Don't be shy!

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 26 Mar 2007, 8:04pm

You've always wanted to join in on a CTC Sunday jaunt, but have always put it off for fear of being dropped?

Well fret no more, help is now at hand.

"car up, pass it on" "car up, pass it on" "car up, pass it on" "car up, pass it on" "car up, pass it on"

Post by **Mick F** » 26 Mar 2007, 8:11pm

All that banter about gear ratios .....

If you want to twiddle, get near the front.
If you've got legs like tree-trunks, get near the back.
Pick you gears by picking your place!

How big IS that c/w at the back?

Mick F. Cornwall

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 26 Mar 2007, 8:14pm

Mick F wrote:
How big IS that c/w at the back?

Mick F. Cornwall

Not sure? but I love it, I''ll be tail-end Charlie.

GeoffL · Post by **GeoffL** » 26 Mar 2007, 8:24pm

Mick F wrote:All that banter about gear ratios .....

If you want to twiddle, get near the front.
If you've got legs like tree-trunks, get near the back.
Pick you gears by picking your place!

How big IS that c/w at the back?

Mick F. Cornwall

Nah! Looking at it, each chainring is attached to a sprocket of the same size on the next BB. I suspect that they're adding more "meat" as you go back along the drivetrain to cope with the greater number of stokers contributing to the effort applied the further rearward you get. Effectively, they're all pushing the same size as the guy at the back - but that's one humdinger of a chainring! :shock:

Geoff

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 26 Mar 2007, 8:28pm

It would have to equal, if it wasn't, starting off could be very interesting indeed? :lol:

I want to see them pop a wheelie.

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 26 Mar 2007, 8:37pm

Charlie

Yours is obviously a more powerful iron than mine, which was for the smaller DA sections. Main local interest in this pic was that the chap on the back bears an uncanny resemblence to a certain local cycling officer. It was always assumed hereabouts that this gave some indication of his position in the hierarchy. His position directly over the back wheel gives him even more cause than usual to worry about pot holes.

Mick F

Note that the one at the back, who you rather unsensitively refer to as tail end Charlie appears to be pedalling direct drive.

And not a helmet between them.

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 26 Mar 2007, 8:48pm

That chain looks saggier than 'Henry the Bloodhound' who helped advertise 'Minced Morsals'. :shock:

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 26 Mar 2007, 10:28pm

I take the point about the chain (s)

Just shows how much things have improved since the arrival of such as Sheldon Brown and CJ to advise us.

Not much sign of brakes on either of them - probably rely on fixed + prayer. I don't suppose that even the tandem Club does dear brake cables that long.I wonder how they specified frame sizes...

To elaborate on MickF's chainwheel comment "I can't find 42 x 44 x 46 x 48 x 50 x 52 x54 x 56 x 58 x 60 x 12 in Chris Juden's gear chart but I reckon if these are 27" wheels it should be somewhere about 2 million inches. Do we need to gear down for Sutton Bank?"

Mrs Tortoise · Post by **Mrs Tortoise** » 26 Mar 2007, 11:55pm

I'll bet they all got very smelly! Yuck!!

reohn2 · Post by **reohn2** » 27 Mar 2007, 9:43am

Mrs Tortoise wrote:I'll bet they all got very smelly! Yuck!!

Fragrant dear fragrant (though I must admit they do look more like vagants)

As for the brakes T/C would it have helped if they did have any?
I think prayer would probably have been more effective!

hubgearfreak · Post by **hubgearfreak** » 27 Mar 2007, 11:01pm

i have an idea about the first ones transmission.

all but the first rider is pedalling a double chainset.

no.1 is pedalling a 32...linking 1:1 onto the 32 inner ring of no.2
no.2 is pedalling a 35 outer...linking 1:1 onto the 35 inner ring of no.3
no.3 is pedalling a 39 outer...linking 1:1 onto the 39 inner ring of no.4
etc.

as for the final drive...it looks like a really high gear :shock:

it must have three times the normal number of chainwheel teeth, making for at least 180" equivalent to a 15ft high penny farthing

also..there seems to be a control rod of some sort from the right hand of the rear man to the BB of the front man. any ideas what that may be?

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 27 Mar 2007, 11:28pm

Research in the CTC archives reveals that these two pics show milestones in the development of the modern bicycle. After years of single seat bikes and several early tandems, the multiple seat bike finally became established. For a number of years, it seemed that the five and then six seat was established as the standard although the technology was still a bit crude. Some European makers even added an odd seat (see pic above) just to make it 5. Many old-school CTC members felt that nobody could need so many seats. The need to pedal in a co-ordinated manner meant that riders worked in teams or ‘groupseats’. So there were 5 groupseats and so on. The arrival of the Japanese then led to dramatic changes, with 7 then 8, 9 and eventually 10 groupseats becoming the standard. Many were caught out in obsolete groups as wheelbases increased from 123” to 190.07”. Where seats had previously been spaced ad hoc, distances between bars and saddle became crucial and were steadily reduced: riders had to be slimmer to but subtle differences in these standards - Campag settling on 19.7” compared with the Shimano 19.8” - meant that entire groupseats were incompatible. Although the biggest guy had always gone at the front, with the rest to suit individul riders, heights for each seat became strictly prescribed by the manufacturers. The CTC forum of the day, operated with carrier pigeons, was full of queries from riders who had ridden at, say, no 3 in a six group, asking if there was any way they might convert to the later formats. Spa Cycles at Harrogate did a great job with this. Drivetrain slippage caused by old dogs trying to learn new tricks was a big issue. One CTC councillor suggested replacing the whole lot in one go every year and ditching the old stuff but this was seen as too drastic by many.

Lubrication was another often raised issue which still strikes a chord today. Brown ale was recommended by many.

The 10 seater pictured was a top racing groupseat: note that the closely packed riders all have long socks compared with those in the utility group, who have trousers with turn-ups.

Although the above pics show 5 and ten groupseats for clarity, these generally had double and even triple rows of seats giving a maximum of 30. Many traditionalists felt that this was OTT and pointed out that many positions were completely overlapped, especially in the middle. This is well illustrated in the following pic which also shows the importance of the Captain* compared with the stokers. (It is interesting that one old salt, who claimed to have been with Nelson at Trafalgar suggested a four row groupseat but this was not thought practical.) The nautical theme inevitably led to the rows being dubbed 'decks'. Development of the in-decks groupseat dominated discussions.

There were many benefits. There were no reports of members being bullied by drivers of white Ford Transits although this may have been because they had not been invented.

But why does so little of this heritage remain? It seems that a racing 30 groupseat was descending Hardknott Pass at some speed when it was decided to investigate a troubling noise from the bottom bracket. Before it had been established which bottom bracket was involved, the whole unit was half way to the Isle of Man. The virtues of the single seat or "fixed" bike became obvious for safety reasons and the rest, as they say is history.

Hubbers: it was a speaking tube for the juvenile at the back to inquire "Are we nearly there yet."

* The Captain in this pic is the President of the CTC in his NO2 or semi-formal uniform.

hubgearfreak · Post by **hubgearfreak** » 27 Mar 2007, 11:48pm

brilliant TC. i would imagine that 30 would often need the chain replacing :wink:

reohn2 · Post by **reohn2** » 28 Mar 2007, 7:46am

Nice one T/C,nothing changes though, look at all those wimmin stokers, all looking over the garden fences'noseying' instead pedalling.
You solo riders don't know just what us tandemists have to put up with!

Post by **Mick F** » 28 Mar 2007, 9:06am

I know that road surfaces weren't up to much in those days, but what sort of speed could these leviathons get up to?

Mick F. Cornwall