Sofrider1 vs. conversion bikes

[hardtdavid]

The Sofrider frame is designed specifically for a Cruzbike set up. It seems to end up fairly light weight and very "driveable."

"Y-frames" or other styles of mountain bikes for suitable (or modifiable) for conversion come in many different "configurations" and weights.

Does the Sofrider design set itself apart from most conversions?

I know everyone who has a conversion loves their conversion, but I hope I can get some objective appraisals. Another way of asking this is "do any conversions perform/feel/ride similar to the V1 frame designed to be front-wheel driven?" Or does each conversion have its own characteristic quirks and charm, different from the proprietary frame models?

 

[JonB]

hardtdavid wrote: I know everyone who has a conversion loves their conversion

I think they love it because they built it with success. And they tell others about it. I met with a guy that wanted to sell his conversion and i doubt he loved it. It was a rather poor build and the front wheel fell off when i tried the bike. You rarely hear about those that gives up.

 

[MagneO]

Since I only have a conversion I cannot say what is different, but in retrospect I should perhaps have tried to get a better donor bike. Mine is a bit heavy and the components are not very good. But when that is said I works very well and is fun to ride.

Regards,

MagneO

 

[Mark B]

I would tend to believe that unless you got really lucky and found a good quality Y-frame for cheap, most conversions are going to be pretty chunky weight-wise. My own conversion was based on just a cheap Pacific mountain bike frame. It probably sold in Walmart, or one of the Dept. stores originally. It's well made, just overbuilt. All the components are name brand stuff, decent quality wheels. The only part I supplied that is heavy is the seatpost. It's steel, it was necessary to bend it, so I had no real choice. Jack came up with a unique way to overcome that issue, i've just been too lazy to build it. My bike functions really well and I enjoy riding it, but there is no way to escape the fact that it's heavy.

I can't compare to a Sof/Freerider, but I would be willing to bet that they would be much easier to ride, lighter and livelier. Functionality would be comparable, I'm sure. Now, compare my conversion to the Silvio and, well, there really is no comparison. We're talking Clydesdale to Thoroughbred.

Mark

 

[JonB]

Mark B wrote: I would tend to believe that unless you got really lucky and found a good quality Y-frame for cheap, most conversions are going to be pretty chunky weight-wise. My own conversion was based on just a cheap Pacific mountain bike frame. It probably sold in Walmart, or one of the Dept. stores originally. It's well made, just overbuilt. All the components are name brand stuff, decent quality wheels. The only part I supplied that is heavy is the seatpost. It's steel, it was necessary to bend it, so I had no real choice. Jack came up with a unique way to overcome that issue, i've just been too lazy to build it. My bike functions really well and I enjoy riding it, but there is no way to escape the fact that it's heavy.

I can't compare to a Sof/Freerider, but I would be willing to bet that they would be much easier to ride, lighter and livelier. Functionality would be comparable, I'm sure. Now, compare my conversion to the Silvio and, well, there really is no comparison. We're talking Clydesdale to Thoroughbred.

Mark

With all the stuff i placed on mine, it is getting pretty heavy. Maybe i should avoid getting that 4 kilo Nuvinci hub.

 

[Mark B]

JonB wrote: With all the stuff i placed on mine, it is getting pretty heavy. Maybe i should avoid getting that 4 kilo Nuvinci hub.

A friend of mine, who used to own a bike shop and is a huge fan of Rohloff hubs, said that Nuvinci hub really isn't rated for the kind of riding we do. It's more of a cruiser, lollygag around the park kind of gear. And yeah, it's pretty chunky.

Mark

 

[JonB]

Mark B wrote:

JonB wrote: With all the stuff i placed on mine, it is getting pretty heavy. Maybe i should avoid getting that 4 kilo Nuvinci hub.

A friend of mine, who used to own a bike shop and is a huge fan of Rohloff hubs, said that Nuvinci hub really isn't rated for the kind of riding we do. It's more of a cruiser, lollygag around the park kind of gear. And yeah, it's pretty chunky.

I considered Rohloff as well, but Rohloff is more than twice as expensive. And we dont have mountains in Denmark, highest point is 179 meters. I hardly do any climbing worth talking about.

The nuvinci sure is different. I read it changes your riding style from rev up the cadence, then change gear, fall down to lower cadence, rev up cadence to change change gear again, ...

Nuvinci should just be stady cadence where you slowly change the gear ratio. I read the bikehugger review. It seems to hold up to heavy usage.

Sure Rohloff is bigger range, but are the steps small enough? I think the freerider is too big as it is now.

What i have now is
44
11 7.5
18.2 %
13 6.4
15.4 %
15 5.5
20.0 %
18 4.6
16.7 %
21 3.9
14.3 %
24 3.5
16.7 %
28 3.0
14.3 %
32 2.6


The 15.4% jump between 6 and 7 is used alot, and i think it is too big. It is not too far from Rohloffs 13,4? %. So maybe Nuvinci really is better?

A nuvinci will give me:
44 / 17
1.75 8.5
250.0 %
0.5 2.4

a Nuvinci + a schlumpf drive is still a little cheaper than a Rohloff, and gives me this range:

34 / 17 64.7 % 56 / 17 51.8 % 85
1.75 6.6 10.9 16.5
250.0 %
0.5 1.9 3.1 4.7

34 is the smallest tooth i can have in back. The schlumpf speed drive will give me a 56 tooth, and the highspeed drive a 85 tooth. As you can see, these ranges overlap.

But i dont need lower gears than what i have now, if i go slower i fall over. I do need some higher gears. A Rohloff needs a 60 tooth chainring in the front, if it comes with a 17 tooth sprocket to be usefull. Thats a big step up from the 44 tooth i have now.

So i am thinking of keeping the 44 tooth, and getting a Nuvinci. And if it is too small, get a schlumpf drive.