|
Originally Posted by DQRider
(Post 19148926)
This is an interesting discussion on a subject to which I have given much thought. When I put a 24t rear cog on my DL1, it was for one purpose: Getting 60lbs worth of loaded-down bicycle and my own 220 lbs up Maiden Rock Hill on the Lake Pepin 3-Speed Tour without dismounting to walk. It also meant that I could only go about 18 mph max on level ground.
But ya know what? That's all I've ever needed on my Roadster, and it all comes down to aerodynamics. See, in the dignified upright riding position dictated by these old English steeds, we present much more frontal area to the air we are moving through. At some point, as our speed increases, that "wind resistance" begins to increase exponentially, to a point where each additional mph requires much more effort to maintain. So nobody is going much over 15mph anyway on that ride - and if they are, it's not for very long. I found that I didn't need to change that cog after the big ride `round Pepin. If I go downhill at a speed exceeding 18mph why, I just coast. I don't want to go much faster than that with rod-brakes anyway. And the low gearing means that climbing any hill I am likely to find on your typical bike path will be a doddle! :) |
Originally Posted by BigChief
(Post 19146295)
I feel bad for this guy. He obviously put time and money into building a custom that suites him. You really do have to figure that building a custom out of a vintage will be a big money looser. That's why it's always best to only customize bikes that are almost junk to start with. That way, if you decide to sell, you only loose money on the new parts and not much value from the project bike. It would help if he still had the original parts.
Originally Posted by arex
(Post 19148213)
I more or less did the same thing with a '74 Sports. I realized early on, though, that there was no way I'd ever get selling it what I put into it (way too much). In short, I'm stuck with it...but that's okay...
Originally Posted by Loose Chain
(Post 19148368)
I do not buy bicycles with the intention of flipping them...But somethings do not stick, others do. But, I do not worry about the money so much, try to keep it reasonable but I have a lot of money in my wheels sets on my wife and my Sports...My Sports looks new and my wife's will be getting there with a little more detail work. Why not spend money on them if the intent is to use them and enjoy them, something that cannot be bought...
I don't know what the intentions of the person selling the gold Sports with alloy wheels for $400. Did he or she do it for themself, only to not have it "stick"? Or were they intent on selling it all along? (I have a strong hunch that this person was the one trying to sell a $600 Superbe for awhile, so it may jut be the latter.) Because it's hard to get back what you put into a bike. It probably would have been better if the seller saved the original wheels and put them back on, saving the nicer wheels for another project (or sell them separately). But I don't think a bike needs to be complete junk to justify customization. All my vintage bikes have been customized to some extent, and as parts wear out, they get replaced. My Raleigh Superbe is in nice shape, but I still went ahead with alloy rims and other modifications. Why? Because it was going to be a "daily driver" and needed to cope with all sorts of weather. The alloy rims with modern brakes (Tektro) are pretty effective in the rain. That's worth it to me, though the shaving off a couple pounds of weight is a nice bonus! If I sold this bike, would I get that money back? Probably not, but I can always find some steel wheels that fit and swap 'em out. I think it was argued many pages back about how much needs/should be done to restore an old British three speed. There's the argument that you shouldn't do much to it besides adjusting and lubing and replacing consumables. And yeah, you probably don't need to do too much beyond that, esp. if you may not ride the bike daily or intend to ride it in wet weather. But then again, sometimes customizations and/or modernizations helps one enjoy their bike and make it more useful to them. And there's nothing wrong with that! |
Has anyone ever made or modified their own shifter for top tube mounting? I like the quadrant shifter on my '37 Raleigh, and I'd like to use one on another project bike, but not sure I want to spend the money to get another original. Looking at it, it looks to be quite simple from a mechanical perspective, and I can't imagine it'd be terribly difficult to hand-make one. Alternatively, are there any good ways to mount something like one of the current-production thumb/downtube/stem shifters on the top tube? I believe the top tube on my bike is 25.4mm diameter.
|
Originally Posted by adventurepdx
(Post 19149866)
Interesting thoughts. I have to say I agree with arex and Loose Chain here.
