New Bike, opinons on the Specialized Tri Cross or similar suggestions



D

[email protected]

Guest
So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
off the trail.

The Specialized Tri Cross is really appealing to me, especially since
my LBS has a 2006 model in my size heavily discounted in anticipation
of the '08 models arriving soon.

According to the advertising propaganda they designed this bike for
exactly what I'll be doing, essentially abusing a "road" bike by
detouring into trails on my 40+ mile commute home and weekend road
trips. There are, however, a couple things on this bike that concern
me.

First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.

My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?


TIA,

Dan
 
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:54:09 -0000, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
>these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
>nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?
>

I'm a little over 200lb and ride my Kona JtS (surely the original
which Specialized have belatedly tried to copy :)) off road on 24
spoke wheels (20 spoke front until I changed to a disc brake). Never
had any problem with them. Big tyres help; I'm on 700x37s. More
suspension travel = lower peak load.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
 
[email protected] wrote:
> So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> off the trail.
>
> The Specialized Tri Cross is really appealing to me, especially since
> my LBS has a 2006 model in my size heavily discounted in anticipation
> of the '08 models arriving soon.
>
> According to the advertising propaganda they designed this bike for
> exactly what I'll be doing, essentially abusing a "road" bike by
> detouring into trails on my 40+ mile commute home and weekend road
> trips. There are, however, a couple things on this bike that concern
> me.
>
> First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
>
> My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
> these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
> nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?

Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
nice looking too!

What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?

Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.

If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.

[*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
steel frame]
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > off the trail.
> >
> > The Specialized Tri Cross is really appealing to me, especially since
> > my LBS has a 2006 model in my size heavily discounted in anticipation
> > of the '08 models arriving soon.
> >
> > According to the advertising propaganda they designed this bike for
> > exactly what I'll be doing, essentially abusing a "road" bike by
> > detouring into trails on my 40+ mile commute home and weekend road
> > trips. There are, however, a couple things on this bike that concern
> > me.
> >
> > First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> > elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> > doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> > of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> > opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> > bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
> >
> > My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
> > these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
> > nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?
>
> Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> nice looking too!
>
> What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
>
> Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
>
> If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
>
> [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> steel frame]

What Andrew said. And you can build your own wheels. We can help you.
Probably should not trust that shop to build them.

--
Michael Press
 
> First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
>
---------
they eventually dry up, and fall out. but I live in Arizona, with road
temps that are around 118 degrees, so maybe where you ride they won't
shrink. If they do fall out, I don't think anything changes on the bike.
One thing I've noticed about Specialized seat stays, is it sometimes hard to
put on tail-lights on them because the CF is shaped in weird ways (skinny
twisty). But I'm a night rider so that probably isn't a concern to most
people. I usually have a minimum 2 lights on the back. But my Trek 5200
had a seat tube that was damn near impossible, until recently, to put a
light on also, because the tube was so big.
 
On Jun 4, 10:13 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > off the trail.
>
> > The Specialized Tri Cross is really appealing to me, especially since
> > my LBS has a 2006 model in my size heavily discounted in anticipation
> > of the '08 models arriving soon.
>
> > According to the advertising propaganda they designed this bike for
> > exactly what I'll be doing, essentially abusing a "road" bike by
> > detouring into trails on my 40+ mile commute home and weekend road
> > trips. There are, however, a couple things on this bike that concern
> > me.
>
> > First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> > elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> > doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> > of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> > opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> > bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
>
> > My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
> > these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
> > nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?
>
> Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> nice looking too!
>
> What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?


A few options:

Some guy with a stockroom full of bicycles

Some guy who really doesn't know any better

Some guy who has spent too much time reading propaganda from [insert
vendor name here]

All of, or any combination of, the above



>
> Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
>
> If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
>
> [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> steel frame]
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
On Jun 5, 5:34 am, "Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> > elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> > doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> > of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> > opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> > bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
>
> ---------
> they eventually dry up, and fall out. but I live in Arizona, with road
> temps that are around 118 degrees, so maybe where you ride they won't
> shrink. If they do fall out, I don't think anything changes on the bike.


There you have it, folks!
 
On Jun 4, 12:19 pm, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:54:09 -0000, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
> >these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
> >nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?
>
> I'm a little over 200lb and ride my Kona JtS (surely the original
> which Specialized have belatedly tried to copy :)) off road on 24
> spoke wheels (20 spoke front until I changed to a disc brake). Never
> had any problem with them. Big tyres help; I'm on 700x37s. More
> suspension travel = lower peak load.
>
> Kinky Cowboy*
>
> *Batteries not included
> May contain traces of nuts
> Your milage may vary

Thanks for the review, that'll help me sleep at night if I go this
route.
 
On Jun 4, 11:13 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> nice looking too!

Cool. I really like the bike, it's comfy as can be.


> What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?

To be fair, he did say he'll build whatever I want and he won't tell
me how to spend my money. Respacing never came up, and he was
concerned that when the Rudge gives out the new 117mm wheel would be
basically useless/obsolete. He also seemed to think I'd be stuck with
a fixed gear, and the freewheel is important to me on longer rides.
This is why I wanted a flip-flop.


> Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.

I hear you, I've usually got 4 that get used and another couple in
pieces. Right now I'd down to 2 functional.


> If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.

Glad to hear it. Like I said, I really like this bike.


> [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> steel frame]

I assume 120 will allow me to get a 36 spoke flip-flop hub? If so,
cool!
 
On Jun 5, 2:02 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > > off the trail.
>
> > > The Specialized Tri Cross is really appealing to me, especially since
> > > my LBS has a 2006 model in my size heavily discounted in anticipation
> > > of the '08 models arriving soon.
>
> > > According to the advertising propaganda they designed this bike for
> > > exactly what I'll be doing, essentially abusing a "road" bike by
> > > detouring into trails on my 40+ mile commute home and weekend road
> > > trips. There are, however, a couple things on this bike that concern
> > > me.
>
> > > First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> > > elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> > > doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> > > of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> > > opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> > > bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
>
> > > My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
> > > these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
> > > nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?
>
> > Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> > frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> > bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> > nice looking too!
>
> > What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> > then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
>
> > Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
>
> > If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> > very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> > a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
>
> > [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> > steel frame]
>
> What Andrew said. And you can build your own wheels. We can help you.
> Probably should not trust that shop to build them.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good looks. I was originally thinking of building a front to match
the new back. I don't want to build this one myself for two reasons:
I'd rather my first build be a front since there's no dishing, and I
want this whole thing over with yesterday so I can get back on the
road. I'm having withdrawals.
 
On Jun 5, 6:34 am, "Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> > elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> > doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> > of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> > opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> > bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
>
> ---------
> they eventually dry up, and fall out. but I live in Arizona, with road
> temps that are around 118 degrees, so maybe where you ride they won't
> shrink. If they do fall out, I don't think anything changes on the bike.
> One thing I've noticed about Specialized seat stays, is it sometimes hard to
> put on tail-lights on them because the CF is shaped in weird ways (skinny
> twisty). But I'm a night rider so that probably isn't a concern to most
> people. I usually have a minimum 2 lights on the back. But my Trek 5200
> had a seat tube that was damn near impossible, until recently, to put a
> light on also, because the tube was so big.

Thanks for the review. I read issues with the Tri-Cross having a
violent chatter under heavy braking, so I think I'm going to avoid
it. I don't know if that's because of the zerts or not, but I'm a
heavy guy who does heavy front braking and I don't like being thrown
from my bikes.

I'm a night rider also. Interesting about the CF posts...
 
In article
<[email protected]>
,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 5, 2:02 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > > > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > > > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > > > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > > > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > > > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > > > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > > > off the trail.

[...]

