Kirk Frameworks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curt Goodrich

Dave,

Back in the Serotta days, you were brazing the lugs with brass. I seem to remember when you started Kirk Frameworks you were brass brazing the lugs. Perhaps that's not accurate though. Regardless, now you braze the lugs with silver. What's up with that?

What was it like working with that tyrant Carl Strong? Beyond the endless brow beating, what did your days look like there?

Picture yourself in line for a really good burrito. What do you want in your burrito?

If you had a signature color/paint scheme what would it be?

Coffee- black or cream & sugar or one of those mamby pamby coffee drinks?

---

Yo Curt,

Thanks or chiming in.

* You are correct - while at Serotta I used brass and when I started the Frameworks I also used brass. At some point fairly early on I switched to silver for a few reasons. First is that it is faster as it takes less time to get the joint up to temperature and the silver tends to flow quicker than brass so in the end it saves a bit of time. The bigger reason for me is that clean up is easier. At Serotta the brass brazed bike first went into the sandblaster to give it a preliminary cleanup before going in and doing hand work. I do not have a sand blaster and I'll die a happy man if I never stick my hands into one ever again and since silver wets out thinner and is softer and easier to sand during clean up it saves me a bunch of time post brazing. I know silver used to be cool, and the only way top notch builders worked, because the tubes liked it better but those days are gone as the tubes are so good it doesn't matter anymore. So..... I'm all silver all the time now. It cost me more (silver much more expensive than brass) in raw materials but it saves me more than enough time to make it worth it.

* Carl and I worked together in various ways for a number of years and while the biz went through a lot of turmoil the one thing was constant was the undying fairness and honesty of the man. We had a business relationship with the V2 of Ibis and were partners in this business and the only ones that cam out of this with a smile in their faces were the scumbags at Ibis (not Scot Nicol - he was not involved) that took everything and ran. But even in this stressful time Carl was top shelf. Before the Ibis debacle I worked for Carl building Strongs and we worked in a small shop with a few other guys and the days were fun but hardworking. Carl gave me free rein to do what I thought was best and valued my opinion and that gave me a very good feeling about being there. I enjoyed my time there in a big way and it was a very good way for me to land in a new town and make some friends. I'd do it all over again without hesitation.

* There are precious few places to get a good burrito in Bozeman as odd as they might seem. The one fastfoodish place in town that I like is Taco Delmar and when I go there it's refried beans, pulled pork and no rice. Lots of hot sauce and jalapenos. I of course like it in the 'get wet' mode with lots of sauce over the top. I want one now.

* This is a tough question. I like so many combos and my tastes vary with the day. I do like subtle no matter what and hope that others see the bike first and get drawn in to see who made it - the opposite of Cannondale. I have two Kirks and one is uber deep glass black and coffee brown. I love that. My cross bike is matte gray with orange accents and it looks just right in it's element out in the dirt. Did I answer the question yet? Remember at the beginning of this I didnt promise answers but did promise responses - I think you just got a response.

* Lots of sugar (it's a food group!) and a little bit of milk. On a hot summer afternoon it's iced coffee on the front porch with Karin in the shade - even more sugar and milk and icy cold.


Thanks again,

dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Estlund

Have you ridden one of his new titanal sticks? Bruce is good people, and is to snowboards what you are to bikes.

Good taste- as always.

---

I have not ridden one of the new ones. I ride an adjustable 196 split tail and it hooks up in a big way and leaves trenches that small children fall into never to be seen again. I'd love to try one of the new one but wonder if it will be much of an advantage to me in our never icy conditions? Have you ridden one? If so on what type of snow?

Bruce is very good people and he gets all my board bidness.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl S

I'd also like to say, for the record that it was Dave's sober, objective and practical attitudes toward the business of Framebuilding that I have based my model on. While we are very different at how we go about each of our businesses, at the core we follow the same principles, principles I learned from Dave. I can't thank Dave enough for the contributions he's made over the years and I feel very fortunate to have him as a resource for both the business side of the things as well as the building and design sides.

---

Right back at you. I doubt I'd have this business without your support and encouragement. I'd still be drilling water wells and standing in mud all day.

Thank you Carl.


Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwightskin

Wow. Gets It.


Burning question from this mechanical engineer's materials-joining-mind and Kirk's background in production, building and testing seems the ideal guy to answer it?

How do you assure repeatable and consistent joints?

In my line of work, we rely on a few things
1) Process Characterization (shows when the process will fail, specifically find out where the "edge of the cliff is")
2) Process Validation (series of "runs" that are tested and statistically show to meet requirement)
3) Ongoing Process Monitoring, often destructive testing of the joints
4) 100% Visual Inspection



Dwight

---

Hey Dwight,

Interesting question. I'm not sure I understand what your four points really mean when the rubber hits the road - I understand the words but don't know what they mean when put together. That said here is what I have done.

