CliftonGK1

I'm looking to build up a new commuter, and I want to go singlespeed. One of the two frames that I'm interested in is the IRO Rob Roy. What concerns me about the IRO are the curved tubes for the rear triangle. I understand that they're curved to offer some dampening when it comes to road vibration, but could that be a structural weakness when combined with my weight (260 pounds) and the extra frame stress of me standing and hammering a 48/17 gear up a 3/4 mile hill for my daily commute?
I just have horrible visions of the rear triangle collapsing under my bulk, and ending up with a butt full of tire as I'm mid-way up the hill one morning.

4SEVEN3

Do they have a warranty on thrie frames???
How about Surley......??
Maybe a cyclocross frame would be a little closer to what your wanting, but honestly I dont think your going to have a problem, after all when ya start riding the weight will become less and less!

stevel610 

"and the extra frame stress of me standing and hammering"

Once I stood and hammered my road bike as a car was cresting a small hill towards me. I tore the rear wheel out of the stays! It was a little exciting to say the least!

Steve

4SEVEN3

That shouldnt happen on a dedicated singlespeed frame beacuse the track style drop-outs face rearward. Problem with that is if the whel nuts are not tightend the wheel can slide forward, loosen the chain and maybe make it come off the sprockets. Not likely, but possible I suppose?

I still think youll be fine!

MrCjolsen

It's not the frame, it's the wheels that matter. Any bike that lets you fit wider wheels and tires is good for the gravitationally enhanced rider. Since the Rob Roy is a cross bike, then it's fine.

CliftonGK1

The Cross-Check is the other frame I've been looking at for my build. I like the geometry on both, but for a SS/FG I like the track ends on the IRO better than the horizontal drops on the Surly.
As for the weight becoming less and less, that's not going to happen. This is a new commuter to replace the one that I've been riding for 16 years. My weight is a product of my height (6'6") and my previous powerlifting obsession. Maybe I'll drop back down to 245 or so, but that's about as low as I'll get without digging away at some muscle mass.

I'm having my guy at the LBS build me a set of 36h 3-cross Deep V's laced to Phil KISS-Off hubs. The wheels should hold up to any Sasquatch abuse I can throw at them.

MrCjolsen

I have a Cross-Check. It's a great frame, but I ride it geared so the horzontal drops are fine. My fixie is an old road bike with horzontal drops. Getting the right chain tension is a pain sometimes. Track ends would be nice.

As far as the wheels, 36h, hand built on a single speed are about as solid as solid can get. One nice thing about singlespeed/fixed gear is that your wheel isn't dished like a geard bike so it can be a lot stronger.

rykoala

Hey there. I spoke with Tony about one of these bicycles for me. I weight 325. He said no problem, with a wheel upgrade. Go for it!

schnee

I wouldn't be concerned at all, the strength loss is negligible. (Go read the framebuilder forums.)

Besides, it's a 'cross bike. It's designed to face much harsher conditions than a general road bike. Tony's offered it for years, so if he'd had problems, he'd have redesigned them by now.

One thing about the Deep Vs, when I was building my bike no less than three different mechanics told me to avoid them. They all said they're prone to cracking near the spoke attachments because the rim is so narrow. If you have any problems, go with Velocity Fusions... they're slightly lower profile, so a bit less aero but lighter and just as Clyde-friendly. I have a set that Tony built me that are indestructible.

CliftonGK1

That seems to be the concensus. The main issue (IMO) is that I'm a manufacturing engineer, not a structural engineer. I looked at it and made some off-base assumptions about structural integrity, and should have just trusted that the structural engineers have already worked that out.

I was looking at the structural profiles (I know, probably a mistake again) and the both the Fusion and Deep V have a 19mm width. The Deep V has a 5mm taller profile than the Fusion. If I were considering a different rim than the Deep V I'd have to go with the Aerohead for the 1mm wider and 11mm lower profile. Is it the height/width ratio that your mechanics have said gives the rim a low integrity at the spoke attachments? Honestly, this is the first that I've heard anything bad about the Deep V's.

rykoala

If you want MEGA strong wheels, go for the Velocity DYAD's. That's what I was thinking about using, and its what Tony suggested, when I was considerint a Rob Roy for myself. Nothing says "clydesdale" like "touring rim"

darkmother

The curved stays are a bit of a gimmic, but I doubt they will affect the real world durability of the frame. These type of stays don't actually deflect under loading in any measurable way, regardless of what the website claims. If they did, you'd have fatigue failures, or buckling of the seat stays in very short order, even with lighter riders. I'm going to be building up one of these frames soon, as I think they are a great deal, on a practical frame. I had good experience with, and ~15 000 km on my Jamie Roy before it was stolen.

Another thing to consider-bikes with cantilever brakes, like the RR require beefier seatstays to provide a strong, rigid mount for the brake pivots. For this reason, they are much heavier and stronger than stays found on 'road frames'.

CliftonGK1

Those are some beefy hoops! Unfortunately I'm a being a pretty pretty princess* about this build, and one of the things I want is powdercoated rims to match the colours I'm building up on the bike.

*Caution: Picturing CGK1 as a 6'6", 260 pound pretty princess has been known to cause permanent mental damage.

schnee

Sorry, I wasn't posting clearly.

The rims are narrow at the top, where the 'V' meets the spoke nipples. The rim is actually narrower than the nipple attachment point, so the metal is pretty thin around the spoke attachment points, thinner than less 'aero' rims.

I was told to avoid them by my two fixed-gear friendly LBSs, as well as Tony at IRO (who built the wheels for me). So, not having owned them, it is hearsay.

If I were to build again from scratch to be completely clyde-bombproof, knowing what I know now, I'd say 'screw fashion' and build up tandem rims.

theWretched

Clifton, did you check out the geometry on the Rob Roy? It's a nice bike and all, but there's no way it'll fit a 6'6" rider. I'm 6'5" and had to rule it out on account of its 57cm top tube.

It's tough finding frames big enough, I know.

CliftonGK1

Back in my tri-racing days, I rode a Trek 2100 with a 58.1cm TT. I've got a pretty short torso for being as tall as I am. I'm mostly legs and arms (37 inseam/ 37 sleeve) so I need the taller frames without needing something to stretch me out that much on top.
I'm planning on putting a slight-rise stem and a pair of 'horns on it as opposed to drops since I only ever ride the flats and hoods on drops anyhow. That should keep me laid out enough that I'm not feeling scrunched up on it.
However, I will have a fit-check done at the LBS before I buy anything. That way I can give them the geometry for the IRO R/R and have them dial it in on the fit-bike to see how it will feel.