heidelbergensis 

Greetings!

So, perhaps some of you saw this bike up on eBay, where it had been sitting since late this past Summer:


Photo from the original listing

The listing had a rough spec sheet just based on the seller eyeballing the component makes as they hung on the bike (Huret, Campagnolo, etc) but no details on specific frame dimensions. According to the listing, the bike had been donated by the original owner. I just about had a panic attack looking over the details of the bike and its relatively immaculate condition. The pictures showed a bike that had clearly hung from the rafters of a climate-controlled garage or something for several decades. According to the listing, the stem was seized and had to be cut down from the stack height shown above, but the remaining piece was fully removed from the steerer by a machinist.



The only corrosion present seemed to be on the plated portion of the rear brake caliper.

The bike was being sold by a small shop in Illinois that, according to their Facebook page, specialized in used general-purpose family bikes. Perhaps the most bewildering thing about the initial listing was the asking price, which was much lower than what I would've considered appropriate for even just the frameset. The seller proved somewhat, shall we say, eccentric and erratic, which only made me want to acquire and save this bike even more. I consequently felt somewhat reluctant in asking for more information - this was going to be a leap of faith on the part of myself or whomever eventually acquired the bike. My impression was that there was a lot of interest in the listing and the seller was generally annoyed at all the questions he was getting. Regardless, the price was raised by a significant margin and the seller listed themselves as "away". This was accompanied by a note that the bike would again receive a steep discount at some undisclosed point in the future. This only steeled my resolve, and so I watched and waited. Finally, the listing was revised with new pictures and more details (including a dubious TT measurement of 22"), and the price was again reduced. I wasted no time in submitting an offer that was accepted!

I was anxious to receive the bike, as I had a few things I wanted to ascertain. Namely, what the actual dimensions of the bike were, and whether removing the quill from the steerer had been done competently. The wheels also looked kinda 27-inchy to me - you can tell that the rims are Mavic but the images are too blurry to make out what specific model ("Module") they are, which also usually indicates the size (700c/27"). Another thing was to determine what shape the Brooks Professional saddle was in; though it seemed to be in literal good "shape" in the pictures, it was hard to tell what state the leather and rails were in. Also, as you can see in the pictures above, the Huret Duopar RD was suspended in a rather worrisome position. Knowing how fragile those RDs can be, I was concerned that it was either improperly installed/set-up or just plain broken.


Gulp

Well, after nearly two weeks of S&H I finally took delivery of the bike yesterday - which also happened to be my birthday! Myself and a friend eagerly opened the box (which, to the seller's credit, was very well packed) to lay our eyes on the prize. I was surprised to see that the wheels were indeed 700c, despite how they looked in the pictures. The tires were Specialized Touring with very little tread wear, and the tubes still held air!


Tiny for being "28c"!

The rims turned out to be the Mavic Module "E2", which are narrower than the spec I would have expected. I'm also happy to report that the Brooks saddle looks like it will take very nicely to reconditioning - all recommendations on leather saddle rehab would be most welcome here!



However, as I did suspect from the pictures, the TT is definitely not 22", but rather 23" c-c. The Duopar is also not operational as it hangs now, and feels pretty fragile/wonky with a lot of lateral play. The spring on the cage was not properly seated, which I think led to the "crumpled" position in the listing photos. I'm definitely going to be dissembling it - hopefully, it will come back together as a functional unit. Everything else is in amazing condition. No issues with the steerer, either - the stem removal seems to have been very nicely executed. The paint shows no scuffs, the original bartape is shellac'd and smooth (will be a shame to peel off), the chain is still supple and clean, and while the chainring has some grime on the teeth, the cogs in the rear are pristine. All indications point to a bike that was cared for and potentially ridden very little before being stored indoors in climate-controlled conditions. What an absolute time machine!

