Pre 1950s rides of LFGSS: old bikes, vintage rats, classic lightweights

I've just looked at this thread after quite a long absence, so my comments are a bit late, but.....

'Thin' Paint
As some of you know, I had the misfortune to be in the stove enamelling business from the early '70's until the late '90's. I painted a lot of bike frames.

I guess when you ask for 'thin' paint, you are saying you don't want powder coat. Powder was unheard of when I started, but I think it has now almost completely replaced wet paint (stove enamel) Powder is much easier to apply than wet paint - in fact it is a classic example of de-skilling. It's quite time consuming to get the knack of using stoving paint, and stoving lacquer is particularly difficult, especially when you're putting it over transfers (decals).

Powder is efficient and needs almost no skill to apply, but it's always going to look 'puddingy'
compared with well applied wet paint. Obviously, the old paintwork that people want to replicate was stove enamel.

A further note on lacquering: Traditionally lacquer was applied over the transfers to seal and protect them, but when I was in this game I would often be presented with ancient transfers which were a treasured possession of the frame's owner. However, the owner rarely had he faintest idea of how they should be applied - and there are quite a few different methods. In addition some transfers will take stoving (not that hot -120C) and others will not. Of course if a transfer is 30+ years old it may behave differently from when it was young. I just mention these things to give an idea of the problems.

Double Gear Levers

Cyclists' obsessions vary from time to time. When derailleurs were young there was a feeling that the pressure exerted by the chain tensioning spring caused significant drag (not a ridiculous idea, as anyone who has ridden fixed will confirm).

It was noted that while chain tension was important at certain times (e.g. rapid descents), it was not necessary at other times (e.g. climbing). So some gears allowed for slackening the tension at the will of the rider - Huret and Simplex had gears with this feature. So I suggest the primary purpose of the second lever was for chain tensioning. Strangely most of the pros in the '50's seemed to have been happy with rod changers at the front - they knew the system worked and generally there was only three teeth difference between the rings, so they weren't asking a lot from the changer.

In conclusion I'd like to mention that I rode the Kent CA 12 as recently as 2012 using a Simplex rod changer (don't ask me why, I have no answer), and although it worked perfectly I had some difficulty in reaching it during the last couple of hours.

Hi Mr Clubman

Just out of curiosity who did you work for? Back in the 70's I worked at Cliff Pratt Cycles in Hull and we sent frames for respray all over the UK at the request of clients :)

The original firm was called Colne Finishes Co Ltd, this in turn morphed into C. Lovibond Enamelling Ltd. Both these were (mainly) at Arlington Works in St Margarets (near Richmond). In the end I lost the premises and sold the goodwill and myself to Malcolm Bell Ltd in Hampton. Bikes were never a big part of the business - our main line was electronic front panels and boxes.

Most of the frames we did were resprays for the owners, but I did work for Ken Ryall, Bicyclecraft (Staines), Clive Bonavia, Dave Russell, Mike Mullett and Cliff Shrubb.

It has taken some time to get something that might be readable
Sent to me a low-resolution jpegs taken in low light at strange angles with a 12-year-old point and shoot.
Not as much as I would have liked.
Perhaps I should get this

Cool. Thank you.

Shame he doesn't go into more detail of how the derailleurs performed. As I understand it Simplex's success was mostly due to rugged simplicity -so it was adopted by pro racers and advertising/sponsorship, rather than technical innovation or performance.

More context would be good - the French innovators (such as Nivex and Cyclo) who had less of a business/pro appeal & sponsorship approach or Huret who kept innovating,

The Japanese derailleur book is lush.

Shameless plug for my 49 Lenton F&F if anyone's interested: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/313805/#comment13978623

I certainly would not describe the Simplex Tour de France as 'rugged' - it was flimsy and very prone to going into the spokes with terminal consequences. It was also tricky to set up compared with the Campag Gran Sport, and could never cope with anything bigger than a 23 tooth sprocket. Even restricting yourself to 22 teeth you would still have been well advised to pray when engaging bottom gear, especially when it mattered in race.

It is a misconception (encouraged by the trade, naturally) to imagine that professionals 'adopt' equipment through choice - they use what they are paid to use - and this has even applied to top 'amateurs' at times. I have heard that Dave Bedwell (an independent at the time, so perfectly entitled to be paid) when asked why he still used a Simplex (in 1960) he replied: 'Cos I get paid three quid a week to use it'. My informant was dead impressed at the time because as an apprentice he only earnt £3.17.6d (£3.87.5p). Another story is that a big name in Cyclo Cross was given a new 'plastic' Simplex for every event he rode.

Paradoxically, Coppi insisted on having a Simplex TdF for the 1949 Tour, which he duly won. He did this in the face of strong opposition from his Italian sponsors. This was before the advent of the Gran Sport, and I think the alternative would have been the 'Cambio Corsa' which Bartali had used to win the previous year. This victory must show either that Gino was the greatest rider ever, or prove the power of prayer. Times change and we change with them, but Fausto never had any time for the Cambio Corsa.

There were plenty of Simplex adverts in 'Cycling' in the late '50's and early '60's, usually a full page near the back, with plenty of those excellent Daniel Rebour drawings.

Going back to the original question about that double pully, if you look at the text on the copy of page 154 (is it from The Dancing Chain?) you will note the words 'second cable to adjust the cage torsion spring' which is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. This was certainly a Huret feature and quite possibly Simplex also. I don't think it's possible now to be sure what any particular double cable roller was intended for when it was installed, so I suggest you use it any way you can.

What a pity the 'Fifty Years of Simplex Development' was not more carefully edited. The large number of errors makes the whole thing a bit doubtful. For example between page 49 and 50 Henri Pelissier changes to his brother Charles, and on page 58 Louison Bobet is only credited with two Tour victories when in fact he won in 1955 also.

Agreed. I don't take too much stock from what kit Pro riders used, even now. There's a long history of custom frames painted in another manufacturer's colours and disguised parts. When the pros refuse to ride something (Delta brakes) or insist on something (Coppi and other Italian riders with Simplex) it is significant.
They could also be very resistant to innovation, French Cyclotourists were using aluminium cranks and cable operated front and rear derailleurs with a full spread of gears in the 30s. The resistance to new technology wasn't just due to sponsorship or race rules but racers' superstition and prejudice. The obsession with chain tension is a case in point. The double cable on the Juy51 was to address this non-problem,
the cables joined above the chainstay and only one ran to/from the shifter.
As my frame has the double roller and an integral Simplex rear hanger, I can't think how else it would have been equipped- and anyway I have the derailleurs and double shifter all in unused condition (which was far from easy) so it's moot 😊.

Here's another page from the Dancing Chain describing the Juy51's cables.

1 Attachment

Quick question. HAs anyone here ever used a rod front changer like one of these?

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/components/changers-mark-comp.html

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/components/clangers-comp.html

I'm thinking of using one with a double chainring at the front and a Simplex Tour de France 4speed for 1/8th chain at the rear on my Carlton restoration. But i'm unsure if I will be able to shift the front double chainring (which will presumably be 3/32) with one of these if using a 1/8th chain as required by the rear gearing? I know there pretty simple in design so my instinct tells me it may work, but thought someone here may know more?
Anyone?

If you look at some mid 50s catalogues and search for 8 speed bicycles those rod actuated front changers normally used 46/49 3/32" chain rings combined with a 4-speed rear (which would have been 3/32" as well). For example the 1955 Dawes Emblem 8 specifically mentions a 3/32" chain is fitted! Same for the 1956 Lenton Grand Prix, also an 8-speed with 3/32" chain.

I would be tempted to use a 3/32" freewheel, maybe even a 5-speed.

2 Attachments

Yes, I see what you mean. The thing is my Simplex Tour De France rear changer is marked for a 1/8" chain, so I assume it is set up and spaced for such, although of course some 50's style bodging could be in order to get it working with a 3/32"....

