Hi! I suspect this may have been asked before, but I have not found the previous discussion. Anyway, I am having a new custom Audax bike built for me and am considering having S&S torque couplings fitted. Does anyone have any experience of S&S torque couplings? Are they as good as claimed, or are there drawbacks? Also if I did have them and wanted to have a pretty strong case for protection in aircraft, is there a good cheaper alternative (e.g. some brand of ordinary suitcase at an ordinary price) that could be used instead of the "official" case?
Qui Si Parla Campagnolo wrote:> Rudi Lutz wrote:> > Hi!> > I suspect this may have been asked before, but I have not found the> > previous discussion. Anyway, I am having a new custom Audax bike built for> > me and am considering having S&S tor que couplings fitted. Does anyone have> > any experience of S&S torque couplings? Are they as good as claimed, or are> > there drawbacks? Also if I did have them and wanted to have a pretty strong> > case for protection in aircraft, is there a good che aper alternative (e.g.> > some brand of ordinary suitcase at an ordinary price) that could be used> > instead of the "official" case?
They are the best way to make the frame foldable, period. They are> secure, easy to use, the resulting frame rides normally.> We have done a few coupled S&S frames and the 'official' case, with
things it comes with, is the best solution by far.
I read somewhere, can't recall where, that the Ritchey case for their foldable is a better case for S&S coupled bicycles than either S&S case.
Has anyone experience with the Ritchey foldable, case or bicycle, in comparison? The coupling system is certainly much less expensive and lighter. Many custom Japanese builders have long had similar systems, the basic idea for which all got in turn from Herse.ˇ
I heard the same thing that the Ritchey case was easier for S&S bikes. That's probably because it's slightly larger than the S&S cases. Strictly speaking, it's larger than the allowable limits (2" too big) though Ritchey claims the airlines let you slide. IMO it is not right for Ritchey to claim their case is airline legal when they know darn well it's not, but that's a different topic.
I suspect this may have been asked before, but I have not>>> found the previous discussion. Anyway, I am having a new custom>>> Audax bike built for me and am considering having S&S tor que>>> couplings fitted. Does anyone have any experience of S&S torque>>> couplings? Are they as good as claimed, or are there drawbacks?>>> Also if I did have them and wanted to have a pretty strong case for>>> protection in aircraft, is there a good che aper alternative (e.g.>>> some brand of ordinary suitcase at an ordinary price) that could be>>> used instead of the "official" case?
They are the best way to make the frame foldable, period. They are>> secure, easy to use, the resulting frame rides normally.>> We have done a few coupled S&S frames and the 'official' case, with>> the things it comes with, is the best solution by far.
I read somewhere, can't recall where, that the Ritchey case for their> foldable is a better case for S&S coupled bicycles than either S&S> case.
Has anyone experience with the Ritchey foldable, case or bicycle, in> comparison? The coupling system is certainly much less expensive and> lighter. Many custom Japanese builders have long had similar systems,> the basic idea for which all got in turn from Herse.?
I'm sort of in the market for one of these bikes too. Ritchey does seem to have the bike and case packaged a little better, but as mentioned the case is technically oversized. The Ritchey case is collapsible but I think the S&S soft case is too.
Also, while Ritchey's system is simpler and lighter, the bottom coupler looks inadequate to me. I worry about wear/corrosion problems because of the bare steel on steel interface, and no provision for torque loads in the downtube. The S&S coupler solves both these problems.
That said, you can get a Dahon branded Ritchey bike for a lot less. It has 105 instead of Ultegra but for several hundred dollars less who cares -- they're functionally identical.
Actually I'd like to have a Ti frame with S&S couplers, so I don't have to worry about paint being scratched, which is inevitable with a travel bike. I've seen some steel S&S bikes that were pretty beat up looking.
I've ridden an S&S bike. Indeed there's no difference from a normal one, except for a few extra ounces.
Per 41:>Has anyone experience with the Ritchey foldable, case or bicycle, in>comparison? The coupling system is certainly much less expensive and>lighter.
Yes. I've got one bike with each system.
No comparison. S&S wins hands-down for me.
If I'd seen the Ritchey system up close before ordering the bike I got it on I would have held off until I found a builder that did S&S.
I gave a little rant on this in another thread....but can't recall the Subject line. -- PeteCresswell
Hi!> I suspect this may have been asked before, but I have not found the> previous discussion. Anyway, I am having a new custom Audax bike built for> me and am considering having S&S torque couplings fitted. Does anyone have> any experience of S&S torque couplings? Are they as good as claimed, or are> there drawbacks? Also if I did have them and wanted to have a pretty strong> case for protection in aircraft, is there a good cheaper alternative (e.g.> some brand of ordinary suitcase at an ordinary price) that could be used> instead of the "official" case?>
I've installed S+S couplers and sold many, both in tandems and singles. Yes they are exactly as described - quick, simple, rigid, trouble free ( at least for the first ten or so years so far!)
After exhaustive searches through scientific instrument cases, musician's cases, etc I think S+S has the perfect answer to a carry-on hard case for a bike. The problem is daunting any other way.
One modern drawback - If by chance a security goon removes your S+S bicycle from its case it is very unlikely to go back in. I don't have any suggestion for that. The case is absolutely as small as it can possibly be and force doesn't help.
I am in the process. Steel frame at shop being retro fitted with couplers. I called Sands Machine on the phone to ask the hard/soft case question. They were clear in saying that the hard case provides the best protection. I found a used one and bought it. Time will tell. Some in my bike club really like the soft case and have had no crush problems so far. Just to add a bit of info, even if the hard case is the best protection, even empty it is one heavy sucker...with wheels. The soft case has backpack straps, but does not have wheels.
On 14 Mar 2005 21:57:16 -0800, Eagle Jackson wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, they recommended the Pika pack because they really> liked it!
Nah. I'm too cynical to believe that.
I've traveled on several occasions using a hard case. They are heavy, cumbersome, difficult to store, hard to manuever, and hard to fit into a vehicle. But I trust them to get my bike to my destination and back home without a scratch.
I worked with a woman who previously owned a bike touring company with her husband. They traveled a lot with bikes as a result. She had a soft case and wound up at some destination with two destroyed wheels. She's been using hard cases ever since and has not had a problem.
Getting home with trashed wheels would be a real bummer. But arriving at your vacation destination with trashed wheels pretty much could ruin the beginning of the trip if not the whole thing if it were a short duration trip. -- Skuke Reverse the domain name to send email
I have three bikes with S&S couplers (just didn't know when to stop) and I believe completely in the S&S system. I lube them with a couple of drops of the recommended teflon treatment once a year and they stay tightly closed. I had a Landshark retrofitted with couplers and could not feel any difference in ride or handling afterwards. I've never owned a Ritchey Breakway, but a couple of owners have told me they find the connectors fiddly, and I'd agree that the lower bracket does not inspire confidence.
I agree with the previous poster's comments about ti's suitability for a travel bike - I have a Roark ti that looks as good after 12 trips around the world as it did when new. No paint to scratch! Other things do inevitably get scratched in transit so you might want to go easy on carbon fiber components, whose structural integrity can possibly be compromised by surface damage. I also recommend that you consider a compact style frame for slightly easier packing, and slightly deeper-vee/stronger wheels with a lower spoke count, especially if you use the S&S hard case (see below). At first I shied away from threadless headsets, due to concern about adjusting them on the road, but then I realized if you just left the stem in place no adjustment should be needed.
A couple of previous posters mentioned they had read positive comments awhile back about the Ritchey case, and I suspect they may have been referring to a post I wrote in response to somebody trying to decide between S&S's hard and soft case.
I have owned TWO S&S hard cases and I hated both of them. The wheels wobble so badly the case threatens to tip over at any moment. The latching hardware is s**t - every single clip on my two cases has turned into a pile of loose hardware at some point in time (usually when it's least convenient). The typical packing configuration leaves the cassette sitting upright in the middle of the case where it threatens to scratch anything near it no matter how much you swaddle it in padding.
