Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:20 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:07 pm 
Mr Darcy
Mr Darcy
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:36 pm
Posts: 5687
Location: Bicester
Another old 26.8 steel Rocky?

Thats what I thought I had before, but FC seems pretty sure they were all 27.0
How odd.
Would be interested to know its weight too.

Maybe a Rocky register of frame numbers would be useful??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:47 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16748
Location: Yorkshire, England
gump wrote:
Another old 26.8 steel Rocky?

Thats what I thought I had before, but FC seems pretty sure they were all 27.0
How odd.
Would be interested to know its weight too.

Maybe a Rocky register of frame numbers would be useful??


gump, everyone I had seen new bitd from the years I mention had 27.0 seatposts. also Rocky Mountain mention the sizes in their catalogues (well not in the new one's) 26.8 seat post will of course fit and are easier to get hold of. Once it works why bother looking for another size ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:50 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:19 am
Posts: 2037
Location: Swansea
FluffyChicken wrote:
gump wrote:
Another old 26.8 steel Rocky?

Thats what I thought I had before, but FC seems pretty sure they were all 27.0
How odd.
Would be interested to know its weight too.

Maybe a Rocky register of frame numbers would be useful??


gump, everyone I had seen new bitd from the years I mention had 27.0 seatposts. also Rocky Mountain mention the sizes in their catalogues (well not in the new one's) 26.8 seat post will of course fit and are easier to get hold of. Once it works why bother looking for another size ;)


There's no way this is 27.0, a 26.8 is VERY tight in it :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:57 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16748
Location: Yorkshire, England
I think in '93 on there frame redesign (back end mainly) the high end bikes went to 27.2, the mid range stayed at 27.0 and the low end went to 26.8,
Some years later I think they all dropped down to 26.8 (tube manufacture change ?), then all went to the now standard 27.2.

That's what I remember looking trough the catalogues.


If 26.8 is very tight, you sure the clamp tubing is not bent in (from using a too small seat post or over tightening ?)

Anyways, start a thread in err the chat area or project/my bikes. And we can start looking.

I'll scan through the catalogue (I know Team Comp is never in them, but we seem to assume above it's Equipe/Vertex level)
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39609


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:00 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 pm
Posts: 7306
Location: Hove
Obviously the post size is basically a function of the gauge of the seat tube. The tube is a 28.6, so if you have a 0.7 tube, as most of the high-end tubes were c1991, you have a hole of 28.6-2x0.7=27.2, so a 27.2 post is totally impossible, a 27.0 may be either just possible or impossible depending on the amount of reaming and a 26.8 should be ok.

Slightly later on in the 90s, 0.6 tubes became commonplace, and they will take a 27.0 easily, or a 27.2 just possibly. Even in 91, Tange Prestige Concept had a 0.6 seat tube option, so it looks as though the Team Comp didn't have a Concept, but I think we knew that as I don't think the tube is bulge-butted at the bb end, is it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:28 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:35 pm
Posts: 715
Location: Somewhere-set
The TC frame is bulge-butted at both ends of the seat tube. It's a progressive butt at the top just below where it meets the top tube (not the usually seen hard line) and it's heavily bulged and slightly ovalised at the BB end too


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:03 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16748
Location: Yorkshire, England
I'm still dating the bike as a 1991 edition.
Mainly due to the head tube mounted cable stops.
As for the drop out, I now remember that they did use 'none hole' ritchey drop-outs on 1991 models at some point. <cough, 'cos mine does and I think I've someone's Blizzard like that as well, cough>.

Still all frames are mentioned to use 27.0 in 1991, not until 1993 models did they move some up to 27.2 and drop some down to 26.8.
(from catalogues I linked too)


As for Seat post size, even if it a 1991 blending in to 1992, there is a strong trend of post diameter.
1991
Titanium 29.2 (3Al/2.5V Ti)

Altitude 27.0 (Ritchey Logic Prestige Custom Blend)
Summit 27.0 (Tange Prestige Concept)
Blizzard 27.0 (Tange Prestige Concept)
Équipe 27.0 (Tange Prestige, Quad Butted, Double Butted, Concept Blend)
Hammer 27.0 (Ritchey Logic Cro-Mo)
Fusion 27.0 (Ishiwata Cro-Mo Triple Butted)

Nimbus 27.0 (Easton #7005)
Expérience 30.4 (Aluminum #7000)
Cirrus 30.4 (Aluminum #7000)
Stratos 27.0 (Aluminum #7000)

Thunderbolt, custom 27.0 (Tange Prestige std,o/s or concept)
Tantalus, custom ??.? (Tange Ritchey Logic Super Butted)


1992

Titanium 27.0 (3Al/2.5V Ti) 27.0

Altitude 27.0 (Tange Ultimate Prestige Superlight Blend)
Vertex 27.0 (Tange Prestige Concept)
Équipe 27.0 (Tange Prestige Ultimate Super Light, Concept)
Hammer 27.0 (Ritchey Logic Cro-Mo)
Blizzard 27.0 (Tange Prestige, Concept)
Fusion 27.0 (Ishiwata Cro-Mo Triple Butted)
Metro 27.0 (Columbus Cromor Cro-Moly)

Cirrus 30.4 (Aluminum #7000)
Expérience 30.4 (Aluminum #7000)
Stratos 27.0 (Aluminum #7000)

Tantalus/Thunderbolt ??.? (various choice of steels)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:52 am 
Old School Hero
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:03 pm
Posts: 158
Location: Ontario
For what it's worth I have a '92 Equipe with a very close serial number "I9108041"

No Ritchie dropouts but I've attached some pics for you to compare.


Attachments:
IMG_5847.JPG
IMG_5847.JPG [ 137.33 KiB | Viewed 1750 times ]
IMG_3577.JPG
IMG_3577.JPG [ 153.57 KiB | Viewed 1750 times ]
IMG_3580.JPG
IMG_3580.JPG [ 122.06 KiB | Viewed 1750 times ]
IMG_2958.JPG
IMG_2958.JPG [ 187.99 KiB | Viewed 1750 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:47 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:19 am
Posts: 2037
Location: Swansea
Well I've no idea what it is :? Whatever it is, its pretty light :) on my new fancy pants digital scales it weighs 4.43 lbs :)

edited because I was being a thicko over the top tube length :lol:


Last edited by Jones on Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:48 am 
Old School Hero
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:03 pm
Posts: 158
Location: Ontario
I love these "ID me" posts. I've studied the eBay pics of the frame in question and I would now be putting money on it being a 91 Hammer.

The pics in the ebay post show what looks like a collar line on the seat tube below the top tube (similar to the blizzards of those days without the huge seat tube extention) Secondly are the Ritchey dropouts and lastly is the placement of the cable guides.

If you look at the 91 catalogue, the cable guides are in the correct place for the bike we are trying to ID (this is the only steel frame with the wishbone seat stays and the cable guides on the head tube other than an Altitude but it has a different seatpost binder) Secondly the 91 shows the bike was built using Ritchey Logic tubing which would account for the dropouts. Lastly it appears to have the same seat tube "collar" in the same place.

I had a run through the steel bikes with the wishbone stays and the 91 Hammer fits the bill to a tee in my opinion. I happen to own a 90 Hammer and I can say it is one fun bike to ride. It is very fast, and a dream to control, not cramped not stretched out.

I hope this may help out a bit or at least prompt more discussion and more learning about the old RM's


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ghosty and 19 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