Hewitt Chiltern, Cheviot, et al

[Brucey]

Just out of interest do the seat tube mesurements equate to a larger horizontal tope tube equivalent???

So a 53 might be a 55cm /22"

Cheers James

Seat tube C-T length minus 40mm = seat tube C-C

If you add 'top tube drop'/Sin(seat angle) to the seat tube C-C length then you will get the seat tube C-C length horizontal equivalent.

so for the 19" size

Seat tube C-C is 442.6mm

1/sin(74) = 1.04

TT drop is 55.01mm, x1.04 = 57.22 = seat tube correction

to be added to C-C measurement 442.6 + 57.22 ~ 500mm

so equivalent to a ~50cm C-C frame, (or 54cm C-T ) with horizontal top tube.

Simply because the head tube is ~34mm longer (C-C) in size 'L' so is the equivalent horizontal top tube size, so about 53.5cm (C-C) or 57.5cm (C-T).

Depending on whether you consider the seat tube and head tube protrusions as being structurally redundant or not, and depending how you like your ETT length (which differs by ~15mm on paper but effectively less than this because of the difference in seat angle), you could choose either M or L size if you would normally take a 22" C-T frame. As it happens this is about my size and since I prefer a 73deg seat angle, I don't need the bars super-low and the ETT measurements are not too long, a 'L' size frame is a better fit for me than 'M'.

cheers

[Brucey]

... on older models you could have a pump peg where you wanted it, or non at all....

I wonder when the change was made? The info iow kindly sent me about the standard geometry/fittings was dated about 2016.

cheers

[Chris Jeggo]

There's a Cycle review from 2015, an SE but apparently the only difference was the tubeset.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... 511072.pdf
it doesn't have the same detail as the one CJ did a decade before.
...

I have scanned CJ's review:
http://www.jeggo.org.uk/Hewitt_Cheviot_SE/Hewitt_Cheviot_SE_Cycle_Feb_04_CJ.pdf
Mine is a Large, with Reynolds 725 tubing, too - bought in 2010.

[De Sisti]

I was measured up by Paul Hewitt at the Bike Show (when it was held at the Islington Business Centre,
London), many years ago for a Cheviot. Armed with the measurements, I visited his shop in Preston
to get a bike built up (his suggested frame size and my components from another bike). Results below.

Despite the many spacers, it was surprisingly comfortable, even on the drops. A few years later when
I asked him to transfer the components of the bike to a Chiltern frame,* he remarked that the bike didn't
look right, as there were too many spacers under the stem.



* Has since been replaced by a Spa Steel Audax in 2013.

[PH]

... on older models you could have a pump peg where you wanted it, or non at all....

I wonder when the change was made?
cheers

I don't know the answer to that, but it does appear that different dealers had different agreements with the supplier and although I know some frames were imported unpainted I'm not sure that goes for them all. The Byercycles frames were only ever available in blue or red and I don't think they had the same options, they were also always badged as Aravis and I think the decals under the lacquer, if so they're not the source of the frames that ended up with Spa. The Pearsons Compass had a dynamo bracket as standard, which I don't think the Hewitt's ever did. Even when Hewitt moved to stock colours, they were different to the stock colours offered by others, including a bright yellow.
In short, although they are basically all the same frame, there are minor differences.

[PH]

I have scanned CJ's review:

Thanks for that

[Brucey]

…. The Pearsons Compass had a dynamo bracket as standard, which I don't think the Hewitt's ever did....

From what I've seen the Cheviot spec varied more than the Chiltern. However I've seen enough Cheviots with a dynamo bracket to suppose that it was, at one time, a standard fitment, e.g.







cheers

[Sweep]

I was measured up by Paul Hewitt at the Bike Show (when it was held at the Islington Business Centre,
London), many years ago for a Cheviot. Armed with the measurements, I visited his shop in Preston
to get a bike built up (his suggested frame size and my components from another bike). Results below.

Despite the many spacers, it was surprisingly comfortable, even on the drops. A few years later when
I asked him to transfer the components of the bike to a Chiltern frame,* he remarked that the bike didn't
look right, as there were too many spacers under the stem.



* Has since been replaced by a Spa Steel Audax in 2013.

A long seatpost can be good, but that looks particularly long as well.
Very odd.
Am intrigued as to how you ended up with that frame size after a fitting.

[PH]

…. The Pearsons Compass had a dynamo bracket as standard, which I don't think the Hewitt's ever did....

From what I've seen the Cheviot spec varied more than the Chiltern. However I've seen enough Cheviots with a dynamo bracket to suppose that it was, at one time, a standard fitment.
cheers

You could be right, I haven't been searching. I do know at one time the Compass came with a dynamo mount as standard, when the Cheviot didn't, it made me question if they were the same frame, but other things demonstrated they were.
The point I was making remains unchanged, that is not to assume the same bikes from different suppliers will be identical.

[De Sisti]

A long seatpost can be good, but that looks particularly long as well.
Very odd.
Am intrigued as to how you ended up with that frame size after a fitting.

As I said upthread, he recommended that size (from his initial measurements taken at the
Islington Business Centre bike show).

[Brucey]

it could be argued that the fit is 'OK' provided the contact points end up in the right place. But that is a fairly extreme example, for a traditional touring bike!

Given that over the four sizes the ETT only varies by 40mm (less than this once the seat angle variation is taken into account) and even longer seat pins are available, you could perhaps have been 'fitted' to any of the four sizes of frame....?

cheers

[Sweep]

A long seatpost can be good, but that looks particularly long as well.
Very odd.
Am intrigued as to how you ended up with that frame size after a fitting.

As I said upthread, he recommended that size (from his initial measurements taken at the
Islington Business Centre bike show).

Yes, sorry - maybe I was subconsciously double double checking that it had been Mr Hewitt's initial fitting/spec, as it did seem extraordinary that he would call his own effort odd looking.
I have a Hewitt - when I went for the fitting I have a memory that the initial soft recommendation for frame size was smaller than looked aesthetically right to me, so we went for the size up, which looked better to me and had the same key measurements produced by swapping stems etc.

I may post a pic of mine later.

It rides wonderfully, though some slight tinkering with an initial fit had to be done (I have my own odd ideas/body) and I may make some other changes.

[Sweep]

For a few years these framesets (mostly TIG welded in 631 tubing with 525 forks) were popular enough for audax (Chiltern) and touring (Cheviot) purposes. I believe that similar frames were sold badged as 'Byercycles' and 'Pearsons' amongst others. However Byercycles closed, Hewitts have changed tack. and the remainder of these frames (from Hewitts?) were sold by Spa cycles as '631 special audax' and '631 special touring' models a couple of years ago.

Question/s time.

How did Hewitt's change tack? Am interested as I have a Hewitt and think them very good bikes.

Am intrigued as to why they, as reported here, abandoned the frame.

Something to to with the rush to discs? I do recall that Paul Hewitt was reluctant to do disc versions because of his views on the fork suitability.

Did anyone else take it on? (I was always aware that other sources of the frame were available tho sometimes had the impression that some of the bits of copy on the Hewitt web page might be happy for you to depart with the impression that they were handcrafted somewhere near Prreston.).

I did notice that Spa had some frames going cheap but didn't think anything of it at the time - though I do remember a bit before seeing that Hewitts were pricing the frame alone for the top model at a fair bit over £600, which seemed over the top to me for a standard frame bought.

Mine I think is the Cheviot SE - top one I think? With shiny drop-outs.

I also have a smallish Byercycles - pretty much the Chiltern I think - too small for me - barely ridden - need to sell.

[Sweep]

He did have good run with them, but that no one stepped up and took over shows how things have moved on.
I really like my Cheviot SE, it's been built up in different ways and is currently in Audax spec, as this was going to be an Audax year...

Intrigued by your comment on things having moved on PH.

What does the market (not you I take it) think is passe about them/less than saleable?

Is it the rise of the magic disc?

I think them perfectly good frames/bikes not lacking in anything.

Pretty sure mine will be ridden to the end of my cycling days.

It's a Cheviot SE I think - flat bars with bar ends.

edit - pic here:

[Brucey]

IMHO fashions have changed, and so has the market (perceived value vs cost).

However practicality has not changed.

So whilst those who might have bought a steel audax fifteen years ago might now buy something plastic instead, and those who might have bought a touring frame might buy a gravel bike instead (say) it doesn't make them 'bad bikes', just ones that won't necessarily sell as well as they once did.

cheers