The case barely holds a 700c rim with a deflated tire. I found that I really needed to remove the tire completely from the upper rim to comfortably seat the lid of the case. If you don't, the wheel will stick inside the lid when the case is opened, which pops open the stress-relief inserts. And I guaranee you the TSA inspectors are not going to re-set those inserts before they reclose your case. Once I discovered my wheel was badly taco'd after transit although there was no visible damage to the case. This is why I suggested deeper-vee rims. Low spoke count would make it easier to position the stress-relievers and easier to stuff clothing and small parts through the wheels to recapture wasted packing space.
By contrast the Ritchey case neatly hides the cassette in a half-round cup that sticks out the back of the case. The case is just an inch or two bigger than the S&S case but everything seems to fit MUCH more easily, including my shorts and jerseys (convenient padding), shoes, and helmet (try that in an S&S case). There are several handy inner pockets, and a collapsible plastic wall around the perimeter seems to keep undue pressure off the goodies inside.
Two negatives on the Ritchey case: It's apparently slightly oversize by official airline standards (but mine has never been questioned over the course of 5 round-the-world trips). And it doesn't have wheels. Of course you could use a standard baggage trolley if you needed to.
Hope this is helpful.
P.S. I have a Bike Friday AirFriday too. Any offers?
previous discussion. Anyway, I am having a new custom Audax bike
built for> me and am considering having S&S torque couplings fitted. Does anyone have> any experience of S&S torque couplings? Are they as good as claimed, or are> there drawbacks? Also if I did have them and wanted to have a pretty strong> case for protection in aircraft, is there a good cheaper alternative (e.g.> some brand of ordinary suitcase at an ordinary price) that could be used> instead of the "official" case?>
How about the S&S soft case with the backpack straps?
I keep bringing this up.... but nobody ever replies: How about two cases - both of which are within regular luggage limits.
Given a breakdown bike and a willingness to stuff clothes and whatever in with the bike it seems like two cases would have a substantial advantage in handling ease, packability into a car, and re-packing ease for the luggage checkers (assuming they would wind up more than large enough for each "half" of the bike....)...
Since nobody seems db doing it, there's probably a flaw in the above reasoning...but what? -- PeteCresswell
My impression is that if you have a coupled bike, it is difficult to find a case that is within the 63 inch airline guideline. If you find normal luggage big enough to hold a 700 c wheel (27 inches), the rectangle usually will be bigger than 63 inches. Do a google on luggage and try to find something at least 27" high. There is not much out there and if it is, it is usually too long to fit under the guidelines. That's why the s and s hard case is so well known cause it is almost the only one that fits the 63 inch guideline. Now, granted, it sounds like most airlines will let a little bigger go through, but I'd hate to be the one they measure and say, "sorry, that will be an extra $80." On the other hand, most annecdotal eveidence would suggest they never measure if you are in the ball park, which is why Ritchey can probably get by with a slightly larger than conforming bag.
How about the S&S soft case with the backpack straps?>
I keep bringing this up.... but nobody ever replies: How about two
cases - both> of which are within regular luggage limits.>
Given a breakdown bike and a willingness to stuff clothes and
whatever in with> the bike it seems like two cases would have a substantial advantage in handling> ease, packability into a car, and re-packing ease for the luggage checkers> (assuming they would wind up more than large enough for each "half" of the> bike....)...>
Since nobody seems db doing it, there's probably a flaw in the above> reasoning...but what?> -- > PeteCresswell
My impression is that if you have a coupled bike, it is difficult to> find a case that is within the 63 inch airline guideline. If you find> normal luggage big enough to hold a 700 c wheel (27 inches), the> rectangle usually will be bigger than 63 inches.
Do a google on> luggage and try to find something at least 27" high. There is not much> out there and if it is, it is usually too long to fit under the> guidelines. That's why the s and s hard case is so well known cause it> is almost the only one that fits the 63 inch guideline. Now, granted,> it sounds like most airlines will let a little bigger go through, but> I'd hate to be the one they measure and say, "sorry, that will be an> extra $80." On the other hand, most annecdotal eveidence would suggest> they never measure if you are in the ball park, which is why Ritchey> can probably get by with a slightly larger than conforming bag.
Or even if you're considerably over. I've flown several times with my folding kayak that fits in a bag which measures 48" x 14" x 18" or a total of 80". I've always been questioned about the weight (which is within the 50 lb. guidelines), but so far no one has even commented on the size.
I believe the ss hard case is 26x26x10 which makes it fit the limit. And from what I hear the deflated 700c's have to be stuffed in there. But people have been using them a long time so it must work ok,,,even if a bit of a hassle.
Peter wrote:> eflayer2 wrote:>
My impression is that if you have a coupled bike, it is difficult
find a case that is within the 63 inch airline guideline. If you
find> > normal luggage big enough to hold a 700 c wheel (27 inches), the> > rectangle usually will be bigger than 63 inches.>
The usual limit is 157.5 cm (62.01") for (l + w + h), see:>
since the wheels themselves would be about 54" for l + h, leaving
only> 8" for width.>
Do a google on> > luggage and try to find something at least 27" high. There is not
much> > out there and if it is, it is usually too long to fit under the> > guidelines. That's why the s and s hard case is so well known cause it> > is almost the only one that fits the 63 inch guideline. Now, granted,> > it sounds like most airlines will let a little bigger go through,
I'd hate to be the one they measure and say, "sorry, that will be
extra $80." On the other hand, most annecdotal eveidence would
suggest> > they never measure if you are in the ball park, which is why Ritchey> > can probably get by with a slightly larger than conforming bag.>
Or even if you're considerably over. I've flown several times with
folding kayak that fits in a bag which measures 48" x 14" x 18" or a> total of 80". I've always been questioned about the weight (which is
within the 50 lb. guidelines), but so far no one has even commented
How about the S&S soft case with the backpack straps?
I keep bringing this up.... but nobody ever replies: How about two> cases - both of which are within regular luggage limits.>
Given a breakdown bike and a willingness to stuff clothes and> whatever in with the bike it seems like two cases would have a> substantial advantage in handling ease, packability into a car, and> re-packing ease for the luggage checkers (assuming they would wind up> more than large enough for each "half" of the bike....)...>
Since nobody seems db doing it, there's probably a flaw in the above> reasoning...but what?
Luggage limits?
Also, it's possible no one here has experience with the S&S soft case, thus no replies.
Regarding airport security opening your case and not repacking it correctly. Steve Bilenky recommended the recently developed S&S Security Set. There are good pictures, packing instuctions, and anecdotes posted at both their sites. Using this velcro and net bag to wrap the packed bike inside the case as the final step in packing, TSA can open the case, see everything, and then simply close the case back into its safely packed state. Concerning the 'weak' closure hardware on the cases, they're not meant to pull the cases closed only to keep the cases securely closed. They will fail if used harshly. Other than that, like everyone else said, the cases and the couplers on our tandem work brilliantly. I'm looking forward to traveling this summer with my trusty old 753 Raleigh newly transformed into a coupled travel bike.
Best wishes, Mark
On 2005-03-14 05:32:23 -0500, "Rudi Lutz" <rudil@sussex.ac.uk> said:
Hi!> I suspect this may have been asked before, but I have not found the> previous discussion. Anyway, I am having a new custom Audax bike built for> me and am considering having S&S torque couplings fitted. Does anyone have> any experience of S&S torque couplings? Are they as good as claimed, or are> there drawbacks? Also if I did have them and wanted to have a pretty strong> case for protection in aircraft, is there a good cheaper alternative (e.g.> some brand of ordinary suitcase at an ordinary price) that could be used> instead of the "official" case?>
A couple of previous posters mentioned they had read positive
comments> awhile back about the Ritchey case, and I suspect they may have been> referring to a post I wrote in response to somebody trying to decide> between S&S's hard and soft case.
