Still working on this bike . . .

Is there an off-the-shelf bike that would fit this list o' desires?

* Sub-$700 (hope, hope),
* Q of 140 mm-ish (essential, certainly not 165 mm),
* a triple (could go double if required to achieve the Q),
* no sus (not needed),
* tires at least 35mm, 40mm better,
* disc brakes (could give up on this one),
* flat bars (gotta have),
* and small frame (my road bike is 51 cm).

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

On Aug 26, 7:15*pm, Mike Rocket J Squirrel
wrote:
Is there an off-the-shelf bike that would fit this list o' desires?

* Sub-$700 (hope, hope),
* Q of 140 mm-ish (essential, certainly not 165 mm),
* a triple (could go double if required to achieve the Q),
* no sus (not needed),
* tires at least 35mm, 40mm better,
* disc brakes (could give up on this one),
* flat bars (gotta have),
* and small frame (my road bike is 51 cm).

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

Off the shelf? With that Q? At that price point? No chance.

Nearly all flat-bar road bikes in that vicinity will have mostly MTB
components, because the cheapest flat-bar road parts Shimano makes are
Tiagra-level. With MTB shifters, you need a MTB FD, which in turn
limits you to a 44T big ring. That means a triple. If it's a square-
taper crank, you could pull off the granny ring, and put on a shorter
spindle, but I can't see you getting below mid-150s Q with that bodge.
Disc brakes make it even less likely, since you'll almost certainly
get 135mm rear spacing, which widens the chainstays and ensures
clearance issues.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you could piece together such a bike,
even hand-picking the parts. Keep in mind that about the lowest Q ever
was the TA Cyclotouriste, which was 138mm as a double crank, 143 as a
triple. That was designed for a bike with rear spacing of 120mm and a
flat FD outer cage. Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

Realistically, your best bet to get such a low Q (and it sounds like
that's your top priority) would be on an internally-geared hub, but
even then, you'd probably need to switch out spindles/arms to get it
that low.

What's the motivation for such low Q? From what I've read, most riders
who have joint problems with high Q can address them with better
saddle & cleat adjustment.

On 8/26/2008 9:20 PM Hank wrote:

On Aug 26, 7:15 pm, Mike Rocket J Squirrel
wrote:
Is there an off-the-shelf bike that would fit this list o' desires?

* Sub-$700 (hope, hope),
* Q of 140 mm-ish (essential, certainly not 165 mm),
* a triple (could go double if required to achieve the Q),
* no sus (not needed),
* tires at least 35mm, 40mm better,
* disc brakes (could give up on this one),
* flat bars (gotta have),
* and small frame (my road bike is 51 cm).

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

Off the shelf? With that Q? At that price point? No chance.

Drat.

Nearly all flat-bar road bikes in that vicinity will have mostly MTB
components, because the cheapest flat-bar road parts Shimano makes are
Tiagra-level.

Okay.

With MTB shifters, you need a MTB FD, which in turn
limits you to a 44T big ring. That means a triple. If it's a square-
taper crank, you could pull off the granny ring, and put on a shorter
spindle, but I can't see you getting below mid-150s Q with that bodge.

I'm running flat bars on my road bike with a double, and TA Zephyr cranks,
the Q is good.

Disc brakes make it even less likely, since you'll almost certainly
get 135mm rear spacing, which widens the chainstays and ensures
clearance issues.

Like I said, those aren't a necessity.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you could piece together such a bike,
even hand-picking the parts. Keep in mind that about the lowest Q ever
was the TA Cyclotouriste, which was 138mm as a double crank, 143 as a
triple. That was designed for a bike with rear spacing of 120mm and a
flat FD outer cage. Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

Realistically, your best bet to get such a low Q (and it sounds like
that's your top priority) would be on an internally-geared hub, but
even then, you'd probably need to switch out spindles/arms to get it
that low.

What's the motivation for such low Q? From what I've read, most riders
who have joint problems with high Q can address them with better
saddle & cleat adjustment.

Aging knees. My road bike was beginning to give pain on the medial
(insides) of both knees, I looked into medial knee pain and read that toe
out helps, but even more so, narrowing the stance. Tried it on the road
bike and it gave instant relief. Then two weeks ago I took my MTB out for
a ride and both knees hurt again in the same place. I took a look and
found that the pedals were about 1/2'' farther apart than my road bike.
Thus the search for something with fatter tires but the same nice narrow
stance that makes my knees happy.

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

On Aug 26, 9:51*pm, Mike Rocket J Squirrel
wrote:
On 8/26/2008 9:20 PM Hank wrote:



On Aug 26, 7:15 pm, Mike Rocket J Squirrel
wrote:
Is there an off-the-shelf bike that would fit this list o' desires?

