Stuart Frame - Is it a Holdsworth?
- Thread starter Dancjwood
- Start date
torqueless
Senior Retro Guru
With respect, Keith, I still maintain mid 80s. The above-the-bracket cable guides and long Campag. dropouts are an anachronism on these frames. Also the 531 decal, if original, will give a 'not before' date. Judging from information on the Kilgarif site, If it is a Holdsworth Special, one 'acid test' is the chainstay length. Some time around the early 80s, Holdsworthy lengthened the 'Special' chainstays from 16 1/2" to 17". God knows why. I reckon this one will have 17" chainstays. I think also the earlier 'Specials' had a different set of lugs/fork crown etc.
Re:
The rear end length was always measured centre to centre.
How does your frame number compare?
Is yours made after Holdsworthy finished?
The OP's frame has a fork crown I don't recognise, if the object was to make a 60s/70 lookalike then they got pretty close. It may be just the fork crown and top seat stay eyes look perhaps later. I had a Holdsworthy which was made around 1971 with a sloping crown and 5/8 wrapover.
Keith
The rear end length was always measured centre to centre.
How does your frame number compare?
Is yours made after Holdsworthy finished?
The OP's frame has a fork crown I don't recognise, if the object was to make a 60s/70 lookalike then they got pretty close. It may be just the fork crown and top seat stay eyes look perhaps later. I had a Holdsworthy which was made around 1971 with a sloping crown and 5/8 wrapover.
Keith
torqueless
Senior Retro Guru
Yeah, for practical purposes:
one end of the measurement is the central axis of bracket.
the other is the point formed from the intersection of: a) a line through the centre of the dropout slot, parallel to the slot, and b) the centre line of one seatstay, extended downwards into the dropout slot.
Note that, on a bare frame, neither of these 'points' coincide with metal.
Unfortunately the all-important first digit of my serial number is barely legible. I'll do a 'brass-rubbing' and see if that helps. All I can say is that from the evidence on the kilgarif site, I'm pretty sure my frame dates from '84 or '85.
I don't think they were trying to make a lookalike- I think these were (re)designed as audax frames- road racing(ish) geometry at the front end and touring(ish) geometry at the back end. I never heard of 'audax' before the 80s.
one end of the measurement is the central axis of bracket.
the other is the point formed from the intersection of: a) a line through the centre of the dropout slot, parallel to the slot, and b) the centre line of one seatstay, extended downwards into the dropout slot.
Note that, on a bare frame, neither of these 'points' coincide with metal.
Unfortunately the all-important first digit of my serial number is barely legible. I'll do a 'brass-rubbing' and see if that helps. All I can say is that from the evidence on the kilgarif site, I'm pretty sure my frame dates from '84 or '85.
I don't think they were trying to make a lookalike- I think these were (re)designed as audax frames- road racing(ish) geometry at the front end and touring(ish) geometry at the back end. I never heard of 'audax' before the 80s.
torqueless
Senior Retro Guru
Re:
Dancjwood- I just attempted to upload some quick photos of the frame details on mine for comparison, but failed. My serial is ?34264, so if these frames are from the same source, as I suspect, yours is a bit later than mine.
Shaun- Thanks for that. I have this thing about bikes where the gap between the front tyre and the downtube is smaller than the gap between the back tyre and the seat tube. It irks me something rotten, aesthetically. To make matters worse, on this particular frame, the forks were just too long to accept the 42-52mm brake stirrups which fitted on the back, (with the pads right at the bottom of the slot) so I had to very carefully file the axle slots in the front dropouts a bit deeper, which of course moved the front tyre even closer to the down tube. I can't think of any reason for intentionally building a frame with mismatched brake clearances like that- anybody?
Dancjwood- I just attempted to upload some quick photos of the frame details on mine for comparison, but failed. My serial is ?34264, so if these frames are from the same source, as I suspect, yours is a bit later than mine.
Shaun- Thanks for that. I have this thing about bikes where the gap between the front tyre and the downtube is smaller than the gap between the back tyre and the seat tube. It irks me something rotten, aesthetically. To make matters worse, on this particular frame, the forks were just too long to accept the 42-52mm brake stirrups which fitted on the back, (with the pads right at the bottom of the slot) so I had to very carefully file the axle slots in the front dropouts a bit deeper, which of course moved the front tyre even closer to the down tube. I can't think of any reason for intentionally building a frame with mismatched brake clearances like that- anybody?