Regarding eithre of the two Ritchey cases, what happens to it when the bike is removed? With the S&S soft case, it seems foldable enough that I could tie it down to a Carradice and ride with it from the airport. Do the Ritchey cases fold that way too?
Any reports from people who ride around with the S&S soft case folded down, and attached to, say, a Carradice?
The Ritchey case has two U-shaped plastic walls that line the side and provide some stress-relief to the contents. You can remove the walls, nest them together, and fold the bag up into a mass roughly half the size of the full case. Actually, this comment pertains to the original bag - I see that they have now added wheels so the new case may not collapse as fully. Ritchey says the idea was to be able to fit the bag into a station storage locker. I doubt that you would want to ride very far with the folded up bag strapped onto a rack. By the way, the following is slightly off topic, but I believe Bike Friday offers a wheel set and hitch which turns their case into a trailer, which sounds like a pretty good trick. Maybe there is somebody who offers such a contraption in a larger size to fit an S&S bike?
Fred Roses
41 wrote:> itsfred wrote:>
A couple of previous posters mentioned they had read positive> comments> > awhile back about the Ritchey case, and I suspect they may have
been> > referring to a post I wrote in response to somebody trying to decide> > between S&S's hard and soft case.>
Regarding eithre of the two Ritchey cases, what happens to it when
bike is removed? With the S&S soft case, it seems foldable enough
that> I could tie it down to a Carradice and ride with it from the airport.> Do the Ritchey cases fold that way too?>
Any reports from people who ride around with the S&S soft case folded> down, and attached to, say, a Carradice?
I have comunicated with someone who used the s and s soft case and took out the plastic liners and replaced the plastic ones with card board. When they got to their touring destination, they dumped the cardboard, folded the bag and bungied it to their touring bike's rack. I guess on the way home, they found more cardboard repacked and shipped the bike home. For touring that sounds like the perfect solution. 41 wrote:> itsfred wrote:>
A couple of previous posters mentioned they had read positive> comments> > awhile back about the Ritchey case, and I suspect they may have
been> > referring to a post I wrote in response to somebody trying to decide> > between S&S's hard and soft case.>
Regarding eithre of the two Ritchey cases, what happens to it when
bike is removed? With the S&S soft case, it seems foldable enough
that> I could tie it down to a Carradice and ride with it from the airport.> Do the Ritchey cases fold that way too?>
Any reports from people who ride around with the S&S soft case folded> down, and attached to, say, a Carradice?
That seemed to be the advantage - assuming we get two pieces of check-in luggage... But I've managed to avoid flying for quite awhile now...maybe it'd down to one on international flites? -- PeteCresswell
Actually the international flights are less restrictive. Some are
quite> generous in what they allow -- up to four bags. Boxed bikes are often free too.>
I now check bags that I used to carry on, because it's too much
trouble to have> the TSA go through them. So while I might have been fine with one checked bag> before, now it might be a problem. Many people have the same issue.
Internationally I fly in business-class on One World carriers (American, British, Cathay, etc) and they STRICTLY enforce the two-bag limit by charging $200 or more for additional checked baggage.
In regard to the overal TSA hassle, if I'm travelling domestically I usually just ship my bike by UPS to wherever I'm going rather than fly with it. For what it's worth, UPS here will not accept a bike in a soft bag - they want hard cases only!
In regard to the overal TSA hassle, if I'm travelling domestically I> usually just ship my bike by UPS to wherever I'm going rather than fly> with it. For what it's worth, UPS here will not accept a bike in a> soft bag - they want hard cases only!
I"ve done that too. If nothing else it's cheaper. The problem is, I don't want to be without my bike for so long! Coast to coast it's a week each way, for two weeks total.
This could be a good reason to have a backup bike.
For shorter trips I've been driving anyway -- so I just throw the bike in the back of the car. But an S&S bike would make this easier too.
