My Pimped Apollo Outrider

*AJ*

fuzzysb wrote:

i think its naive to say that a alu or carbon frame are any better than a steel in rideability. you are paying for the weight loss and the lighter it is the easier to get up hills. but i will stay heavier and get my weight loss in other ways

Steel, Alu and carbon bikes all ride totally different to each other! Totally different!

PashleyRider

And there's the whole differences in ride with FS frames depending on the suspension design which makes a HUGE diference

chez_m356

fuzzysb wrote:

and as for imagining it not riding well, you are wrong, it rides exceptionally well, and i have ridden far more expensive bikes.

it rides better because you have put decent suspension on it, but the fact is, the frame was designed to look the part, not be the part

Valy

God... OP - really thumbs up to you for just doing things as they come.

There is too much marketing that people buy into. It's like when you see people with full on TT bikes which cost ~3-4k at least and they do 22 minutes for 10 miles when a junior racer can whip out a 20 on a road bike with normal wheels...

What some people here are saying is that a WRC rally car will be faster/more advanced than a stock Subaru that had some upgrades - well durrr! Like.... what?

chez_m356

Valy wrote:

What some people here are saying is that a WRC rally car will be faster/more advanced than a stock Subaru that had some upgrades - well durrr! Like.... what?

and just exactly which one do you think would get to the end of the stage and why ? :roll:

Kowalski675

chez_m356 wrote:

Valy wrote:

What some people here are saying is that a WRC rally car will be faster/more advanced than a stock Subaru that had some upgrades - well durrr! Like.... what?

and just exactly which one do you think would get to the end of the stage and why ? :roll:

They both would. Not that subaru compete in WRC anymore.

chez_m356

Kowalski675 wrote:

chez_m356 wrote:

Valy wrote:

What some people here are saying is that a WRC rally car will be faster/more advanced than a stock Subaru that had some upgrades - well durrr! Like.... what?

and just exactly which one do you think would get to the end of the stage and why ? :roll:

They both would. Not that subaru compete in WRC anymore.

pushing one doesn't count

fuzzysb

I love the fact my little project has been so divisive and he threads now moved on to rally cars. I have this weekend built my sons bike which has an aluminium frame. I ended up buying a front hydraulic brake and he has the rear brake off the Apollo, he did catapult himself over the handlebars yesterday as pulled front brake too hard. But I'm sure he will live and learn :roll:

The Rookie

Valy wrote:

What some people here are saying is that a WRC rally car will be faster/more advanced than a stock Subaru that had some upgrades - well durrr! Like.... what?

Good analogy, epic fail....
A WRC Impreza was built from the ground up for the purpose, for example the rear wing panels are replaced with Carbon fibre, extensive strengthening including extra parts INSIDE the body structure where you could never add them to a built car, suspension points are relocated and optimised (with the regulations), on a WRC car the front wheels were moved forward quite a long way forward to improve weight distribution using special driveshafts that could cope with the extra angles involved. I've stuck to the bits most analogus to a bike.

njee20

WRC analogy falls down because the OP will end up spending more than if he'd bought a bike with suspension that worked properly. Each to his own though!

fuzzysb

njee20 wrote:

WRC analogy falls down because the OP will end up spending more than if he'd bought a bike with suspension that worked properly. Each to his own though!

your analogy is wrong, i know how much i will spend as the money has already been spent, and that does not stack up, the two bikes are finished. and i have created two bikes including all the tools needed for the future for less than 650. so i doubt i will spend more than if i bought a bike of the shelf.

for those of you who are curious, here is the bike i built up for my son, it uses some of the parts of my Apollo like the wheels and the rear brake and gear shifters etc.



but it has a hydraulic front brake and also a Rock Shox recon fork, the frame is aluminium which shaves a little bit of weight. but it is a nice solid bike for him to start riding on. he christened it at Gisburn Forest on Saturday where he proceeded to pull the front hydraulic brake hard and got catapulted over the handlebar, this was after i did the same when test riding it after building it, and i did warn him

Chunkers1980

Rule 1. Pics from the other side.

Cable routing needs a serious looking at. Front hose should not be anchored where it is and the gear cables should not be going from the left of the top tube to the right round the stem

fuzzysb

The cable routing is correct, the front hydraulic brake had a right hand lever. the cbales that run on the left hand side of the stem are for the front derailuer and rear brake so are attached to left of bar. as for front hose conceded, but it does not restrict fork rotation or movement and is temporary until i get some clips.

Chunkers1980

No it's not. Shouldn't be clamped in either of the places it is and the top tube routing is not best either.

fuzzysb

Chunkers1980 wrote:

No it's not. Shouldn't be clamped in either of the places it is and the top tube routing is not best either.

Again you did not read my last post. I have just realised though this forum is full of Trolls

Chunkers1980

I certainly did. You don't seem to know what a troll is.

You don't need clips, you just need to attach as is intended.

JBA

I'm with Chunkers on this: front brake hose should not be tied to the head tube and should run down the inside of the fork leg.

fuzzysb

Again i was trying to point out that conceded it is in the wrong place, however when attaching it in the correct location the hose is too long and when turning the hose was making contact with the wheel, this is also the case with my other bike.

I need to shorten the hose, but until i get a good set of clips i fear i wont get a good clean cut and will cause problems. attaching like that was the only way to keep the cable away from the wheel, i had already conceded the point but he was still saying i was wrong.....that in essence to me is what a troll is, one who continues an argument regardless

Chunkers1980

Oh no, I'm not arguing, you've got it wrong on both bikes.

You seem to also have a incorrect definition of what clips are too.

fuzzysb

Again i have explained why, this point was already conceded.

Definition of clips? clippers, snippers, snips, clips all are valid from where i come from. are saying that magically this is not the case on your planet?

but you really need a bridge

Chunkers1980

Cable or hose cutters would be best.

A clip is, well, a clip to clip something to or on. Where I was thinking you where meaning to replace the cable tie above the crown race. You actually just need to route the hoses correctly, can't see how it'd then come into contact with the wheels.

Btw, you'll need a few more tools and bits most likely to shorten the hoses further to something to cut them with.

fuzzysb

I have the hose reduction kit for all the brakes, but in the instructions it does stress that you need a good set of "snips" to ensure a clean cut of the hose to successfully re-attach the end connector.

The problem with both bikes the hose is too long, if i place the cable between the "for want of a better word" knobbles on the fork where the hose should be, when turning the handlebar to the left the extra hose length forces the hose down as there is enough to make a loop, this when i was testing the bikes was catching the wheel. the only way i could prevent this was attaching it like i have, however the cable tie above the crown race is loose enough for the cable to move around but it stops the amount of cable being pushed down.

I have had to order the reduction/bleed kits for both brake sets once i realized the hose was too long, so i didn't have these until they arrived this morning in the post, so will be doing this this weekend, its unfortunate the brake sets take different oil one takes DOT 4 and the other 5.1. so it cost me more to buy both types. and i am worried about making my nice brakes spongy. but if its like a car brake system then i should be okay, except both don't have a reservoir and expect fluid to be added through the nipple which seems really cheap to me

The Northern Monkey

JBA wrote:

I'm with Chunkers on this: front brake hose should not be tied to the head tube and should run down the inside of the fork leg.

Disagree.. hydraulic cable should be routed on the outside of the fork leg.

Chunkers1980

That's a personal preference thing. Routing it how fuzzy has done is just wrong and causes damage to hose and frame simple.

Kowalski675

fuzzysb wrote:

its unfortunate the brake sets take different oil one takes DOT 4 and the other 5.1. so it cost me more to buy both types.

Dot 4 and 5.1 are compatible (dot 5 isn't) - the only difference is the boiling point, which I can't ever see being an issue on a pushbike.

fuzzysb

but i thought i cant mix it, i can only replace the Dot 5.1 brake set with DOT 4 if i completely drain the system, is that not correct? or are you saying its ok to mix DOT 4 and 5.1 fluid?

Kowalski675

fuzzysb wrote:

but i thought i cant mix it, i can only replace the Dot 5.1 brake set with DOT 4 if i completely drain the system, is that not correct? or are you saying its ok to mix DOT 4 and 5.1 fluid?

Yes, both are glycol based and can be mixed. Dot 5 is silicon based and can't be mixed with glycol fluids.

JBA

The Northern Monkey wrote:

JBA wrote:

I'm with Chunkers on this: front brake hose should not be tied to the head tube and should run down the inside of the fork leg.

Disagree.. hydraulic cable should be routed on the outside of the fork leg.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Routing the hose down the inside of the fork leg keeps it out of harm's way as it reduces the chance of it snagging on anything.

njee20

Agreed, routing outside the fork leg is just daft.

A good Stanley blade is enough to cut hydraulic hose, you don't need any posh cutters, it's only plastic hose.

fuzzysb

njee20 wrote:

Agreed, routing outside the fork leg is just daft.

A good Stanley blade is enough to cut hydraulic hose, you don't need any posh cutters, it's only plastic hose.

thanks i wasn't aware it was that easy as the cable looks like it has a metal braid on the outside as well. and the instructions did make a mention of a good tool to cut highlighted in bold. I am going to do this this weekend anyway so i will see how i get on.