Audax/'Randonnée' bike - conversion candidate?

[velovoice]

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]

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]

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!

I can't get the picture link to work,

summat went wrong... fixed now!

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[velovoice]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

You'll get a little output chart that gives you 3 fits...

.......

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.

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

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.

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.