Previous early bike chain stay discussion

[Aloisiojones]

Recall seeing a conversation about the Schwinn or Westfield type early bikes, therein the discussion was quite good and rated the reasons to purchase a particular maker to build a Klunker bike from. One point very interesting was his review of straight opposed to bent upward rear lower chain stay. Sadly, I cannot refind this information. Any idea what forum and where it was at?

Thank you

Mike

 

[MattiThundrrr]

Sounds like good reading. Did you search the klunker section?
https://www.ratrodbikes.com/forum/index.php?forums/klunkers-mountain-bikes.59/Do you remember how long ago, or with whom? Might narrow down the search a bit!

 

[MattiThundrrr]

Darn. I'm into klunkers, they're the birth of mountain bikes, and I love the do it yourself attitude. Have you read Charlie Kelly's stuff? He built some of the first klunkers and ain't afraid to share. He's got a book out on the early days, I want it bad!

 

[RustyGold]

Recall seeing a conversation about the Schwinn or Westfield type early bikes, therein the discussion was quite good and rated the reasons to purchase a particular maker to build a Klunker bike from. One point very interesting was his review of straight opposed to bent upward rear lower chain stay. Sadly, I cannot refind this information. Any idea what forum and where it was at?

Thank you

Mike

It sounds like a discussion I've been in a few times, as the curved chain stays with the resulting lower BB height is a pet peeve of mine. However, I don't remember any specific thread where this discussion took place...it usually just happens organically .

It may have shown up in the thread about industrial frames used for klunking. I think there was a discussion on what to do with a Columbia frame that might have lead to a discussion...and maybe another talking about the merits of a Monark klunker...but, I'm not even sure if all those were on this site (except for the industrial one...its here somewhere...try industrial frame comparison for search terms).

 

[MattiThundrrr]

Or get Matti to provide the link.
https://www.ratrodbikes.com/forum/index.php?threads/industrial-klunkers-and-frame-comparisons.96642/Low bbs can be bad, the bleepin' pedal strikes, but they also help with stability, the lower the BB, the lower your centre of gravity when on the pedals.
Here's the best klunker link ever. Seriously. Charlie. With Gary. And Tom. And Alan. At Repack.


http://www.sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/mtbwelcome.htm

 

[Aloisiojones]

It sounds like a discussion I've been in a few times, as the curved chain stays with the resulting lower BB height is a pet peeve of mine. However, I don't remember any specific thread where this discussion took place...it usually just happens organically .

It may have shown up in the thread about industrial frames used for klunking. I think there was a discussion on what to do with a Columbia frame that might have lead to a discussion...and maybe another talking about the merits of a Monark klunker...but, I'm not even sure if all those were on this site (except for the industrial one...its here somewhere...try industrial frame comparison for search terms).

You were on the right track ... it was from Klunkers and Mountain Bike Forum, under Industrial Klunkers and Frame Comparison. Explores the basics pretty well would be nice to have more definitive information.

 

[RustyGold]

Or get Matti to provide the link.
https://www.ratrodbikes.com/forum/index.php?threads/industrial-klunkers-and-frame-comparisons.96642/Low bbs can be bad, the bleepin' pedal strikes, but they also help with stability, the lower the BB, the lower your centre of gravity when on the pedals.

This is kind of the opposite of true...but it depends on speed. At a stop or near stop you are right that a low cg is more stable...but, as you start moving, stability increases with higher cg. It is the inverse pendulum effect on two wheeled vehicles.

So, for trials (not trails) riders, low cg probably is a good thing. For higher speed riding, higher cg is more stable.