135 spaced track frames

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

11-22-05 | 04:14 PM

#26

Kennetht638

Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2005

Posts: 131

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneTinSloth

i shoved a 135 XT mountain hub in my trek 600, which is spaced at 130. if the jamie roy is steel, it's all good.

It's aluminum. However, the cross check has 132.5 mm spacing to take both road and mountain hubs, and the rob roy is steel, so it might not mind being cold set to 135. They're both 'cross bikes though, so no steep angles and tons of clearance.

11-22-05 | 04:19 PM

#27

jim-bob

hateful little monkey

Joined: May 2003

Posts: 5,274

Likes: 0

From: oakland, ca

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kogswell

So, here's what I have so far:

- 120 or 110 rear spacing
- a fixed gear
- no brakes or brake drilling
- steep angles
- tight clearances
- high bottom bracket
- TOC (toe clip overlap)

Not to be dense, but how steep should the angles be? And should they be the same front and rear?
Also, how high should the BB be. And is it better to talk about BB height or BB drop (front wheel axle centerline)? Oh, and is there a reason why TOC is required? I'm gonna assume 700C (ISO 622) wheels.
And if someone could list chainstay length and fork offset, I'd be obliged. Thanks!

One more thing... how tight are the clearances?

Is this going to result in the Kogswell Model BC (by committee)?

11-22-05 | 04:38 PM

#28

Kogswell

Matthew Grimm / Flunky

Joined: Jan 2005

Posts: 657

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim-bob

Is this going to result in the Kogswell Model BC (by committee)?

(I think you meant Model BK - by kommittee)

And, yeah, by committee is right.

Half our frames are designed by way of collaboration. I like to give people what they want.

The other half of the time I just make what I want.

That and I'd like to get a handle on what you all are thinking.

11-22-05 | 05:21 PM

#29

jitensha!

ready for the freakout

Joined: Nov 2003

Posts: 991

Likes: 0

From: the 757

Bikes: Spicer track

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kogswell

brake drillings are fine (at least in the rear). toe clip overlap isn't necessarily required, but i feel track bikes should have a shorter front end than road bikes, preferably equal to or no more than 1.5cm more than the seat tube. chainstays should be less than 40 cm. 35-40 degress of fork offset (depending on size of frame and head tube angle). no less that 74 degree head and seattube angle (again, that depends on the size of the frame). oh, and clearances should allow for nothing larger than 23mm tires.

my opinions based on what i will get when purchase a custom/BTO frame.

11-25-05 | 03:20 PM

#30

Martyr

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2004

Posts: 131

Likes: 0

From: Melbourne, Australia

Bikes: Gios (Road), Zullo (Track), Fixed Giant Conversion (MTB), Kona (Commute)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbk

on one il pompino is 135mm, until the new ones come out

apparently the frameset will be still 135, but when bought as a complete bike the frame will be spaced 120. not sure why they'd bother - maybe because they have started making track cranks too.

I am just lovin' mine to death, but there is no way you can consider this a track bike (or any other 135 spaced frame for that matter)

marty

11-25-05 | 03:24 PM

#31

Martyr

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2004

Posts: 131

Likes: 0

From: Melbourne, Australia

Bikes: Gios (Road), Zullo (Track), Fixed Giant Conversion (MTB), Kona (Commute)

Quote:

Originally Posted by alcahueteria

So I am wondering if there are any. I am about to buy some new hubs, but I am also about to build up a ss 29er, so if there were any 135 spaced track frames I could use these same wheels for both and that would be badass. thanks

you are looking for a frame with fork ends as opposed to dropouts, aren't you?

11-25-05 | 04:15 PM

#32

Portlandonian

Bike jocks ar still jocks

Joined: Sep 2005

Posts: 263

Likes: 0

From: Portland, OR

Bikes: 1970 peugeot PX-10 fixie, 2002 Team Fuji road bike

I'm really confused by 29ers... How could they be the same size as 700c if 700c is supposed to be a little smaller than 27" wheels? Is "29ers" just a nickname?

11-25-05 | 04:52 PM

#33

baxtefer

Cornucopia of Awesomeness

Joined: Oct 2004

Posts: 4,847

Likes: 0

From: not where i used to be

^ "marketing term" not "nickname"

BTW 27"s aren't 27" either

11-25-05 | 07:44 PM

#34

Kennetht638

Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2005

Posts: 131

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portlandonian

I'm really confused by 29ers... How could they be the same size as 700c if 700c is supposed to be a little smaller than 27" wheels? Is "29ers" just a nickname?

29 is nominal tire diameter, just like 26" or 27". They aren't rim sizes. Yes, it's kind of silly.

11-26-05 | 12:02 AM

#35

Thor29

Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2005

Posts: 757

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kogswell

(I think you meant Model BK - by kommittee)
And, yeah, by committee is right.
Half our frames are designed by way of collaboration. I like to give people what they want.
The other half of the time I just make what I want.
That and I'd like to get a handle on what you all are thinking.

Well, personally I think my Steamroller is about perfect for a road going fixed gear bike. I don't want a track style bike at all. The Steamroller handles wonderfully and I can run a long reach front brake and fatter tires. The only things I'd change are adding eyelets for racks and fenders although that tends to mess up the clean look.

11-26-05 | 12:21 AM

#36

bostontrevor

Retrogrouch in Training

Joined: Sep 2004

Posts: 5,484

Likes: 1

From: Knee-deep in the day-to-day

Hell, 700c is nominal tire diameter.

700C is a rim+tire combo that's supposed to be 700mm across. Do the math, that's a 39mm tire if you really had a 700C tire. Yowza.

29ers are supposed to be about 29" with a 2.3" tire.

27" calls for a 1-1/4" tire.

26" means 1.75" tires.