Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51
  1. #1
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,094

    Singular Cycles Blizzard AM hardtail Proto (EDIT: Buzzard!)

    Just saw this posted over at Facebook and the link is to Sam's blog page for Singular.

    Love the color on this.... http://singularcycles.posterous.com/...otype-f?ref=nf
    Last edited by rockcrusher; 12-05-2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason: Edited title

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,856
    I thought it was odd that Sam would be trending away from avian names for his models...

    It's Buzzard, not Blizzard!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    490
    Thanks for the link GT - most appreciated. The model name is actually 'Buzzard', I was originally thinking of 'Vulture' but didn't want to cause any confusion with Wade's lovely frames. These are just the first protos so there are definitely a few details which still need to be work out, though I think we've pretty much got the basics. Things which will definitely change fro production;

    ST will be for a 31.9mm post for dropper compatibility - do we need dropper post cable routing as well if you already have guides on the TT for rear brake? Could easily double the cables with a zip tie on to the same set of guides. I kinda want to keep the frame as clean as possible.

    Tyre clearance will be improved, it's pretty tight even with the Ikon 2.2" in there. There are a couple of ways we could improve this without compromising chainstay length. First would just to be have a little more manipulation of the non-drive chainstay and the driveside plate. Second, and possibly my preference, would be to use a standard british threaded 73mm shell. This obviously would remove easy singlespeed/IGH-ability, but I wonder how in demand that is on a frame like this.

    At the moment it's a standard 135mm rear end, would going wider be a positive thing or is compatibility with existing wheelsets more important. I think possibly the latter especially as this will be sold as frame only - no completes.

    Anyhow, I know you guys have got lots of opinions, let's have 'em!

    Thanks for any feedback!

    Sam

    Yes - I do own Singular Cycles

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,110
    That is quite nice!

  5. #5
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,586

    Well thought out

    That is a beautiful, well thought out bike.
    My Favorite Peeps:

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    48
    I want one in english racing green, with EBB. Thanks!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    33
    I like the look of this. If I am allowed to voice my opinion:
    +for 31.9mm seatpost
    +for standard BB shell with ISCG tabs
    +for 150mm dropouts for stronger wheel but I may be biased as I don't have spare 29er wheelsets laying around so would need to buy one anyway. I like this idea as it would help differentiate Singular frame from the competition (Kona Honzo comes to mind).
    Oh, and I like tho colour too, hope you stick to it for the production frame.
    Thanks,
    Marcin
    Last edited by marcinski; 12-05-2011 at 09:07 AM.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cluster_tolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    Tyre clearance will be improved, it's pretty tight even with the Ikon 2.2" in there. There are a couple of ways we could improve this without compromising chainstay length. First would just to be have a little more manipulation of the non-drive chainstay and the driveside plate. Second, and possibly my preference, would be to use a standard british threaded 73mm shell. This obviously would remove easy singlespeed/IGH-ability, but I wonder how in demand that is on a frame like this.

    Thanks for any feedback!

    Sam
    Keep it SS compatible. The short stays are paramount to SSing, IMHO. It is my belief that all MTBs should have shorter stays, not just DHish funness bikes. An ebb would allow folks to run shoter race style forks and still keep the pedals from hitting with the bb positioned on the 'up' side? Sliders are nice too. What kind of ebb are you using? I say experiment to get your tire clearance up a bit. I like it!! You will be rocking with the Buzzard. How much does the frame weigh?
    Reading Features...
    Cracking Features...
    Assembling Features...

  9. #9
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,692
    Nice and beefy looking frame, but since you asked......

    • Make sure it's not a PIG like the Honzo, 7lbs+ for a rigid/HT frame is ludicrous.
    • Definitely normally BB and ISG tabs if it's to really be Trail/AM
    • 30.9 post is a smart move and will be appreciated
    • It's a HT, so make sure you've got clearance for a true 2.3" tyre, if not wider
    • Ability to run an FD IMHO is a definite something you need
    • Make the cable routing go under the TT, not ontop
    • Use a boss that has 3 or 4 slots for cables


    Curious, you think the HT/DT junction will be ok not having a gusset?
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  10. #10
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,487
    Looks good!! Definitely need tire clearance too. You could go 73mm standard BB shell with ISCG tabs, then us SSers could use a ISCG mounted Stinger for chain tension.

