Category Archives: Terry Bicycles

1990’s Georgena Terry Symmetry

Posted on by

A Terry Symmetry frame, built up to my specifications.

About 8 years ago I bid on a NOS 1990’s Terry Symmetry steel frame on eBay.  I was at that time searching for the perfect bike to fill the gap left by my crashed (in 1999) 1976 Centurion Pro Tour.  I had purchased and ridden quite a few bikes since then, but none of them “took”.  I won the auction for the Terry frame, but when it arrived, I saw that one of the downtube shifter bosses was damaged, and perhaps that was why the frame had never been built.  The seller was shocked that he hadn’t noticed this, and he reimbursed me for the costs I incurred to have the frame repaired.

Damaged shifter boss

Nice hand lettering on the Georgena Terry logos

I took the frame to Oregon Manifest winner Tony Pereira, who re-brazed a new downtube shifter boss.  That involved removing the existing lavender sparkle paint in the immediate area around the shifter braze-ons.  His painter was not able to match the paint exactly, so instead came up with the perfect solution of using an accent color.  You can see in the above photos the new blue accent color and the perfectly executed hand-lettering of the Georgena Terry logos.  Now my Terry frame sports a custom paint job!

Georgena Terry is an engineer by training.  She is an avid cyclist, and after the frustration of not finding a bicycle appropriate for smaller cyclists, she began building bicycle frames in her basement, and by 1985 introduced the first steel Terry hand-built bicycle, designed specifically for the dimensions and stature of women’s bodies.  If you don’t know anything about her, you’ll be amazed by this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDRbinNduhM

If we use the term “womankind” to signify all human beings, as is always done with the term “mankind”  then we would have bicycles sized for such beings – who are on average about 5’4″ in height.  Such bicycles would have appropriately sized wheels (probably 26 inch or smaller), and bicycle frame geometry would reflect the correct dimensions of such a human.  Georgena’s initial frame geometry solution was to keep the big 700c wheel at the back, which was the industry standard at the time, and to use a smaller wheel on the front – a 24 incher.  This meant that the steel frame for the rider could be quite large, with a hefty headtube, but still be “as fast” as any other bike out there due to the 700c rear wheel.

Georgena Terry Classic – courtesy of georgenaterry.com

While I am one of those cyclists that prefers the look of a bicycle with the same sized wheels front and rear, this design proved wildly successful and womankind was pleased, as finally they had bikes to fit their bodies.  Since then, Georgena has researched the anatomy and physiology of women riders, and has incorporated her findings into her latest endeavor:  Hand built steel bicycles – both custom and off the shelf, built by Waterford and engineered by Georgena, having sold her interest in Terry Precision Bicycles back in 2009. All of the bikes she builds now feature the same sized wheels front and rear (559s usually), plus many frames designed with a sloping top tube.  They are typically built with Waterford OS2 double butted steel. Her bicycles have some unique characteristics:  large head tube, very little BB drop, steep seat tube angle, slack head tube angle, vertical drop outs, long chainstays, and minimal fork rake. Some of these characteristics are not necessarily what I seek in a bike frame, yet the Terry Symmetry that I ride regularly is one of my most comfortable and treasured bicycles!

One of my theories about this bike’s amazing comfort is the large head tube – made possible by the almost negligible bottom bracket drop of 35 mm.  The frame is “square” meaning that the seat tube and top tube are the same length – 51 cm.  With the minimal drop, there’s a high bottom bracket -about 28 cm.  You’d think I would hate this frame, but instead, having all that steel (Tange tubing which is TIG welded) under me helps to absorb road shock, and is much more flexible than a smaller frame would be. The frame is a bit tall for me – but, who cares?  I often ride pretty tall frames. The most important measurement for frame comfort is the top tube.  In this case, it’s only 51 cm – much shorter than many “smaller” frames, and that’s why I feel so relaxed on this bike – my hands naturally connect with my Nitto Rando bars with no effort at all.

