Looking for an inexpensive, easy donor
My plan is to buy something I can use normally while I save up for the kit. I have no intention to ride anywhere but paved roads, before or after conversion. So, I'm looking for some guidance on a bike that is (ideally) under $200 and fine for casual use, but will work well with the kit, and me (6'0", 220#). I do have Amazon prime to factor in if I buy online. I don't particularly care if I'm riding a "women's" bike around before conversion, if it works better with the kit later. Oh, and I'm decent with tools and instructions, but I have no recent experience with building or fixing bikes, so if a certain frame might need MacGyver stuff to make it work, that might not be ideal for me. I've read the "cheaper" thread, but that was a couple years ago, dunno if anything's changed since then. Is there any priority order for what factors are important, in terms of crossbar height, crossbar shape (flat-ish mountain, or sharp-v ladies cruiser), frame material, suspension/hardtail, wheel type, etc? For example, this one: http://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Women-s-Ro ... e/13398139 seems to have a super-low crossbar, but is it too sharp/small at the bottom for the seat to work? Thanks! -Dave
No...modifying the frame is exactly the sort of thing I want to avoid to stay in the "easy" category. Hmm.
Well, if put in a spacer, a piece of 2x4 or something you could probably raise the seat so that the angle of the back rest is better.
But then that would reduce or even negate the "super low" benefit of that bike, which brings me back to my original question - what are the priorities for a donor bike? What factor is most important, then 2nd most, 3rd, 4th, etc, etc - in terms of crossbar height, crossbar shape, frame material, suspension/hardtail, wheel type, etc.
pastymage wrote:
what are the priorities for a donor bike? What factor is most important, then 2nd most, 3rd, 4th, etc, etc - in terms of crossbar height, crossbar shape, frame material, suspension/hardtail, wheel type, etc.
Actually, you've got it pretty close to right.
1. Low top tube height and small "up-sweep" from seat tube to head tube.
2. Headtube-to-seat tube distance long enough to allow proper seat recline.
3. Caliper or V-brakes (not discs, which won't work with the fork triangle adapter plates on the front).
4. Frame weight (although conversions seem to work well even if they are heavy)
5. Decent components if you intend to keep them (cartridge or "European" bottom bracket - English 68mm shell)
The kit is very versatile; you can build just about anything you want.
Actually, you've got it pretty close to right.
Cool!
2. Headtube-to-seat tube distance long enough to allow proper seat recline.
Are there any figures for this, or is it a "it depends" kind of thing? I can't find any actual measurements on the site for the size of the seat-bottom. Could the front of the seat bottom be notched out to allow it to sit "flatter" on that example I posted?
Hey Doug,
I know I am getting to this party late, but I would like to pick your brain about your conversions. I noticed you replaced the forks on some of these conversions with a different headshock. What are they? How much do they cost? And where do you get that sweet little unit? It appears from the photos that when you use the new headstock you also go to 700c's? When you change to 700c's do you lower your gears?
On the light blue hardtail it looks like the seat is quite far back which would put a lot of the weight on the rear wheel. How does this bike handle? And do you have a problem with spinout at takeoff?
The conversion of the purple bike looks particularly tempting. I've seen that frame around. Can you give me your critique on that bike?
Thanks, BD
Yes, I believe it is to narrow at the bottom for the seat to work. You need a seat back angle in the area of 45 degrees. (Unless you plan to modify the frame)