Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:51 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: View
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:45 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 3811
Location: Sussex
Wold Ranger wrote:
Nice Vista but spoilt by a nasty piece of scrap someone left against the fence. :D :D


man, change the record, we all got the idea now that you don't like Klein's, each to their own, if we all liked the same things the world would be a boring place :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Klein Breakage
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:58 pm 
Klein Guru / BOTM Winner

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 984
Location: Houston TX
Wold Ranger wrote:
Driveside chainstay behind BB and rear drop out and seat/top/stay intersection cracked. :(


right. that's where almost all adroits and attitudes of that year broke. neither is it a true klein nor did gary have anything to do with the half hearted addition of the disc mounts and replaceable rear der hanger. Trek corrected that a year later and generally was very good in honoring the warranty. so either your dealer was right or just lazy. again, nothing that's typical for the brand.

carsten


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:00 pm 
Klein Guru / BOTM Winner

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 984
Location: Houston TX
badbushido wrote:
You don't have to worry about these bikes.

Image


those are way way way too old, heck almost vintage, for this forum.

carsten


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:25 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 pm
Posts: 7305
Location: Hove
Carsten wrote:
badbushido wrote:
You don't have to worry about these bikes.

those are way way way too old, heck almost vintage, for this forum.
carsten

We know you don't mean that Carsten! Retro includes vintage, even if vintage doesn't include all retro.

Carsten, could you explain something for me please? Everybody agrees that Klein frames were both very light and very stiff. Normally light and stiff is an either/or, not a both, so how did they achieve that?

Although the tubes were fat for their day, they weren't fat by today's standards and if the tube gauges were as thin as stated above then they were much thinner than today's, so how come the frames were so stiff?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:37 pm 
Klein Guru / BOTM Winner

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 984
Location: Houston TX
Anthony wrote:
Carsten, could you explain something for me please? Everybody agrees that Klein frames were both very light and very stiff. Normally light and stiff is an either/or, not a both, so how did they achieve that?

Although the tubes were fat for their day, they weren't fat by today's standards and if the tube gauges were as thin as stated above then they were much thinner than today's, so how come the frames were so stiff?


gary wanted them to be stiff in the bottom bracket and head tube to achieve drive train and steering efficiency. the frames are not overly stiff in general. they are just not "noodely" like the typical steel or Ti frame. an aluminum frame shouldn't flex anyways for it to last.

also the MC1 era frames (until 1993) were not particularly light. Mountainklein, Pinnacle, Rascal, MC1 Attitude frames weigh 2000grams and more iirc. i think my medium MountainKlein frame with bottom bracket was 2300grams. Pinnacle and Rascal are not much lighter. only the MC1 Adroit frame is lighter with the thinner walled tubes and carbon/boron reinforcements. even back then there were lighter steel and Ti frames but they were much less "stiff".
a big step ahead in terms of weight were the Gradient tubes on the MC2 era bikes. the Pulse frame weighs 1500grams, 400-500 grams less than the Rascal which it kinda replaced. and even that is not overly light compared to current frames.

somewhere i have seen the wall thicknesses listed and they are far far away from a coke can.

that's just another half-knowledge over-simplification so typical for this board these days.

cheers, carsten


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:39 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:15 am
Posts: 7563
Location: North Yorkshire
Anthony wrote:
Carsten wrote:
badbushido wrote:



Although the tubes were fat for their day, they weren't fat by today's standards and if the tube gauges were as thin as stated above then they were much thinner than today's, so how come the frames were so stiff?


They are much fatter or wider sectioned than modern Aluminium bikes and the rear triangles were very over engineeered.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Klein Breakage
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:34 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:46 am
Posts: 389
I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, but here goes.

> an out dated technology

Of course it's an outdated technology, that's the entire point of this group.

I have yet to meet a single vintage Klein owner who thinks that there have been no advancements in the last twelve years...not one.

> over the same terrain they would very quickly self destruct

I've already addressed this point. Take your favorite bike, how many miles and races does it have on it? It's possible it's more than my vintage Klein, but unlikely. Same for the mud/paint thing.

Most people who buy expensive vintage Kleins are not racing them and they are display items.

World Ranger, I invite you to come to Hillside Park for my next race and see how this all works. I'm not saying that my Attitude outperforms a newer bike. Just that I'm racing against people with 2004-2008 bikes and in my last three races, I took 3rd, 3rd, and 1st. It's not a brag, it's just a fact.

Hardtail technology hasn't advanced that much in the last years, not enough to as much a difference as the rider makes. Full suspension, that isn't the case.

It's ok if you don't like Kleins or have negative impressions, but there are numerous people who have different experiences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:01 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 pm
Posts: 7305
Location: Hove
Carsten wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Carsten, could you explain something for me please? Everybody agrees that Klein frames were both very light and very stiff. Normally light and stiff is an either/or, not a both, so how did they achieve that?

Although the tubes were fat for their day, they weren't fat by today's standards and if the tube gauges were as thin as stated above then they were much thinner than today's, so how come the frames were so stiff?

gary wanted them to be stiff in the bottom bracket and head tube to achieve drive train and steering efficiency. the frames are not overly stiff in general. they are just not "noodely" like the typical steel or Ti frame. an aluminum frame shouldn't flex anyways for it to last.
also the MC1 era frames (until 1993) were not particularly light. Mountainklein, Pinnacle, Rascal, MC1 Attitude frames weigh 2000grams and more iirc. i think my medium MountainKlein frame with bottom bracket was 2300grams. Pinnacle and Rascal are not much lighter. only the MC1 Adroit frame is lighter with the thinner walled tubes and carbon/boron reinforcements. even back then there were lighter steel and Ti frames but they were much less "stiff".
a big step ahead in terms of weight were the Gradient tubes on the MC2 era bikes. the Pulse frame weighs 1500grams, 400-500 grams less than the Rascal which it kinda replaced. and even that is not overly light compared to current frames.
somewhere i have seen the wall thicknesses listed and they are far far away from a coke can.
that's just another half-knowledge over-simplification so typical for this board these days.
cheers, carsten

I assumed the coke can reference was just a figure of speech, obviously it's nowhere near the truth. Even with modern Scandium, which is a bit stronger than 7005, a XC downtube might be a 50 x 1.5/0.8/1.3, whereas even an Easton Ultralite 7005 DT might be 50 x 1.9/0.85/1.3. The same comparison (not a Klein) for the top tube is 38 x 1.5/0.65/1.2 (Scandium) and 38 x 1.4/0.8/1.3 (Ultralite). So the tubes available to Gary Klein must have been if anything fatter-gauge than the Ultralite and anything up to twice as thick gauge as an equivalent heat-treated steel tube.

I guess though that once a tube like a 50 fails, it can crush up quite a bit because the strength is all in the undeformed shape. It's a bit like an egg - once you've broken it, it loses all its strength, but until it's broken its shape gives it amazing strength in relation to the fundamental strength of the material.

Experience does seem to differ a huge amount - as is said above, some people would rate Pace frames as being as tough as they come, others have broken them. My own suspicion is that a lot of non-crash breakages are actually caused by an earlier crash that the frame appeared to have survived at the time but which caused the beginning of a terminal weakness.

From what you say, Klein frames clearly weren't 'crazy-light', but any frame will break in certain circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Klein Breakage
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:06 pm 
.o.T.M Triple Crown Winner
.o.T.M Triple Crown Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:07 pm
Posts: 3042
Location: Finland
pinguwin wrote:
Most people who buy expensive vintage Kleins are not racing them and they are display items.


Thats true!

If I want to race or train hard I took non-retro bike!

I have Colnago Master and I´m not using that for racing either... I have much more better bike for racing. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:39 pm 
Devout Dirtbag

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:16 am
Posts: 116
Location: Norway
People ask why the Kleins are so expensive and the answer , when they were new is this: Gary and his companion was trying to make a living out of the bikes but they couldn't. Then a great idea comes to one of them. Can't remember who, but the ideas was: Double the prices.
And double the prices they did. After that they couldn't keep up with the demand...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ghosty, Google [Bot], nbcord, Yahoo [Bot] and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group