Aluminum freehub body + SS...bad idea?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 47 of 47
  1. #1
    Currently in Exile
    Reputation: Frozenspokes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,303

    Aluminum freehub body + SS...bad idea?

    I'm looking to upgrade the wheels on my Peace 9r. I found a great deal on wheels, but they come with an AL 9 sod freehub body. Would running SS rip this thing apart? I Ron a Hope rear hub on one of my other bikes and have noticed scoring on the AL freehub body running a full cassette.
    "There are those who would say there's something pathological about the need to ride, and they're probably on to something. I'd wager though that most of the society-approved compulsions leave deeper scars in the psyche than a need to go and ride a bicycle on a mountain." Cam McRea

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    35
    I have yet to kill even the cheapest freehub bodies running SS. But then again I wouldnt care if it became scored or destroyed all together.

    Sorry for the useless post.

  3. #3
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,787
    use a cog that has a wide base, then it should be fine

    like this one

  4. #4
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,627
    I've been running a CK hub w/aluminum freehub body since '02. Bike is outfitted with 195mm arms, I weigh 195# and have used that bike to train for & race 100 miles plus general hammering in steep terrain. The longer cranks allow for some heinous torque... no problems with the freehub body, but I've always used a wide-base cog.

    --Sparty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  5. #5
    Witty McWitterson
    Reputation: ~martini~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,024
    Use a wide based cog and you're golden. Surly, Endless, King, Niner, ISAR, the list goes on on and on.
    Just a regular guy.

  6. #6
    Currently in Exile
    Reputation: Frozenspokes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,303
    I had actually been thinking about ISAR's cogs for this bike anyway. Cool
    "There are those who would say there's something pathological about the need to ride, and they're probably on to something. I'd wager though that most of the society-approved compulsions leave deeper scars in the psyche than a need to go and ride a bicycle on a mountain." Cam McRea

  7. #7
    .......
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,707
    Just to reiterate, I've got no problems and I exclusively use Surly cogs (due to local availability).

  8. #8
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    lol @ people still recommending ISAR

  9. #9
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    lol @ people still recommending ISAR
    Why lol @ this?

    --Sparty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  10. #10
    .......
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,707
    I'm assuming from this thread:

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=550650

    And the many complaints.

  11. #11
    ride the moment
    Reputation: Dogbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    lol @ people still recommending ISAR
    The only issue anyone is having is that he's busy and not getting orders out in the stated 2 weeks. Furthermore these f@cktards don't seem to understand that it's not a "company" but rather a dude running a business out of his garage. By everyone's account the finished product is quality sh!t. That being said, I don't really see why someone would want a custom cog when you can just hit the LBS for a surly that day. For my purposes, I wanted a 9-speed ring for my WI cranks and he was the only game in town.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    I've been running a CK hub w/aluminum freehub body since '02. Bike is outfitted with 195mm arms, I weigh 195# and have used that bike to train for & race 100 miles plus general hammering in steep terrain. The longer cranks allow for some heinous torque... no problems with the freehub body, but I've always used a wide-base cog.
    Where do you get 195mm cranks?
    Hey Butthead, are we gonna die? - Beavis

  12. #12
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbrain
    ...
    Where do you get 195mm cranks?
    Here:
    http://www.hscycle.com/Pages/customcrankset.html

    I have four sets of 195mm cranks -- they're awesome, albeit heavy compared to many (shorter) production cranks. But nothing trumps proper bike fit, from frame to stem to crank length, IMO.

    --Sparty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  13. #13
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by p nut
    I'm assuming from this thread:

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=550650

    And the many complaints.
    his products are top notch and he gets a high score on customer service for what his company is
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  14. #14
    .......
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,707
    Quote Originally Posted by nuck_chorris
    his products are top notch and he gets a high score on customer service for what his company is
    I never said anything about his products---just posted the thread for reference. Maybe his products are great--maybe not--I don't know, never had them (BTW, have you bought from him?). And probably never will (or any custom chainring/cogs for that matter that I have to wait on for more than a day), unless my Surly CR/cogs start folding in half.

  15. #15
    PSYCHOLUST
    Reputation: scyule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    483
    "use a cog that has a wide base, then it should be fine"


    ABSOLUTELY.... Chris King... Misfit...Surley ..and Niner

  16. #16
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    edited out
    Last edited by alexrex20; 07-03-2010 at 02:52 PM.