When I learned to braze I did practice joints for months. There was the near endless brazing of test joints and then cutting them open to see how I did. Of course before I ever got to do a test joint I'd spent way too many hours doing braze-ons and dropouts to learn heat control so it's not like it was the first time I'd lit a torch. You quickly see what and where you need to improve and try to do better on the next one and then later, rinse, repeat. Once the joints appeared to be sound destructive testing was done to be sure that too much heat wasn't used. It's pretty rare to see too much heat in a lugged joint but it can happen. Once all that was done I was clear to braze stuff that was going out the door to customers.

Brazing, when done enough, becomes intuitive and you can 'feel' when there is a void in the silver and you can then be sure to come at it in a different way to fill the void. It takes thousands of joints to get to that point but it does happen for those who have had the opportunity to put that time in. Even with this in my back pocket I still do test joints when I start using a new lug or crown. Every lug has it's own pattern and needs and it make take a few tries to get it right. Some, like webbed lugs, require a totally different brazing pattern to deal with the heat sink that the web ends up being as well as the flame block that the webs impose.

It's pretty rare but every once in a while a bike will not go well. In this case I know it's not right and should not hit the streets so I take it and cut it up and see what caused the issue. When I was new this happened a good bit but now it almost never happens - a good thing IMO.

I hope that is what you were looking for.

dave

Totally cool thread.

I am asuming that you are only riding the bikes you made for yourself. From time to time are you "trying" other bikes to see how they feel (like the latest greatest carbon whatever). I am guessing not often, maybe never?

BTW, stop writing this long and great answers, your waiting list is getting too long ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

I have not ridden one of the new ones. I ride an adjustable 196 split tail and it hooks up in a big way and leaves trenches that small children fall into never to be seen again.
Bruce is very good people and he gets all my board bidness.

Dave

---

Not one of the new ones yet. I rode one of those 196's for a couple of runs. My bread and butter board was a 186 PR for years, and a 200 custom all mtn for wide open days. One of the new ones looks great, but between living a little further from the mountains and a tired knee (hopefully about to get less tired) I haven't ponied up. The next one will probably go that way.

Lots of parallels between the two sports. Including the niche stuff that rocks the boat coming of out one man garages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel

Totally cool thread.

I am asuming that you are only riding the bikes you made for yourself. From time to time are you "trying" other bikes to see how they feel (like the latest greatest carbon whatever). I am guessing not often, maybe never?

BTW, stop writing this long and great answers, your waiting list is getting too long ;)

---

I own one bike that I didn't make and that is my BMX bike - but I doubt that is what you are referring to. I don't get a chance to ride that many other bikes these days if for no other reason because of my tallness. I'm 6'4" and not to many people ride my size and shops don't stock too much on my size anymore. I do stop by area shops occasionally and take out bikes of interest to me. I wish I had more chance to ride bikes in my size.

During my time at Serotta I got to ride a good number of other brands for testing purposes. We would buy them, I would ride and road test them, put them on the testing rig and break them and then cut them up. One learns a bunch doing this and I hope to be able to do that again soon.

There - that was shortish.

dave

Dave,

Here's a wishy-washy one.....any plans to promote The Gothic as a "signature" frame such as the JK Special, or do you plan to just keep building them every-so-often often as requested? They look pretty cool, and I dug your old blue one.

Noah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by big shanty

Dave,

Here's a wishy-washy one.....any plans to promote The Gothic as a "signature" frame such as the JK Special, or do you plan to just keep building them every-so-often often as requested? They look pretty cool, and I dug your old blue one.

Noah

---

Yo Noah,

I don't see a big market for the gothic if for no other reason that they only allow for 'undersize' old school tube sizes (1" top tube) and that is not the best choice for everyone. I think about having some new OS versions cast for me but that is down the road some after the other projects are up and running.

Are they the kind of thing you'd like in an OS version?

Dave

Dave,

Not a question but a statement: this is, by far, the most interesting thread I've read on any forum, anywhere, anytime. Thanks for taking the time to share your experience with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

Yo Noah,

I don't see a big market for the gothic if for no other reason that they only allow for 'undersize' old school tube sizes (1" top tube) and that is not the best choice for everyone. I think about having some new OS versions cast for me but that is down the road some after the other projects are up and running.

Is ti the kind of thing you'd like in an OS version?

Dave

---

It's hard to know whether or not the look would work with OS tubes. However, I am happy to ride and evaluate the aesthetic merit of a prototype!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghsmith54

Dave,

Not a question but a statement: this is, by far, the most interesting thread I've read on any forum, anywhere, anytime. Thanks for taking the time to share your experience with us.

---

Thank you - it has been and is still my pleasure.

dave

Thanks for your craftsmanship and insights, Dave. Your work continues to be inspiring and your website kicks some chamois-ass!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suhacycles

Thanks for your craftsmanship and insights, Dave. Your work continues to be inspiring and your website kicks some chamois-ass!

