Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old June 29th, 2004, 10:07 AM
AlanB
 
Posts: n/a
Damm, this is exactly like the PK I had, got this pic from vintagebmx its an '81:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg se52.jpg (42.6 KB, 379 views)
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old June 29th, 2004, 03:24 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Man, you crazy BMX and mountain bike guys. Pah!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old June 30th, 2004, 09:02 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160


I want one. I would love to have one for the shop. We're not even a bike shop. But who cares.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old June 30th, 2004, 10:35 AM
blue blue is offline
Bill Gill, aka chump hater
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 1,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanB
Damm, this is exactly like the PK I had, got this pic from vintagebmx its an '81:

My buddy had a sweet PK Ripper. Other friends I raced/rode/freestyled with had Redline RL22, GT Pro Performer, Hutch Trickstar. I had a Hutch Pro Racer. Man...good times back in the early 80's. Either riding my Hutch or my Vision Gator, Jeff Kendall, or Neil Blender....


nice bike, John. Good move holding onto it all these years...
____________________
Blue
2004 D2

Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old June 30th, 2004, 04:10 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
HOLY FUCK!

I was surfing eBay while eating my lunch just now, and check out what I saw for sale:







To my way of looking at things, that is the ultimate frame.

The paint scheme is my favorite one, the orange and purple one with Eddy's face on the head and seat tubes and frame with rainbow stripes. It looks so ridiculous it's bad ass.

Also, it's the "last" of the steel frames. Now they're all carbon or scandium or titanium or whatever. All I know this, they're welded and/or glued. This frame has lugs, and lugs to me are the sine qua non of a quality bike. Check out the shape of the tubes too. The seat and down tubes are wider side to side at the bottom bracket, and the down tube is taller top to bottom at the head tube juncture. Fucking awesome. To me, this is the pinnacle of the great steel frames.

Just imagine this frame with a full-on Campy Record group, ergonomic handlebars, etc., etc.

The only problem is, this frame is a 54cm, the same size as my yellow frame. I want a 53cm.

If only my legs were 1cm longer...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old June 30th, 2004, 07:53 PM
AlanB
 
Posts: n/a
Wow that is an awsome frame. Could switch the 172.5mm crank for a 170mm and put some Look pedals on, it will more than make up for a taller frame. Just get it!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old June 30th, 2004, 08:31 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
LOL. I was thinking the exact same thing: get some old school LOOKs with thick ass cleats and then go with 170mm arms. Still, the latest Record clipless pedals look lower than the older ones. The new ones look like this:





I haven't seen the cleats for these, but I'm guessing they're smaller and thinner than the old 1980's era LOOK plastic cleats.

I'm glad you like that frame. As an old school rider, I thought you might appreciate that frame. I love it. I would much rather have that frame than any current or older frame. It's just the ultimate frame for me. If only it fit.

Fucking fuck I am pissed off. I would even be ready to sell one of my P7's to get that frame if it were 53cm. FUCK!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old June 30th, 2004, 10:00 PM
curtis
 
Posts: n/a
John you know as well as anyone that spacing the cleats will not work. If you need a 53 then you need a 53. I cannot emphasize this enough. Even going for a shorter crank is a bad solution since those are two different fit issues.

That being said, the frame is sweet. The only company that I know of that still does braze-on lugs is Bridgestone and they quit selling in the US in about '96 (you may still be able to get in Japan though). Anymore, no one appreciates the fact that a brazed frame has not been messed up by overheating during the welding process. Truly, brazing lugs is the only way to make a super-strong frame that rides really well.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old June 30th, 2004, 11:18 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
You mean to tell me I shouldn't try to make the oversized frame thing work by removing the chamois from my shorts, wearing thicker socks, inserting orthotics into my shoes, sandwiching some OME 10mm trim packers between my soles and cleats, and then fitting some 165mm cranks with the original white LOOK pedals?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old June 30th, 2004, 11:49 PM
curtis
 
Posts: n/a
LOL - well maybe if you want to wax nostalgic while riding in the 4th of July parade

Seriously - check out Waterford at: http://www.waterfordbikes.com/2004/index.php

Look into thier 2200 model with silver-brazed lugs. I forgot about this bike when I said there were no lugged frames in the US. Waterford bikes are simply amazing. Charles Schwinns grandson owns the company, yet they remain very quiet. They are extremely dedicated to the cycling purist yet you never hear about them because they simply do not push the product.

Their biggest chunk of change comes from doing design and overload manufacturing for the big boys like Trek. When Trek bought Gary Fisher they had no ability to produce those frames so they turned to Waterford. I was lucky enough to get a Gary Fisher MTB frame made by them and it was flat-out the best MTB frame I have seen. Every time I see a Waterford frame they still amaze me with their attention to detail.

Further - they are somewhat affordable.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old June 30th, 2004, 11:59 PM
curtis
 
Posts: n/a
OK - well, the affordability is just for the wimps. Actually the Waterfords frames start at $1300 and go wayyyy up. For the the real Waterford deal, you pay out $3200 + and own one of these beauties:

http://www.waterfordbikes.com/2004/d...edlug/over.php
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old July 1st, 2004, 12:13 AM
koby koby is offline
Craig Kobayashi
KG6CK
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
You mean to tell me I shouldn't try to make the oversized frame thing work by removing the chamois from my shorts, wearing thicker socks, inserting orthotics into my shoes, sandwiching some OME 10mm trim packers between my soles and cleats, and then fitting some 165mm cranks with the original white LOOK pedals?

That reminds me of that chalie kid in that Indiana Jones movie that had to strap blocks to his feet to reach the gas pedal of the car he was driving.



Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old July 1st, 2004, 07:19 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
I checked out the Waterford site, and their bikes are certainly very nice. You can tell they're well made. Not my cup of tea though. I've never craved the Della Santa's or Serotta's or LeMonds or whatever, and these Waterfords sort of remind me of those frames. I much prefer Eddy Merckx or De Rosa.

Also, there were some odd things about the Waterford bikes. For example, check out their geometry page:

http://www.waterfordbikes.com/2004/d...racing/geo.php

One thing that struck me as odd is that Waterford offers tons of different options for their frames, but they have only "even" sizes, e.g., 48, 50, 52, 54, etc. Personally, I would rather have a 53 or 55 option than lug decoration options. A 2cm gap from one available frame size to the next is too big I think, and this is doubly so for a custom or quasi-custom builder.

And is it just me, or do their seat tube angles seem steep? I think my bike has a 73-degree seat tube, and I have my saddle pushed as far back as the rails will permit, with the nose tilted very slightly up:



In contrast, I notice a lot of Waterford's "example" bikes look like these:





Both of those bikes look very steep to me, with their saddles pushed far forward and tilted slightly nose-down. I can't help but get the feeling that Waterford prefers to fit its customers with very steep seat tubes and forward saddles. Also, note the very small gap between the front tire and the down tube. There doens't seem to be that much rake in the forks. That combined with the 74-degree head tube makes me think Waterford's frames handle on the twitchy side. Sort of reminds me of a track bike or least a crit bike.

I was thinking that perhaps racing had changed enough to merit the steeper seat tube angles, but then I checked the Eddy Merckx bike site. Contrast the Waterford specs with the specs on the latest high-tech Merckx frames:



Check the "C" column in the table. The 54cm frame is 73.3 degrees and the general trend across the different sizes is definitely more toward a shallower seat tube than on the Waterfords.

Some things never change. Ain't life grand?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old July 3rd, 2004, 12:01 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
As long as we're all sharing our former style points...

anyone else fall prey to this embarassing technical style:



that's none other than myself employing the "aero without aeros" technique in the TT stage of a crit.

note also carefully rolled shorts as well as gloves and socks.
I continued to roll the edge of the shorts but luckily I ditched the socks and gloves in later seasons and inevitably became much faster.

while john would certainly differ with my choice of frame and gruppo, we both agree that it is imperative to have the drops parallel with the top tube. any other setup is strictly cat5.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old July 3rd, 2004, 12:25 AM
curtis
 
Posts: n/a
Interesting technique, but yes - I have used it when resting forearms after a long downhill.

