Why is re-facing necessary?

"Jim Rogers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Will be installing a new bottom bracket and headset on my old bike. An old repair and maintainance
book I have said that the head tube and bottom bracket shell should be faced first. Checked the
archives of this group and several of the gurus here agreed.

<<snip..>>

Quoted message said:

--Jim Rogers

Do you know it was ever faced? That's usually the problem, as certainly not all factory builds are
faced and sometimes shop builds are not either. If it's my bike and I know I faced both a year ago
and I'm installing new stuff, I won't face it again. If it's a customer's bike and I've never seen
it before, I'll face it (it takes all of about 10mins to do it..) just to be sure. If the job's
worth doing, it's worth doing right. If the cust. doesn't know the history and I don't, facing is an
insurance thing. If the cust. gripes about the price extensively, I'd eat the labour..it's better
than re-doing the job a week down the road for free and having a bad customer experience.

Cheers,

Scott..

In short, Jim, your bike shop is correct.

Also, you might want to remember that they were honest with you when you gave them a golden
opportunity to take you to the cleaners.
:-)

Lewis.

********************************************

[email hidden] (Jim Rogers) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Will be installing a new bottom bracket and headset on my old bike. An old repair and maintainance
book I have said that the head tube and bottom bracket shell should be faced first. Checked the
archives of this group and several of the gurus here agreed.

Went to my LBS to inquire how much it would cost, and they acted like I was crazy. They contend
that if it was faced once (either at the factory or during the initial prep) and I wasn't having
any problems, then everything was fine and I should just put the new stuff on.

When I tried to defend the idea of facing before new installation, they asked me "if it was square
at one time and you were not having any problems and you didn't crash or anything, how would it
have changed?" They argue that the head tube and bb shel aren't going to bend or anything (absent
a crash), so just there is virtually never a need to re-face.

Not being an expert, I really couldn't answer their question. So I pose it here-- assuming you
have everything square at some point, what exactly changes over the life of a bb or headset that
would require another facing of the head tube or bb shell? Or have I mis-understood something?

--Jim Rogers

(Jim Rogers) said:

what exactly changes over the life of a bb or headset that would require another facing of the
head tube or bb shell?

Nothing. The only reason to face these frame interfaces at the time new parts are installed is if
you believe that facing was never done to begin with.

Some headsets and bottom brackets are more sensitive to face squareness than others. Chris King
makes a good example of a headset that does not work right unless everything is machined square--
including the underside of the stem!

Frame facing used to be de rigeur, because cast lugs and hand brazing did not offer any assurances
that these interfaces would be square and flat, and because European framebuilders in days of yore
were not expected to deliver finished goods. (!) With more and more bike frames being welded from
machined tubing segments, there are many fewer opportunities for these faces to be anything but flat
and square, at least with respect to their opposite faces.

There are many bike shops these days where the mechanics would never consider facing a frame unless
there were some obvious and serious problem. Frankly, I don't see the sense in having shop mechanics
do finish machining either-- it's like having an electrician rework your new toaster before you can
plug it in and make toast. From where I stand, a frame that comes to the shop unready for parts
installation is a warranty issue.

Chalo Colina

(Chalo) may have said:

Frankly, I don't see the sense in having shop mechanics do finish machining either-- it's like
having an electrician rework your new toaster before you can plug it in and make toast.

OTOH, appliances in Europe often are supplied without a plug on the end of the cord, and sometimes
without a cord, simply because of the uncertainty of what will be required in that area. (It's my
understanding that the average European is quite capable of attending to the necessary wiring
matters without the need for a technician; probably not the case in the US!)

If there were some question about exactly how the BB or head tube needed to be finished to accept
its bearings, then there would be some rationale for supplying a semi-finished product. With
extremely rare exceptions for the BB, this is not the case, ergo there is no such justification.
Moreover, most bikes arrive assembled and complete; it is *conceivable* that the tubes might not be
square, but it would seem damned peculiar for that to be the case when the bearings have already
been installed.

Quoted message said:

From where I stand, a frame that comes to the shop unready for parts installation is a
warranty issue.

Unless the frame is explicitly specified as semi-finished in the description, I quite agree. And,
frankly, it strikes me as being damned foolish to ship semi-finished since there's no guarantee that
the lbs will do a competent job of squaring the tube. If the maker wants to have certainty that the
frame is right when it gets to the customer, then it needs to be *finished* before it leaves the
maker's shop.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

From where I stand, a frame that comes to the shop unready for parts installation is a
warranty issue.

Unless the frame is explicitly specified as semi-finished in the description, I quite agree. And,
frankly, it strikes me as being damned foolish to ship semi-finished since there's no guarantee
that the lbs will do a competent job of squaring the tube.

I have to agree with this, and say that my last frame (Habanero) arrived absolutely ready for parts
installation (thanks, Mark). Oddly, though, 1" forks are often not finished (faced), and this has
led to the selling of two sizes of headset crown race in some cheaper markets, for faced or unfaced
fork crowns. I don't know what the situation is with 1.125" or 1.25" headsets.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand _`\(,_ | mathematics. (_)/ (_) |

irene-<< An old repair and maintainance book I have said that the head tube and bottom bracket shell
should be faced first. >><BR><BR> << Went to my LBS to inquire how much it would cost, and they
acted like I was crazy. They contend that if it was faced once (either at the factory or during the
initial prep) and I wasn't having any problems, then everything was fine and I should just put the
new stuff on. >><BR><BR>

They are correct in that if the BB and headtube was faced properly once, then another facing is not
necessary, as long as you know it was done properly once(factory jobs, if they exist, are often
poorly done).

Excessive facing can make the indside of a headtube too large and can make a BB shell too small.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Chalo-<< From where I stand, a frame that comes to the shop unready for parts installation is a
warranty issue. >><BR><BR>

From the bike shop perspective, most framesets we see that are fresh from the factory all need to be
prepped. From the very expensive Euro and American types to the lower end, but still well made, ones
from local builders.

As these are massed produced, the need to prep is a bigger need, not a smaller one.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

what are the symptoms of the need for refacing??

i have a slight elliptical movement on one side that physically manifests on the shell's bearing
wear path.both sides are machined to finish but not 'polished'. is this a refacing symptom??

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Will be installing a new bottom bracket and headset on my old bike. An old repair and maintainance
book I have said that the head tube and bottom bracket shell should be faced first. Checked the
archives of this group and several of the gurus here agreed.

If your frame was properly faced to begin with, there is no need to re-face unless you damaged the
faces during the installaion or removal of the parts.

Quoted message said:

Went to my LBS to inquire how much it would cost, and they acted like I was crazy. They contend
that if it was faced once (either at the factory or during the initial prep) and I wasn't having
any problems, then everything was fine and I should just put the new stuff on. When I tried to
defend the idea of facing before new installation, they asked me "if it was square at one time and
you were not having any problems and you didn't crash or anything, how would it have changed?" They
argue that the head tube and bb shel aren't going to bend or anything (absent a crash), so just
there is virtually never a need to re-face.

Nice to see they weren't try to sell you a service you don't need.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

Thanks for the clarifications, guys.

This bike is older and I just got it used, so I don't know the status. I'll have them check it out
and I'll not worry about it after that.

Jim

Werehatrack said:

(Chalo) may have said:

Frankly, I don't see the sense in having shop mechanics do finish machining either-- it's like
having an electrician rework your new toaster before you can plug it in and make toast.

OTOH, appliances in Europe often are supplied without a plug on the end of the cord, and sometimes
without a cord, simply because of the

This hasn't been true for something like 10 years now. My guess is that EU regulations
stipulate that everything have a plug fitted (and in the UK, that the plug be fitted with an
appropriate fuse).

A+ Paul
--
Paul Floyd paulf.free.frpaulf.free.frOpen ↗ (for what it's worth) Surgery: ennobled Gerald.

(Qui si parla Campagnolo) said:

From the bike shop perspective, most framesets we see that are fresh from the factory all need to
be prepped. From the very expensive Euro and American types to the lower end, but still well made,
ones from local builders.

You are talking about paint removal here, not finish machining, right?

I mean no offense to you or your mechanics when I say that professional machinists generally do a
better job of cutting metal than professional mechanics do.

Chalo Colina

David L. Johnson said:

Oddly, though, 1" forks are often not finished (faced), and this has led to the selling of two
sizes of headset crown race in some cheaper markets, for faced or unfaced fork crowns.

That is actually a standards difference, between ISO crown race
(26.4mm) and J.I.S. crown race (27.0mm) diameters. The obsolete and mostly abandoned American (aka
BMX) headset standard also used a
27.4mm crown race, but with different size cups than ISO.

The only forks I have seen without some sort of faced crown race seat have been old ones, of a
department store pedigree, which featured a roughly conical surface to "seat" a roughly conical
crown race. Ick.

Chalo Colina

Jim Rogers said:

Will be installing a new bottom bracket and headset on my old bike. An old repair and maintainance
book I have said that the head tube and bottom bracket shell should be faced first. Checked the
archives of this group and several of the gurus here agreed.

Went to my LBS to inquire how much it would cost, and they acted like I was crazy. They contend
that if it was faced once (either at the factory or during the initial prep) and I wasn't having
any problems, then everything was fine and I should just put the new stuff on.

When I tried to defend the idea of facing before new installation, they asked me "if it was square
at one time and you were not having any problems and you didn't crash or anything, how would it
have changed?" They argue that the head tube and bb shel aren't going to bend or anything (absent
a crash), so just there is virtually never a need to re-face.

Not being an expert, I really couldn't answer their question. So I pose it here-- assuming you
have everything square at some point, what exactly changes over the life of a bb or headset that
would require another facing of the head tube or bb shell? Or have I mis-understood something?

Your logic is impeccable and you are correct.

If it was straight and machined properly once it is fine yet. The issue is that so many frames are
haphazardly done but claimed "straight". Mysterious BB problems disappear once the threads are cut
in one plane. Headsets adjust easier and last longer when all the balls contact properly, too.

Did your neghborhood competent cycle shop machine it all properly once? Then relax you do not have a
problem. Most riders would be unsure of the answer.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

On 24 Sep 2003 21:20:58 -0700, [email hidden] (Chalo) may have said:

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I don't see the sense in having shop mechanics do finish machining either-- it's like
having an electrician rework your new toaster before you can plug it in and make toast.

Werehatrack wrote: -snip-

Quoted message said:

If there were some question about exactly how the BB or head tube needed to be finished to accept
its bearings, then there would be some rationale for supplying a semi-finished product. With
extremely rare exceptions for the BB, this is not the case, ergo there is no such justification.
Moreover, most bikes arrive assembled and complete; it is *conceivable* that the tubes might not
be square, but it would seem damned peculiar for that to be the case when the bearings have
already been installed.

(Chalo, again)>>From where I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stand, a frame that comes to the shop unready for parts installation is a warranty issue.

(Anonymous, unable to admit to his own writing)> Unless the frame is explicitly specified as
semi-finished in the

Quoted message said:

description, I quite agree. And, frankly, it strikes me as being damned foolish to ship
semi-finished since there's no guarantee that the lbs will do a competent job of squaring the
tube. If the maker wants to have certainty that the frame is right when it gets to the customer,
then it needs to be *finished* before it leaves the maker's shop.

You guys live in a different world than I do!

Frames are given the minimal treatment to get them out the factory door.
Manufacturer's "assurance" of proper machining is BS, pure and simple.
They are close enough to jam the parts in with air tools. Period.

When we start seeing frames which do not require facing we'll stop doing
it. Until then, it is a market and the first manufacturer to start properly machining his frames
will be at a competitive disadvantage.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

From where I

Quoted message said:

stand, a frame that comes to the shop unready for parts installation is a warranty issue.

Unless the frame is explicitly specified as semi-finished in the description, I quite agree. And,
frankly, it strikes me as being damned foolish to ship semi-finished since there's no guarantee
that the lbs will do a competent job of squaring the tube.

David L. Johnson said:

I have to agree with this, and say that my last frame (Habanero) arrived absolutely ready for
parts installation (thanks, Mark). Oddly, though, 1" forks are often not finished (faced), and
this has led to the selling of two sizes of headset crown race in some cheaper markets, for faced
or unfaced fork crowns. I don't know what the situation is with 1.125" or 1.25" headsets.

The two sizes are 27.1 for JIS and 26.4 for ISO. It is not a "cheap" or deficient machining or any
qualitative issue.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Paul Floyd may have said:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:41:56 GMT, Werehatrack

Quoted message said:

(Chalo) may have said:

Frankly, I don't see the sense in having shop mechanics do finish machining either-- it's like
having an electrician rework your new toaster before you can plug it in and make toast.

OTOH, appliances in Europe often are supplied without a plug on the end of the cord, and
sometimes without a cord, simply because of the

This hasn't been true for something like 10 years now. My guess is that EU regulations
stipulate that everything have a plug fitted (and in the UK, that the plug be fitted with an
appropriate fuse).

Things must have changed, then; the last two electric items I bought in the UK (in London) were
still not equipped with a plug, and had cords terminated in three stripped and tinned leads clearly
marked as to which was ground, etc. (I still have one of the tags, and you're spot on about it
saying to fit a plug that uses a 5A fuse, by the way.) This was not exactly recent, but less than
ten years ago. I noticed, however, that even then, there was increasing presence of the ubiquitous
three-prong socket on the sides of devices for connection using a detachable cord (common in the USA
only on computers and related devices). I presumed, at the time, that this was being done to allow
people to buy prefab cords with the plug they needed, and/or to permit them to carry the device from
place to place and merely swap cords as required to fit the sockets. Has this become the de facto
method of dealing with the nonstandard wall socket situation, or do people still use adapters, or
has the UK finally standardised the plugs?

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

A Muzi may have said:

When we start seeing frames which do not require facing we'll stop doing
it. Until then, it is a market and the first manufacturer to start properly machining his frames
will be at a competitive disadvantage.

I should think that it's precisely the other way around; if it truly makes a difference, then the
maker that is finishing the frames properly ought to be at a competitive *advantage*. Such machining
processes are not expensive to set up when you're using mass production methods.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

A Muzi may have said:

Werehatrack wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

(Anonymous, unable to admit to his own writing)

Learn to read quoting levels before you say something that clueless.

Quoted message said:

Unless the frame is explicitly specified as semi-finished in the

Quoted message said:

description, I quite agree. And, frankly, it strikes me as being damned foolish to ship
semi-finished since there's no guarantee that the lbs will do a competent job of squaring the
tube. If the maker wants to have certainty that the frame is right when it gets to the customer,
then it needs to be *finished* before it leaves the maker's shop.

You guys live in a different world than I do!

Frames are given the minimal treatment to get them out the factory door.
Manufacturer's "assurance" of proper machining is BS, pure and simple.
They are close enough to jam the parts in with air tools. Period.

Perhaps your experiences are with the wrong manufacturers, then. There are definitely some who are
doing the job right.

Quoted message said:

When we start seeing frames which do not require facing we'll stop doing
it. Until then, it is a market and the first manufacturer to start properly machining his frames
will be at a competitive disadvantage.

I should think that the makers who perform the machining (or who use methods of finishing that
achieve the required squareness by whatever method) would be at an *advantage*, because they'd get
better recommendations from the bike shops and press. You seem to be saying that doing a half-assed
job is good, but at the same time complaining that it's bad; which side did you mean to support?

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.