Stripped single speed hub

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:56:39 +0000, Kinky Cowboy <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

FWIW, a good kilo rider will put about 100Nm of torque into the
sprocket, based on a 90kg rider pushing the pedal with a bit more than
twice his own weight (i.e. all his actual weight + the sum of the
upward pulls of both hands) on 165mm cranks and a gear of 50/15

Without doing anything more than just standing on the pedal, a 120kg
rider on 175s and 40/16 puts 82Nm into the sprocket.

Our glorious leader and multiple national hill climb champ, at a
featherweight 52kg running 170 cranks and 42/21 gearing could hit
about 86Nm

Time, I think, for Carl Fogel to rig something up in his garage to
check which combinations of sprocket and hub can withstand, say,
300Nm. Maybe a new use for the tension meter if he puts a length of
2mm wire somewhere in the test rig :-)

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

Dear Kinky,

FWIW, we have a current report of a rider in big-big bending a steel
MTB rear triangle sideways 2.5 inches when a chain jammed:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/fe28d457545c1c91

If that provokes no skepticism, I'm not going to spend time testing
more subtle matters.

Right now, things have taken an ominous turn in my neck of the woods:

http://i11.tinypic.com/2q32c06.jpg

Either Krusty the Klown is less imaginary that I thought, or someone
was walking on snowshoes in the four inches of snow in the park.

A visiting friend held the dog's leash while I took the picture. He
was more impressed by the sight of these snowshoe tracks than by the
fox that obligingly put in an appearance. Over the last forty years,
we've seen the tracks of sleds and cross-country skis in the snow
around here, but never snowshoes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Peter Cole said:

When I replace this wheel, I'm going to use a standard rear wheel by
brazing/welding the freehub body to prevent freewheeling. I'll use a
standard sprocket with cassette spacers & standard lockring. I hate
crappy seals, I hate solid/nutted axles, I hate cracking axles,

Although I am working on increasing the difference, I am only about 15lbs
lighter than you, and have never broken an axle on my fixed gear. Old
freewheel hubs, yeah, lots, but not fixed gear stuff. I no longer use
solid axles, either, but use an old freewheel-hub Q/R axle cut down to fit
my bike (110mm spacing old track bike).

I hate

Quoted message said:

shelling out $20+ for a sprocket.

Oh, well.

Quoted message said:

with axle spacers, I want something as good as a Shimano hub for Shimano
prices.

Buy one. Shimano makes IMO the best track hubs.

Quoted message said:

 I don't want to ride made-for-the-track stuff on the street

Why not?

Quoted message said:

or
kludge up something from old-style hubs.

And yet you want to kludge up something from a cassette hub....

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of
_`\(,_ | business.
(_)/ (_) |

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

2. The wheel was their least expensive. Should I spring for a
wheel with a more expensive hub (they also sell Dura-ace and Phil
Wood)? I found that I really like the feeling of a fixie and am
willing to invest more money after my first experiment. I'm 230
lbs, and fairly strong, but I can't be generating the power of a
real track racer, and presumably they are not stripping their
hubs every tenth ride.

They don't weigh 230 and aren't climbing steep hills out of the
saddle. You are probably putting as much or more strain on the
threads of the hub shell than any track racer. The possible
exception is racers doing the Kilo, since they start sprinting from
a standing start.

I don't know about that. At 230, one is placing more strain on other
components like wheels and seat posts, but in terms of force at the
cog, the racers have us beat by a long shot. Using myself as an
example, I am 220, an avid hobby cyclist and I ride on hilly roads.
Sounds a lot like the OP. When I am on a ride, my most intense
efforts are just as you imply, out of the saddle up short steep
hills. It is just on these efforts that my cadence drops, and thus
pedal force increases. Say if I'm lucky for a short burst I manage
500W at 80 rpm. Lets assume a pedal circle is 1m. At 80 rpm, my
pedals are going 1.33 m/s. To get to my 500W, I need to apply 376 N
or 38 kgf. When Chris Hoy or Theo Bos are stomping out 2000W at 150
rpm they are pushing the pedals at about 80 kgf. Twice as much. I am
assuming pedal force is a good proxy for cog force. Is that
reasonable?

Compare the force you can put on the pedals to someone who is 125-150
pounds. Pro bike racers are fast uphill not because of sheer power but
because of power to weight ratio. Compare that to the estimated numbers
for Floyd Landis's Stage 17 effort, in which he was estimated to be
putting out 350W. Of course, he did that for hours that day.

