# Audax/'Randonnée' bike - conversion candidate?



## velovoice (28 Sep 2010)

I've got a late 1970s Puch mixte-frame road bike, which - I think - from the general history of Continental mixtes from the 1960s-1970s - may have originally been designed as a distance/touring bike. I bought it off eBay last May, mainly for the appeal of the frame, but then found that all the mechanicals were original and in amazingly good condition. (At that point in time, my only bike was a Brompton. I was venturing for the first time into "full size bike" territory and just wanted something to get me round town and to/from work a little quicker - as I no longer needed to hop on/off trains.)

So I set it up as a town bike: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10938860@N03/sets/72157624128246558/.

Within a week, I realised this upright position was just all wrong for this bike and how it handles - I feel very strongly that the bike wants me to be leaning forward a lot more (a totally different riding style I'm only just beginning NOW to get into!). But, finances being what they are - I carried on riding it this way - mainly for commuting - even as I became interested in riding longer-distances... believe it or not, this 5-speed mixte, set up like this, has done the Dunwich Dynamo and the last two FNRttC! 

In my head though, I was plotting a conversion to something more "road" orientated.... single speed with bullhorn bars? Hmmm... 
WHILE ALSO shopping round for a proper touring/audax bike. Then a few weeks ago, I suddenly thought: "Hey, can the Puch do that??" 

So my question is: Is this bike possibly - just possibly - a good candidate to be built up for doing audax/randonnée-type rides? It's light-ish and quick and responsive. And it's steel.  It would need ALL new components though - we'd be talking a bare-frame-upwards rebuild. Which is why I need to be as sure as I can be beforehand that all this would pay off. 

The question really is, how do I go about measuring all the various angles of the bike to find out what its specific geometry is, to compare against those of bikes that are recognised as suitable for comfortable long-distance riding?

Do I need to take it in person to a frame designer/builder/fitter? 

Cheers


----------



## Arch (28 Sep 2010)

I'm not a geometry expert, or indeed a vastly experienced Audaxer, but I'd say if you've done the Dun Run and a couple of FNRttCs on it (presumably comfortably), it's good for Audaxing. 

I can't get the picture link to work, but I'd assume that you can tweak the geometry a bit with a different stem (an adjustable stem would give you the chance to raise and lower until you find the best angle) and bars, and the saddle positioning. If it's already serving you well, and you enjoy it, then it can't be far out.

As I understand it, people audax on all sorts of bikes, from tourers to all out road bikes, to folders and recumbents. So don't worry too much about what the geometry 'ought' to be.


----------



## velovoice (28 Sep 2010)

Arch said:


> I'm not a geometry expert, or indeed a vastly experienced Audaxer, but I'd say if you've done the Dun Run and a couple of FNRttCs on it (presumably comfortably), it's good for Audaxing.


It wasn't too bad - nothing that can't be improved with different bars and saddle - again!  


Arch said:


> I can't get the picture link to work,


summat went wrong... fixed now!



Arch said:


> but I'd assume that you can tweak the geometry a bit with a different stem (an adjustable stem would give you the chance to raise and lower until you find the best angle) and bars, and the saddle positioning. If it's already serving you well, and you enjoy it, then it can't be far out.
> 
> As I understand it, people audax on all sorts of bikes, from tourers to all out road bikes, to folders and recumbents. So don't worry too much about what the geometry 'ought' to be.



Yeah, you're probably right... I tend to over-analyse sometimes!  I'll tell ya though... right now, I can't picture doing the LEL on this!!


----------



## zigzag (28 Sep 2010)

if it fits you fine, it would be an adequate bike for shorter distances - 100, 200, maybe 300km. for longer and hilly audaxes i would choose something stiffer and more up to date and definitely with drop bars. i've done this years' easter arrow (415km in 24hrs) on a 15kg(+luggage) decathlon hybrid bike and felt alright afterwards. the key is to get the position right, so there is no unnecessary stress on wrists, knees, ankles, back.. the bike also needs to be reliable, so you don't spend your time fixing stuff on the road.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Sep 2010)

For touring/randos on those type of bikes, a lot of ladies get a pair of 'Dutch' handlebars ( which I have a spare pair ) and put them on upside down...







