Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 128
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427

    Jeronimo C-29 (Titanium FS)

    I'm a bit scared of what are you going to say, but here we go...

    This is our first model with 29'' wheels and it's not the tipical XC bike, we went a bit crazy and designed a long travel (130-150) frame with a slack headtube (68º with a 535 Fork), low BB (13.4''), etc... The geometry and the system it's full custom, small size, very plush. It has 1.5'' Headtube, a huge downtube and a 12mm thru axle at the rear... so yep, It's plenty strong.

    Here are the photos, hope you like it.










  2. #2
    Administrator Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,028
    Holy cow! Sexy as all get out!
    Try this: HTFU

  3. #3
    simple
    Reputation: 69erSycip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    666
    Looks expensive. Very expensive. Very unique and cool. Nice job on the design and build.

  4. #4
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    It looks good.

    Has it been built up?

    Looking at the pictures at Proyectos de Montaña , I started worrying about the chain coming very close to the lower linkage.

    "it IS possible that you are faster or slower than anybody else who is having at least as much if not more or less fun"

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    Love it and wish I can afford one

  6. #6
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,270
    Got to agree with RC, that thing is HAWT Very unique for sure, please do share an estimate on price - I like to dream Would love to see pics of it built up with wheels in and see how that suspension moves and what clearance there is.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by perttime View Post
    It looks good.

    Has it been built up?

    Looking at the pictures at Proyectos de Montaña , I started worrying about the chain coming very close to the lower linkage.
    No, the frame it's actually flying across the atlantic but in a few days we will see how it looks build up. Renders can gives you a good idea of how it will be, but real pics are always better.

    The chain is closer to lower linkage when the frame suspension is extended, when you sit on the bike it get's out of the way. At first I was thinking about doing a small chainguide like the one on the Liteville 901 but run out of time...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Got to agree with RC, that thing is HAWT Very unique for sure, please do share an estimate on price - I like to dream Would love to see pics of it built up with wheels in and see how that suspension moves and what clearance there is.
    In Europe it's not very expensive, It's like 10% more than a Nomad Carbon or an Ibis Mojo HD, but the exchange rate with the dollar righ now is very bad.

  9. #9
    Shortcutting Hikabiker
    Reputation: Acme54321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,138
    The real question is how much?

  10. #10
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    Looks wild - what's the theory behind the rear linkage? Is the rear mech hanger replaceable? Looks like it's not, and that would worry me a little having bent a few in my time.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  11. #11
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Love the frame!

    Rock Shox Pearl = Fail.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    95
    Do you have some sort of patent on the 4 bar linkage geometry? I can't see how another patent could be written on this type of suspension geometry.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    Looks wild - what's the theory behind the rear linkage? Is the rear mech hanger replaceable? Looks like it's not, and that would worry me a little having bent a few in my time.
    Yep it's a replaceable, and we are actually doing an experiment with the hanger, we did two of them, one standar and another larger than usual, we have algo made a spider to fit a 40T cogset, hope it works as planned.

    Quote Originally Posted by geolover View Post
    Love the frame!

    Rock Shox Pearl = Fail.
    Yeah, it's a crapy shock and it's there just for the pics, we sold the frame without shock (Custom Tuning FTW). But we wanted to take the pics with a shock on it and that was the only thing we had around...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brownni View Post
    Do you have some sort of patent on the 4 bar linkage geometry? I can't see how another patent could be written on this type of suspension geometry.

    I don't belive in Patents. I can see half a dozen stupid patents on it too, but it's just a nice 4-Bar linkage.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,948
    The frame is stunning, Vrock, but I wanted to thank you for all the work you've put into the Linkage Design blog that you've linked to in your signature. Even using online translators it's very interesting.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    385
    I'll take a large please!!! I'm available for sales and marketing in USA too!
    Bravo! Well done-

  16. #16
    I don't ride enough!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    230
    Does the bottom linkage function similar to Niner's CVA design in that the bottom link rotates under the bottom bracket when under tension? Just trying to understand how it works. Looks great!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The frame is stunning, Vrock, but I wanted to thank you for all the work you've put into the Linkage Design blog that you've linked to in your signature. Even using online translators it's very interesting.
    Thanks man, I've though about writing it in english too, but it's a lot of work as it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by metelhead View Post
    I'll take a large please!!! I'm available for sales and marketing in USA too!
    Bravo! Well done-
    Well, if you are serious about it sent an email to info@jeronimocycles.com

    Quote Originally Posted by B.A.R.K. View Post
    Does the bottom linkage function similar to Niner's CVA design in that the bottom link rotates under the bottom bracket when under tension? Just trying to understand how it works. Looks great!
    I don't think that the lower link on the niner rotates under the bottom braket. All the minilinks try to keep the suspension at equilibrium at tension, not too much Anti-squat so the suspension extends and not to little so the suspension squat.

  18. #18
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,270
    No clue how much that is as I don't live in Europe, but we are tied to the US dollar So please how much is it in Euros? Seem to have missed this upon first inspection of the pics, but just noticed the dual holes on the rocker for the shock to mount on, is this for a different travel range? Still interested in a pic showing a decent tyre (2.25" Ardent or Racing Ralph) in the rear with the suspension fully compressed. guess no one asked this already, so how long are the chainstays?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    In Europe it's not very expensive, It's like 10% more than a Nomad Carbon or an Ibis Mojo HD, but the exchange rate with the dollar righ now is very bad.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,948
    There's a little more information here. The dual holes are for travel adjust and it appears CS length is 455mm.

    I'll take mine with a custom linkage fork. Come on, Vrock, you have to be working on one!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Yes, the travel is 130 or 150mm and the CS is 455mm. I've been thinking lately about Linkage forks, they would look amazing in a titanium hardtail, but they have to be short travel and as light as possible. Building a linkage fork for a frame like this is a bit crazy, too much travel and 29'' wheels would need a huge fork and it's not going to look good. The new Fox 34 is the perfect mach, there is no need to do anything else.

  21. #21
    I don't ride enough!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    There's a little more information here.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 3fast3furious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    448
    Those rear dropouts look weird. How do those work? Is it some sort of thru axle system?

  23. #23
    I don't ride enough!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by 3fast3furious View Post
    Those rear dropouts look weird. How do those work? Is it some sort of thru axle system?
    There is a better pic in the link above. Looks like a thru axle.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Dropouts work with a 135mm rear maxle.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,281
    It's interesting that the pivot points are adjustable.

    I've been led to believe that multi-link systems are dialed in to the millimeter.

    How does changing the system via the eccentric pivot points change the performance?

  26. #26
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    My daughter bought me a Rasputin HT Ti when she returned from Rota on assignment; the most elegant handmade bikes I have ever seen; almost a shame to build her up. Currently hanging on a wall in my office in honor of all that is great about Spain, especially my grandparents.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    How does that suspension type cope with low gearing like 20 front and 39 rear? Pedal feeback or pedal bob?

  28. #28
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,212
    Ti is for hardtails.
    beaver hunt

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter View Post
    Ti is for hardtails.
    Why?

  30. #30
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Quote Originally Posted by lisboa98 View Post
    Why?
    One of the reasons to use Ti is that you can make slightly flexible structures out of it. When you get it right, the frame rides "softer" without losing energy and precision. That is usually considered a ´good thing for a HT.

    When you have a FS bike, it is often best to leave all the flexibility to the suspension system. Alu is pretty good for making stiff frames for that: alu structures need to be stiff and the material is relatively light and low cost.

    You can make great frames out of just about any material, but many feel that the possibilities of Ti are wasted on FS frames.

    "it IS possible that you are faster or slower than anybody else who is having at least as much if not more or less fun"

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by perttime View Post
    One of the reasons to use Ti is that you can make slightly flexible structures out of it. When you get it right, the frame rides "softer" without losing energy and precision. That is usually considered a ´good thing for a HT.