---

Thanks I think. I just googled 'chamois-ass' and came up with stuff that was not safe for children so who knows!?

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

I won one bike that I didn't make and that is my BMX bike - but I doubt that is what you are referring to. I don't get a chance to ride that many other bikes these days if for no other reason because of my tallness. I'm 6'4" and not to many people ride my size and shops don't stock too much on my size anymore. I do stop by area shops occasionally and take out bikes of interest to me. I wish I had more chance to ride bikes in my size.

During my time at Serotta I got to ride a good number of other brands for testing purposes. We would buy them, I would ride and road test them, put them on the testing rig and break them and then cut them up. One learns a bunch doing this and I hope to be able to do that again soon.

There - that was shortish.

dave

---

As I'm sure everyone here is thinking, absolutely amazing answers. Thank you for sharing. I've had the pleasure of working with several world champions in the sport of squash, and your process-oriented approach to life reminds me of them. It's not an accident why some people succeed. IMO it's a combination of attitude and experience, with an emphasis on the attitude part.

Question:

Do you think "the ride" of a good road bike has changed at all over the 20+ years you've been involved in this? You have such a wealth of experience over the years, and this response above just makes me think that you'd be in an interesting position to comment on good road riding bikes. IN other words, does a 2010 Kirk (non-terraplane) ride differently than the best Serotta coming off the shelf in the mid-90s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldyjackson

As I'm sure everyone here is thinking, absolutely amazing answers. Thank you for sharing. I've had the pleasure of working with several world champions in the sport of squash, and your process-oriented approach to life reminds me of them. It's not an accident why some people succeed. IMO it's a combination of attitude and experience, with an emphasis on the attitude part.

Question:

Do you think "the ride" of a good road bike has changed at all over the 20+ years you've been involved in this? You have such a wealth of experience over the years, and this response above just makes me think that you'd be in an interesting position to comment on good road riding bikes. IN other words, does a 2010 Kirk (non-terraplane) ride differently than the best Serotta coming off the shelf in the mid-90s?

---

Hello,

Thanks for the kind words and the question.

Yes I do think the "ride" of bikes has changed some over the years and I can think of two reasons why. I think in some cases its gotten better and in many cases it's gotten much worse.

If we are talking steel bikes I think that one of the large changes in ride has come from the material itself. Back in the mid 90's most steel bikes were made from things like SLX or SPX which is not heat treated so the tube walls needed to be fairly thick to be strong enough. This thickness resulted in a bike that was less lively and had less feedback than bikes of today made from heat treated tubes that are much thinner. Now, with such strong materials, we can use less of them and still have a bike that is more than strong enough while at the same time being lighter. Remember that steel weighs the same regardless of the alloy and that any weight savings comes from the steel being so strong that the tube can be made thinner. This lighter and thinner tube results is a ride that has a bit more life, feedback, ring, snap....etc. to it. Some older steel bikes felt like they were made of oak and a good newer one doesn't feel that way - it has a ring to it that I love.

I suspect my second reason will not make me many friends but at the same time will get some quiet nods of approval. Cycling as a sport has grown in a big way over the past 20 years and it's now cool to ride. Back then real men played golf and now they ride. This is for the most part good and has put bread on lots of tables, including my own. This growth has meant that there are a lot of new folks in cycling that came into the sport very quickly and they have not progressed slowly into the sport, learning over time, like many did back in the day. There are two things this affects IMO............. First is that they don't have enough experience and wisdom from spending years in the saddle to be able to dismiss advertisers claims that bikes should be as stiff as they can possibly be and that stiffer is always better. This means that 'stiff' has become the new 'good' in the eyes of much of the buying public and companies don't want to fight for sales when there are easy ones at knocking at the door so they make sill stiff bikes for the newby to ride. Everyone is happy - the rider got the stiffest plank that money can buy and the bike company has taken his money. A win-win situation by some accounts..................... Secondly, and this is a bit ironic, because the new cyclist is often very fit (lots of ex-runners and soccer players) they can push on the pedals very hard but they have not developed the skill to properly and smoothly spin the pedals. This lack of skill is exasperated by their high level of fitness so you have a guy who ironically needs a super stiff bike because he's not skilled enough to pedal properly and the bike goes all over the place. So the new but strong rider often needs the uber stiff ride so they aren't weaving down the road under power. In days gone by riders came up through their clubs and the wise old sages would teach them how to properly pedal so that the new guy would develop the skills needed to put the power down with finesse. This allowed the use of bikes that had a sweeter ride and ones whose flex the rider could use and exploit to his advantage and at the same time ride/race all day. I think if riders learned how to properly pedal, ride and use the bike instead of trying to break the pedals of it that in time the virtue of an appropriately stiff bike would be seen again and the bikes with 3" down tubes would go away.