Sprinters can have high peak power (~1300W for a sprinter like
Cipollini) for a few seconds, but they are generally not applying that
power up a steep hill. When you say those guys are putting out 2000W at
150 rpm, I think you are very much overestimating their RPMs and their
power output.

I also had a Quando that stripped just like this.

The cause was probably the cheapo, thin, pressed steel cog. Have not had
this problem with Surly or Dura Ace cogs. They are well worth the few
extra bucks, IMO.

You are supposed to be able to abuse these components.

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Paul said:

This autumn, I converted a road bike to a fixed gear 34/15. I had
purchased a wheel with a QuandoXT fixed/free hub. My cog was not wide
enough to be held in place by the (left-threaded) lockring so I
cannibalized a plastic 10s spacer to put between the fixed cog and the
lockring. The lockring then was able to be very tightly screwed onto
the hub.
I live in a very hilly area, and was in the habit of "braking" going
down hill by putting backward pressure on the pedals. I had never felt
the cog loosen while back-pedalling. The chain was not too tight,
having about 1.5 cm of play. I also had to push very hard to get up
some of these short but steep hills.
On my last ride on this wheel, I was climbing one of these steep hills,
out of the saddle, when the cog slipped and the bike became unrideable
on any incline (I did get home by pedalling very gently on the flats
and walking the hills). This was perhaps my tenth ride on this wheel.
I took the wheel back to the bike shop that sold it to me (Urbane
Cyclist in Toronto) and they took the cog off, found the threads on the
hub to be stripped, and without any hassle, gave me another identical
wheel. I asked the mechanic what to do to prevent this, and he
suggested using a larger cog (18) with a larger chainring (42) to give
an approximately similar gear ratio. He said that this would decrease
the torque on the cog, and therefore on the threads.
1. Does this make any sense? It strikes me that the force on the
threads would be the same for any similar ratios, no matter how they
are arrived at.

Yes, the force on the threads will be the same because
the diameter of the threads remains the same, and the
amount of power you want to transmit remains the same,
therefore the torque at the threads will remain the
same.

Best hope is to improve the force carrying capacity of
the gear-hub coupling _and_ raise the gear ratio. 34/15
is equivalent to 42/19. Try on a 42/18, or 42/17, or
even 42/16. How much grade to you have negotiate? I
hump around a 2x7 speed town utility bike in 50/18 a
lot (~ 42/15), and I am not at all strong. Of course I
do not take it up _long_ grades either.

--
Michael Press

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

> 2. The wheel was their least expensive. Should I spring for a
> wheel with a more expensive hub (they also sell Dura-ace and Phil
> Wood)? I found that I really like the feeling of a fixie and am
> willing to invest more money after my first experiment. I'm 230
> lbs, and fairly strong, but I can't be generating the power of a
> real track racer, and presumably they are not stripping their
> hubs every tenth ride.

They don't weigh 230 and aren't climbing steep hills out of the
saddle. You are probably putting as much or more strain on the
threads of the hub shell than any track racer. The possible
exception is racers doing the Kilo, since they start sprinting from
a standing start.

I don't know about that. At 230, one is placing more strain on other
components like wheels and seat posts, but in terms of force at the
cog, the racers have us beat by a long shot. Using myself as an
example, I am 220, an avid hobby cyclist and I ride on hilly roads.
Sounds a lot like the OP. When I am on a ride, my most intense
efforts are just as you imply, out of the saddle up short steep
hills. It is just on these efforts that my cadence drops, and thus
pedal force increases. Say if I'm lucky for a short burst I manage
500W at 80 rpm. Lets assume a pedal circle is 1m. At 80 rpm, my
pedals are going 1.33 m/s. To get to my 500W, I need to apply 376 N
or 38 kgf. When Chris Hoy or Theo Bos are stomping out 2000W at 150
rpm they are pushing the pedals at about 80 kgf. Twice as much. I am
assuming pedal force is a good proxy for cog force. Is that
reasonable?

Compare the force you can put on the pedals to someone who is 125-150
pounds. Pro bike racers are fast uphill not because of sheer power but
because of power to weight ratio. Compare that to the estimated numbers
for Floyd Landis's Stage 17 effort, in which he was estimated to be
putting out 350W. Of course, he did that for hours that day.

