spreading a nice frame
 

Would you guys spread the frame of a Waterford Paramount from 126mm to 130mm? I'd like to permanently upgrade to a 130mm cassette freehub body; right now, I'm just squeezing it into the 126mm frame (Sheldon said this "rarely causes damage". Has anyone ever had a case where it does actually cause problems?).

I know most people feel no qualms about spreading a common frame; for something like this, would you feel the same? Are there any steel frames out there that you wouldn't do this to?

I wouldn't bother, on a common frame. I think it's only worthwhile to do to a good top-end frame that you're going to enjoy riding.

So...... "yes", I would do it without reservation.

Thanks for the thought! That's good to know. Modern wheelset, here I come.

I had to have the beautiful Cornelo coldset so yes I say go for it. some of my other I just deal with it though.

are you doing it or having it done? make sure they align the dropouts and the RD hanger!!

I just set my Gazelle AA (has some AA Special features, sort of looks like a one-off) from 120 to 130. Probably not as high end as what you're talking about, but if it's what it takes to get you on the bike and enjoying it.... go for it.

dashuaigeh, Many of us use 130 mm wide hubs in 126 mm spaced dropouts without any functional issues, R&R is a minor hassle. A 120 mm spaced dropout should be coldset to 130 mm, IMO.

Brad

I've done a lot of coldsetting and never ran into a problem, however I do limit myself to steels like Reynolds 531 and Columbus SL. Once you start getting into thinner and higher strength steels there is much less margin for error and you run the risk of buckling the tubes. As sugested by Bianchigirll, ensure the droputs and hangers are aligned afterwards.

Is there a commonly practiced technique to re-aligning the dropouts afterwards?

If you've not cold set before, I would recommend buying a yard sale beater and practicing on it first. I did that and made a mistake. I was glad it was a $10 Ross Hi ten frame.

there should be. infact on any new frame the dropouts should be aligned. there is a fancy set of tool for this job, it ensures the dropouts are parralell to eachother and also I beleive symetrically spaced from the centerline of the frame.

http://www.parktool.com/uploads/thum...08_198x190.jpg

Thanks T-Mar. I definitely plan to check alignment afterwards. I know SLX is lighter than SL; is it also thinner?

Actually, SLX is heavier than SL. Both were available in a range of wall thicknesses. SLX is generally pretty sturdy - less risky to cold set than say, KL.

I thought SL and SLX were the same wall thickness, but the SLX has internal ribbing intended to stiffen the tubes without adding significant mass. And that SL had its grouping of wall thicknesses, without variant products being marketed as SL.

Columbus sold other tubesets made of the same Cyclex steel (a chrome-moly), such as SP (thicker walls for touring or other needs for stiffness), and TSX (thinner walls, light set, more flexy or springy).

Is this not correct?

More or less.
Just about any tubing type is/was available in a range of gauges, and therefore a range of weights. Obviously, some were more commonly used or more readily available than others. SLX is heavier than the same gauge of SL because of the added material. It's also stiffer - but no stiffer than could be achieved with an SL set of the same weight as SLX but with the material evenly distributed throughout the tubes. In fact, the SL set would probably achieve a superior weight/stiffness ratio than with SLX. I believe TSX went and ribbed the whole shebang - it's pretty much a complete gimmick.

Nice summary of different Columbus tube types:
http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/col...umbuschart.htm

Not to belabor the point, but that chart represents a period when marketing-driven "tubesets" with specific "uses" and techno-linguistic justification ruled the day. Not to say there aren't legitimate differences and distinctions, but custom and top-tier builders then and now think less in terms of "tubesets" than in terms of selecting particular combinations of tubing for particular rider height, weight, riding style, etc. In the "classic era," it wasn't uncommon to mix and match tubing, even between manufacturers. The chart points up the fact that SL is lighter than SLX and TSX, but doesn't - for obvious reasons of marketing economics - make the point that adding material to the SL tubes would result in at least an equal stiffness/weight ratio to the SLX, TSX sets. In other words, that chart is more a product of the marketing department than a representation of the engineering or framebuilding perspectives.

No question that framebuilders often mixed tubing types for particular uses. While the second column of the Columbus summary table has lots of marketing speak, I think there is also some very interesting and valuable technical information about standard tubeset types in the right hand columns of the table. For example, a TSX tubeset is listed with a slightly lighter weight than SLX. By looking at the table, you can see that the slight weight reduction comes from reducing the thickness of the ends of the butted top tube and down tubes (0.8/0.6/0.8 mm for TSX vs. 0.9/0.6/0.8 mm for SLX). You can also see where tubes were thinned to generate the even lighter weight EL tubing (thinning the middle of the downtube even more, to 0.8/0.5/0.8 mm, and thinning everywhere along the top tube, to 0.7/0.4/0.7mm). I LIKE the technical details, and find the table a useful summary of various generations of tubing, even if builders mixed and matched from different tube sets in order achieve particular goals.

I haven't found it necessary to cold set a 126mm spaced steel frame to 130. Neither have I considered it at all necessry to realign the dropouts. It's a bike, not a fancy watch. It can tolerate a good deal.

Did you miss that he was talking about a Waterford Paramount and not some generic italian?

/not letting that slide. Can't believe I was the only one.

Don't know what your bone of contention is. I told him "yes" because it is a high-end frame he's talking about. If it were low-end, it wouldn't be worth it. In other words, I wouldn't waste the time or energy to open up, say, a UO-8.

That's my opinion.

It takes me 10 seconds and two manly hands to put a 130mm hub in a steel frame spaced at 126mm.

Oh, well then I misread what you said. I thought by saying "yes" you were saying just spread the Waterford frame he has, and not worry about cold setting and such, because it is just a common frame and not one that he would enjoy riding.

In my defense, I thought you were just joking around and being snarky. And that is why I replied with the snarky "generic italian" response.

Wow - you're my hero. :thumb:

No worries.

I do have one generic Italian bike - the Palo Alto. When I first got my hands on it though, it was already at 129mm. :D

To the OP - if you're going to convert a frame to run a modern drive-train you can force the rear wheel in and it'll probably be "good enough". You can also do it yourself using the links supplied in this thread. The third option is to have it done by someone that knows what they are doing, using the proper alignment tools. It's your time, your bike, and your money.

My personal opinion is that if you want it done, do it right by having it done with the proper tools and aligned properly. That way you know that everything is jake and is as it should be. It costs all of about $40-$50 to have it done. Do you really want to be hand-bending a Waterford with 2x4's and string? Seems silly, considering the overall investment involved.

I'm just sayin'. . . . no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. It's 2mm per side.