A 1950s frame waiting for a build.
07-07-20, 02:07 AM
#26
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: ...small island...
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked 113 Times
in
43 Posts
Apologies for the quality of the photographs:
1. From page 19 of the 1953 Campagnolo catalogue: part numbers 611/1 and 600/1 appear to be the braze ons.
2 & 3. Non drive side views
4. Including a bottom bracket interior view showing the mitering and a pin in the bottom of the seat tube (all the tubes in the bb area are pinned as I stupidly found out).
The inside of the headtube has previously had two holes - I guess for a metal headbadge - sadly they are now closed up and flush with the tube - I would love to find an original head badge: https://www.classiclightweights.co.uk...wakefield3.JPG
Thanks,
Tom
1. From page 19 of the 1953 Campagnolo catalogue: part numbers 611/1 and 600/1 appear to be the braze ons.
2 & 3. Non drive side views
4. Including a bottom bracket interior view showing the mitering and a pin in the bottom of the seat tube (all the tubes in the bb area are pinned as I stupidly found out).
The inside of the headtube has previously had two holes - I guess for a metal headbadge - sadly they are now closed up and flush with the tube - I would love to find an original head badge: https://www.classiclightweights.co.uk...wakefield3.JPG
Thanks,
Tom
Last edited by avecReynolds531; 07-09-20 at 06:10 AM.
Likes For avecReynolds531:
07-25-20, 01:01 PM
#27
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: ...small island...
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked 113 Times
in
43 Posts
Your point about the lightness of the frame is consistent with my experience: the early 50s frames I own (R.O. Harrison 1951 and JRJ [later Bob Jackson] date not sure, but definitely 50s) are the lightest ones I have in a comparable size. It's those pencil-thin stays, and lug thinning! And scrupulous construction, I think.
One possible reason that the frame doesn't take a 27.2 mm seat post is that the seat tube might be double-butted; in Reynolds 531, the seat post was typically butted only on the bottom end.
One possible reason that the frame doesn't take a 27.2 mm seat post is that the seat tube might be double-butted; in Reynolds 531, the seat post was typically butted only on the bottom end.
This seems consistent with two frames (one from the late 1940s) known to be built with Accles and Pollock Kromo. Does anyone have experience of a Kromo frame and what to expect of the ride characteristics please?
Thanks again for the inspiration and knowledge shared previously.
Last edited by avecReynolds531; 07-25-20 at 02:23 PM. Reason: question added
07-26-20, 10:58 AM
#28
multimodal commuter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,808
Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...
Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
Liked 574 Times
in
339 Posts
A small update: thanks to Charles Wahl for the above - I was thinking about this & finally got round to weighing the frame. The painted frame is 1875g/ 4.13 pounds, painted fork is 695g/ 1.53 pounds. That's for dimensions of a 22 inch top tube (centre to centre) and 22inch seat tube (centre to top), the seat post size appears to be 27.0mm.
This seems consistent with two frames (one from the late 1940s) known to be built with Accles and Pollock Kromo. Does anyone have experience of a Kromo frame and what to expect of the ride characteristics please?
Thanks again for the inspiration and knowledge shared previously.
This seems consistent with two frames (one from the late 1940s) known to be built with Accles and Pollock Kromo. Does anyone have experience of a Kromo frame and what to expect of the ride characteristics please?
Thanks again for the inspiration and knowledge shared previously.
I can't say anything about the ride. I'm just not sensitive to subtleties in how a frame rides. Frame geometry and setup have a much bigger impact on the ride than the frame tubing, at least at my weight. There are plenty of forum members who perceive differences that they atribute to frame tubing, but I definitely do not.
Last edited by rhm; 07-26-20 at 05:21 PM.
Likes For rhm:
07-26-20, 03:59 PM
#29
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,498
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7346 Post(s)
Liked 2,452 Times
in
1,430 Posts
2,570 grams for frame and fork sound pretty darned light. Fantastic. And I agree with Rudi: the frame builder had a ride quality in mind and created it using the materials and the design. Or the frame builder stumbled upon a combination that worked without knowing how or why. When we attribute a bike's ride to the materials alone, it is probably more of a placebo effect. We don't know how the builder achieved it, but it's fair to describe what you experience.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Likes For noglider:
