Back to the Future with Kirk Precision - Spares Required?

hockinsk

Finally brought a 1988 Kirk Precision back to the future and here's the result. Rides almost as nice as my Look 595 which was a complete shock as everyone said they ride like crap. Other than a bit of flex in the headtube area, 300 miles later all I can really say negatively about it, is that it's a bit heavy and dead when climbing, but then for a training bike, that's what I want!

Anyway, downtube shifter bosses and hump have been machined off, mudguard eyelets on rear dropouts smoothed as have the hand pump flanges on the rear triangle. Dropout inserts have also been machined back 2mm to handle 130mm hubs and STI stops riveted to the downtube.

The only issue still to be resolved is that it came with a plastic rear mech hanger which fits around the dropout and rubs on the cassette lockring. There's room for the chain on the smallest sprocket, but the alloy hanger these frames also came with would fix this problem.

Original alloy hanger


Later plastic hanger wraps around dropout



Anyone know anywhere that might still stock the alloy mech hangers and other spares for these frames? Old dusty bike shops that used to sell the frames are problably my best bet perhaps? I've rang around some local shops, but no luck yet. Other than spending £100 to get one machined, i'm not sure what else I could use?

redvee

For the hanger give BETD a look, bit of a longshot but only help I can offer.

ademort

Hi, sorry i cannot help with your problem, however the frame brings back memories. I had one, it was supposed to be unbreakable. My frame broke at the chainstay, magnesium could not be repaired and i had to bin it. Great pictures by the way Ademort

redvee

Steer clear of TV presenters and Range Rovers

System_1

Nice bike!

Sorry I can't help with the gear hanger problem other than to suggest a slimmer lockring. That one looks a bit 'chunky'. Or would it be possible (or safe) to shave a bit off the plastic hanger at the point it connects with the lockring?

Are those H+Son rims by any chance? I've had my eye on a pair of those for my fixed gear. Are they any good, easy to build? And are they really the non-machined versions too? :shock: How's breaking performance?

Sorry for all the questions. :oops:

hockinsk

Yep, they are H+Son SL42 rims on Record hubs with Sapim Lasers and alloy nipples that I built up for the Kirk.

I wrote a bit of a review over at Weight Weenies. http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... sc&start=0

The short of it, is they are some of the finest quality rims i've built and ridden. The braking surface hasn't rubbed off yet which is why they look like the version without brake surface called 'Formation Face'. If you get the one painted, not annodised, they have the more typical CNC silver finsh on the brake track.

System_1

Cheers hockinsk, that's most helpful. That review has just helped me make up my mind. I'm planning on a formation face on the back and a machined one up front so it's good to see they look similar (for a little while at least).

wicked

Have you tried over on http://www.retrobike.co.uk I know there a few kirks on there.

Monty Dog

What size is the smallest sprocket? An 11 tooth sprocket has a smaller diameter lockring which might clear the gear hanger or at least you don't have to machine more off. If you do get one machined, remember to make the 'sacrificial' such that if you drop the bike, the hanger breaks rather than the frame.

hockinsk

It's a 12-25, so going to 11 might work with the smaller lockring. I really need a more rigid hanger though to improve the accuracy of the indexing and have a more comfortable clearance. I've got an old cheap alloy crank arm which I think I can probably grind to size and hand file into a hanger and tap a thread in it. Cheers for the 11t idea. I didn't know the lockrings were smaller on the 11t cassettes?

Monty Dog

I didn't realise either until I inadvertantly tried to fit a regular lockring with a 11T sprocket - the edge of the lockring was wider than the bottom of the teeth on the sprocket. Rather than having to get a thread tapped in your homemade hanger, you could also try using a 'frame saver bush' to hold the rear mech in place - available from BETD.co.uk

redvee

Various places sell the frame saver bushes like your LBS.

JC.152

your bike looks good
i saw it on TT forum earlier today and thought it stands out from all the other bikes even though its from 1980s and its not that heavy at 9kilos

hockinsk

Thanks for the tip about the frame saver bushes redvee, i'll look into them.

JC.152 I'm glad you like it. I'm suprised at the response it's had to be honest. I thought most people hated Kirks!

I've had the idea floating around for two years, so had plenty of time to work out what I wanted to do with it. Was a bit concerned slicing the bits off it, but went out on a longer 50 mile ride today with plenty of fast and rough roads and it felt fine. No cracks and its already done 350 miles now so it looks like it'll be fine

As others have asked for some more pictures, here's some more. (The inflatabe balls are not mine : ))

aracer

hockinsk wrote:

JC.152 I'm glad you like it. I'm suprised at the response it's had to be honest. I thought most people hated Kirks!

Maybe back in the day, and they do have a bit of a reputation for breaking, but in a world full of generic Taiwanese made carbon frames (yes, even your expensive branded ones) it is something very different and you've done a very good job.

fizz

That looks fantastic, what a great job you've done on it.

I oughta find the time to rebuild mine... perhaps something to do on the manky winter evenings...

JC.152

I'd never heard of them until today but I showed my dad who recognised it from the first time round and I googled it but most of the first page of from your posts i think. it looks a lot better like you've got it white with record than some of the blue and red frames on http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en ... sion&gbv=2

hockinsk

Yes, there's not a huge amount about the Kirk's on the net. They pre-date the web, so I guess nothing made it on there other than from a few owners/enthusiasts like me.

If you want to read more about them, the best resource is http://www.kirk-bicycles.co.uk with lots of literature to read on there.

Just got back from a 40 mile ride this morning. Still going strong and got plenty of comments by other cyclists. Seems that people just needed their memories jogged seeing it with some modern components on it to realise what a cool design it actually was and it isn't as bad as they remember people saying it was.

fizz

Hockinsk, did you do the machining on the dropouts and the riveting of the bosses yourself or did you get somebody to do it for you ?

hockinsk

The dropouts I simply used a hand file with a steady hand and then a mini disk grinder to ensure it was dead flat. I'm used to working with metal and have built bike frames, so for me it was ok to do this (the dropouts aren't that perfectly aligned like todays CNC'd dropouts on new frames, so accuracy is not so critical, but its easy enough to get it by a handfile only). The dropout inserts are steel and are a bit strange in that they have a raised 2mm circle area (like a thick washer) the same size as a hub locknut which sits on it when tightened with the QR. By filing only this bit down you don't compromise the width of the dropout and get the 4mm extra width you need for 130mm hubs. Looking back, I would probably have lived with just a tight wheel until I found a hanger that fixes from the outside. The rear triangle easily spreads.

The broken hump/gear lever mount that the oldschool gear lever bosses were bonded to, I took into work and got one of the guys there to sliced it off with our CNC machine. I then just filed it to shape by hand myself. If you are careful you could do this with a junior metal saw easily enogh. Just remember to cut it slightly under, so you have some material to work with when smoothing it out with a file. Great thing with Magnesium alloy is it's easy to use basic hand tool on as like aluminium its reasonably soft.

The STI stops/bosses I ordered from http://www.ceeway.com. They are basically what you would use on carbon/alloy frames. Pretty easy to fit, you just line them up on the frame (put the cable through so you know the line of cable won't rub on the exit of the STI adjuster), mark the rivet holes, drill them through (down tube has walls of about 3-4mm thick). Then you just need a rivet gun (obviously use the right size rivets for the STI stops and the down tube)

That's it really. If you haven't really done any metalwork by hand before, I would probably teach yourself by buying some metal and try and shape it and file curves etc. When confident then tackle a frame.

Monty Dog

Go easy with any form of mechanical grinder on magnesium or it can catch fire! Make sure you treat any exposed material with a corrosion inhibiter / primer - bare magnesium corrodes very easily.

hockinsk

It's only the dust and small slivers you generate that really has any risk of igniting. Indeed when I used my grinder to remove the mudguard eyelets there was a couple of sparks just like when you grind alluminium, but nothing more. Even the lumps I cut off don't ignite with a flame held under them. It was one of Kirks myths that they could catch fire and I guess stems from the fact many of us burnt that thin magnesium ribbon in chemistry class. It only burnt because A: you needed a bunson burner high temp flame to actually ignite it and B: it was only about 0.5mm thick. Most parts on a Kirk are +4-5mm thick. Indeed they now make engine blocks, motorbike wheels and F1 suspension out of Magnesium Allot these days.

fizz

OK thanks for the info. I'm reasonably handy with stuff like this, but I wouldnt describe myself as skilled in metalwork though.

