Le club Time

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
MichaelK
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:50 pm

by MichaelK

Calnago wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:48 pm
Rim brakes and dropped seatstays
I'm not a fan of dropped seatstays at the best of times, from both an aesthetic standpoint and a functional one when it comes to using rim brakes. This particular build wasn't at all bad and certainly passable, but I'll use it anyway to demonstate a little bit about what I don't like. Here's a picture of how the rim brake housing needs to be routed to meet up with the rear brake. It's just an awkward bend, not nearly as bad as some however, as is the case where the stays are really low and the housing has to cut across from the top tube down between the top tube and downtube to get a decent line to the brake...
Image

and this is closer to how I would like that path to look, nice and smooth with a gradual arc... appoximately where it would be if the stays joined at the seatcluster...
Image
Why not make the brake cable exit the frame on the underside of the top-tube pointing downwards?! Reduces the distance and number of curves needed.

Anyway, excellent write-up Calnago. Many thanks!

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Because the cable works fine the way it is.
BTW in my frame (and other frames I happen to know) the cable exit is not there. See:

Image

Image

And here is the chainstays' cable exit. Obviously they re-designed this one too in newer frames:

Image

Image

Is Calnago's frame a very early production one? Is it a demo that's why these few small issues? I don't know. Certainly it's not that the guys at TIME don't know how to design frames. They do it fine since 1987.
Last edited by kgt on Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

MichaelK wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:02 pm
Why not make the brake cable exit the frame on the underside of the top-tube pointing downwards?! Reduces the distance and number of curves needed.

Anyway, excellent write-up Calnago. Many thanks!
@MichaelK... TIME wants you on on their engineering staff. That is exactly what's being done on most frames with dropped stays and rim brakes these days. It should have been done from Day 1, but I guess it takes a while for the engineering mistakes to get all the way through production and then onto bikes so people can actually build them up outside of a computer to see what practical aspects have been overlooked. I talked about this in my C64 build thread at length. Showed some examples... here's an example of why I don't like the design... and while the lines are now smoother to the brake calipers themselves, the uglinesss of the cable crossing between the top tube and the seat tube is just something that doesn't appeal to my aesthetic senses in the least. Depending on the size of the frame, slope of the toptube and amout of drop the stays have, the degree that comes into play can vary. At least with this Skylon, the routing may have a fairly aggressive bend but it doesn't look nearly as bad as the example below... (and I should say, the routing on the Skylon is not aggressive enough to compromise functionality in any meaningful way)...
Image

I see @kgt has found some examples of the lowered exit port on the top tube as well, which is good. That's where it should be. The line can't be too straight to the caliper however, as there needs to be enough slack for the caliper to do it's thing without wanting to pull the cable housing away from it's stop, although in the case of the continuous cable housing run through the top tube of the Scylon, it would just pull the entire housing through and settle in at some rather unslightly place, like my C59 used to do before I fashioned my own stops out of simple o-rings. But if there was a hard stop at the exit point, then there needs to be a little slack in the length of housing from the exit to the caliper. Placing the exit port further forward can also help with the path to the caliper, but then you run the risk of it interfereing with your leg. Of course, you could always go disc brakes with dropped stays and that issue goes away altogether, arguably replaced by others.

So, if TIME has relocated the exit port for the rear brake housing on their dropped seatstay rim bikes, then Hip Hip Hooray. The bike in my post was brand new, retail, with all the bits and pieces in their respective bags ready for build. I don't know why @kgt would even suggest it could be a "demo" or something less than their "finest". Well, I know, but that's just grasping at straws. And if they've redone the grommet, then double "yay"; when did they actually get around to doing that pray tell? Because a few months ago they weren't even acknowldeging there was a problem, and the only picture they could send of one was installed backwards. The resolution is too bad in the pic @kgt posted of the special edition skylon for me to tell if it's in backwards or not. I know it can be done, because I did it on this build, but to date it is the one and only Skylon build that I've seen where it's actually inserted correctly. And what a pain it was. Now, please please tell me they've changed the seat clamp from that awful design I had to deal with. Please, tell me... have they??
And what about the awful front derailleur hanger design. Can't they just rivet a nice one in place perfectly positioned that will accommodate at least the three main crankset configurations without having to remove and reinstall it if you want to use different cranks. Hopefully they've changed that as well.

And @kgt wonders why I'm not jumping up and down raving how great this frame is. Well firstly, I'm not working for a magazine or other online publication beholding to advertising dollars for my existence. Secondly, it's tough to feel all warm and fuzzy after building up a frame like this with all the nits and niggles that shouldn't have been there in the first place. For all @kgt's bashing about frames from China, he may want to think a little bit more about TIME's own quality control these days. But on a positive note... well, I already mentioned that if this was a mechanical drivetrain, setup (at least the running of the derailleur cables) would have been a breeze, due to the continuous end to end run of hard plastic liner from entry port to exit ports in the frame. Just insert the derailleur cables and push till they come out the other end. But this was a Campy EPS install, and I've highlighted the issues with that in my previous post. The paint... it appears to be very good quality, although the graphics leave a lot to be desired imo, and of course that's subjective. Leej88's balck skylon looks great for example imo. Nothing to argue about there, was just giving my own opinion which of course reflects my own tastes. Another person may love the graphics on this frame as is, so be it. And what I particularly like is that the matte finish is not just matte paint but appears to have a matte clearcoat on top of it as well, like my C59 does. This really aids in the cleaning and upkeep of matte frames. The frames where there's just a coat of matte paint with no matte clear over top are a pain in the ass to keep clean. Let's see, what else can I say on a positive note... it's solid (already said that), unlike some previous frames from TIME. I'm not going to get into whether the RTM carbon thing is better or not, because I don't believe it is. It's simply what they started with back in the 90's and have held dearly to it ever since, while carbon manufacturing technology has marched on. It would be very costly for them to change over at this point, and as long as they can convince a few people that the way they do it is better than everyone else, then that remains their one thing they must hold onto dearly. One might say the same thing about Colnago and their lugged frames to be fair. But they can toss that SlowSet headset into the trashcan and be better off if you ask me.
Hmmm... ok, and this comment isn't specific to TIME, but it's like if you ask the woman (or man) who just bought a new car what they like about it, chances are that many will say stuff like "Well, I like the looks of it, it's pretty, and I like the commercials cuz they say it's the best car out there". But if you ask the mechanic who works on cars day in day out the same questions, you're probably going to get a whole lot more "under the hood" type reasons why he likes or dislikes certain cars over others. Same with bikes. But if you never ever work on your own bike, you might not even care. Fine. Oh, and TIME hasn't been making bikes since 1987... that's when they formed the company and made pedals. My first clipless pedals were in fact from TIME. But they didn't start making frames until the mid 90's, so not that long in the game relatively speaking. And now the company is owned by Rossignol. I don't know, but can you use RTM carbon technology in the production of skis? I hope so, for their sake. Sorry, the few positives are vastly overshadowed by my sour experience in building this frame.
Last edited by Calnago on Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

