| |
Main
Date: 01 Oct 2006 17:09:38
From: Gooserider
Subject: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 12:58:13
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:09:38 +0000, Gooserider wrote:
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
> like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
> have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
> but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
Bridgestones and Diamondbacks.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 17:37:52
From: Mr. Les
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Gooserider wrote:
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
> like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
> have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
> but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
Ah, a chance to sing the praises of my '86 Schwinn Cimon. This is a
great bike. Ned Overend rode one for many of his wins, back in the
day. 4130 Double butted, lugged. Fillet brazed head tube, full
eyelets and low-rider front rack bosses. A few years back I completely
upgraded to 9 spd. Deore LX. I run a road cluster for rail-trails
these days. Also went to narrow rims and replaced the Araya
RM-25...yes, 25s! They were bullet proof. This has been a terrific
bike for me. Highly regarded in '86
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 21:33:18
From: jdsingleton
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:09:38 GMT, "Gooserider"
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
>like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
>have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
>thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
>but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
1998 Giant Yukon. I think the suspension fork was a 1999 addition, but
it could have been 2000. (I haves a '98.)
Jim
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 17:44:44
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <mDSTg.25723$YA5.17151@tornado.tampabay.rr.com >,
Gooserider <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
>like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
>have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
>thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
>but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
>
Pretty much every MTB made before suspension forks became
standard in the late 80's/early 90's. I have a Gary Fisher
Hoo Koo E Koo from 1988 that fits this description perfectly.
Here's a picture of it in action.
http://www.stanford.edu/~bbense/bike.jpg
The problem with most of these bikes is that they were setup
with really high riser stems. Getting a drop bar high enough
can be a problem. I used a Soma stem extender that I don't
think is made any more. The Nitto Periscope stem can be
"good enough".
_ Booker C. Bense
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBRSFQC2TWTAjn5N/lAQGPpgP+NrntHNno11w7OlT6ergdHHEYcRE6T1F9
sH0zqwzP7FXP2v6Xsia1rLTK/FBc3Z3ctFaUqdhXOaNbnqz5CQgF666rlHxTfQ00
OBj2qjZzq7SaxIYOlhRtWK5+0QX07uQyxI7TEdWlJDKhH+OXMx90In2NJeBGaUfL
/260J0LE7/E=
=IRCt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2006 13:01:50
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:44:44 +0000, Booker C. Bense wrote:
> Pretty much every MTB made before suspension forks became
> standard in the late 80's/early 90's. I have a Gary Fisher
> Hoo Koo E Koo from 1988 that fits this description perfectly.
> Here's a picture of it in action.
>
> http://www.stanford.edu/~bbense/bike.jpg
A lot of race bikes of that era had no eyelets in the name of weight
shaving or whatever.
I mentioned Diamondback because they're really common and not
trendy/collectible/overpriced like Bridgestone. You can pick up an old
Apex or whatever for $200 or less.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 15:12:46
From: mark
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Gooserider wrote:
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
> like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
> have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
> but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
>
>
e-bay is full of rigid steel mountain bike frames and complete bikes,
most of the mountain bikes made before the mid 90s had fender eyelets. I
just scored a Bridgestone MB-3 frame and fork (Ritchey Logic lugged
steel frame) with fender eyelets that I don't think has ever been
ridden. I'm building it up with fenders, a rear rack, studded tires and
a hub generator lighting system to get to and from work in the winter.
Most modern road and touring bikes don't have TCO, how old is your bike?
k
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 22:38:00
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
"k" <kfelber@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:O%9Ug.5828$o71.268@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Gooserider wrote:
>> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and
>> I'd like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm
>> and I have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like
>> it. My thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would
>> be great, but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any
>> others?
> e-bay is full of rigid steel mountain bike frames and complete bikes, most
> of the mountain bikes made before the mid 90s had fender eyelets. I just
> scored a Bridgestone MB-3 frame and fork (Ritchey Logic lugged steel
> frame) with fender eyelets that I don't think has ever been ridden. I'm
> building it up with fenders, a rear rack, studded tires and a hub
> generator lighting system to get to and from work in the winter.
>
> Most modern road and touring bikes don't have TCO, how old is your bike?
>
> k
I have a 2005 Gunnar Sport. I'm running 32s and fenders, and I have TCO. I
think most bikes 52cm and under would benefit from a smaller wheel size if
they're going to be fendered. I love the Gunnar---it's comfortable, fast,
and beautiful. I only have the TCO during slow sharp turns, so I've learned
to anticipate it. A 26 inch or even 650B would help, I think.
Mike
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 03:42:56
From: mark
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Gooserider wrote:
> I have a 2005 Gunnar Sport. I'm running 32s and fenders, and I have TCO. I
> think most bikes 52cm and under would benefit from a smaller wheel size if
> they're going to be fendered. I love the Gunnar---it's comfortable, fast,
> and beautiful. I only have the TCO during slow sharp turns, so I've learned
> to anticipate it. A 26 inch or even 650B would help, I think.
>
> Mike
>
>
I think putting 700C rims on smaller frames creates a lot of problems.
The only benefit is to the bike maker, who doesn't have the expense of
stocking two or three different rim and tire sizes for each bike model.
The Rivendell Atlantis is made with 700C rims in the larger frame sizes
and 26" rims in the smaller (<56 cm) sizes, which I think makes a lot of
sense. My tourer has a 58cm seat tube and uses 26" wheels, I can run
26x1.75" tires with fenders and have no TCO and room for a full size (28
oz) water bottle under the down tube. I think bringing back 650B tires
and rims is a great idea, it lets bicycle makers pick the optimum tire
diameter for each frame size.
k
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 10:10:14
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
"k" <kfelber@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:4%kUg.9365$UG4.745@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Gooserider wrote:
>
>> I have a 2005 Gunnar Sport. I'm running 32s and fenders, and I have TCO.
>> I think most bikes 52cm and under would benefit from a smaller wheel size
>> if they're going to be fendered. I love the Gunnar---it's comfortable,
>> fast, and beautiful. I only have the TCO during slow sharp turns, so I've
>> learned to anticipate it. A 26 inch or even 650B would help, I think.
>>
>> Mike
> I think putting 700C rims on smaller frames creates a lot of problems. The
> only benefit is to the bike maker, who doesn't have the expense of
> stocking two or three different rim and tire sizes for each bike model.
> The Rivendell Atlantis is made with 700C rims in the larger frame sizes
> and 26" rims in the smaller (<56 cm) sizes, which I think makes a lot of
> sense. My tourer has a 58cm seat tube and uses 26" wheels, I can run
> 26x1.75" tires with fenders and have no TCO and room for a full size (28
> oz) water bottle under the down tube. I think bringing back 650B tires and
> rims is a great idea, it lets bicycle makers pick the optimum tire
> diameter for each frame size.
>
> k
Surly does the exact same thing with the Long Haul Trucker. It is a good
idea.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 08:45:33
From: SMS
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
k wrote:
> Gooserider wrote:
>> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike,
>> and I'd like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is
>> 52cm and I have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't
>> like it. My thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and
>> lugged would be great, but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek
>> 970, any others?
>>
> e-bay is full of rigid steel mountain bike frames and complete bikes,
> most of the mountain bikes made before the mid 90s had fender eyelets. I
> just scored a Bridgestone MB-3 frame and fork (Ritchey Logic lugged
> steel frame) with fender eyelets that I don't think has ever been
> ridden. I'm building it up with fenders, a rear rack, studded tires and
> a hub generator lighting system to get to and from work in the winter.
>
> Most modern road and touring bikes don't have TCO, how old is your bike?
The compact frames may have TCO, and are pretty common on road bikes,
though they don't exists, AFAIK, on touring bikes.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2006 14:43:45
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
In article <45213420$0$96170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> k wrote:
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike,
> >> and I'd like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is
> >> 52cm and I have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't
> >> like it. My thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and
> >> lugged would be great, but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek
> >> 970, any others?
> >>
> > e-bay is full of rigid steel mountain bike frames and complete bikes,
> > most of the mountain bikes made before the mid 90s had fender eyelets. I
> > just scored a Bridgestone MB-3 frame and fork (Ritchey Logic lugged
> > steel frame) with fender eyelets that I don't think has ever been
> > ridden. I'm building it up with fenders, a rear rack, studded tires and
> > a hub generator lighting system to get to and from work in the winter.