Before a full strip-down of the bike for a desperately-needed cleaning, I just had to take it out around the block:



I was admittedly concerned that the bike would not fit for whatever reason, but I am ecstatic to report that it suits my 6'2" frame very nicely!

Another thing I am shocked by is the smoothness of the cup-and-cone BB - while the hubs will absolutely need to be repacked, the BB spins more smoothly than the Campy loose-ball BB I installed 3 weeks ago on my KHS. The Avocet cranks are beautiful. The Galli calipers are the grabbiest of any single-pivot sidepulls I've ever used. The Silca pump has a really ingenious modification to fit on two nipples brazed onto the frame:



So far I'm over the freaking moon with this bike - and right now my intention is to keep it for myself. My plan for today and tomorrow is to strip the bike down and remove the decades of caked-on dust, as well as ascertain the condition and repairability of various components (the RD chief among them).

I'm already looking ahead to how I might modify the build to suit my tastes. I ordered some V-O Porteur bars this morning, along with two possible stems I'm deciding between. I'm also considering a conversion to 650b, as the fork crown clearance is a bit vertically challenged and, while the chainstays are nicely dimpled and offer decent clearance for wider tires, the fork will not allow anything greater than (modern) 28s, to say nothing of potential fender clearance:



Regarding the provenance, I have read through and indeed posted in this thread over in the Framebuilders section, which contains lots of interesting anecdotes about Cyclery North in Chicago and the culture surrounding that shop in the '70s and '80s. Hopefully someone from that thread or otherwise familiar with CN might chime in here.

Any and all thoughts, information or advice here would be greatly appreciated, as this is clearly a very special bike that I consider myself endlessly lucky to have acquired. All guesses or insights into potential age are also welcome. My best guess would be very late '70s or very early '80s, based on the components and frame details..

Also, what are these?!?


Looks like DT shifter bosses repurposed for.. what? Child seat? Extra-heavy duty front rack?

Regardless, I'll be breaking the bike down this weekend, and will post more pics and impressions as I progress!

scarlson 

Nice lookin bike!

Those are for a low-rider front rack. The style with a hoop that goes over the front wheel. Probably a Blackburn at the time, but nowadays I'd get a Tubus Tara. It would likely work quite well here.

polymorphself 

Awesome bike, although strange to see a touring bike equipped with low rider mounts but only single eyelets in back (and perhaps none up front? Unless the chrome screws are for that person just positioned differently).

63rickert

The frame is beautiful. A wonder.

The Avocet cranks are pretty, they broke. The Galli brakes are one of the cheaper Campy copies. If you like how they work you will love how Campy works. Modolo was also popular when the bike was new and also outperform Galli. The rims were plain too narrow and not that strong. Specialized 700x28 back then measured 23.7 on my rims, on the ultra narrow Mavic even less. People rode like that a long long time. Tandems and tandems used for touring rolled on the same tires you have. I used Spec Turbo 700x32 back then which measured 26 mm on my wider Super Champ #58 rims, other riders always called them truck tires. Get decent rims and modern tires. If going for real vintage purity Super Champ 58 is the way to go. Hard to find in 700, a few are left. Same rim also labeled as Super Champ Gentleman And then Wolber took over. Can't offhand remember what Wolber called them. Get modern tires. Most Cyclery North bikes ran tubulars.

Before totally changing character of the bike by going to 650 consider replacing the fork blades with something longer. Only question in my mind is whether the fork crown is as wide as you will want. If the crown is too narrow get a complete new fork. Getting vertical clearance will mean lifting the front end of the bike and having a non-horizontal toptube. Not aesthetically corect for period but not awful. Seat tube gets a little shallower, not much. Major fork modification is less of a retromod than doing 650.

Eddy Weissler was shall we say a bit erratic designing frame geometry. That looks to me like a racing bike with a slightly longer chainstay. Typical for the period. Fill up the rear with a full current dimension 700x30 or 700x32 tire and it will look like a race bike to most. Measure head angle and fork rake, figure out what you have and where you want trail to go.

