortable when this type of airing of dirty laundry takes place. 1) You never know how much of the story is being told, since it is nearly always just one side, and 2) It just doesn't seem right to sully the name of a builder who apparently tried to make things right.

[weaponsgrade]

I've sent a frame back for a lot less.

[rcnute]

Yes, I'd send it back. The builder will make up in referrals and goodwill what he lost in making a mistake the first time 'round.

[WickedWheels]

There are 2 sides to every story and everyone can tell their side. Personally, I want to hear the bad AND the good, otherwise the reviews here will read like magazine reviews.

[csm]

two sides to the story and I didn't see mentioned who the other side was.

[soulspinner]

I've sent a frame back for a lot less.


So have I. Dont touch it, give the guy whos got your $ the opportunity to fix it.

[soulspinner]

There are 2 sides to every story and everyone can tell their side. Personally, I want to hear the bad AND the good, otherwise the reviews here will read like magazine reviews.


+100000 ; so true

[Tom Matchak]

I found this interesting, so I looked up the blog referenced by the OP. Reading that, I see a somewhat different story, one which seemingly suffered from the double whammy of a lack of precise communication and a little gotcha in brake specifications.

First off, the builder _did not_ position the brake bridge for short-reach calipers. The owner's blog states that the reach was 52mm, which is mid-slot for the intended standard-reach (47-57mm) caliper. Using mid-slot is a safe approach, but certainly not the blunder of designing for the wrong brake.

What the owner _should_ have requested was a design with the "pads at the bottom of the slot" for the 47-57mm reach calipers. Apparently the owner specified "to be designed for standard reach brakes to be used with 28mm tires with fenders or 32mm tires without". Well, although not the best, a 52mm reach does generally satisfy that description.

So, the builder relocated the brake bridge to 57mm reach, and the owner ran into a "truth in advertising" issue with the brakes. It is a long-known problem that some dual-pivot standard reach calipers (Shimano in particular) have a functional reach that maxes out at about 55mm. That's why production frames (like the Rivendells) for these brakes have gravitated to designing the reach at 54-55mm. The owner reports having to file out the slots to get the pads to hit the rim. This works, but there's a better solution. The new Tektro R538 caliper is a true 57mm reach design, and has some other nice wide-tire-friendly features to boot.

Contrary to how this episode has been characterized as a builder's mistake, it seems to be more a case of vague communication to a builder, coupled with a bit of unfamilarity with an intended component. Maybe there's a lesson here?

Cheers,
Tom

[Peter P.]

Thanks for the insight from a builder's point of view.

I assumed the builder originally placed the bridge for the bottom of a short reach brake rather than mid-slot for a normal reach brake. You're right; the customer could have expressed it more precisely.

And the bit about "truth in advertising": that's information I'd bet only framebuilders would know through the pain of experience. Most customers would trust that a brake's 57mm spec is just that and not shorter. It may pay for the builder to ask specifically what brand/model of brake will be used to construct the bridge accordingly, or to advise the customer that it's best to place the bridge a couple millimeters shy because experience has shown...

But do you have any comments about the photo of the brake bridge slightly askew?