I feel like I might have taken a slight tangent there but I think that a small shop can and will build a bike with the best of yesterday combined with the best of today. A good bike is better now than it's ever been. And at the same time there is a lot of really stiff crap out there being bounced around on club rides by guys with sore necks, hands, butts and knees who think that they just need a handlebar with more damping.

I'm stepping off the soapbox new.

Thanks for the question - I hope I came close to answering it.

Dave

sorry - for some reason a weird double post.

Go back to work now.


dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

Hello,

I suspect my second reason will not make me many friends but at the same time will get some quiet nods of approval. Cycling as a sport has grown in a big way over the past 20 years and it's now cool to ride. Back then real men played golf and now they ride. This is for the most part good and has put bread on lots of tables, including my own. This growth has meant that there are a lot of new folks in cycling that came into the sport very quickly and they have not progressed slowly into the sport, learning over time, like many did back in the day. There are two things this affects IMO............. First is that they don't have enough experience and wisdom from spending years in the saddle to be able to dismiss advertisers claims that bikes should be as stiff as they can possibly be and that stiffer is always better. This means that 'stiff' has become the new 'good' in the eyes of much of the buying public and companies don't want to fight for sales when there are easy ones at knocking at the door so they make sill stiff bikes for the newby to ride. Everyone is happy - the rider got the stiffest plank that money can buy and the bike company has taken his money. A win-win situation by some accounts..................... Secondly, and this is a bit ironic, because the new cyclist is often very fit (lots of ex-runners and soccer players) they can push on the pedals very hard but they have not developed the skill to properly and smoothly spin the pedals. This lack of skill is exasperated by their high level of fitness so you have a guy who ironically needs a super stiff bike because he's not skilled enough to pedal properly and the bike goes all over the place. So the new but strong rider often needs the uber stiff ride so they aren't weaving down the road under power. In days gone by riders came up through their clubs and the wise old sages would teach them how to properly pedal so that the new guy would develop the skills needed to put the power down with finesse. This allowed the use of bikes that had a sweeter ride and ones whose flex the rider could use and exploit to his advantage and at the same time ride/race all day. I think if riders learned how to properly pedal, ride and use the bike instead of trying to break the pedals of it that in time the virtue of an appropriately stiff bike would be seen again and the bikes with 3" down tubes would go away.


Dave

---

And I was blaming it all on Cannondale :)

Dang Dave, you took the thoughts right out of my head and articulated them better than I could hope to. I'm gonna have to share that, if you don't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edoz

Dang Dave, you took the thoughts right out of my head and articulated them better than I could hope to. I'm gonna have to share that, if you don't mind.

---

OK.... share it all you like. If those you share it with think it's the smartest and most witty thing they've ever read please give me credit. If they think it's stupid you can go ahead and say you thought of it all yourself :)

dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl S

And I was blaming it all on Cannondale :)

---

I've had the pleasure of owning lots of cool bikes over the years and I got a Cannondale the first year they came out for $150 F, F & hs. It fit OK and handled OK as i recall but it was so brutally stiff that I got rid of it after two weeks. It's the shortest I've ever owned a bike.

So let's blame it all on Cannondale - I'm in.

dave

Best Thread Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

This growth has meant that there are a lot of new folks in cycling that came into the sport very quickly and they have not progressed slowly into the sport, learning over time, like many did back in the day. ............. they don't have enough experience and wisdom from spending years in the saddle ..................... and this is a bit ironic, because the new cyclist is often very fit (lots of ex-runners and soccer players) they can push on the pedals very hard but they have not developed the skill to properly and smoothly spin the pedals.

---

Darn it, he just described me.

And I think he knew he was describing me too. ;>)

And BTW, my first bike WAS a Cannondale. A CAAD-something, shook my fillings loose on every bump on the Burke-Gilman.

This is a fantastic thread. Thanks Dave for all the great info and time, and thanks to the Vsalon for being here.

Dave, is there a common element to the ride feel - a Kirkframeworks DNA (for lack of a better term) - that you strive to incorporate into each frame you design and build? Is there a common thread running through a Kirkframeworks JKS and a straight up road bike, and an all-rounder and a tourer, etc...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steevo

This is a fantastic thread. Thanks Dave for all the great info and time, and thanks to the Vsalon for being here.

Dave, is there a common element to the ride feel - a Kirkframeworks DNA (for lack of a better term) - that you strive to incorporate into each frame you design and build? Is there a common thread running through a Kirkframeworks JKS and a straight up road bike, and an all-rounder and a tourer, etc...?

---

Hey Mr. Steevo,


There are a few traits I build into every Kirk regardless of the type of bike it is.

* I like a bike that is precise, accurate and intuitive in it's handling. I like quick turn in without any feeling of the bike feeling twitchy.

* I like all my bikes to have snap and life to them. It gives them the feeling that when you push on the pedals that the bike is ready and willing to jump forward - it snaps forward with urgency. I like that a lot.

* A Kirk should also not draw attention to itself while you are on it. It should just be an extension of the rider and not make any special demands of the rider to compensate for it's short comings.