Does anyone remember the rebranded AMP mountain bikes sold through Mercedes dealers, which came with a matching suitcase? I don't remember if the case was airline legal, but it was sure a neat idea. I couldn't understand why other bike makers didn't jump on this bandwagon. Mountain bike frames with rear suspension split naturally in the middle anyway. I see AMPs for sale occasionally but never with the case. If it came with the case I would definately consider buying one. They're still strong performers even by today's standards. The Specialized XC designs are essentially the same thing -- that's who Mr. Leitner sold his patents to.
Per itsfred:>In regard to the overal TSA hassle, if I'm travelling domestically I>usually just ship my bike by UPS to wherever I'm going rather than fly>with it. For what it's worth, UPS here will not accept a bike in a soft>bag - they want hard cases only!
Just out of curiosity...do you recall a recent Home/Destination and what UPS charged? I'm going out to Phoenix sometime in the next year, but wasn't looking forward to dragging a bike along. -- PeteCresswell
Just out of curiosity...do you recall a recent Home/Destination and> what UPS charged? I'm going out to Phoenix sometime in the next> year, but wasn't looking forward to dragging a bike along.
Fedex Ground is cheaper than UPS for bikes. I've gone between southern CA and southwest VA several times for under $30. I've also shipped between southern CA and CO for about $15. It usually takes 5 days, but I've had it take 4.
Per Matt O'Toole:> I've gone between southern CA and>southwest VA several times for under $30.
Geeze.... maybe I'm sounding arrogant, but in the context of dragging the thing to the airport, wondering if it'll survive, and wondering if the vehicle at the other end is going to have room for it, and maybe having to tip a few people extra - $30 seems almost free. -- PeteCresswell
In article <39uff9F64mg1fU1@individual.net>, "Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com> wrote:
(Pete Cresswell) wrote:>
Just out of curiosity...do you recall a recent Home/Destination and> > what UPS charged? I'm going out to Phoenix sometime in the next> > year, but wasn't looking forward to dragging a bike along.>
Fedex Ground is cheaper than UPS for bikes. I've gone between southern CA > and> southwest VA several times for under $30. I've also shipped between southern > CA> and CO for about $15. It usually takes 5 days, but I've had it take 4.>
Matt O.
FEDEX ground is cheaper...of course they also flat out lost one of my bikes the last time I used them. Despite being insured for $2,000, which was $1,000 less than a bike shop appraised the replacement cost at after the fact, I only got about $975 out of FEDEX for the loss. And this was after months of going around and around with them about it.
I've gone between southern CA and>> southwest VA several times for under $30.>
Geeze.... maybe I'm sounding arrogant, but in the context of dragging> the thing to the airport, wondering if it'll survive, and wondering> if the vehicle at the other end is going to have room for it, and> maybe having to tip a few people extra - $30 seems almost free.
Absolutely -- which is why I did it that way. Even the extra baggage fees didn't bother me that much.
FEDEX ground is cheaper...of course they also flat out lost one of my> bikes the last time I used them. Despite being insured for $2,000,> which was $1,000 less than a bike shop appraised the replacement cost> at after the fact, I only got about $975 out of FEDEX for the loss.> And this was after months of going around and around with them about> it.>
not my favorite company.
Try fighting UPS! I guarantee they're worse, unless you're a business who ships a lot with them. Not only that, if you go through one of those mailbox places you can't deal with UPS directly. You have to get the shipper to file a claim, and if they're flaky you *really* have problems. The best way around this is to ship through a bike shop or a friend or family member with a business that does a lot of business with UPS. Then if there's a problem you're more likely to be treated better.
I think UPS generally does a good job, but after fighting with them about a couple of damage claims (not bikes), I decided I'd never ship with them again. Since then I've used Fedex Ground for everything -- including moving much of my stuff across the country, and all of my brother's stuff a couple of years before that. So far, so good... Sorry about your bike.
One of several attractive features I find in S&S is the outward simplicity of the coupling. You can run you hand over it and not catch it on anything like a lever or a screw head.
Another thing is the fault tolerance. They seem just as solid with the connector collars slightly loose as when they're tight. Dunno how they do that... -- PeteCresswell
