# Cold Setting Frames, Not Necessary



## RoadBoy1

Having recently picked up a project I have been scanning this Retro-Classic forum to get ideas for what I can do to my new project bike and I am seeing a lot of threads talking about cold setting the rear triangle if you want to put Brifters and a 9 or 10 speed cassette on the rear. While a good idea in theory in practice this is a very bad idea in practice and can wind up irrepairably damaging a good frame.

The difference between 6-speed spacing and the modern 8, 9, 10 speed spacing is only 4mm. 6-speed bikes had 126mm rear dropout spacing. Newer bikes with 8, 9, and 10 cogs have 130mm rear dropout spacing which is only 2mm on each side of the wheel. 2mm is basically the size of the head of a lead pencil and can easily be achieved when a wheel is inserted into a frame without the need for cold setting a frame. One of the characteristics of steel is that it gives which makes inserting a wheel easy.

For a person to take a vintage frame to a bike shop and attempt to have it re-spaced by cold setting is a waste of money and extremely foolish and risky. Most bike shops are staffed by kids who have no clue as to how to properly cold set steel and they can easily screw up a perfectly good frame. The next time you hear someone talk about cold setting a vintage frame just say No. Friends don't let friends cold set.


----------



## tlg

So do it yourself. Or take it to a shop that's not staffed by clueless kids. 
Really not that complicated.


----------



## Gregory Taylor

I agree that you can easily shove a 130mm rear hub into a space originally designed for 126mm. The springiness of the steel allows for that. (In fact, Surly used to - or maybe still does still does - build their Cross Check with a rear dimension of 132mm, so that you could put either a road or a mountain hub out back.)

One caveat, however, to your opinion that cold setting is always bad is that just shoving the bigger hub in there leaves the rear dropouts slightly splayed (i.e. not parallel to each other) which, in turn, can do weird things to a rear hub. If it is bad enough it can bend an axle or cause it to flex, creating weird wear patterns on the bearings (wholly apart from the stress on the frame itself caused by the slight torque on the chain and seat stays). If I was running a Record hub out back, for example, I sure as hell would want the frame preparation to be spot on in order to avoid tears and expense down the line.

So, yes, clueless cold setting by someone who has never done it before and really doesn't know what they are doing can be a bad thing. Not cold setting can also be a bad thing. If you have someone who knows what they are doing they will not only open up the rear triangle, they will also reset the rear dropouts and adjust the derailleur hanger while they are at it. If you don't care about potentially chewing up an expensive rear hub, don't worry about cold setting.


----------



## JCavilia

If you don't cold set it, you're dealing with springing the frame open every time you install the wheel. Doable, but a hassle sometimes, like whne fixing a flat on the road. And unnecessary. If you're going to use a longer axle in the frame, it makes sense to make it fit. Do it yourself, or find someone who does it right. It ain't rocket surgery. Sheldon Brown somewhere described a method using a long 2x4 that allows you to bend each side of the rear triangle separately, and with good control. It works.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

RoadBoy1 said:


> Most bike shops are staffed by kids who have no clue as to how to properly cold set steel and they can easily screw up a perfectly good frame


1:not many bike shops that perform alignments are going to have an inexperienced kid do it

2:almost every high end steel bike is cold set after brazing/welding anyway

3:not cold setting and realigning means your frame could be misaligned when a 130mm wheel is used

4:steel is forgiving, kids would be unlikely to do irreversible damage


----------



## Gregory Taylor

Cinelli 82220 said:


> 2:almost every high end steel bike is cold set after brazing/welding anyway


Yup. I know this from personal experience.


----------



## Woyteck Morajko

if I may: I agree that cold setting is not necessary, but for another reason: Why not just stay with downtube shifters and 5/6/speed freewheel? does everything HAVE to be brifters and 9/10, heading for 11/12 etc.?
either retro-classic, or modern autoshift crap, let's pick one.