    Glad to see more of these style frames coming out and definitely want this style geometry on my SS bike.

    Also agree with Lynx, with the down tube coming in that high up on the head tube, you need a gusset.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wobbem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    560
    Do some thing different and stick one of these on:
    Pinion P1.18 | PINION / GET IN GEAR
    + 140mm travel
    + Swap outs
    + 2.4 tyre clearance
    = My wet dream

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    490
    Nitrous, yes I'm leaning in that direction. We will see how CEN testing goes as to whether a Gusset is necessary.

    Wobbem, taking those steps I'd at least have cornered a market of 1 ;-)
    Yes - I do own Singular Cycles

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    124
    Beautiful bike, Sam. As stated,2.4 clearance, top-tube cable routing on the downside would be nice, weight's not such a big deal as long as it is strong, hopefully no gusset .

  14. #14
    30-ton War Machine
    Reputation: edgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    793
    2.4 tire clearance, glad I am the first to say that. Bottom of top-tube cable guides, the Nimble9 only has one set and I am running mine 2x10 and just clustered the three cables in one zip tie, not the prettiest but, it is cleaner and lighter. EBB or, ISCG for a stinger tensioning device. If it isn't horribly expensive, bend that down-tube instead of running the DT up high with a gusset. Keep that orange as the color, that is sick!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,873
    re: downtube/HT junction -- i hope you can slightly bend/shape the top of the downtube to achieve a lower weld point on HT, as is typically seen on higher-end aluminum 29er frames. Gussets are sort of a band-aid, and look it.

    re: under-toptube routing, clearance for 2.4 Ardent/flow on rear -- strongly agree, and my perception is that most riders would agree. this category of frame (I have a Yelli Screamy, my friend rides a Honzo) really benefits from having room for a large-volume rear tire.

    re: front derailleur compatibility -- in seeking short CS, you might consider not prioritizing FD compatibility. more and more I see riders that, like me, ride 1X10 on a 29er hardtail on very long steep singletrack climbs, the kind of climbs for which a granny ring on the front is a must when riding a 5+ inch travel full suspension bike.

    re: BB shell -- I agree with nitrousjunky's post above. I have not ridden an ISCG-guide-roller approach to single-speeds, but it looks like a clean solution, and the std 73 mm BB means everyone wins.

    re: 150 mm rear wheel spacing -- what chainline would you be proposing, i.e. you'd still be using a moderate Q-factor 73 mm BB right? Would you be radically shaping the chainstays to preserve heel clearance for guys like me with large feet? Even on a slender-stay standard frame, I still get heel rub., and while an 83 mm BB would solve that issue with your hypothetical 150 spacing, you'd then have a somewhat odd niche frame.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,873
    another idea to help distinguish this frame in the growing AM HT category: water bottle mounts on the seat tube that don't interfere with slamming the post way down. While this is not an issue on my size L Yelli, I have heard that complaint from other riders ( it's a function of frame size, seatpost length).

    I think Lynx's quote of 7 lb for the Honzo is referring to the odd frame (early production?) that someone posted here. At any rate, I have no doubt that the high quality tubing Singular would be using will result in a weight most could live with no problem.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  17. #17
    Dinner for wolves
    Reputation: buddhak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,545
    That's a great looking frame. I will be sad to see the EBB go, but I can see why it must. The EBB would have made this bike unique among all the other AM 29er HT offerings (yes, I know the Chumba Hx2 has an EBB).
    Responds to gravity

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ratty2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    578
    Looks very very nice, but agree with some of the above (most..) cables under the top tube, I like EBB but its not absolutely necessary.
    30.9/31.6 seat tube is a must IMO, and please do include the guides for a dropper post cable. Mmm, might just be a new frame added to the stable...

  19. #19
    weekend warrior
    Reputation: Lenz43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    288
    Great looking bike, good addition to the Singular range.

    I love the overall impression with the kinked seat tube and sloping geometry, well done.

    Do more of:
    - the orange colour, I love it,
    - the straight down tube, don't mind a gusset if it's needed
    Not many curved down tubes behind the HT look "right" to me
    - 30.9 seatpost, 135mm rear end, full length shift cable outers

    but
    - 2.4" rear tire clearance please, tight for 2.2 is a potential deal breaker
    - cable routing below the top tube please, keeps any unused slots out of sight too
    - riders interested in this frame are likely to run a dropper post, or "want to" in future

    About the SS vs geared options.

