Conversions... what's the problem?

I ride a Koga Miyata conversion currently, picked up the frame far cheaper than I could have got a track frame.

My thinking was build best bike I could on my budget at the time did everything myself and did it properly utfs etc.

My intension is to refurb the frame with new paint and decals and turn over to geared next year (money is tight as I am paying for my wedding in October) swap the parts on it currently to a different frame. (the advantage being I will end up with two bikes and my other half won't know how I managed it)

At the end of the day you own the bike do what you want with it (apart from covering it in stickers, putting a spok on it or hacking anything off it!)

conversations are good

Conversations about conversions are the fucking pinnacle, Murtz.

right on, balks. right on!

a little less conversion, a little more action

As Dan says, a major problem is that the bottom bracket is too low, add to this the short cranks and you have a recipe for serious ligament, muscle and knee joint problems as you inevitably spedn a lot time grinding - pedalling far too slowly.

This is claptrap.

With the right gearing these dangers don't exist, why do you think track riders use 165mm cranks? and even with massive gears and standing starts, do we all end up with this serious damage you speak of?

What really gets me is that many people want to convert an old bike because it will be cheaper.
I have to admit that as I do work in a bike shop, I'm mostly having the conversion conversation with people whose mechanical knowledge is limited to punctures. So they tend to be very surprised that it will cos. Them nearl. As much as an otp track bike to convert their bike properly.
Sorry for the rant, but I find myself doing a certain amount of handholding with people that think conversions are a cheap and easy way to get rolling.

It did used to be a cheap, when there weren't a load of budget OTP purpose built bikes out there. Like back in my day, or even your's Nhatt;) but only if you were 'building' it yourself. I say 'buildin' because removing gears and whacking a different size bb spindle and a track wheel in the bike isn't exactly building.

the main PRACTICAL disadvantage is that the bottom bracket will be lower. The solution is to use short cranks, but you'll get less leverage and so it will be harder work.

More misinformation, leverage and the perception of 'harder work' relate to your chosen gearing.

There is also the fact that the geometry will be slacker, which will affect the handling— but this is a matter of personal preference.

True, a road frame is designed for the road, which is better for the road than a track bike, which is designed for the track.

As Dan says, a major problem is that the bottom bracket is too low, add to this the short cranks and you have a recipe for serious ligament, muscle and knee joint problems as you inevitably spedn a lot time grinding - pedalling far too slowly. 90 -110 per minute and NO slow turning starts. I will be dead by the time all the fixed/singlespeed trendies are costing everyone a fortune in NHS payments but my kids will have to pay. So just don't do it.

I don't think that could be more wrong however hard you tried!

If you use shorter cranks you should use a smaller gear and spin at a higher rate (which is easier because of less leg movement) No damage to the body (in fact it could be less damage due to less movement required!)
And 90-110 rpm is not considered slow, in fact it is probably in the higher range for most people.
And don't worry about the NHS, those costs are will be taken up with the growing obesity problems.

I will be dead by the time all the fixed/singlespeed trendies are costing everyone a fortune in NHS payments but my kids will have to pay. So just don't do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX07j9SDFcc

Cheers guys, appreciate all the comments and info. I'll probably go ahead, but will make sure I can always restore it.

On a positive Conversion note. This Fixie thingy has ment that lots of unloved and forgotten old Raleighs' have had the bits of carpet removed carried outa the shed, put on Ebay for a bit and now had new life breathed into them. Instead of gently mouldering away they are now shinney,reborn, recycles. Objects of desire,pirde of place in the studio flat.

Arn't these bikes that were braized togther by Arthurs and Lenonards in Nottingham and Worksop in 1978 so much better,so very more ethical than something that's been welded togther by a 14 year old with 9 fingers working a 12 hour shifts in Generic Bicycle Factory No.4, Shin Chan.So YAH for conversions! Lets hope we see much ol' British Steel being peddled on the streets.

I like conversions if they're stylish simple well realised bikes and parts for rapid fast undetectable street transport and goodtimes for the people.

haha

My boss doesn't like it when people leave the shop happy without buying something shiny

Why don't you convert him?