I don't know what the intentions of the person selling the gold Sports with alloy wheels for $400. Did he or she do it for themself, only to not have it "stick"? Or were they intent on selling it all along? (I have a strong hunch that this person was the one trying to sell a $600 Superbe for awhile, so it may jut be the latter.) Because it's hard to get back what you put into a bike. It probably would have been better if the seller saved the original wheels and put them back on, saving the nicer wheels for another project (or sell them separately). But I don't think a bike needs to be complete junk to justify customization. All my vintage bikes have been customized to some extent, and as parts wear out, they get replaced. My Raleigh Superbe is in nice shape, but I still went ahead with alloy rims and other modifications. Why? Because it was going to be a "daily driver" and needed to cope with all sorts of weather. The alloy rims with modern brakes (Tektro) are pretty effective in the rain. That's worth it to me, though the shaving off a couple pounds of weight is a nice bonus! If I sold this bike, would I get that money back? Probably not, but I can always find some steel wheels that fit and swap 'em out. I think it was argued many pages back about how much needs/should be done to restore an old British three speed. There's the argument that you shouldn't do much to it besides adjusting and lubing and replacing consumables. And yeah, you probably don't need to do too much beyond that, esp. if you may not ride the bike daily or intend to ride it in wet weather. But then again, sometimes customizations and/or modernizations helps one enjoy their bike and make it more useful to them. And there's nothing wrong with that! Neither does adding accessories like bags, grips and lighting.The gold Sports is missing the chainwheel/crank assembly, fenders and has oversized wheels. Might be great for him, but for me looking at it is like a finger poke in the eye. I value this bike less than if he had left it alone. I'm sure I wouldn't feel that way about your Superbe. |
Originally Posted by BigChief
(Post 19149951)
Changing rims from steel to alloy and bolting on Tektro brakes doesn't spoil the integrity of the design in my book.
Neither does adding accessories like bags, grips and lighting.The gold Sports is missing the chainwheel/crank assembly, fenders and has oversized wheels. Might be great for him, but for me looking at it is like a finger poke in the eye. I value this bike less than if he had left it alone. I'm sure I wouldn't feel that way about your Superbe. My Bicycles | Raving Bike Fiend http://www.ravingbikefiend.com/bikep...orts%20(1).JPG But possibly in this case, the person should have started with a 70's/80's Japanese sport touring frame and worked from there? I've seen some nice three speed conversions this way, and you can dress it up any way you want without messing too much with the "original integrity" of the bike, so to speak. And you'd have a lighter frame for the most part. Or, just get over yourself and get a Linus three speed. :rolleyes: I think this is what happens when people look at vintage bikes through the lenses of modern bikes. Every old thing that works fine as it is is still a "problem" that needs to be solved. For instance, I owned a nice 1953 Rudge Sports for a few years. Lovely bike, but was too small for me so I sold it. I went into a shop, who said it looked nice, but you know what would make it even better? Change to a cotterless crankset! Cotterless? Are you serious? Yeah, I understand that cotters are not easy to work on, but man, the best part of that bike was "The Hand" chainring, and I'd lose that if I went with a modern crankset. And for what? The once in a great while when I need the bottom bracket overhauled? |
Maybe it's the forks that bother me more than the wheel size. This bike looks great. Raleigh chainwheel, thimble fork, cool fluted cranks, proper Bluemels. Originally a regular Sports you say? OK, this is very, very well done and really captures the look of a proper British club bike.
|
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 19066268)
A friend of mine has been commuting on an old run-down MTB that is too small for him. He mentioned it "broke" and he's without a bike now. I told him I could fix it for him without asking him what "broke" means. He said it's not worth it, because it was always too small for him, and I realize that he's right. Whether the bike is worth fixing or not, it's not worth fixing for him.