Or maybe just ride as is with wider tires and let go of fendering.

heidelbergensis 

Thank you for the responses so far!

scarlson Ok, that definitely makes sense - the rear rack that came with the bike is a Blackburn, shame that the front rack didn't make it. The rear had it's upper stays bent inward to fit the interesting offset bosses on the inside of the seat stays of the frame. That's part of the reason why I find this bike so interesting: all these little modified details. I definitely would prefer a front rack over a rear, so I will keep an eye open for a lowrider rack that would work. Were these kinds of actual braze-on bosses common? It does look like a repurposed DT shifter braze-on. Looking at most modern racks, I'm concerned that they are designed for more typical eyelets, not structural supports brazed onto the fork like these.

polymorphself I agree - maybe considering that this was a custom build, the original owner was consciously not going to run fenders? The only tidbit I have from the seller was that the original owner had this built for himself as a commuter while he was in college.

63rickert I greatly appreciate your thoughts here, lots to consider! I've owned Modolo and Campy Record single-pivots (the latter were on my old Gios Torino SR) and found them comparatively more spongy than the action on these Galli calipers, though that might have to do with the rims I was using them on, which were hard anodized. I will agree that these do not seem special like the Campy calipers. I also first started out on 23c tires, and while I think that the modern predilection for "wider is better" is very often just trendiness, I do find the suppleness of modern 28c tires intoxicating (to say nothing of the nice Rene Herse 650bx48 tires I have on my gravel bike). Once I break the frame down I will see how 700x32c Gravelkings sit front and rear, and go from there. If I rebuild the wheelset, I would likely go with Pacenti Brevet rims, which are offered both in 700c and 650b and have a machined braking surface (unlike, say, Velo-Orange's rims). I definitely don't want to modify the frame since it's in such amazing condition, so for fitment it's going to be a question of seeing what will work and what won't. For now, I'll just clean up the wheels as they are and go from there.

Mr. Weissler's name is on the rear left chainstay - based on the other thread, it looks like besides being the proprietor of Cyclery North, he painted and perhaps occasionally built the frames. Did you have any first-hand experience with CN? It's always interesting but also slightly sad to hear about the vibrant culture surrounding defunct bike shops - especially steeped in the romantic aura of that era, when "classic & vintage" was just normal.

The HT and ST angles are definitely slacker than what I would personally consider racing geo, especially the ST. Maybe this pic will give a better view of the actual frame geometry:



The saddle is positioned further back over the rear wheel and away from the BB, which (as I take it) is better suited for a more upright riding position. Hence why I'm going to experiment with porteur bars for a more upright but still slightly "sporty" position.

scarlson 

I agree with your preference. Less weight on the back means less "tail wags the dog" effect.

The stub coming out of the fork is my preference when it comes to low rider front rack braze-ons. Using a shifter mount is a little weird, yes, but these types of stick-out braze-ons are fairly common on '80s Univegas and Miyata touring bikes. I even made some custom ones for a fork I recently built:




As you can see, a Tubus Tara goes on beautifully.

In my opinion they present several advantages. First, there's room for your pannier hooks because you have more clearance between the forkblade and the rack. Second, your panniers are vertical and not sloped inward with the fork blade. You may or may not like these things.
I'm sure some people would say flush mounts like a water bottle cage mount or through-holes and spacers would be better, because you can fit a wider variety of racks, and it's flush when you don't have a rack (to which I counter that when you take the rack off and put it someplace, you will certainly lose the spacers and have to buy/make more).
Some people would say through-holes are better because you can fit those two-piece low riders without the hoop, but I know those have a tendency to break (both Tubus and Blackburn varieties).
Some might also prefer the panniers to slope inward a bit, saying this helps with balance. I say it's probably humanly impossible to notice a difference.
Finally, some people might say that the sticking-out type of mount is less stress on the forkblade, because you don't have to drill a hole in it. I don't necessarily believe this, because the hole is centered in the forkblade, right on the neutral plane, and should experience minimal stresses.
Yet I still prefer the sticking-out low rider mount, enough so that I made my own because they are not commercially available, because I have brazed on and toured with all kinds of low rider mounts (through-holes both threaded and unthreaded, spool-shaped braze-on-the-front-of-the-blades, water bottle boss on the outside, these sticking-out ones, and those Blackburn U-bolts for forks with no mounts) and these sticking-out ones are my favorites for the aforementioned reasons.

