super oversize steel tubing and 30.4 seatposts

[bicycletricycle]

so, pegoretti, llewelyn and richard sachs are all making lugs and/or bikes with double oversized steel tubing. 31.8 seat tube and top tube, 34.9 downtube, 36mm headtube. The internal dimeter of seat tube on these will end up being 30.4 if left unshimmed.

The pegoretti day is done seems to come with a cinelli
Llewelyns look like they are coming with wound ups
ritchey (nitto) used to make a 30.4 for specialized but i cant find one.

is there anything else available? anyone been down this road yet?
does anyone have the ritchwey 30.4 that they want to sell?

i dont want to shim but i would like an aluminum post.

[Scott Shire]

If this guy would price his bicycle realistically, you'd be all set.

http://cgi.ebay.com/VTG-Specialized-Rock-Hopper-Comp-Mountain-Bike-Bicycle-/160597475682?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25645b0162

I'd scour CL for a "vintage" rockhopper.

Are you getting a Cadenzia bike?!?

[SamIAm]

I saw several Specialized aluminum 30.9 seatposts at Classic Rendezvous this year, but none that were silver.

[bicycletricycle]

I am thinking of getting a Cadenzia or sax max bike, i think that spec is not a 30.4 because the post is 2 bolt and the 30.4 ritcheys were 1 bolt like a nitto crystal fellow

[mgd]

what are the chances of grant p. getting nitto to make the crystal fellow or whatever it's called in a 30.4 size for the new oos sachs frames? probably not good until riv starts making oos lugged frames.

[mgd]

I am thinking of getting a Cadenzia or sax max bike, i think that spec is not a 30.4 because the post is 2 bolt and the 30.4 ritcheys were 1 bolt like a nitto crystal fellow

was that 30.4 ritchey a nitto or a taiwan jobby?

[jr59]

Why don't you drop e-richir a note and ask him?

[alexstar]

David Kirk was having seatposts made for his JKS X - you might check with him.

[David Kirk]

David Kirk was having seatposts made for his JKS X - you might check with him.


I am working on this along with a few other guys and with any luck will have something to talk about soon.

FWIW - I think you'll find that you'll be wanting a 30.6 post. Most of us are using a pretty tube wall which will require a 30.6.

FWIW II - there are a few 30.6's out there. I know Thomson offers one.


Dave

[bicycletricycle]

i would like some set back in my post so the thomson is a no go, will your post have some setback Mr. Kirk? I was basing the 30.4 off of a .7 wall tube and the pegoretti day is done. Would you mind if i asked how soon is soon? i am thinking about machining down a 30.9 in the meantime but i would rather just buy a post.

[bicycletricycle]

was that 30.4 ritchey a nitto or a taiwan jobby?

it was a nitto.

[bicycletricycle]

Why don't you drop e-richir a note and ask him?

i did but i am still waiting for a response. thought i would check the brain trust here as well.

[sailorboy]

I would be willing to bet e-richie is working with the folks from oval on a limited run of the correct size post for his new UOS frames. After all, they are a sponsor.

[bicycletricycle]

yep, he got back to me, oval's are in the pipeline, llewellyn says that fizik and pauls are in the future. all in 30.6.

happy.

[learlove]

30.4 has been tuff to find. I need one for my Dreesens (true temper OX plat.) frame. For now I have a Kalloy Laprade post. I found it at Jenson.com after my local shop couldn't get one from his suppliers. The post is pretty chunky but on the other hand you'd be hard pressed to bust this seatpost.

When Peter Dreesens built his first OS frame (track) he used a Kalloy UNO SP-342. If is very nice but he can't seem to find anymore. The Kalloy company site still lists the UNO post but I can't find it anywhere for sale. I even emailed Kalloy in China and never got a response.

[learlove]

Peter Dreesens's track bike with the Kalloy UNO SP-342 post.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreesensbicycles/3990709617/in/set-72157622677806672

[mgd]

30.4, 30.6, whatever these frames will need, something understated and classy and silver would be wunderbar.