Someone left an English 3-speed in the basement of my apartment building long ago. I asked, and no one claims to own it, so I took it and fixed it up. It had been decades since anyone had so much as rolled it along the floor, so it was really stiff. I aired up the tires and applied oil everywhere, and it's good again. There is some rust, but this will be a beater bike, so it's not worth fixing up. There was a lot of dust and grime on it, but it washed off easily. I can't tell what year bike it is. The rear wheel has been replaced with a wheel that has a SunTour 3-speed hub. I know this hub. It's an exact copy of the Sturmey Archer AW hub, but it has no date code or oil port. I took the indicator chain out and dropped oil in there. The bike has also had its left crank replaced and its brake pads and obviously the saddle. The seat post moves, and I raised it an inch for myself. It will go higher for my friend who is taller than I am. I couldn't find a proper hammer, so I wasn't able to give the stem expander bolt a proper blow. I wasn't able to free the wedge in the stem and move the stem, but it might not be stuck once it is met with a hammer. The bolt does turn in the stem. I'm leaving it as is for now. The tires have no dry rot! I took it for a 2.6-mile ride around the neighborhood. I want to get rid of the rattle from the little ornament on the front of the front fender. Plus there is a click each time the master link comes around the rear cog, so there may be some alignment problem. Maybe the master link is banging on the chainguard. Ideally, I will overhaul the BB, front hub, and headset. But I'm not sure I will. The front hub is very rough and may not last much longer, but then again, betting against the Raleigh's longevity isn't necessarily a good idea. Can anyone guess what year this is? Please remind me: which side does the adjustable cone of the front hub go on? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VZ...w1804-h1352-no The rear rim wouldn't be correct for this bike I don't think. Any idea about what happened there? |
Originally Posted by PalmettoUpstate
(Post 19150402)
Greetings from a pseudo-lurker who is just getting around to reading thru recent posts on this best of threads...
The rear rim wouldn't be correct for this bike I don't think. Any idea about what happened there? The left crank and possibly the right crank have been replaced as is the entire rear wheel, as evidenced by the rim, as you say, but also by the SunTour 3-speed hub. If the bike was parked on the streets, all sorts of things could have happened to it. I asked the bike what happened, but it's not telling me. So there ya go. |
@Stadjer re Bardot...
Originally Posted by Stadjer
(Post 19105120)
It's probably the bike that Brigitte Bardot rode naked in the deleted scenes from 'Et dieu crea la femme', that has been sought after for decades.
Tell me more; I'm kind of a junky for pics of celebrities on bikes - especially ones with her - er - "attributes" - - - Obviously I couldn't put one of those of her up in the lobby but back in the repair shop... |
Originally Posted by SirMike1983
(Post 19141473)
Some of my favorite 3 speeds are American. Here is a 1948 Schwinn Continental. Many people remember the Continental as a middling road bike with a welded frame. These very early ones were fillet brazed seamless cro-mo, lots of aluminum parts, etc.
|
Originally Posted by BigChief
(Post 19149180)
Back when I was commuting to work or even going to point B from A, speed was a factor. These days, my rides are always from point A back to point A. I only have time for shorter rides and they are purely for the joy of riding. I find that I prefer upright riding at slower speeds for this. My rides average around 10-12 mph. I honestly prefer riding my old roadsters than my much faster road bike. Ironic, in a way. I started riding upright as a kid, went through a long period of drop bar road bikes and have now come full circle to old upright 3 speeds. There are a couple of spots where I have to walk up, but at my age, I figure I can cut myself some slack.
So I found a cycling aerodynamics calculator right here on the interwebs (https://www.exploratorium.edu/cyclin...dynamics1.html) and used Excel to create a chart depicting the effort required to maintain increasing speeds on level ground with no winds. Here's what that looks like: https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5658/3...d74fe774_b.jpgCycling Aerodynamics As I suspected, the effort to maintain speeds greater than the typical 10-15mph range of your average English 3-Speed increases exponentially. For instance, in order to maintain a speed of 20 mph, it takes double the effort needed to cruise at 15 mph. More dramatically, the effort to maintain 14 mph (32.25 Watts) almost triples at 20 mph (94.01 Watts)! :eek: All of which supports my assertion that a 3-speed is better off with lower gearing if the goal is to enjoy cruising along in a dignified manner. I think the only reason they put such small cogs on at the factory in England was to keep the leg pumping to a minimum - spinning up hills must have seemed rather frantic to them, and as such, unseemly. Better to hop off and walk leisurely up that hill, right? https://flic.kr/p/NxZpuU http://flic.kr/p/NxZpuU |
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 19150465)
Hey! How ya doin'!