Like my mum in 1948.

That bike will be OK for Randonneuring.






This did several 200 km randos.

And this...






did a 100km DIY on Sunday.

Good condition Vintage bikes are welcome on Audax rides. Don't spoil it by fitting a modern groupset.


----------



## zigzag (28 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> For touring/randos on those type of bikes, a lot of ladies get a pair of 'Dutch' handlebars ( which I have a spare pair ) and put them on upside down...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



haha! i was riding easter arrow with flipped dutch bars like your mums! ooh, too funny, hahaha...


----------



## velovoice (28 Sep 2010)

Hmmm, so many options. 
The Puch already has "Dutch bars" on it - and my original "town bike" plan was to flip them over, just like in the 1948 photo. But I'm definitely going with drop bars instead. 

I'll have to see how it does on the shorter audaxes but - to address points raised: 

stiffness is as good as good-quality steel will get, barring a diamond-frame (which I don't want in this particular scenario).
the bike already weighs less than 15kg (it's closer to 12kg, sans rack+luggage) and will weigh even less with newer groupset and wheels.
I'm satisfied the Puch is fine on the stiffness and weight fronts. Steel mixtes *are* good light touring bikes - provided the geometry is in the right general ballpark for long term comfort on the open road (as vintage ones tend to be) and not for agility and convenience around town (as modern "retro" builds tend to be). 

Yes, one can ride just about anything in a 100km event or even up to 200km but beyond that, the bike issues that make it possible to stay in the saddle for 20 hours at a stretch for 5 days running do come down to fit + geometry. I've been tweaking the fit on the Puch since May and it's been pretty good on the DunRun & FNRttC rides - and fit will continue to be my main consideration as I swap bars, stems, etc, no matter what purpose I decide to put the bike to. 

So, after considering all the above, it seems to me that the big fat glaring unknown in my cunning plan is one of the precise geometry -- hence my post! I don't need the bike to fit into some exact prescribed formula -- I just want to know whether I'm starting off with something that's basically fit for purpose, before I go mad re-building it. 

So - HOW do I measure the various angles to be 100% sure that what I've got here is road geometry not townie? Do I need a gigantic protractor to lean up against the frame?? line it up with outside edges? inside edges? or what?








cheers


----------



## velovoice (28 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Good condition Vintage bikes are welcome on Audax rides. Don't spoil it by fitting a modern groupset.




Thanks, but vintage 5-speed doesn't do bumps, much less hills!


----------



## MacB (29 Sep 2010)

RebeccaOlds said:


> So - HOW do I measure the various angles to be 100% sure that what I've got here is road geometry not townie? Do I need a gigantic protractor to lean up against the frame?? line it up with outside edges? inside edges? or what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not as hard as you think, to start with you need to work out what fits you, I would suggest getting some assistance and doing the measurement for this site:-


http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR_INTRO&INTRO_LINK=NOREDIR

You'll get a little output chart that gives you 3 fits, basically racy, medium and touring. But it will give you ranges of frame measurements and you can use these for comparitive purposes to your existing frame before you spend any money. The angles of seat tube and head tube shouldn't be too big an issue, what you're looking to match are:-

saddle height and setback from bottom bracket - you measure the saddle height along the line of the seatpost and you measure the setback by placing the bike upright with the rear wheel against a flat wall. Then measure from wall to centre of BB and wall to nose of saddle...the difference between the two is your saddle setback.

So you need to make sure that you can get the saddle in the recommended position, this may need a seatpost with more/less layback, or an extra long seatpost. Unless the frame is massively wrong for you then getting the position should be feasible. If you're using a Brooks saddle then the rails are pretty short, I found I needed an inline seatpost for mine.

Once the saddle's sorted then the next handy measurement is nose of saddle to handlebars. Take this measure from the nearside of the bars to the nose of the saddle. You need to ensure that you can achieve this distance with an available stem for the bike. Again this should be achievable unless the frame is way wrong. also handy to sort out saddle to bar height difference at this time. But bear in mind that if you have to go to extremes, in stem length, then the bike may handle differently. You've also got options around the drop bars themselves as they come with a variety of reach, centre of flats to centre of forwards ben(where the levers go). You can gain/lose about 40mm of reach via bar choice. There're choices around stems as well, you currently have a quill stem on there but could use an ahead converter to broaden your options.

I reckon you could try it as an experiment for no more than the cost of stem, bars and seatpost, or even borrow some components, just to see if it can be done. If you like the position you've created then start spending the dosh, I reckon you could end up with a fairly unique, and pretty darn good looking, bike.


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> Not as hard as you think, to start with you need to work out what fits you, I would suggest getting some assistance and doing the measurement for this site:-
> 
> http://www.competiti...RO_LINK=NOREDIR
> 
> ...




thanks MacB - excellent information and advice there! I'm an information junkie and it's all grist to the mill....

BUT....

This isn't about fit. The bike fits. 

In other words, leave me out of the equation all together. It's about the intrinsic characteristics of the bike. Say I wanted to sell it and wanted to describe it in fullest possible detail including with a geometry table as main manufacturers do nowadays. How do I find out what the bike's geometry is? *How do I measure it?*

Meanwhile - I have a Surly Cross Check on order, coming from the USA. For that bike, I have the reverse situation: I already know its geometry (thanks to the table on Surly's website)... but its fit to me is the big mystery. Sorting that out will be my winter hobby.



I'm sure I will be studying that website again with great care - and almost certainly posting questions here (you've been forewarned!)

No doubt some will say, with a Surly CC in the stable, why build up the Puch as a touring bike as well - won't the CC do all that? Maybe. Probably! But I'd still like to know the Puch's geometry. Who knows, knowing that might completely change my mind about its next incarnation....


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2010)

RebeccaOlds said:


> Thanks, but vintage 5-speed doesn't do bumps, much less hills!



My Mom's bike in the piccie features in another thread about Single speeds.

It's gear was 64". The bike weighed about 30lb. My Mom was 5' 3". It did hills. Why can't your's?


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2010)

With a Mixte, the frame must be WAY too big or too small to be wrong.

It has no toptube to clash your bits. Seat can be lowered, raised, moved forward and back to get it in the correct position with relation to the BB axle. Reach can be changed by installing a different stem. Lumbar angle can be adjusted by raising the stem.

The little blue bike in my second piccie was a clear 2 1/2" too small for me, if you use the online calculators. The seat was quite set back and I bought a 120mm stem.
As I said, that bike did several 200 km audaxes with ease.

The brown bike is a 'one size fits all' set up with WELDED stem. Its not perfect. Its an upright body position ( racing tuck wouldn't look right, that's rediculous ) but its comfy enough to ride a 100 km Audax in 'civvie' clothing.

All this said, I personally would draw the line at a Mixte, I'm a bloke.


----------



## Ergle (29 Sep 2010)

RebeccaOlds said:


> thanks MacB - excellent information and advice there! I'm an information junkie and it's all grist to the mill....
> 
> BUT....
> 
> ...



I would suggest that you take a photo of the bike as near as side on as you can get, then print the photo. A3 would be a good size - if not then A4 would be ok. You can then use a protractor and ruler to measure as much as you need to. If you want lengths, then measure one part of the bike with a tape - the top sloping tube for example - and use that to scale any other dimensions you need. I know it sound crude, but I reckon this method would be as accurate as you need.


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

Ergle - thank you!!  


Jimboalee - yes, while "It has no toptube to clash your bits", there is still a virtual toptube and all the basic principles regarding reach still apply, as you say. After a great deal of thought and consultation on this, I am very much of the opinion that reach is more crucial to fit than standover height.

FYI - mixtes are unisex, not ladies' bikes. That's what they were designed as/for and they are happily ridden by many men all over Europe and yes, even here in macho-sensitive England.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2010)

RebeccaOlds said:


> Ergle - thank you!!
> 
> 
> Jimboalee - yes, while "It has no toptube to clash your bits", there is still a virtual toptube and all the basic principles regarding reach still apply, as you say. After a great deal of thought and consultation on this, I am very much of the opinion that reach is more crucial to fit than standover height.
> ...



You are approaching this project 'arse about face'. Firstly, measure YOU. Do the sums to find your perfect frame; and then move the seat and handlebars around ( or put the measure tape on the bike and assess what stem you need ).
Reach is from the *theorectical seat clamp centre* to the centre of the handlebars where they join the stem.
Seat angle doesn't matter a jot. The critical measurement is the horizontal distance from the pedal spindle to your hip ball joint centre. Head angle shouln't be an issue. Puch have been making bikes for many years.


----------



## zigzag (29 Sep 2010)

you can measure geometry with tape measure and protractor, or by taking picture from a side an measuring on paper as ergle suggested. if bike was designed to be used with "shopper" bars and it fits you as it is, then it's not likely it will fit with drop bars even with a shorter stem. the difference in reach (if you are on hoods) can be ~20cm which is huge. online calculators (competitivecyclist etc.) give sizes that are too big for me, but they could work for you.
the only sizes i am interested are top tube (virtual horizontal c-to-c), head tube and seat tube (c-to-t). seat tube and head tube angles?.. i don't know and i don't care, something between 72'-74' i believe. i would use the methods above to measure them.


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> You are approaching this project 'arse about face'. Firstly, measure YOU. Do the sums to find your perfect frame; and then move the seat and handlebars around ( or put the measure tape on the bike and assess what stem you need ).
> Reach is from the *theorectical seat clamp centre* to the centre of the handlebars where they join the stem.
> Seat angle doesn't matter a jot. The critical measurement is the horizontal distance from the pedal spindle to your hip ball joint centre. Head angle shouln't be an issue. Puch have been making bikes for many years.



Jimboalee - I do not dispute what you say, but I'm afraid it is you who's missing the point of what I've been asking here. Maybe if I've misled you by referring to my experiences with this bike, which has prompted all this discussion about fit. If so, I'm sorry. I love this bike and I love to talk about it, so I succumbed to a "show and tell" temptation.  But I DO NOT have any questions about how the bike fits me, either as it is set up now (for upright riding) or what to do to about fit when/if I swap things out to set up for touring.

I guess in retrospect I should have asked a purely objective question without any reference to me and how I ride now or want to ride in future, namely: *how does one measure a bike's geometry?*

I think Ergle has given me what I need. It won't be exact but I wasn't looking for a formula, just a method. 

So cheers for that. I'll go off and do what he's suggested and post again (or PM him) if I'm confused about how to do it. 









P.S. Just in case it's still not 100% clear: THE BIKE FITS.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2010)

RebeccaOlds said:


> Jimboalee - I do not dispute what you say, but I'm afraid it is you who's missing the point of what I've been asking here. Maybe if I've misled you by referring to my experiences with this bike, which has prompted all this discussion about fit. If so, I'm sorry. I love this bike and I love to talk about it, so I succumbed to a "show and tell" temptation.  But I DO NOT have any questions about how the bike fits me, either as it is set up now (for upright riding) or what to do to about fit when/if I swap things out to set up for touring.
> 
> I guess in retrospect I should have asked a purely objective question without any reference to me and how I ride now or want to ride in future, namely: *how does one measure a bike's geometry?*
> 
> ...



Sorry about that.

Maybe the answer to your question is burried too crypticly within my replies.

In short, you don't have to measure the geometry of a frame. As long as the 'stand over height' is OK for you, the bike manufacturers will have got all the angles and lengths right to suit depending on the purpose the bike is to be used for.


----------



## MacB (29 Sep 2010)

Ah, I get it Rebecca, and I also have a Surly Cross Check, great bike. So you'd like a frame geometry chart, 2 options, find a bike shop than can measure it up for you. Alternatively, do the measurements yourself, a tape measure should be enough, no need for a protractor. Just measure the length of each tube and and dig out your schoolday geometry re angles in triangles/parallelograms, etc.