----------



## Easyup

I must be lucky, none of the LBS I frequent in Tucson, Vancouver/Portland or even Sheridan, WY have clueless kids and I would go as far as say that I am quite certain that if a customer came in and wanted something done as esoteric as cold setting they would get help. I generally find they are good kids interested in bikes, even interested in my vintage part searches and willing to tell me all about the latest developments in cycling which I only have a passing interest in. They can not be making much money so I always assumed they love bikes and wrenching and that's why they are there.
I cold set and re-align the dropouts myself and had one done professionally as stated above for fixing a flat on the road and avoiding weird axle stresses, though I doubt the bearings would be a problem with a slight misalignment. On a Reynolds 753R (Reynolds and the internet experts warn 753 can't be cold set) custom frame and fork that were both so tweeked the bike was not usable, Andy Gilmour (framebuilder) utilized Marchetti alignment tables and charged $80. 130mm wheels now drop in and it rides beautifully.


----------



## FTR

You guys in the US must have awesome bike shops in the US.
I would be highly doubtful that ANY bike shop in my area (high or low end) would know what cold setting is let alone have the tools to do it.


----------



## headloss

Woyteck Morajko said:


> if I may: I agree that cold setting is not necessary, but for another reason: Why not just stay with downtube shifters and 5/6/speed freewheel? does everything HAVE to be brifters and 9/10, heading for 11/12 etc.?


You don't. I do! 

Actually, I held off and just use a track-hub of 120mm for now. Still debating if I want to coldset for the sake of using a modern hub with a cassette.


----------



## Easyup

FTR said:


> You guys in the US must have awesome bike shops in the US.
> I would be highly doubtful that ANY bike shop in my area (high or low end) would know what cold setting is let alone have the tools to do it.


Wow, I cold set 126mm drops to 130mm with a length of 2x4, a string and a caliper but a steel ruler would probably work as well as a caliper, as shown on the Sheldon Brown site and described there as "It is a routine procedure for updating older frames to accommodate newer rear wheels that have wider spacing, when upgrading to modern gearing. This is not recommended for frames made of more brittle materials, such as aluminum, titanium or carbon fiber."


----------



## Richard

A little info here. In the late '80's when Shimano introduced 8 speed STI virtually every contemporary upper end frame out there was steel and spaced at 126mm. What did Shimano do with their "new-fangled" 130mm rear hub? They "beveled" the cone adjusting lock nut so it would be easier to slide into that 126mm spaced frame. No issues.

I've been running a 130mm Campy hub (both 8 and 10 speed) in my late '80's Falcon for years with no problems whatsoever. I did put the Park hanger alignment tool on it out of curiousity once with the 130 hub in there. Spot on.

Interestingly enough, my 1991 Dave Moulton Fuso was specced with 128mm spacing. I've got a 120mm track hub with 4mm spacers on each side.


----------



## RFC

These threads are rampant on all classic forums. It's just not necessary. I've used 130's in 126 on dozens of bikes. It's just no big deal and almost urban legend.


----------



## KensBikes

RFC said:


> These threads are rampant on all classic forums. It's just not necessary. I've used 130's in 126 on dozens of bikes. It's just no big deal and almost urban legend.


There is a lot of opinion here, when conclusions are drawn. Mine is, I like the convenience and peace of mind in having the frame fit the wheel correctly.


----------



## Duane Behrens

Woyteck Morajko said:


> if I may: I agree that cold setting is not necessary, but for another reason: Why not just stay with downtube shifters and 5/6/speed freewheel? does everything HAVE to be brifters and 9/10, heading for 11/12 etc.?
> either retro-classic, or modern autoshift crap, let's pick one.


Thank you. I've already got a carbon bike with a modern 10-speed cassette and integrated shifters. 18.5 lbs with pedals and bottle cage. 

My second bike is a 30-year old steel-framed Super Course. 23.5 lbs with pedals and bottle cage. It has the original 52x42 chain rings; original Sugino! Out back there's a six-speed, 14x28 gear cluster threaded onto a freewheel hub, all of which fit neatly into the bike's OEM 126mm rear dropouts. The chain is moved and tensioned by a pair of Suntour downtube-mounted Power Shifters and a Suntour derailleur. It all looks and operates like new, and I make sure to keep it that way.

I ride the steel bike most every day. It's an absolute pleasure to ride. Why would I want to spread the dropouts? I'm not going racing anytime soon. 

Please - don't bastardize these beautiful old machines.


----------



## JCavilia

Duane Behrens said:


> I ride the steel bike most every day. It's an absolute pleasure to ride. Why would I want to spread the dropouts? I'm not going racing anytime soon.
> 
> Please - don't bastardize these beautiful old machines.