I set this bike up with some of my favorite components:  Shimano bar end shifters, Shimano side pull brakes, Shimano brake levers, and my 1984 Shimano 600 crankset and front derailleur (taken off my old Davidson) which apparently will never wear out!  I ordered a Harris custom 8 speed cassette after riding the bike for a while with an off the shelf unit.

I built the wheels myself (Mavic X221 32 hole rims on Shimano hubs), converting the bike from its original 650c wheel size to 559, and after years of service my wheels have never gone out of true.  Because this bike has minimal clearance (it was built in the sad “racing” days of yore), I needed to mount my fenders over the top of the fork and rear brake bridge.  I cut up an ancient Bluemels fender set which was pretty long in the tooth.  But, the fenders are holding up well.  Recently, I switched out my p-clamps on the front fork (which had no eyelets), for a Velo Orange fender bracket.  The bracket cleans up the look on the front end, but makes front wheel removal much more finicky. I use Panasonic Panaracer Tourguard folders on this bike which have been comfortable and reliable.  Georgena Terry is now recommending Compass Elk Pass 559 Road Tires for her bikes (also made by Panasonic), so I may try those out whenever the Panaracer’s wear out.  But, meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy this wonderful bicycle which I always look forward to riding.

 

Cranky

Posted on by
2013-03-22 001 2013-03-22 008

Vintage TA crankset with triple rings – 48/40/28.

The lovely & vintage TA crankset which I selected for my 1980 Meral 650b conversion has been an unusually frustrating interaction between the characteristics of vintage components and modern cycling requirements.  I chose this component for two reasons:  the crank arms were 160 mm, helping me to eliminate toe overlap on my 1980 sportif frame; and, since the Meral came with a TA bottom bracket,  I thought it would be nice to match it to a TA crankset of the same era.

But this crankset was problematic.  The big ring had a massive wobble that I had straightened a few times in my vise.  And, even though I use a similarly geared crankset on my Terry – a Shimano 600 with 48/40/30 rings – there was something about the TA rings that never really came together.  I never landed on my “cruising gear” even though I went through two different cassettes and two different front and rear derailleurs.  And, the drive train was always noisy, even after trying a few different chains.

Some frame-up builds come together perfectly, and some require more tweaking.  The Meral ended up being in the latter camp.

2016-02-13 001

Version 2 with TA 44/28 rings.

I decided that I might prefer a compact setup for this bike.  Since most of my current riding is commuting, it is important if only for safety reasons not to have to worry about gear selection while riding.  My other bikes provide easy and intuitive gear selection, so that my eyes can stay on the road.

A large tooth difference between the chain rings was de rigueur back in the heyday of French cyclo touring.  So, maybe it would work for me too.  I sourced NOS TA 44 and 28 teeth rings on eBay.  The rings are very pretty, and gave the Meral a real “French” look.

Unfortunately, for my kind of riding, the 28 tooth ring did not work at all.  Essentially, I was now riding a bike with a single chain ring plus a bail out gear, rather than a regular double crank which allows for even steps between the gears.  And, shifting between the two front rings often required a triple shift to maintain cadence. To make matters worse, the small chain ring was noisy in certain gears due to the extreme angle of the chain, front to rear and side to side.

2016-05-04 002

Version 3 with 44/32 rings.

2016-05-04 005

Beautiful new TA Pro Vis 32 tooth ring.

Not one to give up, I decided that a larger toothed small chain ring would be the answer.  I ordered a brand new 32 tooth TA ring from Boulder Bicycle.  The new ring is beautifully etched, and looks quite fine with the older crankset.  Even better, after installing yet another cassette (a SRAM 7 speed 12-32) to accommodate this new gearing, and adding a few links to the chain, the bike’s gearing is perfect for what I need.  My new gear inch range is 26 to 95, with even steps between the gears.  My shifting pattern is normal, and I have a cruising gear on my big ring that matches a comfortable cadence on a flat surface.  While I was at it, I adjusted the Simplex Super LJ front derailleur lower to make my front shifts crisper.  This front derailleur uses a parallelogram with an extreme angle, so in order to make it work well, it needs be about 1 mm above the teeth of the larger chain ring, rather than the usual 2 or 3 mm, to achieve ideal shifting.