I hate to ask, but did you really mean "the TT stage of a crit"? TT's and Crits are very different animals. TT's usually involve short point-to-point races with Crits being short to medium circuit races around a loop.

John - good point about the Waterfords. I never noticed the steep seat angle of their rack bikes. Still, they are very nice and rider position has changed since you were into it. EM & DeRossa have fallen by the wayside regarding Euro bikes to the benefit of Colnago and some others that I am not too familiar with. The Colnago frames in a 54 have a 74deg seat angle. Frames here:

http://www.colnagonews.com/prova2/te.../dreamdesc.htm

While nostalgia can be fun, one thing that will surely advace is technology and a better undestanding of biomechanics
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old July 3rd, 2004, 09:03 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
"Interesting technique, but yes - I have used it when resting forearms after a long downhill.

I hate to ask, but did you really mean "the TT stage of a crit"? TT's and Crits are very different animals. TT's usually involve short point-to-point races with Crits being short to medium circuit races around a loop. "

Let me explain myself a little better. We always used critierion to describe any kind of lapped race. In New England all of our crits had three stages: The normal race itself and then an individual and team time trial of one to three laps of the course depending on the course. we used to do a crit at New Hampshire International Speedway which has a similar layout to Willow Springs. As bizarre as that sounds, the one lap TT stage was really fun.

The goofy thing about the "technique" I posted is that I would hold that out for the whole TT except for the steepest uphill sections where i would be sprinting in the drops. dropping into hard turns I still just had my forearms resting on the bars. I think it's sort of a miracle I never crashed like that, especially pounding out my fastest lap.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old July 6th, 2004, 06:51 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Jack, that technique is just wrong. I have always believed that the primary advantage of the "aero" position is not aerodynamics, but rather two more contact body contact points on the bike. Before, there were only five contact points on the bike: two on the bars, one on the saddle, and two on the pedals. The aero bars give seven, the five listed previously plus two more for the forearms. With the forearms down against the bars and the hands used to lever the forearms against the bike, there is additional bracing of the body against the bike. That is why I think it was a very bad call for the UCI to approve that position. It is a fundamental change in the cycling position.

The UCI previously illegalized other bracing methods, such as when the Italitans used an elastic waist belt that clamped to the top tube to win the amateur team time trial world championships, or when Thierry Marie used a combination fairing/brace on the back of his Gitane's saddle to win the 1986 Tour Prologue back when Marie was on Cyril Guimard's Syteme U squad. Both of these bracing enhancements enabled the riders to push harder against their pedals, and the UCI rightfully illegalized them immediately after they were used. These aero bars are similar and should be illegalized.

There is a similar debate in the golf world concerning long putters, the ones where the player puts the end of the shaft agains this chin or chest and then swings the putter like a pendulum. There is no length restriction in the Rules of Golf, but there should be a prohibition against more than two body contact points touching the club. The issue seems to have gone away in golf, as the long putters have fallen by the wayside because they are hard to use well on long putts, but the issue with the aero bars will never go away because of the huge bracing advantage they give.

And Curtis, Colnago is top dog? LOL. Gotta love the straight forks Colnago likes to use:



Those forks are so graceful and look so comfortable to ride on. And I've always been crazy about Colnago's clover-shaped tubing:



And what about those lovely bisected chainstays?:



Bisected chainstays not enough? What about a bisected down tube?:



More is better, and two down tubes are better than one. Make those two down tubes clover shaped, and it'll be perfect. And of course Colnago bikes are always so understated in appearance and appeal to a very discriminating clientele:



I have always believed Colnago was the gold Rolex of the bike world. I'll stick to this admittedly ugly duckling as my dream machine:



Also, did anyone watch the prologue? Armstrong looks very strong.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old July 7th, 2004, 12:00 AM
curtis
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
And Curtis, Colnago is top dog? LOL. Gotta love the straight forks Colnago likes to use:



John, first you must realize that I am not a supporter of Colnago or any of thier manufacturing "techniques". I am simply stating that they have a large share in the high-end road market.

