New Rourke 953 build

drlodge

And it wouldn't be complete without the celebrity photo!

alihisgreat

Looks very nice.. and i bet it looks even nicer in the flesh.

Just a shame the N+1 rule still applies and after two weeks you'll be looking for the next one

TMR

No offence intended, but that saddle is minging. And given where the saddle's positioned over the seat post, why didn't you just go for an inline post? It would have looked much better IMHO.

The rest of the bike looks beautiful though, and I'm a huge fan of the colour scheme - stunning

napoleond

The seat post clamp is bang in the middle of the rails?

Thing is with saddles is that they are the only thing where function comes before form (just)

drlodge

The saddle is the new version of what I am used to, and is what I have on my 531 bike, Selle Italia Gel Flow Flite. And as NapD says, the seat post is bang in the middle of the rails, the seat post being the same range as the bars and stem??

alihisgreat

drlodge wrote:

The saddle is the new version of what I am used to, and is what I have on my 531 bike, Selle Italia Gel Flow Flite. And as NapD says, the seat post is bang in the middle of the rails, the seat post being the same range as the bars and stem??

I think he was fooled by the shape of the saddle -> the long rear end gives it a different visual centre.

rajMAN

Looks fantastic, ride report next then.

EKIMIKE

Nice to see it finished. Understated look of quality about it. No doubt exactly what you were going for with the choice of components. Nothing too flashy (Campag SR aside).

Yeh, as above, an inline seatpost would be 100% wrong for the fit. Whereas the seatpost currently on the bike looks 100% perfect...

As for the saddle, you're right to stick with what you know! I have a Charge Spoon on both my bikes. I like it, and it didn't cost me a fortune. Yes it's heavy as hell but i don't care. Have a look at the bike in my sig. - The first question is always - why the saddle? Why don't you get something lighter? The answer is always "i like to actually ride my bike (not just hang it on some scales), and i like that saddle". The two are mutually inclusive and inseparable.

PS i technically could do with an inline seatpost though haha!

drlodge

A little surprised when I weighed the bike last night, 8Kg (17.6lbs) all up, heavier than I thought it would be. Not sure what the frame on its own is, but given I've got Campag SR on it, would have throught it would be lighter. Doesn't worry me though, just wonder how you get a bike under 16lbs other than a lighter carbon frame...?

APIII

It's not a bad weight. Besides, my lightest bike is around 14.5lbs and in no way is it my favourite to ride.
I think it's all come together very nicely. When's the maiden voyage? It's lashing it down here today, so I wouldn't be taking it anywhere just yet!

nevman

Great bike.Thanks for sharing it .

EKIMIKE

Wheels. Those things are heavy (contextually speaking).

Groupsets don't really count for an awful lot. You can't save a massive amount like you can with wheels. Thing is those wheels will have a beautiful ride quality, be durable and repairable. That's what you want for 10 months of the year in this country. Get something super flashy for the other 2 months if you want...

The fact is, also, that steel is heavy. No matter what grade it is.

You could get this thing down to something like 6.5Kg... you just need a very large budget. £500 cranksets, £150 stems, £250 brakes, bare carbon saddles e.t.c (have a look at weightweenies forum). Worth it? Probably not.

napoleond

drlodge wrote:

A little surprised when I weighed the bike last night, 8Kg (17.6lbs) all up, heavier than I thought it would be. Not sure what the frame on its own is, but given I've got Campag SR on it, would have throught it would be lighter. Doesn't worry me though, just wonder how you get a bike under 16lbs other than a lighter carbon frame...?

Don't bother!

The lightest Pro racing bikes were that weight recently.

ugo.santalucia

drlodge wrote:

A little surprised when I weighed the bike last night, 8Kg (17.6lbs) all up, heavier than I thought it would be. Not sure what the frame on its own is, but given I've got Campag SR on it, would have throught it would be lighter. Doesn't worry me though, just wonder how you get a bike under 16lbs other than a lighter carbon frame...?

Why heavy? If you had gone for a set of 24/28 spoked light rims, like Velocity Aerohead on Revolution spokes, could have saved you 300 grams, but you opted for the reliability of angular contact bearings and a 32 spokes build... could have gone down to 7.7 Kg, which is very light in my books.
If you want to go lighter, you go for tubular wheel sets and you enter the PRO riders world, easily down to 7.2 Kg, which is not far off the UCI limit...
A stainless frame should be 1.3 Kg, give or take.
8 Kg is a very light non plastic bike

drlodge

EKIMIKE wrote:

Wheels. Those things are heavy (contextually speaking).

Groupsets don't really count for an awful lot. You can't save a massive amount like you can with wheels. Thing is those wheels will have a beautiful ride quality, be durable and repairable. That's what you want for 10 months of the year in this country. Get something super flashy for the other 2 months if you want...

I'm with you there, the wheels aren't for weight weenies but they're what I want for 12 months of the year!! I can always get some deep section carbon rims for TTs, but don't think I'll be going there for a while.

