Firstly the background…

I have a 90’s steel Trek road bike which although nothing special fits me like a glove, is comfy, not too heavy and is a nice colour (important! ;-)), it also has some decent and uber-reliable 7speed kit on it that I really really like and is my go-to bike for audaxes and the slower club runs and training rides. It has one very very annoying drawback, the clearances are too tight and with guards fitted it will only just take 23s, and on some of the more rustic audax routes I’ve had issues with them clogging with mud so I could really do with more clearance, bigger tyres would be nice on the longer rides for comfort too.

I also have a Specialized AWOL set up as my commuter/load lugger/tourer with guards, racks at both ends, reliable 9speed Sora, disk brakes and nice cushy 38s on it with loads of room, the problem with this is it weighs as much as a small moon, it’s fine for it’s duties carrying loads and towing the trailer, and even pretty sprightly on the flat and ok for ride < 4hrs, but not something I’d want to drag round a 200K or anything with 7-10,000ft of climbing (yes I mixed my units, deal with it!).

The question is then, should I:

A> look for a frame/fork to replace the Trek frame and port all my gear onto it, which should all fit any normal road frame.

B> throw some money at the AWOL in an attempt to lose weight off it, it would need to lose a lot, and then suffer the chore of removing/fitting racks all the time, and the added expense of replacement bits on a commuter.

C> 650B convert the Trek in an attempt to gain clearance and more comfort at the expense of a little weight.

D> Just put up with it and stop moaning

E> Something else?

I’m leaning towards A as the AWOL is pretty perfect at what it does at the moment, and although I’d be sad to retire the Trek the lack of clearance is becoming an issue.

I’m looking at frames in the 300-400ish category, definitely must be < 500 for a frame and fork package, and the requirements being typical audax/long road rides of comfort, clearance for 28c + guards, not massively heavy but durable, ability to carry a LIGHT load, stable handling but not tourer stable.

I’m happy with 1 inch or 1 1/8th, I’m happy with threaded or threadless, I’m OK with rim brakes or disc but would prefer rim brakes as my experience of disk forks is that they are nowhere near as comfy.
I have a preference for it being steel, I’m not 100% set on it but you’d have to try really hard to convince me otherwise, not because I don’t think CF or Alu are good materials but simply because I like steel.

Have looked at the following, any more I should add to the list?

NEW
Surly Pacer
Hewitt Chiltern
Thorn Audax 3
Spa Cycles Steel Audax
Ribble Steel Winter/Audax

USED
Genesis Equilibrium
Bob Jackson Audax
Mercian Audax (I actually have one of these already but is SS and staying that way)
Roberts (don’t come up often)
Enigma (as above)

Have had a read around old posts on this forum and others but would love to hear from owners of frames above (or other options) with real world feedback, especially if you’ve had experience of more than one on the list to be able to compare them.

thanks!

Singular Osprey?
or s/h Equilibrium as above

I had a very old steel road bike, it eventually crashed and burned (all for a broken spoke).
Now have an old s/h Allez from early 2000’s, perfectly happy with that.

TBH if your Trek fits like a glove, I’d hang on as long as possible.

I would have gone for an Osprey as they are on offer at Singular, but no small ones left 🙁

You like the Barlow Passes then. The comfort of these tubeless & low pressure negates the need for heavy steel imo.

I have them on my (alu) London Road. Yes some had a seat tube issue but mine is fine. Built the whole thing for £600 with 105 and BB7s, it’s not too heavy and takes full guards and rack.

Extremely comfortable. A 220mile ride, some long hilly Scottish day rides then Ride London on it as well, 4h30ish. Just got rid of the 25c carbon road bike, will never ride narrow high pressure tires again.

What about saving up and going on a frame building course you could then build the exact geometry you want but with better clearances and all the braze ones you want for rake guards and the like.

Also when anyone asks what brand it is you get to say the best feel good saying in cycling of “I built it”

What about saving up and going on a frame building course you could then build the exact geometry you want but with better clearances and all the braze ones you want for rake guards and the like.

ooooh, you bad bad man, I’ve had this idea brewing in the back of my mind for a few years, but can’t afford it right now, but long term that is the idea.

@richardthird – yes the Barlows have been great on the AWOL, totally sold on them and I’ll be going for something similar but probably 28-32c if I do replace the Trek.

As I said in my original post thoguh, wanting steel isn’t because I believe I need it for the ride feel, decent tyres sort the comfort issue regardless of frame material, but i like steel so it would have to be a very very good non-steel frame to convince me, and the LR just doesn’t suit my tastes.

hmmm, Ubyk are listing stock of Singular Opsreys: http://www.ubyk.co.uk/singular-osprey-frameset/21624

not sure if I believe them or not, may have to give them a ring and see if they are really in stock

I may have something Amedias – drop me a mail.

Sam@singular etc.

🙂

curious email sent!

If you’re happy with rim brakes, option A seems the most reasonable route. (Unless you can throw more money at the problem, in which case obviously you should build an n+1 and slot the Trek into a new role.)

I’ve got a Pacer. I love it to bits, apart from one thing which is that in my 62cm size the tubing is a little skinny for my preference, meaning the front end is less stiff than I’d like (back end’s fine, though). In smaller sizes it would rock properly. I’ve got 25mm tyres with SKS P35s and they’ve been fine even on gloopy bridleways. Mine’s the 2011 model which used short-reach calipers; all the others should let you use at least 28s with guards, maybe even 32s.

But the handling is spot on, the fork is nicely compliant (possible caveat of aforementioned front end flex, but for context I’m 14st), it’s bombproof, and it just works.

If you happen to be looking at ~62cm frames (though looking at your shortlist I’m guessing you’re not) I might be selling it soon: it’s served me well but I’m building a whole new distance bike; something stiffer and a bit lighter, with discs.

Cheers Bez, Pacer is definitely on the list, and as I don’t know anyone locally with one all info from actual owners is good!

I don’t think I’d have any issues with front end flex as I’ve only got little legs and so would be looking in the 51-53cm range, which is close to the point at which head angles/fork offset start to change on smaller sizes too which makes gathering info even more difficult as two sizes of the same bike can end up riding quite differently if the little one ends up with a slacker HA or more offset.

Oh, you won’t have any flex issues at that size, for sure.

Since you’re also towards the edge of the sizing chart… I was pondering this recently. I have trouble finding British frames that fit me, but the Americans offer lots of options. (All of my drop-bar framesets are American.) I picked half a dozen framesets from each and, being an insufferably tedious tit, I plotted a graph of seat angle versus top tube length. American brands are orange, British are green. The Americans not only do far better at catering for large and small sizes, but they also have a much stronger relationship between frame size and seat angle: only two of the British framesets I picked had much variation at all. Mason’s geometry sheet is the only one that comes close to most of the American sheets’ range and variation.

Interesting graph (and I do actually mean that!), I’ve found a similar thing too, at least for off the peg frames, obviously custom builders will do whatever you want but as it happens all my drop/road frames have been american too except for my Mercian, and that’s the one that fits me least well.

The struggle for me is always a the other end thoguh, standover and top tube height. I only have short legs so anything over 52cm seat tube leaves me with very little seatpost exposed, and I prefer a bit sticking out for comfort and strapping things like lights and bags to, so I tend to do better with frames that have a sloping or slightly sloping top tube, which is annoying because I prefer the look of a horizontal TT, but to have a horizontal TT, and standover, and a bit of seatpost you naturally end up with a very very short headtube, which then means either lots of spacers or hideously angled stems if you want anything other than a race position.

Flog the Trek frames. Get enough or at least close to frame. Get nearly enough to get new frame with bigger clearances. Fit old trek bits to it.

Flog the Trek frame. Get enough or at least close to frame

hahahaha, it’s worth buttons!

I was pondering this recently. I have trouble finding British frames that fit me, but the Americans offer lots of options. (All of my drop-bar framesets are American.) I picked half a dozen framesets from each and, being an insufferably tedious tit, I plotted a graph of seat angle versus top tube length. American brands are orange, British are green. The Americans not only do far better at catering for large and small sizes, but they also have a much stronger relationship between frame size and seat angle

Thing is, at the extremes your american long frame and slack seat angle, gives the same ‘reach’ mearsurement as your shorter / steeper EU frame. Quick example using http://www.bikegeo.net/ to get results.

A kinesis 4S, size 63, seems very short at ETT of 592mm. However it has a 73.5* seat angle, take all the other numbers like 215mm headtube and 380mm fork and this gives a reach figure of 407mm with 623mm stack.

Then look at a Surly pacer, size 62cm, a burly man length ETT of 605mm. This one has a 72.5* seat angle tho so what does that do. Well fork length is 376mm but we need to add a lower up as its external, say 12mm? add on ‘short’ 190mm head tube, add another 12mm for top cup and what do we get. Reach of 408mm and 626mm stack.

So in terms of reach from the BB they are near identical, so the difference in fit comes down to if your choice of saddle position cannot be accommodated, but with offset seat posts etc. you should be fine.

Clearly there will be bikes that are different, and these 2 examples will handle very differently due to material and the 7mm lower BB on the Surly, but differences are not as obvious as you might think.

Indeed; I’d noted the exact same about reach and stack. But the thing is that while reach and stack are very useful for MTBs where you spend a lot of time out of the saddle, they’re not of the same importance for road bikes where you’re almost permanently seated.

And yes, for me the limit is saddle position: on a 72 angle I can use a readily available seatpost (20mm layback, saddle pushed back); at 72.5 I can get away with 5mm more layback, but at 73 I’m having to compromise my position.

I’ve seen a lot of reports of people unable to get far enough back (certainly at the top end of the height spectrum) but, I think, never any of not being able to get far enough forward.

And yes, for me the limit is saddle position: on a 72 angle I can use a readily available seatpost (20mm layback, saddle pushed back); at 72.5 I can get away with 5mm more layback, but at 73 I’m having to compromise my position.

I’ve seen a lot of reports of people unable to get far enough back (certainly at the top end of the height spectrum) but, I think, never any of not being able to get far enough forward.

Really? ive got a surly crosscheck (amongst others) and ive had to switch to an in-line seatpost as i couldnt get the saddle far enough forward, my carbon road bike with layback has the saddle slightly forward of middle. These are standard saddles mind, when using a Brooks ive needed a extra-layback as they have no useable rail adjustment.

The phrase everyone is different is true tho. My point about reach was that the bikes are essentially the same fit, given you will set your bum in the same place relative to the BB, so reach relative to the BB is arguably more useful on road bikes where you always consider a bike on level ground, its other aspects that effect whether a bike works for you once you know what reach/stack you want/need.

Mm, sort of (and I use old-school Flites, which aren’t the easiest saddles to slam back, although probably not as bad as a Brooks): IMO on a road bike it’s no less valid to get the BB-saddle relationship sorted first and then adjust (saddle-to-bar) reach with stem length (personally I find 2cm variation in road bike stem length isn’t a big deal, but makes a big difference to an MTB). As you say, everyone’s different, so the limiting factors for people near the limits differ. Anyone riding a 56-58cm frame has a very easy life 😉

Sam @Singular to the rescue with a small Osprey! 😀

Result. Was going to add – I have a 2011 Pacer. 54 and it’s a tight fit to have guards and 25 tyres; not sure 28 would fit. I like the bike though!

An Osprey should tick all your boxes nicely 🙂

Just thought I’d share this… while tidying up the spares bin earlier I found a couple of chaintugs and had an idea, ten mins later I have a decent interim bodge giving me a bit more clearance on the Trek

Those bits ^ are now stuck in the top of the vertical dropouts, drops the rear wheel by a few mm, the dropouts are plenty deep enough to accommodate this safely and it gives enough room that a 25 now fits under the guards ok, so there’s now plenty of clearance with the 23 fitted, it’s not enough to let me fit the tyres I want but it is enough to mean I can keep riding it without the clogging on muddy paths until the Osprey arrives.

Hurrah for bodges!

Modern steel frames (CEN) are heavy, a nice old 531 frame is 1.8kg and £100 odd.

Think you’re being a bit optimistic/rose tinted there ‘Al 😉

531 frames are rarely under 2kg, normally 2-2.1kg for normal DB 531/531C and 2.1-2.2kg for 531ST in a normal size. IIRC it was only the 531SL tubeset that was ever expected to hit 1.8-1.9kg really and that generally was with a rider weight limit, although I have seen some 531C frames quoted at 1.8-1.9kg, and there are certainly Columbus frames out there at very low weights.

My double butted 531 Mercian (’86 so not even that old) is certainly over 2kg in a smallish size, and so were most other frames I’ve run into, I’ve only handled a few that were into the <2kg category, and they were decidedly racey. I have an old very light steel road frame (Bontrager Road Lite quoted @3.5lbs although I weighed it at 1.65kg), and it is a lovely ride but it doesn’t have the clearance for anything > 25s, and no extra bosses/braze ons, and is not something I’d choose to carry any extra bag weight on.

The quoted weight of the Osprey is 2.1Kg for a 54, assuming that’s right and a small may even be less then that’s comparable weight to a ‘nice old 531 frame’, and even if it was a super nice, super light 1.8kg 531 frame (would that fit my requirements of 28C + guards, durable and happy carrying a light load?) then we’re still only talking a couple of hundred grammes, which is bugger all over a whole bike, and certianly not something I’m going to worry about especially as the aforementioned Trek is probably in the 2.3kg area.

oh bum, frame turned up today, it’s far too nice to throw all the old gear from my Trek onto it, I feel a new groupset may be required 😳

So the frame swap turned into basically a new bike build, these things happen, N+1 and all that…

Anyway, cosmetic opinion please, the mudguards in the pic are temporary only (not long enough) so will be replaced, do you guys think it would look better with the dark matte grey PDWs moved over from my Trek, or a set of shiney new polished silver guards (Velo Orange/GB etc.)