    When you have a FS bike, it is often best to leave all the flexibility to the suspension system. Alu is pretty good for making stiff frames for that: alu structures need to be stiff and the material is relatively light and low cost.

    You can make great frames out of just about any material, but many feel that the possibilities of Ti are wasted on FS frames.
    true. i felt the same way about ti fs frames until someone said to me if you are going custom and planning on riding it for years why not go with a material that can be repaired easily and will withstand the trials of time? depending on price and in europe these are close to par with other boutique frames like the mojo or nomad why not ti then?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    How does that suspension type cope with low gearing like 20 front and 39 rear? Pedal feeback or pedal bob?
    The answer to that is is easy to find at the website and his design blog. The frame is full custom and the suspension is tailored to the buyer. He's not going to build a bike that doesn't work with your gearing.

    Usually you have to choose between a custom frame and a sophisticated suspension design. With this you can have both.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000 View Post
    true. i felt the same way about ti fs frames until someone said to me if you are going custom and planning on riding it for years why not go with a material that can be repaired easily and will withstand the trials of time?
    Don't know why anyone would say Ti can be repaired easily or why other materials don't withstand the trials of time. Material durability is a wasted argument, riders are typically incapable of wearing out a frame. You won't find Ti repair shops on the street corner. In most cases no material will be easily repairable while even composites can be repaired with the right expertise.

    Quote Originally Posted by perttime
    When you get it right, the frame rides "softer" without losing energy and precision. ... When you have a FS bike, it is often best to leave all the flexibility to the suspension system.
    But if a frame can ride "softer" without losing "precision" then there's no reason to "leave all the flexibilty" to the suspension. Non sequitor.

    The answer is simple, Jeronimo makes prestige frames out of prestige materials. It's unlikely, given appropriate skill, that they would make a better frame out of any other material. BTW, Jeronimo has a page that explains why they use Ti.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    The Idea that Aluminium is cheap is completely wrong. It's only cheap when you build a lot of them. A "prototype" made of aluminium would cost about the same as a Titanium one or a steel one. And there is a huge problem, how many custom builders work with aluminium?? It's much easier to find a titanium builder or someone who works with steel. So, if cost it's "the same" what would you choose, Aluminium, Titanium or steel?

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder View Post
    It's interesting that the pivot points are adjustable.

    I've been led to believe that multi-link systems are dialed in to the millimeter.

    How does changing the system via the eccentric pivot points change the performance?
    The pivots are fixed, what you see in the pic is just a keyed female bolt, a lot of frames use them. Trek, Rocky Mountain etc... But if you know what you are doing you can do a Minilink with adjustable pivots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    How does that suspension type cope with low gearing like 20 front and 39 rear? Pedal feeback or pedal bob?
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The answer to that is is easy to find at the website and his design blog. The frame is full custom and the suspension is tailored to the buyer. He's not going to build a bike that doesn't work with your gearing.
    Yep, that's one of the first questions that we make at the beggining, how fit are you and what gearing do you use to climb. There is a big difference betwen a bike that is going to work with a very low gearing a one for a racer that is going to use a 39-27 crankset.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    55
    Are these made in Taiwan?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Yep, that's one of the first questions that we make at the beggining, how fit are you and what gearing do you use to climb. There is a big difference betwen a bike that is going to work with a very low gearing a one for a racer that is going to use a 39-27 crankset.
    Niner belauds their suspension- CVA that it works independent of the chainrings and cogsets. In reality wfo9 gets a bit pedal bob in 20x39 on my buddy's bike (he rides only in the mountains and he is stubborn and never walks a climb as long as he has traction on over 25% grades) with no pedal feedback, whereas according to suspension software Maestro on Giant Reign with 20x39 gets a helluva of pedal kickback with no pedal bob.

    I would choose suspension bobbing/ rider induced bob rather than pedal onerous kickback in 20 front chainring and 39 cog. Also for some racers gearing 44x11 with your suspension must work as well or you differentiate on the suspension stroke f. ex. 140mm frame works better with low gearing and 100mm one works better with harder gears which wouldn't be an acceptable idea especially if you develope a midway allrounder 120mm unit.

    39ti cogs or cogsets spiderless are offered by ActionTec and 11/12-38 (10 and 11 speed) cassettes spidered for aluminium freewheels are offered by KCNC for 2012. I would suggest checking them and making steep climb challenge.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bunyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    521
    Hi,

    Any updates on this frame? Would love to see it built up.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    33
    Where do I put my bottle cage? Just kidding, looks goood!

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    I have a pic of the bike built up (Full XTR, Enve Rims, etc), but it's just a small phone photo, and the bike was full of mud... we are waiting for something better to post it on the website. The owner has been riding it in Wistler and Kamloops and he is very happy with the bike. The bike pedal very well even in the 150mm travel setting.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Here a few pics...






  42. #42
    So is your face
    Reputation: celluloid hero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    570
    Wow! Very sweet. That is burly with a capital B.
    IT'S NOT THE FALL THAT HURTS. IT'S WHEN YOU HIT THE GROUND.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    Here a few pics...





    Everything looks great...whats it weight all decked out? How many kidneys will a frame cost?
    "Be Good or Be Good at it"

  44. #44
    HTFU and Ride
    Reputation: coachjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,217
    awesome! would love to see an adult sized frame (kidding)

    would love to get one for myself!
    Winter is coming.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    I know it is time for ohhaah and ohhhh yet:
    What is the frame size? M or S? Looks very proportionate, unlike the first 29ers in 2001-2004.

    How much does it weigh in M ? How much heavier it is than aluminium and carbon versions, which might be developed in the future?

    What are the tyre clearances with Maxxis Minion and WTB Dissent?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    It's not a size, It's a custom bike. Pretty much is a S size with 410mm ST, 565mm TT, 68º-74º, etc... but as I said, it's custom. The weight depends in a lot of things so it's impossible to know how much "your frame" will weight until the design is almost done. I don't know how much an aluminium or carbon version will weight.

    The Clearance is good, in the pic you see a Weirwolf 2.55 with some room left, so I think minions are going to fit fine, I'm not sure how wide they really are (60-65mm?). but If you need even more you can go to a 83BB. The limit is the Crankarms, not the frame.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Jeronimo C-29 (Titanium FS)-tire-clearance.jpg  


  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    It's not a size, It's a custom bike. Pretty much is a S size with 410mm ST, 565mm TT, 68º-74º, etc... but as I said, it's custom. The weight depends in a lot of things so it's impossible to know how much "your frame" will weight until the design is almost done. I don't know how much an aluminium or carbon version will weight.

    The Clearance is good, in the pic you see a Weirwolf 2.55 with some room left, so I think minions are going to fit fine, I'm not sure how wide they really are (60-65mm?). but If you need even more you can go to a 83BB. The limit is the Crankarms, not the frame.
    We all understand 'your frame' will vary weights.....but what is say a standard Medium or Large frame weight with shock? 5lb, 6lb, 7lb....or 8lb? and again....do you have prices for these or simply teasers???
    "Be Good or Be Good at it"

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    A standar size with this travel (130-150) with a Fox RP23 can be around 7.5lbs and price is 2730€ without shock, or extras...

  49. #49
    simple
    Reputation: 69erSycip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post




    That really is a work of art and engineering. Looks incredibly well proportioned for a small 29er frame with long travel. I hope to see more from your studio.

  50. #50
    gmk
    gmk is offline
    angels get bald too
    Reputation: gmk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    ...
    ...
    ...

    I don't think that the lower link on the niner rotates under the bottom braket
    . All the minilinks try to keep the suspension at equilibrium at tension, not too much Anti-squat so the suspension extends and not to little so the suspension squat.
    it rotates

    "Show your bike some love and it will show the love back."
    Eric, niner bikes

    the most important vehicle is a 29er bicycle

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    7.5 lbs is 3402 grams or to be exact 3 401, 94277 grams. This is the weight of wfo9, which is an aluminium frame.