* a Kirk should be fun. Very few of us 'need' bikes like this and we own them because they are fun and enjoyable. I want to be sure that every Kirk is just that way - fun. A bit hoky but there you go.


Thanks for the question.

Dave

Dave, I said a while ago that every time you speak up online is another reason to buy one of your bikes. If you're wondering, this thread is pure ride-a-Kirk.

Re your question about my screen name: I joined the old forum under that moniker because it seems unassuming. At the time I was noticing a lot of people touting bikes, cars, bling, and big ring climbing abilities in their screen names and posts. I don't feel the need to do that. I also tend to change what I'm trying with bikes on a fairly regular schedule, so a sexy component didn't fit. That left my real name or the yard truck, and the yard truck seems to fit as well as anything else. I asked about your routines because I suspected that you're a clean tools, "taking care of what takes care of you" kind of guy. I was taught the same things, so the truck says something about me that I like. I keep it in good shape mechanically and I'm hoping I can restore it cosmetically someday down the road. My wife likes to say that I married her for that truck; I did inherit it from my mother-in-law so I remain silent on the topic.

Good Morning,

Thanks for your kind comments.

I like the story behind your avatar. Avatars can be like custom license plate in that sometimes you see them and stare and wonder whatever could that mean? Mine is boring and leaves little room for interpretation and wondering what it means.

Thanks again,

Dave

Hi Dave,

First, I want to thank you for being so generous with your time here. Your replies are thoughtful, insightful, and gracious.

Your words about the manner in which road bikes have changed, in terms of ride quality/feel, over the last few decades, really resonates with me. Sure, its the unpopular view, but that doesn't matter; as you say, those who 'feel it' nod in silence. Well, I'm nodding and then some.

Coming from a mtb backgound, beginning in the early 1990s, stiffness has always been talked about alongside frame quality in my bike life. Fortunately, suspension entered the mix with mtbs, and travel started to focus on the the wheels' paths. Meanwhile, pedaling efficiency became a question of suspension actuation, i.e., less bobbing under pedaling load = good. I have never, ever, encountered an argument for beneficial flex for pedaling efficiency in the context of mtbs. Only riding road bikes of differing tubing specs has afforded me the data points to discern beneficial flex, that which syncs with my effort: planing in Jan Heine's terminology. I appreciate how my 853 29er planes, and don't want a stiffer hardtail at all.

Back to road bikes, I have ideas about tubing diameters and profiles, mostly based on my riding experience and the writing of bright minds like yourself, Padraig at RKP, and without a doubt, a lot from Jan Heine. I wholeheartedly believe in (passive) suspension for road bikes, your Terraplane being the best execution I can think of. Chalk this up to my mtb background, which is the basis of my all-road tendencies on my road bikes. Fast and loose. I've found that the bikes that pedal the best in the saddle also feel really good on the rough stuff. My Nemo tubed Pinarello 'cross bike is a great example. I've surmised that its 25.4 top tube helps afford the front end some additional suspension. My newer custom all-road frame uses a 28.6 TT, and the bike is definitely a bit stiffer in the front end. The latter bike (31.8DT, 28.6ST) is good in the saddle, but not the best for all out sprints. In contrast another OS bike I have with a 34.9 ST, even bigger DT (!), and 31.8 TT is great out of the saddle, but does not sync well with me at all on seated climbs. I have to stand a lot to stay on top. I've noticed lots of PROs do this too....

Ok, so blah blah aside, here is my question: If you were able to build with any tubing diameters and profiles available in steel, how would you go about deciding which tubes to choose for a given rider? Or, in other words, would you agree that a bike for a fairly strong rider getting into 'cross, for example, should be constructed out of different tubing than another rider of the same size and weight, but higher power and greater fitness? My rationale is that less strong riders will tend to ride most of their race in the saddle, thus requiring plenty of flex for pedaling efficiency, while the stronger rider will attack out of the saddle much more and desire more torsional stiffness. If this sounds reasonable, would you be likely to run a 25.4 TT for the more flexy bike? I know some feel 25.4 TTs lead to shimmy, but I'm not so sure that's true. Along the same lines, contra the position that a 'bike' is a 'race bike' if its raced, I wonder what your thoughts are with regard to flex for an all-day ride sort of bike versus a shorter, more spirited club ride/weeknight World Championship sort of bike? I can attest that my steel fixed gear with standard diameter tubes gets pretty squirrely at 60kph downhill in a 44x16!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msurch

Hi Dave,

First, I want to thank you for being so generous with your time here. Your replies are thoughtful, insightful, and gracious. ...............................

