Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, here's what I'm thinking, to shave some weight off my bike...

- Get last 5 (bigger) sprockets of the cassette removed.
- Already removed granny ring, but also get middle chain ring removed now.
- Remove left-hand-side shifter component (since I would only have the big ring.) Also remove the cable to that deraileur bacause I would only have one ring and don't need to move the deraileur.
- Remove left-hand-side (front break) break and lever, remove the BACK brake and the back brake cable.
Switch the cable so that the right lever controls the FRONT break.

I'm thinking I should do this because I never use the middle chainring or the last 5 cogs in the cassette, I also only use the front break, so there's no need for a back break.

All I need to know is if you guys think this is a good idea or just stupid, or what. Let me know. Thanks.
 

·
Milk was a bad choice.
Joined
·
1,338 Posts
Why on earth would you do that? Are you doing a competitive hill climb? If not, I doubt you will notice removing probably less than 2 pounds. Just take a dump before riding and you'll be good to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
I'd probably do something like that on my commuter but not my road bike. But you might as well leave the cassette alone. A lot of people run 1x9 or 1x7.
If you're just looking for something to play around with on your bike then go for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
+1 on this. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? Lightness for lightness's sake or what? You must know that 'lightweight" won't make you go faster, and only give you marginal, almost only a theoretical advantage on hills, and from the sounds of it, you don't have any (hills) if you don't use the lower gears at all.
Get a single speed and eat prunes for breakfast.
erj549 said:
Why on earth would you do that? Are you doing a competitive hill climb? If not, I doubt you will notice removing probably less than 2 pounds. Just take a dump before riding and you'll be good to go.
erj549 said:
Why on earth would you do that? Are you doing a competitive hill climb? If not, I doubt you will notice removing probably less than 2 pounds. Just take a dump before riding and you'll be good to go.
Edit: The thing is, the changes you want to make will save minimal weight for the amount of work you will have to do to achieve them. Not worth it IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
I assume you live in a very flat area and so only need a few closely spaced gears to get around. If that's the case, what your doing makes sense. If you don't need an 11 or 12t rear sprocket, consider putting spacers on both sides of your stack so as to improve chain line.

You might also consider going to the largest chainring you can find and using a narrow stack of larger rear sprockets, this will allow the smallest percentage steps between adjacent gears.

The one thing I wouldn't do is remove the second brake. Things happen, so redundancy in braking is a critical safety factor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
If it works for you, then do it. It is nice to have a minimalist bike where form follows function. No more or less than what is needed.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,420 Posts
Why not "shave" some weight off your body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,263 Posts
Don't take this as an insult, but what you could possibly consider "clever" and "inventive" measures to drop weight are incredibly stupid. You're de-engineering your bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
pardon my ignorance, but I don't get the tone of some of these posts.

The OP is looking to remove what he considers unnecessary ballast from his bike. I don't think he's claiming that his re-engineered bike is in any way better than the original, just more suited to his needs.

Compare,

If he wanted to go to a 1x9 system, there'd be no objection
If he wanted to go single speed, again no objection
If he wanted to replace components with more expensive ones to shave a few grams, well that would put him in the mainstream, wouldn't it?

But because he wishes to save weight by scrapping some but not all of his cassette sprockets, suddenly there's something wrong? The only thing I see wrong is that unfortunately he's riding cassette hubs, and can't get the added benefit of respacing his hub to reduce or eliminate wheel dish.

I think a 1x5 or arrangement makes perfect sense if that's what best suits his needs, and am surprised that he's not getting more support on this forum. As I said in my earlier post, the only mistake he's making is scrapping his second brake which IMO is a necessary bit of redundancy.

BTW- narrow range 1x3,1x4,1x5 and 1x6 derailleur bikes have been a staple in Europe for decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thanks, FBinNY.

Thee other reason I'm considering removing the break is because the shifter on the left side could also be removed because there is no other chain ring. Why have a useless shifter with no cable and a brake? If I'm going to have a useless shifter then I'll take it off, along with the break, so that my breaking and shifting is done solely with my right hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
I don't think it sounds all unreasonable to remove components you never use. Plenty of people run drop bars but stay on the hoods and never use the drops they probably would be better served with a bullhorn or similar bar. If you aren't opposed to spending money or perhaps in the future you could buy a track crank set to have just the single chainring. Personally I wouldn't get rid of the the rear brake for safety reasons you could just buy a separate brake lever without a shifter, especially if you are riding dropbars with hoods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
The OP asked for our opinion and he got it. He specifically acknowledged that it was OK to say it was a "stupid idea" yet I have only seen one real response that actually used that word, though in a nice way.What he's doing he could have just done without asking. It's not like someone hasn't done stuff like this before. Several questions more or less asking his intentions, mine included.
FBinNY said:
pardon my ignorance, but I don't get the tone of some of these posts.

The OP is looking to remove what he considers unnecessary ballast from his bike. I don't think he's claiming that his re-engineered bike is in any way better than the original, just more suited to his needs.

Compare,

If he wanted to go to a 1x9 system, there'd be no objection
If he wanted to go single speed, again no objection
If he wanted to replace components with more expensive ones to shave a few grams, well that would put him in the mainstream, wouldn't it?

But because he wishes to save weight by scrapping some but not all of his cassette sprockets, suddenly there's something wrong? The only thing I see wrong is that unfortunately he's riding cassette hubs, and can't get the added benefit of respacing his hub to reduce or eliminate wheel dish.

I think a 1x5 or arrangement makes perfect sense if that's what best suits his needs, and am surprised that he's not getting more support on this forum. As I said in my earlier post, the only mistake he's making is scrapping his second brake which IMO is a necessary bit of redundancy.

BTW- narrow range 1x3,1x4,1x5 and 1x6 derailleur bikes have been a staple in Europe for decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
I am not sure I would want to try an emergency stop with only a front brake. The rear brake is less powerful so braking distances will increase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
I'd want to keep both front and rear brakes. I like redundancy. It's also a requirement on a massed start bike if you ride competitively. But gutting a left-hand shifter is pretty common practice among CX racers - you get the same lever feel, but save some weight. Supposedly, putting the shifting components back in is not very difficult, but I've never tried it.

I wouldn't consider it worthwhile to remove the chain rings from a crank but not replace the arms. Or at least, not with a triple. Much of the extra pork on a triple crank is the spider, but I can't imagine there's a lot of difference between a purpose-built single and a double with one ring removed, except, maybe, chainline and Q-factor. So consider a singlespeed/track crank for that part of the project.

I had a 1x5 setup for a while. It worked pretty well for me. If you're someplace flat, you really don't need a ton of chain rings. (Assuming this is a non-racing bike.)
 

·
Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
11,979 Posts
I don't like stopping with just the front brake either. I almost always use both brakes unless I'm alternating brakes to avoid over heating the rim on a downhill. IME the rear brake acts as a stabilizer making the bike easier to control.Using the front only when it's wet or where there's gravel or where the pavement is rough...no thanks.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top