But I have been inspired by your rebuilt project to get mine running again.

hockinsk

You'll be fine fizz. You can always leave the hump and the dropouts and just use the normal bolt on STI stops you get with STI/Ergo levers. That way, you don't have to respray either if the Kirks paint is in good nik?

fizz

Yep the paint work and the stickers are all in good condition still so I woudlnt really wanna repaint the bike.

The only other issue I can think of is that it needs a new crank, so if I go down the Hollowtech II route ( makes sense to as my other bike uses that and I have a spare chainset I can use ) I'll need to get the frame faced. Not sure if my LBS would want to do it though.

Is that a big job or is it easy as long as I have the correct tool to do it ?

hockinsk

The BB shell has a threaded insert bonded into each side of the frame. I wouldn't advise getting these faced. In principle, the Kirk uses the same BB insert as most of the Carbon frames do today. i.e. an alloy shell epoxy bonded into the BB shell. At most, just remove the paint/laquer only. The inserts are already engineered straight. All I did was remove the paint fro mthe outer face with some fine emery paper on a flat wooden block.

fizz

fantastic nice and simple, I can do that myself.

I had a look at the rear dropouts tonight when I was out in the garage rumaging about, looks a straight foward enough to file off the 2mm raised area that you said to do to get the 130mm spacing right.

I think though I might try my spare Shimano WH550 wheel with the 10 speed block for spacing first just to see what I am going to be trying to achieve before I take the file to it.

Thanks again for the info you've been really helfpul 8)

valerian

Spurred on by the sight of your lovely example, I dug out my Kirk mountain bike this morning and all I can say is , SCARY ! :shock:

I bought the bike some while ago but had never quite got round to riding it.....

The frame appears to have very little lateral stiffness and by shaking the handlebars back and forth whilst riding it is possible to set up a low speed shimmy akin to piloting a blancmange over a ploughed field.

That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the ride, but it's a bit surprising for something made out of girders to be so pliable.

I take it yours doesn't suffer from this problem ?

hockinsk

Not had much experience with the later mountain bike version which i'm afraid did have a much worse reputation than the road versions which wern't part of Norsk's Hydros design, but yes, the top tube is not that stiff laterally on the road version either. Most road bikes arn't particualy stifflaterally in the top tube unlike the down tube and BB areas. My all carbon £3K Look 595's top tube flexes a fair bit as does my Derosa King frame. If you alternate pushing down on one side of the bars while pulling up on the other side while riding you can flex the top tube +-2 inches or so I would estimate. The kirk is slightly more flexible, than the Look but it doesn't seem to affect the ride apart from a little wobble side to side when mashing hard on the pedals. I wouldn't want to be descending on the Kirk for 10km down Col d'Izoard at 60mph like I do the Look or Derosa, but for the UK's little pimples its fine.

andrewgturnbull

hockinsk wrote:

Yes, there's not a huge amount about the Kirk's on the net. They pre-date the web, so I guess nothing made it on there other than from a few owners/enthusiasts like me.

If you want to read more about them, the best resource is http://www.kirk-bicycles.co.uk with lots of literature to read on there.

Just got back from a 40 mile ride this morning. Still going strong and got plenty of comments by other cyclists. Seems that people just needed their memories jogged seeing it with some modern components on it to realise what a cool design it actually was and it isn't as bad as they remember people saying it was.

You need to watch Eurosport more!

Cycling commentator Dave Harmon is/was a Kirk Precision owner and has gone off on many a ramble on the subject...

The Kirk is another example of innovative design that got killed off by the UCI's bicycle design regulations. Other good designs that bit the dust include the Giant MCR, Trek Y Foil, and that Kestrel with no seat tube.

Cheers, Andy

andrewgturnbull

andrewgturnbull wrote:

The Kirk is another example of innovative design that got killed off by the UCI's bicycle design regulations.

Ok - I'll take that back. I've read the company history on the above link and it seems that they were killed off due to mismanagement - notably launching before being reallly ready for production...