kgt wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:20 am
The geometry is pretty clear IMHO according to the drawing. How is this misleading? Unless you only read the numbers. Then, yes, you cannot understand what is going on.
Image
I too was going to post this geo chart, but I was tired of talking about it. But since you're still going on about it being ok to publish incorrect numbers...
Yes, it's clear that the line in the sketch does not follow the actual seat tube angle. My question to you, and TIME, is why the hell not? I don't want to say how many hours I wasted reconciling their geo charts with actual measurements. We've already expounded on the confusion that this can and does cause amongst knowledgeable purchasers and fitters (review Leej88's posts). And I suppose since the line through the steertube looks to be well forward of center and not perfectly in line with the steertube, then we should assume that the headtube angle numbers are not actual too? I know that not to be the case, just saying. But yes, that line which does not follow the actual seattube angle is the line they use as a reference from which to determine their seattube angle. I fully realize that. And because that line is not the actual seat tube angle, it throws off the effective top tube length as well, effective top tube length (L) is "actually" a few millimeters longer than published, and the distance from that "line" to the actual seat tube angle line would need to be added to the published effective top tube length if you want "actuals". Ha, I just realized I'm talking about an "actual effective top tube length", which makes me chuckle a bit. Talk about an oxymoron. But who needs actuals when you can measure it "your way" and not tell anyone the rhyme or reason for doing it "your way". Who do they think they are... Frank Sinatra. Maybe even a footnote in the geo chart to say that really, where the saddle clamp ends up is the same as if you "assume" a seat tube angle of 73 degrees in conjunction with a 20mm offset seat post. Which is the same as if they just publish the actual seattube angle of 71.5 degrees or whatever it actually is (that's close), and let knowledgeable people realize that "ok, that makes sense since they're using a proprietary zero offset seatpost". This frame is not a case of say, a frame that has a funky eccentric seattube which is impossible to create a straight line though it and the center of the BB shell. Those frames do need to publish an "effective" seat tube angle. This is not one of those frames and there is no reason I can think of except the one I gave earlier why they would choose to publish anything other than the real actual seat tube angle in their geometry charts.

Why does seat tube angle and seatpost offset matter so much? Well, it's more about the ultimate result of how the bike looks in the end, nicely proportioned, with a good fit and the saddle rails clamped relatively in the center. So long as you can get your saddle where you want, through fore and aft adjustment along the rails, it's largely irrelevant from a fit or handling point of view. That's all, but if you're spending this much on a frame, you'd like it to look good as well as fit well and ride well. Who wouldn't. And why is there even such thing as offset seatposts you might be asking if you're new to all this?... just because it allows frames to be built with relatively short chainstays and still allow the rider to sit where he needs to be seated. Because if the seattube angle is too slack, it would bang into the rear tire on a frame with short chainstays. And everyone is all about tire clearance these days.

I hope this discussion is providing some further insight to people just reading along, cuz I'm getting pretty tired.

Later all.... :beerchug:
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Sure, the last posts provided much more insight. I guess that we all know what we are talking about now.
So, thanks Calnago. You are still grumpy and we still disagree in a couple of things but ... :beerchug:

User avatar
JKolmo
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:00 pm

by JKolmo

So it’s time for me to post in this thread. 6.19 kg as pictured (w Record 11 cassette).

So far I haven’t suffered from any of the issues mentioned by Calnago above. Rather on the opposite, I kind of find the quickset solution and the stem bolt system smart and charming. Sort of like the Citroen I owned some 30 years ago: it had solutions to problems that do not exist. In a good and charming way.

ImageImage Anyways I find this bike to be really nice. Obviously haven’t been able to ride it due to this dreadful winter.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Perfection!
Please give us a ride report when ready.

User avatar
JKolmo
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:00 pm

by JKolmo

Thanks! Will do!

User avatar
miltmaster3
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: patra greece

by miltmaster3

Wow very impressive
Enjoy it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
πατα τραβα ρε

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Many, many photos from the factory. Or, what does really handmade in France mean.

http://www.test4outside.com/en/article_ ... -machines/


User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

I hope they keep making their top frames in France. If not, I am afraid that TIME will not exist as a company after a few years. That’s almost certain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
dgasmd
Posts: 1919
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:10 am
Location: South Florida

by dgasmd

kgt wrote:I hope they keep making their top frames in France. If not, I am afraid that TIME will not exist as a company after a few years. That’s almost certain
While it worked for Look and Colnago, I agree with Time being a different animal!! But who knows.....

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

I really cannot see how Rossignol guys think. They bought a unique and successful 30 year old company in order to turn it to what? Don't they know that the main thing that distinguishes TIME from most other companies is this 'Handmade in France'? I really don't get it.

by Weenie


reedplayer
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:10 am

by reedplayer

kgt wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:07 pm
I really cannot see how Rossignol guys think. .....
its all written in the first sentence of the article, short version: "....réduire les coûts..." ".... Time termine l’exercice 2018-2019 en déficit pour la 3ème année consécutive"

they are business people, no heritage conservationists.

Post Reply