Originally Posted by
mihlbach
Let me get this straight...you bought a $150 bike on an impulse buy, put 6 miles on it, then complain about how ****ty it is and want to sell if for more than you bought it. LOL...please post a picture of yourself in the jackass thread.
Never did I say I was expecting much from the bike. What you're taking as complaints, are me reviewing the bike. All the informatino on the bike has been "oh it's just a pile of crap" But why? Nobody could explain adequately why.
The noisy chain is probably a chain tension issue. If the bars feel "funny" to you WTF did you expect? Did you not notice that the bike had flat bars when you bought it? As for frame stiffness issues...its a straight gauge steel frame and fork with a solid chromoly crank, an undished rear wheel with straight gauge spokes, and the bars are probably steel...of course its stiff.
The noisy chain is a front sprocket alignment issue. It's tied to crank position, not chain position. The crank/chainring on the bike is not designed with chainring alignment in mind.
Since when did I say the frame stiffness was an issue? I think I need to quote myself on this, because somewhere you got the impression I was complaining about it. So here we go.
Originally Posted by Nerobro
I do like a few things about the bike. I don't think I've ridden a stiffer frame.
Where that comes off as being a critique, I can't comprehend.
The handlebars are just plain crap. Even if I kept the bike, they'd have to go. I've bent this sort of handlebar several times in my past. ... remember me saying I have experience with cheap bikes :-) I've bent this sort of handlebar in half.
Originally Posted by
mihlbach
That bike is fine as is....use it on the street, which is what it is intended for. You can put a few track parts on it (but not track cranks), but thats not going to make it a track bike.
Track bike geometry is not "insane". It is what it is for good reasons, and that bike does not have track geometry. In fact, I would consider that geometry potentially more dangerous on the track given the sluggish handling and probably low-ish bottom bracket.
I'm not "putting a few track parts" on it, and calling it a track bike. The frame seems to have qualities that would make it good on the track. It's not like I'm looking at some single speed beach cruiser and going "hey, that's got fixed gear potential" and deciding to call it a track bike. And I think I did make mention of replacing the cranks with something quality.
What does make a track bike? Why do they chose the bikes they do? From what I've seen track bikes are more about tradition than necessarily smart choices.
Care to tell me why track bikes have steep steering angles and short trail numbers? I can understand it on a crit bike, but on a bike where keeping it in as smooth of a path, as close to the line as possable, I don't see the advantage to having a twitchy bike. I've also watched video of track bikes, where's the advantage to steering a snake around a corner when you could waste less energy and cut a smooth arc. Every time you twist that head tube, you're wasting energy. Every time you load that tire sideways, you're wasting energy.
The bottom bracket is a valid concern. It's higher than any of my other bikes. They are however, road bikes, so high BB's aren't the name of the game there.
I come from motorcycles.... I can imagine a bike that would be sluggish enough in the handling department to bother me. But the only times I've seen them were motor-pacing bikes.
Your probably better off with a KiloTT if you want to ride on the track for cheap.
Good luck!
This is probally true. We'll see what I come up with. :-)
And the bike is still up on craigslist. I may not have the bike much longer.. and I may just have money for a real track bike.