f0ca

It's just for future considerations. I'm not touching anything until I give it a try.

f0ca

Took me a while to put this thing together, but it finally rides. Anyway, the frame feels fine, like most of you said,so thanks for convincing me to buy it. Here is a pic of the finished bike. Don't hate me too much for unbrazing everything, someone before me bent the dropouts in to fit the track hub size, so it was no longer viable for a derailleur.

ollo_ollo

Looks classy, good job! Frame could still be cold set back out, built back up with cable clamps and clamp on DR. T'will look more "Vintage" to boot. So your options remain open. Don

Slightspeed

I spent 15 years riding in the 200 to 230 lb range. Never had any frame issues, from vintage steel, aluminum, to modern carbon. Wheels? Maybe. I broke several spokes on my 2002 Allez, till I had the rear respoked with DT Swiss. I just built up a '73 Raleigh Super Course from a found frame. I was given a set of old Campy hubs laced to 36 hole Mavic MA40s. After about a year, the rear hub developed cracks around the flange. I am now down to just below 200 lbs, but I don't think weight was the issue. On the Raleigh, I stripped the paint myself with a chemical stripper, had some frame cracks rebrazed, and had it professionally painted with automotive paint, and new decals applied. Not cheap, but I'm very happy how the Raleigh turned out. Back when I used to race at about 165lbs. I have felt flexy frames, especially a friend's Bianchi, but none of the bikes I currently ride feel flexy to me now. The Super Course is my new favorite, just right between comfort and efficiently stiff. Look for an old Raleigh, cheap, durable and fun, isn't that what it's all about? Pics: 220lbs. + with the Legnano, and 190 something with the Raleigh.

spiker

If it's really just $40 why not try it as is. If you don't like it, flip it.
I weigh what you weigh & my fixie is a 69cm Shogun with Tange 900 db tubing, don't know how that compares with your tubing. I like it's ride. That replaced a Fugi Royale, a. 58/60cm frame that was way too small for me so it got flipped.

cdmurphy

It's not a matter of paint in a can vs spray gun that makes one more durable than the other, it's the actual paint being used. Spray cans are all alkyd enamel, or perhaps Lacquer. This is 50s - 60s paint technology. They dry purely through solvent evaporation, which takes time for full hardness (months to years). This makes them soft for the first few years, then increasingly brittle and chip prone as they harden further. In contrast, modern automotive paints are generally 2 part urethane paints. They actually chemically react to form a plastic-y resin, and then secondarily harden through evaporation. This means that a professional automotive paint will reach full hardness after an hour or two of IR baking, and stay somewhat flexible for years and years. They are also much more abrasion resistant. The downside is that the hardeners are quite toxic, requiring serious respirator / supplied air precautions, and the paint needs to be used within a few hours of mixing, otherwise it goes off in the can / spray gun. As Salamandrine pointed out, You can buy special cans that allow you to mix in the hardener right before you use it. They're pretty expensive, and need to be used within an hour or two of mixing. Plus, it is a lot harder to get a smooth, even finish with a spray can vs a real spray gun. That, and the hardeners are still toxic. I would really think twice about using them, unless permanent, chemically induced asthma sounds like fun. (Just look up Isocyanate hardeners.)

With care, you can do some amazing paint jobs with spray cans -- just keep in mind it won't approach the durability of modern automotive finishes. (This is why the paint on most vintage bikes generally looks like crap if they were used much -- and the paint on bikes from the 80's onward holds up much better.)