Ok, so blah blah aside, here is my question: If you were able to build with any tubing diameters and profiles available in steel, how would you go about deciding which tubes to choose for a given rider? Or, in other words, would you agree that a bike for a fairly strong rider getting into 'cross, for example, should be constructed out of different tubing than another rider of the same size and weight, but higher power and greater fitness? My rationale is that less strong riders will tend to ride most of their race in the saddle, thus requiring plenty of flex for pedaling efficiency, while the stronger rider will attack out of the saddle much more and desire more torsional stiffness. If this sounds reasonable, would you be likely to run a 25.4 TT for the more flexy bike? I know some feel 25.4 TTs lead to shimmy, but I'm not so sure that's true. Along the same lines, contra the position that a 'bike' is a 'race bike' if its raced, I wonder what your thoughts are with regard to flex for an all-day ride sort of bike versus a shorter, more spirited club ride/weeknight World Championship sort of bike? I can attest that my steel fixed gear with standard diameter tubes gets pretty squirrely at 60kph downhill in a 44x16!

---

Good Morning and thanks for the question. I'm sorry about the slow reply - I tried to reply yesterday but each time I tried the reply the site locked up on me. Seems to be fine now.

I feel that tubing is best chosen with the rider in mind - and by that I mean the size, weight, skill level, and riding style of the rider in question. You are right - a strong, skilled rider who tends to stand to put the power down will benefit from different tubes as compared the a rider of the same size and weight who has less skill and can generate less power. Another huge factor in choosing tubes is how the bike is to be used.

A 1" top tube will certainly give a smoother ride and more comfort and in the case of a cross bike can help keep the bike stuck to the floor but it can come at the expense of torsional rigidity and handling accuracy. This lessening of torsional rigidity can lead to shimmy at speed for some riders depending on size and how the bike is to be used.

I do design around a 1" top tube (along with a 1 1/8" DT) for lighter and smaller riders when they can benefit from the smaller size. I'm just stating a bike for a woman who is 5'3", 125 lbs, and the last thing she will need for her all-day road bike is OS tubes.

In the end all design comes down to the "C" word - Compromise. I know compromise sounds like a dirty word but it's the reality and not every bike can have everything at the same time so priorities need to be established and then the bike needs to address those while letting the smaller things slide. Compromise seems to have a negative connotation but I don't see it that way. I see it as being realistic and honest about what can be done and what can't and then designing for the most good.

I hope that is what you were looking for.

Dave

I'd be remiss if I didn't add something to this thread from a recent customer viewpoint. By "recent", I mean that I received my fillet-brazed complete bike from Dave last Weds. My story's a little different from Dave's typical customer because I bought the spec frame that he built for NAHBS, so I didn't go through the fitting regimen with Dave. I sorta regret that, but not really; we'll get to that in a minute. When Dave blogged about this frame being available in January, the spec sheet he published was like a siren song because the dimensions are EXACTLY what I ride (saddle height, reach, setback, you name it). The only dimension that varied was that the headtube was 1 cm longer than the great fitting Ottrott I was comparing it to. So fit wasn't a problem.

Dave emailed me 31 times with updates, questions, lots of photos, etc. I'm a pretty low-maintenance customer ATMO; we never even spoke on the phone (kind of sick, eh?). When the time came to specify the paint and components, I spoke with Joe Bell a few times and Dave emailed the quotes for the build kit. I didn't need another set of wheels (imagine that), but Dave had me send the new Joe Young rear wheel I had made for this bike so the drive train adjustments would be perfect.

I've only done one 40 mile ride on this bike so far, but if you look a few posts up from here you'll see the aims that Dave has for his bikes. He really expresses perfectly what he tries to get from each frame and I think he nailed it with this one. You know when you reach a little hump in the road that maybe you should shift down for but you decide to just power up and over? Well on the first handfull of pedal strokes the Kirk surges forward beautifully. When you sit up to take off your arm warmers or stretch your back, it tracks perfectly. When you look down at the workmanship on the frame and the beautiful JB paint, you get a big smile on your face, thinking, "how cool is that." When you put it in the 53-12 and use your Clydesdalian might to hit 45 mph down a hill that isn't all that steep or long the stability is perfect. Out of the saddle, I feel really balanced between the wheels, which doesn't happen with every bike atmo. There'll be many, many miles and longer rides on this bike and I want to express to Dave how great it's been to work with him. The level of discussion on this thread has truly been inspiring.

Maybe Dave can address this one question. Clearly, I bought a spec frame and the fit turned out to be as perfect as I could hope for after seeing the initial graphics and specifications. So I'm the beneficiary of some good luck in being in the right place at the right time on the world wide intertubes. Sometimes I think that it's better to have found a bike that the builder must be thinking "This is how I want one of my bikes to look and perform," rather than one where there are Compromises (see above) to adapt the "ideal" Kirk to the customer. Is it more difficult for you to make some of the frames adhere to your expectations or retain the common elements mentioned above. Would you be better off having a whole table of specs, perhaps in 1/2 cm increments and just make that bike for everyone? Or am I just lucky to be an approx. 55 or 56 cm off the rack rider?