The other weird thing about your fork is that instead of having the bottom of the rack mount to the eyelet, there's a mount in the bottom of the blade. I'm sure it's fine. If it's not broken yet, it probably won't. This could offer the advantage of not requiring a spacer there. With my dropout eyelets, I've always needed a spacer to keep the rack outboard of the blade, which bulges outboard of the dropout. Bad design I guess. They're really meant for fenders only (or fenders mounted inboard of the rack). You could mount fenders on this thing too, or the Tubus Tara has an extra hole for fenders to be mounted to, after you mount the rack.

Phew, I guess I had more to say about front rack mounts than I had originally thought! I hope you found it useful.

Doug Fattic 

First of all congratulations on getting such a nice bike! Eddy the owner and painter before his accident, painted the first couple of bikes I made after coming back from England where I learned in 1975. The Hellenic seat stays were kind of their signature look. When Eddy was no longer able to paint, someone that had a frame made at Cyclery North had me paint their frame. I took it for a test ride and discovered that Hellenic stays rode differently in a way I liked. I bet you'll like them too. One of my custom frames I made for myself has Hellenic stays.

There are several cautions I would give about changing the bicycle to fit your more modern taste starting with using Velo Orange Porteur bars. Those kind of handlebars need a slacker seat angle than what is common so you body is positioned properly while riding. In addition a longer top tube is required (which yours certainly is) because your hands are coming back from the stem not going forward. Looking at your pictures it does look your bike has a swallow seat angle. For reference i find that with sweptback bars, a seat angle of 73ş is intolerable and 72ş is uncomfortable for me. Bike frames for upright bars need to be 71 degrees or less.

A Henry Jame fork crown has about 42mm of width between blades. You can get a 32 or a bit wider tire comfortably to work with that crown. We almost never built bikes with fenders in that era. They just were not cool. It makes no sense to butcher the history of this bike to try and use wider 650B wheels.

Fredo76

Nice bike. Interesting frame, alright!

Do you know the head and seat tube angles? I'm curious about the geometry. Can you tell me the frame size (seat tube length from center of BB to top of top tube) and the wheelbase?

I'm also very curious of your impression on how it rides. Does it have toe overlap? Is the rear dropout spacing 120mm or 126?

The measurements for the frame I built in 1976 are 75°/75°, 26", and 39 1/2", so I sit maybe 2 inches farther forward. I'd post a pic but don't want to crash your thread. Your stem looks to be about 60cm. My steering was too quick with a 70mm stem, but ok with a 120mm. I'm about 6'2" tall these days, but perhaps with longer legs.

I have Specialized Turbo Cottons and Veloflex Corsa Evos in 28mm and like both, fwiw.

Congratulations on your new ride.

BillRS22

Cyclery North repainted my 1974 Mercian around
1985. Ed W. was at the shop but it was after his accident or health issues. The paint on my Mercian still looks great. Bill

beech333

Very cool and I am a bit happy that I missed this because it would be easy for me to pick up when visiting my parents and I certainly don't need it, but I probably would have traded out my RRB for that. My RRB has a decal stating it was painted by Cyclery North too, so I wonder if it was either a repaint or maybe Ron also had his frames painted there.

I agree with Doug, not that he needs this confirmation, that the hellenic stays appears to have been a signature for Cyclery North.