That's true, but the issue was whether track type components get more
abuse from us big weaklings or small pro powerhouses. Just look at this
pic of me and note the pedal spindle angle and you'll see I have no
argument with the high pedal forces from size-challenged riders:

http://tinyurl.com/ty5kt

And I'm not even pedaling!

Quoted message said:

Sprinters can have high peak power (~1300W for a sprinter like
Cipollini) for a few seconds, but they are generally not applying that
power up a steep hill. When you say those guys are putting out 2000W at
150 rpm, I think you are very much overestimating their RPMs and their
power output.

Ok, maybe 2000W is high, maybe "only" 1800W, but I think 150 is pretty
close. Standing start 1km in 1m:00s, or 200m flying in 9.77s and the
power is pretty high!

Joseph

A Muzi said:

I don't believe there is such a thing as a rolled thread on an aluminum
track hub

Well, I don't know if there is or not, and I haven't claimed either. But if there is it would be a good reason for greater cost since rolled threads tend to be stronger than cut.

David L. Johnson said:

Peter Cole said:

When I replace this wheel, I'm going to use a standard rear wheel by
brazing/welding the freehub body to prevent freewheeling. I'll use a
standard sprocket with cassette spacers & standard lockring. I hate
crappy seals, I hate solid/nutted axles, I hate cracking axles,

Although I am working on increasing the difference, I am only about 15lbs
lighter than you, and have never broken an axle on my fixed gear. Old
freewheel hubs, yeah, lots, but not fixed gear stuff. I no longer use
solid axles, either, but use an old freewheel-hub Q/R axle cut down to fit
my bike (110mm spacing old track bike).

That's probably why you don't break axles (110mm vs. 130mm). I use old
bike frames, typically "sport/tourer" types, I'm not interested in
riding a real track bike, and I try to keep all my frames the same rear
spacing, although that's just a quibble.

Quoted message said:

I hate

Quoted message said:

shelling out $20+ for a sprocket.

Oh, well.

Mostly because it discourages experimenting and/or changing for
different times of the year, distances/courses, etc. Again, a quibble.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with axle spacers, I want something as good as a Shimano hub for Shimano
prices.

Buy one. Shimano makes IMO the best track hubs.

Quoted message said:

I don't want to ride made-for-the-track stuff on the street

Why not?

Mostly because the stuff is not suited to my fixed gear needs. My fixed
gear is a beater -- the bike I ride when the weather is really bad here
in Boston. Consequently, I need cheap, well sealed hubs. My other major
use of my fixer is city riding, where theft is a concern and carrying
around a lot of lock is a nuisance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or
kludge up something from old-style hubs.

And yet you want to kludge up something from a cassette hub....

I'm not sure how much of a kludge it really is. In days of yore, we just
took old freewheel bikes and slapped a track sprocket on them, and
wallah, instant fixer. Gave us something to do with our old junk.
Philosophically, it was very satisfying, getting rid of everything
extraneous leaving a minimalistic bike. In that spirit, I'm just doing
away with everything I don't need (freewheel mech, extra sprockets) and
recycling my old junk -- I even have a failed freehub to use. I really
like Shimano hubs -- especially compared to the cheap track hubs I've
seen. I'm not going to put lots of money into a city/beater bike.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara wrote:

> > 2. The wheel was their least expensive. Should I spring for
> > a wheel with a more expensive hub (they also sell Dura-ace
> > and Phil Wood)? I found that I really like the feeling of a
> > fixie and am willing to invest more money after my first
> > experiment. I'm 230 lbs, and fairly strong, but I can't be
> > generating the power of a real track racer, and presumably
> > they are not stripping their hubs every tenth ride.
>
> They don't weigh 230 and aren't climbing steep hills out of the
> saddle. You are probably putting as much or more strain on the
> threads of the hub shell than any track racer. The possible
> exception is racers doing the Kilo, since they start sprinting
> from a standing start.

