citymouse

True Temper, Columbus, Reynolds:
For the high end stuff, they're all pretty much the same steel, just different brand names, right?


Any reason to go with a removable seat post collar instead of one thats built into a lug?

I see a lot of top tube internal cable routing for the rear brake.
Why is there never internal routing for the downtube & chainstay rear shifter cable?
Does that make the shifting a little sticky, with the cable bending in & out of the frame?


What about rack braze ons.
If they are the kind that are imbedded into the tubing, or if they are just brazed on the outside of the tubing, does it make any difference other than looks?
I imagine it would make the tubing a little less sturdy to have the bolt screwed directly into it, but would it be noticeable at all?

Does stainless steel offer any perks or drawbacks, other than looks?
Do you need to clear coat stainless steel to keep it from rusting, or will it hold up like chrome?

Do lugs offer anything other than classic looks?
Does it make the frame stiffer, or stronger?

I appreciate any info you can spare,
thanks!

unterhausen

All three brands (and Deda too for that matter) make good tubes. The metallurgy is different between them, but you probably will not notice much difference. The stainless tubes made for bikes are also the lightest, strength is about the same. Some people clear coat it, otherwise you have to keep it clean.

Lugs do not add significantly to the stiffness or strength of a frame.

The nice thing about having the seat collar built into the frame is that you don't have to find a seat collar that fits. Someone I know recently went through that exercise for an ebay frame and it ended up costing him $

tuz

What he said.

Internal derailleur routing has been done and is still done for either looks or for (pseudo) aero reasons. It does add a few bends to the cable and may add some friction which could affect indexing. Never tried it. The routing scheme is a bit more complicated than for a rear brake, which is why it is rarely done I suppose.

For the rack, the external bosses are easier to put on. The internal should be equally strong (the hole is reinforced by the boss) but require more work. Functionally they are the same, internal is neater.

I read that lugged has a slight edge strength-wise vs. welding. But by the time either one breaks, the bike is probably FUBAR anyway so any strength difference is mostly theoretical.

MassiveD

Stronger doesn't mean stronger, it has to be both stronger, and in a situation where the limiting issue is the strength of the actual joining method.

Second, lugs weight more, so the weight spent on lugs, not to mention the time, needs to be the best use for those budget items. What would happen if the weight of the lugs were added to make the tubes large in diameter, and those tubes were welded.

You can't just generalize on BOs for racks. One is placing X number of BOs in particular places, on particular tubes, etc... Al that maters is that they are not compromising the strength of the bike where they are added. For instance the fork ones are mostly on the neutral axis, in beefed up tube ends, or drops. The rear ones are mostly not in the tubing. The thing that seems to break the most, are bolts, so designing the whole thing around larger bolts is probably more bang for your buck. However, for average uses the usual locations are pretty good.

unterhausen

while most front braze ons are on the neutral axis, there are plenty of historical examples of putting them on the front of the fork, which is almost always under compression. You can pretty much do whatever you want to the seat stays

citymouse

One more..

Any reason to pick caliper brake holes over cantilever mounts?

I'm not going to do much off roading with wide tires, but it would be nice to have the option if a weekend trip comes up.
I haven't really seen any "road" bikes with cantilevers before, just cyclocross.

If I'm running skinnier tires and riding around fast on paved roads, cantilevers are just as good right?


Thanks again, this is all very helpful info, fellas!

MassiveD

Cantilevers are probably the most popular option for touring bikes, particularly if you use road levers. Other options include discs, and Vs. VS require a special lever or dingus to work with Vs, and these products reduce the leverage of the combo so there is not always a net advantage in stopping power for VS with road levers. Some people still prefer them for low profile etc...

I prefer cantis myself, but you have to be sure the version you select will work with your front fork. Almost anything can be sorted out, but for a touring bike with cantis I prefer a little more width to my front fork so I have easy canti mounting, and fender mounting, etc...

MassiveD

If you choose that option, you really have full freedom to go to something like 6mm bolts.

tuz

On a bike with 57 mm reach, you can fit 28 mm tires with fenders or 32 mm (or perhaps more?) without fenders (700c). But you have to be careful with the fork length and bridge placement to maximize the reach. It's a nice compromise of tire size versatility with the ease of use, and looks, of caliper brakes.

With bigger tires cantilevers are a good choice. They work great. Obviously they will work on small tires too, but the extra fork clearance might look weird.

unterhausen

Just one word of warning, almost everybody hates cantilevers. They are definitely an acquired taste. I have cantilevers on my road bike because I wore out my brake pads on a single 130 mile ride in the snow. I'm not sure that's logical, but that's why I have cantis on my road bike. I am not a big fan, but they do work for me. I think my next bike will have Paul Racers.

MassiveD

Most touring bikes are sold stock with cantis. But you shouldn't feel you have to use them if you don't like them. I like them a lot, because I remember them being the hot set-up on MTBS, and then I sorta skipped the whole next twenty years, so works for me.

citymouse

Wouldn't brake pads wear down the same regardless if they're canti's or caliper?