I've been putting off getting rid of my 80's Peugeot conversion, selling the too-small vintage track, and finally moving up to a modern track bike for commuting and running around town.

Now that I've made up my mind that it's time and have allocated the necessary funds... am I being foolish to be toying with the idea of buying the frame that can fit anywhere up to 50mm tires?

In the past I've used tires anywhere from 20-32mm in width on different rides, and I don't know that I see going much bigger for everyday commuting...maybe I'll end up building a wide wheelset, but most of the time I forsee using the bike with something like 28-32mm gatorskins.

Anyways - while I started considering many options (including the Steamroller, buying and building up a Pake or IRO frame), I've winnowed my choices down to either a Kilo WT or a TT Pro -- it's just what makes the most sense given my needs and my stockpile of parts...

So what should I do? Jump on the WT or the Pro? How much should the option of Fenders and racks effect my decision? (setting aside the probable issue of toe-overlap on the fenders) And as far as other data - I'm 6'1", and will be riding the bike all sorts of surfaces (good roads, unkempt roads, and bikepaths for starters). No drome action at all as there isn't one anywhere near me.

**[Note: Please don't say "Just buy a bike and ride it." I've been riding regardless of the choice I now face, and will continue to - but the choice is just that...a choice. I'm asking SSFG because (though I don't know why) I value the opinions.]**

And now for a summary of the decision -

This:

Or this:

What I like about the WT over the Pro:
1. full rack and fender braze-ons (including mid-fork),
2. lugged recessed seattube binder bolt instead of collar clamp,
3. room for tires larger than 28mm,
4. lots of varied options as far as set-up/usage.

What I don't like/Concerns about the WT:
1. strange ST-TT lengths compared to conventional track geometry
2. don't know if the wider tires option will actually be used enough to justify it.
3. Does anyone know what's the max-width a TT Pro fork will take???

I think it's been sufficiently proven that there are a lot of variances in Kilo TT forks and you may not ever get a legit answer. They seem to be like snowflakes.

I'm not familiar with the geometry, but based on that ^^, I'd say go with the WT. IMO there's really no downside in having too much tire clearance, except that it forces you to use longer reach brakes (not a big deal.) You'll always be able to run whatever tire/fender combo without fit issues.

Here's my Kilo WT. Try doing all this with a Kilo TT Pro.

Other differences:

1) 2 sets of bottle mounts on Kilo WT .vs. none on Kilo TT Pro
2) Hooded drop levers on Kilo WT .vs. cross levers on Kilo TT Pro (less hand positions and brakes not accessible when riding on drops)
3) Normal 27.2mm seatpost size on Kilo WT .vs. oddball 26.8mm size on Kilo TT Pro
4) Normal 1 1/8" steerer on Kilo WT .vs. 1" on Kilo TT Pro (less threadless stem choices)

^^ I like it, TT. Thanks for piping in and posting a photo of your WT - I don't think I'd seen it on the forums before. I guess I mostly post in C&V and occasionally lurk/chime in over here at SS/FG.

I'm already leaning toward the WT, but first-hand recommendations like yours are kind of what I'm looking for right now. I've heard a lot from Pro owners, less from WT-owners.

I have a WT too, but I tried to convert it to more aggressive than comfort... changing the fork (thus changing the geometry and rake angle), using skinnier tires, and removing the brake hoods. To be honest, I like the more responsiveness/handling of a stiff ride over comfort.

That said, the WT is my commuter, and the roads I take tend to be rougher than a fresh paved riding path. I have the option to put back all the creature comforts that the WT is known for... but if you get the TT Pro, you could not make it into a comfort bike. O, and there are water bottle mounts. I need those. NEED WATER NEED WATER!

I'd say why limit yourself? Even if you never want to use wider tires, you could always fit in fenders with the extra space. I've got a WT and I like it a lot. You get options and just cause you don't see a use for all the extra space now doesn't mean you won't use it later. Another perk of the WT is everything you need is included as opposed to having to buy brakes/hoods for the TT Pro. The 50mm tires I have clear the brakes included with the WT. Here are a few setups of mine:

40mm Schwalbe Marathon XR tires


50mm Schwalbe Big Apple tires


23mm Panaracer Pasela TG tires


32mm Ritchey Crossmax Comp tires


50mm Schwalbe Big Apple tires


and here's someone else's setup with 50mm tires I found on flickr


It's a really great bike and definitely more versatile as opposed to a TT Pro or Steamroller.

Buy the WT OP; Gyeswho has realized that it's such an awesome bike that he has purchased 6 of them!

You better grab one before he grabs all the rest with his next pay check.

i've always liked ur bike, Gyeswho... what handle bar is that (w/ drops).. also, do you need new rims (other than stock) to fit the wide tires?

thanks. It is a FSA Wing Compact bar. You could get wider rims, but I've got Mavic Open Pros with the tires. So, no you don't need new rims.