I don't know about that. At 230, one is placing more strain on
other components like wheels and seat posts, but in terms of
force at the cog, the racers have us beat by a long shot. Using
myself as an example, I am 220, an avid hobby cyclist and I ride
on hilly roads. Sounds a lot like the OP. When I am on a ride, my
most intense efforts are just as you imply, out of the saddle up
short steep hills. It is just on these efforts that my cadence
drops, and thus pedal force increases. Say if I'm lucky for a
short burst I manage 500W at 80 rpm. Lets assume a pedal circle
is 1m. At 80 rpm, my pedals are going 1.33 m/s. To get to my
500W, I need to apply 376 N or 38 kgf. When Chris Hoy or Theo Bos
are stomping out 2000W at 150 rpm they are pushing the pedals at
about 80 kgf. Twice as much. I am assuming pedal force is a good
proxy for cog force. Is that reasonable?

Compare the force you can put on the pedals to someone who is
125-150 pounds. Pro bike racers are fast uphill not because of
sheer power but because of power to weight ratio. Compare that to
the estimated numbers for Floyd Landis's Stage 17 effort, in which
he was estimated to be putting out 350W. Of course, he did that
for hours that day.

That's true, but the issue was whether track type components get more
abuse from us big weaklings or small pro powerhouses. Just look at
this pic of me and note the pedal spindle angle and you'll see I have
no argument with the high pedal forces from size-challenged riders:

http://tinyurl.com/ty5kt

And I'm not even pedaling!

Thing is if you're a big guy you're not a weakling. You've developed
the leg muscle mass you move your body around, up and down hill and
carrying loads. Except for sprinters, pro riders don't tend to
emphasize peak power output and most road riders don't have the build
for producing >1000W peak power. Track racers tend to emphasize peak
power more especially sprinters and kilo riders.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sprinters can have high peak power (~1300W for a sprinter like
Cipollini) for a few seconds, but they are generally not applying
that power up a steep hill. When you say those guys are putting
out 2000W at 150 rpm, I think you are very much overestimating
their RPMs and their power output.

Ok, maybe 2000W is high, maybe "only" 1800W, but I think 150 is
pretty close. Standing start 1km in 1m:00s, or 200m flying in 9.77s
and the power is pretty high!

Kilo riders have a high initial output from a standing start, 'tis true.
But remember this is on a flat surface which reduces drivetrain stresses
compared to climbing, as the rider is not overcoming Earth's
gravitational field. Sprinters generally are going from a rolling
start, usually downhill, so that reduces the stresses on the drivetrain
even more.

The OP wrote about climbing steep hills on his fixed gear. He should
have been fine with doing that, but it sounds like there are problems
with the combination of hub and cog that contributed to its demise.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:12:26 -0600, Tim McNamara >

Quoted message said:

Kilo riders have a high initial output from a standing start, 'tis true.
But remember this is on a flat surface which reduces drivetrain stresses
compared to climbing, as the rider is not overcoming Earth's
gravitational field. Sprinters generally are going from a rolling
start, usually downhill, so that reduces the stresses on the drivetrain
even more.

Actually, kilo riders don't generate much power in the first 0.1
second, but that's when they make peak torque, which is the thing
which will strip a thread. And it doesn't matter whether you're going
up hill at a steady speed or accelerating on the flat, the load on the
drive train depends on how hard you press on the pedals. As Einstein
says, with no frame of reference, you can't tell whether you're
accelerating or just sitting in a gravitational field.

At a guess*, Theo Bos was averaging about 1600W when he set the flying
200m record, and he was pedaling at about 165rpm, or 17 rad/s

That makes his mean effective torque 94Nm at the crank, and 28Nm at
the sprocket (51/15 gearing) Not sure what the peak:mean ratio is for
a cyclist.

*using the power calculator at http://sportech.online.fr/spen_esy.html
and an estimate of his weight etc.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or
kludge up something from old-style hubs.

And yet you want to kludge up something from a cassette hub....

I'm not sure how much of a kludge it really is. In days of yore, we just
took old freewheel bikes and slapped a track sprocket on them, and
wallah, instant fixer. Gave us something to do with our old junk.
Philosophically, it was very satisfying, getting rid of everything
extraneous leaving a minimalistic bike. In that spirit, I'm just doing
away with everything I don't need (freewheel mech, extra sprockets) and
recycling my old junk (snip)

Yup, old junk, bad chainlines and all, and out into the salt, cinders,
ice and snow. Saving the good stuff for road riding in better weather,
and racing. Riding on snowpack and ice was a challenge in itself; like
riding on dirt, you learn control (and bailing/rolling, etc.) that you
can't do (well...) on clear pavement. Also, of course, "working on my
spin" which was even true <g>.