Why? You'd want to do that if you wanted to take your nice old frame and put a 10-speed cassette wheel on it, and modern shift levers, which you might want to do if you thought it would be even more of a pleasure that way. 

That's not "bastardizing" it. You choose to use it one way, another rider chooses another. It's a machine, not a Rembrandt.

And, BTW, don't call your 30-year-old bike a beautiful "old" machine. As a 64-year-old rider who bought my first 10-speed 42 years ago, that just doesn't sound right ;-)


----------



## Gregory Taylor

Duane Behrens said:


> Please - don't bastardize these beautiful old machines.


Duane - don't touch your Raleigh (except to do maintenance, of course). It's perfect the way it is. I appreciate old bikes that have been cared for and are still used as intended. 

That said, there is more than one way to have fun fiddling with bikes. The way that I look at it is this - 

- Crappy Old Bikes: You can do anything with a crappy old bike and most folks, including me, won't shed any tears. What I'm taking about here are those cheap, nasty bikes lugged steel bikes with super low end Shimano components that have spent their lives chained up outside college dorms or buried under a pile of trash on the carport. No one gets nostalgic for these bikes. The big caveat for me are those "time capsule" bikes from the '60 or '70 that occasionally turn up in great shape and with all of the original equipment intact. Even if it is a crappy hi-ten Huffy or Ross, I sort of cringe when something like that gets apart, usually to build a hipster fixie or town bike. I think it is cooler to preserve it, even if it really is a piece of crap. In fact, this is an ironclad rule for well-preserved low end and mid-level bikes from the second bike boom spawned by the '70's gas crisis. All kinds of weird **** was shipped over to the 'States when gas was rationed and we feared that we would have to turn our Buicks into potting sheds and ride our bikes to the mall. It was a brief shining moment when anything with two wheels sold well, and bike shops popped up everywhere. And that piece of crap Sears Free Spirit or Gitane Frottage (or whatever) should be preserved as a small reminder of the time when America brieflly lost its collective sh!t at the prospect of No More Gasoline and bought any bicycle that they could get their hands on. But I digress. Anyway, my brave and somewhat unconventional opinion is that an unmolested crappy old bike is much greater than the sum of its parts: a bike is only orignal once, and a crappy bike from back in the day it is less of a bike and more of an artifact or bit of cultural ephemera. It's value is to put a smile on our face and to remind us of our prior folly. But, then again, I'm a guy who can wax lyrical when he comes across an unrestored Chevy Vega that still has its aluminum engine... 

- "Good" Bikes That Are Old: For a "good" bike from the '80's and earlier, and by this I mean a quality, high end frame set that was aimed at racers or fast guys, I don't get so bent about swapping parts for modern stuff. Like today, riders of high end bikes tended to upgrade parts over the life of the bike (often each racing season) until the point came where the frame was obsolete and they moved on. For some modern riders, getting one of these old frames years after it was The New And Fast Thing and swapping in new parts is just a continuation of that process. Updating a nice lugged steel frame is a bit like creating a Hot Rod - it is cycling's version of the small block Chevy stuffed in to a '29 Ford Model A roadster. The end result can be a hoot to ride. Then there are those cyclists who get a frame like that and want to keep things period correct - six speed freewheels, downtube shifters, non-aero brakes. These riders are like the folks who would restore that '29 Ford Model A roadster rather than stuff a hot Chevy motor in it. Restored cars are also pretty cool. Different strokes for different folks. 

- The Really, Really "Good" Bikes That We Can't Afford: Finally, there are some old bikes that you would just not modify with modern parts, like a Masi Gran Criterium by Mario Confente. Campy 11 and modern wheels on a classic like that would just be wrong. That would be like painting flames and bolting wide tires on a classic Duesenberg SJ...just wrong.