> >
> > Most modern road and touring bikes don't have TCO, how old is your bike?
>
> The compact frames may have TCO, and are pretty common on road bikes,
> though they don't exists, AFAIK, on touring bikes.
Don't know what constitutes modern, but I have a very pretty Miyata 210
(27" wheel) tourer from somewhere in the 1980s, and while it was fine
before I put fenders on, I now kick the front fender sometimes.
I use this bike as a commuter, so I tend to kick the fender while
trackstanding because I forget and let the pedals go level. Yes, I am
bad at trackstands.
This is something of a worst-case scenario for TCO, though: 27" wheel,
fattish tire, ~52cm frame, and I mount my cleats fairly far back on my
shoes, maximizing the potential for this problem.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 20:06:36
From: Joshua Putnam
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
In article <mDSTg.25723$YA5.17151@tornado.tampabay.rr.com >,
Gooserider@mouse-potato.com says...
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
> like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
> have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
> but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
My old Bianchi Grizzly had front and rear eyelets. Can't remember its
year off-hand, the last year they came with full SunTour XC Pro.
--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 13:37:53
From: Grolch
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
"Joshua Putnam" <josh@phred.org > wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8a221abf0f85ff9896b2@news.zhonka.net...
> In article <mDSTg.25723$YA5.17151@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Gooserider@mouse-potato.com says...
>> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and
>> I'd
>> like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
>> have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
>> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be
>> great,
>> but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
>
> My old Bianchi Grizzly had front and rear eyelets. Can't remember its
> year off-hand, the last year they came with full SunTour XC Pro.
Ah, SunTour XC Pro, Now that was a great groupo, no?
>
> --
> josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
> Braze your own bicycle frames. See
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 01:42:26
From: Grolch
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Try any late 80's, early 90's Bridgestones, The MB-1 for instance is lugged
and uses Ritchey Logic tubing....sweeeeet!
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:mDSTg.25723$YA5.17151@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and
> I'd like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and
> I have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be
> great, but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 17:45:08
From: bryanska
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Mid-80s to early 90s Specialized Rockhoppers have two eyelets front and
back.
Watch out for chainstay-mounted rear U-brakes. They need frequent
adjustment. Later years have cantis.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 14:24:29
From: mark
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
bryanska wrote:
> Mid-80s to early 90s Specialized Rockhoppers have two eyelets front and
> back.
>
> Watch out for chainstay-mounted rear U-brakes. They need frequent
> adjustment. Later years have cantis.
>
They not only need frequent adjustment, they get clogged up by whatever
glop you're riding through. Unless you're going to make a fixie with no
brakes or just a front brake, I would not buy any frame with a U-brake
mounted on the chainstay.
k
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 07:47:46
From: SMS
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
k wrote:
> bryanska wrote:
>> Mid-80s to early 90s Specialized Rockhoppers have two eyelets front and
>> back.
>>
>> Watch out for chainstay-mounted rear U-brakes. They need frequent
>> adjustment. Later years have cantis.
>>
> They not only need frequent adjustment, they get clogged up by whatever
> glop you're riding through. Unless you're going to make a fixie with no
> brakes or just a front brake, I would not buy any frame with a U-brake
> mounted on the chainstay.
>
> k
Yeah, I had an old Fuji Sundance. Great frame, but those U brakes were
quite the pain in the butt.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 17:51:24
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <45212692$0$96187$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
>k wrote:
>> bryanska wrote:
>>> Mid-80s to early 90s Specialized Rockhoppers have two eyelets front and
>>> back.
>>>
>>> Watch out for chainstay-mounted rear U-brakes. They need frequent
>>> adjustment. Later years have cantis.
>>>
>> They not only need frequent adjustment, they get clogged up by whatever
>> glop you're riding through. Unless you're going to make a fixie with no
>> brakes or just a front brake, I would not buy any frame with a U-brake
>> mounted on the chainstay.
>>
>> k
>
>Yeah, I had an old Fuji Sundance. Great frame, but those U brakes were
>quite the pain in the butt.
The do suck for riding in the dirt, but the actually have some
advantages for a touring bike that mostly stays on pavement or
dry dirt roads.
1. Heel/Pannier/rack clearance is not a issue.
2. Touring bikes tend to have enough load that
rear braking is a lot more useful than on a regular road bike.
If clean these brakes work very well because they are mounted
to the strongest part of the bike.
3. They work with the same levers that standard road brakes work
with.
_ Booker C. Bense
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBRSFRm2TWTAjn5N/lAQEF1QQAgU/jx+dKytF7w18Md3GYnE8djPHxijcY
L7tjK49wGuMklc7NdMqB8x9s+EmWSS4cJrI8WNv/CYt1YWQwDQds2LXRSRyxrBlM
hUB3QWTQH8IrUyFLzBZ3SKyjU5LJD7qDR+ankQdH46kGE6JZdQ6+K/4V4XiRT03/
FRcNOZTltkA=
=gXTy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 20:54:58
From: mark
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Booker C. Bense wrote:
>
> The do suck for riding in the dirt, but the actually have some
> advantages for a touring bike that mostly stays on pavement or
> dry dirt roads.
>
> 1. Heel/Pannier/rack clearance is not a issue.
>
> 2. Touring bikes tend to have enough load that
> rear braking is a lot more useful than on a regular road bike.
> If clean these brakes work very well because they are mounted
> to the strongest part of the bike.
>
> 3. They work with the same levers that standard road brakes work
> with.
>
> _ Booker C. Bense
I used a U-brake equipped bike ('86 Stumpjumper) on a tour through the
UK a few years back, the U brakes didn't do a damn thing for me that the
cantilevers on my current tourer doesn't do as well. I still think
U-brakes are one of the stupider ideas the bicycle industry has come up
with.
k
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 23:30:40
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:09:38 GMT, "Gooserider"
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
>like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
>have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
>thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
>but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
IME, there are loads of older non-suspension mtbs with eyelets. Most
of them aren't particularly light, but they're quite common. The Trek
8x0 units mostly fit that description if I recall correctly.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 13:00:09
From: landotter
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Gooserider wrote:
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
> like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
> have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
> but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
Pretty much all of them short of race kit had eyelets. I can't actually
remember seeing one without that wasn't high end stuff that I'd never
think of converting.
BTW, Nashbar's still got those steel mtb frames on sale for $45. (with
a free seatpost!)They have seat stay threading for a rack, don't know
about eyelets. Easy enough to use P-clamps tho. Add a decent
sus-adjusted Tange fork from bikemannetwork.com, and you still end up
under $100 for frame and fork.
My local Craigslist currently has a rigid nice old mtb for peanuts, but
I doubt you live in Nashville. :-P
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 12:44:23
From: Will
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Gooserider wrote:
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and I'd
> like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and I
> have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be great,
> but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
Trek Antelopes. There's a bazillion of them. Steel. Old are lugged,
newer are TIG. Old have double eyelets front and back and rack
fasteners (sleeves) on the seat stays. Newer have single eyelets.
Regular forks, no suspension. Plenty of tire clearance. Canti-brakes.
Overlap might not be an issue. They tend to have longer top tubes,
shorter stems, and a bit more rake in the fork than new units. My LBS
probably has 10 of them in it's used department. You may also want to
consider the aluminum models (Trek 7000's etc.) that came out mid-80s
on. My son had one.* Good bike. Good ride with the right tires.
* He went retro. Rides a Trek 613 now. Racked and fendered. If you're
not set on an AT (all terrain) frame, a lot of older Trek roadies had
Shimano 600 groups <g >. You can go double butted, lugged, 531 steel
that way. The sport tourers make good commuters.
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 19:17:05
From: Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD
Subject: Re: What old rigid MTB has front and rear eyelets?
|
Diamondback Ascent EX. Mine even has Bio-Pace.
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:mDSTg.25723$YA5.17151@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> I'm thinking about building up an old steel MTB as a drop bar bike, and
> I'd like to mount fenders and a rack. My current fendered bike is 52cm and
> I have TCO(toe clip overlap). It's not a big deal but I don't like it. My
> thinking is a MTB won't have this problem. Steel and lugged would be
> great, but TIG steel is good. I know about the 99 Trek 970, any others?
>
|
|
