I am sure many of you, but maybe not all, who are readers here are likely familiar with
Bicycle Quarterly, and the strong bias towards traditional French bicycles that they profess. BQ is one of the few sources of well thought information on bicycles outside of mainstream modern racing. If you have not yet heard of them, it is a worthwhile read. The Spring 2012 issue hit my mailbox yesterday. Every time I promise myself to read at a decent pace, and stretch it out for a couple of weeks. As usual I ended up reading about 90% of it last night.
This issue had some decent coverage and insights on the issues surrounding bike design for taller and shorter riders. This has always been an issue for me in trying to interpolate Jan's reviews and comments into something that applies for the bikes in our household. Jan is around 6 foot tall and 160 lbs, and represents the average rider/part-time racer's slim build. I am 6'3" and my wife is 5'4", both of average build and are at the opposite ends of the size range. Over years of riding and research I have been able to take the data from the averages and work out bicycles that perform quite well for her and I. This led to helping friends outside the averages get on bikes that suited their every day needs as well. This bank of experience led to my design of the Rambler line. There are many ways to get things to work on the smaller and larger sizes of bikes, some better than others.
The smaller bikes, sizes 56 and below, are designed to use the 650B wheel size. This wheel has a diameter between that of the common MTB tires and 700c road bikes. This leaves room to maintain a decent reach to the bars without making horrible compromises in the frame geometry. The front end maintains the desired handling characteristics without having toe-clip overlap. Toe-clip overlap is an occurrence at low-speed where the foot on the pedal and the front wheel can collide at the extreme turning points. These extremes do not often occur, but when they do, it can take the rider and bike to the ground. This possibility has been designed out of the bike. Another aspect of the design is Seat tube angle. I have kept it such that the seat will easily be set far enough back with commonly available components to keep the rider comfortable. Balancing all three of these parameters results in a bike that will comfortably fit the riders on the smaller side of average, allowing for the use of normal components to build a bike with either drop or upright handle bars. I think those familiar with the challenges of fitting smaller bikes will appreciate this design.
The larger sizes do not have the same space constraints with wheel size that the smaller bikes do. They have plenty of room for large 700c tires. These will offer the space for larger (up to 42mm) tires and fenders, that with a bit more rotating weight, will offer the gyroscopic stability that a larger rider may seek. This will be balanced with the front end geometry and long rear stays to flesh out a comfortable and stable bike. The challenge in taking the design above the averages is managing the flexibility of the frame, striking a balance between stability and the optimum resilience of the tubes. This is managed through steel tubing specification itself, and I have struck what I feel is a good balance for a rider and load total weight between 180 and 230 lbs.
The whole line is biased towards carrying a modest load on the front of the bike. This is so your every day necessities can be at hand without having to dismount and search around in a bag behind the saddle. Likewise you can keep an eye on your stuff. This style of loading requires subtle changes in the design of the bike that move away from the commonly available racing geometries of today's mass market offerings. Ironically these changes, while accommodating the loading, result in a well-mannered bike with or without a load aside from the rider.
My designs throughout the size spectrum are confirmed by the reports in the issue of Bicycle Quarterly. Both the historical accounts well as reviews of recent interpretations covered in this issue, confirm my design philosophy and decisions. While I have complete confidence in my designs it was reassuring to have many of the aspects of my design affirmed in print. A big thank you to Jan Hine for his pas, current and future efforts with this publication.
I am guessing is you have followed my story you may be looking to get a bike that bridges transportation and sport, i.e transportation does not have to be a mini van. You like bikes that have a traditional look and styling. Possibly a preference for traditional french styling from the 40's and 50's, with your daily load up front where you can keep an eye on it and get to it without climbing off the bike. Your previous attempts at this with the commonly available bikes may have left you with a less than optimal handling experience. Either a bike that was heavier than it needed to be, if it was a light weight had no provisions to carry the load on the bike or if it did the handling was compromised when loaded.
With years of personal research and design study I have addressed these issues with a bike steeped in the lineage of the traditional french touring bikes. Using modern production techniques and partnering with a U.S. fabrication team to deliver the look and function you are after with a few bells and whistles thrown in. The ride will be light and sporty, yet stable with loads for you commute, day rides or the occasional quick load of groceries up front. It goes without saying there will be provisions for full coverage fenders to keep you and the bike clean during year round riding. This is the bike you will want for rambles through the countryside, distance rides and randonees, and still able to be your daily steed. All of this at a price that is competitive in the current market.
