Toe Overlap Mars Perfection - Perhaps

The perfect commuter bike?

In 2011 I purchased the frame, including fork, of this 1982 Bridgestone Sirius road bike. At the time it was the "top of the line" road bike sold by Bridgestone in the U.S. I bought it used on eBay for a little over $100 including the shipping, which was a good price. The frame appeared never to have had components attached to it or to have been used - it was, in effect, a 30 year old unused bike. I attached a mix of components (many not "period correct" alas) and commenced using this as my main commuter to and from work, about 19 miles round trip.


Winter cycling shoe (boot) cleated in to pedal and amount of overlap with front wheel and fender

I would suggest that any bike used for commuting represents a series of compromises, starting with how much money you are willing to spend versus your desire for certain features. (The perhaps trite phrase for bicycle choice generally is, "strong, light, cheap - pick two.") This Bridgestone is relatively light given that even after I bought components and assembled it all, it was only around $500. I chose to stick with wheels and tires that are relatively narrow compared to what is popular now. Most people are not crazy about downtube shifters but they are extremely low maintenance. I also like the dual pivot brakes which are more modern than what the bike would have had when originally sold in 1982 but not as good at stopping as the disk brakes I had on the bike I used before this - but I got tired of the maintenance associated with disk brakes. The dual pivot rim brakes are predictable for both maintenance an performance.

One problem however that I simply live with is the toe overlap. I fitted the bike with fenders, which makes the wheel extend back towards the pedals that much further, but in winter the problem is more with the bike boots I wear and where I have the cleats fitted on the bottom of them, which means that the front ends of the shoes are well in the travel path of the front wheel when steering. The crank arms are relatively short at 170 mm.

As it turns out in practice, awareness of this problem is the main thing - I haven't had a problem with this in years. And as it happens, as a practical matter, I hardly ever steer hard enough left or right that it matters, which may seem surprising but seems to be how it is. I ride up Capitol Hill on the Capitol grounds on a roadway where I zig-zag my way up (to decrease how steep it is for the ride) and even that at a relatively slow speed doesn't require a particularly tight turn, or enough that this overlap matters.

So if this is all that keeps this from being the perfect bike, I can live with it.

Steel Bike or Carbon Bike-Which More Pleasing?

Retro Bike Or Modern Bike? How Have Bikes Changed? from Global Cycling Network (YouTube channel)

I found the above video on VeloNews - I found it interesting because in some respects it reflects many of the differences between the two different bikes I use for commuting to and from work. I have a 1982 Bridgestone road bike and a 2006 Scattante CFR. The difference in the age of the two bikes I have and the bikes discussed in the video is roughly the same, but obviously a 2014 road bike has some technical advantages over my 2006.


1982 Bridgestone Sirius road bike frame and fork

This is not a "period correct" 1982 road bike - the frame and the fork are original 1982 Japanese steel but the rest of it varies by period. The stem and handlebars are from around 1982 but the drive train and brakes are from the late 1980s - I wanted something more advanced, particularly for the brakes. The wheels, seat post, and saddle are new. I added fenders to make it a good bike to ride in rainy weather.

(I have blogged about this bike before - anyway, I find it pleasing because I bought the frame for less than 100 dollars on eBay and it has a number of rather amazing features, including the Tange headset, fork and crown, and Tange lugs. The doublebutted tubes are from Bridgestone. But this Bridgestone precedes Grant Petersen's association with Bridgestone road bike design, alas.)


2006 Scattante CFR road bike (from Performance)

There is nothing special about this frame as such except that at the time I bought it, it was the entry level all carbon fiber frame from Performance Bike - the bike came with mostly Ultegra or other reasonably good components and no Performance house brand junk.

My carbon fiber bike with pedals weighs around 20 pounds while the Bridgestone weighs about 25-26. (On the video they also talk about a five pound or two kilo difference, but I think they are talking about 15-16 pounds for the carbon fiber bike and around 20-21 for the steel bike.) I sense that the weight matters mostly when trying to climb hills, but that isn't generally a problem with the rides I do around here. The video describes the introduction of integrated brake lever-shifters as of almost as much significance as the introduction of derailleurs, but that seems a little crazy. If you ride bikes with downtube shifters (like the older one has) regularly enough it isn't that big a deal - the downtube shifters are located right along an arc that your hand travels down in that direction so I never have to look. Even when braking, mostly one is braking with the left hand and shifting down with the right hand - no problem. And I find the maintenance for a road bike that is used for commuting is much less with the downtube shifters than with the brifters, which can be annoying to maintain and expensive to replace (and generally not easily repaired) if something goes wrong inside of one.

I think it is interesting that he the guy on the older bike says that the leather soled shoes give up "80 watts every revolution" but that the clip-in pedals otherwise are not better than using toe-straps. It isn't even that clear that having your feet secured to the pedals (however it is done) increases overall efficiency in pedaling.

I am certain that I am able to average a higher speed when riding the carbon fiber bike, but I think it is largely because it has an 11-25 set of ten rings in back while the steel road bike has only 7 rings, running from 28 to 11. My optimum cadence is apparently narrow because it isn't that unusual that I find on the steel bike that I am not challenged by a particular gear but am uncomfortable with the next one up - this is rarely a problem with the bike with 10 rings.

There are likely a variety of small inefficient aspects to the steel bike compared to the carbon fiber bike that also add up, favoring the carbon fiber one. For example, the steel bike has a very basic inexpensive square taper bottom bracket that I bought to replace the original one that came with it (that froze up after about three months of riding). The carbon fiber bike has some Ultegra grade modern (for 2006) bottom bracket that surely must be better. And the fenders on the steel bike clearly capture a fair amount of air on windy days - not so much head on, but coming from angles from the front.

Some of the modern differences don't affect their relative performance as far as I can see. I understand that the modern threadless headset is intrinsically stronger than the threaded headset in the steel bike (that is original, from 1982) but it isn't obvious to me that it matters in every day riding. One comment the rider on the older bike in the video makes is that the small steel tubing looks less strong to him compared to the oversized carbon fiber tubing - this is amazing to me since I get my sense of the strength of the materials from pinging the tubes with a finger - the carbon fiber feels like nothing, while the steel tubing feels like (duh) steel!

At some point the fellow on the steel bike comments on the smoothness of the ride, apparently attributing that to the steel frame. I guess I am somewhat doubtful - I understand that aluminum frames transmitted road roughness a lot, but my impression is that my carbon fiber and my steel bike are mostly differentiated in how they smooth the road by how much air I put in the tires, and the size of the tires. I have 25 mm tires on the steel bike - if I take them up over 100 pounds per square inch, the ride is pretty stiff and picks up everything. The 23 mm tires on the carbon fiber bike can go much higher, but anywhere over 110 pounds per square inch and the ride just picks up too much road noise to be pleasant. Apparently frame stiffness is a fairly complicated issue but I think both my steel bike and carbon fiber bike flex enough. But not too much.


This relatively new 2008 steel bike annoyingly combines the worst of several worlds

I don't have the desire right now to complain about this bike that I also own (but it now in an unusable state), which I am suspicious suffers from an overly stiff tube design. And is too complicated in a number of ways. Ugh.

Riding in the Cool Rain ~

I have been commuted 10 miles each way to and from work by bike year round for quite a while but only recently put fenders a bike to ride in the rain - boy, does that help a lot! A great improvement.


Presented like this, it seems a bit much

Here is what I wear when the weather is done around 40 and rainy, which it was one day recently.

* Helmet - my everyday helmet. I only have one helmet and it has my required parking sticker on it (rather than put it on a bike, which would be a problem since I have several bikes I ride to/from work).

* Baseball cap - keeps rain from running down my face, which can be very unpleasant in a heavy rain.

* Waterproof rain jacket - I have used something called an "O2 Rainwear Cycling Rain Jacket" from Nashbar for what seems like ten years. This is an extremely lightweight jacket made of some 3M fabric that is good at the waterproof part although it doesn't breathe as well as some more expensive material (I assume). At $30 it comes with a stuff bag and is easy to have along "just in case." The main drawback is that it is fairly fragile material, easy to tear. I have not purchased a more expensive GoreTex sort of jacket because this can be used in layers or by itself and it has worked pretty well so far (and doesn't cost a lot).

* Long sleeve cycling jersey with hood - cheap lycra jersey from PerformanceBike. I like to have a long sleeve jersey like this with a hood since I can take the hood off easily if it is more than needed (or put it on) and the hood keeps wind from going down my neck.

* Short sleeve jersey - Another cheap jersey from Performance, to add a layer if it is 40 or below.

* Long sleeve base layer shirt - For me, a fairly pricey long sleeve thin (not heavy) Merino wool shirt from Ibex. I got this last year - it replaces a layer of polypropylene. Works well.

* Performance bike shorts - The more expensive "Ultra" Performance brand bike shorts last longer and compare with name brand bike shorts. The less expensive Performance brand bike shorts seem shoddy.

* Bicycle tights - I have had these so long I don't remember where they came from. They are just lycra or some lycra cotton mix and aren't waterproof or windproof. When it gets down to freezing I have some more substantial (and expensive) windproof/waterproof tights, but at 40 degrees they are too warm.

* Lightweight wool socks + pair of cotton socks - the shoes I wear in cooler weather are a size large so I can wear more than one pair of socks.

* Shimano RW80 Winter Road Boots - these are something I bought several winters ago in order to stop using summer shoes with various over-shoes and trying to cram extra socks into the shoes. They work quite well, although they are only moderately waterproof. And once they get damp inside, they are very slow to dry out.

* Addidas rubber shoe "booties" - If it is raining more than a drizzle, I usually pull these on.

* Performance Nanuk Waterproof Thermal Gloves - Silly name, but whatever (as they say). Somewhere around 45 I want to have full finger gloves and these are what I wear down to around freezing; cooler than that I want something more serious than these gloves. They aren't really waterproof although it does take a long time for them to get damp all the way through. Unfortunately they take a good long time to dry out.

So there you have it!


Newly installed fenders on 30 year old bike for rainy weather

The fenders mean that rain doesn't soak my backside; in fact, after ten miles in moderate rain the other day I could sit on a chair and not get the chair damp - pretty good! And the fenders make it a lot easier for the waterproof aspects of my footwear to work successfully - again, the other day when I got to work my socks were dry inside my shoes.

Adding Fenders (for Winter ?)

No, I haven't been making many blog entries. Not sure how to explain that. Will see if I become more inspired . . .

I bought these fenders as a "daily special" probably two years ago from Bike Tires Direct - then let them sit in the box ever since after I realized (duh) how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to get them onto my (other) bike that has disk brakes that is nominally the "bad/rainy/wet weather bike." They were about 12 dollars so it didn't bother me that much to have bought them and not to use them . . . saving them for a rainy day. Ha ha.

Well actually not that funny since there were lots of rainy days but the fenders just stayed in the box, contributing nothing.


Cheap black fenders don't look that bad - from a distance

I decided I would see how they work in practice on this bike - it certainly was easy enough to install them. When it rains, these should keep the water from coming off the front tire in particular and bouncing off the downtube onto my shoes - also just keep the bicycle cleaner (hopefully - have to see).

Of course this means I'll ride this bike in some rain rather than the "dedicated" bad weather bike, but I am having various problems with the drive train and brakes on that bike so it can sit until (or if) I figure them out.

These are very lightweight, "polycarbonate" - that is plastic. They are adjustable in ways that mean you have to make sure the adjustment bolts are tight on a regular basis. Perhaps if I decide that I don't think fenders slow me down (which the randonneuring types would assure me they don't) I will buy some proper custom fit Velo Orange hammered fenders.

Although not prominent in this photo, another retrograde aspect of my winter rig that is shown here is my headlight - now I could buy a 200 lumen light with the battery built into the light unit for less than I paid for a 100 lumen unit with a rather large-ish battery that is separate and connects to the light with a cable. I think this unit is now three years old. Still, the battery holds a charge well, why should I replace it? Hmm.


We see from this 1892 book illustration that fenders are not an innovation

30 Year Old Bottom Bracket - Replaced

My 1982 Bridgestone Sirius - while it had its original 1982 bottom bracket still installed

When I acquired this Bridgestone frame and fork and started riding it, about a year ago, it still had the original bottom bracket installed. The spindle spun nicely and since it was a cartridge type (not loose bearings) I didn't attempt to lubricate it. Probably that was a mistake.

At this point, last year, the original bottom bracket seemed fine

After probably 1,000 miles or so, the spindle suddenly became quite crunchy in its travel. However I was not able to get the bottom bracket out of the bike, even after I bought what I thought was the necessary tool. I took it to my local bike shop and they couldn't get it out, either - the mechanic recommended I try using a torch to heat up the bracket and (hopefully) get it loose. This might well wreck the paint, which seemed too bad, so I put the bike aside for a while to think it over.

Eventually I got the torch and the bike together. Apparently the bike thought better of its attitude once it saw the torch, because when I gave one last try to get the bracket to break free, it came loose immediately. After that, it was back to the local bike store to let them replace the bottom bracket with a new one. I could have done it myself, but they have been pretty helpful lately and not charged me anything, so about time to let them actually do something (AND charge me for it).

30 year old SunTour bottom bracket, now a souvenir

Good Looking Classic

PerformanceBike has a nice looking all-weather traditional looking sort of steel frame road bike for only $999. The CroMo Tange steel frame is made in Taiwan and sold by the British company Charge Bikes. For $1,000 the component selection is excellent and it supposedly weights less (just) than 22 pounds with fenders. That's excellent.



