I got to see a number of VO frames at NAHBS (being used as mounting points for their component lines - they were definitely recalcitrant on discussing frames at that show) and I thought the construction, finish, et. al. was quite nice. Prices don't seem to be too bad for what they're offering.

Those here on the thread who are constantly bringing up the used alternative are conveniently forgetting one little matter: time. As in, if you have specific ideas for a bike you want to build this coming winter and have it ready for next spring's riding season, you're probably kidding yourself that you're going to build it on a set schedule if you're basing it on a used frame. Unless, of course, you find the frame first, and then get inspired to do the build based on that frame. And I have a feeling most of the 'used only' crowd work that way, but don't specify in their claims.

I've built lots of bikes based on used frames - every one of them started with the frame in hand, and the bike developed out of that frame's characteristics/limitations. The times I've had a specific idea for a bike, then went looking for the frame to build it around? My two best examples were what I wanted to do when I got back into cycling back in 2005: Build up a Fuji Finest and a World Voyageur, the former how they were being raced in Erie, the latter as a duplicate of the bike I toured back then.

The Finest will finally be done in about four weeks (five years after I put it on my list). The Voyageur hasn't come close - I found one frame three years ago that was in my price range, and it was more battered than I wanted to deal with.

Immediately chiming it with 'used' on a thread that's talking 'new' isn't assessing the issue. It's bringing in a new set of parameters that may or may not be relevant to the issue being discussed. More often than not, it's not going to be relevant; unless you're willing to compromise your initial intent, often quite severely.

Them raleigh bikes look nice but the top tube kills it for me....

That's OK, it rides quick and very smooth, from the saddle you can't tell the top tube slants. I'm very sorry you have to look at "IT" but from my perspective it's pretty cool! The rain has stopped....I'm goin' for a ride!

IMO too many of the C&V members have not looked at bike frames from way back. Older frames from the 1890 to 1914 period that I have seen photos of frequently sloped, some even sloping the reverse direction from what is now common. Yes there was a period when the vast majority of sporting bikes had flat top tubes but most American cruisers did not and neither did Mixtes or other designs for women in skirts. You are defining the "right" look as being the look for a medium size steel men's road bike from the period between about 1920 and 1990.

Sloping top tubes allow better engineering of extreme sizes of bikes in a given wheel size per my understanding with less compromise in BB height and top tube effective length. I have seen some 1970s era small frames with compromised top tube shapes to allow for front wheel clearance.

I like the looks of the VO Mixte and note that it is available in up to a 58cm size, something hard to find in older mixtes. Also note that it is lugged construction, at least according to the VO web site. Does the sloping "Top Tube" bug the so called purists? How about the top tube on a Schwinn cruiser from the 1930s onwards.

Does anybody here own the VO lugged rando frame that came out recently? And want to post pics?

I completely agree with this. An old Japanese bike will have a very workable set of threadings, usually a nice round curve on the forks, and invariably the TT is dead horizontal. The only very minor pain is that it may take a 26.8 seatpost or something.

Having a few braze-ons added where you want them and then having it painted is far, far less costly than a new Velo Orange frame. Plus, I think we cyclists would do well to think about background carbon footprints in addition to foreground. It takes a lot more energy to make up a new tubeset than it does to recycle an old one.

I built up an internal-gear porteur from a '70s Fuji and some old and new parts, then had it painted, and it cost far far less than a new bike. I use it absolutely constantly and it's every bit as reliable as a new one:


http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=482160http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=482161http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=482162

https://media.giphy.com/media/uEg9VcXbtQYPC/giphy.gif

I kid, I kid! :) I really do like your Fuji. An internal gear hub bike is on my list of builds I would like to do.

A VO Campeur frame is $520.

About how much is it to buy the type of frame you are referring to, plus add brazeons, plus blast, plus repaint, plus add decals? A good condition chromoly frame will be $90-180 probably. Blasting and paint will be $200-350 for a good job. Decals for $50.
Even on the cheap, is it really 'far less'? Sure, there are examples where someone finds a frame in great shape for $30. Is that the norm though?

It really is far less. My Fuji was $25, I sold the components on eBay for about that, and the braze-ons weren't expensive -- $5-10 each. It took me a while to figure out how to ask for them to be placed for the Alfine hub and the chain guard, because I had no experience with that. But not all that complicated. Then paint was about $150. I didn't bother with decals but I did re-use the head badge. The old Fuji had just the right setup: horizontal dropouts and a nice old 1" threaded headset. Even on those inexpensive 10-speeds, the build quality was very high. And because it originally took 27" wheels you have just a little more room for the fenders and stuff.

Plus, if if matters to you, there's a lot more pride in a dog you saved from the rescue shelter rather than just bought at PetSmart.

Ya, ya, zombie, but this is fun.
The Polyvalent would be an excellent build into a 650c long wheelbase fixed gear. Don't see too many horizontal dropouts any more. 666's Fuji is obviously a work of love, but I like this a lot. $570 bare frame.

http://store.velo-orange.com/media/c...ile_edit_1.jpg

http://store.velo-orange.com/media/c...nt_main_st.jpg

All good fun, no doubt! But I think some of us are (pre and post Zombie awakening) talking about front loaders, which need lower trail than the generic bike of the '80s. Most VO frames (like the Kogswells) have rather low trail, good enough for Heinish 650b riding (maybe 25 to 32 mm) or mid-trail (35 to 45 mm). Few vintage 700c bikes, if any, are that low in trail, though some are quite low for 700c (maybe 37 to 45 mm). Most other vintage 700c, Trek or Japanese, are in the mid-trail 45 to 52 mm range. More trail (55 to 68 mm) gets you performance ranging from "this at least doesn't fall over" to "this cannot be handled with one hand!" At least that was my reaction on my Trek with it's modified high-trail fork and a 10-lb front bag.

Most (all?) Rivendell's are decidedly in the high trail category, with trail near 60 mm, despite their other virtues. They are not front loaders.

So if you want a front loader, measure your Japanese or Trek frame carefully and see if the trail works.

These numbers come from VBQ V4N3, "Differing opinions on front-end geometry and trail." I'm praying that by quoting with citation I'm not running afoul of Jan Heine's sensitivities nor of course pertinent copyright laws. Jan sells back issues if anyone wants to delve deeper.

Totally agree on the pride of turning something neglected into a great bike. It's what all of mine currently are- once neglected or ignored and made I to something better than original(for me).
Perhaps it's my area or size frame, but $25 quality frames(much less full bike) really doesn't come along.

This is probably one of those times where it's area, timing, and bike size that all come together to make it work.
Great build- your Fuji.

I bought a mid-80's Specialized then coupled it thru some new rear spokes into an 8 speed Alfine IGH. The frame needed only some touch up paint on a few minor scratches but all the braze-ons you could ever want are already there. I got a great bike for relatively low cost.

The way it can make sense is to do most of the work yourself. If you have a torch, the bits, flux, and rod are pretty cheap. I agree on your price range for a good conditin CrMo frame. Let's say you do the work yourself (like I do), then powder coat. I've got a local powder coater who will do a decent job for $110. Decals? If you need 'em, $30-40 in vinyl. So now you've got a real nice frame with all the bits you want or need for around $250-$350.

Your labor is free, of course, but I really enjoy lighting up a torch and brazing, and there's the satisfaction of doing it yourself.

I think the trail thing is wildly overblown. The front racks that 99.9% of bikes today get are nowhere near as solid as the old porteur newspaper-carrying bikes -- have you ever had a chance to hoist one of those ancien regime machines?

Trail matters with HUGE loads (at least 40-50 lbs) on the rack but other than that, no way. And most modern front racks wiggle too much, even if you pin them tightly with struts and so forth. I bombproofed my installation but it would still be a bummer to carry 25+ lbs. of stuff on it for any distance over rough roads, which is all we have in this corner of New England.

Jan Heine and all that trail stuff (not to mention planing) are so much tomfoolery. No human being alive could tell the difference. Okay, maybe Tom Brady. I feel like Mr. Heine should go out and chase skirt like the rest of us and stop the knitting and housework.

That's super sweet!! Sounds like the ideal candidate and probably a pretty high quality foundation. My Fuji didn't have one single braze-on, everything was just a clamp. Also, I can't remember because it was eight years ago but I am 99% certain that the Alfine thing needed a differently placed cable holder on the chainstay than a derailleur bike has. Maybe I'm misrecalling.

The silly thing is that the Fuji has been the most low-maintenance bike I ever owned. I think I put new tires on once and I oil the chain once a year and try to wash it once in a blue moon -- that's really about it! Still completely rattle-free and silent. (As I learned from motorcycling, Loctite Blue is your friend!!!)

The VO is made with relatively light gage butted tubing, where many of the other mentioned frames are heavy gage, overly rigid, and dead when ridden unloaded.

My own experiences with Low trail and "planing" say that Heine is dead on. Excellent front racks are made by Nitto. Load or no front load, low trail rides extremely well. It is an important selling point.

IMHO, like so many other rings in life, it's a choice that can be based both on logic as well as common sense. If the frame suits you, if it has the braze-ons you want, if it is exactly your size — you in the zone. Now the clincher: there should be no surprises. No rust inside the tubing. The steering tube is not partly stripped. No one has mandrelled the hell out of the seat tube to get a post to fit. You don't need a frame-maker to check or realign it. The BB and head tube do not need to be refaced. It's never been crashed. New paint. The decals are all there. If all that turns you on, it looks like a good thing. Sure you pay out some dosh, but you get something new.

I might buy the low-trail thing but never would buy the idea of planing. That's BS on the level of the audio guys using cryogenic speaker cables. My De Rosa race bike weighs 18 lbs wet and it doesn't plane. It does go faster when you pedal harder but that's about it.

He might be more sensitive to the term "heinish".

Well, I hope not!

Someone has actually tried to build cryogenic speaker cables? That's a new one on me.

My post was really just talking about frame/fork geometry. I didn't intend to bring in the "P" word.

By buying a complete bike, I got everything I needed - a complete bike, not just a frame, but cranks, wheels, brakes,...and it only cost $250 (?). I waited and picked a good bike in near new condition. This was especially pleasing considering it is 30 years old.

The gear shift cable worked out very well. I used the bottom bracket's rear derailleur cable guide and a short section of lined brake cable housing to reach down to the Alfine - no problem. I replaced the knobbies with balloon slicks (Schwalbe Kojaks). Lubing the bearings was easy to do. The single biggest task was lacing the old rim to the new Alfine hub.

Regarding maintenance, I've never needed to do any. I put some oil on the chain and wipe off the excess. That's it.

The modern, multi-speed rear hubs are under- or un-appreciated by the public. I was surprised at how nice the Alfine is. One chain ring up front, 8 speeds in the rear = quiet and fun, even up the hills.

I agree totally. I can't remember what size cog I settled on. I think it's 42T or 44T in front, using the inside ring on an ancient Stronglight crankset. And I forget exactly but the rear's something like 19T. I could be mis-recalling. But it takes exactly [the null set] as far as maintenance other than oiling the chain annually. It's a little wierd on the Alfine thumbshifter to have to push it into higher gears, which is just the opposite of the Sturmey Archer like some of us grew up with. But it's perfectly fine. I think the trigger unit is much more elegant that the twist shifter but they're a bit harder to find.

The Rohloff hub may be more mechanically efficient, but running stereo cables and their shift mechanism is a downer not to mention nerdy as hell. I don't know how much efficiency you leave on the table by slumming it and going with an Alfine setup, but it's really not all that much. Heck, that guy did the TdF course on an 8-speed Sturmey Archer this summer, to raise money for charity, and he made it.

Really! Where can one find out more about this?