Road Fan

All those old parts have some sentimental value, just because they are still present and seem to be basically functional. The Avocet BB (it should be an Avocet because it was said they had yet another unique square-taper design) is a known high-quality design, at least I have a NOS set I installed and then pulled because I set up a bike then decided to sell the bare frame/fork, but it was an easy installation and a very smooth spinner, easily the match for my 1980 Masi BB from when I rebuilt her. I found the Avocet BB and chainset precisely fit an English lightweight frame I was setting up.

I'm also a big fan of Duopars and the Huret front mechs. Looking at your three Duopar pictures, it all looks normal, if I assume the chain was on the granny in your first pic. For the other two pics that is the correct shape for the cage with the big ring and the big rear cog engaged. I would limit your restoration to some cleaning with a toothbrush, moving everything with your handj to see how the springs and pivots work together, oil drops on the pivot points, work it some more by hand, and then reinstall it for riding. If it shifts ok after all that I think there's no need for further overhaul.

Main fragility on a Duopar rear is if you spin the crank pedalling backwards when the derailleur cage is not carefully feathered onto the selected rear cog - if the chain hangs up, your feet have the power to cause damage. If you still have that skill from the old days, you need now to use it.

I had an Italian fork straightened or otherwise remade at Cyclery North in the late 1970s - somebody had borrowed the bike and brought it back with the fork blades bent back, but no sign of fork damage - suspicious? But in any case somebody at the shop rectified the problem and restored the paint. I don't know who the mech was nor what the repair work was, but it cast me $75, putting a hurt on my university expenses back then! I think I saw Dwight Safter there from time to time, but don't think it was his work. I can't say I knew Eddie. Biiiig tall kid with long hair!

I tried to estimate your frame angles by measuring your photos with a protractor. The only thing I can say with confidence is that your seat tube angle is on the shallow side, like my 1952 Rudge sport bike, which has been pictured on this site. Your head tube is much steeper than mine. I don't believe the numbers I got, which were 70 degrees rear and 75 degrees front - not obviously wrong but certainly not typical (maybe except for Doug's Ukrainian project bikes?). My Rudge angles from 1952 measure (measuring the frame) 70 degrees rear and 73 degrees front, which I believe but still not measured with an accurate process and toolset. The Rudge's trail is about 40 mm, so I think its 73 degrees is reasonable. In the past I've done some such scaling from the pictures in Jan Heine's books, but in those the photographer specifically tried to minimize angle errors. My numbers were pretty close to what Jan claimed, but I don't think that proves anything.

To the Thread Starter: I'm envious at you having a Cyclery North bike! I'd love to find a 52 cm-sized version of that Hellenic design!

Kind of a final note: If my estimates of your frame's geometry are accurate, I think you have an odd bird there which might have iconoclastic handling. It would likely be different again if you convert it to 650b. Presumably the original builder had a sound idea of how the bike would handle and for whom, and that the bike would be an acceptable ride as he designed it either with 27" or 700x25 tires. I think I would build the bike today to follow the original geometry (adapting to my own fit) before thinking seriously about anything more radical, like a 650b conversion.

63rickert

Yes, I knew Eddy. I remember your frame. Most CNs were for racers. The guy who had this bike was not, I saw him riding and at the shop, did not know him.

Campy brakes are a bit more complex than the Galli, meaning there are little setup things that go sideways. They are definitely not spongy. Neither are Modolos.

Frame building takes a lot of time. There are and have been workmen who get it done quickly, for most it is just plain a slow process. Eddy had a store to run and left the frame building to employees. He only built a few himself early on. He was very good as a painter. Health problems meant that some frames were painted by others. Eddy liked to paint.

I agree with everything in Doug Fattic's post. You could try using a very long stem. You will still be more upright, whole purpose of porteur bars. The chainstay on this frame is short, weight distribution will not be what you want for an upright bike.

Could be the photos, I don't see the infamous raised center ridge on your tires. A few of us sliced them off or sanded them down but these could be later tires. Still I'd be prepared for having to cut them off the rim. Panaracer Gravelking is a massive improvement over vintage Specialized. Just good tires will bring this bike closer to what it was intended to be. And way more comfortable. This is a special bike, if you can go all the way to RH Extralight go ahead and do it.

The Brooks is in fabulous condition. My preferred treatment is Obenauf's Leather Preservative. Put that in search bar, it is widely available. It will make that saddle shine up (mostly beeswax) and will make it last and last. It's an older saddle so will last longer than new Brooks anyway. Downside to Obenaufs is using more than a tiny amount makes the saddle harder. If you like the original Brooks ride slather it on thick. If you like squishier saddles ask someone else.

Again about the fork. Eddy just did not understand head angle, rake, trail. Mostly done by keep it simple and copy what others do. Which is not a bad system. Quite a few bikes had original build modified so messing with the fork would not be wrong. From what photos show it seems normal and close enough. I've learned I cannot measure head angle or rake from a photo. Take measurements. If anywhere in ballpark leave it alone but know what you are working with. A real porteur would be low trail with a nice long chainstay. Don't think you can get there from here.

beech333

I don't know if this might be some Chicago area thing, but my primary complaint about my RRB is that the headtube is very steep, compared to my other bikes. I think that when Skip was selling his RRB maybe a year or two ago, I asked if it was similarly steep and his was too.

gugie 

I've never conisdered that Hellenic stays would change the way a bike rides vs the "standard" attachment at the seat lug. Can you elaborate?

63rickert

Steep head angles has happened lots of times. Fashion is a major determinant in frame design. I had an '83 Bianchi that was measured a few times and the answer came up 75 or 76 degree head angle. Maybe it was 75.5. Skip has the 1950s Automoto that has a very steep head angle. If the fork rake is appropriate it is not much of a problem. I'd not want one again but the Bianchi was ridden and raced plenty and nothing bad ever happened. If the Automoto were a little smaller I might have kept it.

Ron usually had reasons for doing things. You can't ask Eddy, you could still ask Ron. Until someone measures with something more accurate than a photo we don't know what the Cyclery North has.

63rickert

Ike Safter has been mentioned in this thread. He had a theory I always liked. I don't know if it is right and would be interested also what Doug has to say.
Ike said vibration from rear wheel goes up the seatstay. Most direct route is with fastback stays. Sidetack a little better. With Hellenic the vibration is spread around and does not go direct to the seatlug at all. It makes sense to me but there are so many other things going on. Hellenic also makes the rear triangle smaller which ought to make it stiffer,

beech333

Perhaps my post was poorly written, or just being mis-interpreted. I have no doubt that Ron knew what he was doing and that there was a purpose. It is just more aggressive than I would like at this point. It's not a bad design. The bike was made to be raced, like a lot of bikes we appreciate, but I guess I find myself preferring some other 50's-80's era bikes for the riding that I do. I might like it if it had more rake.

I guess I am just voicing my regret for buying it, but perhaps this is not the best platform to do so. It is well made, fwiw, as is the Cyclery North posted. I'm sorry for derailing your thread.

Doug Fattic 

That is what I always thought too until I test rode the Cyclery North frame I painted. The owner wanted me to check it out because he thought his Hellenic CN bike rode differently. I mean in theory it triangulates more area so that should stiffen up any rear triangle sway. That advantage would best be utilized in big frames. The seat stays are also laying over more which again in theory (meaning in our heads) would make it more compliant. So it now has all the factors in making one of the most common jokes about the best riding bike frame design - it is latterly stiff and vertically compliant. Yea sure. But I've made frames with standard and Hellenic stays and they ride differently. Whether one likes the difference is a matter of personal taste.

Seat stay attachments are a favorite place to express a builder's style. I'm curious if GT did it that way so they could be easily recognized without looking at the transfers or he felt there was an advantage? My introduction to the Hellenic seat stay style was in the 1969 August or September issue of American Cycling magazine (they eventually changed the name to Bicycling). They did a road test of a Hetchins and instead of choosing a model with their typical curly stays, they chose a Hellenic model instead.

This is one of those things often talked about and seldom tested. I bet Eddy tried both and chose Hellenic because he liked the ride. Did anyone ever talk to him about this? Somebody not named Doug Fattic should build 2 identical bikes and see if they can tell any difference. I certainly thought I did although they weren't identical even though they were similar bikes in my size. The 2 road bikes I ride now both have Hellenic stays - even though I'm not that fond of the looks.

bulgie 

I might have been tempted, except any bikes I build for me to ride nowadays will be for such fat tires that any difference in the ride due to seatstay style will be lost in the noise, compared to the tire compliance.
Or put another way, fat tires means never having to worry if your rear triangle is too stiff!

Mark B

heidelbergensis 

That was all indeed useful! I do like the simplicity of the Tubus Tara, but I find myself needing the additional everyday utility of a rack with a platform in addition to taking panniers. I would definitely trust your insights here, having had experience with so many rack-mounts, whereas I've only ever previously used the more pedestrian drop-out eyelet variety. My modern gravel bike does have blade-mount braze-ons, but I've never used a front rack with it before. Speaking of the other odd feature of the fork, the lower blade threads, I'm a little confused as to how bolt bosses in these two locations would lend itself to mounting a rack. Maybe this set-up was meant for a very specific model of rack?

Doug Fattic Thank you! I appreciate the thoughts here on the upright bars and 650b conversion. These weren't all necessarily definite plans, only ideas for possible configurations for the bike. The TT is a bit longer than what I prefer, and taking this along with the slacker ST, I thought more upright bars might interesting to try. The current cockpit, at any rate, does not work for me at all either ergonomically or aesthetically. If the porteur bars do prove a bit squirrelly, I will try the Nitto Noodle or 1st gen. V-O Grand Cru randonneur bars that I have on hand. As far as fitting a set of 650b wheels, this was merely a thought on how to overcome the limiting factor of the fork crown height, but of course, this would change the handling characteristics of the bike, and it does seem a bit silly in the circumstance with this bike.

Fredo76 I'll definitely do some measuring once I get going here! Right off the top of my head, I know that the ST is 62cm c-c and the TT is 58cm, obviously not super informative numbers without frame angles and wheelbase. Regardless, I'll try and post some more numbers.

beech333 I'm also somewhat shocked that this wasn't snapped up even at the seller's higher asking price - I certainly did not need another full bike living with us here in our apartment. But I also just could not resist. Thankfully, I have a significant other who is (mostly) understanding of my mental illness (designated "Enplusoneitis" in the DSM-5).

Road Fan Thank for all the thoughts on components and also the CN anecdotes! I'm very excited to have my hands of some of these Huret pieces after reading about them over the years. The RD was definitely not set up properly. The first pictures I posted were from the listing. It seems that the spring on the cage was not seated like it should have been. There's a thread here on BF about how to overhaul these, and also a video I cam across on Youtube - hopefully, this will help in diagnosing any issues with the Duopar. Despite the few scuffs and being caked in dust and grime, there appears to be very little wear. This being the first time I've handled Avocet components, I am particularly impressed with the build quality of the crankset and BB (though I also read that these items were produced by Ofmega?). The cups and lockring are very stout and nicely machined, I'll try and get some pics. I also just love how dainty the arms are on the crankset, absolutely one of the most beautiful cranks I've handled. They do seem durable enough despite this daintiness, and besides, I don't plan on abusing this bike to the point of testing the material strength of the components. I also agree with you on the geometry - this is very different from any bike I've ever owned, and I'm curious to see how it will handle once I can get it more roadworthy. I think I'll be shelving the 650b idea for now - though I've wanted to try converting an older roadie to 650b for several years now, this probably isn't the bike to try that experiment with. I will, however, be comparing the porteur bars with a 100mm stem to the drop bars listed above, perhaps with a slightly shorter stem raised a little higher to increase stack like the original owner clearly had the bike configured.