I'd download an exisiting geometry chart and bung it into a spreadsheet, diagram and table. you can then creat your own table in which you record the actual measurements you take, headt tube, top tube, seat tube, chain stays, etc. A little bit of nifty formula work and this can be made to calculate the unknowns like angles and virtual top tube.

Think of it as a homework assignment....plus I now hate you!!!!!!!! coz I know I'm going to try and do this myself, sad git that I am I find it irresistable. If it pans out I'll bung you a copy of the spreadsheet. I'll work around known geometry and see if I can get a formula driven table to come up with the same results as the manufacturers table.


----------



## MacB (29 Sep 2010)

zigzag said:


> you can measure geometry with tape measure and protractor, or by taking picture from a side an measuring on paper as ergle suggested. if bike was designed to be used with "shopper" bars and it fits you as it is, then it's not likely it will fit with drop bars even with a shorter stem. the difference in reach (if you are on hoods) can be ~20cm which is huge. online calculators (competitivecyclist etc.) give sizes that are too big for me, but they could work for you.
> the only sizes i am interested are top tube (virtual horizontal c-to-c), head tube and seat tube (c-to-t). seat tube and head tube angles?.. i don't know and i don't care, something between 72'-74' i believe. i would use the methods above to measure them.



I'm not sure how you could get a 20cm reach difference, or maybe that sort of problem with No's, and measuring skills, is why you don't get good results from the Competitive cyclist fit formula


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

zigzag said:


> if bike was designed to be used with "shopper" bars and it fits you as it is, then it's not likely it will fit with drop bars even with a shorter stem. the difference in reach (if you are on hoods) can be ~20cm which is huge.
> ....
> the only sizes i am interested are top tube (virtual horizontal c-to-c), head tube and seat tube (c-to-t). seat tube and head tube angles?.. i don't know and i don't care, something between 72'-74' i believe. i would use the methods above to measure them.



Thanks Zigzag, I agree that sounds sensible. 

The bike came out of the Puch factory with drop bars but somebody at some point later put MTB bars on it, which is what it had when I bought it in May. They were truly awful: all wrong for handling and (_at the risk of making a reference to FIT!_   ) really uncomfortable for me (wrist pain). The angle of the current North Road (purchased directly from Pashley - it's what they put on their Guv'nor, upside down) cured the wrist problem and has been really comfortable for upright riding. The quill stem is original. 

But looking ahead to my longer-distance road riding aspirations... it's back to drop bars.


----------



## MacB (29 Sep 2010)

Just to add, the other bit of info you're looking for will need some googling, as in what sort of handling/ride you can expect from a given geometry, fork trail and ride position. Opinion does seem to vary on this, maybe a good start would be Sheldon Brown and the CTC collated info via Chris Juden.


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> Just to add, the other bit of info you're looking for will need some googling, as in what sort of handling/ride you can expect from a given geometry, fork trail and ride position. Opinion does seem to vary on this, maybe a good start would be Sheldon Brown and the CTC collated info via Chris Juden.



thanks for the reminders. It's been a while since I've read Sheldon views on this and somewhere I've bookmarked Chris Juden's but hadn't read it yet... 

"Homework"! I do love researching stuff like this...  Will definitely be interested in seeing anything you come up with in the way of spreadsheets etc - thanks!


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2010)

I'll relay a little story about when I spent £1000 on a Specialized SWorks.

I went into Mike Vaughan Cycles in Kenilworth wearing running shorts, because I know there is a freckle on my thigh that is at the height of the top of the headset of any bike which is the correct frame size for me.

The chappie showed me a couple of Treks, a Giant and then the Spesh. I measured them by standing next to them with the leg of my shorts lifted to reveal the freckle.

Trek, Giant and Specialized are no mugs so I knew that if this measurement was right, adjusting the bike for me would be no problem.

I got the bike home, tweaked it and rode from Wolverhampton Station to The Poderosa Cafe at the top of Horseshoe Pass, and back.

I wasn't particularly worried about tube angles. I know my own body measurements, the calculations and have a list of the critical dimensions to adjust a bike to to fit me.