1) buy ass rockets
2) buy these too
3) buy a thomson, be set for life
4) i'll shim your face

Ha!

First off, thanks for the responses. I really value the firsthand examples and rider reports.

I agree with you on preferring stiff, responsive rides to comfort. I'm not really getting this bike for comfort but rather duty riding, due to it's overall flexibility and abundance of options for usage. Also, I like water and prefer non-bolted-on bottle cages. Thanks also for posting photo of white. I'd seen Gyes' bike here and on Flickr, but hadn't found photos of a White WT "in the wild."

Gyes, I think BikesDirect should pay you a commission, because your photos and ride reports as well as the varied setups you put your bikes through, have really really impressed me with the WT's abilities. I can't think I'm the only one.

Ok, so last question before I buy (literally...got the page open in my browser, hoping to purchase before the end of the day), I'm concerned about buying a poorly fitting frame due to the down-ward sloping TT (corrected - thanks, Tejano) and being pretty unfamiliar with threadless setups --

I'm 6'1", 34" inseam. Smallest road frame I've ridden comfortably has been a 58 cm. I usually ride with a top tube of 56-58 (depending on the bike) with a 100-110mm quill stem. I've ridden a 56cm (measured C-C, 60cm C-T) Steamroller and had a pretty good time of it -- it has the exact same TT measurement as the 56 cm WT. I'm just thinking that due to the sloping ST (WT is 56cm C-T) I'll have an additional 4 cm of seatpost sticking out...so maybe I should just brave the additional .7" of top tube and get the 59cm WT?

Or will getting the 59cm WT cause my handlebars to up high in relation to my seat (because of the positive rise on the TT going from seat to stem)?? Please just help me choose so I can get on my way...for some reason this question is causing me undue concern.

The frame dimensions / geometry of the Kilo WT are an identical carbon copy of the Steamroller, so if the 60cm c-t Steamroller is a good fit, then the 59cm c-t Kilo WT will be a good fit. I think you meant that the top tube (TT) is sloping, and not the seat tube (ST), but in any case that is not true, except for the very smallest 49cm, and even then it is very slight.

Kilo WT geometry >>> https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/.../kilott_wt.htm

Steamroller geometry >>> https://www.surlybikes.com/frames/steamroller_frame/

You're right -- I really thought I was reading the details correctly, but nope. Looks like I was wrong.

Then I guess 59 it is. Thanks for checking my math, TT.

Since we are on the topic, I am also thinking about buying the WT by the end of the day. I am 5'9 with a 30-31 inch inseam.

I currently ride a 54cm Dawes SST, and it feels pretty decently sized (maybe a bit on the big side, just a tiny bit). So would the 53cm be the size I would want to order?

Yes.

Branders, I'm not 5'8" so I'm obviously only making an informed guess on this one -- but it seems like the 53 would be the one to go with. While TT length is the most important measurement, you need to make sure you're correct on your inseam size, because the specs give the 53 WT as having a stand-over height of 30".

Your only other choices with the WT would be 49 or 56cm, and if 56 cm sound too big then you should definitely go with the 53. 49 would be tiny on you.

my tt pro can take 30's.

Would other people agree that a 6'1" guy with a 34-34.5" standover would probably be best suited on the 59cm frame rather than the 56cm?? I've already posted on the topic of TT length, but I'm just looking for some affirmation or objection regarding the 59 v 56cm debate...

What is the top tube length you currently have on your bike?

56 with a 100-110mm stem with vintage/threaded headset (so no spacers/stacks) but it's slighty cramped. I'm leaning toward the 59cm since I usually ride a 59-60cm, but it seems like everyone goes for a smaller frame on the modern track bikes, and also smaller frames when threadless setups are involved.

Your IRO is sick, Vix. How tall are you? Seems like everyone on SS/FG is 5'8" and rides a 53...

The 56cm have very short head tube but a rather long top tube and seeing that you're tall enough for 59, I'd go for the larger of the two.

Thanks. I'm about 5'11"ish 6' but I have a short torso compared to my legs.

Trigger = pulled. A 59cm Kilo WT in emerald green should be showing up in my doorway soon. Thought about the white, ladyfriend wanted me to get white, but I'm too stuck on the green.

Okay, so I thought I should update. Got the 59cm WT shortly after creating this thread, and I haven't regretted it a bit.

When I got home the day it arrived, I saw this: Apparently the UPS guy dropped it getting it in the front door.





I was worried the frame was damaged, and I'd have to file a shipping claim and what not, but I opened the box and was pleased to discover the bike was fine. The bike was exactly as advertised, except I noticed mine came with a 120mm stem instead of the advertised 110. No worries, I was planning on throwing a 90mm stem on it anyways.

Bike as unpacked, with the crappy stock saddle, and set up with some cheapo Easton EA30 (?) road bars I threw on it: