Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
First post, Hello :)

Ok-

I've left my HT in 32:18 for the last few weeks and am now convinced SS is for me. :D If possible though I'd like to properly convert the bike without the use of a tensioner.

I apologise if this has been asked a million times already, but can someone please help with the gear ratio maths? I've tried the ssConvert calculator but am still none the wiser :confused:

My chainstays are 16.75" (Kona Fire Mountain 2004) and I'd like to run as close to 2:1 as possible (I'm getting stronger).

It appears 32:16 requires a chainstay length of either 16.451" or 16.952" - too far out, yes?

A 32:17 combo comes in at 16.883" - is this close enough?

How far out is too far? Is it better to be too tight or a bit slack? Anything else?

Can any experienced SSers - or anyone who has converted a recent Kona - help? I would really rather not use a tensioner. You'll be doing a guy who is ITCHING to ditch the derailleurs a huge service :) .

Thanks, Matt

PS - If this goes well I'll save for a proper steel SS frame, but for the time being it's out of the question.
 

·
drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
An ENO eccentric hub is the first and obvious choice. Filing your frame (see pic below), filing your axle, or a ghost ring are other ways of getting around using a tensioner. You can also get a little more play with a half-link.

Terminaut's mod to a Merlin:



Have you checked out the FAQ yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,931 Posts
Fungolo said:
First post, Hello :)

Ok-

I've left my HT in 32:18 for the last few weeks and am now convinced SS is for me. :D If possible though I'd like to properly convert the bike without the use of a tensioner.

I apologise if this has been asked a million times already, but can someone please help with the gear ratio maths? I've tried the ssConvert calculator but am still none the wiser :confused:

My chainstays are 16.75" (Kona Fire Mountain 2004) and I'd like to run as close to 2:1 as possible (I'm getting stronger).

It appears 32:16 requires a chainstay length of either 16.451" or 16.952" - too far out, yes?

A 32:17 combo comes in at 16.883" - is this close enough?

How far out is too far? Is it better to be too tight or a bit slack? Anything else?

Can any experienced SSers - or anyone who has converted a recent Kona - help? I would really rather not use a tensioner. You'll be doing a guy who is ITCHING to ditch the derailleurs a huge service :) .

Thanks, Matt

PS - If this goes well I'll save for a proper steel SS frame, but for the time being it's out of the question.
My calculator show 32:17 as 16.833. (can you check?) Your chain will dip 1.1"

You could use 33:17 with a chain stretched to 46.1". Chains do stretch.

(f-server, another try at posting this)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
A tensioner just keeps the chain wrapped around the cog. It feels and functions much differently than a derailleur. You might as well use one in case your chain stretches after a few hundred miles. Don't fear the tensioner. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for your responses

I think I'll go with the tensioner after all though lol :)

Using one I can run the right gear combination - and even have the scope to alter it - I guess this is more important than the aesthetics. I'll worry about the looks if and when I come to buy a dedicated steel frame ;)

Mind if I ask another question? I'm considering going the whole hog (and I like the idea of light bike, esp as I only weigh 150lbs) and putting on a rigid fork. The choice is a bit limited here in England though, so I'm basically looking at the Kona P2- it's the only one in my price range. I imagine being the same make as my bike it's a good match, but is it a decent fork? I won't be doing anything extreme on it, but would like to know it can handle the occasional 2' drop.

And one more, sorry: Does riding rigid limit what you can take on? I realise in comparison to a longer travel fork the answer is obviously 'yes', but I'm just tying to get an idea as to whether it's a worthwhile switch. As I said, I don't go big but I'd like to be able to ride reasonably hard XC as before..... I'm hoping the harshness will help me to improve as a rider, as I learn to take better lines etc.

Ok, thanks for your help, I look forward to reading any responses to these questions. I did read the FAQ btw, it was most helpful.

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Hasn't limited me

Since converting to my rigid SS I ride exactly the same trails I did on my FS. Maybe slower, maybe (slightly) less comfortably :rolleyes:. But I haven't had to find new places to ride just because of my bike choice. And I definitely have more fun now. So I got that going for me.
 

·
Steamroller
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
I'd keep trying to figure out..............-

Fungolo said:
I think I'll go with the tensioner after all though lol :) :)
...........how to do it without the tensioner. However, if your mind is made up and you will give up and get a tensioner, at least get a good one. http://www.rennendesigngroup.com/
Try these guys the one they make is real nice and worth the extra $.

The rigid vs suspended fork question is like asking what saddle feels best; you will get a wide range of strong opinions. Personally I have both, and in many ways I prefer the rigid for it's stiff, point and go steering. Riding rigid forces you to pick the best line and ride as smooth as you can. That said, I hardly ever ride rigid because I've seperated my shoulder one too many times and it just plain hurts me to do a ride of any length without a nice suspension fork.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
kona forks are fine

Fungolo said:
I think I'll go with the tensioner after all though lol :)

Using one I can run the right gear combination - and even have the scope to alter it - I guess this is more important than the aesthetics. I'll worry about the looks if and when I come to buy a dedicated steel frame ;)

Mind if I ask another question? I'm considering going the whole hog (and I like the idea of light bike, esp as I only weigh 150lbs) and putting on a rigid fork. The choice is a bit limited here in England though, so I'm basically looking at the Kona P2- it's the only one in my price range. I imagine being the same make as my bike it's a good match, but is it a decent fork? I won't be doing anything extreme on it, but would like to know it can handle the occasional 2' drop.

And one more, sorry: Does riding rigid limit what you can take on? I realise in comparison to a longer travel fork the answer is obviously 'yes', but I'm just tying to get an idea as to whether it's a worthwhile switch. As I said, I don't go big but I'd like to be able to ride reasonably hard XC as before..... I'm hoping the harshness will help me to improve as a rider, as I learn to take better lines etc.

Ok, thanks for your help, I look forward to reading any responses to these questions. I did read the FAQ btw, it was most helpful.

:)
I have a 2003 unit, that I bought as a frame only. I was able to find a kona jump fork, a take off of a kona scab freeride bike for $25 at a bike swap. It's pretty light 2.4 pounds about and can take some good drops with no problem and fit big tires, a 2.5 nokian nbx fits fine, not sure if a 3.0 gazzi would fit though. I also run a disc up front and took off the canti mounts and repainted the area, can't even tell what it is missing. The cross country fork is lighter, just under 2 pounds, but I think it should be able to take some abuse also, I also think it's axle to crown height maybe a little bit shorter, so huge tires might not fit quite as well, and your front end handling might be a little bit quicker. The surly and dimension forks weigh about the same as the kona jump fork and are cheap also, but I like the straight leg look of the kona forks better
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top