Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I'm wanting to have a new steel bike/fork built by a local builder. Kind of a sport touring bike.
It will be able to use 28 tires with fenders, 32 without and maybe up to a 35. It will have the capability to use a rear rack which won't carry much over 5 lbs. The normal clothing, water, food and garbage to take on a long, self supported century in changing weather.

My hopes are that I can use it for my everyday fast 30 - 50 mile rides, my slower 80 - 100 mile rides, have the ability (with the 32 or 35 tires) to cross some well maintained dirt roads, bomb around downtown.

I'm also having a new set of wheels built for it.

I weigh 185 - 190 lbs.

THE QUESTION
Should I have the bike and rear wheel built for 130 or 135 spacing? And why?
Can I use a standard SRAM Rival or APEX group? I understand I'll be using different brake calipers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
Split the diff...
132.5
That way you can run a MTB hub, or a road hub. Also, it's only 5mm (2.5 per side). My cross bike is 135mm and I've only run 130mm hubs in it since new. Never an issue...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I have thought of that also.
But, can you just change out rear wheels?
For example; One wheel is 130 using a 28 tire and fender for a wet road ride and the other is a 135 using 35 tire for good dirt road.
Would the rear cassette need to stay the same?
What issues would you encounter? Chain line? Shifting?
 

·
Militant commuter
Joined
·
881 Posts
backinthesaddle said:
Split the diff...
132.5
That way you can run a MTB hub, or a road hub. Also, it's only 5mm (2.5 per side). My cross bike is 135mm and I've only run 130mm hubs in it since new. Never an issue...
Bam...beat me to it!

To the OP: yes, you can swap out 130mm OLD or 135mm OLD wheels with a setup like this...it's a steel frame, after all, and it should have plenty of flexibility to cover that 2.5mm-per-side deflection to allow this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,429 Posts
Yes; if the rear end was 132.5mm, you could swap between 130 and 135 with no changes in derailleur adjustment, since it's the distance from the right locknut to the cogs which does not vary. There would be no chainline or shifting issues.

I have a touring bike with a 135mm rear end. I did this to build a rear wheel with less dish, thus making a stronger rear wheel. If you go this route, you will have a lot of rims to choose from yet you'll have a wheel that's stronger than one built on a 130mm hub because there will be less offset to the rim.

If you build with a 130mm rear hub but are concerned with strength, your only choice would be the Velocity O/C rim which has spoke holes offset to one side. I have one on my road bike and this design works about as well as the concept above, yet if you want to swap wheels with another cyclist for some reason, you'll have no problems doing so.

A Rival or Apex group will work fine with either hub, as long as the hub accommodates Shimano style splined cassettes, which SRAM adheres to. A good builder will be able to build your frame to work with the SHORT reach brakes and the tire sizes you listed. Others prefer to build the bike around LONG/NORMAL reach brakes, which would require mixing brands of equipment. Shimano makes a good quality, normal reach side pull brake.

I have normal reach Shimano sidepulls on my touring bike and they work fine, except the dual pivot mechanism closes such that it skews the fender to one side as I apply the brake. The fender rebounds when I release the brake and there's never any tire rub, but I think if I had to do it all over again, I'd design the frame around V-brakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Peter P. said:
I have a touring bike with a 135mm rear end. I did this to build a rear wheel with less dish, thus making a stronger rear wheel. If you go this route, you will have a lot of rims to choose from yet you'll have a wheel that's stronger than one built on a 130mm hub because there will be less offset to the rim.
This is what's complicating it for me.
There are tens of thousands of 130 wheels in service and most are doing just fine. Another option to your Velocity O/C is the White Industries Hi/Lo flange. It's suppose to accomplish the same, in fact Velocity is moving away from this and going instead with a Hi/Lo hub.

On the other hand. I think eventually most road bikes will be 135 because of the less dish to the wheel.
And since I plan on using a wider rim (23 mm) and using the 28 - 35 tires, I'll be more inclined to hit the occasional dirt road or bunny hop more curbs.

I plan on mixing components and going with the 57 mm side pulls.

SO... as you can tell, I'm leaning way towards having my rear wheel built using a 135 hub. I would not be able to use it in my existing bike, but then I can always have a Ultegra/Velocity rear wheel built if needed.

SO... I'm waffling between the 132.5 and the 135. Will I ever have the need for the 130 end of it?

To me, there seems to be more advantages to a 135 over a 130... other than the ability to swap out wheels.

Keep the thoughts rolling. I need this good thoughtful input from you guys.

Bottom line.
If you could have a new road bike and rear wheel built, would it be 130 or 135?
 

·
eminence grease
Joined
·
18,538 Posts
Trouble said:
I'm wanting to have a new steel bike/fork built by a local builder. Kind of a sport touring bike.
It will be able to use 28 tires with fenders, 32 without and maybe up to a 35. It will have the capability to use a rear rack which won't carry much over 5 lbs. The normal clothing, water, food and garbage to take on a long, self supported century in changing weather.

My hopes are that I can use it for my everyday fast 30 - 50 mile rides, my slower 80 - 100 mile rides, have the ability (with the 32 or 35 tires) to cross some well maintained dirt roads, bomb around downtown.

I'm also having a new set of wheels built for it.

I weigh 185 - 190 lbs.

THE QUESTION
Should I have the bike and rear wheel built for 130 or 135 spacing? And why?
Can I use a standard SRAM Rival or APEX group? I understand I'll be using different brake calipers.
Why would you go with anything other than standard road spacing? What would be the advantage of being able to run a MTB wheel?

With the tire clearances you're describing I can't imagine ever needing a tire beyond your present options. And the idea of alternately spreading or compressing the drop outs is something I would never do simply because I don't like compromises, even those that may not cause some problem.

I live in China and my riding varies from fast highways to climbing dirt passes to riding down narrow rutted mud rows in cornfields long stretches on gravel mixed with pottery shards to rides that mix all those things. Before I came here I had two bikes built virtually the same as what you are describing, One was based on the stock Moots cross bike platform, the other a custom steel by Carl Strong. Rack and fender mounts, big tire clearance, pump pegs, etc. In all the crappiness I have ridden in I've never felt I needed a tire bigger than a 35. In fact I've never even put knobbies on the bike here. I have used the Moots back home with knobbies in muddy conditions.

My recommendation is to leave it as a road bike at its core, and go with 130. That with plenty of tire options will take you everywhere a bike with road geometry can go.

BTW - why do you think that eventually all road wheels will go to 135? There is an entire industry with years of experience based on that standard. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
 

·
Larry Lackapants
Joined
·
696 Posts
Trouble said:
Bottom line.
If you could have a new road bike and rear wheel built, would it be 130 or 135?
Regarding Wheel choice:

It seems the particular rim choice is most important regarding wheel stiffness, rather than rear hub spacing. Spoke count will be way more important.

have used 135 and 130 hubs on my bike because 135 were more available, but the 130 i last got is lighter / better quality.
I also got the 130 because It didn't feel "right" to me to spread the stays to fit the 135. (although nothing bad happened the 2 years I did that)

I used the same rim model in each case, but 32 hole drilling for the 130mm axle wheel and 36 drilling for the 135 axle wheel. no large stiffness difference occured to me. If there was any it probably was there because of the different spoke count of the wheels..

Since it's a road bike (130 mm spacing) w 50/34 compact cranks, the 135 hub was somewhat more restrictive for usage of the small ring - i couldn't use the 34 ring with the smallest 3 cogs in the rear.
In case of the 53/39 cranks used some time ago, i've never had any issues because I didn;t need to ride cross chained.

The 130 hub gets the "right" chainline so one more small cog is available with the 34 ring. OTOH in this case, the large ring and second largest sprocket combination seems more noisy and more cross chained than before.

As to which wheel I'd chose? 36 hole, at least 25 mm tall profile. hub spacing depending on available hub (135 mm M770 for me :) ) for very bad terrain / CX..
Standard road wheels for your specific application.
Depending on gear combination you are using, it might be important to have the correct rear frame spacing (if you ride crosschained), or it might not matter (any non-crosschained use).