The left crank and possibly the right crank have been replaced as is the entire rear wheel, as evidenced by the rim, as you say, but also by the SunTour 3-speed hub. If the bike was parked on the streets, all sorts of things could have happened to it. I asked the bike what happened, but it's not telling me. So there ya go. |
With each doubling of speed drag quadruples. Reducing flat plate area is critical to achieving and maintaining speeds over 15 or 16 MPH on a bicycle. There have been wind tunnel tests as I recall sitting upright nearly doubles the flat plate area over a tucked rider in a good racing position not to mention that clipped in and tucked all the power of the arms, back and legs can work through the full 360 degree revolution of the cranks rather than the stomp, stomp, stomp of uncleated platforms through less than 180 degrees, more like about 120 degrees.
Which is why stories of such and such person on an E3S passing a peloton of fit young men drafting one another and leaving them in the dust whilst sitting bolt upright wearing deck shoes and Bermuda shorts is simply impossible. They would present more than double the flat plate area, not to include the drafting effect of the peloton, so they would have to be making nearly four times the Watts of the riders in the peloton. Sorry, just no. I occasionally ride with a small group, we make speeds easily double together of what I would do on my E3S and about 50% faster than what I can do alone on my best and fastest bike and at that over a greater distance. |
Originally Posted by PalmettoUpstate
(Post 19150667)
I didn't think the Continentals went to a cro-mo frame until late in their run; 70's?
|
I prefer low-ish gearing as well. On a 3-speed I like my High gear to be for level cruising and use N and L as climbers. On a 4-speed FW I use the same set up, but with B, L, and N as climbers. H remains a cruiser. The basic trend is that I use my highest gear as a cruising gear for level ground, and perhaps a slight downhill. I coast down larger hills. The reason I don't gear higher is that I ride original rims and eventually you outstrip your ability to brake effectively in an emergency, even with Kool Stop pads.
Originally Posted by DQRider
(Post 19150679)
Every once in awhile, I get an idea in my head that requires scientific analysis. Thank goodness it doesn't happen too often, because I get enough of that at work. But this question of how to travel most efficiently in an upright riding position demands that I turn my seat-of-the-pants theory into empirical data.
So I found a cycling aerodynamics calculator right here on the interwebs (https://www.exploratorium.edu/cyclin...dynamics1.html) and used Excel to create a chart depicting the effort required to maintain increasing speeds on level ground with no winds. Here's what that looks like: https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5658/3...d74fe774_b.jpgCycling Aerodynamics As I suspected, the effort to maintain speeds greater than the typical 10-15mph range of your average English 3-Speed increases exponentially. For instance, in order to maintain a speed of 20 mph, it takes double the effort needed to cruise at 15 mph. More dramatically, the effort to maintain 14 mph (32.25 Watts) almost triples at 20 mph (94.01 Watts)! :eek: All of which supports my assertion that a 3-speed is better off with lower gearing if the goal is to enjoy cruising along in a dignified manner. I think the only reason they put such small cogs on at the factory in England was to keep the leg pumping to a minimum - spinning up hills must have seemed rather frantic to them, and as such, unseemly. Better to hop off and walk leisurely up that hill, right? https://flic.kr/p/NxZpuU http://flic.kr/p/NxZpuU |
For sure, efficiency goes out the window riding an upright 3 speed, but the extra effort can be mitigated with slower speeds. What appeals to me is that sitting upright, my upper body is in almost the same position as it is while walking. Except I'm not walking. I'm gliding along with very little effort and taking in the surroundings. It's a great feeling.