Personally, I believe they are excellent framesets. Even the straight-bladed forks have been tuned in a way that only carbon can do. The C40 you picked for the split chainstays is known as one of the top frames for privateers with a bank account. A healthy bank account

Either way you go, I am not responsible for Colnago's sales figures or recent success. I do not own one, nor have I ever even ridden one. Would I buy one over an outdated EM? Well, probably, but that is not a decision before me now
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old July 7th, 2004, 01:50 AM
koby koby is offline
Craig Kobayashi
KG6CK
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 442
Is it just me, or is this statement:
Quote:
John, first you must realize that I am not a supporter of Colnago or any of thier manufacturing "techniques". I am simply stating that they have a large share in the high-end road market


contradicted by this statement:

Quote:
Personally, I believe they are excellent framesets


and this statement:

Quote:
Would I buy one over an outdated EM? Well, probably




Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old July 7th, 2004, 01:32 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Oh shit. Check out:

Stage 4 Team Trial Results
1. US Postal 64.5km in 1h12'03" (53.71km/h)
2. Phonak at 1'07"
3. Illes Balears at 1'15"
4. T-Mobile 1'19"
5. Team CSC at 1'46"

Overall Standings through Stage 4
1. Lance Armstrong (USP)
2. George Hincapie (USP) at 10"
3. Floyd Landis (USP) at 16"
4. Jose Azevedo (USP) at 22"
5. Jose Luis Rubiera (USP) at 24"
6. Jose Enrique Gutierrez (PHO) at 27"
7. Viatcheslav Ekimov (USP) at 30"
8. Tyler Hamilton (PHO) at 36"
9. Santos Gonzalez (PHO) at 37"
10. Bert Grabsch (PHO) at 41"
Also:
16 ULLRICH Jan (TMO) at 00' 55"
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old July 7th, 2004, 03:10 PM
blue blue is offline
Bill Gill, aka chump hater
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 1,186
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Anyone want to wager on Armstrong taking the tour again this year?
____________________
Blue
2004 D2

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old July 7th, 2004, 04:31 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
I heard that.

Four flat stages are hardly telling, but Armstrong is looking very good thus far. I just hope someone has the mojo to beat him. If anything, it'll stop the incessant Subaru, Dasani, Powerbar, Trek, Nike, etc. commercials on TV.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old July 7th, 2004, 05:24 PM
curtis
 
Posts: n/a
Sad thing about the TTT today: The UCI changed the rules for the tour. Now the first place team cannot get more than 20 seconds on the 2nd place team and something like 50 seconds on the third. This erases much of the 1:07 they had on Tylo's squad.

The cool thing is that it places six USP riders in the top seven. Amazing.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old July 7th, 2004, 05:34 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
That's just wrong. So now the only advantage to winning the TTT is the bragging rights factor and those cool yellow caps? That sucks. First aero bars and now this. The Tour de Freds rolls on. I wonder if gender normalizing is next.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old July 7th, 2004, 08:21 PM
curtis
 
Posts: n/a
Or maybe just normalizing all the riders by posting handicaps so Freds like you & I can race next year

It is sad and only one of the moves designed by the UCI to thwart Lances sixth attempt. They also made some significant changes to the number and type of stages. More flat stages and L'Alpe D'Huez this year is a TT: http://www.velonews.com/tour2004/new...es/6337.0.html

I am not sure thier plan is working.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Le Tour de France traveltoad General 24 August 9th, 2011 06:08 PM
Interesting email Exchange johnlee General 1160 July 2nd, 2010 07:13 PM
Le Tour Eric Siepmann General 0 July 7th, 2007 04:57 PM
Land Rover Extraordinary In Action Tour johnlee General 18 August 15th, 2006 01:26 PM
amgen tour of california david General 0 February 22nd, 2006 02:00 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:34 PM.




Copyright 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.