I want to build a Fixed Gear!

[SYJ]

[email protected] wrote:

---snip---
>
> the reason this is a preferred conversion method is that you can
> usually just use some old wheel or the wheel some old bike comes with.
> i usually just stomp up a steep hill and then i wrench down on the
> lockring. that's actually pretty reliable, but there's a reason track
> hubs take a reverse threaded lockring.
>
---/snip---

Would it be possible (or indeed, practical) to slot the threads and use
a washer with a tooth fit to that slot (similar to a threaded steerer
tube/headset)

SYJ

 

[[email protected]]

Now what exactly would I use to do this. Some type of small chisel? And
would that be a huge difference to lock tight way...I dont think so.
Also any body got a pic of their ride that they did the way that Im
trying to make it a fixie

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Now what exactly would I use to do this. Some type of small chisel? And
> would that be a huge difference to lock tight way...I dont think so.
> Also any body got a pic of their ride that they did the way that Im
> trying to make it a fixie

http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/

 

[[email protected]]

rcoder wrote:
> If nothing else, especially when first getting started, it's easy to
> try to coast without thinking when you come near some sort of road
> obstacle, and correspondingly to back-pedal quite abruptly. Having the
> cog spin off in such a situation would be a recipe for exactly the
> "numb nuts" issue you mention above.

A few years ago, I did an experiment when this subject was being
hashed. I put a fixed cog on a road hub, all threads well greased, with
a chain whip, handle padded with a shop rag, no extension. Very tight,
with a second effort, but *not* maxed out ("ever had a chain whip
slip?"). I then backed the wheel, installed in a bike, up against a
stout wall (freezing the rear wheel), and tried to back the cog off
with a pedal, while in riding position on the bike. Extreme, repeated
effort required, and I weighed about 220lbs. at the time... Raising up
as high as I could, like kick-starting a Harley, it took a good three
kicks, after a couple of practice swings, with the last one "everything
for Mother Science", before the cog spun loose. And I could have put it
on tighter, using an extension on the chainwhip handle.

Begging the question: how do you apply that much "force x time" on the
road, with the tire presumably skidding and/or the moving (fixed) bike
making such focusing of force pretty unlikely?

I've never been a skidder, but I've certainly taken a few good whacks
when I forgot to pedal on an FG bike, road hub with cog screwed
straight onto the hub, grease only, with never a cog unscrewing. That
said, I do have an FG bike that has no rear brake, and a real track hub
with real lockring on it. At minimum, the lockring threads are
protected <g>. Certainly not a matter of religious conviction. --D-y

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Tim McNamara wrote:
but I
> > wouldn't want to trust such a setup when trying to skid or
> > skip-stop.
>
> Well, no, of course not. But that type of fixed gear riding is for
> the extremist numb-nuts who think it's cool to ride on the street with
> no brakes other than a fixed hub. In those cases an actual track hub
> is essential.

No kidding. I guess I don't understand how the local couriers insist on
no brake, fixie type riding. Kills rear tires and results in lots of
crashes, since altho they look 'cool' at the local coffee shop, they
actually can't ride the things very well. Best is seeing one of them
with flat pedals, not hooked in, trying to skid stop and seeing their
feet fly off the pedals. very keystone-cop-ish.

A track hub and even track bike is neat. Get a fork that can use a
front brake...look cool, go ride.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> but I
> > > wouldn't want to trust such a setup when trying to skid or
> > > skip-stop.
> >
> > Well, no, of course not. But that type of fixed gear riding is for
> > the extremist numb-nuts who think it's cool to ride on the street with
> > no brakes other than a fixed hub. In those cases an actual track hub
> > is essential.
>
> No kidding. I guess I don't understand how the local couriers insist on
> no brake, fixie type riding. Kills rear tires and results in lots of
> crashes, since altho they look 'cool' at the local coffee shop, they
> actually can't ride the things very well. Best is seeing one of them
> with flat pedals, not hooked in, trying to skid stop and seeing their
> feet fly off the pedals. very keystone-cop-ish.
>
> A track hub and even track bike is neat. Get a fork that can use a
> front brake...look cool, go ride.

It is morally [1] negligent to ride a bicycle without a front brake
UNLESS one significantly limits speeds to allow for having only a rear
brake OR rides in an area where there is no potential to cause harm to
others. The behavior of the aforesaid messengers fails on both counts.

