Recent content by hamster

I had thought is was no longer made...so it's back?

Yes!

Yes, good point. Low band mechs in particular are unable to go quite as close to the frame for the inner ring as high-band types.

The other fast tourer model they had was the Harrier. Looks a nice frame - nobody ever regretted buying an Orbit.

Not really, in theory it should be a couple of mm closer in, which would favour the 110 slightly. In reality is the frame exactly true??? I suspect you are over-thinking this.

I run 113 or 110 on mine, both are fine although I would go for 113 if there is more than 10T difference between middle and outer rings. Good choice - lighter than XTR and every bit as well finished.

Clamp size, top or bottom pull?

I would go and talk to Condor, a proper shop and framebuilder.

A lot depends on things like your dropout length. Shimano guidelines are guaranteed to work - generally there is substantially more wriggle room. Wind the B-tension screw in and it most likely will be fine.

Looks very tidy. Maybe a Rock Lobster (the Merlin's Bike Shop type)? IIRC they did them in nickel plate for a couple of years.

You can keep touching up with Kurust to stop the surface corrosion. C&G Finishes (via GA Cycles in Southampton) did an amazing job on my Witcomb, I would have a chat with them. https://www.retrobike.co.uk/threads/1980-witcomb-restoration.477670/

1990 would be M550, which is 7 speed.

Looks right as Ti to me. Rear dropouts are too thin to be alloy.

Got a tidy one which you can have for £20 posted. It needs new jockeys though.

Steel has an infinite fatigue life provided there are no stress raisers (e.g. poor welds or badly-sited braze-ons). Hence the number of 50+ year old steel road frames still happily being ridden. But of course you have corrosion to consider. Aluminium is fundamentally different in that its...