Stealthammer

hj.paul7, I would agree that you should have a LBS prep the frame's headtube and BB shell, press in the headset cups, and even install headset and fork (including cutting the steerer tube to the correct length), but everything else should be well within your abilities. It would be helpful if you have a friend that has built their own bike or does their own maintenance, but if you are half as mechanically inclined as you sound, I think you can handle this easily.

You will need to buy some tools along the way, but they will always come in handy in the future, and I would suggest that you pick up a copy of the Big Blue Book of Bike Repair, and bookmark SheldonBrown.com, then just have fun. After all, its just a damn bicycle, its not rocket science!

If you lived anywhere near Indianapolis I would gladly let you use my garage and tools to build it, then you could do all the frame prep work too.

hj.paul7

I may just end up going with Pake's 38 fork, I'm unsure of how 'twitchy' it'll be, but I don't think it's something that would put me through a new one. If it is, then I'll just take it as I learned something.


Yeah, it's probably going to take some time. But I'm willing.


I'll probably end up taking it to my LBS and have an idea of a crankset I want, then let them tell me if that'll work and then help me find a bottom bracket that'll work with it. Because at the moment, I don't know what to look for to match them. But I'll find out.

I found some cranksets last night that looked good to me. I was on PedalRoom and searched "pake" to see what other people put on their rum runners and one crankset I found was the Sugino RD 165mm Crankset. And if I understand it, the 165mm is how long it is, and the other common size was 170mm. But I think the shorter one would be better right? Less chance of the pedal hitting the ground. Also I noticed sizes with them, such as 44t, 48t. Is this the chainring? My LBS told me I should go with a 46/18. I'm assuming the Chainring is 46, and the Fixed cog is 18?


I would like to get nicer parts, even for my first bike. If I'm going to spend a lot of money on this anyway, why not buy some pretty decent parts. Plus, if I ever want to upgrade the frame later on, I could just move those nice parts over (if they work with the new frame).

I'm not too scared to install certain things like the brakes, crankset, or bb. I've looked up a lot of instructional videos on building a fixie, and if I research, follow the guides I don't think I'll have a problem. I'll definitely let them install the headset though, along with the fork and cut the steerer tube.


What do you mean prep the frames head tube and bb shell? I know what you're talking about on the frame, but what needs to be prepped? I'll go ahead and get the tools, I planned that anyways. Can't build a bike without the proper tools lol.

I do live in Indianapolis, and the Near Eastside of Downtown.

Stealthammer

I ride my fixed gear pretty much like a commuter and never feel that its handling is "twitchy" at all, even at speed, so I think you will be satisfied with it for all around use.

The Sugino RD 165mm crankset is a good choice but I would go with a 170mm instead of the 165mm. A 170mm length is really more of a "standard" crank length for any road bike in your size range and you will appreciate the additional length when pushing the pedals up any grades or when backpedalling. You will also be able to spin the 170mm cranks as fast as the 165mm and ground clearance will probably never be an issue. I think you will find that there is a solid consensus on this but I am sure others will have input here as well.

Prepping the frames head tube and BB shell basically is just facing the headtube and BB shell at both ends to ensure that each surface is flat and parallel, and then retapping the BB shell threads to ensure that they are free of any paint, etc. and correcting any possible distorsion caused during the welding process. This should actually have been done during the frame building process, but doing it again after the frame is painted is always a good idea as well.

I live just south of Whitestown on the north side just east of the 65 and north of the 865. PM me and I will give you my cell phone number. You are welcome to come by anytime to work on your bike or borrow some tools.



BTW: If you haven't checked out the Fixed Gear/Single Speed - Start Here! thread you should take some time and absorb it thoughly. And since you live near downtown you should check out the Major Taylor Velodrome off of Cold Springs Road as well. I am sure that you can hook up with some great FG resources there.

Spoonrobot 

You can't have it both ways. Either the length makes no difference and 165s will perform the same as 170s while climbing as well as having the same ease of spinning.

Or

The 165s will be worse on hills but easier to spin.

You can't have the length be an affect for some things but not for others.

