RiddleOfSteel

A most excellent update and analysis! I love it when a low or lower-tier bike outperforms its station, whether original or with upgraded components.

I think the Guerciotti improves (per what you want for it) with tubular wheels and tires (as a "big move" option), magic RS81/Dura-Ace C24 alu/carbon wheels + nice tires (another, even larger "big move" option), or changing out those Gatorskins for same size or larger (looks like there is good room to bump up a bit) GP4000 S2's or GP5000s. Or Vittoria Corsa G2 32s (they run small). Anything to give you improved suppleness, grip, reduction in weight, and truly additional springiness. I'm running the 28mm GP4 S2s on my '83 560 at ~67/74 PSI and it makes for a surprisingly nice ride on this non-531 frame. I took the 560 out last week--really cold night after a gorgeous ~50° day--up the twisty mountain road just outside of town, and then back down it. 42-28 with 170mm cranks was a grind here and there, but we made it. I knew the top gear combo would be a bit short (it's 52-14) and it was, but I pedaled as fast as I could to gain and keep as much speed as possible.

By the time I was done with the hill, I was about to make it my only bike. It cornered so purely through all the hairpin turns, with tremendous ease and without drama. Markedly better than any of my other vintage rides, which are very nicely equipped. Would probably be as confident as Trek's modern H2 road geometry, which is pretty stellar. Now, this is all a bit hyperbolic because those nice bikes in my stable are amazing everywhere else and not going anywhere, but I think I've found my go-fast descent bike. I love the freewheel business, and the Atom unit makes a fantastic sound, but that 14 needs to go in favor of a 12t (or 11t on a cassette, which starts shifting the bike's component make up considerably, which I don't want to do).

Anyway, I think the MA40s make for great rims, so unless it's tubs or C24s, that's about as good as one gets (IMO). Pacenti Brevets are really nice, but then, polished MA2s do and have done the same (great) job for decades. Tires are the perfect ride tuning component here, and I believe you'll notice a difference.

Arrowana

I'm actually not really surprised to see the Huffente stack up so well against much higher end frames. My commuter bike these days is a hideous monstrosity of a Kent that weighs more than the Huffente and Guac combined, but with a nice set of wheels and tires, plus bio-pace chainrings to tame the antiquated 90's era rear suspension design, even a full-suspension BSO from Wal-Mart can be transformed into a pleasant bike to ride.

AdventureManCO 

Thanks RiddleOfSteel ! I appreciate your thoughts. A big part of me, at least once I get past the 'shameless' part, is hesitant to post about these reports because it probably has got to sound stupid to so many folks out there. I'm sure to a large group it comes off with the 'It's a Huffy...the best bike ever built!' energy, and then throw in some emotionally charged bias, and there you go. And while that last bit may play some role in there, due to the countless lost hours I'll never get back, and my sanity...the ride of this silly thing is good enough to keep me fascinated and interested in continuing to ride it, tinker with it, improve it, etc. I have a hard time hoping for a better outcome - one that includes an experience that I'd like to keep on experiencing (I cannot say the same for MANY bikes I've ridden), as well as keep me interested enough to want to keep refining.

Your '83 560 - was that lower in the hierarchy at that time? The 560 I have is 531, and was considered near the top of its class, but that is mainly just because Trek was moving away from steel at that point and simply didn't have anything better. This was 1987. Was the 500 series in the early '80s an Ishiwata bike? I should know this. In any case - a bike that gets that feeling going for you should be kept, for sure!

RiddleOfSteel

500-level bikes in the 70s and earliest '80s were Ishiwata frames but changed to 501/501-centric in 1983. There was the 530/730/930 road/race frame trio in the late '70s, which became a 730/930 duo for 1980, changing to 750/950 in 1981 before going to more specific designations (73x, 75x, 95x) in 1982. Road/race frames were largely a 531 or Columbus affair, with the 530 being the only "entry level race" frame/model prior to the '83 560. Solid tubing and componentry made it firmly not entry level (as a bicycle), just entry level as a road racer. A lower-spec model, the 460, joined for 1984 and 1985, but by 1986, the 560 was at the bottom again.


1987 saw the introduction of aluminum and carbon, particularly in the top-end road bikes (like, six or so above the 560), so while the 560 enjoyed 531 tubing, it was at the end of the steel era for Trek as far as top-spec bikes went. It may have been leftover tubing or something. 1985-1987 was sort of that era depending on the model. So in reality, the 560 has almost always been at the bottom of the race range. Never a bad bike, just never the top, even if it was the sole steel road/race model Trek offered in 1987 before bringing the 660 back for a few years starting in 1988.


I really appreciate my 560's generous tire clearance for the short reach brakes it's spec'd with. That's an invaluable ride quality tuning element for me--a race-proportioned bike, which always looks good, able to be made more compliant if need be. One of the issues I'm having is with the non-flared crank arms, my heel will sometimes contact the base of the arm (at the spindle), so I am debating on whether to be more mindful of it or swap cranks. I may swap from the Super Customs to a higher-spec AeroX crankset--nearly the same look, just fancier and a little lighter. The Suntour BL group has some rust on it here and there--big bummer. So, again, I need to find time to dig through my parts bin and see what I have to work with.

AdventureManCO 

As long as one goes in 'eyes wide open' on one of these bikes, and is prepared to deal with some barriers - and plans to overcome them with things like: headset spacers (a little tough, but not impossible), BB adapter (readily available), 7/8 seatpost (same as alloy handlebar size), you can get these into a respectable weight class. A good wheelset is almost plug and play. A lot of the initial build with the Huffente was trial and error. It still is. But it hasn't created any regret for the work done so far, and hasn't deterred me from other 'unmentionable' projects to come, much to the dismay of many I'm sure.

From about 1978 to about 1990, Huffy's road bikes, while yes still gas pipe monstrosities, at least had some classic paint jobs and features we like seeing on bikes like the *close proximity* of fillet brazing, non-unicrown forks, horizontal top tubes. That checks quite a few boxes in the lists of the C&V crowd. A lot of people grew up riding on these bikes, and while the stigma pushes most away still, I think a lot of people would have a blast taking one of these old things, especially if they had one when they were younger, and spending some time improving it. They would be amazed at what a good quality wheelset and alloy components would do for the ride. And even then, apart from the brakes, it was still pretty fun to ride stock.

The main thing here is that all this fun can be had on the cheap. Like ultra cheap. Most people can get one of these for free, since nearly all of these as donations to co-ops go straight to the scrapper, including pristine ones. If one is patient, one can find a classic-painted version either for free or ultra cheap. To get one of these 'workable', you'll need at least:

- headset reducers/spacers ($18) - plan to do some work on them
- BB adapters ($25)
- alloy seatpost from an old handlebar (if desired) - ($5??)
- BMX alloy seatpost clamp for a 7/8" post ($5-$15)
- 25.4" - 26.8" adapter shim for clamp-on stuff (I think I paid $3 from my co-op for one)


I'm still on the fence about either using a .833 stem, or reducing down a standard stem. When mic'ing the ID of the steerer tube on a Huffy fork, I get around 21.4mm, and when I checked the OD of most of the quill stems I have on my bikes, they averaged around 22.0mm, with the smallest being around 21.9mm. Thats about .3mm off around the outer part of the stem, which if you used a forged stem that was 'generous' in nature around the wall thickness of the neck, you'd probably be just fine. Next step is to get some averages for the wall thickness on some of these stems, and see how much variance I get. I wouldn't do this with a cast AVA lol.

I consider myself blessed because for whatever reason, my brain doesn't see every one of these bikes as garbage. Therefore, an entire world has opened up to me, and the world is my oyster. There are so many fun projects available, at no cost. It's a great reason to pick one up. Also, it is the perfect platform to hone some further bike skills if one is so inclined - like some basic brazing work (modification and repair). There are also so many perks to these old things...reduced theft, more approachable repairs (think repairing a lawnmower), the seatpost is almost never stuck because it is chromed steel, etc.

I got to do another comparison test today...vs...the Ironman! More on that to come...

AdventureManCO 

I mentioned a little bit back that I had a 'geometry party' with the Huffente and Guac. Sounds like something you'd need a pocket protector for to gain entry lol.

Both bikes played nice toward each other, but were still a little standoffish.

I decided to take some measurements w/ the Guac and see how closely I could replicate them on the Huffente. First things first, let's get some numbers:

Guac headtube angle: 74 degrees
Huffente headtube angle: 69.35 degrees

Guac seat tube angle: 75 degrees
Huffente seat tube angle: 70 degrees

I wanted to figure out the seat position of the Guac, relative to the cranks, and see how close I could get on the Huffente.





Both those measuring sticks were clamped at 90 degrees using a digital angle finder.

The tip of the seat ends up about 1 3/16" away from the axis of the bottom bracket on the Guac:





On the Huffente, it was about a full inch further away:




Some of this had to do with the seat tube angle, but another part of it had to do with the saddle differences, and the limitations of the rails.

I looked in the garage, as I had a few Brooks saddles on a few different bikes. Turns out the Brooks saddle on my Raleigh Super Course had extra long rails, so utilizing that saddle allowed me to make up the extra inch to match the seat placement of the Guac.

The next measurement was the seat tip to the center of the bars. On the Guac, it's about 49cm. The Huffente is quite a bit shorter. Given the slacker head tube, it looks like we would need about a 95mm stem to match the bar reach as it is on the Guac. I'd probably be okay w/ 90mm. I'm still doing some research on the stems. The one I have now is 85mm, and I think I'm at least going to try rocking that and see how it goes. I think these stems are usually for 25.4mm, so I'd have to think through that, since the bars on the bike are 26 or 26.4.






I'm also continuing to think through other upgrades or updates to the Huffente. It would be nice to lighten the load...I'd LOVE to get the bike under 23lbs. We were sitting pretty at 23.4, but dropping 8oz is no small feat, apart from the saddle. A titanium bb would be awesome, but the Campy ones are stupid expensive and I hear they have practical issues. The low hanging fruit are things like the heavy-as-concrete crown race, the solid steel quick releases. I think when I measured the rear QR by itself, it was over 80g alone. However, if I lose this stuff, it means the bike isn't quite as Campagnolo and that's a HUGE issue for the sake of purity and vintage correctness. More things to think about.

I've also got an update on the Ironman. We'll cover that next.

smd4

Compressionless cable housing--about a 1/3 the weight of what you're using now, and will greatly improve breaking; I forget--you're using tubulars? If not, then TPU tubes; aluminum quick releases--the nuts at the very least; ceramic bearings; titanium wheel axles? A titanium or carbon-railed saddle. Replace as many bolts as you can with titanium, or ideally, aluminum.

dddd

The geometry differences are where this frame project gets interesting, and explains why some of the Huffente's ride qualities are superior in many riding situations.

You didn't mention the chainstay length difference, which is huge. This impacts sprinting negatively, as does the few added pounds (the light wheels help greatly however).

The slack headtube angle means that the steering is going to feel floppy when riding off of the saddle if a longer stem is used.
A wider handlebar will however allow some additional stem length increase while maintaining steering composure, so consider using a 9cm stem with a 42cm handlebar (what I used on my 39lb 1975 Varsity).
Of course the reach dimension of the particular handlebar will also affect how long of a stem you can use, so a more-common .833X10cm stem length is not out of the question if a decently-wide handlebar is selected.
My choice of stem was the .833"-quill, 9cm "Compe" variety shown below having a 25.4mm clamping diameter of course, so dictating use of a 25.4mm X42cm-wide handlebar (Schwinn's steel handlebars having fortunately become wider by 1975). The off-of-saddle handling is thus much better than my other Varsity with it's 10cm stem and only 39cm handlebar.
Appropriate to the very slack geometry (head tube angle) of most of these bikes having .833" steerer ID, the "Compe" and "Compe Forged" stems feature a narrower ~70-degree angle instead of the typical 73-degrees, netting a level stem extension on the slack-angled bikes. Note in the bottom photo how the .833X11cm "Compe Forged" stem points downhill even on a touring frame having only 72-degree frame angles!

dddd

Testify!

I was up in Portland working for a few months recently, and I brought no bike with me so had to source something to ride up there.
I had free use of a "Next" BSO that needed some cable repairs, a longer seatpost and a real saddle just so I could ride it.
Expectations were quite low in other words!

But I rode the bike regularly, up Mount Tabor many times and many errand rides as well.
The Suspension spring rates were fortunately calibrated for heavier riders, so I suffered no pogo effect from the "springs only" 1996-era front or "unified rear triangle" rear suspension.
My only real gripes were the horrible generic twist shifters (and their awful grips), and the very high bb height resulting from the stiff suspension springs.
Mounting the bike wasn't easy, and the shifting performance was as poor as it gets, but I really enjoyed having the bike to ride even as my hands were in near-constant pain from those terrible grips.

Amazingly, I suffered not one flat tire, only had to adjust the bottom bracket bearings once toward the end of my stay (and would install better pedals at one point).
Also the bike never got stolen (nor the saddle/seatpost, as I immediately replaced the quick release with a Loctited "bolt/nut/washers combination" that required two wrenches to remove).

I honestly never thought that I would be singing the praises of a dual-boinger BSO.

AdventureManCO 

I think my sister-in-law has that same bike.

It makes me wonder how much appreciation folks 120 years ago might have shown for a similarly-equipped dept store special. In some ways we're all a little spoiled. Especially now that some extremely nice bikes from the 70s and 80s are falling by the wayside in price. Makes it less compelling for the poor old BSOs when we are seeing some of the bikes we are at BSO bike prices.

AdventureManCO 

These are all great ideas. I do have compressionless housing on the bike now, and it is about 40-50% lighter than regular housing. Brakes feel great!

I did some thinking on this today, and come up with a figure that could net me a little over a pound...and potentially drop me solidly into the high 21lb range for the bike. But...the bike would NOT be period correct, as compromises would have to be made. I'm mainly looking at changes to:

- saddle
- bb
- QRs
- handlebars
- freewheel
- chain
- chainrings?

I don't want the chainrings to go, because Drillium Dude did awesome work on them, and I love how they represent his interest and participation in the build, so I think I'm going to keep them NR.

I'm also going to be changing the handlebar tape and stem, but after looking at the numbers, I don't think I would really gain much weight savings in the those areas. If I really wanted to go light w/ the stem, there are a couple options out there that exist (the SR Royal Extra Super Light and a 1" quill titanium stem), but I think the SR ESL is off the table because it would probably be too thin to neck it down to 21.2mm (besides, the one I have is 70mm), and of course you couldn't neck down a ti-walled stem that is already machined and welded for a 22.2mm. So any stem is going to probably have to be a little heavier. I can offset that a little by the use of ti hardware and an alloy wedge, but not banking on it since I need a longer stem (aka more material = more weight).

Before your post, I didn't even think about modifying the Campy hubs by using ti axles, but it's a great idea. I'm not a hard rider, so I could probably be okay with it, especially w/ more modern ti alloys. It's still got me excited about how much more the bike can be improved, and still pay homage to the period these bikes were made.

smd4

I think you can make some meaningful weight saving choices that won’t affect the overall aesthetic—like cable housing or axles.

The best thing about the pandemic was me having lots of time to study my bike, cruise the internet and figure out what I could hot-rod on it. With all my changes I was able to drop a pound or two (not sure the precise number because I didn’t have a digital scale before the pandemic).

dddd

I suspect that improvements to the fit of the cockpit, along with getting the pedals to feel great, will all far outweigh (pun suddenly intended) any and all attempts at managing the bike's weight.

I would also consider use of fatter tubulars, perhaps tubeless tubulars, when your existing tires start showing signs.

I generally get along fine with 165mm cranks, and I'm long-legged. Shorter cranks make the saddle height adjustment less of a sensitive parameter, and allow more in the way of shifting one's position on the saddle without disturbing the pedaling dynamics. Especially while you're still making cockpit adjustments, the 165mm cranks might be advantageous (as well as allowing a faster spin if the gearing on top is a little short).

It's great to learn here that compressionless brake housing is significantly lighter than the coiled stuff!

I have sourced many aluminum M6 dome nuts from old Weinmann and DiaCompe brake pads, which can be used on other parts of the bike.

I wonder how bad that it would be to precision-ream the steer tube to the exact OD of a particular stem that is found to be suitable in terms of lightness, extension length and clamping diameter. Some 22.2mm quills measure all of only 22.0mm OD as-is, and of course some can be sanded further (takes a good bit of effort however).

Is the added wall thickness of a typical .833" ID steerer even needed so high up where the quill slides in?

I mentioned in the very beginning that (due mainly to these bike's slack seat tube angle) you were very fortunate to be starting with the biggest Huffy frame size, and by now I see that every mm of this frame's "reach" dimension is quite precious (same as with electro-forged Schwinns). It's a trade-off between crotch clearance and proper reach that just has to be accepted, most especially for riders with shorter leg length proportions. Schwinn eventually offered whopping 26" frames for their tallest electro-forged buyers, but which are a good 1" too tall for me to ever ride (even as the reach would be perfect for performance riding with a forward seatpost clamp).

I guess I'll mention that the other compromise arising from this sort of frame's geometry has to do with riding in a paceline, where one has to hang back from a leading rider in order to preserve safe clearance ahead of the front tire. It's one more important adaptation to my riding style needed whenever I ride one of my old bikes having long front-center and not so long of a stem extension.

AdventureManCO 

dddd

Great thoughts overall sir. You bring up considerations that are worthwhile to think upon. I do currently have a set of 170mm NR cranks in the garage, meant for the Trek 970, that I can at least try on the Huffente to see how its going to respond to that change.

Regarding the stem, I am sort of now leaning to doing a custom fit - maybe a very light reaming of the steerer tube (at least to remove any top lip that reduces the overall ID, and hone a specific stem down to be a nice, tight fit. The .833 stems are actual a loose fit in these bikes. I think I mic'd the ID at 21.4 or 21.5mm, and the smallest '22.2' stem I had was actually 21.9 (and not French). If thinking about the weight dynamics of a stem, I would think you would want to keep the back spine of the quill integrous, and shave off any thickness on the front side of the stem, since that is the side that is less load bearing. This is also born out in those .833 stems that have the machined step for insertion - if you look at pictures, I have seen several that have an eccentric machining done, mainly removing material off the front of the neck...makes sense to me.

I'm going to do some caliper tests on some stem thicknesses, including the one Sakae Ringyo Royal Extra Super Light (what a mouthful!) stem I have, and if I'm seeing a similar thickness used, I'm going for it. A little reaming of the steerer tube here, a little sanding on the stem there, I think we should be in business. I like the idea of a nice, custom fit. The .833 Jun stem is a bit sloppy. Plus, the SR ESL stem would add some significant 'jewelry' status to the bike! The time period is right, as well. I do already have the one in 70mm, but I'm going to need a longer one. This will be a net positive on the weight side of things, give me better steering geometry, and give the bike more bling status. Win/win/win. Major LOSE to the wallet, but what else is new w/ this dumpster fire of a bike?

I'll be continuing to look at other ways to save big. If it loses weight AND increases purely vain status, SIGN ME UP. Speaking of vanity...


How much are those Super Record alloy brake shoes, again??