I'm going to need some time to process all the other responses here, but I'm also seeing already that 63rickert even remembers this exact bike and the original owner tooling around - how amazing!!

63rickert

That was not a derail. You raised interesting points. Your input welcome.

scarlson 

A good platform front rack that takes mid blade mounts is the Jandd Expedition front rack. It should work well for you in this situation. There used to be a nice Minoura one that would work too - and it came in red to match your paintjob. This bolted together on the top from two halves and provided a sort of "high-low" mounting for panniers. I have one, but I never really liked it. The modern Blackburn "MTF-1" or "bootlegger" platform rack would also work.

The lower eyelets and the upper mounts *should* take a standard low-rider, just a little higher up than if it were mounted to the dropout eyelet and a mid-blade mount. The lower eyelets you mention are thus standing-in for the dropout eyelets on a "normal" touring fork. There should be about 6 or 7 inches distance between the lower eyelets and the mid-blade mounts, according to the measures between dropout eyelets and mid-blade eyelets of a couple frames I have here. The distance figure that's thrown around a lot among framebuilders is 165mm. That should work for the majority of front racks, although different framebuilders may put it at different distances to design it to be better for certain racks. This is part of the reason racks come with slotted holes: hopefully by fiddling around you can get the thing pretty much level!

tl;dr: I bet if you measure the distance between the lower eyelets and the mid-blade "DT shifter" mounts, you will find it around 165mm or between 6 and 7 inches, and this will take a standard low rider rack, of which there are at least ten kinds available, C&V or modern.

A Jandd Expedition or modern Blackburn "MTF-1" or "bootlegger" platform rack will likewise mount to these eyelets - although you might need to bend or spread it a little bit to make it work. Or for a more retro option, you could find the Blackburn low rider and a Blackburn platform rack and mount them together, thus foregoing the original hoop that the low-rider came with, because the platform rack's stays provide lateral stiffness in place of the hoop.

gugie 

Thanks for all the feedback. Mark, Doug, I'm taking a giant step backwards if anybody's asking about making the two identical frames except stays in case somebody thinks I'm volunteering!

What's interesting is that I built a frame for @BoltBreaker awhile back and he wanted Hellenic stays. He's 6'6", effective seat tube length of 66cm. I never asked him why.

BoltBreaker

Good thing I kept the (email) receipts. That hippie constructeur in Portland noted that I often seemed to be trying for more distance between seat and bars, since I slid the Brooks saddle all the way back on my 65cm Rivendell LongLow. He then, since I had hired him on to build me a frame, suggested Hellenic stays could get the seat tube angled further back with said angle helping move the effective seat post position rearwards as well. Me being a simple breaker of bolts, what did I know? I just said, "sure, add it to the bill, Guido." What he came up with, shown in the raw above, and with wet paint below, works quite well to get the seat back.



Not as obvious from the pictures but quite apparent when out riding is the gentle graze the stays make on the rider's inner thighs while pedaling. Not objectionable at all, just something you get used to and eventually forget about. However, more than just getting the saddle further back, the Hellenic stays - at least as the salty cow-milker put them together - work to strengthen the frame. The stays are affixed to the seat tube below the clamp (note double bolts!) AND to the top tube, creating additional triangulation in a highly stressed area of the frame. I'm sure that between glasses of beer and bourbon, back in the planning phases, Mr. Gugs and I both commented on the potential advantage of that reinforced approach.

All I can say at this point is that it rides perfectly. Well done, gugie, well done.

Road Fan

Despite m upbringing among bikes in Chicago, I have no idea of what might be particularly Chicagoan. I don't have any Chicago-made bikes.