|
Originally Posted by SirMike1983
(Post 19150758)
1940s-early 50s Continentals had it. The Continental later came back as a lower-end road bike with a welded standard steel frame.
|
I'm probably misunderstanding something, but wouldn't fillet brazing be significantly structurally inferior to brazed lugs or direct welding?
|
Originally Posted by BigChief
(Post 19150800)
For sure, efficiency goes out the window riding an upright 3 speed, but the extra effort can be mitigated with slower speeds. What appeals to me is that sitting upright, my upper body is in almost the same position as it is while walking. Except I'm not walking. I'm gliding along with very little effort and taking in the surroundings. It's a great feeling.
|
Originally Posted by adventurepdx
(Post 19150131)
I think this is what happens when people look at vintage bikes through the lenses of modern bikes. Every old thing that works fine as it is is still a "problem" that needs to be solved. For instance, I owned a nice 1953 Rudge Sports for a few years. Lovely bike, but was too small for me so I sold it. I went into a shop, who said it looked nice, but you know what would make it even better? Change to a cotterless crankset! Cotterless? Are you serious? Yeah, I understand that cotters are not easy to work on, but man, the best part of that bike was "The Hand" chainring, and I'd lose that if I went with a modern crankset. And for what? The once in a great while when I need the bottom bracket overhauled?
************************* My 1935 Raleigh project is proceeding. Since its a new acquisition, the first step is to get it ridable in order to sort out if there are any serious issues. I'm considering repainting the frame since its been abused with spray paint. There's only a portion of a graphic on the seat tube, otherwise I can't find anything on it even after removing layers of newer paint. I think though that I have a pretty good idea of what it looked like new at this point after doing a log of Google searches. There is not a lot of info on pre-war bikes!! |
Originally Posted by arex
(Post 19151074)
I'm probably misunderstanding something, but wouldn't fillet brazing be significantly structurally inferior to brazed lugs or direct welding?
In this method of bicycle frame construction, "mitering" or cutting the tube ends so that they fit together precisely is critical so that capillary action will draw the molten filler into gaps for a strong joint. The extra thickness of the fillet also provides strength, and its smooth contour distributes stresses evenly. (For additional strength Schwinn also brazed steel sleeves into the interior of its frame tubes at the joints.) Fillet-brazed bicycle frames are strong and have a neat and clean appearance, but they are uncommon because of the additional craftsmanship required. Lugged bicycle frames, for example, are now manufactured by automated machines. Custom framebuilders still provide fillet-brazed construction, and tandem framesets were often fillet-brazed when lugs to fit their frame angles were not available. |
Originally Posted by agmetal
(Post 19149886)
Has anyone ever made or modified their own shifter for top tube mounting? I like the quadrant shifter on my '37 Raleigh, and I'd like to use one on another project bike, but not sure I want to spend the money to get another original. Looking at it, it looks to be quite simple from a mechanical perspective, and I can't imagine it'd be terribly difficult to hand-make one. Alternatively, are there any good ways to mount something like one of the current-production thumb/downtube/stem shifters on the top tube? I believe the top tube on my bike is 25.4mm diameter.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...027_141420.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...027_141211.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...027_140750.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...027_140658.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...2841059518.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...nloadfile.jpeg |
Originally Posted by agmetal
(Post 19152214)
Thinking more on this, I've taken a bunch of measurements from my original quadrant shifter, along with a bunch of pictures. Might stop by a hardware store after work tonight to see about picking up some materials to take a shot at fabricating one with. I realized after taking these pictures and measurements and making the sketch that there's also a little sort of leaf spring inside as well, to keep the lever pressed against the back plate.