A 2010 version of the same bike (with fenders removed)

Here's a typically laudatory review from the British cycling press.


Features good Shimano 105 and other components

About the only thing I don't find so attractive is that it isn't a lugged frame but that probably reduces the weight over my Bridgestone which in many respects is quite similar.

This is a more interesting bike than a lot of the stuff PerformanceBike carries.

Riding 1982 Bridgestone Sirius

Completed Bridgestone Sirius bike in Madison building garage (where I work)

I bought the frame, fork and bottom bracket on eBay for a 1982 Bridgestone Sirius road bike. It is a lugged steel frame, size 56 cm. The frame was like 85 dollars plus shipping. The paint is in better shape than the seller's photo showed it on eBay.


Nitto Olympiade handlebars, purchased on eBay

I was not going to try to create a "PC" (period correct) 1982 bicycle - I wanted to see if I could buy and assemble a pleasing ride with components from various years for around $500 or so. (The joke was that for $500 I would put together a bike that I could easily sell for $350.)

Still, some things I did more or less PC - since the bike requires a quill stem for the threaded headset, I got Nitto Olympiade handlebars that are similar to what the bike came with (it had Nitto Universiade bars - close enough). I found someone selling these handlebars along with an SR stem (same period) at a good price (around 25 dollars for both) and stopped looking for the Nitto Technomic A stem the thing came with.


View from the rear - "flamboyant red" paint (per catalog)

I got a Shimano 1055 series 105 group, although it didn't include the cogs (in back). So the brakes, brake levers, the stem shift levers, front and back derailleurs, and cranks and rings are all Shimano 105 from 1990 give or take. Intended to work with seven cog cassette. (The bike came with a six cog freewheel and most of what is now Shimano was originally SunTour.) The cog and ring tooth numbers are completely different than what this had originally -

Before - front, 52 x 42 teeth; now 53 x 39 teeth
Before - back, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28 teeth; now 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 24, 28 teeth
So nominally this makes it faster. Also, it came with 25 mm tires and these are 23, but now of course people are all over the place as to whether narrower tires are faster or not.


Seven cogs should be enough

Some things I bought new. The Shimano HG-70 cassette (with seven cogs) I bought new. The bike was sold originally with six cogs and apparently the "standard" was to have a space for the rear wheel 126 mm wide - when the increase was made to eight cogs (and now up to 11) the typical (or "standard") width was increased to 130 mm. So I had to buy a 4 mm spacer so that the set of seven cogs don't have too long (big) a cassette space to occupy (and slide back and forth - not good!). I decided not to try to find a 126 mm wide wheel so I simply spread the 126 mm wide opening of the rear stays to force in the 130 mm wide wheel with cassette. Four mm is not a problem for this "brute force" approach, it seems. Or so people advise on the Internet. So far so good.

I also bought a new aluminum seatpost and a (relatively) cheap new seat (but in red to match the paint!). I mismeasured, thought the opening was a standard 27.2 mm and bought a seatpost that didn't fit. Had to buy a 27.0 mm diameter seatpost - it fits. Not terribly attractive, but the choices in this size were few. In fact, I was a little concerned until I did find one that there was no such thing and that for lack of a seatpost the bike was going to be unfinished.

I got a new SRAM 870 chain. This is a chain intended for use with either 7, 8 or 9cogs (which are all the same width, it seems). Compared to a ten speed chain, it looks incredibly wide, which is sort of funny (to me).


Italian cut head lug (according to the 1982 catalog)

The frame is ChroMo tubing with Tange steel lugs. The headset is also from Tange.

The shift levers look more "old school" than they really are - the right one is actually "variable" - you can choose between indexed shifting or friction shifting. I have been using the indexed shifting option and it works well. The left one is friction shifting for the front derailleur.

I found brake and shift lever Shimano cable "kits" rather than buying lots of cable and housing and cutting to length. This worked fine, which surprised me for some reason. Some Jagwire replacement cables are pretty expensive but these were less then eight dollars each.

The wheels are new - Shimano R500 wheels that I found on sale (Presidents Day holiday) for $150 with free shipping. The wheels are the single most expensive purchase made for this - much more (relatively speaking) than the frame.

Oddly the original brake caliper slots for the brake pads were longer, the brake pads with these newer 105 brake calipers just barely make it onto the wheel rims properly; I will probably file out the slot holes so that they can be moved a little to do a better job of gripping the rims. This I suppose is the problem with choosing parts from different eras in bike production practices.


The Shimano 105 rings and cranks (pedal arms)

One change for me is that my other bikes have 172.5 mm long crank arms - these are slightly shorter at 170.0 mm. 170 is more typical of a (slightly) smaller bike. I don't have particularly long legs, so perhaps this is good?


Bridgestone company nameplate on headtube

Summary - the assembly of the parts (in effect, attaching to the frame in various ways) was not particularly difficult - the complex part was figuring out which parts from which periods would work together and also trying to order only parts that would fit with whatever had been purchased already. Not sure why, but it was quite enjoyable and best of all, the bike is fun to ride and looks lovely (says I). Getting used to the different shifters is a challenge but that's OK.

1982 Sirius Bridgestone

As I mentioned in my preceding post I have bought a frame (+ headset + fork + bottom bracket) on Ebay.


The 1982 Bridgestone Sirius as shown in the 1982 Bridgestone bicycle catalog

I am apparently a terrible librarian - I should have done various research before I bought the thing, but instead am doing most of it after. So far, no particularly surprising (unpleasant or otherwise) discoveries.

The bike is double-butted 4130 Chromoly (CrMo) with Tange lugs and Tange headset. The 23 inch (or 56 cm using today's usual metric) size was listed at 23 pounds, which is fairly good. Made in Japan. . . it is the same "Bridgestone" that makes tires for Toyota etc. It was the top of the line for Bridgestone at that time, but that doesn't really mean too much - they were not yet a very serious builder.

Apparently some time not long after Bridgestone made the Sirius (and other spacey-named bike models) a fellow named Grant Petersen started running the Bridgestone bike division and the Bridgestone road bikes produced under his leadership are considered rather special - "Bridgestone bicycles are something of a cult item now" per Sheldon Brown. However he means ones made after the one I just bought. Still, this is a classic Japanese-built steel road frame and should be very nice to ride.

Research on such things is interesting. Sheldon Brown has an entire separate page on the subject of Bridgestone bikes (again, focusing on 1985 forward) as well as digitized Bridgestone bicycle catalogs from 1985 through the 1990s. These digitized catalogs are quite interesting (well, it depends on what turns you on) to look at, but of course the selection generally via the Internet is completely random depending on someone having them and then decided to digitize them. (Many such catalogs, particularly from 1989 on, are in violation of copyright, but one can assume the relevant company wouldn't care, up to a point. The catalogs before 1989 for the US market that aren't marked with (c) or the word "copyright" with a date are probably in the public domain. Maybe.)

At any rate, a simple Google search on "1982 Bridgestone bicycle catalog" brought up a site where someone has the full 1982 catalog in PDF - I'm not going to link to it since it is slow to load; it is over three megs. Very nice to have that, if only to confirm that what I bought in fact is an '82. There is another article about Bridgestone bikes that gives some further background.



The above beautiful randonneering bike was built up on the same frame I purchased (which is available in two color schemes - this is the less gaudy one). It is from a Flickr group devoted to Bridgestone bikes. The randonneering approach with fenders and so on is not the direction I am planning to go in but it is nice to see someone investing that kind of money into this frame.

Building Up a Bike - Getting Started

Having completed the "Park Tool School" (for bike mechanic basics) a while ago I am interested in seeing if I can bring together all the (used) parts of a bicycle, assemble them, and have something ridable. Well, something even fun to ride, actually. I have started by buying a old-ish steel frame on eBay (above). I liked the looks of it, a lugged frame, that includes the bottom bracket and (the thing the pedals attach to) and a fork.

So now I have to acquire all the stuff that bolts to the bike - and make sure I get the right stuff for this frame (where it matters). Much of that is what is known as the "gruppo" or group - gear shifters, brake levers (or integrated brake levers/shifters), brakes, front and rear derailleurs, a bottom bracket, a crankset, a chain, a cogset and a freewheel (or cassette). One small problem is that I already have a bottom bracket but near as I can tell, people selling older groups on eBay often don't include that. It is an interesting puzzle to sort out what would work with this frame (and what won't).

My first puzzle is with crankarm length - that is, how long the arms that have the pedals on them are. (This iscertainly not the only or most important thing to figure out but the one I have bumped into first.) Various lengths are available, but most road bikes come with 170 or 172.5 mm. I believe my two road bikes have 172.5, but I realize I would have to measure - it isn't in the technical details supplied with one of them and the other was rather short on such info generally.

I have already found a detailed bicycle crank length discussion that suggests that the Shimano 105 group I have located with 170 mm cranks would be fine (assuming I can successfully purchase it).

Of course a more reasonable question is why Shimano 105? Hmm...