[1] I will leave legality to the lawyers and judges.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > but I
> > > > wouldn't want to trust such a setup when trying to skid or
> > > > skip-stop.
> > >
> > > Well, no, of course not. But that type of fixed gear riding is for
> > > the extremist numb-nuts who think it's cool to ride on the street with
> > > no brakes other than a fixed hub. In those cases an actual track hub
> > > is essential.
> >
> > No kidding. I guess I don't understand how the local couriers insist on
> > no brake, fixie type riding. Kills rear tires and results in lots of
> > crashes, since altho they look 'cool' at the local coffee shop, they
> > actually can't ride the things very well. Best is seeing one of them
> > with flat pedals, not hooked in, trying to skid stop and seeing their
> > feet fly off the pedals. very keystone-cop-ish.
> >
> > A track hub and even track bike is neat. Get a fork that can use a
> > front brake...look cool, go ride.
>
> It is morally [1] negligent to ride a bicycle without a front brake
> UNLESS one significantly limits speeds to allow for having only a rear
> brake OR rides in an area where there is no potential to cause harm to
> others. The behavior of the aforesaid messengers fails on both counts.
>
> [1] I will leave legality to the lawyers and judges.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman

'Morally' negligent? Negligent I agree but morals have nothing to do
with it.

 

[SYJ]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
---snip---
> [1] I will leave legality to the lawyers and judges.

> Tom Sherman
Not (quite) a lawyer yet (just in case someone from the Utah Bar is
watching), but I'll weigh in

You raise an interesting point. Negligence (legal) is defined as:

1. The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably
prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct
that falls below the legal standard established to protect others
against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is
intentionally, wantonly, or willfully disregardful of others' rights.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)

It is (relatively) safe to say that few potential jurors (outside of
no-brake fixie riders) would agree that a reasonable person would ride
a bicycle without some sort of mechanical brake. By that definition,
riding a fixie sans brakes is at very least negligent, if not
intentional, wanton and/or willful.

A tort? likely. Criminal? perhaps.

SYJ

 

[SYJ]

[email protected] wrote:
> Now what exactly would I use to do this. Some type of small chisel? And
> would that be a huge difference to lock tight way...I dont think so.
> Also any body got a pic of their ride that they did the way that Im
> trying to make it a fixie

Dunno about the specifics - I was thinking a dremel...I have no clue if
it would be practicable, really, it was just a thought (I'm refurbing
an old steel bike w/a slotted steerer). If it it could be done
(finding the right washer would be tough), it would work better than
lock tight - no worries about the bond breaking, no worries about
removing the cog. However, it would likely be more trouble than its
worth (unless the parts could be found off the shelf).

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:25:20 -0800, 24inchdubs wrote:

> Hi,
> I have an older Shogun 300 that is currently a ten speed. I stripped it
> all down and nothing is really on there. The old wheels are 700c with
> threaded cogs. I took that off with the tool. Is there any way I can
> make this a fixed gear and save the old wheels. They are really nice
> wolber wheels and it would be a shame to ditch them. Any suggestions on
> how to do it. I heard something on google about using an older b.b. and
> using the threads from that? Of course I can buy a wheel. Oh, the
> spacing is fine because I got a bmx freewheel one there and it is fine.
> Any ideas will help

You may have to re-dish the wheel to get a decent chainline, but a track
cog will fit on the threaded hub just fine. Use the inner position for
the chainring on your existing cranks, and see how close to straight the
chainline is. Use a straightedge laid along the chainring, extending down
to the cog. Ideally it should just touch the outside edge of the cog as
well. If more than a couple mm out of line, you'll want to fix that by
re-spacing the rear axle. There are spacers between the outer locknut and
the bearing cone. Take one from the right side and swap with a thinner
one from the left, or mix-and-match with plain washers to get the same
total spacing. Once you get the chainline right, then worry about the
wheel. The tire needs to be midway between the axle locknuts, and moving
those spacers around messes that up. however, tightening the left-side
spokes can fix it. Use a dishing tool to get it right.

Then, yes, you can use a locknut from an old British bottom bracket (back
when they had lockwashers) to give a bit more security to your cog.
Eventually, though, the cog will be on tightly enough that this will no
longer be a concern.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]

 

[Paul Hobson]

SYJ wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> ---snip---
>
>>[1] I will leave legality to the lawyers and judges.
>
>
>>Tom Sherman
>
> Not (quite) a lawyer yet (just in case someone from the Utah Bar is
> watching), but I'll weigh in
>
> You raise an interesting point. Negligence (legal) is defined as:
>
> 1. The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably
> prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct
> that falls below the legal standard established to protect others
> against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is
> intentionally, wantonly, or willfully disregardful of others' rights.
> Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
>
> It is (relatively) safe to say that few potential jurors (outside of
> no-brake fixie riders) would agree that a reasonable person would ride
> a bicycle without some sort of mechanical brake. By that definition,
> riding a fixie sans brakes is at very least negligent, if not
> intentional, wanton and/or willful.
>
> A tort? likely. Criminal? perhaps.
>
> SYJ
>