> >
> > > Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> > > frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> > > bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> > > nice looking too!
> >
> > > What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> > > then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
> >
> > > Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
> >
> > > If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> > > very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> > > a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
> >
> > > [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> > > steel frame]
> >
> > What Andrew said. And you can build your own wheels. We can help you.
> > Probably should not trust that shop to build them.
>
> Good looks. I was originally thinking of building a front to match
> the new back. I don't want to build this one myself for two reasons:
> I'd rather my first build be a front since there's no dishing, and I
> want this whole thing over with yesterday so I can get back on the
> road. I'm having withdrawals.

You say the Rudge is to be a single speed. No dish.
Where have I gone astray?

--
Michael Press
 
On Jun 6, 12:27 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>
> ,
>
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 2:02 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > > > > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > > > > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > > > > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > > > > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > > > > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > > > > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > > > > off the trail.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> > > > frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> > > > bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> > > > nice looking too!
>
> > > > What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> > > > then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
>
> > > > Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
>
> > > > If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> > > > very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> > > > a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
>
> > > > [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> > > > steel frame]
>
> > > What Andrew said. And you can build your own wheels. We can help you.
> > > Probably should not trust that shop to build them.
>
> > Good looks. I was originally thinking of building a front to match
> > the new back. I don't want to build this one myself for two reasons:
> > I'd rather my first build be a front since there's no dishing, and I
> > want this whole thing over with yesterday so I can get back on the
> > road. I'm having withdrawals.
>
> You say the Rudge is to be a single speed. No dish.
> Where have I gone astray?
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought the wheel might need to be dished anyway to accomplish the
straight drive line. The old wheel accomplished this with spacers,
which seems to be part of the reason for the hub failure. If it
doesn't need to be dished, maybe it wouldn't be so hard for a first
build. I purchased the Rudge last year as-is, in single speed form.
 
On Jun 4, 8:54 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider.

Poppycock..Many flipflop hubs are 120mm and 36h...and that Rudge can
be cold set 1.5mm each side. I rode 36h, flipflop hubs(Phil and Suzue)
for years w/o problem.


It
> seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> off the trail.
>
> The Specialized Tri Cross is really appealing to me, especially since
> my LBS has a 2006 model in my size heavily discounted in anticipation
> of the '08 models arriving soon.
>
> According to the advertising propaganda they designed this bike for
> exactly what I'll be doing, essentially abusing a "road" bike by
> detouring into trails on my 40+ mile commute home and weekend road
> trips. There are, however, a couple things on this bike that concern
> me.
>
> First, "speed zerts"? I work in an industry that works with such
> elastomers, so I have no doubt the ability of an elastomer. What I
> doubt is an elastomers usability in a bike, and further the integrity
> of the elastomer in question. I'd truly appreciate any reviews or
> opinions from anyone that's ridden one of these " speed zerts" equpt
> bikes, especially if exposed to many miles of (ab)use.
>
> My second concern is the wheels. Specialized seems to be marketing
> these wheelss rugged, but I question anything low-spoke supporting a
> nearly 200lb rider. Any experience or opinions?
>
> TIA,
>
> Dan
 
On Jun 5, 12:25 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:13 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> > frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> > bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> > nice looking too!
>
> Cool. I really like the bike, it's comfy as can be.
>
> > What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> > then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
>
> To be fair, he did say he'll build whatever I want and he won't tell
> me how to spend my money. Respacing never came up, and he was
> concerned that when the Rudge gives out the new 117mm wheel would be
> basically useless/obsolete. He also seemed to think I'd be stuck with
> a fixed gear, and the freewheel is important to me on longer rides.
> This is why I wanted a flip-flop.

Poppycock again...174mm solid axle and that 'obsolete' rear wheel can
be 126mm, 130mm or 135mm...probably no axle needed for 126mm.
>
> > Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
>
> I hear you, I've usually got 4 that get used and another couple in
> pieces. Right now I'd down to 2 functional.
>
> > If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> > very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> > a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
>
> Glad to hear it. Like I said, I really like this bike.
>
> > [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> > steel frame]
>
> I assume 120 will allow me to get a 36 spoke flip-flop hub? If so,
> cool!
 
On Jun 6, 6:36 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:27 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>
> > ,
>
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 5, 2:02 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > > > > > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > > > > > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > > > > > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > > > > > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > > > > > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > > > > > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > > > > > off the trail.
>
> > [...]
>
> > > > > Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> > > > > frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> > > > > bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> > > > > nice looking too!
>
> > > > > What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> > > > > then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
>
> > > > > Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
>
> > > > > If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> > > > > very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> > > > > a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
>
> > > > > [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> > > > > steel frame]
>
> > > > What Andrew said. And you can build your own wheels. We can help you.
> > > > Probably should not trust that shop to build them.
>
> > > Good looks. I was originally thinking of building a front to match
> > > the new back. I don't want to build this one myself for two reasons:
> > > I'd rather my first build be a front since there's no dishing, and I
> > > want this whole thing over with yesterday so I can get back on the
> > > road. I'm having withdrawals.
>
> > You say the Rudge is to be a single speed. No dish.
> > Where have I gone astray?
>
> > --
> > Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I thought the wheel might need to be dished anyway to accomplish the
> straight drive line. The old wheel accomplished this with spacers,
> which seems to be part of the reason for the hub failure. If it
> doesn't need to be dished, maybe it wouldn't be so hard for a first
> build. I purchased the Rudge last year as-is, in single speed form.

'Dish' is the same on each side for a flipflop rear wheel.
 
On Jun 6, 9:43 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 6:36 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 12:27 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > ,
>
> > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 5, 2:02 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > > > > > > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > > > > > > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > > > > > > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > > > > > > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > > > > > > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > > > > > > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > > > > > > off the trail.
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > > > Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> > > > > > frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> > > > > > bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> > > > > > nice looking too!
>
> > > > > > What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> > > > > > then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
>
> > > > > > Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
>
> > > > > > If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> > > > > > very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> > > > > > a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
>
> > > > > > [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> > > > > > steel frame]
>
> > > > > What Andrew said. And you can build your own wheels. We can help you.
> > > > > Probably should not trust that shop to build them.
>
> > > > Good looks. I was originally thinking of building a front to match
> > > > the new back. I don't want to build this one myself for two reasons:
> > > > I'd rather my first build be a front since there's no dishing, and I
> > > > want this whole thing over with yesterday so I can get back on the
> > > > road. I'm having withdrawals.
>
> > > You say the Rudge is to be a single speed. No dish.
> > > Where have I gone astray?
>
> > > --
> > > Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I thought the wheel might need to be dished anyway to accomplish the
> > straight drive line. The old wheel accomplished this with spacers,
> > which seems to be part of the reason for the hub failure. If it
> > doesn't need to be dished, maybe it wouldn't be so hard for a first
> > build. I purchased the Rudge last year as-is, in single speed form.
>
> 'Dish' is the same on each side for a flipflop rear wheel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This thread combined with some other personal financial stuff that
just came up has helped me decide to keep my old Rudge. For this I
thank all contributors.

So, I can get a 120mm 36H flip-flop hub. Excellent. Dish will be the
same. Excellent again. This leaves me wondering, how do I get a
straight drive line? Is this something I plan into the wheel, or an
adjustment made at the bottom bracket or front sprocket once the wheel
is built?
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 9:43 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 6:36 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 6, 12:27 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > ,
> >
> > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 5, 2:02 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > > > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > > > So, it appears I'm in the market for a new ride. My trusty 1960's
> > > > > > > > Rudge SS is, according to a trusted LBS, not worth the value of the
> > > > > > > > custom wheel I was going to have built for it. It appears the
> > > > > > > > 117mm(?!?!?) rear spacing is among the reasons flip-flop won't work
> > > > > > > > with any reasonable number of spokes for a nearly 200lb rider. It
> > > > > > > > seems a new cross bike may be a better use of my money, being the
> > > > > > > > earlier referenced heavy rider that can't seem to keep his road bike
> > > > > > > > off the trail.
> >
> > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > Unless your classic Rudge is broken, rusted or bent I'd simply align the
> > > > > > > frame at 120mm* and ride it. Heck, I did! The 1953 Raleigh Sports I
> > > > > > > bought used as a teenager is my daily bike , comfortable dependable and
> > > > > > > nice looking too!
> >
> > > > > > > What kind of guy says a classic Euro frame "isn't worth a new wheel" and
> > > > > > > then says some nameless Chinese vendor to SBI is any better?
> >
> > > > > > > Nothing says a guy can't have two bikes by the way.
> >
> > > > > > > If I were a betting man I'd say your average 1960 Rudge will still be
> > > > > > > very useful after a 2007 aluminum frame has passed on. YMMV and there's
> > > > > > > a lot of taste involved here I admit. Just hate to see decent gear dissed.
> >
> > > > > > > [*117=>120 is less than a spoke's thickness each side - trivial to a
> > > > > > > steel frame]
> >
> > > > > > What Andrew said. And you can build your own wheels. We can help you.
> > > > > > Probably should not trust that shop to build them.
> >
> > > > > Good looks. I was originally thinking of building a front to match
> > > > > the new back. I don't want to build this one myself for two reasons:
> > > > > I'd rather my first build be a front since there's no dishing, and I
> > > > > want this whole thing over with yesterday so I can get back on the
> > > > > road. I'm having withdrawals.
> >
> > > > You say the Rudge is to be a single speed. No dish.
> > > > Where have I gone astray?
> >
> > > I thought the wheel might need to be dished anyway to accomplish the
> > > straight drive line. The old wheel accomplished this with spacers,
> > > which seems to be part of the reason for the hub failure. If it
> > > doesn't need to be dished, maybe it wouldn't be so hard for a first
> > > build. I purchased the Rudge last year as-is, in single speed form.
> >
> > 'Dish' is the same on each side for a flipflop rear wheel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> This thread combined with some other personal financial stuff that
> just came up has helped me decide to keep my old Rudge. For this I
> thank all contributors.
>
> So, I can get a 120mm 36H flip-flop hub. Excellent. Dish will be the
> same. Excellent again. This leaves me wondering, how do I get a
> straight drive line? Is this something I plan into the wheel, or an
> adjustment made at the bottom bracket or front sprocket once the wheel
> is built?

Selecting the correct length for the bottom bracket
spindle is the best way to set the chain line. After
that, spacers on the hub.

<URL:http://sheldonbrown.com/chainline.html>

--
Michael Press
 
I"[email protected]" wrote:

> > 'Dish' is the same on each side for a flipflop rear wheel.

>
> This thread combined with some other personal financial stuff that
> just came up has helped me decide to keep my old Rudge. For this I
> thank all contributors.
>
> So, I can get a 120mm 36H flip-flop hub. Excellent. Dish will be the
> same. Excellent again. This leaves me wondering, how do I get a
> straight drive line? Is this something I plan into the wheel, or an
> adjustment made at the bottom bracket or front sprocket once the wheel
> is built?

While it may be possible to alter the chainline by adding a spacer
beside the rear sprockets, it's better to adjust the chainline by a
judicious choice of BB spindle and crank. Some BBs (Phil Wood comes to
mind) have some degree of lateral adjustment for simpler lining-up of
the front and rear sprockets.

--
Ted Bennett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

oam3292
What are the benefits of wearing a bike helmet for cycling with children?
Replies
3
Views
25
Cycling Equipment
donnie boy
donnie boy
Zugzwang
What is the best way to secure a bidon cage to my bike frame?
Replies
4
Views
26
Cycling Equipment
TexasTriathlete
T
Bio27x
Can I wear cycling shorts for mountain bike racing and downhill events?
Replies
3
Views
28
Cycling Equipment
ArmOnFire
ArmOnFire
alxra
Can I use wax on my chain if I have a single-speed bike?
Replies
2
Views
23
Cycling Equipment
JaredSanders
JaredSanders
mountainbikemad
How do I choose the right lightweight bike frame for my riding style?
Replies
1
Views
24
Cycling Equipment
Scooby Snax
Scooby Snax
Top Bottom Back