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Sorry about that.
> 
> Maybe the answer to your question is burried too crypticly within my replies.
> 
> In short, you don't have to measure the geometry of a frame. As long as the 'stand over height' is OK for you, the bike manufacturers will have got all the angles and lengths right to suit depending on the purpose the bike is to be used for.



No probs.  And yeah, what I'm after is what those angles and lengths ARE. So far I've been taking on faith everything I've read about the Puch models from the 1970s. There's precious little about their mixtes but what there is tends to suggest their approach was in line with the French and German mixte framebuilders i.e. a unisex lightweight steel road bike commonly used by cyclotourists (but not racing folk). I just want the satisfaction of seeing the mathematical proof of that!


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (29 Sep 2010)

I think the bike looks like a really good basis as an audax bike - in terms of geometry the fork rake and seat tube angle etc. indicate it is perfect (compared to most modern road bikes) for long distance. While they are heavy compared to modern counterparts, the Brooks/Carradice and matching leather handlebar tape also look fabulous!




Looking at the photos of the bike, I might be mistaken but my only observation is that if the rims are chromed steel they might not provide brilliant stopping power with the Weinmann single pivot caliper brakes, especially in the wet. For a simple solution it is possible that Kool Stop salmon brake pads might help. Modern double pivot caliper brakes on alloy rims are more effective, but change will probably involve getting 700c wheels and long drop brakes (if the rims are 27" at present) and spreading the frame's rear dropouts to accommodate the longer axles of modern hubs. New 27" alloy rims/wheels/tyres do exist, but the best rims/hubs/tyres are unfortunately harder to source in 27" today.

A couple of options exist for improving the range of gearing for hills. Depending on what is there already, potentially the easiest is to get a set of cogs with wider range at the back (such freewheel might be difficult to source for the existing wheel, but wide range cassettes are readily available for new 700c wheels) - no change is then necessary to the current stem mounted shifter in friction mode. A more involved option is to install a new front derailleur combined with new double or triple chainset and suitable shifters (probably indexed sti shifters/brifters), a new chain and rear mech with longer cage might also be required in this case. <br style=""> <br style=""> 

On the other hand, this frame is also eminently suitable for conversion into a single speed/fixie if the CC turns out to be a better long distance runner...


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'll relay a little story about when I spent £1000 on a Specialized SWorks.
> 
> I went into Mike Vaughan Cycles in Kenilworth wearing running shorts, because I know there is a freckle on my thigh that is at the height of the top of the headset of any bike which is the correct frame size for me.
> 
> ...



Excellent!! 

The day I settled on my Cross Check, I test rode it in a 46cm and a Specialised Dolce in a 48cm. The Spesh's fit was Perfect - so perfect I was sorely tempted to buy it right then and there. But I knew I wanted steel. The CC doesn't come in a 48cm. The reach on the 46cm felt short. The shop tried to talk me into the 46cm but based on how it felt and what I already knew of the size/geometry chart on Surly's website, I figured I wanted a 50cm. The shop didn't have that. Turns out, nobody in London did. So that's how I come to be waiting -- as patiently as possible! -- for a special order 50cm bike from the USA. It should be the right size, in a basic blank canvas kind of way. Then the fun of tweaking the fit (based on what I know about my own measurements and how my other bikes fit) can begin!


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> I think the bike looks like a really good basis as an audax bike - in terms of geometry the fork rake and seat tube angle etc. indicate it is perfect (compared to most modern road bikes) for long distance. While they are heavy compared to modern counterparts, the Brooks/Carradice and matching leather handlebar tape also look fabulous!



Thanks!
Yes, my impression is that the quite pronounced fork angle, rake and trail are good indicators for distance. Had a comment from a fellow FNRttC'er just the other night on how unusual this looks to 'modern' eyes. 



RecordAceFromNew said:


> Looking at the photos of the bike, I might be mistaken but my only observation is that if the rims are chromed steel they might not provide brilliant stopping power with the Weinmann single pivot caliper brakes, especially in the wet. For a simple solution it is possible that Kool Stop salmon brake pads might help. Modern double pivot caliper brakes on alloy rims are more effective, but change will probably involve getting 700c wheels and long drop brakes (if the rims are 27" at present) and spreading the frame's rear dropouts to accommodate the longer axles of modern hubs. New 27" alloy rims/wheels/tyres do exist, but the best rims/hubs/tyres are unfortunately harder to source in 27" today.


