escarpment

what do you guys think of this frame, Tryin to build a cx, winter commuter. Guy is asking 60 bucks for this? Cromo tange tubing.
I believe the frame is for 700 c wheels. which I have a plethora of. Im thinking if I buy this all I will need is cables, tires, and brakes as I have the rest. I would throw drop bars on this.

Im trying to figure the geometry would work for me, Im about 5,11. Thanks.

Andy_K 

Seems OK, maybe. The geometry might be challenging with drop bars, sine that bike came with flat bars originally. You'll probably need a tall and stubby stem, something like a Nitto Tecnomic or Soma High Rider. It's hard to judge fit of a frame without even so much as a geometry chart.

The seat post size might be non-standard, but Kalloy makes cheap seat posts in nearly every size imaginable. The rear brake might also be problematic. It looks like the cable stops are for a V-brake. You'd need to get creative to find a way to use cantilevers. Of course, V-brakes or mini-V's are an option, depending on what levers you go with.

marqueemoon

Based on the braze-ons and paint compared to other GTs from the era this looks to be built for a u brake in the rear.

The 2000 model was hi-ten according to Bikepedia. This looks earlier, so maybe it is not.

I would post in C&V and find out the deal with what your brake options are. If only a u-brake will work (which is not included) I'd pass. If it's hi-ten I'd also pass.

FKMTB07

You could do better with either a bit of patience or a bit more money. That frame's got some weirdness that might be hard to work with (U-brake in the rear for example).

ColonelJLloyd 

I suspect that the bike accepts standard cantilevers in the rear. Many hellenic stay designs have internal routing in the top tube with a cable exit just behind the stays, with the cable closely following the angle of the stays. The straddle cable straddles the seat tube. There could also be a housing stop in that spot for use with V-brakes.

I have no idea about this particular frame. GT produced a wide range of bikes. That one looks like an early hybrid.

LesterOfPuppets

Might even be a Ubrake in back. GT was fond of them up 'til 1991 at least.

Just eyeballing, I'd guess bosses are too close to seattube to be for cantis.

(oops, didn't read whole thread, now I see others have mentioned U-brakes.)

Ubrake wouldn't be a deal killer for me, I kinda like 'em. Still plenty of BMX U-brakes available new if you can find a good shop that'll fit one for you.

Andy_K 

That would explain it. I was trying to figure out how a wheel could possibly fit in that frame relative to the cantilever studs. I ended up deciding that I must just be misunderstanding the picture. A U-brake is a much better explanation.

escarpment

I really have no opposition to v or u brakes. Although I do believe I can run cantis in the back by putting the anchor bolt in the top rear triangle. I believe I can run the brake line on the bottom of the downtube. as opposed to trying to fit it all in the rear. If that makes sense. For 60 bucks I cant really go wrong.

TimmyT 

+1
If you don't like it, sell it. There's not a lot of risk in that frame.

marqueemoon

It's not the cost of the frame. It's the cost and investment of time to make it into a functioning bicycle.

escarpment

you make a good point, I figure Id probably spend another 200 on parts, I just want something with 700c wheels to bomb trails on.

ColonelJLloyd 

Ah.

dizzy101

That's very optimistic. Building up your own bike is oftentimes so much more expensive than just buying a complete one. The bar tape, the tires, the brakes... it adds up. (Unless of course you have all that lying around.)

fietsbob

brake cable run under the top tube kinda sux for cross, if you have any
hills to run up, shouldering the bike..

but as a JRA, bike thats not in the plans, I guess.

escarpment

I dont really plan on racing this thing, and I already have crank/bb. road break levers, bar, stem, saddle, post, pedals, and wheels. I believe all I need is canti or u brakes, tires, chainring, and some bits and pieces.

Breathegood

Why not build it up as a single speed with a front brake only. Not only is it the easiest, cheapest option, it eliminates any guesswork or creative cabling for the rear. If it's primary intended use is winter commuter, I can see other advantages to SS. No worries about snow, ice, or debris buildup on deraileurs. Easier to maintain and troubleshoot on the road, and it weighs less. Unless I'm carrying a large load over a long distance or big elevation changes, my preference would be to commute on a SS anyway. My commute is 23 miles one-way with 1600' of elevation gain. My SS is still my preferred commuter. Get a slighlty bigger cog and longer chain for race day and you also look like the badass racing SSCX with no worries about mud or debris fouling your brakes or drivetrain. If you decide you don't like the way it rides as a SS, you've made minimal investment with time and money. If you like the way it rides as a SS, maybe its worth putting a little more into it as a geared bike.

marqueemoon

I strongly disagree with the idea of racing singlespeed with only a front brake.

In most commuting situations front brake only singlespeed would be ok, but why risk it?

Fixed gear with a front brake is a different story as you can modulate speed with your legs. You also get a little better traction feedback and the constant spinning will keep you a little warmer when it's chilly out. However, cranky knees, cold weather, and a fixed gear are not always a good combo.

Fixed is way more fun with bigger tires though. You can just plow over stuff and keep spinning.