Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:09 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:49 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 1321
Location: Cotswolds
The forks would probably have been round and half inch longer, and the lever bosses unlikely to be original. Pity they couldn't find the right length of spokes, crossing one and two is definitely not 1952, and the inner spokes would have been laced in opposite directions, not the stupid american way.
I was serving the King in 1952, and was far away, so difficult to remember, but Campagnolo would have been very rare. The GS hubs made by FB were just about coming in I think, when did Holdsworthy start their Campagnolo agency?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:14 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:00 pm
Posts: 608
Thanks for the input Keith, you're always giving really useful pointers and information. Most grateful indeed.

keithglos wrote:
The forks would probably have been round and half inch longer, and the lever bosses unlikely to be original.


Impressive you can judge the fork length. I wouldn't have noticed it. But now you have I keep looking at it and thinking it looks funny... I'm so easily infuenced! Although I do have terrible slopping floors in my flat.

You're right on them being round originally... '52 Catalogue states round blades and round steel crown. Interestingly though, the '53 version is stated as having "oval to round section blades". So maybe not so odd to replace with oval ones, even if these are too 'fat'. But December '52 is pretty close to '53, so I guess I'll live with them. I wonder what the cut off between years was - when a new year's catalogue came out and when the model's design changed?

I'll stick the catalogue pictures in another post below this one. In case anyone is interested in the original spec.

keithglos wrote:
Pity they couldn't find the right length of spokes, crossing one and two is definitely not 1952, and the inner spokes would have been laced in opposite directions, not the stupid american way.


I'll need to find out more on correct lacing patterns and correct wheel building as I'll redo these eventually, and I have some more 32/40h wheels to build up for a 1959 project.

The GS hubs made by FB were just about coming in I think, when did Holdsworthy start their Campagnolo agency?[/quote]

Just to add, there's another one of these owned locally, 1953 model. It has the oval to round forks and the addition of a rear brake hanger. Also it has flat rather than fluted seat stays at the seat cluster. It's as expected without the lever bosses. Interestingly it also has the FB made GS hubs, so maybe not so strange.

keithglos wrote:
I was serving the King in 1952, and was far away


Finally, so where were you in '52? (if it's not rude to ask)


Last edited by Cheesedisease on Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:16 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:00 pm
Posts: 608
1952 New All Rounder

Image

1953 New All Rounder

Image

Earlier, I guess, judging by headclip, but from description in catalogue, I imagine original forks crown were probably this style on mine...?

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:18 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:00 pm
Posts: 608
OldTel wrote:
enjoy ! the pur'ish will not like it, but you have one of the best frames every build, the serial number is key ? Is it an all rounder or avant coureur ? Terry


Almost forgot! Here's the serial no. for you. Appears under BB shell like this...

6062
5212


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:36 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 1321
Location: Cotswolds
I always felt that wheels were more rigid spoked off the tangent, so 40H were crossed 4, 28,32 and 36 crossed 3. It felt that you had to pull the spokes tighter on a radial to get the same rigidity. I expect you noticed that I have said (in the 1960's) I used to buy spokes in lots in excess of 100+ gross, enough for 3 or 4 months, and I built most of them. Enough for 200+ pairs of wheels.
I can't remember whether the FB hubs had alternate countersinks on the spoke hole, (I think so) but they were tight for 15G (1.8MM). The countersink is for supporting the bend of the spoke, not for losing the head.

I'm sure the forks will be OK, and probably ride better than the longer rake. When you are sure of them you could trim the excess height.

The system of lacing inside spokes in opposite directions was always used in europe. I'm sure it doesn't make much difference, but is easier and quicker to lace. On a good day I could lace (loose) a 40 hole cheap wheel in 3 minutes.

I have to admit it's a nice frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:58 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 1321
Location: Cotswolds
CD, Just read yours. Had to get the white stick from the car.

I was in Aden, confusing communications.

This should be the dear lady in 1957 on her CB, bilaminate, originally 1956 C 1200 chainset, GB coureur, Simplex T de F, B17.
Now with Campagnolo handlebar control, with front changer on down tube to allow the bell to stay put. On her favourite 8 ounce Scheerens and some lightish dunlop tubulars. (1's?)

Image
Is that the C1200 with TA rings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:42 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:00 pm
Posts: 608
What a great photo!

Thanks for the wheel / spoke pattern info. I’ll definitely aim to follow your guidance - for mechanics, tradition and aesthetics! I don’t really like the current radial pattern spoking all that much.

Just had some Dunlop Special Lightweight rims arrive today. I know it's in the name, but very surprised by how light they are! Nice condition too and quite attractive looking. Had been expecting them to be 27 x 1 ¼ clinchers, but look more like they are 1” wide and for tubs to me. (Unless the lip on old steel rims is incredibly shallow!) I had been avoiding tubs, due to the perception they might be extra hassle. I guess if I’m going to be properly period they’d be correct? Was intending them for some Airlite hubs I have and a Rotrax Path frame, but maybe the Claud Butler deserves them more. Maybe I should try to decide which I’ll ride more and use the Mavic MA2s on that bike, the Dunlops on the other.

Thanks again Keith.

I'll try to keep this thread updated occasionally as I pick up bits and pieces and progress with this bike and the Rotrax when it comes back from being painted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:35 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 1321
Location: Cotswolds
Steel Dunlop special lightweight steel rims were about 24 ounces, and 27 x 1 1/4 standard tyre size, and were usually designated "Dunlop HP" in the catalogues. Also in stainless, but in those days were unstoppable in the wet. Dunlop also made alloy 27's about 18 ounces.
A light tyre and tube was 22 ounces, so my 8 ounce rim with a 7 ounce tyre cut down the revolving weight where it mattered, and cut down the losses in the tyre, but mainly it was the way they felt (and sounded).
The ordinary endrick rims were about 32 ounces.
You can do the metric conversion for the younger members?
Didn't know I could remember all this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:40 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 1321
Location: Cotswolds
The Scheeren rims had laminated wood blocks under each spoke hole, and were so fragile in transit I used to get about 3 pairs at a time from Ron Kitching and have them put in the middle of a crate of 25 pairs of other rims.

The dunlop "HP" rims, the spoke holes are staggered and angled, pretty obvious.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:12 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:00 pm
Posts: 608
More great information. Amazing what you can remember, quite something retaining all the weights!

keithglos wrote:
Steel Dunlop special lightweight steel rims were about 24 ounces, and 27 x 1 1/4 standard tyre size, and were usually designated "Dunlop HP" in the catalogues. Also in stainless, but in those days were unstoppable in the wet.


Yes, definitely 27 x 1 1/4, stainless Special Lightweights I have. I was being stupid, hadn't unpacked them properly, they obviously have brand, model and size engraved in the rim. Is the HP for High Pressure?

So does that mean they're going to be terrible for braking? Was worried about that. So how did people stop back then? Keen anticipation!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fossala, t47b and 29 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