One fine day, I bought my first Dura-Ace road pitch sprocket, and "all
the above" got noticeably smoother. One of the best bicycle-$20 spent
so far. --Dy

Peter Cole said:

Quoted message said:

Although I am working on increasing the difference, I am only about 15lbs
lighter than you, and have never broken an axle on my fixed gear. Old
freewheel hubs, yeah, lots, but not fixed gear stuff. I no longer use
solid axles, either, but use an old freewheel-hub Q/R axle cut down to fit
my bike (110mm spacing old track bike).

That's probably why you don't break axles (110mm vs. 130mm). I use old
bike frames, typically "sport/tourer" types, I'm not interested in
riding a real track bike, and I try to keep all my frames the same rear
spacing, although that's just a quibble.

Well, if you looked for older road frames, you might improve the
situation. 5-speed freewheel hubs were 120mm, and since most of those
frames were steel, a few mm squeezing won't hurt, and you could at least
get rid of the extra spacers on the right side of the hub, which would go
a long way towards protecting you from broken axles.

Quoted message said:

Mostly because it discourages experimenting and/or changing for
different times of the year, distances/courses, etc. Again, a quibble.

Go to swap meets. I've had people give me sprockets they couldn't sell
(OK, it was a 12-tooth track sprocket which no one really needs for
anything). Typically I can get them for $1-5.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
_`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw
(_)/ (_) |

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kinky Cowboy said:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:12:26 -0600, Tim McNamara >

Quoted message said:

Kilo riders have a high initial output from a standing start, 'tis
true. But remember this is on a flat surface which reduces
drivetrain stresses compared to climbing, as the rider is not
overcoming Earth's gravitational field. Sprinters generally are
going from a rolling start, usually downhill, so that reduces the
stresses on the drivetrain even more.

Actually, kilo riders don't generate much power in the first 0.1
second, but that's when they make peak torque, which is the thing
which will strip a thread. And it doesn't matter whether you're going
up hill at a steady speed or accelerating on the flat, the load on
the drive train depends on how hard you press on the pedals. As
Einstein says, with no frame of reference, you can't tell whether
you're accelerating or just sitting in a gravitational field.

Bicycling doesn't happen without a frame of reference, however, so that
is a red herring. The resistance against the bike makes a difference in
the stresses on the drivetrain.

Comparing the OP to a world caliber kilo rider is a bit silly, even if
interesting as an intellectual exercise, because the kilo rider isn't
going to be riding a cheap wheel from a local bike shop. In most cases
he isn't even going to be riding a threaded cog as splined cogs have
become common at that level of competition. The OP stripped out the
threads of his hub; we'll never know if those threads would hold up
under an elite kilo specialist.

Quoted message said:

At a guess*, Theo Bos was averaging about 1600W when he set the
flying 200m record, and he was pedaling at about 165rpm, or 17 rad/s

Quite a bit less than 2000W or 1800W, then.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kinky Cowboy said:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:12:26 -0600, Tim McNamara >

Quoted message said:

Kilo riders have a high initial output from a standing start, 'tis
true. But remember this is on a flat surface which reduces
drivetrain stresses compared to climbing, as the rider is not
overcoming Earth's gravitational field. Sprinters generally are
going from a rolling start, usually downhill, so that reduces the
stresses on the drivetrain even more.

Actually, kilo riders don't generate much power in the first 0.1
second, but that's when they make peak torque, which is the thing
which will strip a thread. And it doesn't matter whether you're going
up hill at a steady speed or accelerating on the flat, the load on
the drive train depends on how hard you press on the pedals. As
Einstein says, with no frame of reference, you can't tell whether
you're accelerating or just sitting in a gravitational field.

Bicycling doesn't happen without a frame of reference, however, so that
is a red herring. The resistance against the bike makes a difference in
the stresses on the drivetrain.

Whatever is stopping the bike from going forward, the only thing
overcoming it is how hard you press on the pedals. It makes not a jot
of difference where the resistance originates. You have no clue about
physics if you think there is such a thing as a universal frame of
reference, and Einstein remains more convincing than you on this
matter.

Quoted message said:

Comparing the OP to a world caliber kilo rider is a bit silly, even if
interesting as an intellectual exercise, because the kilo rider isn't
going to be riding a cheap wheel from a local bike shop. In most cases
he isn't even going to be riding a threaded cog as splined cogs have
become common at that level of competition.