The stem, bars and seat post are metal too, rather than more expensive carbon. This was never going to be a weight weenies bike anyway.

Will be interesting to see what the ride is like, hopefully at the weekend, Sunday and the forecast is looking OK at the moment. Brian advised me to take it easy, just "ride the bike", and that it would be firmer and a little skittish compared to my old 531. Have ordered the small aero wedge bag, pump, multi tool etc., need to fit Garmin speed/cadence sensor and mount, then I'm ready.

EKIMIKE

Weight is an overrated curiosity with bikes IMO. Ultimately on a build like this it's all about quality. Build quality. Ride quality. Durability through quality manufacture.

Not saying light weight carbon stuff is lacking in quality, you just need to spend frightful amounts of money to get reciprocal quality to what we see here with steel/aluminium.

Also, the majority of the components on this build are in the realm of the tried and tested. Enjoy!

rajMAN

drlodge wrote:

A little surprised when I weighed the bike last night, 8Kg (17.6lbs) all up, heavier than I thought it would be. Not sure what the frame on its own is, but given I've got Campag SR on it, would have throught it would be lighter. Doesn't worry me though, just wonder how you get a bike under 16lbs other than a lighter carbon frame...?

To give you a quick comparison, In 1991 Phil Anderson's bike a 57cm Eddie Merckx Max weighed in at 22 lbs, that was with Dura Ace 8spd with Wolber Tubulars, DT spokes and Cinelli finishing kit. Phil was 6'1" and 170lbs at the time. (source WINNING No.96).

So I wouldn't worry at all about the weight.

alihisgreat

rajMAN wrote:

drlodge wrote:

A little surprised when I weighed the bike last night, 8Kg (17.6lbs) all up, heavier than I thought it would be. Not sure what the frame on its own is, but given I've got Campag SR on it, would have throught it would be lighter. Doesn't worry me though, just wonder how you get a bike under 16lbs other than a lighter carbon frame...?

To give you a quick comparison, In 1991 Phil Anderson's bike a 57cm Eddie Merckx Max weighed in at 22 lbs, that was with Dura Ace 8spd with Wolber Tubulars, DT spokes and Cinelli finishing kit. Phil was 6'1" and 170lbs at the time. (source WINNING No.96).

So I wouldn't worry at all about the weight.

and we're all still driving 20 year old cars too?

Technology has moved on.. its no good saying 'it was good enough 20 years ago so its good enough now'

Although it is good enough.. you're just not saying it for the right reasons

rajMAN

Just a comparison for interest. Building up a steel bike is NOT about weight essentially,

rolf_f

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

and we're all still driving 20 year old cars too?

Technology has moved on.. its no good saying 'it was good enough 20 years ago so its good enough now'

You're right - my car is 27 years old. It may not have airbags (though later ones did) but it would still do OK in current crash tests for driver and pedestrian. It is better made than about 98% of modern cars, costs £200 a year to insure, doesn't depreciate and starts on the button. It keeps up with the traffic thanks to 2 litres and a turbo, if I incur a £200 bill on it I consider that extravagent and there is plenty of space in the back for my bike. I can think of no benefits to buying something more modern.

Just because technology has moved on doesn't mean that's a good thing. It might be but you're not saying it for the right reasons!

drlodge

Getting back to the weight topic, its gonna weigh a little more with me on it and up to 2 litres of fluid

Took some better photos last night with a flash, but need to wait until the weekend for some natural light.

samsbike

Gosh, its looking very good.

mtbboy101

Lovely

Crozza

looking really nice

but do you really have to put the Garmin sensor (presumably the GSC 10) on the chain stay? those things are so ugly and would cheapen this beautiful build

styxd

It looks great, I'd love to have a go on one of them to compare it to my steel frame.

It looks very short and upright though, it'd be nicer if the bars were lower (although perhaps not for your back!)

Also, how short are the chainstays?!? They look slammed, like it

Benjamin Hall

drlodge

styxd wrote:

It looks great, I'd love to have a go on one of them to compare it to my steel frame.

It looks very short and upright though, it'd be nicer if the bars were lower (although perhaps not for your back!)

Also, how short are the chainstays?!? They look slammed, like it

I'll let you know how it compares to my 531 Professional frame when I ride it, that will be a really good comparison, like for like so to speak of the "best" steel frames of today vs. 1980s.

I think the frame looks upright since there is not alot of drop from saddle to bars, but I am 45 and don't have a particularly flexible back - had a slipped disc a few years back. However the frame geometry is based on the CADD 8, so 54cm seat tube and 54.5m top tube, but the head tube is longer so move the bars up, and I agree there is not much seat stem on show. My Condor is built much the same way, 22" seat tube but 21" top tube.

I haven't measured the chain stays, but I can tell you even with these 23c tyres on there is not much room to take the wheel out, if I changed to 25c tyres I might have to let them down!

bluedog99

Thats one beautiful bike, thanks for sharing the build , hope it gives you years of service. Only 23 weeks for mine !

RideOnTime

8)

napoleond

RideOnTime wrote:

8)

You still playing that game?