One last thing: Dave can really pack a bike; his attention to detail is mind-boggling. He even included a huge black trash bag for the stuffing/wrapping/bubble wrap.

Great bike! Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

Hello,

... Cycling as a sport has grown in a big way over the past 20 years and it's now cool to ride. Back then real men played golf ... virtue of an appropriately stiff bike would be seen again and the bikes with 3" down tubes would go away.
Dave

---

Thank you, thank you. And as I recall, Cannondale started all this hooie when they were forced to make super stiff bikes to keep them from breaking. They make much better bikes than that now, but back before they started using stronger materials, they needed to make bricks. If you have to make bricks, then it is best to convince folks that bricks are best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

This allowed the use of bikes that had a sweeter ride and ones whose flex the rider could use and exploit to his advantage and at the same time ride/race all day.

---

I had always thought that most riders could tell that a bit of "snap" helped the body work with a bicycle. Dave here points out the obvious to me. Those who are new to the sport simply don't have the experience or finesse to perceive or make use of what a good frame can be. Dave; thank you. You are one smart dude. Keep up the education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msurch

My newer custom all-road frame uses a 28.6 TT, and the bike is definitely a bit stiffer in the front end. The latter bike (31.8DT, 28.6ST) is good in the saddle, but not the best for all out sprints. In contrast another OS bike I have with a 34.9 ST, even bigger DT (!), and 31.8 TT is great out of the saddle, but does not sync well with me at all on seated climbs. I have to stand a lot to stay on top. I've noticed lots of PROs do this too....

---

I think I know what you mean but let's clarify... you've noticed that the less rigid frame seems to move with you rather than resist each stroke while climbing in the saddle? I'm wondering if this is related to the analogy of jumping up and down on concrete versus a trampoline. Clearly, all that 'flex' in the trampoline is not inefficient at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Porter

I'd be remiss if I didn't add something to this thread from a recent customer viewpoint. By "recent", I mean that I received my fillet-brazed complete bike .................................

Maybe Dave can address this one question. Clearly, I bought a spec frame and the fit turned out to be as perfect as I could hope for after seeing the initial graphics and specifications. So I'm the beneficiary of some good luck in being in the right place at the right time on the world wide intertubes. Sometimes I think that it's better to have found a bike that the builder must be thinking "This is how I want one of my bikes to look and perform," rather than one where there are Compromises (see above) to adapt the "ideal" Kirk to the customer. Is it more difficult for you to make some of the frames adhere to your expectations or retain the common elements mentioned above. Would you be better off having a whole table of specs, perhaps in 1/2 cm increments and just make that bike for everyone? Or am I just lucky to be an approx. 55 or 56 cm off the rack rider?

One last thing: Dave can really pack a bike; his attention to detail is mind-boggling. He even included a huge black trash bag for the stuffing/wrapping/bubble wrap.

Great bike! Tim

---

Hey Tim,

Thanks for the comments and questions.

I think in the end you are fortunate to be a 56ish average rider. Being 6'4" I envy 'average' sized people. I can never buy anything that fits - from bikes to clothes nothing fits. I have to mess with everything including my cars to get them to fit right. But in the end it's worth it.

There are times when the fitting needs of the rider and my want to make the frame ride, handle, and look a certain are at odds. This is where the 'C' word comes in and one must prioritize the needs and address them as best possible. The first compromise for me is looks. If the bike will fit, handle and ride best with a stem or spacer count that is not approved by the Fonz, so be it. The rider will be loving life on the bike and that is the most important part. But in the end it's getting the bike to work as good as it can, in as many areas as possible, for the rider all the while knowing that very few can have everything............ except for the perfect 56 sized person!

I have toyed with having an extensive set of 'stock' specs but I've been there and done that in the past and there is always room to improve on any stock chart so it would all be for nought. I'd end up changing something and no time would be saved and the rider might feel that their design was compromised to make a stock size fit them. So I have no stock anything and every design and build starts with a clean sheet of paper.

I'm glad you liked the packing job. I learned the hard way a long time ago that any time saved in packing will come at a cost later on when there is inevitably an issue with shipping damage. I'd much rather everything goes out 'overpacked' so that I 'waste' my time there than the alternative of spending my time to repair a bike after a quicker packing job.

Enjoy the Putz Green bike and send photos.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Kellogg

Thank you, thank you. And as I recall, Cannondale started all this hooie when they were forced to make super stiff bikes to keep them from breaking. They make much better bikes than that now, but back before they started using stronger materials, they needed to make bricks. If you have to make bricks, then it is best to convince folks that bricks are best.



I had always thought that most riders could tell that a bit of "snap" helped the body work with a bicycle. Dave here points out the obvious to me. Those who are new to the sport simply don't have the experience or finesse to perceive or make use of what a good frame can be. Dave; thank you. You are one smart dude. Keep up the education.

---

Thanks for the note and the support. You are one smart dude yourself despite your choice of footware and you just put a smile on my face.