I'd love to see a citation for this claim; the only splined fixed
sprockets I've seen are the Miche ones, and they mount on a carrier
threaded onto the same hub thread as a conventional sprocket. All of
the wheels I've ever seen on Pro bikes are of the threaded type, and
the British Cycling site even shows Chris Hoy changing his sprocket
with a chain whip the way we've been doing it for the past century or
more

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/features/2003/track/00_track_bikes.shtml

Track racers are a deeply conservative bunch, and nobody is going to
switch to a novel and proprietory system of sprocket attachment when a
well made thread is plenty strong enough, universally interchangeable
and has a 100year+ record of reliability, even under the kinds of load
that a sub 17 second first lap impose.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kinky Cowboy said:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:12:26 -0600, Tim McNamara >

Quoted message said:

Kilo riders have a high initial output from a standing start, 'tis
true. But remember this is on a flat surface which reduces
drivetrain stresses compared to climbing, as the rider is not
overcoming Earth's gravitational field. Sprinters generally are
going from a rolling start, usually downhill, so that reduces the
stresses on the drivetrain even more.

Actually, kilo riders don't generate much power in the first 0.1
second, but that's when they make peak torque, which is the thing
which will strip a thread. And it doesn't matter whether you're going
up hill at a steady speed or accelerating on the flat, the load on
the drive train depends on how hard you press on the pedals. As
Einstein says, with no frame of reference, you can't tell whether
you're accelerating or just sitting in a gravitational field.

Bicycling doesn't happen without a frame of reference, however, so that
is a red herring. The resistance against the bike makes a difference in
the stresses on the drivetrain.

Comparing the OP to a world caliber kilo rider is a bit silly, even if
interesting as an intellectual exercise, because the kilo rider isn't
going to be riding a cheap wheel from a local bike shop. In most cases
he isn't even going to be riding a threaded cog as splined cogs have
become common at that level of competition. The OP stripped out the
threads of his hub; we'll never know if those threads would hold up
under an elite kilo specialist.

The comparison came about as a result of the OP wondering if
top-quality gear would survive his weight, or whether top level track
riders ruined their hubs just as easily as he had ruined his hub with
his cheap cog. It wasn't meant to imply that cheap gear would stand up
to Chris Hoy!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At a guess*, Theo Bos was averaging about 1600W when he set the
flying 200m record, and he was pedaling at about 165rpm, or 17 rad/s

Quite a bit less than 2000W or 1800W, then.

Yes, 1600W is quite a bit less than 2000W, but I think my point still
stands: heavy recreational cyclists do not put more strain on their
drivetrain than top level riders just by virtue of their weight.

Now it is time for me to go out and try to strip my hub threads!

Joseph

Group:

I am the original poster, and am writing to let you know what happened.
In the end, not having a clear consensus, I went for the "go for the
best" approach. I took the replacement wheel back to the Urbane
Cyclist, and they gave me credit for the full cost towards a new wheel
with a Phil Wood fixed-fixed hub, 18 tooth PW cog on one side, 16 tooth
Dura-Ace on the other. Now of course, winter has finally arrived
around here and the country roads that I frequent have icy patches
which are enough to deter me from riding a fixie. It looks like I'll
be waiting for a while to take it outside.

Thanks again for all the advice.

Paul

Paul

It's really nice to see the OP come back after the thread has finished. It
makes it all worth while.

SW, who didn't post on this thread!!!!

Paul said:

Group:

I am the original poster, and am writing to let you know what happened.
In the end, not having a clear consensus, I went for the "go for the
best" approach. I took the replacement wheel back to the Urbane
Cyclist, and they gave me credit for the full cost towards a new wheel
with a Phil Wood fixed-fixed hub, 18 tooth PW cog on one side, 16 tooth
Dura-Ace on the other. Now of course, winter has finally arrived
around here and the country roads that I frequent have icy patches
which are enough to deter me from riding a fixie. It looks like I'll
be waiting for a while to take it outside.

Thanks again for all the advice.

More: Per some of the posts here, put a serviceable "beater" (or
better) FG bike together, dress warm (and padded), go ride.

Refuse to interface with motor vehicle traffic at the slippery places.
Ice is mostly rideable IME, esp. with fat tires on. --D-y