Klein .... am I missing something?

Re: View

Wold Ranger":2e3u2ehi said:

Nice Vista but spoilt by a nasty piece of scrap someone left against the fence.

Click to expand...

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

Re: Klein Breakage

Wold Ranger":3199k96g said:

Driveside chainstay behind BB and rear drop out and seat/top/stay intersection cracked.

Click to expand...

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

badbushido":2p4bg1hc said:

You don't have to worry about these bikes.

Click to expand...

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

carsten

Carsten":1bb4z3yd said:

badbushido":1bb4z3yd said:

You don't have to worry about these bikes.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

Anthony":336yko68 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Anthony":n4d910oo said:

Carsten":n4d910oo said:

badbushido":n4d910oo said:

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?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

Re: Klein Breakage

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.

Carsten":1wah31uc said:

Anthony":1wah31uc said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Klein Breakage

pinguwin":1i2087ds said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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...