----------



## Duane Behrens

Gregory Taylor said:


> Duane - don't touch your Raleigh (except to do maintenance, of course). It's perfect the way it is. I appreciate old bikes that have been cared for and are still used as intended.
> 
> That said, there is more than one way to have fun fiddling with bikes. The way that I look at it is this -
> 
> - Crappy Old Bikes: You can do anything with a crappy old bike and most folks, including me, won't shed any tears. What I'm taking about here are those cheap, nasty bikes lugged steel bikes with super low end Shimano components that have spent their lives chained up outside college dorms or buried under a pile of trash on the carport. No one gets nostalgic for these bikes. The big caveat for me are those "time capsule" bikes from the '60 or '70 that occasionally turn up in great shape and with all of the original equipment intact. Even if it is a crappy hi-ten Huffy or Ross, I sort of cringe when something like that gets apart, usually to build a hipster fixie or town bike. I think it is cooler to preserve it, even if it really is a piece of crap. In fact, this is an ironclad rule for well-preserved low end and mid-level bikes from the second bike boom spawned by the '70's gas crisis. All kinds of weird **** was shipped over to the 'States when gas was rationed and we feared that we would have to turn our Buicks into potting sheds and ride our bikes to the mall. It was a brief shining moment when anything with two wheels sold well, and bike shops popped up everywhere. And that piece of crap Sears Free Spirit or Gitane Frottage (or whatever) should be preserved as a small reminder of the time when America brieflly lost its collective sh!t at the prospect of No More Gasoline and bought any bicycle that they could get their hands on. But I digress. Anyway, my brave and somewhat unconventional opinion is that an unmolested crappy old bike is much greater than the sum of its parts: a bike is only orignal once, and a crappy bike from back in the day it is less of a bike and more of an artifact or bit of cultural ephemera. It's value is to put a smile on our face and to remind us of our prior folly. But, then again, I'm a guy who can wax lyrical when he comes across an unrestored Chevy Vega that still has its aluminum engine...
> 
> - "Good" Bikes That Are Old: For a "good" bike from the '80's and earlier, and by this I mean a quality, high end frame set that was aimed at racers or fast guys, I don't get so bent about swapping parts for modern stuff. Like today, riders of high end bikes tended to upgrade parts over the life of the bike (often each racing season) until the point came where the frame was obsolete and they moved on. For some modern riders, getting one of these old frames years after it was The New And Fast Thing and swapping in new parts is just a continuation of that process. Updating a nice lugged steel frame is a bit like creating a Hot Rod - it is cycling's version of the small block Chevy stuffed in to a '29 Ford Model A roadster. The end result can be a hoot to ride. Then there are those cyclists who get a frame like that and want to keep things period correct - six speed freewheels, downtube shifters, non-aero brakes. These riders are like the folks who would restore that '29 Ford Model A roadster rather than stuff a hot Chevy motor in it. Restored cars are also pretty cool. Different strokes for different folks.
> 
> - The Really, Really "Good" Bikes That We Can't Afford: Finally, there are some old bikes that you would just not modify with modern parts, like a Masi Gran Criterium by Mario Confente. Campy 11 and modern wheels on a classic like that would just be wrong. That would be like painting flames and bolting wide tires on a classic Duesenberg SJ...just wrong.


Excellent essay. Read it twice. Thank you.

"Bastardize" was a bit strong. With my Super Course, I'll admit to changing out the brakes, brake hoods, front and rear derailleurs, down tube shifters, rims, sprocket assembly etc. - all to make the bike more ride-able on a daily basis, but without profoundly affecting the look of the bike or the ride of the original steel frame.

Certain things I would not change. The bike will always have down tube shifters, it will always run a 6-speed freewheel, and the dropout spread will always be 126. Personally, I just feel these things maintain - at least - a respectful nod to a bygone period. 

The best part? My hands - naturally now - fall to the down tubes when it's time to shift. 

And that makes me smile.


----------



## JCavilia

Greg is a poet; I'm a tinkerer and recycler. All of my old bikes came from the "crappy old" category, or the mid-level but NOT well-preserved pile. The "Really, Really "Good" Bikes That We Can't Afford" I only admire from afar.

Duane, you're . . . well, a bit selective in what you consider essential to preserve the spirit of an old bike. NTTAWWT. Diff'rent strokes, as Greg said. But scolding somebody else for bending the stays 2mm to fit some more cogs in, after you put Japanese derailleurs and shift levers on your Nottingham bike, seems over the top, as you conceded. 