From a post I made in an ealier thread that had veared into talking
about people riding fixies sans brakes (something I do on my 0.5 mile
commute to school):

<quote>
I'm pretty sure that in Atlanta, you have to have a rear brake powerful
enough to skid the back wheel. I know a couple of people who have
dodged legal trouble by claiming that they have a coaster brake. The
running joke though, is that when they ask you to demonstrate, you just
ride off -- a technique that can work in many situations. An example:

Ladyfriend: Honey?
Dude: Yeah, babe?
LF: Why don't you say, "I love you"?
D: Well, I've a coaster brake, let me demonstrate...
[rides off into the sunset]
</quote>

Hope that clears up an legal issues you were pondering <g>
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

 

[A Muzi]

> [email protected] wrote:
>>Now what exactly would I use to do this. Some type of small chisel? And
>>would that be a huge difference to lock tight way...I dont think so.
>>Also any body got a pic of their ride that they did the way that Im
>>trying to make it a fixie

SYJ wrote:
> Dunno about the specifics - I was thinking a dremel...I have no clue if
> it would be practicable, really, it was just a thought (I'm refurbing
> an old steel bike w/a slotted steerer). If it it could be done
> (finding the right washer would be tough), it would work better than
> lock tight - no worries about the bond breaking, no worries about
> removing the cog. However, it would likely be more trouble than its
> worth (unless the parts could be found off the shelf).

Sure, many bored riders have made 'alternate' systems to
lock a cog to a hub. Even me:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/aq.html

but you can get a good fixed/free _new_ hub for about $40
which allows use of readily available track cogs in a range
of sizes.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:06:25 -0500, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

> Does anyone here think that fixed cogs either don't have enough threads, or
> the pitch is too narrow? I know plenty of fixed riders that have stripped
> their cogs off.

Yeah, sure. Sorry, but those same threads have been used by so many
riders, in such extreme conditions, that such failures, if a design flaw,
would be common, and they aren't.

Cogs get stripped off after the threads get munged. They are
narrow-pitch, and they are often aluminum, with a steel cog. Unless you
are careful, and use anti-seize or grease on the threads, you can ruin
them. The more you swap cogs, the more likely you are to screw up the
threads. But poor assembly technique is not really the same as implying
that the threads are too weak.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:43:54 -0800, Vee wrote:

> I think stripping occurs when people don't get the cog tight enough.
> Seems like a lot of people just use a chain whip, which isn't good
> enough if you're going to hop, skid, and so on.

Nonsense. You can put the cog on finger-tight, and the first time you
ride it, it will tighten more than you need. If you are going to hop and
skid, at least use a real fixed hub and lockring. But that would cause
the cog to loosen, not strip.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
_`\(,_ | death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
(_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- J. R. R. Tolkein

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:19:33 -0800, SYJ wrote:

> Would it be possible (or indeed, practical) to slot the threads and use
> a washer with a tooth fit to that slot (similar to a threaded steerer
> tube/headset)

Bad idea. For one, that would make it even easier to cross-thread the
cog. When the slotted washers on hubs or headsets turn, and they do, they
either muck up the threads or themselves. On an aluminum hub, it would be
the threads.

As others have suggested: If you use a brake, and don't do fixie stunts,
you can probably get away with a bottom-bracket locknut. It is better to
use a real fixed hub and lockring. Sheldon even has one on a bike he set
up with left-side drive, so they work well enough.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is
_`\(,_ | not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
(_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

 

[Helmut Springer]

David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, sure. Sorry, but those same threads have been used by so
> many riders, in such extreme conditions, that such failures, if a
> design flaw, would be common, and they aren't.

Actually stripping threads with narrow cogs on freewheel hubs seems
to be a common thing, from what I read...

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:20:37 -0800, SYJ wrote:

> A tort? likely.

Nah. the population of these folks who also have enough assets to bother
to sue about is 0. As far as criminal action, I wonder what the limits
are on criminal stupidity. If stupidity regularly landed people in jail,
we would no longer see people driving with cell-phone in one hand and a
big mac in the other.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
_`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw
(_)/ (_) |

 

[Tim McNamara]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:20:37 -0800, SYJ wrote:
>
>> A tort? likely.
>
> Nah. the population of these folks who also have enough assets to
> bother to sue about is 0. As far as criminal action, I wonder what
> the limits are on criminal stupidity. If stupidity regularly landed
> people in jail, we would no longer see people driving with
> cell-phone in one hand and a big mac in the other.

Back when Minnesota took leave of its senses and put Jesse Ventura in
the governor's office, he occasionally managed to make sense. One of
his better quotes came when he was asked what he'd do about people
snowmobiling on lakes, falling in and drowning. His reply was "you
can't legislate against stupidity."