I think a narrower chain will work, the chain doesn't engage with the smooth pulley wheels, so it shouldn't bind on those, the pulley plates will be a little further apart than a 3/32 RD but it'll probably work. It probably wouldn't the other way around.

I have a 4 speed Simplex 51 (model after TdF) - but that is marked 2.38 -so not a 1/8" chain - but I think they still made them in both sizes.

Ok, thanks. well I'll keep the search on for a rod front changer from the late 40's in that case and try and run a 3/32 chain. I thought I should check it would even work before splashing out on one and a double chainring set up- there certainly not cheap but I do like odd old-type gear setups.

I am using machine with a Cyclo Standard 3 speed 1/8" chain combined with 3/32" T.A. Cyclotouriste chainrings (46/32) at the front. The front changer is modern and intended for 3/32" chain. It is cable operated, but I doubt whether this makes any difference.

I did not expect this to work very well, but I thought I'd try it to see what happened - it works almost perfectly, making the bike a pleasure to use - I'll try to find a picture to post here soon.

A very long time ago, as a teenager, I had a Benelux rod changer which I used because it was all I had. Although I would rather have had Campag, I never remember the Benelux giving trouble. It only had to cope with 48/52 rings, but as we know in those days a three tooth difference was the norm.

As mentioned above the Simplex rod changer I used recently worked perfectly on a three tooth difference, but it was a bit awkward to reach and was more difficult to adjust than a modern changer. It was necessary to move the frame pump from the normal (for me anyway) position at the front of the seat tube. I don't know the exact weight, but it seemed quite heavy since it is all steel.

So, my experience is that almost anything will work on the chainrings.

2.38 is metric for 3/32"

I wonder whether a mech intended for 4 speed 1/8th would work on a 5 speed 3/32" block - the width of the blocks must be similar, and since 5 speed blocks are still pretty common this might solve a problem.

I have a 4 speed 1/8th hub as it happens, just the front rings I was worried about. I think I'll crack on with finding myself a front rod changer and give it a go, I suppose I can always adapt the setup if required and sell the pare bits (or just keep them in the spares bin for any future builds from further 'accidental' acquisitions in the future!)

Anyone got a pair of Constrictor sprint rims that they'd like to sell me pretty please?

What you building up now?

Nothing specific as I don't have a frame yet but plan on building up the wheels for my ultimate Lytaloy build. Will be using the other pair of bacon slicers that I have. This will be my last lightweight build as its all gotten a bit expensive now and having moved into a house with a large mortgage and having a second daughter, just can't afford what people want anymore which is a shame. Reckon, if I build up any more bikes, that I'd like to build up a late 60's TT drillium style bike with a huge ring up front. Seems that era is still reasonably affordable.

My word! I have just discovered this thread, with its early reference (#868) by @Big_Block to the online publication by the Veteran-Cycle Club of the Holdsworth Aids catalogues. I have that publication from 1975 and the copywriter's punchy style was an inspiration for the written work we did for the relaunch of 3T in 2008 (continuing to the present day), and other cycle tech vendors. The library is a great resource, thank you!

New to this thread also
Pointed in this direction from another forum on here.

I am looking for any information (and ideally an example of) early Granby frames - pre WW2
The VCC has been a great help so far - lots of resources.

Bill Ewings, co founder of the company, was my (2nd) great uncle, but until recently I didn't make the connection.
Hillary Stone has a frame for sale that just about fits in to the date range, but ideally I'd like to find a slightly earlier, non restored example.

I don't know much except they were the local lightweight frame builders to where I grew up.
Also they were the first to introduce the 'continental style lightweight' to the UK (?) this might be marketing spin become history though.
I'd like a Granby.
There's a pub just near where the shop was called the Marquis of Granby, as a kid I remember hearing a man died in there after drinking his age in pints on his birthday #oldlondon.

Marquis of Granby

Quality pub too

The pub is apparently where the name comes from.
They used “Granby” as their font for advertising also.
They patented a taper tube design (1925) and then sold their tubing on to other frame builders, before working with Reynolds, and being one of the first builders in 1935 to use 531