    As we now titanium is a flexy or tend to yield a bit under weight and is heavier than aluminium. Is this frame stiff enough? I doesn't have to be rocksolid but not flexy too much. Perhaps a tiny mirco bit of flex in some parts may alleviate the bumps, which suspension is not activated on. I'm not an expert so maybe you know whether it is good or bad. Or maybe one can design the frame to allow some flex in several critical areas to help the suspension and in the other the material is rock-stiff. Entonces una mezcla materiales- material mixture. It must be dialed in.

    If this frame is stiff enough at this weight I am impressed on the whole project.

    If I may suggest something, I would settle also on some solid frame geometries for S,M,L and XL and for those who want the custom alternative. Solid sizes would allow for better prices also with rearshocks. For someone not clever enough custom is not the best way to choose when milimeters are at stake. It may appear interesting to someone on the paper and then it turns out that one lenght is odd.
    I would weld-form the top tube and down tube together on the front like on Lenz Lunchbox.
    Lenz Sport :: The best full-suspension mountain bikes :: Lunchbox
    Less material, stiffer, more place to weld onto, less weight.

    What is the suspension ratio? I wouldn't go too much over 2. Use the longest shock it is possible. Also give some indication with what shocks it works perfectly.

    Also another model with 120 up to 125mm might be luring designed for 120mm forks to weigh 2,9 kilograms up to 3,150 grams for long rides and extra bumpy marathons. Ultimate Titanium trail bike.
    Now you have 100mm race bike, 150mm AM rig and the third one extra lite trail rig.

    The suspension on Trail and AM 29ers will be required to work with extra soft gearing like 20 front and 38 or 39 cog for those who ride in the mountains and not flats- plateaus. It ought to work well in 20x38/39 and in 30 front and then 40 or 42. The less dependant it is on gearing the better.

    Again an S frame 29er with that much 150mm travel looks very proportionate. Well done.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-14-2011 at 01:52 PM.

  52. #52
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,270
    OK, so it'll cost you one kidney and maybe a spleen depending on the internal organ market Seriously, full custom, Ti for $3800 US is out of my budgetary limits, but I don't think that's too bad as far as things go. Still waiting to see a video of that suspension design actually working, but as everyone else has said, looks so well proportioned for a S size

    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    A standard size with this travel (130-150) with a Fox RP23 can be around 7.5lbs and price is 2730€ without shock, or extras...
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados

  53. #53
    Administrator Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,028
    Kudos to you guys for your full disclosure, answering questions, putting up with Copperfield's inane ramblings about aluminum and carbon and showing a built finished model with weights and dimensions. If I had the need for a bike like this, much less the means I would be on the phone with you right now!
    Try this: HTFU

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Titanium is not flexy, that's the most important thing people should understand.

    Titanium: D 4.48 E 107 GPA.
    Aluminium: D 2.70 E 69 GPA.

    Stiffness to weight ratio is 23.88 and 25.55 so they are pretty much the same.
    Aluminium is very stiff only when you use a bigger diameter tube, but in an All Mountain bike frame there are a lot of restrictions and you can't go big in a lot of places like Chainstays, Seatstays, BB, Headtubes, Seat Tubes... So if you use the same diameter with both materials the result is going to be the almost the same.

    Sizes are a good idea for a bigger company, but right now we are tiny, we can't do 3 models and 4 sizes with a small run of each of them... I'm trying to design everything as simple as possible but there is a long way to go.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    1. Make indications on your site what the geometry for the hypothetic- advised sizes might be.

    2. Test the suspension on extra steep climbs plus verify whether an adjustable travel is needed and how much it might help. I mean some indication.

    3. Did you design it with some range of mostly used gears like 32 or 30 front chain ring or is it more gearing independent ?

    4. What is the standover? This frame TT 565mm wise qualifies for XS. Wfo9 S has 586mm with 716mm standover. So I expect something like ~680-690mm. If it is possible, then this is the real XS long travel 29er, previously unthinkable! How tall is the person who rides this model in centimeters?

    ps. ogling the picture I deduct that you are able to go about 30mm lower on the standover leaving the suspension unaffected, am I right? If so it might be a godsend for vertically challenged. Only some custom dropper bars- inverted risers to get the grips in their lower desired position.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-14-2011 at 04:27 PM.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Standover is 722mm. I wanted the frame to be compatible with shocks with a resi, but If you can live with a standar shock it can be lower. I have all the measures of the owner somewhere but I can't find it now...

    The frame is designed around lower gearings, it's not gearing independent (That's marketing stuff...). The idea of having two travel settings comes from having two forks, and riding in differents places: Bikeparks in the summer, local trails the rest of the year... it can be made with one travel too, or one travel and two geometry settings, etc...

  57. #57
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,950
    How much travel does the fork have? Is it a tapered steerer?

    Just curious what you were designing around.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    The fork it's a Manitou Frankenfork with 150mm of travel. It has a Nixon crown/1-1/8''steerer/internals and Minute 29 20 mm lowers. Axle/crown is around 565 mm. With the 130mm fork the HA is 68º and with this one is around 67º.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    252
    Do you guys still offer 29er softail with 40mm travel - Dos Niner look-a-like ?
    I believe you called it Romanov or something similar russian sounding.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Yep, we still do. But it only looks good in large size 29ers, in a smaller frame it's better to place the shock inside the main triangle.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5
    Great job, Antonio. We're following you from Spain, too.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    Standover is 722mm. I wanted the frame to be compatible with shocks with a resi, but If you can live with a standar shock it can be lower.
    Well, you've got a TT of an S- XS candidate with a bit too high standover. So with a standard shock could it be like 685mm standover and with reservoir 705mm or is the 722mm the lowest possible?

    I am a bit picky on this one as you have a pretty good chance of qualifying for S- XS 150mm 29er frame, which may accomodate riders from 155cm with TT of 565mm. This particular applicability may finally put a myth of tall person only 29ers to sleep for good.

    To make it more discernible you may want an all-out XS frame with TT 550-5mm and S with 575mm.
    At 550mm TT would a rider with 38-40 shoe size get any tyre clearance? Manitou has 48mm fork offset. I would opt for 51mm offset forks like Trek G2, which are used on Cube 2012 29ers and S specialized woman specific 29er exactly for moving the front wheel away.
    Standover 680mm for a XS and 700-10mm for S. 722mm is quite high for an AM rig in S which will see quite a lot of rider undesirable dismounts.

    The idea of having two travel settings comes from having two forks, and riding in differents places: Bikeparks in the summer, local trails the rest of the year...
    Thus, it is either too burly and heavy for local trails or too weak to stand up to bike parks and light hard AM/light FR with some drops. Bottom bracket issue at both heights- disputable. Then there is the difference in suspension work with each travel setting, but I may be wrong.

    I would make it into two suggested models with different designs and riders in mind:

    1. First with 130mm rear for 120-140mm forks very light and agile for hard XC and light AM riding. Generally bumpy and stone woven trails for a whole day.

    2. Second 150mm rear for wide range of AM riding up to light FR with drops for 140-160mm
    Such options is more time-consuming more costy- generally more resources spent, however what you end up with is a pretty much dialed in bicycle.

    As soon as 160mm forks appear I would even further differentiate the frames' range:
    1. 120mm light frame 2,8-3,1 kgs with a fox rp23 for trail harder XC. Super hard marathons with long downhill sections
    2. 140mm AM frame for mountains and difficult trails with drops. Something along lines of Intense Tracer
    3. 160mm for hard AM and light FR in difficult mountains. It should compete with Santa Cruz Nomad Titus El guapo, Pivot Fire bird etc.
    I like this idea more as I get the bicyce I want and excelling at the particular stuff I do. If like F1 then I need it and if 4x4 off-road vehicle then SUV will not make me utterly happy.

    I know custom is custom, however some reference points would be nice, especially that we know those number have been tested for a long time with many riders on board. Keep up the great work.

  63. #63
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,270
    Hahaha, in looking at the pics was saying it looked like more than a 120mm travel fork, wondered if perhaps you'd gotten a hold of the soon to be released longer travel for from them. Interested to hear how this works out and if there's any issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    The fork it's a Manitou Frankenfork with 150mm of travel. It has a Nixon crown/1-1/8''steerer/internals and Minute 29 20 mm lowers. Axle/crown is around 565 mm. With the 130mm fork the HA is 68º and with this one is around 67º.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    Well, you've got a TT of an S- XS candidate with a bit too high standover. So with a standard shock could it be like 685mm standover and with reservoir 705mm or is the 722mm the lowest possible?

    I am a bit picky on this one as you have a pretty good chance of qualifying for S- XS 150mm 29er frame, which may accomodate riders from 155cm with TT of 565mm. This particular applicability may finally put a myth of tall person only 29ers to sleep for good.

    To make it more discernible you may want an all-out XS frame with TT 550-5mm and S with 575mm.
    At 550mm TT would a rider with 38-40 shoe size get any tyre clearance? Manitou has 48mm fork offset. I would opt for 51mm offset forks like Trek G2, which are used on Cube 2012 29ers and S specialized woman specific 29er exactly for moving the front wheel away.
    Standover 680mm for a XS and 700-10mm for S. 722mm is quite high for an AM rig in S which will see quite a lot of rider undesirable dismounts.

    Thus, it is either too burly and heavy for local trails or too weak to stand up to bike parks and light hard AM/light FR with some drops. Bottom bracket issue at both heights- disputable. Then there is the difference in suspension work with each travel setting, but I may be wrong.

    I would make it into two suggested models with different designs and riders in mind:

    1. First with 130mm rear for 120-140mm forks very light and agile for hard XC and light AM riding. Generally bumpy and stone woven trails for a whole day.

    2. Second 150mm rear for wide range of AM riding up to light FR with drops for 140-160mm
    Such options is more time-consuming more costy- generally more resources spent, however what you end up with is a pretty much dialed in bicycle.

    As soon as 160mm forks appear I would even further differentiate the frames' range:
    1. 120mm light frame 2,8-3,1 kgs with a fox rp23 for trail harder XC. Super hard marathons with long downhill sections
    2. 140mm AM frame for mountains and difficult trails with drops. Something along lines of Intense Tracer
    3. 160mm for hard AM and light FR in difficult mountains. It should compete with Santa Cruz Nomad Titus El guapo, Pivot Fire bird etc.
    I like this idea more as I get the bicyce I want and excelling at the particular stuff I do. If like F1 then I need it and if 4x4 off-road vehicle then SUV will not make me utterly happy.

    I know custom is custom, however some reference points would be nice, especially that we know those number have been tested for a long time with many riders on board. Keep up the great work.
    I've done a test and with a standar shock the standover is 680mm, and I think I can go a little bit lower. If the rider is very light I can use a shorter shock (200x57 instead of 216x63), lower the linkage a bit and get it to 670-660... I really don't know where is the limit, this stuff takes time a a few iterations...


  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    If the rider is very light I can use a shorter shock (200x57 instead of 216x63).
    I advise you against increasing the ratio. The longer the shock the better, plusher and wears more slowly. In order to get the XS pretty much dialed in I would lower the linkage- perhaps place a shock a little bit vertically and see whether there is a place for reservoir. I would definitely keep the reservoir place there and check the minnimal standover possibility.

    I made rough points for reservoir shock with 680mm standover- as you stated in the picture. What do you think can you implement into your picture professionally and check whether there is place for resi?

    Can you also check how short the top tube can be before the assumed 38-40 shoe size starts to hit the 2,4" or 2,6" tyre? Is TT of 550-5mm possible with 51mm offset fork?

    Please report back when you do it. I am very curious whether an XS 150mm 29er frame can be made. No bike company has ever made such a frame. You would be the first one.

    By the way the widest 29er tyres are up to 65mm wide with knobs and there needs to be place for ubiquitous UK-type mud.

    The red dots are the rocker mounts and blue the shock mounts. The second picture needs the down tube to be curved a bit. I guess the first idea with upside down shock is feasible.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Jeronimo C-29 (Titanium FS)-jeronimo1.jpg  

    Jeronimo C-29 (Titanium FS)-jeronimo2.jpg  

    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-15-2011 at 01:54 PM.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    If we are talking about a female rider, they weight nothing (100-120lbs) and shocks are designed around a 170 lbs rider, in that case lowering the ratio a bit is not a problem, it's probably going to work even better.

    Another idea for the frame..... Keep the initial configuration and build some room for the reservoir inside the top tube (CNC...) or maybe using a twin top tube, you get the idea. Then, the shoe-tire problem... send me the dimensions of the shoe and I can check.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Third version. I made both the top tube and down tube curved. Similar to intense 2951


    however with more stanover clearance

    Red vertical line shows you where the hypothetical shoe might end, so, I surmise, removing 10mm from top tube is possible. Thus around 555mm is the limit for a 29er 150mm with offsets from 44mm

    Another red line horizontal shows you where your previous stanover- top tube was. I shaved roughly 20-30mm from standover, so around 650-660mm with piggyback shock is borderline. I aslp placed the shock much more vertically to make use of all existing room in the front triangle. The bottom shock mounting point is rougly 40mm lower and the top one is a bit more to the right.

    Another idea for the frame..... Keep the initial configuration and build some room for the reservoir inside the top tube (CNC...) or maybe using a twin top tube, you get the idea.
    Check how much wider would those tube might be comparing to the section preceeding the piggyback room.

    My version- please make it into your design (substracting 10mm or 15mm from TT and 20-30mm from standover as I suggested in the draft picture) and post back with piggyback coil shock please. In order to place the handlebar lower we shall add custom dropperbars- inverted riserbars.



    Check when the front wheel hits the downtube when the fork fully compressed. It might turn out that with my idea of curved tubes the TT shorter than 565mm make the wheel hit the down tube at some point. If so keep it for S size and use your idea with splitted toptube for piggyback on XS. Anyway S frame ought to have standover below 680-5mm and XS around 650-660mm. It would make it safe for dismounts.
    Two nailed designs are needed S and XS. If you succeed with these, then M size will be a piece of cake with 720-30mm standover and about 593mm top tube

    The dropper bars idea for short persons. Here a flipped riser handlebar is used.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-15-2011 at 06:57 PM.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    I can give it a try, but I don't know why you are asking for 680mm on the S Size and 660 on the XS. If you look around you will see first that a lot of companies start with M Size, then you'll see that everyone building S sizes is around 720mm or even more... and that nobody builds XS sizes, so there are no references, but 680 sounds good to me.

    And you have to take into account that nowadays a lot of people use a dropper seatpost so dismounting is much easyer...

  69. #69
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Jodo... estan hermosas. Que desgracia que es ser pobre!

    Beautiful. I'd pick up one if I had the money. Congratulations. I'm happy to see a country with deep cycling roots like Spain getting into the market.
    Check my Site

  70. #70
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    Third version. I made both the top tube and down tube curved. Similar to intense 2951...
    however with more stanover clearance

    Red vertical line shows you where the hypothetical shoe might end, so, I surmise, removing 10mm from top tube is possible. Thus around 555mm is the limit for a 29er 150mm with offsets from 44mm
    wow, your rendering skills are really amazing. you should design bikes for a living. that way you could focus on telling yourself how to make everything better instead of telling everyone else what you think they need to improve...
    hold my beer...

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    I can give it a try, but I don't know why you are asking for 680mm on the S Size and 660 on the XS. If you look around you will see first that a lot of companies start with M Size, then you'll see that everyone building S sizes is around 720mm or even more... and that nobody builds XS sizes, so there are no references, but 680 sounds good to me.
    Those tall stanover things are considered compromise on 29ers and their haters say that 29ers must have higher standover and have longer top tube, which are not truth when you can design dropper bars and a custom offset fork- anyway 48-51mm offsets are godsend for S and XS frames.

    553mm top tube and 650-660mm standover for XS with piggyback, 573mm TT and 680mm for S and 593mm TT and 720-5mm on M size.
    Simply make three pictures with my "correcting" ideas ( like you posted for me in gray) - curved tubes and lower linkage and post back. Also include geometries for those three XS, S and M, which underwent change if possible.
    XS could accomodate someone from 148-150cm, S from 157cm and M from 167cm of height.
    When you post back we shall analyze both the goemetry and the look of those.

    And you have to take into account that nowadays a lot of people use a dropper seatpost so dismounting is much easyer...
    Unfortunately dropper seatpost won't save your cojones from hitting the top tube when you "dismount" unintentionally falling over, crashing etc.

    @MtotheF thanks man for warm words. I'll definitely look into this, however do your self a favour and design a simple 29er S frame unless it exceeds your capabilities
    A company not being able to design an S 29er even with 100mm stroke is not credible for most nowadays.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-16-2011 at 01:33 PM.

  72. #72
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    dc, im pretty sure vrock doesnt need your help designing bikes.

  73. #73
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    Unfortunately dropper seatpost won't save your cojones from hitting the top tube when you "dismount" unintentionally falling over, crashing etc.
    Standover is overrated. Losing your feet on a moderate down slope will send you hitting the front of the top tube/stem anyways.
    Check my Site

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    Standover is overrated.
    If someone is accustomed to 26er like standover, she/he will not give it up and rather call 29ers needing a helluva of compromises and drawbacks- like for tall only, not possible to design S FS frame let alone XS FS or top tube must be much longer, solely short travel possible.
    I believe it is safer to have a few centimeters between precious life giving organs rather than living in constant fear of having 'scrambled eggs' just because some dudes on the internet managed to persuade the designer that standover is the last thing to consider... an overwhelming outlook.
    Short persons always look at this parameter. It is highest time to bust the tall-person-only-29er myth

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    If someone is accustomed to 26er like standover, she/he will not give it up and rather call 29ers needing a helluva of compromises and drawbacks- like for tall only, not possible to design S FS frame let alone XS FS or top tube must be much longer, solely short travel possible.
    I believe it is safer to have a few centimeters between precious life giving organs rather than living in constant fear of having 'scrambled eggs' just because some dudes on the internet managed to persuade the designer that standover is the last thing to consider... an overwhelming outlook.
    Short persons always look at this parameter. It is highest time to bust the tall-person-only-29er myth
    Really? why do 29er need to fit shorter riders....there are plenty of 26er that work very well for that purpose. Or this another attempt to feed the masses and the 29ers more mainsteam (not that they already are not)....or DC are you vertically challenged and want to ride a 29er?
    "Be Good or Be Good at it"

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    I guess that there are short people out there wanting to have a well designed 29er and they already have several 26ers. What is more interesting they might ride a road bike or touring bike with 1,8" 28er-29erish tyres and they're pondering why the industry tells them to go to smaller wheels when don't want to. Neither trail obstacles do diminish when the rider is shorter nor the mud, clay, loam etc become permissive.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Fourth Version with about 550mm top tube (the one depicted in the picture is 565mm), 650-660mm standover. I made an assumption where the head tube, fork and wheel might be.I 'used' dropper bars- upside down riser with a view to getting the cockpit height in its desirable height - even with handle bar on AM rig.
    There might be still 2-3 cms between the shoe and the front tyre. I positioned the saddle where it may be for a XS rider 148cm-159cm. This must be checked. This is the borderline. And if this one can be done properly then all other do not have to worry if they are tall enough for a 29er.


  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    I think the top tube can't be so short, it will give toe overlap and the front wheel will touch the down tube, but you can use a shorter stem.... In this one I lowered the stand over to 660mm, used a 5mm shorter top tube and a bent down tube with a CCDB. Didn't need to do anything else. Anything smaller than this is going to be hard to do, but there is really no need.


  79. #79
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post

    they are getting better all the time. i want a bike that looks EXACTLY like this! do it, DC! you'll show the world overnight that fuzzy looking bikes with squiggly tubes are the way to go. it's a revolution waiting to happen.
    hold my beer...

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    I think the top tube can't be so short, it will give toe overlap and the front wheel will touch the down tube, but you can use a shorter stem....
    That's what I thought. However all frame sizes are designed with the same crank lenght, which is 175mm. On XS frame where the rider is about 150-155cm, he/she will use 160mm cranks instead, in which case you could offer another version of XS frame for this application (same partains to XL and XXL those riders are likely to use 190 and 210mm cranks) which brings the possibility to lower the bottom bracket by 15mm, which constitutes the difference between 175 and 160 of course . Now check whether designing a 550mm top tube is possible -with enough clearance toe-tyre.
    Actually I believe that using 175mm cranks a by a person 150-160cm is harmful for knees. If this is truth then a XS frame with 175mm cranks should be ruled out.

    Please check whether a XS frame with 160mm cranks, 15mm lower bottom bracket, 550mm top tube is possible.
    If the bottom bracket is lower, then the linkages can be lower as well, which means that a standover can reduced by 15mm giving you a crazy low 645mm standover level, can't it?
    I know that a 150-157cm rider wanting a AM 150mm 29er is rare, however the perfect frame testifies to manufacturer's professionality. Such frame would also fit a bit taller riders wanting to do some stunts where extremely short wheelbase and standover is critical. It would also increase the bottom bracket drop which will enhance the sensation of being IN the bike. A short person might take advantage of this having an edge over talle riders. Take this modification into account on XS frame.


    [/QUOTE] So we've got a 560mm TT and 660mm standover. Sounds very well.

    I would keep the 660mm standover on S as well (if XS can't have lower with another above suggested modification)

    When it comes to M size then upto 590mm effective TT is fine with standover not higher than 710- 20mm. (On medium Rip9 at 174cm I have 750mm standover giving me no clearance barefooted and marginal at best when 'shoed'.)
    It would resemble 26er AM bicycles
    Specialized Bicycle Components : S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon
    whereas their 29er counterparts are run bigger on frames. Why?
    Specialized Bicycle Components : S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon 29

    When reading this forum I find lots of short persons complain about high standover and effective top tubes- is it not what they ran on 26ers. It is really lame that an S frame on 29ers is closer to M on 26ers.
    The frame size oughtn't to change with wheelsizes and accomodate riders od the same heights' ranges.
    I guess manufacturers do not want to lower the linkages specially for 29er models. We come to the conclusion that 29ers are still not designed well enough (they are longer with higher standover) and it is not that they can't be designed appropriately. It is just they do not pay enough attention.

    PS. If you succeed with a modified XS frame, you must design dropper bars to go with it: 2cm, 3 and 5 or something like these.

    @MtotheF I shall order a whole run exclusively for you, perhaps you learn there at SCB something about S 29er frames. You are so much lagging behind... and spread thin over kiddie wheels to a point I'm disappointed.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-17-2011 at 07:34 AM.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    160mm is too short even for a 13'' size. I guess that 175mm is too long but the most common size is going to be 170mm and that is not going to change the frame much.Top tube also depends on head angle, right now is very slack and if someone ask for something steeper something would have to change... Bring back the curved DT, keep the Standover and loose the shock, or give up some stand over....

    At some point you have to start giving up things and choose between one or another.

  82. #82
    Administrator Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    That's what I thought. However all frame sizes are designed with the same crank lenght, which is 175mm. On XS frame where the rider is about 150-155cm, he/she will use 160mm cranks instead, in which case you could offer another version of XS frame for this application (same partains to XL and XXL those riders are likely to use 190 and 210mm cranks) which brings the possibility to lower the bottom bracket by 15mm, which constitutes the difference between 175 and 160 of course . Now check whether designing a 550mm top tube is possible -with enough clearance toe-tyre.
    Actually I believe that using 175mm cranks a by a person 150-160cm is harmful for knees. If this is truth then a XS frame with 175mm cranks should be ruled out.