Fortunately, the rims are alloy not steel. But braking power is not great - esp in the wet!  
Will definitely be switching to Koolstops for the next pads. I think whole new wheelset is probabably in order too. Thanks for the info on sizing. I've been aware that options are limited for 27" tyres but hadn't got as far as scoping out available rims in that size and suitable hubs etc. More to think about, subject to groupset decision....



RecordAceFromNew said:


> A couple of options exist for improving the range of gearing for hills. Depending on what is there already, potentially the easiest is to get a set of cogs with wider range at the back (such freewheel might be difficult to source for the existing wheel, but wide range cassettes are readily available for new 700c wheels) - no change is then necessary to the current stem mounted shifter in friction mode. A more involved option is to install a new front derailleur combined with new double or triple chainset and suitable shifters (probably indexed sti shifters/brifters), a new chain and rear mech with longer cage might also be required in this case. <br style=""> <br style="">
> 
> On the other hand, this frame is also eminently suitable for conversion into a single speed/fixie if the CC turns out to be a better long distance runner...



Yup, those are exactly the options I'm mulling over.

Part of me wants to retain whatever's original that is (1) in good condition, (2) still working well, and (3) fit for purpose. 

A fellow club member suggested simply adding a second front cog (+ FD) but he's not familiar with vintage components and hasn't looked at the Puch carefully so I'm not yet sure if that's a viable option. 

That desire for originality notwithstanding.... it's really tempting to go for a whole new triple as you say, for maximum range of performance which could well put even the LEL within reach for this bike (??!!!!) That would be a pretty major operation, not cheap either and of course would utterly change the character of the bike, leaving essentially just the frame (and possibly headset and/or bottom bracket) as original. 

These are all questions I think for the LBS - if I can get hold of one particular guy there who does know something about vintage road bikes (his colleagues are all willing to help but really don't have a clue!)


----------



## zigzag (29 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> I'm not sure how you could get a 20cm reach difference, or maybe that sort of problem with No's, and measuring skills, is why you don't get good results from the Competitive cyclist fit formula




quite simple, if northroad bar contact points are 10cm towards you from the centre of handlebar clamp, and drop bar hoods are 10cm away from the centre, that's 20cm difference, i'm sure you can understand that


----------



## MacB (29 Sep 2010)

zigzag said:


> quite simple, if northroad bar contact points are 10cm towards you from the centre of handlebar clamp, and drop bar hoods are 10cm away from the centre, that's 20cm difference, i'm sure you can understand that



call me stupid, no go on, I wasn't comparing with Northroads, in fact I'd assumed that was part of the 'too upright' probems Rebecca had because, having tried them, it's very hard to get a long enough stem to accomodate a decent riding position. unlwess of course you move everything else back as well, but I found I didn't like moving my saddle to far back from the BB....so, sorry my man, my error there


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2010)

The starting point for setting up a bike is the bottom bracket axle centre. Adjust top surface of saddle so it is at correct distance ( 0.883 x leg length ).

Next, set the saddle fore/aft so your hip ball joint centres are the correct distance from the BB. Some use pedal spindle with horizontal crank.

Next, the lumbar vertebrae should be at 45 degrees when the hands are holding on the hoods ( most used position ). When the lumbar vertebrae are at 45 degs, position the handlebars so they obscure the front axle.



When this is all set up sweet and dandy, take measurements for future reference.


----------



## MacB (29 Sep 2010)

Another consideration, following on the hub/wheels aspect, is whether it would be worth respacing the rear end. Can be done yourself but plenty of framebuilders offer it as a service as well. I'm guessing it has horizontal dropouts, if so, then you could respace to 135mm(or 132.5mm) and this would allow you to run road/MTB wheels or an internal gear hub.

Personally I think the bike would be great with a new version Sturmey Archer 3 speed and drop bars - but then that's what I've done with my Crosscheck so I'm biased. you get most of the benefits of a single speed and retain some gear range. I have mine with a 2:1 chainring to cog combination giving me 40/54/72 gear inches.

Regardless, the respacing would open up more options.


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (29 Sep 2010)

RebeccaOlds said:


> These are all questions I think for the LBS - if I can get hold of one particular guy there who does know something about vintage road bikes (his colleagues are all willing to help but really don't have a clue!)



This is a dilemma I fully appreciate - the teenagers in my LBS have helped me to form my jaundiced view. In this case, if you have specific questions, I suspect you will get better input from the Technical section of this forum than in most LBSs.


----------



## zigzag (29 Sep 2010)

RebeccaOlds said:


> Yup, those are exactly the options I'm mulling over.
> 
> Part of me wants to retain whatever's original that is (1) in good condition, (2) still working well, and (3) fit for purpose.
> 
> ...



four years ago i was into that "steel is cool and real" thing, riding several steel bikes, set up differently. it's all well and good if you want to keep the original look, take it for a spin on a shorter audax. restored vintage bikes look really beautiful.
but when you start adding modern components (which work well, but don't look vintage) it just doesn't look right and spoil the whole "vintage thing". what i mean is: clipless pedals, dual pivot brakes, modern drop bars and sti shifters, modern chainset and derailleurs. they all work very well, but look out of place on a vintage bike. i couldn't accept how inferior parts work (or don't work) on longer rides, and decided it's not for me. the only type of bike that look more or less ok with some modern parts is singlespeed or fixed. and yes, you can ride lel on fixed if you train for it next couple of years. you could actually be the coolest rider of them all!


----------



## velovoice (29 Sep 2010)

zigzag said:


> four years ago i was into that "steel is cool and real" thing, riding several steel bikes, set up differently. it's all well and good if you want to keep the original look, take it for a spin on a shorter audax. restored vintage bikes look really beautiful.
> but when you start adding modern components (which work well, but don't look vintage) it just doesn't look right and spoil the whole "vintage thing". what i mean is: clipless pedals, dual pivot brakes, modern drop bars and sti shifters, modern chainset and derailleurs. they all work very well, but look out of place on a vintage bike. i couldn't accept how inferior parts work (or don't work) on longer rides, and decided it's not for me. the only type of bike that look more or less ok with some modern parts is singlespeed or fixed. and yes, you can ride lel on fixed if you train for it next couple of years. you could actually be the coolest rider of them all!



I totally agree! The only way I think I can accept going down that route is if, somewhere along the way, I pick up a second vintage mixte in better cosmetic condition, which I'd then be content to leave completely original. 

The Puch frame does need respray (+ rustproof while we're at it), which is a factor in opening up the whole possibility of making the bike "something else". If I 'let go' of the originality, then what I get is a modern touring bike that happens to have a clean steel mixte frame. Now that *would* be unique - and IMO totally fab!!

I'd still keep the light metallic green colour and probably also have replacement Puch decals made up.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2010)

"P.S. Just in case it's still not 100% clear: THE BIKE FITS.  "


You've got a bike that is ergonomically correct for you.  That's worth a couple of pounds of metal. In other words, a 24lb ill fitting bike is worse to ride than a 26lb nicely fitted bike.

With this in mind and you saying the frame needs a respray, GO THE WHOLE DISTANCE !!! 

Have it the colour of your choice with the groupset you want, but keep that saddle....  

Get it to a frame builders and explain your plan. While its in bare metal, they could shift the rear brake bridge and come up with some forks for 700C rims.


----------



## zigzag (29 Sep 2010)

nice cranks for your mixte conversion Rebecca:

Velo Orange Cranks

these will shift well, while looking classy. a bit pricey though.


----------



## jimboalee (30 Sep 2010)

zigzag said:


> nice cranks for your mixte conversion Rebecca:
> 
> Velo Orange Cranks
> 
> these will shift well, while looking classy. a bit pricey though.



Keep it in the family. Go Stronglight.


----------

