Pilgrim
12-31-1969, 08:00 PM
On Dec 14, 10:00 am, Anthony DeLorenzo <anthony.delore...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 13, 5:45 pm, Pilgrim <je...@codery.com> wrote:
>
> > Basically, I want a frame with road geometry, and fat 26" tires. Maybe
> > something like a Surly Steamroller since it's chainstays say "Fatties
> > Fit Fine". Assuming I use shorter cranks to compensate for the lowered
> > BB, would a rig like that be a good idea?
>
> If you ride a small-size frame (42-54 cm) the Surly Long Haul Trucker
> is set up for 26" wheels and will take up to a 2.1" tire with fenders.
> Otherwise, I would say go with a Crosscheck and run 700C tires, it
> will take 40-42 no problem.
>
> I don't think you'd want to use the Steamroller for commuting. It's a
> pretty specialized track frame with no braze-ons at all -- making it
> more difficult to use things like gears, brakes, racks, fenders...
> Plus, I can't imagine that the bike would be comfortable or handle
> well with the smaller wheels.
>
> If you're totally set on 26" wheels, and you can't use the small Long
> Haul Trucker, then go with a mountain bike frame. Like others have
> said, the old mountain bikes pretty much had road geometry anyways.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony
Good point about the braze-ons, but I forgot to mention that I'm using
a Nexus-7 internal gear hub with coaster brake, and a sturmey archer
dyno/drum for the front. I've also got 36h Sun Rhyno-Lite rims, and
2.2" Halo Twin Rail tires. So I don't need braze-ons for brakes,
hangers for dérailleurs or even cable housing really since the cables
are never exposed. That's really why the Steamroller appeals to me.
It's just a bare-bones cheap steel roadbike frame with no frills.
What you said about it's handling is really what's concerning me most,
and probably what I should have asked to begin with. I'm tall, so I'll
probably need a 60"-62" frame. Pretty tall standover, but my 34"
inseam can handle it. Is that gonna handle absolutely funky, and why?
wrote:
> On Dec 13, 5:45 pm, Pilgrim <je...@codery.com> wrote:
>
> > Basically, I want a frame with road geometry, and fat 26" tires. Maybe
> > something like a Surly Steamroller since it's chainstays say "Fatties
> > Fit Fine". Assuming I use shorter cranks to compensate for the lowered
> > BB, would a rig like that be a good idea?
>
> If you ride a small-size frame (42-54 cm) the Surly Long Haul Trucker
> is set up for 26" wheels and will take up to a 2.1" tire with fenders.
> Otherwise, I would say go with a Crosscheck and run 700C tires, it
> will take 40-42 no problem.
>
> I don't think you'd want to use the Steamroller for commuting. It's a
> pretty specialized track frame with no braze-ons at all -- making it
> more difficult to use things like gears, brakes, racks, fenders...
> Plus, I can't imagine that the bike would be comfortable or handle
> well with the smaller wheels.
>
> If you're totally set on 26" wheels, and you can't use the small Long
> Haul Trucker, then go with a mountain bike frame. Like others have
> said, the old mountain bikes pretty much had road geometry anyways.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony
Good point about the braze-ons, but I forgot to mention that I'm using
a Nexus-7 internal gear hub with coaster brake, and a sturmey archer
dyno/drum for the front. I've also got 36h Sun Rhyno-Lite rims, and
2.2" Halo Twin Rail tires. So I don't need braze-ons for brakes,
hangers for dérailleurs or even cable housing really since the cables
are never exposed. That's really why the Steamroller appeals to me.
It's just a bare-bones cheap steel roadbike frame with no frills.
What you said about it's handling is really what's concerning me most,
and probably what I should have asked to begin with. I'm tall, so I'll
probably need a 60"-62" frame. Pretty tall standover, but my 34"
inseam can handle it. Is that gonna handle absolutely funky, and why?