I may be more of a preservationist than you, in a way, just because I'm cheap. All my bikes are steel, and though my main road bike has Campy Ergo shifters (9-speed), the frame is nearing 20 years age. And that's my newest bike. The bike I ride most frequently (daily commuter) is a fixie built on a frame I got (for 5$) at a garage sale, a Rampar (Taiwan-built Raleigh America brand) that probably dates from that early-70s bike boom, and is a good example of decent quality mid-level bikes from the era. Nothing but the frame was salvageable when I bought it, so preservation/reastoration was inconceivable. It's a sweet-handling bike. I enjoy the hell out of it on flatter rides.

My rainy-day commuter and errand bike is another FG, built on a Motobecane (real made-in-France) of probably about the same vintage, that was a much more expensive garage-sale pickup: 25$. Also pretty much trashed, except for the frame and fork. I sawed the cottered cranks of that one and replaced with a "modern" crankset from another junker find. 

Come to think of it, I've never even ridden on a carbon-framed bike.


----------



## paredown

Gregory Taylor said:


> ...That would be like painting flames and bolting wide tires on a classic Duesenberg SJ...just wrong.


:ihih:

I have to say. it would make a statement...


----------



## Duane Behrens

JCavilia said:


> [snip]
> 
> Duane, you're . . . well, a bit selective in what you consider essential to preserve the spirit of an old bike. NTTAWWT. Diff'rent strokes, as Greg said. But scolding somebody else for bending the stays 2mm to fit some more cogs in, after you put Japanese derailleurs and shift levers on your Nottingham bike, seems over the top, as you conceded.
> 
> I may be more of a preservationist than you, in a way, just because I'm cheap. All my bikes are steel, and though my main road bike has Campy Ergo shifters (9-speed), the frame is nearing 20 years age. And that's my newest bike. The bike I ride most frequently (daily commuter) is a fixie built on a frame I got (for 5$) at a garage sale, a Rampar (Taiwan-built Raleigh America brand) that probably dates from that early-70s bike boom, and is a good example of decent quality mid-level bikes from the era. Nothing but the frame was salvageable when I bought it, so preservation/reastoration was inconceivable. It's a sweet-handling bike. I enjoy the hell out of it on flatter rides.
> 
> My rainy-day commuter and errand bike is another FG, built on a Motobecane (real made-in-France) of probably about the same vintage, that was a much more expensive garage-sale pickup: 25$. Also pretty much trashed, except for the frame and fork. I sawed the cottered cranks of that one and replaced with a "modern" crankset from another junker find.
> 
> Come to think of it, I've never even ridden on a carbon-framed bike.


 Love you guys, AND your rides. And I think we're largely of the same mind:

Function trumps form.

All of the changes I've made to the Super Course were only intended to make it rideable. The dish and bump in the original Arya front rim is gone now. The Ultegra brakes are crisp and replacement pads are plentiful. The Shimano RD moves the chain across a larger-capacity 14x28 freewheel assembly with ease. And so on. . . . all with an eye toward keeping the look of the original while providing an enjoyable, daily ride. 

To achieve that, spreading the drops and installing integrated shifters or a 10-speed was never required. 

FWIW, the original components are all neatly labeled, bagged and boxed. I'm not sure why, since I don't intend to sell the bike anytime soon. 

Now looking forward to restoring a couple of old Centurions - a Lemans and a Lemans RS, circa 1984. Should make for many pleasant evenings in the garage. . . and thanks for sharing yours! DB


----------



## Duane Behrens

KensBikes said:


> There is a lot of opinion here, when conclusions are drawn. Mine is, I like the convenience and peace of mind in having the frame fit the wheel correctly.


There you go. Thanks.


----------



## CliffordK

My primary ride is a well-used Colnago. It has had a few bits an pieces upgraded over the 32 years I've owned it (out of it's 46 yr life). It is still set at 126mm. I haven't decided one way or the other on the cold setting. 

I do like parts to fit together nicely. I do think the old Campy style horizontal dropouts are a bit of a pain, and would rather not have to squeeze a wheel that was the wrong size into them. 

Over the years I've run 5, 6, & 7 speed clusters on it. I finally decided to bump up to a 9 speed freehub. My solution was to cut the axle down to 126mm (or so), then to build the wheel on an off-center (asymmetric) rim which dished just fine. It will be easy enough to replace the axle space it back to 130mm or 135mm if I choose to do so.

I use the right half of my cassette more than the left half, and don't mind the chain line being a bit further right on the cassette.


----------