Dave



P.S. The '.......bricks are best' thing is damn funny.

What do you check on the alignment table, and what are your standards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edoz

What do you check on the alignment table, and what are your standards?

---

Good Morning and thanks for the question.

I suspect you will get similar answers from all the builders you have asked this question. I just read Carl's answer and I could almost cut and paste his answer in here and get the job done. But I do a few things differently if for no other reason that I build with different joining techniques.

I build frames in a two step process - I build and complete the front triangle and when that is done I add the rear. So in my little world I braze the front triangle, face the BB, and then put it on the plate and check that the seat tube and head tubes are at the proper elevation and that the head tube has no twist. I find that it's easier to control overall alignment if I'm adding the rear to an already straight front. Once that is done it makes sense to invest the time into doing the finish work (as an aside I always do alignment checks before investing time into aesthetics - IMO it makes no sense to put the time into making it pretty if it's headed to the dumpster - RE "The Goal") before adding the rear triangle. I do the finish work on the front before adding the rear just for the ease of being able to reach in and around the smaller piece in the vice.

With the front end complete and the rear added I chase/face the BB and head tube so that I can do a 'final alignment' to the completed frame. It goes on the plate and I check seat tube, head tube and drop out elevations - I check that the seat stays are equidistant from the bike centerline - and I check for head tube twist. I aim for a +- .005" tolerance overall using a height gauge measured to the plate. Once everything is checked the bike comes off the plate and then goes right back on and rechecked to be sure that the BB hasn't shifted on the post giving me false numbers. Once this is done it comes off the plate and the rear dropouts are H tooled and the reference wheel is installed to check for centering between the stays.

I suspect that most pro builders do something similar to what I do. It makes sense that we'd all do something similar as we are all trying to solve the same problem and the solution is clear.

One note on alignment - it is of course important and I work very hard to get it just right but the numbers can be misleading. I shoot for a plus/minus .005". This might make some think that a bike with a +- .003" would be better and I suppose it would be even though I think we are far past the point of diminishing returns. Industry standard for most the the big guys is +- .120" and one doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon to see that .120" is a lot bigger than .005" and yet we don't see too many mass produced high end bikes going down the road sideways. I think most of us align to such a tight tolerance as a point of pride and for the challenge not because we need to to make the bike ride well.

Is that what you were looking for?

Dave

Quote:

---

In the end all design comes down to the "C" word - Compromise. I know compromise sounds like a dirty word but it's the reality and not every bike can have everything at the same time so priorities need to be established and then the bike needs to address those while letting the smaller things slide. Compromise seems to have a negative connotation but I don't see it that way. I see it as being realistic and honest about what can be done and what can't and then designing for the most good.

I hope that is what you were looking for.

Dave

---

Thanks Dave, this did indeed answer my question. I think 'compromise' is absolutely appropriate. When everything comes together, and the bike sings, life is good.

Thanks for your time Dave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suhacycles

I think I know what you mean but let's clarify... you've noticed that the less rigid frame seems to move with you rather than resist each stroke while climbing in the saddle? I'm wondering if this is related to the analogy of jumping up and down on concrete versus a trampoline. Clearly, all that 'flex' in the trampoline is not inefficient at all...

---

Yes, exactly. I like the analogy! While pedaling either in or out of the saddle, force is exerted toward the center of the bike as well as vertically (i.e. inwards, nor just down, back, forward, up). So in the saddle, when you really groove on a bike that syncs well, you are consciously rocking the bike a bit side to side, working the flex to sync up and give you a nice return for each subsequent pedal stroke. On a stiffer bike, you have to rock it further over to get it to flex as much as you might want, so you can push inward more as the bike is leaned over. At least, this is how I experience it. On a too-stiff bike, this flex cannot be felt much if at all, and the bike tends to bog down as effort increases on climbs. It becomes necessary to stand in order to feel like you are keeping the speed up. When riding out of the saddle, you can exert more pressure on the bb, and get some flex going to help you out. If the material of the bike takes the flex, but damps instead of returning it with a 'snap,' I suspect most would find it craptastic. I have an old Peugeot like that; it flexes a lot, but doesn't return it fast enough. It feels like a barn door on wheels. So I think the amount of flex the frame can produce, coupled with the speed at which it returns that stored energy, is what we are looking to get dialled in a custom frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Kirk

Is that what you were looking for?

Dave

---

Yes, and thanks for the detail. I remember Carl S saying somewhere that he felt .040" was unacceptable, and I figured most here would have similar standards but wondered where they stood in relation to the big companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msurch

Thanks Dave, this did indeed answer my question. I think 'compromise' is absolutely appropriate. When everything comes together, and the bike sings, life is good.

Thanks for your time Dave.

---

Maybe the word 'compromise', with all it's negative connotations, could be replaced by 'optimization'. Same thing, sounds better.

Dave