7/23/14 5:36 PM

Instead of finding the old thread with the harry hovnanian, I saw this and thought it post worthy.

7/23/14 9:36 PM

I bought one of these Hamilton 24"-wheeled bike frames only this last winter.

Not sure what I'll do with it, it seems to have been stored where it possibly became immersed in water for a time!
It looks huge, but it would fit more like any 59cm frame.

I have sewup rims here that came with it. It was one of a pair of frames, long since parted out, which were owned by a very successful man-and-woman duo who were gobbling up tri victories in the late-1980's.

Dual-24" wheels were apparently a fad in those years, perhaps coming after rules banning different-sized wheels.

Anyway, I took this picture a few months back:

7/23/14 10:12 PM

That looks really well made...

7/23/14 11:52 PM

Get a load of how big of a chainring the black bike needs,

Man, that's one ugly bike!

7/24/14 1:45 AM

Man, were we ever stupid once...

Though there was a time that we debated whether a suspension fork was any better than a Girvin flexstem.

Why didn't we make the seatpost more vertical/steeper instead of making Profile make those stupid seatposts?

Dear DDDD, I'm happy you bought one of these frames. Of course your plan for it is to destroy it and save the world from 63 tooth chainrings and 24" tubular wheels....

(Fillet brazing was the pinnacle of frame building, in my mind, until I saw these...)

7/24/14 10:40 AM

The steep-seattube thing is something that a competitive rider is bound to want to tinker with as their training level develops, and successful riders (like those who owned these Hamiltons) did in some cases experiment with custom-frame seat tube angles as steep as 90 degrees!

I myself discovered after all these years that taking long pulls at the front benefitted from a more-advanced position, though at the expense of arm comfort and so only for rides of less than three hours.

This shows a stock seatpost, though of course reversed from it's normal orientation.
This big bike fits this 5'9" ~long-legged rider, but again more for 2-hour rides where big efforts at the front might be expected. The bike's 72-degree headtube angle gives added stability in support of the more-advanced positioning and all-out-while-aero pedaling efforts.
BTW, the auxiliary "safety" brake levers do a lot to spare one's arms from fatigue on this bike, allowing for safe descending or tight-pack riding with one's hands atop the bars in an arm-resting "recovery" position. One's arms and musculature also adapt to such forwarded positioning, not that anyone could likely tell by looking at me.



Last edited by dddd on 7/24/14 10:48 AM; edited 1 time in total

7/24/14 10:45 AM

"your plan for it is to destroy it and save the world"

I would so make a single speed cruiser out of that. ;)

7/24/14 10:58 AM

"I would so make a single speed cruiser out of that. ;)"

That actually might be a great idea, given that these "tri" bikes typically have slow, stable steering geometry.
So I wouldn't need such a long stem to calm the steering, and some sort of "flat" bars might even work.

I doubt that I would ever build up those tubular rims though, since Terry supplies equivalent clincher rims and Pasela tires that would further support a cruiser mission. Let me check those clearances first.

Damn, I know I've got a pair of track hubs here somewhere, ...or a Sachs Torpedo two-speed hub in back(?). Gimme a kickstand, too.

Can you say "WHEELIES"?!!!

Last edited by dddd on 7/24/14 11:02 AM; edited 1 time in total

7/24/14 11:02 AM

You'd need to build a wheel with an ENO for SS I guess. So maybe some flatbars with a rapid fire and some gears would be more economic. Unless you know someone like me with two ENO wheels that likes to trade. ;)

7/24/14 11:17 AM

Do they make an ENO with 2-speed inside? It's hilly around here!

Assuming the 26mm Terry/Pasela tires will even fit, I'm maybe leaning toward a geared all-rounder as an experiment, with flat-bar controls keeping costs down to near-zero (after buying rims/spokes/tires that is).

I've ridden two-speed hubs around here, but a singlespeed ride I once took required what I considered too much coasting. It was neat having such an automatic "read" on how fast the bike was traveling though.

Are those ENO hubs adjustable to fit 126mm spacing? The 24" rims might have a lower spoke count iir.

7/24/14 11:36 AM

Only 32 spoke probably, as far as I know. And pricey too. So you'd have to skip some holes. Definitely not less than 130mm spaced either, I did not think of that.

Maybe use a SS coaster rear with a derailleur for chain tension only and a front derailleur triple with one bar end shifter. ;) A road triple crank with the 30, and a 42 and a 54 or something? I have some big 130mm rings, as I am sure you do. I think I have a 58. ;) So 3 up front with 30/42/58.

;)





Silly ramblings, easier and a lot less goofy to just put cogs and one shifter for rear gears with a single front chainring. ;) My brain just went a little whack on that idea. LOL

7/24/14 11:52 AM

Well, the idea was firstly to build something weird,...

But with derailer gears, the potential of the frame could be more fully explored.

Who knows, might be able to do a century on it someday.

The small wheels are lighter/stronger/stiffer, accelerate faster, a small difference wrt the total mass but said to be noticeable.

7/25/14 5:49 AM

Based on the pictures that you've posted of your bikes over the years with the saddles always barely above the top tube, they all appear to be way too big for you. Why do you choose to ride oversize frames? This is especially puzzling if you have long legs for your height, which would indicate that you need a shorter top tube than an average rider of the same height (I know, as I'm built the same way - 6' with a 35" inseam). Oversize frames have longer top tubes, which is the opposite of what you likely need.

The silver bike looks to be at least a 25" frame, which I would never have sold to someone your height when I was in the bike biz. I also have to wonder if you have any standover clearance at all?

I don't mean to be critical, I'm just confused as to why you would fit your bikes this way.

7/25/14 12:26 PM

I lucked into realizing I liked bigger frames better, it wasn't calculated.

Standover clearance is there, but minimal.

I much prefer the bars and saddle so far forward, as it allows my lower body to be "rotated forward". This in turn allows me to get an aero flat-back profile with less of an angle between thighs and torso, which otherwise causes me midsection discomfort and power loss if I ride at my limit for any decent amount of time.

I move the seat forward to keep the seat-to-bars distance fully comfortable, i.e. for erranding around the foothills or for an 80-mile charge up into the Sierra.

With entire body rotated forward, there is more weight on my arms (near the limit on longer rides), but my neck angle seems improved as far as comfortably holding my head up since there's less arch in my upper back.

I switch between different bikes often, and there are advantages to both larger and smaller frames, but for the 2-3hr hard-charging rides, the forward position works better. I also find that attacking climbs out of the saddle has my hands on the hoods in a perfect arm/body position with the larger frames, also that the "drops" position is much more usable with the more-forward but not-so-low handlebar.
I often keep the aux "safety" brake levers in place for the benefit of a recovery (rest) position when descending or when riding in a tight pack.

So all I can say is that this "French fit" (only a fist full of seatpost showing) with safety levers, straight out of the 1970's, seems to have been well thought out, though in the case of the silver bike above, I did feel like I reached the practical limit with this one in terms of forward positioning while still using standard road handlebars. That is the bike's original stem and there is the original (though reversed) seatpost too. My saddle height from bb to saddle top-center is 30" fwiw.

Some have also commented on the saddle's angle, and this too came out of much experimentation and fine-tuning. This is a mtb saddle, so somewhat dipped in the middle. I set the saddle so the front half is level, and it is comfortable enough to escape notice at all times.

My arms sometimes get noticeably tired/sore from longer rides, but it's nothing compared to my legs, so just trying to establish some balance there with the other considerations.

For rides of a more relaxed pace and/or longer duration, I prefer more of a normal 58cm setup, but with so many hills around here, I always appreciate the ability to get way forward and attack the short climbs out of the saddle in a most aggressive stance balanced with the steepness of the grade. A lot of switching between seated and standing, and the forward saddle makes the transition particularly effortless.

This blue bike's build followed the silver bike's, and with this one's 71-degree seat tube angle and 1cm shorter top tube, it is far more normal in overall fit and feel. Turned out to be one of the best riders I have ever built, this with only five cogs and @ 27lbs.



And then there's this two-tone Richard Sachs, which can be ridden at a fast clip, but I wasn't able to get the bars low enough and had no crotch clearance.
Just too big, so no option for subsequently fitting a longer stem to calm the fairly quick steering.
With the bars lower (track stem perhaps), the steering would be calmer, but this is a taller rider's bike:



Last edited by dddd on 7/25/14 12:52 PM; edited 1 time in total

7/25/14 12:52 PM

Bigger VS not: am 6'0", used to be 6'1" but the discs are compressing little by little.

34.25" inseam. Also like bigger bikes. Especially when I popped 10k as far as spending time on the bike and having my 'position' evolution evolve to that point.

The Specialized Roubaix is the only 58CM bike I have that fits the way I like. Seems like it has more to do with rotated hips and being long enough. This sure makes you longer on the bike.

All the Freuller frames are pretty close to, or too tall for me when close to long enough. Even with longer reach bars/stems. So the compact and semi compact top tube geom frame totally cure the between size syndrome I seem to have. Barring the tend of them et al, they work for me.

I guess I have come to like the bit longer WB and definitely longer Front Center due to 48 road shoes. 99-100CM wheel-base frames have to be a very close fit for me. [Strong and Colnago, the nago being tight on height being 61CM] That is to not be too far forward in the riding position I usually ride to be in the best fore/aft CG window I find. Where-as the longer bikes have a bigger fore/aft CG window.

I was getting fit on 56CM bike in the 90s when I started on road bike. My first 60CM bike was liberating, as long as I did not get too many soprano inducing episodes happen.

Moral, some folks like bigger bikes. Even though my inseam is long for my height, my ape arms and huge hands and feet are a definite part of the equation.

7/25/14 1:54 PM

I guess the main thing is that you've both found something that works for your particular riding style.

7/25/14 2:14 PM

That old Sachs is huge - 64 c-c maybe? Gotta be at least 62...

7/25/14 6:53 PM

I hadn't considered wheelbase at all when I chose to build/rebuild, and to ride any of these big bikes. Prolly didn't much matter much since they are all rather long?

At the opposite end of the "argument", and built well before the big ones, is this 22-in (~56cm) Varsity.
With but a 56cm toptube and losing yet another good couple of cm in "effective" toptube reach to it's 70-degree(!) frame angles, riding this bike requires a good few miles or riding to adjust to.
While I at first tried a 110mm neck in an attempt to stretch out, the steering went spastic heaving left and right with every pedal stroke whenever I rode out of the saddle, so I scaled back to the 100mm neck shown below.
Perhaps because I am at a sort of peak of weightlessness at the moment, I can actually crunch in enough to sustain some flatland speed, but climbing the steeper hills has my knees actually hitting the upper level of the handlebar.
It's been really amusing trying to strategically "deal with" the extremely scrunched fit over the last 9 days that I have been riding this green machine, but it is still faster than my larger (but 8-lb heavier) all-stock 1976 Varsity.
I don't normally ride the hoods much at all on the flats, but on this small bike I have re-learned that habit for the ergonomic relief it provides.
Sorry I didn't take this photo quite straight-on, but sizing weirdness here is almost self-explanatory and I'm told that it looks "bad-ass" in motion.




I got seemingly the same fit with this "Green Hornet", but with better knee clearance.
The seat tube is 5 degrees steeper at 75 degrees! And it's at least 7 lbs lighter than the green Schwinn.

7/25/14 7:17 PM

Yeah, the old Sachs is 64 or 65cm. As big as I can ride.

I'm always trying to test my own theories, and riding this cacophony of frame sizes and geometries at least helps me to keep the quantitative variables in relative perspective you could say.
Every bike is something of it's own can of worms though, in terms of subtle handling differences, and the rider's grip position makes a big difference on it's own.

7/25/14 7:29 PM

I seem to wind up just under 30 inches from the saddle sweet spot/center to the center of the bars at the stem on the go fast bikes. Even my 6'4" friend says it is too far and too low.

I just gotta figure out how to go fast on them...

7/25/14 7:38 PM

All of mine seem to be just over 27 inches, whether it's a big or small bike.

Another dimension to consider is the crank-to-handlebar dimension, especially for when the rider is sprinting or climbing a steep hill off of the saddle.
The reach of the bars and hoods themselves come into play here I guess.

I don't have much to say about saddle height, but if my saddle is even a quarter inch below my normal 30", I immediately find myself going off the back edge of the saddle during seated climbing.

7/25/14 9:54 PM

Here is one of my more odd ones from the 90s. Wish I still had it, but set up as a non TT. 650C wheels on a TT bike for me I learned was a no go...

7/26/14 10:55 PM

Looks like a mountain bike that I came across on a ride 20 years ago.

But I see it has road calipers. Gotta be flexy, no?

7/27/14 1:16 AM

I also prefer larger frames with the conventional fistful of seatpost showing. My inseam is 88cm (34½in) and I ride either 61cm or 63cm conventional frames - if the frame has a sloping top tube then I go for the XL size, as on the Litespeed that I use for road racing. For touring I have the bars about level with the saddle, and even for road racing I only have the bars an inch or so below the saddle. The sole exception is the TT bike, where aero is the be-all and end-all and the rides are never more than an hour long, so I have a frame several sizes smaller in order to get a low bar height:

7/27/14 2:56 PM

I have no technical insight, but I have several bikes with similar position and quite different configurations, and they all work well for me. I have top tubes approx 57.5, 58.5, and 59.5, with stems inversely 110, 120 and 130. My favorite is the Sachs, with the shorter tt/ longer stem, but all work well. The long tt/ short stem is the Pereira rando bike, designed to accomodate a fairly large handlebar bag. The rando has slightly less post showing.

For the few tts I ride, I am pleased to participate in the Merckx (Cannibal) Division - don't need no stinkin' aero, just get in the hooks and roll. Rick and I represent TTF in the Maine Team Time Trial Festival next weekend (120+ Merckx Division).