Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:28 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14  Next

Is my build retro enough?
Yes. Were nearly in 2010 ffs! 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
Yes. Were nearly in 2010 ffs! 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
Yes. Were nearly in 2010 ffs! 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
Yes. Were nearly in 2010 ffs! 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
Well its kinda retro modernised... 13%  13%  [ 7 ]
NO 12%  12%  [ 6 ]
Its somewhere in between mate but still very cool ;) 37%  37%  [ 19 ]
Total votes : 52
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:54 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16748
Location: Yorkshire, England
mikesnowdon wrote:
Quote:
I thought he was building this bike for fun and the weight of it is his goal, aim, joy in all of this Rolling Eyes riding it is a mere distraction at the end.


Is that me you refer to as 'he' there?

I did have weight in mind a little when selecting parts but if I wanted to build a bike with the sole purpose being light weight I wouldnt build it around a old steel kona frame. I know this will be quite a light bike in the end and I will be pleased if its under 24lb (which it should be) but ultimately this bike is being built to ride. I like steel Konas for their handling. If that handling comes with a slight weight penalty its a worthwhile compromise.


It was but I don't know where the roll eye came from :? and was not intended.
What was intended I thought you are looking at the weight as a fun aspect and some sort of aim/guidance in what you put on it.
and there should be a sarcastic wink after the riding bit.

(there was a section I cut out prior to posting but was irrelevant to the topic that may have screwed up the wording a bit)



Anyways, what further plans have you got, colours and changed and whens the eta of the final build


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:14 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 1586
Location: West Sussex.
FluffyChicken wrote:
mikesnowdon wrote:
Quote:
I thought he was building this bike for fun and the weight of it is his goal, aim, joy in all of this Rolling Eyes riding it is a mere distraction at the end.


Is that me you refer to as 'he' there?

I did have weight in mind a little when selecting parts but if I wanted to build a bike with the sole purpose being light weight I wouldnt build it around a old steel kona frame. I know this will be quite a light bike in the end and I will be pleased if its under 24lb (which it should be) but ultimately this bike is being built to ride. I like steel Konas for their handling. If that handling comes with a slight weight penalty its a worthwhile compromise.


It was but I don't know where the roll eye came from :? and was not intended.
What was intended I thought you are looking at the weight as a fun aspect and some sort of aim/guidance in what you put on it.
and there should be a sarcastic wink after the riding bit.

(there was a section I cut out prior to posting but was irrelevant to the topic that may have screwed up the wording a bit)



Anyways, what further plans have you got, colours and changed and whens the eta of the final build



Cool.

Your right about the weight becoming a kind of fun aspect of the build. In fact I've had to refrain myself from letting it become an obsession!

Initially the component selection was based on my wish list of components from the last few years. It occurred to me later that these were mostly lightweight items and that got me wondering about the final weight.

ETA is a bit unknown but I would hope to have it done within the next 2 to 3 weeks. I'm still going with white but may go for a metal flake lacquer to give it a nice sparkle. I should be getting my hands on a pair of 2002 SID race Titanium this coming week (which means the 98 SID's will be for sale) but that's the only change. I'm trying to add little 'rasta' themed bits and pieces to go with the Salsa skewers too. I already have a set of KCNC headset spacers to match the rasta theme.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:05 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
KeepItSteel wrote:
im not looking to cause controversy, I just think its lazy to argue that you dont need a lighter bike, but that you just need to be fitter.
its almost anti-high-end-bike snobery


I'm not against light bikes - far from it. My point was simply there's no real point in obsessing about how to shed small amounts from an already trimmed down, light bike.

At some point, it will compromise it's longevity and robustness. Over the years, I've seen so many weight-weenies obsessing about trimming, literally, grammes from their bikes, when they could easily stand to lose half a stone in bodyweight - that's all I'm saying.

Once you've put your bike on a diet, it's time to stop obsessing about it before you weaken it, to the point where it starts to cause issues whilst your using it. Better at that point to consider whether the bike isn't the only thing that could do with going on a diet.

KeepItSteel wrote:
A lighter bike is easier to lift and easier to haul and easier to accelerate on than a heavier equivalent, no matter what your proportional weight/fitness level is. Thats physics in action.


True - there's no escaping physics. But when your bike has already been lightened, and you're obsessing about grammes when most could easily stand to lose several pounds in bodyweight, those bananas can't be swept under the carpet of bike weight-weenie-ism, either.

KeepItSteel wrote:
pick apart my opinion if you like, but lighter bikes just feel better and are less tiring to ride over distance.


I like light bikes - don't get me wrong - but nothing is more helpful over a ride distance, than being fitter, and having lost a few pounds, where it's needed. And it puts into context, obsessing about grammes on a bike, to losing a few pounds in bodyweight.

My first true mountain bike was around 26.5 lbs, stock (91/92 DB Apex). My current one (95 DB Apex) around the 24 lb mark, stock. Probably a little lighter, now due to tyre and inner choice, and a small number of other things (handlebars and the like) that are slightly lighter than stock.

Now sure, I could obsess about replacing components, and saving a gramme, here or there - or I could accept, that I could easily stand to lose half a stone, and always improve my fitness.

If you're ultra competitive, and permanently in shape, and competing in timed events, regularly, then obsessing about the weight of your bike and it's components - to the same degree as your bodyweight - makes sense. But for the dilitents who get obsessed about how heavy their bike is, when a few pounds of their own scales wouldn't be missed, is truly missing the wood for the trees.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:31 am 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:31 pm
Posts: 3949
Location: a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam
yah. i guess


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:25 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 1586
Location: West Sussex.
Sadly I wont be getting the '02 SID Titanium now as it turns out the steerer is too short for my Frame, Stem, and headset :(

So I'll go as originally planned with the 98 SID's. They have a slightly damaged stanchion but it doesn't feel like its affecting stiction. The lowers still slide smoothly and there's no noticeable play. To get these up and running I need lower leg retaining bolts, and original SID valve caps. I also need new lowers as they didn't come with a disk tab back in '98. I can get the lowers and the bolts from TF at a reasonable price. The lowers come with brand new bushings and seals too :). TF don't have the valve caps though but I could get some later 'shrader valve' Rockshox topcaps. They should fit ok. Internally they look to be in great condition, immaculate. I've stripped and cleaned every single part and I feel confident they will work like new once re-greased and reassembled with fresh oil.

Due to the slight damage to the stanchion I might invest in a pair of 'Enduro' fork seals (*link below) to keep them running smooth and prolong their life a little. According to reviews these seals not only reduce stiction but work very very well at keeping the crap out and oil in.

http://www.enduroforkseals.com/id11.html

As Im going with the 98 SID's I'll be doing the white re-spray and custom decals I posted earlier.

I'll keep an eye out for some more recent SID's and swap over the re-spayed lowers perhaps. I'd rather have a 80mm travel and lockout of the newer SID forks, but would like to keep the custom lowers that will match the fame.

The custom decals are on the way from Gil_M. Watch this space!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:48 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:31 pm
Posts: 3949
Location: a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam
i admire your efforts, but surely you are better off sourcing a SID in better condition? , particularly with the damaged stantion?.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:24 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 1586
Location: West Sussex.
KeepItSteel wrote:
i admire your efforts, but surely you are better off sourcing a SID in better condition? , particularly with the damaged stantion?.


Well your right but it didn't cost me much and I'd feel less inclined to modify a mint one. Anyways, the stanchion wear not that bad really, and it dosent seem to effect the performance. Basically the coating has worn off in one tiny area. If anything the longevity of the fork is the only compromise but using the enduro seals should prolong its life. It is allready an 11 year old fork. When it dies I'll get some newer SID's and swap my customised lowers over, then sell the old '98 for parts. Its kind of like giving it a new lease of life to sing its final swan song before it goes off to suspension fork heaven!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:57 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 1586
Location: West Sussex.
Still not finished this due to a lack of funds. Frustrating. I decided to mock up the bike last night to see how its gonna look. Heres a few pics...

I'm really exited abut getting this finished. I've thought long and hard about an alternative to white for the frame. Wanted something original. But the more I think about it the more I come back to white. I think having the white SID's with custom Kona style decals will make it original enough.

Having it mocked up like this I'm very pleased with the weight. Its missing the shifters, front mech, headset, and chain though. Feels silly light at the moment!

Image
Image

Image


Ive got a dead 2000 SID on the way which have the slightly longer lower leg (and disk mount). This should mean the upper bushing's are higher so the slightly worn area on the 98 SID uppers will be below the top bushing. The worn area wont cause any performance issues then as its between the upper and lower bushings. I'll have a play with the Y2K SID internals too. They use the same method of retaining the shaft into to stanchion so should slide right in. If it works out I'll have 80mm travel and adjustable compression/rebound damping.

I was also very lucky and found a brand new 98 SID rebuild kit on eBay! Happy days!


Last edited by mikesnowdon on Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:00 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 1586
Location: West Sussex.
Was playing with the bike again and installed the headset. The steerer is a bit short TBH. With no spacers Ive got just enough for the clamp part on the Thomson stem. Steerer is about 10mm short of the top of the stem.

I'll get some pics up later. I think I need a different headset. The Thermo SP has a massive stack height. I also bought some 3mm spacers in rasta colours to go with the Salsa skewers, Id really like to use them.

What are the lowest stack headsets available? Im thinking the new Hope, or a King?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:11 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 1586
Location: West Sussex.
The stack height of the RF Thermo SP is 32mm. Ideally I'd like to find a headset with 10mm less stack height. This way I can use my spacers which amount to 9mm.

Some pics.

As you can see, without the spacers there is just enough steerer inside the stem clamp (bottom pic).


Attachments:
TOYS 052.jpg
TOYS 052.jpg [ 143.41 KiB | Viewed 1597 times ]
TOYS 049.jpg
TOYS 049.jpg [ 182.66 KiB | Viewed 1597 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: secret_squirrel, youngsspeed and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group