Antique Raleigh Sturmey Archer 2 speed antique bicycle shifter | eBay |
Originally Posted by BigChief
(Post 19152653)
I estimate this job at around 10 hours. (that's with the shop I have) I love a challenge but if I were you, I'd go for this one, that's going begging at $40 on fleabay. Ends tomorrow 9:00 est
Antique Raleigh Sturmey Archer 2 speed antique bicycle shifter | eBay |
1978 Raleigh Notingham Rustoration
1 Attachment(s)
Having completed my cleanup of the Raleigh and sent it of to the Bike exchange to be donated I wanted to share some info on weight.
As received including a heavy folding rear basket and Pletcher rack The bike weighed in at 38.5 lb. As I disassembled it I weighed everything with my handy luggage scale. here are the results stock AS FOUND WEIGHT lighten total weight lbs 38.5 components FOLDING REAR rack 3.75 delete -3.75 front wheel and tire 4.9 rear wheel and tire 6.8 kick stand 0.6 delete -0.6 rear fender 1.5 front fender 0.9 rubber pedals 1.28 plastic/ Steel pedals 0.85 -0.43 chain guard 0.45 handle barleversand stem 1.78 seatw/springs 2.12 new suede seat 1.25 -0.87 seat post 0.75 fork 2.02 frame with cranks 8.67 cables and covers 3. WEIGHT AS FOUND 38.52 total weight savings -5.65 new weight of bike 38.5 -5.65 32.85 other possible savings stem and bars seat post aLUMINUM WHEELS LIGHTER TIRES SQUARE TAPER SPINDLE AND ALUMINUM CRANKS It should be doable to bring the weight down to 30 lbs or less and still keep the bike looking essentially stock Photo below is bike complete with new wald basket in front and new folding basket and rack in back. |
The CR18 rims are wonderful and make a huge improvement in ride-ability for a bike one intends to keep and use. If it going to be given away to an unknown fate then probably not. Nothing, hardly nothing, makes as much difference as wheels (with good tires) and maybe the saddle (for comfort). Plus the braking is now acceptable in all conditions.
|
Originally Posted by capnjonny
(Post 19152864)
Having completed my cleanup of the Raleigh and sent it of to the Bike exchange to be donated I wanted to share some info on weight.
As received including a heavy folding rear basket and Pletcher rack The bike weighed in at 38.5 lb. As I disassembled it I weighed everything with my handy luggage scale. here are the results stock AS FOUND WEIGHT lighten total weight lbs 38.5 components FOLDING REAR rack 3.75 delete -3.75 front wheel and tire 4.9 rear wheel and tire 6.8 kick stand 0.6 delete -0.6 rear fender 1.5 front fender 0.9 rubber pedals 1.28 plastic/ Steel pedals 0.85 -0.43 chain guard 0.45 handle barleversand stem 1.78 seatw/springs 2.12 new suede seat 1.25 -0.87 seat post 0.75 fork 2.02 frame with cranks 8.67 cables and covers 3. WEIGHT AS FOUND 38.52 total weight savings -5.65 new weight of bike 38.5 -5.65 32.85 other possible savings stem and bars seat post aLUMINUM WHEELS LIGHTER TIRES SQUARE TAPER SPINDLE AND ALUMINUM CRANKS It should be doable to bring the weight down to 30 lbs or less and still keep the bike looking essentially stock Photo below is bike complete with new wald basket in front and new folding basket and rack in back. |
Originally Posted by agmetal
(Post 19152663)
I'm already following that auction along with another. The seller is actually somewhat local to me. I'm still playing around with the idea of taking a shot at making one, because it would be really cool to have a handmade one, and brass would look badass.
|
1 Attachment(s)
While enjoying a brew at our local pub last Thursday,an older friend came in, sat down and asked me if I owned a three speed. Seemed like an odd question seeing he had seen me riding my DL1 the week before. He reached in his pocket and pulled out a shiny new shifter and cable end and offered it to me. He recalled picking it up in the late eighties early nineties in Arizona at a bike shop and never ended up putting it on a bike. It says "made in england" but I dont recall that faceplate design. Any ideas on year?
|
Originally Posted by BigChief
(Post 19153329)
That is a very handsome Sports. I wouldn't change a thing, except I prefer MKS touring pedals for my riders.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.