The sport touring frame set project is moving along as planned. The Design spec and engineering is settled in at to 95% point and I am comfortable releasing my Geometry and Tubing Spec:
The line has a range of even sizes from 50 through 62 measures Center of bottom bracket to the center of the intersection with the top tube. When comparing this to traditional road frames or the size you may ride in your regular bike, consider that the size in the chart will be about 1 to 2 cm smaller due to the distance from the center of the top tube to the top and the generous bottom bracket drop. For example I ride a 63 or 64 on my Roadeo and Eisentraut, but the 62 above is designed around my needs.
Other things to consider with the spec:
- Clearance for42mm tires and fenders on all sizes
- These are designed with the provision for Paul Racer brakes mounted with Brazed on bosses. These provide ample clearance while retaining outstanding performance. The bridges and brake holes will be located such that a 68-70mm reach brake could be used if the brake bosses were omitted by customer choice.
- Frame construction will be Tig welded double butted 4130 steel.
- The fork will have an investment cast crown and braze-on provisions for small upper and low rider racks as well as lighting wires.
- Down tube shifter bosses
- Double water bottle with reenforcing star mounts on all sizes
- Columbine Quickchainger brazed on for clean and easy rear wheel changes.
- Brazed on fender mounting points placed such that installation will be easy and result in even fender line.
- 130mm rear spacing to work easily with modern road bike components.
- Color options of American flag blue and red. (and possibly a sunflower yellow or orange still up in the air).
Production samples will be complete in a few weeks, the pre-orders system will be available by the end of February and a final availability date projected for early Spring 2012. Pricing will be settled in the coming week as we move through our final production costing and design. As always I appreciate you continued readership and support. Project news will be updated here as soon as it is available.
Oh, and the name is still leaning towards "Rambler", although I like fish names
Sneak Peek December 12 2011, 0 Comments
I have been keeping my cards to my chest on this project, but am at the point where I might pop if I do not share this one. I have been working really hard on this project as of late, a dream come true with persistence and hard work.
Engineering is underway, prototype starting soon with production to follow. I want this bike, and am confident that more of you out there do too. This is a bike for riding fast as your legs will take you, or a toodle on a country road. It will help you eat up the miles on the pave or gravel in comfort and style.
Basics: Frame and fork set with low trail front end geometry for front biased loading, sporty yet stout enough to get the groceries home, room for 42mm tires with 52mm fenders, 700c in the larger sizes and 650b in the smaller, no toe overlap in any size, even sizes from 50-62 cm measured center to center along the seat tube.
Details: Tig welded double butted steel with tube spec balanced to size, standard gauge tubing, investment cast fork crown, brazeon option for Paul Racer brakes, everything in the right place for easy mounting and good fender line, brazeons for racks and fenders, possible offering custom tube spec for an up-charge, and a Brooks saddle friendly seat tube angle.
MADE IN THE USA!!!
There has finally been a convergence of my plans and a contractor to fulfill them, and things are charging ahead. the initial run will have tubing from a mix of suppliers, but my long-term dream is to deliver a production sport touring bike made in the USA out of steel made in the USA at a price that is competitive in the open market.
The name??? My first impulse was "Rambler". I just like the sound of that. The second one, sticking with an ocean theme, "Mullet", it is a fish, not a glamorous fish but the dual meaning - Business up front and party in the rear!!!! Since I am captain, cook and bottle washer on this ship I still need to get through my trademark search on the name though.
Timeline? I am doing my best to fast track this without cutting corners on things like destructive testing and confirmation of design. The pre-sale should be ready to go in the next two months with projected delivery in the spring of the coming year. Those who are keen of eye and have been riding a while may notice I am not re-inventing the wheel here, just bringing something to market that has been gone for quite a while.
Subscribe here, like me on Facebook, do what ever works for you to stay tuned. I do not think this is something you are going to want to miss out on.