  17. #17
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    Here:
    http://www.hscycle.com/Pages/customcrankset.html

    I have four sets of 195mm cranks -- they're awesome, albeit heavy compared to many (shorter) production cranks. But nothing trumps proper bike fit, from frame to stem to crank length, IMO.

    --Sparty

    how tall are you Sparty? i'm 5-8 and can't imagine pedaling some 195 cranks!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: minh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    384
    who has the widest base? anyone measure?

  19. #19
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    my mother in law.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andy R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by minh
    who has the widest base? anyone measure?
    Probably these .

    Looks to be about 10mm, but I've never used them.
    Last edited by Andy R; 07-02-2010 at 04:07 PM.

  21. #21
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    link doesnt work.

  22. #22
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    how tall are you Sparty? i'm 5-8 and can't imagine pedaling some 195 cranks!
    I'm 6'3" with a 36" inseam.

    Extra length cranks feel weird at first, but once I got used to them there was no going back. They're certainly not for everybody. But crank length is a sizing tool that is purposely overlooked by 99% of the bicycle industry because it affects frame design so much, and production frame manufacturers don't want to produce multiple versions of say, an XL frame.

    Most riders, even tall ones, believe they prefer "standard" 175mm or 180mm cranks anyway, because that's what they're used to and as I mentioned above, a crank that is a half inch or inch longer that typical takes quite a bit of getting used to. It almost always feels "wrong" until it's been ridden for a while.

    You didn't ask, so perhaps you'll choose to quit reading now and I wouldn't blame you. But if you want to read on, here's what I discovered in the course of having two custom off-road frames built around long cranks.

    Of course the BB shell must be higher from the ground. But in addition to this...
    ... the seat tube angle must be steeper in order to accomplish KOPS
    ... the front-center of the bike needs to be lengthened due to the steeper seat tube angle
    ... since the longer front-center tends to slow handling a bit, a half-degree steeper head angle becomes appropriate
    ... shorter chainstays are often employed for the same reason

    So if extra length cranks ever became common, production frame manufacturers would need to supply two versions of frames in the large and extra large sizes -- similar to "regular" and "tall" versions of apparel. Some riders would choose traditional length cranks and others would choose to utilize extra length cranks, but neither would want a frame that wasn't specifically designed to utilize the cranks they wanted.

    Therefore I predict that cranks longer than 180mm will always be obscure. Too bad considering appropriate length cranks might be as important as an appropriately sized frame.

    Sorry you asked?

    --Sparty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  23. #23
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    haha, no i'm not sorry. thanks for the great response. you're a LOT taller than me and i don't see myself ever needing/trying 195mm cranks.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    31

    SS worse on hubs?

    Is single speed mashing really worse on hubs than geared spinning?

    I think it depends on the gear ratio. Take for example:
    spinning in 22t in front and 34t in back. ratio = 1.55 : 1
    mashing in 32t in front and 18t in back. ratio = 1 : 1.77

    assume when you mash, you exert 300ft-lb of torque
    lets assume when you spin, you assert 1/3 the torque on the pedals: 100ft-lb of torque

    torque exerted on the rear hub while spinning = 1.55*100 = 155ft-lb
    torque on the rear hub exerted by mashing = 1/1.77*300 = 169ft-lb

    In the end, the torque on the rear hub is about the same for spinning in a low gear and mashing in a high gear. This makes sense, since either way, regardless of the gear, you do the same amount of work to get up the hill.

    Regardless, a wider aluminum cog should work fine. A wide base will probably cut the stress on the hub by 1/2 to 1/4.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    81
    Natzoo: isn't this why manufacturers of aluminum bodies recommend cassettes with the lower gears on spiders?

    Sparty: I'm a believer in the crank length idea, but once you steepen the head angle don't you run into foot-tire clearance issues? I'm maxxed out at 180 cranks, where my toes just barely kiss the tire - and that's after swapping to relatively low profile tires. If my bike ran 195's, the head tube would really need to be slacked out, which is the opposite of what you'd want to do...thoughts?

  26. #26
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    because i've tried numerous times to get ahold of him. still no reply. i even used his new email account on his new emailing system. still no reply.

    i'm not all about the bling, but i am about supporting fellow cyclists and their upstart businesses. i'm not about shady customer service and uncompetitive prices.
    maybe i owe it to current customers to answer their emails first instead of potential customers who ask the same questions that have been answered many times over by me in my thread. Sorry, but i'm busy, and i dont have time for that right now.
    You are not a customer, so do not call my customer service shady unless i screwed you over. I may have been having trouble getting everything done recently, but i am NOT shady.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andy R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    link doesnt work.
    Sorry fella - fixed now anyway

  28. #28
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    I'm 6'3" with a 36" inseam.

    Extra length cranks feel weird at first, but once I got used to them there was no going back. They're certainly not for everybody. But crank length is a sizing tool that is purposely overlooked by 99% of the bicycle industry because it affects frame design so much, and production frame manufacturers don't want to produce multiple versions of say, an XL frame.

    Most riders, even tall ones, believe they prefer "standard" 175mm or 180mm cranks anyway, because that's what they're used to and as I mentioned above, a crank that is a half inch or inch longer that typical takes quite a bit of getting used to. It almost always feels "wrong" until it's been ridden for a while.

    You didn't ask, so perhaps you'll choose to quit reading now and I wouldn't blame you. But if you want to read on, here's what I discovered in the course of having two custom off-road frames built around long cranks.

    Of course the BB shell must be higher from the ground. But in addition to this...
    ... the seat tube angle must be steeper in order to accomplish KOPS
    ... the front-center of the bike needs to be lengthened due to the steeper seat tube angle
    ... since the longer front-center tends to slow handling a bit, a half-degree steeper head angle becomes appropriate
    ... shorter chainstays are often employed for the same reason

    So if extra length cranks ever became common, production frame manufacturers would need to supply two versions of frames in the large and extra large sizes -- similar to "regular" and "tall" versions of apparel. Some riders would choose traditional length cranks and others would choose to utilize extra length cranks, but neither would want a frame that wasn't specifically designed to utilize the cranks they wanted.

    Therefore I predict that cranks longer than 180mm will always be obscure. Too bad considering appropriate length cranks might be as important as an appropriately sized frame.

    Sorry you asked?

    --Sparty
    I'm in a similar boat as you... i'm about 1 1/2 inches shorter, but i have really long legs. It makes finding a frame that fits a royal PITA.
    I run 175mm cranks, but i have thought about making the switch to at least 180's. However, leverage isnt usually an issue for me, it's usually my lungs. I just thought that having longer cranks would hurt in the high cadence department. Any thoughts on this? I guess if you could push a harder gear due to the extra leverage, then you wouldnt need to spin that fast, but i do like the thought of 200rpm if it's needed.
    Also, what about riding in saddle? With a longer crank, your knee will be bent that much more, which i can imagine would be bad for them if you were pedaling under any sort of load (climbing). What do you think?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,016
    Quote Originally Posted by natzoo
    Is single speed mashing really worse on hubs than geared spinning?

    I think it depends on the gear ratio. Take for example:
    spinning in 22t in front and 34t in back. ratio = 1.55 : 1
    mashing in 32t in front and 18t in back. ratio = 1 : 1.77

    assume when you mash, you exert 300ft-lb of torque
    lets assume when you spin, you assert 1/3 the torque on the pedals: 100ft-lb of torque

    torque exerted on the rear hub while spinning = 1.55*100 = 155ft-lb
    torque on the rear hub exerted by mashing = 1/1.77*300 = 169ft-lb

    In the end, the torque on the rear hub is about the same for spinning in a low gear and mashing in a high gear. This makes sense, since either way, regardless of the gear, you do the same amount of work to get up the hill.

    Regardless, a wider aluminum cog should work fine. A wide base will probably cut the stress on the hub by 1/2 to 1/4.
    not only that, but torque is calculated by multiplying a force by the length of the lever arm it has, so a larger rear cog puts more torque on the freehub interface even with the same gear ratio (such as 32x16 and 40x20). A 34t rear cog would apply ~1.9 times more torque against the freehub than an 18t rear cog given the same input

  30. #30
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    edited for content
    Last edited by alexrex20; 07-03-2010 at 02:52 PM.

  31. #31
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    sounds like a great way to run a business!!!

    i should start my own business. my mantra will be, "I only answer emails from previous customers. If you're a potential customer, I'll answer your request if I feel like it. If I don't, piss off!"

    and for the record, i inquired about custom rings for the FSA Afterburner 386 which uses 3x86BCD rings. i read EVERY page of your thread, and not once were those cranks mentioned. your thread declares that "These single speed or downhill specific chainrings are made out of 7075-T6 Aluminum, 316 stainless, or 6al-4v titanium and completely CNC machined for accuracy. I can make any size that is physically possible, for any type of crank."

    obviously, you're full of ****. you don't offer the rings in stainless (any longer), and you obviously don't make rings for the FSA Afterburner 386.
    I wouldn't want to deal with you either
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  32. #32
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by nuck_chorris
    I wouldn't want to deal with you either
    i'm at no loss.

  33. #33
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    sounds like a great way to run a business!!!

    i should start my own business. my mantra will be, "I only answer emails from previous customers. If you're a potential customer, I'll answer your request if I feel like it. If I don't, piss off!"

    and for the record, i inquired about custom rings for the FSA Afterburner 386 which uses 3x86BCD rings. i read EVERY page of your thread, and not once were those cranks mentioned. your thread declares that "These single speed or downhill specific chainrings are made out of 7075-T6 Aluminum, 316 stainless, or 6al-4v titanium and completely CNC machined for accuracy. I can make any size that is physically possible, for any type of crank."

    obviously, you're full of ****. you don't offer the rings in stainless (any longer), and you obviously don't make rings for the FSA Afterburner 386.
    sounds like a great way to run a business!!!

    i should start my own business. my mantra will be, "I only answer emails from previous customers. If you're a potential customer, I'll answer your request if I feel like it. If I don't, piss off!"
    That is not even close to what i ment.
    I'm a one man show, i make this stuff in my garage. I'm behind right now due to some unforseen issues, so i'm getting tons of emails looking for ETA's for stuff already ordered, which is also hard to keep up on when i'm trying to catch up on product.
    What i ment was i need to answer the emails from the people who already paid and are waiting before i answer emails of potential customers. I think if you had ordered something and were waiting, you would expect the same.

    and for the record, i inquired about custom rings for the FSA Afterburner 386 which uses 3x86BCD rings. i read EVERY page of your thread, and not once were those cranks mentioned. your thread declares that "These single speed or downhill specific chainrings are made out of 7075-T6 Aluminum, 316 stainless, or 6al-4v titanium and completely CNC machined for accuracy. I can make any size that is physically possible, for any type of crank."

    obviously, you're full of ****. you don't offer the rings in stainless (any longer), and you obviously don't make rings for the FSA Afterburner 386.
    I cannot change the early posts in the thread. They are way too old and physically cant be edited. I have posted MANY times in that thread that due to the avalibility of material and time constraints, i can only make what's on my website. One minute of searching would have answered your question (which was actually answered right after you asked it in the thread).

  34. #34
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding
    That is not even close to what i ment.
    I'm a one man show...
    Hey ISAR, I'll probably regret adding a comment to a spitting contest but if I may offer a suggestion... we know you're a stand up guy doing what you can. Nobody can get by without picking up a detractor or two in the process, but personally I hope you won't spend any more time swatting flys.
    You're being trolled. Meanwhile, know that those of us observing understand what's going on so you needn't feel compelled to defend yourself too much.

    As shiggy likes to say, "Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders my not be able to tell who is who."

    Best of luck.

    --Sparty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudflaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,150
    If you read Sparty's earlier post closely, he mentions that the front center (toptube) length increased.
    This fact has two effects:
    1 - stability at speed
    2 - increases the distance from the wheel, thereby addressing your concern about toe overlap.

    The origin of this geometry (to the best of my limited knowledge) lies with Interloc Racing Designs (IRD) when they were a two man shop in southern Oregon, later adopted/copied to a lesser degree by Fisher for their Genesis geometry. The top tube length for an old (1990-ish) Interloc Stroker I have is about 25", with a seat tube dimension of 17" (center to center dimensions). The bike has a 73 degree head angle and a 76 degree seat angle. I find the seat angle to be a bit extreme as far as front derailluer function goes, since it elevates the tail of the derailleur, thereby limiting the useful range. These bikes were often run with cranks as long as 220mm, where the only avaiable cranks at the time were Bullseye cranks. No toe overlap issues.

    I happen to know that Sparty's inspiration for his current preference came from the Interloc Strokers, and has been modified/refined over the last 20 years.

    My own finding is that the geometry lends itself to climbing like crazy, if I have the legs that day, and descends very well. On the flat ground, for me, a spinner, not so well, but then I never have been so good on flats. My cranks on that bike are 190s and for me at 5'-10", it seemed about right once I got used to it.

    I haven't ridden that bike in quite a while, and my crank length of choice for a 'normal' geometry bike is 180, for the addtional leverage, because I need all the mechanical advantage I can get...

    Flaps



    Quote Originally Posted by chmnyboy
    Natzoo:
    Sparty: I'm a believer in the crank length idea, but once you steepen the head angle don't you run into foot-tire clearance issues? I'm maxxed out at 180 cranks, where my toes just barely kiss the tire - and that's after swapping to relatively low profile tires. If my bike ran 195's, the head tube would really need to be slacked out, which is the opposite of what you'd want to do...thoughts?

  36. #36
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    i'm at no loss.
    hey if you see me there just leave me alone, im there to enjoy a ride not to argue , i get enough of that at home
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  37. #37
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding
    That is not even close to what i ment.
    I'm a one man show, i make this stuff in my garage. I'm behind right now due to some unforseen issues, so i'm getting tons of emails looking for ETA's for stuff already ordered, which is also hard to keep up on when i'm trying to catch up on product.
    What i ment was i need to answer the emails from the people who already paid and are waiting before i answer emails of potential customers. I think if you had ordered something and were waiting, you would expect the same.


    I cannot change the early posts in the thread. They are way too old and physically cant be edited. I have posted MANY times in that thread that due to the avalibility of material and time constraints, i can only make what's on my website. One minute of searching would have answered your question (which was actually answered right after you asked it in the thread).

    fair enough.

  38. #38
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by nuck_chorris
    hey if you see me there just leave me alone, im there to enjoy a ride not to argue , i get enough of that at home
    maybe it's time to move out and/or get a job.

  39. #39
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    maybe it's time to move out and/or get a job.
    maybe its time you mind your own buddy
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  40. #40
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    nuck_chorris, your sig always reminds me i'm out of duct tape. I'm putting gull wing doors on my station wagon.

  41. #41
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding
    nuck_chorris, your sig always reminds me i'm out of duct tape. I'm putting gull wing doors on my station wagon.
    best Canadian show Ive ever seen, it way better than Trailer park boys
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    I've been running a CK hub w/aluminum freehub body since '02. Bike is outfitted with 195mm arms, I weigh 195# and have used that bike to train for & race 100 miles plus general hammering in steep terrain. The longer cranks allow for some heinous torque... no problems with the freehub body, but I've always used a wide-base cog.

    --Sparty
    195's, WTF. Your quads must be the size of tree trunks

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudflaps
    If you read Sparty's earlier post closely, he mentions that the front center (toptube) length increased.
    This fact has two effects:
    1 - stability at speed
    2 - increases the distance from the wheel, thereby addressing your concern about toe overlap.

    The origin of this geometry (to the best of my limited knowledge) lies with Interloc Racing Designs (IRD) when they were a two man shop in southern Oregon, later adopted/copied to a lesser degree by Fisher for their Genesis geometry. The top tube length for an old (1990-ish) Interloc Stroker I have is about 25", with a seat tube dimension of 17" (center to center dimensions). The bike has a 73 degree head angle and a 76 degree seat angle. I find the seat angle to be a bit extreme as far as front derailluer function goes, since it elevates the tail of the derailleur, thereby limiting the useful range. These bikes were often run with cranks as long as 220mm, where the only avaiable cranks at the time were Bullseye cranks. No toe overlap issues.

    I happen to know that Sparty's inspiration for his current preference came from the Interloc Strokers, and has been modified/refined over the last 20 years.

    My own finding is that the geometry lends itself to climbing like crazy, if I have the legs that day, and descends very well. On the flat ground, for me, a spinner, not so well, but then I never have been so good on flats. My cranks on that bike are 190s and for me at 5'-10", it seemed about right once I got used to it.

    I haven't ridden that bike in quite a while, and my crank length of choice for a 'normal' geometry bike is 180, for the addtional leverage, because I need all the mechanical advantage I can get...

    Flaps
    Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

  44. #44
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by nuck_chorris
    maybe its time you mind your own buddy
    that's funny coming from you and your 1500 posts in 2yrs, compared to my 500 posts in 5 years.

  45. #45
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    that's funny coming from you and your 1500 posts in 2yrs, compared to my 500 posts in 5 years.
    that has nothing to do with you telling me to move out and get job, your mind has clearly been tortured seeing as you want to start an argument with everyone on this thread. I bid you good day and will discontinue arguing with you.
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  46. #46
    Come see me after class
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    it has everything to do with your posts. i wouldn't expect anyone from the Woodlands to understand that.

  47. #47
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by alexrex20
    it has everything to do with your posts. i wouldn't expect anyone from the Woodlands to understand that.
    timber ridge /lakes , i don't live in the woodlands
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.