* Sub-$700 (hope, hope),
* Q of 140 mm-ish (essential, certainly not 165 mm),
* a triple (could go double if required to achieve the Q),
* no sus (not needed),
* tires at least 35mm, 40mm better,
* disc brakes (could give up on this one),
* flat bars (gotta have),
* and small frame (my road bike is 51 cm).

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

Off the shelf? With that Q? At that price point? No chance.

Drat.

Nearly all flat-bar road bikes in that vicinity will have mostly MTB
components, because the cheapest flat-bar road parts Shimano makes are
Tiagra-level.

Okay.

With MTB shifters, you need a MTB FD, which in turn
limits you to a 44T big ring. That means a triple. If it's a square-
taper crank, you could pull off the granny ring, and put on a shorter
spindle, but I can't see you getting below mid-150s Q with that bodge.

I'm running flat bars on my road bike with a double, and TA Zephyr cranks,
the Q is good.

Disc brakes make it even less likely, since you'll almost certainly
get 135mm rear spacing, which widens the chainstays and ensures
clearance issues.

Like I said, those aren't a necessity.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you could piece together such a bike,
even hand-picking the parts. Keep in mind that about the lowest Q ever
was the TA Cyclotouriste, which was 138mm as a double crank, 143 as a
triple. That was designed for a bike with rear spacing of 120mm and a
flat FD outer cage. Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

Realistically, your best bet to get such a low Q (and it sounds like
that's your top priority) would be on an internally-geared hub, but
even then, you'd probably need to switch out spindles/arms to get it
that low.

What's the motivation for such low Q? From what I've read, most riders
who have joint problems with high Q can address them with better
saddle & cleat adjustment.

Aging knees. My road bike was beginning to give pain on the medial
(insides) of both knees, I looked into medial knee pain and read that toe
out helps, but even more so, narrowing the stance. Tried it on the road
bike and it gave instant relief. Then two weeks ago I took my MTB out for
a ride and both knees hurt again in the same place. I took a look and
found that the pedals were about 1/2'' farther apart than my road bike.
Thus the search for something with fatter tires but the same nice narrow
stance that makes my knees happy.

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

Maybe I spoke too soon...It's more than what you wanted to spend
($950), but have a look at the Mongoose Sabroso Ocho:
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/...tegory_ID=3040

It's got an Alfine 8-speed IGH. I don't know the exact Q, but with a
single ring, it's probably low, unless the crank is also 73mm BB
compatible. No suspension, hydraulic discs and 37mm tires.

Good luck!

On 8/27/2008 1:25 AM Hank wrote:

On Aug 26, 9:51 pm, Mike Rocket J Squirrel
wrote:
On 8/26/2008 9:20 PM Hank wrote:



On Aug 26, 7:15 pm, Mike Rocket J Squirrel
wrote:
Is there an off-the-shelf bike that would fit this list o' desires?
* Sub-$700 (hope, hope),
* Q of 140 mm-ish (essential, certainly not 165 mm),
* a triple (could go double if required to achieve the Q),
* no sus (not needed),
* tires at least 35mm, 40mm better,
* disc brakes (could give up on this one),
* flat bars (gotta have),
* and small frame (my road bike is 51 cm).
--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"
Off the shelf? With that Q? At that price point? No chance.
Drat.

Nearly all flat-bar road bikes in that vicinity will have mostly MTB
components, because the cheapest flat-bar road parts Shimano makes are
Tiagra-level.
Okay.

With MTB shifters, you need a MTB FD, which in turn
limits you to a 44T big ring. That means a triple. If it's a square-
taper crank, you could pull off the granny ring, and put on a shorter
spindle, but I can't see you getting below mid-150s Q with that bodge.
I'm running flat bars on my road bike with a double, and TA Zephyr cranks,
the Q is good.

Disc brakes make it even less likely, since you'll almost certainly
get 135mm rear spacing, which widens the chainstays and ensures
clearance issues.
Like I said, those aren't a necessity.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you could piece together such a bike,
even hand-picking the parts. Keep in mind that about the lowest Q ever
was the TA Cyclotouriste, which was 138mm as a double crank, 143 as a
triple. That was designed for a bike with rear spacing of 120mm and a
flat FD outer cage. Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.
Realistically, your best bet to get such a low Q (and it sounds like
that's your top priority) would be on an internally-geared hub, but
even then, you'd probably need to switch out spindles/arms to get it
that low.
What's the motivation for such low Q? From what I've read, most riders
who have joint problems with high Q can address them with better
saddle & cleat adjustment.
Aging knees. My road bike was beginning to give pain on the medial
(insides) of both knees, I looked into medial knee pain and read that toe
out helps, but even more so, narrowing the stance. Tried it on the road
bike and it gave instant relief. Then two weeks ago I took my MTB out for
a ride and both knees hurt again in the same place. I took a look and
found that the pedals were about 1/2'' farther apart than my road bike.
Thus the search for something with fatter tires but the same nice narrow
stance that makes my knees happy.

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

Maybe I spoke too soon...It's more than what you wanted to spend
($950), but have a look at the Mongoose Sabroso Ocho:
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/...tegory_ID=3040

It's got an Alfine 8-speed IGH. I don't know the exact Q, but with a
single ring, it's probably low, unless the crank is also 73mm BB
compatible. No suspension, hydraulic discs and 37mm tires.

Good luck!

Many thanks, Hank!

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"

On Aug 26, 11:20*pm, Hank wrote:
Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

How about start with a mass market $4-500 flatbar bike from Kona/Giant/
Trek/Whatever, replace crankset with a cheapie FSA Vero compact, BB
with something narrower, and if ya can't make it shift, throw a
friction shifter on the bar. With the $200 left over, put top notch
35mm tires, bars, and saddle on the bike, go ride.

On Aug 27, 9:01 am, landotter wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:20 pm, Hank wrote:

Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

How about start with a mass market $4-500 flatbar bike from Kona/Giant/
Trek/Whatever, replace crankset with a cheapie FSA Vero compact, BB
with something narrower, and if ya can't make it shift, throw a
friction shifter on the bar. With the $200 left over, put top notch
35mm tires, bars, and saddle on the bike, go ride.

That might work, IF:
1) the FD cage doesn't hit the chainrings; and
2) the fat tires have clearance.

Indexed front shifting is obviously much more tolerant of doubles than
triples. My CX bike has Veloce QS ergo shifters, and a pre-QS Record
double FD. It works fine, which I didn't expect. But a FD designed for
a 44t big ring won't fit a 50t ring under it, without raising it to a
level where it just won't work.

On Aug 27, 11:27*am, Hank wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:01 am, landotter wrote:

On Aug 26, 11:20 pm, Hank wrote:

Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

How about start with a mass market $4-500 flatbar bike from Kona/Giant/
Trek/Whatever, replace crankset with a cheapie FSA Vero compact, BB
with something narrower, and if ya can't make it shift, throw a
friction shifter on the bar. With the $200 left over, put top notch
35mm tires, bars, and saddle on the bike, go ride.

That might work, IF:
1) the FD cage doesn't hit the chainrings; and
2) the fat tires have clearance.

Indexed front shifting is obviously much more tolerant of doubles than
triples. My CX bike has Veloce QS ergo shifters, and a pre-QS Record
double FD. It works fine, which I didn't expect. But a FD designed for
a 44t big ring won't fit a 50t ring under it, without raising it to a
level where it just won't work.

The Dews shift a pretty tourcentric 48/38/28 with a craptastic Tourney
top swing--and hilariously well I might add, I don't see two teeth as
being an issue. It should take a 60mm tire. Mine's ridiculous fun--
bought it as the "low expectations" bike and ride it most of all--
might actually go the compact route with it myself with a more roadie
cassette when the current one wears out.

On Aug 27, 11:27*am, Hank wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:01 am, landotter wrote:

On Aug 26, 11:20 pm, Hank wrote:

Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

How about start with a mass market $4-500 flatbar bike from Kona/Giant/
Trek/Whatever, replace crankset with a cheapie FSA Vero compact, BB
with something narrower, and if ya can't make it shift, throw a
friction shifter on the bar. With the $200 left over, put top notch
35mm tires, bars, and saddle on the bike, go ride.

That might work, IF:
1) the FD cage doesn't hit the chainrings; and
2) the fat tires have clearance.

This is what the clearances look like on the 2008 Dew series (and for
the fashionistas, be aware that there are 2008.5 colors not listed on
the site):

http://i38.tinypic.com/qsrr6v.jpg

A 50mm Big Apple can be swallowed with ease. Entry level Dew is 400
bucks with vees, more bux gets you disks. The basic Vees stop fine,
btw.

Yes that's my mech cable running through my Greenfield top plate. Dork
engineering at its finest!

On 8/27/2008 9:01 AM landotter wrote:

On Aug 26, 11:20 pm, Hank wrote:
Most road triples (which again, probably wouldn't
work with a FD supplied with that range of FB-road bike.

How about start with a mass market $4-500 flatbar bike from Kona/Giant/
Trek/Whatever, replace crankset with a cheapie FSA Vero compact, BB
with something narrower, and if ya can't make it shift, throw a
friction shifter on the bar. With the $200 left over, put top notch
35mm tires, bars, and saddle on the bike, go ride.


Now yer talking! This is the kind of kitbashing that I like.

Let's see, "cheapie FSA Vero compact" crankset, from, say, Jensen USA or
similar for $70.

Find some flatbar bike w/ 68mm BB which can take 37mm+ tires. Ideas?

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"