2016-05-04 008

1980 Meral 650b as currently configured.

This bike was meant to take the place of my old beloved 1976 Centurion Pro Tour, which I crashed irreparably in 1999.  It has been a “long and twisted road” finding the right bike which can carry me not only to work and back, but to the undiscovered as well as the familiar. But this is what I have been yearning for.  A soul mate.

Small wheeled bicycles: the solution for shorter riders

Posted on by
1980's ALAN with 24 inch wheels

1980’s ALAN with 24 inch wheels

One of my favorite Georgena Terry witticisms goes something like this:  “if we were all 3 inches tall, we would be riding bicycles with appropriately sized wheels.”  Why the cycling industry has shoved 700c down everyone’s throats has mainly to do with the racing fad we are all now recovering from, and little to do with what is the right sized wheel for a given rider and a given application.

Currently, the cycling industry is going through another fad: wheel and tire size crazes – 650b, 29er, and super fat, to name a few.

When frames are built, the wheel size and tire width must be determined in advance.  A small frame cannot properly contain a large diameter wheelset without serious comprises in the frame geometry.  Placement of the rear brake bridges and length of the fork blades determine how much clearance a frame will have with the wheel size it was built for.  By using long reach brakes, it is possible to convert a frame built for a larger wheel size to a smaller size.   But why is this even necessary in the first place?  Why aren’t bikes for smaller riders automatically built with appropriately sized wheels?

Well, partly this is because Americans have demanded the lowest price possible when it comes to purchasing just about anything.  To achieve this low price, bicycles must be manufactured anywhere but here, where our wages are astronomically high relative to manufacturing-based countries such as China and Taiwan.  We also have labor laws, environmental regulations, and lots of red tape which help to drive up the cost of manufactured goods relative to that of other countries.  While I am glad we protect our workers and the environment, consumers don’t seem to care and we quite happily purchase many of our goods from other countries where such laws do not exist.

These factors contribute to the “one size fits all” wheel diameter phenomenon.  In order to produce bicycles at a price point that the consumer demands, it is much less expensive to equip them all with the same wheel size, regardless of the frame size. The result on a smaller frame is that the head tube angle will be slackened to allow room for the front wheel to clear the downtube and help reduce toe overlap (all manufactured forks have the same rake – so there’s no extra cost there except to cut the steerer to different lengths).  And, on really small frames, there might not be much of a headtube at all, because the manufacturer has determined that the only thing a shorter rider cares about is standover height.  A super slack head tube of 69 degrees with the standard 45mm of fork rake is going to be a handling mess for a road or commuter bike.  The bike will have lots of wheel flop, so arriving at an intersection and slowing down will feel very unstable and it will be hard to keep the bike upright at slow speeds.  Instead, the smaller frame should be designed to accept smaller wheels, allowing for normal rake and trail to allow for good slow and high speed handling, and for an actual head tube which will help to improve the overall comfort of the frame.

Daniel Rebour 1962 catalog Rene Herse

Daniel Rebour 1962 catalog – Rene Herse

All riders should measure their bikes by top tube length, not seat tube length.  If you look at photos and drawings of cyclo-touring bikes from times past you will see that there is very little seatpost showing – these bikes are tall relative to the rider, at least by today’s standards.  And, they often used smaller wheel sizes, which would help to lower the saddle height relative to the ground. By riding a taller frame you can get the stem higher relative to your saddle, and these older bikes had lower bottom bracket heights, making it possible to put your toe down at an intersection, rather than dismounting.  Unfortunately, modern cycling “wisdom” tells everyone to have at least 1″ of clearance between your crotch and the top tube.  Why?  Well, apparently cyclists of the mostly young and male variety often somehow crash land on the top tube, causing serious and sometimes lasting injuries to their private parts.  However, if you are riding in a way that allows you to crash on the top tube, you are probably taking unnecessary risks.  And, it wouldn’t matter whether the top tube is 1 inch below your crotch or 3 inches below your crotch.  This kind of accident would require you to have lost control of the bike while still straddling it, such as attempting jumps and other tricks that our culture has decided is a good thing for young boys to try. A greater standover height can also be achieved by using a lower bottom bracket, so you could still have a tall frame and the “requisite 1 inch clearance” on the top tube if a lower bottom bracket were the norm.

However, worse and more prevalent injuries can be caused by riding bikes with too long top tubes.  Smaller riders often select bikes with short seat tubes only to be confronted with a super long top tube (this is another way the manufacturer crams a 700c wheel into a too small frame).  Riding a bike with a too long top tube can cause neck and lower back pain, arthritis and hip degeneration.  This kind of injury happens over time and can also be exacerbated by doing super long rides even on a bike that fits correctly.

1930's Peugeot Mixte 650b

1930’s Peugeot Mixte 650b

Some smaller riders prefer to ride mixte frames.  These frames are much stronger than typical “women’s frames” because they have a sloping top tube which extends all the way down to the rear dropouts.  This makes for 3 rear stays instead of two, and helps to offset the greater flex of the head tube away from the seat tube under acceleration.  This solves the problem of standover height, but unfortunately does NOT address the problem of having a too long top tube.  Why?  Because mixte frames were produced in smaller runs, there are limited choices as to the headlugs which provide for a predetermined sloping top tube angle, forcing the manufacturers of mixte frames to produce them with relatively long top tubes.  Peter Underwood has an interesting discussion of this topic here.  He also argues that these long top tube lengths on mixte frames were the result of builders wanting their mixtes to conform to their “norm” for top tube length – which was 21 inches (53.3 cm) for custom builders.  The 1930’s Peugeot pictured above has an effective top tube length of 56 cm!!  While this super long length is slightly offset by the upright bars, this is a bike that could only be comfortably ridden by a person at least 5’6″ tall.  The other mixte frames currently in my shop all have effective top tube lengths of 53 cm.  This is way too long for a small rider, generally speaking.  That is one reason I discourage small riders away from non custom mixte frames, unless they are mainly going to do casual riding in an upright position.

The solution is to design a bike frame in a logical way such that the frame dimensions are proportionate to the small riders’ anatomy.  This naturally includes using smaller wheels.  Such a frame can have a nice big head tube, and will be bigger overall, which will produce a much more comfortable frame and riding experience.

Terry Symmetry 51x51 with 26 inch wheels

Terry Symmetry 51×51 with 26 inch wheels

You can find such frames if you are diligent.  The bike shown above is my Terry which I purchased as a frame and fork.  It is not a custom frame but one I picked up on eBay which was a leftover NOS from the 90’s TIG welded with Tange tubing. It has great geometry with no compromises so it handles well in all conditions, and has absolutely no toe overlap.

Unfortunately, buying a new complete bike for a small rider will not be so easy.  There’s no point in trying to find such a bike at your LBS.  The best thing to do is order a bike from a well regarded shop such as Rivendell,  Georgena Terry, or your local custom builder.  These builders automatically design their smaller frames proportionally and with smaller wheel sizes such as 26 inch, 650c or 650b.  One thing I have learned is that I prefer riding frames with steep angles – 73 or 74 on the seat tube, and since I like a low trail bike I prefer a steep head tube angle combined with a lot of fork rake.  As far as I know, no one has researched whether steep angles are more comfortable for smaller riders, but I like the feel of having more of my body closer to the front of the bike.

The vintage line up in smaller frames works best if you can convert a small frame to 650c or 650b, or if you can find a small frame originally built with smaller wheels, such as the ALAN depicted at the top of this post, which was designed for 24 inch wheels.  Until more small riders begin demanding appropriately sized bicycles and wheels, nothing will change.  So, if you do stop in to your LBS, let them know that you could be a good customer if only their suppliers would provide the kind of bike which is safe and comfortable for you to ride.