In any case - post pics of the frame / build (steel = yummy) !
good luck
brblue
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I don't necessarily want to run a mtb wheel.
Doesn't the 135 spacing allows for less dish when building the wheel which makes for a much stronger wheel?

There is no penalty to a road bike going to a 135. Manufactures will be resistant if not slow because of the cost. I wonder how many cross bikes come with 130 only because of the availability of being able to switch out wheels. How many cross bike builders would actually prefer to use 135 as a standard... just askin.
It is wishful thinking.

Keep in mind, I'm going to have the bike and hub match. There will be no stretching of anything. I'm either going 130 or 135 with both.

As to rim choice. I am considering the Velocity A23. It is 19.5 tall and 23 mm wide. The inside is 18 mm which is about right for the tires I want to run.
I'm thinking 32 front and 36 rear using W.I. hubs.

terry b: Were both of your bikes 130?
 

·
old school drop out
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
In my experience, a 130mm road wheel is plenty strong. I've beaten up 130mm 700cc wheels for years on my cyclocross bike without issue. So while a 135mm rear wheel is in theory stronger, does it really matter? A 130mm wheel is strong enough for me (at 170+ pounds).

To me the decision would some down to what hub you wanted to run. If you wanted to run a mountain bike hub, go with 135mm spacing. But if you plan on using road hubs go 130mm. Keep in mind that if you do go 135mm, and trash a wheel half-way through a ride, you may have some trouble finding an "in stock" wheel at a random shop. (A 29er mountain bike wheel will work fine, but may have a wider rim than you care for.)

As to your original question... I'd buy 130mm wheel, because unless there's a specific need for a 135mm hub, why buy a non-standard size? And if "may" have a need for a 135mm in the future, then as others have said, go with a 132.5mm spacing and get the best of both worlds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I hear what you're saying.
Wheel builders have told me they prefer using the W.I. M15 because it builds a stronger wheel, less dish. Although the W.I. M3 with it's hi/low flange sorts some of that out too.
So I would consider using the M15 hub with the A23 mm rim.

What would you consider a "specific need" to justify a 135 hub? Heavier rider, rougher roads, loaded touring?
Is 135 considered a "non-standard" size?

At 200 lbs max (total), are most of you saying that a 130 hub/wheel will be more than sufficient?
 

·
eminence grease
Joined
·
18,538 Posts
Trouble said:
terry b: Were both of your bikes 130?
Absolutely. Built the wheels with 32H Mavic rims and Record hubs on the steel bike and I'm using a set of Mavic Ksyrium SL on the cross bike.

You're not that big a guy when it comes to wheels. 130 wheels will do just fine for you. It wasn't long ago that I was in the same weight range and running 24H front and 28H rear.

In the case of these two bike, everytime I go out on them (riding here) I'm amazed at how strong a bicycle is. Cross bikes are the prime example. And to your point about 135 vs. 130 in their case - there is no reason change, no one is losing cross races because they're running 130 wheels.

My opinion - the easiest path to a bike that you can alternate between cross conditions and fast rides is a 130 standard road wheel. Beef it up to 36H if you're worried, there is no penalty for that.
 

·
eminence grease
Joined
·
18,538 Posts
Trouble said:
At 200 lbs max (total), are most of you saying that a 130 hub/wheel will be more than sufficient?
I certainly am. Punch it up to 36H if you want a bit more security. I don't believe for a minute that you're going to have a problem under any conditions that a road/cross bike is designed for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Alright then. The forum has spoken.
I will say this. The A. Homer Hilsen at Rivendell is a mighty fine looking bike and has function. It has 135 rear spacing... I'm just sayin.
Thanks
 

·
eminence grease
Joined
·
18,538 Posts
Trouble said:
Alright then. The forum has spoken.
I will say this. The A. Homer Hilsen at Rivendell is a mighty fine looking bike and has function. It has 135 rear spacing... I'm just sayin.
Thanks
You have to consider the source. It's Rivendell after all.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top