Originally Posted by Senrab62 (Post 22950530)

65mm cranks would be comically small, unless there is a mobility limitation.

Do you mean a 165mm crank?

Also, interesting that you want wider tires and more capabilities, but are intending to ride brakeless?

What type of riding do you do most? Surface and terrain? What's wrong with another WT, and slowly building with lighter parts? If brakes don't matter, why not just a vintage conversion, it would be much cheaper and depending on year 32mm would be no problem.

Lots of variables. Give us some more specifics on what you want, outside of 65mm cranks.

Originally Posted by rustystrings61 (Post 22950881)

Senrab61 mentioned St. Sheldon. His works on fixed-gear bikes are likely THE most influential on the resurgence of fixed-gear cycling in this century.[/url] When I first read him and assembled my first fixed-gear in 1998, there were very few dedicated fixed-gear bikes available to purchase. Unfortunately, the bulk of what came along pre-built was very much influenced by track designs with narrow tire clearances, deep dish aero rims and aggressive frame geometry that might be great for a sprint on a board track but is a drag on city streets and quiet back roads. The Kilo WT is kind of an anomaly, being a production fixed-gear with clearance for something larger than a 23-25mm tire.

You used the words "light" and "strong" in the same sentence and mentioned a desire to run 32 mm tires and ride the streets of your town. My experience has been that a light, comfortable-but-nimble frame capable of taking that size tire generally points towards two options. The first is full custom. I have done that, and 20 years later I realize that I honestly would have done better, saved myself a lot of money and had a more flexible, adaptable bike had I simply converted a quality vintage road bike to fixed operation. Over the last decade I have returned to that method, so much so that I have been seriously considering parting with my full custom Mercian.

St. Sheldon explains all of this in detail, but the basic idea is that lots of bikes ranging from pretty good to amazing were sold in the past that can be converted to fixed with relative ease. They'll have clearance for 32 mm tires. They'll have nimble handling - for the road - vs the lightning-quick but possibly twitchy and certainly jarring handling of something inspired by racing on a smooth track. And while you mentioned brakeless riding, I would strongly urge you to run a front brake - that in conjunction with a fixed cog and lockring is the minimum braking standard of the U.K., which is probably the ONLY country with laws about that. The fact that in the U.S. we have crap laws about bike brakes is a reflection of the toy status assigned to bicycling in America.

A lot depends on the mindset you bring to riding. Most of the "ready-to-ride" bikes out there are very track-inspired, built for short fast rides with aggressive geometry. Philosophically, lots of them reflect a hipster pose with styling meant to imply fast, aero dynamic, no-nonsense, hard guy looks by appropriating the style of bike messengers who were themselves appropriating folks who rode brakeless fixed-gears between the world wars. Sheldon's writings are a middle ground, pointing the way to the OTHER fixed-gear cycling tradition, which is primarily British, often revolving around cycling clubs, and demanding a balance of nimble and light combined with the ability to travel long distances in all weather with the capacity to carry light luggage (we would say credit card touring today).

The choice of 32 mm tires is a good one - you can ride city streets, they'll work well on poorly maintained rural roads, and with a bit of skill you can manage gravel and hard packed dirt roads. My best cycling buddy and I rode all of this county's dirt roads on fixed-gears running 28 mm tires, and 32 would be better still. But if you're going for the ride quality of 32s, you might as well look at frames with the right geometry, and the affordable way to that would be converting an old road bike. There are lots of those out there with minimal braze-ons - people will hate you if you have perfectly good fixtures shaved off, so avoid doing that! - and the sort of geometry that was once all out racing that is now considered sport touring. If you're patient and find a good deal, you can then spend your money on some good wheels (NO deep dish stuff!) and a good crankset - and seriously, at least a front brake that works.

Originally Posted by Speedway2 (Post 22958457)

There's only one solution......buy both.

Originally Posted by p333 (Post 22958078)

Anyone not like the slacker geometry on the wabi classic? I'm this close to buying one but not sure if I would miss the quicker handling of something closer to track geo.

Originally Posted by bioVah (Post 22963008)

What's the difference between a single speed and a fixed gear?

Originally Posted by Senrab62 (Post 22960774)

Wabi is likely the better, overall bike to be ridden on the road. If you were going to ride on the track some, then that might sway your choice.

I've never heard anyone say that the Wabi handling was slow, so you'd be fine I'm sure. I have an actual track bike with very precise handling, and while it's a beast, it doesn't get the most miles out of my collection.

What bike has the track like geo you are considering?

​​​​​

Originally Posted by highandlowrpm (Post 22963107)

I wouldn’t write off a track based bike. Mine gets a lot of road use and is light, responsive and fast. Only gets a little twitchy going down fast hairpin descents at 35-40 mph or so. Have over 600 miles on it, over the past 5 months, including several metric centuries.

And also highly recommend the White Industries Dos Eno dual freewheel, so you have two easily adjustable gear ratio options. Would need to change to 3/32” compatible chainring (Wabi has them) and chain, though.

Originally Posted by Senrab62 (Post 22963142)

I never wrote it off. And 30-45 mph is crazy! What gear ratio and RPM are you getting to?

Bikes designed for the track are designed for the track and typically are typically harsher, more fatiguing, more chance for toe overlap, less likely to accommodate larger tires, less likely to have accomodations for water cage bosses or fenders, etc. Why would I want a less capable bike?

What makes you think that a road bike, or something designed for road l wouldn't be light, and responsive? Many people say that about Wabi, and they make one of the lighter production steel fixed gears on the market. I only mentioned them as an example. There are multiple option, that would meet your criteria and have water bottle bosses with slightly less aggressive geos.

If you look at my posts I have a pretty broad collection, including conversions all the way to true track. Spice is the variety of life. My next custom, will be more road like in geo and be versatile. Because I mainly ride.on the road. I never wrote off a track specific bikes, I own multiple. Just a point of what would be a better all rounder.