Cheers guys, appreciate all the comments and info. I'll probably go ahead, but will make sure I can always restore it.

Experimentally, you could always have some fun and cause an outcry by posting a picture of the bike. You'll have a few people frothing into their pillows. ;)

conversions are best. especially 80's/ 90's ones. good geometry, nice to ride all day, if you're lucky you even get mudguard mounts. just fuck off the threaded headset and all's dandy.

I'm currently in the process of converting a black peugeot. Buying that and adding parts which i can potentially later transfer to a nicer frame was a cheaper option, and it means i dont mind too much if it gets knocked about a bit (it's my first fixed)

Experimentally, you could always have some fun and cause an outcry by posting a picture of the bike. You'll have a few people frothing into their pillows. ;)

Agreed! Before and After pics for fun.

More misinformation, leverage and the perception of 'harder work' relate to your chosen gearing.

True, a road frame is designed for the road, which is better for the road than a track bike, which is designed for the track.

How is that misinformation? If the gear ratios are identical then you will have less leverage.

And saying a road bike is for road and track for track does nothing to help or explain- why not shed a little light with all you experience?

How is that misinformation? If the gear ratios are identical then you will have less leverage.

But you said it was a disadvantage, explain how so. (assuming we are talking about 165mm cranks compared to 170 or 175mm cranks)

And saying a road bike is for road and track for track does nothing to help or explain- why not shed a little light with all you experience?

But I don't have to justify the reasons for bike manufacturers using particular geometry for different types of bicycle.

If people really need all that spelling out to them there is sheldon brown etc...

This bike is a Gazelle Champion Mondial in very good shape which I believe might well be described on this forum as 'porn'.

Now, wherever I look, there are people slagging off others for converting bikes such as this as if they just threw a cat in a bin.

I don't think any here will give you a hard time for converting a road bike (my own "best" fixed gear is a beautiful fillet-brazed Webster time trial frame I bought on the forum - intended for gears and will probably have them again).

What grates is the process which goes like this:

1) Buy lovely old steel road frame, throw away any nice period bits that came with it as they're not "fixie" enough.
2) Remove all the the braze-ons thus making it near-impossible to use with gears ever again.
3) Armourtex in your choice of nasty colour, destroying nice period paint/decals and patina.
4) Respace rear end apparently using hammers and/or a Land Rover.
5) Add this month's cool-because-they-were-in-a-style-magazine-photoshoot-innit anodised bits
and optionally:
6) Get "cousin's mate who's well good at welding cos he's an apprentice plumber innit" to braze track-ends on, slightly wonky.

Point being that you've then taken a piece of industrial-magic-of-its-time (or in extreme cases wonderful individual craftsmanship) and turned into something rather less fit for purpose than a used Charge Plug/Fuji Track/Langster frame which can be picked up second hand for not much more than the Armourtex job would cost. We've all seen them, and they make (most of) us a bit sad.

If it's just running a road frame as a fixed without buggering it up, I doubt anyone here will turn a hair.

But you said it was a disadvantage, explain how so. (assuming we are talking about 165mm cranks compared to 170 or 175mm cranks)

Well, as I said - you get less leverage running a shorter crank length..many gear ratio calculators incorporate the crank length into the equation when working out gear inches.

To quote sheldon brown "Yes, if you go to longer cranks without changing any of the other variables, you will have more "leverage", which is another way of saying you'll have a lower effective gear..."

But you know all this surely? So I guess we must be misunderstanding each other

As for the geometry, yeah sure there's always google and the internet and obviously I know the difference.. Just thought you might like to explain rather than make pithy comments..

It could be worse - I'm finding myself effectively trying to turn a track bike into a single-speed road bike.

OP - do what you want, so long as you enjoy riding the thing.

..many gear ratio calculators incorporate the crank length into the equation when working out gear inches.

crank length has no bearing on gear inches. It does have a bearing on gain ratios though and that is what should be used when changing/comparing crank lengths.