    Please check whether a XS frame with 160mm cranks, 15mm lower bottom bracket, 550mm top tube is possible.
    If the bottom bracket is lower, then the linkages can be lower as well, which means that a standover can reduced by 15mm giving you a crazy low 645mm standover level, can't it?
    I know that a 150-157cm rider wanting a AM 150mm 29er is rare, however the perfect frame testifies to manufacturer's professionality. Such frame would also fit a bit taller riders wanting to do some stunts where extremely short wheelbase and standover is critical. It would also increase the bottom bracket drop which will enhance the sensation of being IN the bike. A short person might take advantage of this having an edge over talle riders. Take this modification into account on XS frame.


    So we've got a 560mm TT and 660mm standover. Sounds very well.

    I would keep the 660mm standover on S as well (if XS can't have lower with another above suggested modification)

    When it comes to M size then upto 590mm effective TT is fine with standover not higher than 710- 20mm. (On medium Rip9 at 174cm I have 750mm standover giving me no clearance barefooted and marginal at best when 'shoed'.)
    It would resemble 26er AM bicycles
    Specialized Bicycle Components : S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon
    whereas their 29er counterparts are run bigger on frames. Why?
    Specialized Bicycle Components : S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon 29

    When reading this forum I find lots of short persons complain about high standover and effective top tubes- is it not what they ran on 26ers. It is really lame that an S frame on 29ers is closer to M on 26ers.
    The frame size oughtn't to change with wheelsizes and accomodate riders od the same heights' ranges.
    I guess manufacturers do not want to lower the linkages specially for 29er models. We come to the conclusion that 29ers are still not designed well enough (they are longer with higher standover) and it is not that they can't be designed appropriately. It is just they do not pay enough attention.

    PS. If you succeed with a modified XS frame, you must design dropper bars to go with it: 2cm, 3 and 5 or something like these.

    @MtotheF I shall order a whole run exclusively for you, perhaps you learn there at SCB something about S 29er frames. You are so much lagging behind... and spread thin over kiddie wheels to a point I'm disappointed.
    I can't believe i am replying to this but there are a few things you should consider.
    • A. VRock is a custom builder not specialized, they can obviously do whatever needs to be done with reason of their personal beliefs about cycling. Perhaps send in a deposit on a frame and have him design you the frame of your dreams.
    • B. BB drop is a pretty important number when it comes to suspension design and frame performance. Lowering it for one size of frame to account for some arbitrary standover which is the least useful measure on a bicycle who be expensive and stupid. Doing so for the whole line would negate the use of standard length cranks on the rest of the line.
    • C. Small 29er frames are different than small 26er frames because they are as small as the manufacturer wants to make that line. There is no parity with 26er frames because they can go smaller with those frames. Small means this is the smallest we are going to make. Medium means this is a little larger than the small frame we make. Making them the same sounds like a good idea but then the company's smallest 29er frame might be a medium if you used Effective top tube as the measure of parity and people would come in try the bike and ask if they could try the small. Marketing trumps all. In custom bikes your size is your size no monikers to denote it just the ETT measurement and whatever else you choose to go with.
    • Finally not everyone benefits from riding 29ers. It isn't an cycling imperative that everyone go with one for their bike, especially if it requires weird off kilter specs like 160mm cranks, weird offset forks etc. Bikes are a niche market even for the big companies, there isn't the market share for them to create new standards to fit people that should be on a differing standards.


    I know this will fall on deaf ears and I am so impressed that Vrock continues to jump through hoops for you. I only hope with all your haranguing that you are planning to purchase a bike from him, but as he probably doesn't know you go through this with all manufacturer's only to never buy what they offer because it is 7.5mm short in the top tube or its standover is wrong or won't accommodate a 200mm fork. Every time i read your posts I realize that you would be so much happier on a full suspension 26er. There are so many with the travel you require, the components you desire and weights that you wish for. You should look into it, 26ers are the new 29er I have heard.
    Try this: HTFU

  83. #83
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    That's what I thought. However all frame sizes are designed with the same crank lenght, which is 175mm. On XS frame where the rider is about 150-155cm, he/she will use 160mm cranks instead, in which case you could offer another version of XS frame for this application (same partains to XL and XXL those riders are likely to use 190 and 210mm cranks) which brings the possibility to lower the bottom bracket by 15mm, which constitutes the difference between 175 and 160 of course . Now check whether designing a 550mm top tube is possible -with enough clearance toe-tyre.
    Actually I believe that using 175mm cranks a by a person 150-160cm is harmful for knees. If this is truth then a XS frame with 175mm cranks should be ruled out.

    Please check whether a XS frame with 160mm cranks, 15mm lower bottom bracket, 550mm top tube is possible.
    If the bottom bracket is lower, then the linkages can be lower as well, which means that a standover can reduced by 15mm giving you a crazy low 645mm standover level, can't it?
    I know that a 150-157cm rider wanting a AM 150mm 29er is rare, however the perfect frame testifies to manufacturer's professionality. Such frame would also fit a bit taller riders wanting to do some stunts where extremely short wheelbase and standover is critical. It would also increase the bottom bracket drop which will enhance the sensation of being IN the bike. A short person might take advantage of this having an edge over talle riders. Take this modification into account on XS frame.


    So we've got a 560mm TT and 660mm standover. Sounds very well.

    I would keep the 660mm standover on S as well (if XS can't have lower with another above suggested modification)

    When it comes to M size then upto 590mm effective TT is fine with standover not higher than 710- 20mm. (On medium Rip9 at 174cm I have 750mm standover giving me no clearance barefooted and marginal at best when 'shoed'.)
    It would resemble 26er AM bicycles
    Specialized Bicycle Components : S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon
    whereas their 29er counterparts are run bigger on frames. Why?
    Specialized Bicycle Components : S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon 29

    When reading this forum I find lots of short persons complain about high standover and effective top tubes- is it not what they ran on 26ers. It is really lame that an S frame on 29ers is closer to M on 26ers.
    The frame size oughtn't to change with wheelsizes and accomodate riders od the same heights' ranges.
    I guess manufacturers do not want to lower the linkages specially for 29er models. We come to the conclusion that 29ers are still not designed well enough (they are longer with higher standover) and it is not that they can't be designed appropriately. It is just they do not pay enough attention.

    PS. If you succeed with a modified XS frame, you must design dropper bars to go with it: 2cm, 3 and 5 or something like these.

    @MtotheF I shall order a whole run exclusively for you, perhaps you learn there at SCB something about S 29er frames. You are so much lagging behind... and spread thin over kiddie wheels to a point I'm disappointed.[/QUOTE]





    Put down a deposit or please quit posting your usual ramblings.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    Top tube also depends on head angle, right now is very slack and if someone ask for something steeper something would have to change...
    68-67 degress is very ok on 150mm AM bicycle. Giant Reign is it shis range. I wouldn't recomend anytning steeper on this stroke range.

    At some point you have to start giving up things and choose between one or another.
    Yes and we reached the limit in designing a ling travel smallest frame.
    So fully dialed in your XS frame is 560mm TT and 660 standover. Keep it like this. S will be not much bigger and M will be right M by 26er standards.
    What seattube lenght did you obtain while designing this last "XS" frame?
    Perhaps making it into prototype might be interesting? Do you have someone this short - 155-160 cm to test it?

    ps. To those distractors- I am feeling stupid asking questions. It is really astonishing that ou guys don't like when people start asking. Sorry I am much more accurate than you are and like to know as most as possible before I make a purchase. I know you don't, you are wealthy and can change the blingest bicycles every second month and you don't really care about good geometry. I do.
    Rockcrusher I do not understand why should I accept current 29er offerings. Definitely an M 29er frame ought to be M on 26ers as well, not L. People do not grow when they change the wheelsize. Such reasoning support tall-person-only 29er thinking.

    I see nothing wrong in asking questions. If you see, don't ask yourselves.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-17-2011 at 08:14 AM.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,948
    I don't believe 160mm is too short but you can't sell many on the idea of such a short crank regardless of their size, especially considering the rarity of that size crank. 175mm isn't too long for a shorter rider either. There is absolutely no evidence that such a crank length is "harmful for knees". This whole "proportional crank" idea has absolutely no scientific basis and has been discredited through research for a decade. It needs to die.

    Of course, if a customer wished to use and odd-length crank it's great that it can be accommodated in a custom FS design. It would be interesting to consider why such a request would be made, though, under the circumstances. There's a benefit to sticking to readily available crank sizes.

    The one area where I think an alternative crank length is interesting is in combining a long crank, high BB, and short CS. That sort of thing is done of hardtails but FS doesn't generally have that option except here. There is a pivot directly behind the BB that would limit the potential for a shorter CS. How short could the CS length be?

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    CS leght depends in a few parameters, Tires, FD, Cranks, etc...

  87. #87
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,270
    Problem is you're not asking DC, you're telling the guy what to do, 1 person, not several, just you.If you want to place an order then place an order and specify exactly what and how you want the frame made, but don't go telling the guy how to do what he obviously knows very well how to do. No one takes you seriously with your "paint" renderings, come on seriously who would As to 29ers being for tall people, well like RC, I also believe that once you go under 5'5" you start to hit some obstacles and have to make compromises and that NO 29ers are not for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    .........................
    ps. To those distractors- I am feeling stupid asking questions.....................I see nothing wrong in asking questions. If you see, don't ask yourselves.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    175
    Just a heads up: Selling Davidcopperfield a bike will make your life miserable.
    Often wrong but never in doubt.

  89. #89
    simple
    Reputation: 69erSycip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post

    I just had to show this again. Amazing.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Problem is you're not asking DC, you're telling the guy what to do, 1 person, not several, just you.If you want to place an order then place an order and specify exactly what and how you want the frame made, but don't go telling the guy how to do what he obviously knows very well how to do.
    Have I ever ordered someone to do something? I asked kindly Vrock to correct some obvious 'odd' geometry numbers and to check if there is a boundary with getting the frame for short people- XS. What we ended up with is a very small S frame, whereas reular S frame is utterly possible. I also pointed out thar deisigning a S frame with standover qualifiable for M as default is not right. Feeback is always welcome.
    I neither derailed the thread with questions with numbers nor did I tire the OP. He is an experienced frame designer, thus any geometry query is his everyday bread and I don't think he got tired much due to some numbers, which get calculated very fast on computers. He might have now some reffering points, ideas or more default geometry in mind. You did not contribute to the thread at all now. So now comment geometry yourself.

  91. #91
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,270
    You know it truly is amazing, I know a little bit from my 7 years riding MTBs and personal experience and I'll admit to that and knowing a little, you however don't even have the slightest clue that you're totally off your rocker with this stuff Who the Fock wants a 30 degree inverted stem to get the bars low enough for them As for my geometry thoughts...29ers aren't for everyone, I'm not a zealot, I'm realistic, something you have no grasp on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    Have I ever ordered someone to do something? I asked kindly Vrock to correct some obvious 'odd' geometry numbers and to check if there is a boundary with getting the frame for short people- XS. What we ended up with is a very small S frame, whereas reular S frame is utterly possible. I also pointed out thar deisigning a S frame with standover qualifiable for M as default is not right. Feeback is always welcome.
    I neither derailed the thread with questions with numbers nor did I tire the OP. He is an experienced frame designer, thus any geometry query is his everyday bread and I don't think he got tired much due to some numbers, which get calculated very fast on computers. He might have now some reffering points, ideas or more default geometry in mind. You did not contribute to the thread at all now. So now comment geometry yourself.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Who the Fock wants a 30 degree inverted stem to get the bars low enough for them
    I agreee roadies should dump their roadhandle bars. Who the fock would need a handle bar curved so much just to have the grips 4" below the stem. This is madness.

    You are saying that no short person can enjoy riding a 29er even though their frames are impeccable in terms of geometry? Are you really short like 5'3" and tried everything out there and found out that it is merely not possible?

    Vrock has just designed XS 29er frame with 150mm rear travel with coil piggyback shock and outstanding tyre clearance. It is something that by other frame designers is assumed abnormal. Other 29ers in longer travel incarnation usually have poor tyre clearance, high standover, longish top tube. They make the 29er trend look like ridiculous. I applaud this 29er project and if the suspension is very well tuned then I shall consider a frame in the future with 700mm standover and 593 effective toptube. I do not need small wheels to achieve that. It is a pity that Niner frames are run much bigger than comparable 26er frames. Now that longer offsets are common there is no need for this.

    The only thing to get a person 150-160 cm onboard a 29er AM rig is the lack of properly designed dropper bars and longer offset forks like 51, 55mm etc. As long as there is chin- headset clearance it is all good. It is short-sighted and primitive to forbid someone from enjoying the particular bike he/she wants just because it is not tuned to your kiddie wheels' proportions.
    If such a tiny long travel frame is doable then S and M sizes are a piece of cake. I can't understand why such a great company like Sant Cruz is so much behind and can't give us even a small Tallboy. It's a shame.
    If you don't like the idea don't buy that XS-like frame. Problem solved

    PS. To all. Is there any technical obstacle preventing a person, using inverted stems and dropperbars, from enjoying the ride? Will the dropper bar make the front wheel turn harder?
    How exactly is it more detrimental comparing to regular riser bars?
    Why people consider dropper bars a bad idea when roadie bars are not much different and get the chin closer to the headset? How is it any different?
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-17-2011 at 03:33 PM.

  93. #93
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    If such a tiny long travel frame is doable then S and M sizes are a piece of cake. I can't understand why such a great company like Sant Cruz is so much behind and can't give us even a small Tallboy. It's a shame.
    we do it just to spite you, my friend.

    it is entirely personal, and it is all your fault. anyone has a problem with the fact that we don't make a small, instead of pointing out some of the more obvious design challenges faced when trying to package big wheels, our VPP suspension, and any decent amount of suspension travel in a single bike that gary coleman could swing a leg over and not worry about crunching his jewels on the top tube while he's stopped and chatting up the ladies down on the venice beach promenade, we simply tell the inquiring potential customer; "oh, no, we don't make a small. there's this troll on the internet, and he had been badgering us for so many years now that we've made a company wide decision to never, ever, do anything that might be construed as aligning with his myopic and blighted crusade. anyway, he's got a real boner for small and extra small 29ers, and we just do not want to see him happy. so we're not gonna do it. his name's davidcopperfield. we hear he's designing bikes now, so you could always look him up and ask him to build you something..."

    how tall are you anyway?
    hold my beer...

  94. #94
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    When reading this forum I find lots of short persons complain about high standover and effective top tubes- is it not what they ran on 26ers. It is really lame that an S frame on 29ers is closer to M on 26ers.
    The frame size oughtn't to change with wheelsizes and accomodate riders od the same heights' ranges.
    I guess manufacturers do not want to lower the linkages specially for 29er models. We come to the conclusion that 29ers are still not designed well enough (they are longer with higher standover) and it is not that they can't be designed appropriately. It is just they do not pay enough attention.
    There you go... You have located a target market and a window of opportunity to start your own bike company and make money like there's no tomorrow. Lilliput Bikes, Inc.

    Make sure it's made in America and retails for under a grand a frame.
    Check my Site

  95. #95
    Administrator Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,028
    Quote Originally Posted by MtotheF View Post
    we do it just to spite you, my friend.

    it is entirely personal, and it is all your fault. anyone has a problem with the fact that we don't make a small, instead of pointing out some of the more obvious design challenges faced when trying to package big wheels, our VPP suspension, and any decent amount of suspension travel in a single bike that gary coleman could swing a leg over and not worry about crunching his jewels on the top tube while he's stopped and chatting up the ladies down on the venice beach promenade, we simply tell the inquiring potential customer; "oh, no, we don't make a small. there's this troll on the internet, and he had been badgering us for so many years now that we've made a company wide decision to never, ever, do anything that might be construed as aligning with his myopic and blighted crusade. anyway, he's got a real boner for small and extra small 29ers, and we just do not want to see him happy. so we're not gonna do it. his name's davidcopperfield. we hear he's designing bikes now, so you could always look him up and ask him to build you something..."

    how tall are you anyway?
    Try this: HTFU

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by MtotheF View Post
    we do it just to spite you, my friend.

    it is entirely personal, and it is all your fault. anyone has a problem with the fact that we don't make a small, instead of pointing out some of the more obvious design challenges faced when trying to package big wheels, our VPP suspension, and any decent amount of suspension travel in a single bike that gary coleman could swing a leg over and not worry about crunching his jewels on the top tube while he's stopped and chatting up the ladies down on the venice beach promenade, we simply tell the inquiring potential customer; "oh, no, we don't make a small. there's this troll on the internet, and he had been badgering us for so many years now that we've made a company wide decision to never, ever, do anything that might be construed as aligning with his myopic and blighted crusade. anyway, he's got a real boner for small and extra small 29ers, and we just do not want to see him happy. so we're not gonna do it. his name's davidcopperfield. we hear he's designing bikes now, so you could always look him up and ask him to build you something..."

    how tall are you anyway?
    Greatest post ever !!
    Unfortunately, this is going to shut him up only temporarily, until he finds some other fixation.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by MtotheF View Post
    we do it just to spite you, my friend.

    it is entirely personal, and it is all your fault. anyone has a problem with the fact that we don't make a small, instead of pointing out some of the more obvious design challenges faced when trying to package big wheels, our VPP suspension, and any decent amount of suspension travel in a single bike that gary coleman could swing a leg over and not worry about crunching his jewels on the top tube while he's stopped and chatting up the ladies down on the venice beach promenade, we simply tell the inquiring potential customer; "oh, no, we don't make a small. there's this troll on the internet, and he had been badgering us for so many years now that we've made a company wide decision to never, ever, do anything that might be construed as aligning with his myopic and blighted crusade. anyway, he's got a real boner for small and extra small 29ers, and we just do not want to see him happy. so we're not gonna do it. his name's davidcopperfield. we hear he's designing bikes now, so you could always look him up and ask him to build you something..."

    how tall are you anyway?

    I tip my hat to you Sir.

    This made my miserable day at work much more tolerable.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    [*]C. Small 29er frames are different than small 26er frames because they are as small as the manufacturer wants to make that line. There is no parity with 26er frames because they can go smaller with those frames. Small means this is the smallest we are going to make. Medium means this is a little larger than the small frame we make. Making them the same sounds like a good idea but then the company's smallest 29er frame might be a medium if you used Effective top tube as the measure of parity and people would come in try the bike and ask if they could try the small.
    What you're saying shows how narrow-minded about frame geometry you are. How on the earth a frame denoted S or L could mean something different on the same model but with different wheel sizes?
    If you increase the offset substantially, you will avoid toe-overlap. If we had 51mm and more offset forks we could design same tt lenght and hta angle on any wheelsizes. If a person is 6', 5'5" or 7 he/she needs the same measurements like tt, hta, stanover regardless of the wheelsize thengive them to her/him. Not that a person being in the middle of XL starts to fit L or someone on S starts to fit XS, which doesn't exist. What such an inane notion is leading to? Namely an S frame on 26er will be like a XL on a 36er. So an S rider would ask for a XXXXS 36er to achieve the tt, standover of an S 26er? This is ridiculous! [I am not saying (or perhaps I am) the S rider should fit a 36er, but you get the idea.]

    Bikes are a niche market even for the big companies, there isn't the market share for them to create new standards to fit people that should be on a differing standards.
    So you believe that 26er standards should be unaltered on 29ers? Tyre treads, fork offsets and frame tubing, gearing ought to be identical but for the frame sizes? Are you alright?

    Quote Originally Posted by MtotheF
    we do it just to spite you, my friend.

    it is entirely personal, and it is all your fault. anyone has a problem with the fact that we don't make a small, instead of pointing out some of the more obvious design challenges faced when trying to package big wheels, our VPP suspension, and any decent amount of suspension travel in a single bike that gary coleman could swing a leg over and not worry about crunching his jewels on the top tube while he's stopped and chatting up the ladies down on the venice beach promenade, we simply tell the inquiring potential customer; "oh, no, we don't make a small. there's this troll on the internet, and he had been badgering us for so many years now that we've made a company wide decision to never, ever, do anything that might be construed as aligning with his myopic and blighted crusade. anyway, he's got a real boner for small and extra small 29ers, and we just do not want to see him happy. so we're not gonna do it. his name's davidcopperfield. we hear he's designing bikes now, so you could always look him up and ask him to build you something..."
    Perhaps I can give you a hand and translate from "doublespeak company stooge's" rant into english? I'll give it a shot:
    "We are so much 2001 with outdated notion of 29ers. Our bike designer isn't silly that he doesn't see the innovation around him, me either for the record. Intense using our VPP suspension design makes a 8" DH 29er 2951, but we are laughing at them- it is impossible to stuff VPP, 29er wheels and so much suspension in there. Intense 2951 can't be ridden- it's beyond reality- it could be! We never tried ourselves, but we know it. We're pretending that Jeff Streber never have done it.
    We even knew in 2004 that 29ers would never take off. We said that we would never produce a 29er, ever! Vrock? Who, the hell, he thinks he is doing? He lost his mind even dipping his fingers in this (american) pie. There is no such thing like a long travel 29er, much less an S frame! Hey he is more clever than we are, so we don't like him. He ought to have designed a XXL 29er with maximum 4". If he touches120mm, then he should reduce the wheels to 26 inches, no way around it. We are that much lame."
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-18-2011 at 12:54 PM.

  99. #99
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    Perhaps you should have said:
    "We are so much 2001 with outdated notion of 29ers. Our bike designer isn't silly that he doesn't see the innovation around him, me either for the record. Intense using our VPP suspension design makes a 8" DH 29er 2951, but we are laughing at them- it is impossible to stuff VPP, 29er wheels and so much suspension in there. Intense 2951 can't be ridden- it's beyond reality- it could be! We never tried ourselves, but we know it. We're pretending that Jeff Streber never have done it.
    We even knew in 2004 that 29ers would never take off. We said that we would never produce a 29er, ever! Vrock? Who, the hell, he thinks he is doing? He lost his mind even dipping his fingers in this (american) pie. There is no such thing like a long travel 29er, much less an S frame! He ought to have designed a XXL 29er with maximum 4". If he touches120mm, then he should reduce the wheels to 26 inches, no way around it. We are that much lame."
    no, i think i said what i wanted. but thanks for mangling the english language a little bit more. what exactly are you trying to say?
    hold my beer...

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777
    I wrote exactly what I did. You are not able to design a long travel S frame whereas Intense is doing pretty fine both with Tracer 140mm S 29er and 2951 203mm. Why the hell Jeff can do it with VPP and have decent CS, standover, TT and you suck at it?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Jeronimo Chabardo C120.
    By Vrock in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 11:25 AM
  2. Jerónimo Chabardo Ti 160mm, Titanium grade XXX
    By lisboa98 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 11:33 PM
  3. +++ Jerónimo Chabardo Ti 160 mm +++
    By lisboa98 in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 04:11 PM
  4. Jerónimo Slütter Ti XCross
    By lisboa98 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 07:19 PM
  5. Jerónimo Chabardo Ti 100 29"
    By lisboa98 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 01:53 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •