>>1773506>doing it to a mint low end bike is stupid on every levelI know, I just grab that picture from google, I would probably be getting a bad condition mid-end bike.
>just remove the other rings on the stock crankDamn, how didn't I think of that.
>>1773509That looks amazing, it's the sort of geometry I want too. Sounds like getting a stronger spring is a good idea for sure.
Figure as long as I don't max out the high/low on the rear it'll be fine. Might just adjust the derailleur to well within it's limits as well.
>>1773513It's less about any mechanical problem (I've worked on a few bikes) and more about looks, weight, and simplicity. Maybe some street cred too.
>And like, in what way is 1x more simple than 3x? just don't shift if you don't want to.Weight and looks.
>The issue is you can't thrash that bike around on trails because the chain retention is not so good. But it's perfectly fine for most uses.The bike is just for cruising around town to get to work, popping wheelies, going off some staircases, hopping curbs, etc. That's why I want the older less-slack sort of hardtail geometry, puts more power down I feel.
And I've ruined enough old roadbikes from doing dumb shit.
I guess it's too bad I didn't keep those RaceFace Atlas cranks. Hopefully I can get something that doesn't have an old quill stem.
Oh, and what are some good street 26" tires? I remember some that had a nice square pattern that everyone used to praise as good wide-ish 26" tires.