Stealthammer

I didn't say there was "no difference" at all between 165mm vs. 170mm cranks, because there certainly is. But what I did say was "You will also be able to spin the 170mm cranks as fast as the 165mm ", and on level ground the difference in how fast you can spin 165mm vs. 170mm cranks will most likely be determined by how fast you can spin the cranks rather than which crank arm length you are using. Its not about any difference in the "ease of spinning" at all, its about how fast you can spin the cranks, so the limiting factor is going to be your ability to spin in a controlled cadence, not which length crank you are using..

If you can't control your spin faster than 150rpm with 170mm cranks, switching to 165mm cranks will probably not allow you to spin any faster, but the 170mm cranks will certainly get you an advantage we climbing or backpedalling.

Nagrom_

But that's the exact advantage of shorter crank arms.... you have less leverage, but the circumference of pedal stroke is shorter, therefore easier to spin.

Stealthammer

Who cares about "easier to spin"? Put your bike with 165mm cranks on a trainer with little or no resistance or a set of rollers and see what your maximum cadence rate is, then try it with 170mm cranks. You may be able to spin a 165mm crank a few rpms faster than a 170mm crank, but the difference will be negligible. Your ability to control your maximum spin rate is the limitation, not which crank length you are using.

I don't know how your FG is geared, but with my gearing my maximum speed on level ground is limited by how fast I can spin, not how strong I am. I could have Mark Gorski's quads and I am not going to go any faster if I can't spin faster than 150rpm......

Nagrom_

Absolutely not.
If I am pedaling 170's at 150 rpm's, this is a circumferential velocity of ~160,221mm/minute.

Let's call this speed "My maximum ability."

This exact velocity on 165's translates to ~155 rpm.
These RPM's on a 52x16 gear ratio, at 85.7 GI's would result is speeds of 39.5mph on 165's, and 38.3mph on 170's.
These difference would increase with higher cadences as well, i.e. 240 rpm on 170's results in ~250 rpm on 165's

If I'm going 1 MPH faster than you, in 10 seconds I'm 15 feet ahead of you.

It definitely isn't negligible.

And if the physics is over your head, I apologize. Here's an analogy:
You and I are running at the same speed, let's call it 10 mph. I am running on a track that is 10 miles around. You are running on a track that is 5 miles around.

We are both running the exact same speed, "our maximum ability," but you are completing twice as many laps per minute (RPM) as I am.
Now if you flip this, and we are running the same laps per minute rather than speeds, I will be running 10mph, and you will be running 5mph at the same RPM's.

Stealthammer

Lets see. Even using your numbers, your 170mm max. is 150rpm and your 165mm max. is 155. Thats roughly a 3% difference. Sounds pretty negligible to me.

More to the point though, in the real world your maximum cadence potential is limited by your ability to controllably move your legs in a circle, and no one that I know can maintain a controlled spin at 240-250rpms, so even though your numbers look good on paper, in the real world they are totally meaningless. Get up on a set of rollers with both cranksets and see what the difference between your maximum cadence rates are for each length crank. The results will be negligible.

JesusBananas

OP, your bike sounds like it's going to be expensive. This is totally fine, but my one suggestion is that you might not want to lock your bike up outside for longer than a few minutes at a time.*

*Depends on how much bike theft is in your area. If you see lots of front wheels locked to bike racks (I mean just the wheel, because the rest of the bike was stolen), I would definitely discourage leaving the bike outside.

That is all.

Nagrom_

"Negligible to you" and "Negligible" are apparently two completely difference things. Excuse me.

As for your middle paragraph, world class track cyclists who regularly spin 200+ rpm, the difference is not negligible.

but your right... lets blatantly disregard math and physics.

I don't even use crank arms, I screw my pedals into the dust cap threads.

Stealthammer

Being a bit anal here Nagrom_? Ok I'll play. (1) Yes, a >3% difference is negligible to me, (2) 200+rpm ain't 240-250rpm and most of us are not "world class track cyclists", so your analysis is irrational from the start and your resulting conclusions are completely useless in the real world, and (3)"no" your math doesn't lie, you are just so focused on a theoretical analysis that you are completely ignoring real world conditions and limitations.

In the real world, most of us will be able to spin 170mm cranks nearly as fast, if not as fast, as 165mm cranks.


BTW: No, the physics is over my head, but apparently the real world is over yours....

Nagrom_

I'm not ignoring real world conditions and limitations, you are your generalizing your limitations to the entire planet. If you want to talk about irrationality, we should start here.

But I'm done, I guess physics only applies to spherical bicycles in vacuums.

what am I, a physicist? oh wait...


And just to poke a little fun, If the increase in cadence gained from 165's is negligible, How is the leverage gained with 170's not negligible?

If all of these difference are negligible, why are there even different sizes?

Stealthammer

That explains a lot......

Have you ever ridden a bicycle?

Nagrom_

Have you ever ridden a bicycle? In particular, one's with different sized crank arms...

Things aren't negligible because you say they are.

There are reasons they use 190's setting the hour record, and 160's racing keirin, etc.

MincedFeet

Just throwing this in, but when spinning I feel much more uncomfortable and controlling on 165's over 170's. I'm much smoother on 165's. I always thought I would never feel the difference in 5mm. I was so wrong when my new bike came with 170mm crank arms installed.

Prabuddhadg

I guess perceptions vary, for I went from a 170 to a 172.5 without being able to tell the difference. In fact I rode around on the 172.5 for quite a while and only when I was looking at the numbers etched on the crank arm, that I realised it was longer. I have not experienced a 165 crank.

Stealthammer

I've been riding various types of bikes for the past 40+ years, from BMX to Road to MTB to Trials to Commuters to Tandems, both FG/SS and geared, and I've used everything from 150mm to 185mm cranksets on the various types of bikes for various reasons.

My opinions are just that, my opinions, based on my own years of experience riding various types of bikes in various types of riding. I never claimed that my opinions applied to everyone else in every situation, so "yes" things that I consider negligible are negligible to me, but they may not be to you. I don't speak for you. You seem to believe that you can quantify everything and that your calculations are "the" final word. I say BS.

To me, the difference between a spinning a 165mm crank vs. a 170mm crank is negligible, whereas the difference between spinning a 165mm crank and a 180mm is fairly significant. You may well be more anal than I am though, so yes, your opinion may be different. But again, I don't speak for you.

The whole point in having different sized components is so that each person can tailor their bikes to their own needs and desires. You can't determine that with a calculator and an algorithm, and the final results will not be the same for everyone.

My current bikes are:
14" Fisher Opie freeride/urban assault MTB - 175mm
17" Redline Monocog 29er MTB - 180mm
18" Serrota T-Max Commuter MTB - 172.5mm
17" Klein Rascal SS MTB - 175mm
52cm Salsa Campion aluminum/105 Road bike - 170mm
52cm Pake Rum Runner FG/SS Road bike - 170
52cm Cannondale Synapse Carbon Fiber Road bike - 170mm
53cm/50cm Santana Arriva Road Tandem - 170mm/170mm

Spoonrobot 

This was the important distinction that was lacking. The discussion between you and Nagrom_ was very interesting. Thank you for posting.

adriano 

yes, about 97% as fast, which could be a mph or two.

Nagrom_

Exactly!
a mph or two might be negligible to some, but it isn't to others.

That's all I was really trying to get across.

chenghiz

I have a Rumrunner with the matching fork and it's fine over 25-mile rides. I think it might actually ride smoother than my Nishiki (with curved fork blades) but that's probably because the wheels are lighter/less burly or something.

I have 170mm cranks on my road bike but 165 on the fixed gear, mainly because I have BMX pedals and didn't want to risk pedal strike with the much wider platforms.

adriano 

a 10mm difference in the vertical range of the pedal stroke means a few important hip angle degrees and a good bit of comfort to everyone though.

GMJ

+1

My brain is full of food for thought.

adriano 

4'10 145
4'11 147.5
5'0 150
5'1 152.5
5'2 155
5'3 157.5
5'4 160
5'5 162.5
5'6 165
5'7 167.5
5'8 170
5'9 172.5
5'10 175
5'11 177.5
6'0 180
6'1 182.5
6'2 185
6'3 187.5
6'4 190
6'5 192.5
6'6 195
6'7 197.5
6'8 200