[stuckey]

I have to ask do these OOS frames feel as dead as a Surly OOS Long Haul Trucker? They almost have to be worse since LHTs do not use a oversize seatpost. Would not a 7-4-7 OOS tube be like a 1.2-1-1.2 standard gauge tube?

[dave thompson]

I have to ask do these OOS frames feel as dead as a Surly OOS Long Haul Trucker? They almost have to be worse since LHTs do not use a oversize seatpost. Would not a 7-4-7 OOS tube be like a 1.2-1-1.2 standard gauge tube?
The LHT is a built for loaded touring, 50~70 lbs of gear plus rider. And it's not built for a particular rider's specs. Most bikes of this nature are not 'lively'. The bikes the others are talking about are custom, built to specs, therefore would not be called 'dead.

[Jason E]

So is this an example of R. Sachs, Peg, Kirk and others working an a slightly OS new standard?

Is this to offer stiffness with lighter tubesets?
Is this in order to maintain stiffness and integrate some of the newer trends (ie, larger headtubes and BB's)?

Just curious.

[Lionel]

Another option for you is WR Compositi. They have a straight post, a 14mm and a 28mm setback.

I have one of these on my XCr Strong that has a 31.7 ST.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

What are the downsides to going with a shim and using a 27.2, aside from the marginal weight of the shim? Is it just the visual of a larger diameter seatpost? I have a carbon seatpost on one bike that is 27.2 and another bike that has a 31.6 post. I can't tell the difference in stiffness.

One other question. Can the shim be removed later, if one wants to go with a wider post?

I ask because I have two XCr bikes coming down the pike very soon and the current choices I have for them are the Deda Zero 100 (dark metal polish) and Ritchey Classic posts in 27.2.

[Lionel]

I used a 30.4 to 27.2 shim at the beginning on mine. Despite grease it kept on creaking. I know others had no pb with shims.

Also i perfer the visual of the correct size post that creates less difference in sizes as you mentioned.

The shim can be removed later.

[stuckey]

The LHT is a built for loaded touring, 50~70 lbs of gear plus rider. And it's not built for a particular rider's specs. Most bikes of this nature are not 'lively'. The bikes the others are talking about are custom, built to specs, therefore would not be called 'dead.

I know, I own a few customs. I have been unlucky enough to ride a dead custom that is worse then a LHT.
A OS 5-3-5 tube is around the same stiffeness as a standard diameter 7-4-7. So a OOS tube that is 7-4-7 should be as stiff as a 1-8-1 or stiffer? I do not like super stiff bikes like the old MAX stuff.. This OOS stuff would be stiffer? right?

[Fivethumbs]

I'm thinking these tubes need to be like 5-3-5 or something otherwise they'll be heavier and really stiff, maybe to the point of discomfort for many people.

[PacNW2Ford]

Something to keep in mind is 0.3 mm is about three sheets of 20 lb. paper thick. Eventually you run out of metal.

[bicycletricycle]

shims say "i couldnt find the right size"

my IF has a carbon shim glued in, it works well

i think the OOS will be good for big people like me, small people need not apply.

[Satellite]

Moots is doing a 30.9 straight or layback. Might be too much to turn down though.

http://moots.myshopify.com/collections/components/products/moots-layback-cinch-post

Satellite

[David Kirk]

So a few random thoughts on XL tubes, seat posts, shims, etc.........

I think wonderful bikes can be made with XL tubes. My personal bike has XL tubing and I love it. That said I'm 6'4" and 185 pounds, put out a reasonable amount of power and spend a good bit of time on bad and/or dirt roads. Since larger frames are more flexible just due to their size the larger diameter tubes do a good job of making the frame stiff enough to make for a good solid platform for the rider to put power into. I personally think XL bikes are best left to larger and/or heavier riders. While I'm sure there are a few 140 lbs guys who would like them I think they will be the exception to the rule. I am offering XL bikes but am only steering larger guys toward them as I think regular guys are best served with traditional OS tubes.

As a slight aside - one place these tubes/bikes really kick ass is on rough surfaces. It seems counter-intuative but the stiffer frame excels on rough road or dirt road (again under a bigger rider). The reason being that the bike is much stiffer in torsion which makes it less likely to get knocked off it's line by the rough surface. This makes it easier for the rider to put the power down and push ahead and not feel like they need to constantly re-point the bike to keep it between the gutters. This is the main reason we saw guys using MAX bikes back in the day during the spring classics. The bikes just hold their line better. The new XL tubes do the same thing as MAX did but are lighter and smoother riding due to their very thin walls. IMO they do a better job of giving the larger rider a better blend of power transfer, torsional stiffness, comfort and weight.

I can't speak for everyone but many of us are using very thin tubes when building with XL. My offering uses .55/.35/.55 tubes in the main triangle. This brings the weight down while keeping it comfortable. It also means that the seat tube requires a 30.6 post. Remember that seat post sizing is nominal (i.e. - a 27.2 post is not 27.2 but is 27.15) and the it's the ID of the seat tube is what is 30.6. So the post needs to be smaller that that so it will fit in there. So once you take the .55 wall tube, heat it and get a bit of shrinkage you end up with needing a post of 30.55 in true OD - or nominally a 30.6 post. A bit odd eh?

Shims - sizing down a seat tube to a smaller and more common post size can work very well if done properly. They do not have to creak or slip. But done poorly they will. The better builders will not have a problem with noise. But shims are really only an option on frames where the top of the seat tube is square cut. This allows for a shim with a machined a lip on top to be pressed into the frame but not fall into the seat tube. Slip a seat clamp on top and you are good to go. It's a different story when building a lugged bike - the contoured shape of the top of the seat tube is done by hand and is anything but square cut. So to make a shim look and work right it would need to be bonded into the frame and then trimmed down to match the top of the seat lug. But you do not end up with a lip that will keep the shim from slipping down into the frame and if it slips into the frame life with get tough.

This means that most of us want a true post fit to work without a shim and that means having a 30.6 post made. A few well known fellow builders and I are working with a few different post makers to offer 30.6 posts to fit the need and to allow the customer some choices.

Wow - I got wordy. I'd better get to work. Thanks for reading.

dave

[bicycletricycle]

thanks for the informative answer Mr. Kirk

[Lionel]

Shims - sizing down a seat tube to a smaller and more common post size can work very well if done properly. They do not have to creak or slip. But done poorly they will. The better builders will not have a problem with noise. But shims are really only an option on frames where the top of the seat tube is square cut. This allows for a shim with a machined a lip on top to be pressed into the frame but not fall into the seat tube. Slip a seat clamp on top and you are good to go.

Well, Carl Strong and I tried this using the exact type of shim you described for the XCr bike he built me. In fact I have a couple that Carl sent me and they both creaked to no end after just a few rides.

WR Compositi post 30.4, problem solved.

[xeladragon]

FWIW, I'm using a 27.2-30.0 Cane Creek shim for my Respo. Seatpost is PMP carbon. No issues so far.

BTW, does anyone make a 30.0 seatpost with < 25mm setback? Something close to 15mm?

[Chousen One]

IIRC Thomson setback is 16mm and they make a 30.0

[hainy]

It is great to see people like David Kirk taking the to provide such informative posts on these types of subjects.

david...would you classify a rider who is 6'2" 168lbs as a suitable build for these XL frames or does it really come back to riding style.

I am pretty sure Dazza can provide seat posts to match his frames.

Cheers

hainy

[David Kirk]

It is great to see people like David Kirk taking the to provide such informative posts on these types of subjects.

david...would you classify a rider who is 6'2" 168lbs as a suitable build for these XL frames or does it really come back to riding style.

I am pretty sure Dazza can provide seat posts to match his frames.

Cheers

hainy

Good morning,

You are right - I think much of it comes down to riding style, the type of roads most frequently ridden and personal preference. If you like long, medium intensity, non-agressive rides on flat, smooth roads then the 'benefits' of a bike with XL tubes will be few. If on the other hand you ride hard and aggressively, stand and sprint over small steep climbs, go for town-line sprints with your buddies, and don't shy away from bad and/or dirt roads then I think you may appreciate the qualities of an XL tubed bike.

Unfortunately it's impossible to draw a hard line in the sand and say that XL tubed bikes are only right for bikes above a certain size and riders above a set weight. It just doesn't work that way and like all things there are no absolutes here. I think it will come down to how you like to ride and what feeling you prefer.

Does that make sense?

You are right - Dazza has 30.6 posts (Thomsons I think) in stock should you need one.

Thanks again,

dave

[RPS]

i think the OOS will be good for big people like me, small people need not apply.
Personally, I think the larger tubes may look better on larger bikes because we’ve gotten so accustomed to seeing aluminum, titanium and carbon frames with larger-than-steel main tubes. On larger frames standard-size steel tubes are starting to look too small by comparison. Other than aesthetic reasons, the main advantage I see is weight savings, so I don’t see why small guys wouldn’t want that as much or more than larger guys.

Excessive stiffness differences mentioned by others doesn’t seem that unmanageable considering .35 wall thickness steel tubes aren’t that much different than common steel tubes used until recently (by bike evolution standards) in bending and torsion. My biggest concern would be buckling and/or denting due to much thinner walls in case of minor accidents.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

Dave, or anyone else, what's a typical OOS lugged frame (no fork) weigh? Say in a 56 cm size, rough estimate?

[David Kirk]

Dave, or anyone else, what's a typical OOS lugged frame (no fork) weigh? Say in a 56 cm size, rough estimate?

Good question - I don't know. I've built only a few and they are much larger (my size).

I would guess in the mid to upper 3 pound range. It would take some magic and pixie dust to bring it below 3 1/2.

To RPS - I doubt you will see XL tubed frames ever being lighter than an OS frame. The wall thicknesses are for the same so the larger tube will weigh a bit more. The tube walls are, at this point, not dictated by what is needed for strength but instead come down to the ability of the tube maker to actually make a tube that is thinner...... this is what the tube guys tell me.

dave

[learlove]

Dave, or anyone else, what's a typical OOS lugged frame (no fork) weigh? Say in a 56 cm size, rough estimate?

the bike I posted in #15 on page 1 is 19.5 pounds. (52cm seat and 54cm top tube ctc size). As you can see the components are not the best (2009 ultegra mostly). The wheels are open pro 36 hole.

I would assume with a dura ace group and lighter wheels and a carbon fork you could easily get the bike in the 17 pound range. I also had a 52cm MX Leader with centaur the weighed about 20 to 21 pounds.

I've had road bikes from 16 to 21 pounds and really can't tell much of a diff.

FWIW I have 4 bikes built by Peter Dreesens (2 road and 2 track). All are lugged steel and all are on the order of 2 (ish) pounds heavier than the 2 AL Merckx, several C-dales and a scandium Bianchi I had in the past but overall ride the best of any bike I've ever owned - and I have been racing/riding since I was 12.

[RPS]

To RPS - I doubt you will see XL tubed frames ever being lighter than an OS frame. The wall thicknesses are for the same so the larger tube will weigh a bit more. The tube walls are, at this point, not dictated by what is needed for strength but instead come down to the ability of the tube maker to actually make a tube that is thinner...... this is what the tube guys tell me.

dave
Dave, I was using equivalent stiffnesses for comparison, otherwise it’s comparing apples and oranges.

From your reply it appears you’ve already been building frames with .55/.35/.55 (or very close to that) with the more common oversized tubes, but at that wall thickness the frames can’t be as stiff as older bikes made before .35 was available. I’m not that big or strong compared to many, but doubt I’d want a bike with steel tubes that thin unless they were bigger in OD to offset loss of stiffness due to thinner walls.

[David Kirk]

the bike I posted in #15 on page 1 is 19.5 pounds. (52cm seat and 54cm top tube ctc size). As you can see the components are not the best (2009 ultegra mostly). The wheels are open pro 36 hole.

I would assume with a dura ace group and lighter wheels and a carbon fork you could easily get the bike in the 17 pound range. I also had a 52cm MX Leader with centaur the weighed about 20 to 21 pounds.

I've had road bikes from 16 to 21 pounds and really can't tell much of a diff.

FWIW I have 4 bikes built by Peter Dreesens (2 road and 2 track). All are lugged steel and all are on the order of 2 (ish) pounds heavier than the 2 AL Merckx, several C-dales and a scandium Bianchi I had in the past but overall ride the best of any bike I've ever owned - and I have been racing/riding since I was 12.

You make a good point. The frameset is only about 1/4 of the bike's complete weight and therefore has less influence on the overall finished weight than do the parts.

My personal bike - built with Sram Red, Reynolds carbon clinchers, carbon bars and seat post, 25 mm tires, Vista pedals........etc - weights in the high 17 lbs range. It is constructed with a mix of 953 main tubes and Kirk by Reynolds stays and of course it is made to fit my 6'4" body.

With a few changes it could be made to weigh 16 pounds or going the other way it could weigh much more.

It can be hard to compare apples to apples with complete bikes. Actual frame weight is one of the only 'true' numbers. That said.......... I feel a bit silly saying this......... but I have no idea what they frame weighs. I never put it on the scale before building it. Like I said - silly.

dave

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5020/5439714808_215a5ee5eb_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5293/5439715254_8d7993f936_b.jpg

[bicycletricycle]

whats the seat tube angle on your bike Dave? 72?

[David Kirk]

whats the seat tube angle on your bike Dave? 72?


72° it is.

dave

[hainy]

Great looking bike

I am now very tempted to try an XL on my next custom steel bike. Currently have a tig welded Baum (fits like glove) and a lugged Robin Mather.

Call me conservative but I have never ventured away from steel and still haven't found a good reason.

I often get the funniest comments when you own custom bikes. Like you have a long head tube or why aren't you riding carbon. In Australia the general cyclist is carbon obsessed.

[stuckey]

Dave, I was using equivalent stiffnesses for comparison, otherwise it’s comparing apples and oranges.

From your reply it appears you’ve already been building frames with .55/.35/.55 (or very close to that) with the more common oversized tubes, but at that wall thickness the frames can’t be as stiff as older bikes made before .35 was available. I’m not that big or strong compared to many, but doubt I’d want a bike with steel tubes that thin unless they were bigger in OD to offset loss of stiffness due to thinner walls.


Sorry Not Dave. In OS .55-.35-.55 is a touch stiffer than 7-4-7 standard gauge. I am almost ceratin OOS in that thickness should be at-least as stiff as standard gauge 9-6-9 or 1-7-1 so pretty damn stiff. I have a incoming OS bike that is .55-.35-.55 I think it will be stiff enough for me.

[RPS]

Sorry Not Dave. In OS .55-.35-.55 is a touch stiffer than 7-4-7 standard gauge. I am almost ceratin OOS in that thickness should be at-least as stiff as standard gauge 9-6-9 or 1-7-1 so pretty damn stiff. I have a incoming OS bike that is .55-.35-.55 I think it will be stiff enough for me.
Lots of different terms being used to describe larger tube diameters, so to be clear I’m going to reply in actual dimensions to avoid misunderstandings.

All these odd millimeter diameters are actually nice round numbers in inches when taken to nearest 1/8-inch. As an example for comparison, if we compare the new 1-1/4 inch diameter oversized seat and top tubes (31.8 OD) at .35 wall thickness (the primary wall thickness), the more standard 1-1/8 inch diameter (28.6 OD) tube would have to be just under .50 WT to have equal bending and torsional stiffness. For the down tube the difference between 1-3/8 and 1-1/4 inch diameter is similar.

My only point was that not long ago steel frames with 1-1/8 diameter top and seat tubes and 1-1/4 down tubes were being made with wall thicknesses that approached or exceeded .50 (which suggest even stiffer), so to think that the new frames are “TOO” stiff for smaller riders my size doesn’t make sense to me. Unless I blew a figure in estimate (and if so, someone will correct me), I don’t see the numbers supporting the conclusion that these new larger OD tubes are too stiff for most riders except the large and/or heavy.

[stuckey]

Lots of different terms being used to describe larger tube diameters, so to be clear I’m going to reply in actual dimensions to avoid misunderstandings.

All these odd millimeter diameters are actually nice round numbers in inches when taken to nearest 1/8-inch. As an example for comparison, if we compare the new 1-1/4 inch diameter oversized seat and top tubes (31.8 OD) at .35 wall thickness (the primary wall thickness), the more standard 1-1/8 inch diameter (28.6 OD) tube would have to be just under .50 WT to have equal bending and torsional stiffness. For the down tube the difference between 1-3/8 and 1-1/4 inch diameter is similar.

My only point was that not long ago steel frames with 1-1/8 diameter top and seat tubes and 1-1/4 down tubes were being made with wall thicknesses that approached or exceeded .50 (which suggest even stiffer), so to think that the new frames are “TOO” stiff for smaller riders my size doesn’t make sense to me. Unless I blew a figure in estimate (and if so, someone will correct me), I don’t see the numbers supporting the conclusion that these new larger OD tubes are too stiff for most riders except the large and/or heavy.


It all comes down to what you consider too stiff or the builder considers too stiff for comfort. I personally am not a super stiff bike fan. I think a frame builder would have a better answer.

[RPS]

It all comes down to what you consider too stiff or the builder considers too stiff for comfort. I personally am not a super stiff bike fan. I think a frame builder would have a better answer.
To what exactly? :confused:

I agree completely if you don’t already have a point of reference on which to make comparisons. However, if you already know what works for you then I don’t know what better answer a builder can provide.

There are two different issues being discussed late in this thread (after seatpost size). One issue is what is an appropriate level of frame stiffness, and the other issue is what affect changing dimensions on a round tube has on its stiffness. One is very subjective and difficult to agree on because it’s so personal, and the other very objective and easy to calculate.

Objectively, if I already own and ride a frame that is not too stiff, and someone proposes to make me one with tubes that are less stiff by comparison, how can I possibly come to the conclusion that the new one is going to be too stiff? What would make the frame stiffer if the tubes are more flexible regardless of their larger diameter? (and please read this sentence again if necessary to see that I’m referring to making a comparison against an existing personal bike and not other offerings the builder may have).

Regarding frame stiffness in general, I agree that those who don’t have adequate experience should leave more up to the builder who probably can guide him/her in the right direction. On the other hand more experienced riders may want to take a more active role in making design choices. Basically, one size (or one opinion) doesn’t fit all. That’s why there are lots of builders, lots of materials, lots of designs, etc….

[stuckey]

To what exactly? :confused:

Objectively, if I already own and ride a frame that is not too stiff, and someone proposes to make me one with tubes that are less stiff by comparison, how can I possibly come to the conclusion that the new one is going to be too stiff? What would make the frame stiffer if the tubes are more flexible regardless of their larger diameter? (and please read this sentence again if necessary to see that I’m referring to making a comparison against an existing personal bike and not other offerings the builder may have).

Regarding frame stiffness in general, I agree that those who don’t have adequate experience should leave more up to the builder who probably can guide him/her in the right direction. On the other hand more experienced riders may want to take a more active role in making design choices. Basically, one size (or one opinion) doesn’t fit all. That’s why there are lots of builders, lots of materials, lots of designs, etc….

To the when too stiff is too stiff to them and why they think so. I can only say I do not like overly stiff bikes.

Nothing would make the frame stiffer regardless of diameter if the tubes are more flexible. I think the only way you can get a general idea of how stiff a frame is going to be compared to a old one you have is to compare diameter and gauge. If you have a 25.6 top tube bike that is 9-6-9 a 7-4-7 28.6 will feel about the same from what I have gathered.

I agree it is nice to have a say in tubes. On my incoming bike I said I wanted a little more flexible frame this time and he used thinner tubes. It is nice to have a active role in the process and have a general idea of what you like. I would love to have 5-10 bikes built with different tubes and test them all out but I need to win the lottery first.