After taking the Roadeo out in the morning yesterday, I headed out in the afternoon on the Trek to get some groceries. I opted that way as I knew that the load was going to be a bit bulky, diapers. By the time all stops were made I had about 40 lbs of juice, milk, food and god knows what loaded on the front. Even with a bit of sloppiness in the panniers the handling was fine. Actually better than fine with stop and go traffic, slogging up hills into a 15 mp headwind and bombing down the other side.
Most bikes I have owned would handle like crap with that much up front, or anywhere for that matter. My xtracycle setup does ok with loads like that, but just ok, and is a bit more like a clunky old station wagon. The Trek with the 650b conversion is cushy, but sporty. The handling is a bit light with nothing at all up front, but a 5lb u-lock in a bag fixes that. With loads weighing in between the lock and, well yesterday's 40 lbs, the handling is still smooth through fast turns, holds a line grinding up hills and no wobble or drift at slow speeds.
For those not familiar with the geometric trail of the front end, the subject can be daunting. For those interested in the physics of the whole thing, Wikipedia has a decent
article. The subject has spurred religion/politic like arguments on the web forum over the recent years. I remained fairly neutral until this. Previously I had only ridden the low trail bikes I had built up for my wife, both handled great with a basket, but were way too small for me. This project bike has really opened up my eyes. I still love my Roadeo, just differently, and keep the load in the back. I prefer having the stuff up front, as long as the bike is designed to handle the load, it makes it much easier to keep an eye on the load.
This issue had some decent coverage and insights on the issues surrounding bike design for taller and shorter riders. This has always been an issue for me in trying to interpolate Jan's reviews and comments into something that applies for the bikes in our household. Jan is around 6 foot tall and 160 lbs, and represents the average rider/part-time racer's slim build. I am 6'3" and my wife is 5'4", both of average build and are at the opposite ends of the size range. Over years of riding and research I have been able to take the data from the averages and work out bicycles that perform quite well for her and I. This led to helping friends outside the averages get on bikes that suited their every day needs as well. This bank of experience led to my design of the Rambler line. There are many ways to get things to work on the smaller and larger sizes of bikes, some better than others.
The smaller bikes, sizes 56 and below, are designed to use the 650B wheel size. This wheel has a diameter between that of the common MTB tires and 700c road bikes. This leaves room to maintain a decent reach to the bars without making horrible compromises in the frame geometry. The front end maintains the desired handling characteristics without having toe-clip overlap. Toe-clip overlap is an occurrence at low-speed where the foot on the pedal and the front wheel can collide at the extreme turning points. These extremes do not often occur, but when they do, it can take the rider and bike to the ground. This possibility has been designed out of the bike. Another aspect of the design is Seat tube angle. I have kept it such that the seat will easily be set far enough back with commonly available components to keep the rider comfortable. Balancing all three of these parameters results in a bike that will comfortably fit the riders on the smaller side of average, allowing for the use of normal components to build a bike with either drop or upright handle bars. I think those familiar with the challenges of fitting smaller bikes will appreciate this design.
The larger sizes do not have the same space constraints with wheel size that the smaller bikes do. They have plenty of room for large 700c tires. These will offer the space for larger (up to 42mm) tires and fenders, that with a bit more rotating weight, will offer the gyroscopic stability that a larger rider may seek. This will be balanced with the front end geometry and long rear stays to flesh out a comfortable and stable bike. The challenge in taking the design above the averages is managing the flexibility of the frame, striking a balance between stability and the optimum resilience of the tubes. This is managed through steel tubing specification itself, and I have struck what I feel is a good balance for a rider and load total weight between 180 and 230 lbs.
The whole line is biased towards carrying a modest load on the front of the bike. This is so your every day necessities can be at hand without having to dismount and search around in a bag behind the saddle. Likewise you can keep an eye on your stuff. This style of loading requires subtle changes in the design of the bike that move away from the commonly available racing geometries of today's mass market offerings. Ironically these changes, while accommodating the loading, result in a well-mannered bike with or without a load aside from the rider.
My designs throughout the size spectrum are confirmed by the reports in the issue of Bicycle Quarterly. Both the historical accounts well as reviews of recent interpretations covered in this issue, confirm my design philosophy and decisions. While I have complete confidence in my designs it was reassuring to have many of the aspects of my design affirmed in print. A big thank you to Jan Hine for his pas, current and future efforts with this publication.