    I think I spot and EBB in the picture, mine work well no strong sentiments. The short stays plus 2.4" tires may make the FD decision a non-starter though. It looks like braze-ons for rear gears and an EBB is the thing. Could tuck away a down routed bottom pull FD cable stop in the BB shell area ... I wonder

    FWIW I live on the planes and my last two 29er builds are 1x10v and 1x9v, plus one EBB SS in the barn. IIRC Singular no longer offer the separate geared and SS versions of their Swift frame. They must know what their customers order then.

    Enjoy!!
    Common sense was never common

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ChristianAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14
    Looks very, very good!

    - EBB oder SliderDropouts (!!!!)
    - Tire Clearance for Ardent 2.4
    - 135mm RearEnd for normal Skewers (No Hardtail really needs Maxle etc.)
    - DropPost compatible
    - Clean Look!

    Get them in Production as fast as possible! I need another Bike in addition to my Swift
    Last edited by ChristianAB; 12-05-2011 at 03:07 PM.

  21. #21
    banned
    Reputation: eauxgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Make sure it's not a PIG like the Honzo, 7lbs+ for a rigid/HT frame is ludicrous.
    Evidently a few received pre-production frames. My 18" came in at 5.5 lbs....

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider View Post
    re: downtube/HT junction -- i hope you can slightly bend/shape the top of the downtube to achieve a lower weld point on HT, as is typically seen on higher-end aluminum 29er frames. Gussets are sort of a band-aid, and look it.

    re: under-toptube routing, clearance for 2.4 Ardent/flow on rear -- strongly agree, and my perception is that most riders would agree. this category of frame (I have a Yelli Screamy, my friend rides a Honzo) really benefits from having room for a large-volume rear tire.

    re: front derailleur compatibility -- in seeking short CS, you might consider not prioritizing FD compatibility. more and more I see riders that, like me, ride 1X10 on a 29er hardtail on very long steep singletrack climbs, the kind of climbs for which a granny ring on the front is a must when riding a 5+ inch travel full suspension bike.

    re: BB shell -- I agree with nitrousjunky's post above. I have not ridden an ISCG-guide-roller approach to single-speeds, but it looks like a clean solution, and the std 73 mm BB means everyone wins.

    re: 150 mm rear wheel spacing -- what chainline would you be proposing, i.e. you'd still be using a moderate Q-factor 73 mm BB right? Would you be radically shaping the chainstays to preserve heel clearance for guys like me with large feet? Even on a slender-stay standard frame, I still get heel rub., and while an 83 mm BB would solve that issue with your hypothetical 150 spacing, you'd then have a somewhat odd niche frame.
    Great move, looking good

    Agree on the above - note Isla Bikes has recently released the 29er BEINN. A different audience I know, but still a 1x9/10 production bike - brave move? Maybe, but this suits a 29er 'AM' style MTB so well...

  23. #23
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,692
    Yeah, from a few responses on that thread I gathered that, but for the life of me cannot figure why a company like Kona would do something so stupid without asking the customer first AND giving them a good discount IF they agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by eauxgod View Post
    Evidently a few received pre-production frames. My 18" came in at 5.5 lbs....
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: atom29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    318
    142 x 12 spacing if anything other than 135.
    Maybe curve the seat tube a bit more for tire clearance?
    Please keep that color!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    490
    IMO 142x12 is a bit pointless on a hardtail. You don't really need the increase in stiffness, and it does nothing to improve wheel strength. So I expect it'll stay at 135. Folks wanting a stiffer, stronger wheel could go 6speed on SS cassette hub with a 10mm thru-axle type QR.

    Other things....

    More standover? seriously? Anyhow, I want this to be a bike you can still ride uphill, not an immediate get off and push beastie as soon as the trail goes up. At the moment with a 410 post in there I can get the saddle up to a reasonable riding height for this frame size, around 800mm, and still drop it a long way. If the standover was much greater then you wouldn't be able to get the saddle very high.

    As above, definitely aiming for clearance with 2.4" Ardents, a standard 73mm BB shell would allow us to do this. Jury's still out on whether to go for ISCG tabs or rely on seat tube or bb cup mounted retention devices. Which ISCG standard if so? (hanging his head and admitting to not knowing much about such things....)

    Weight at the moment is a little on the porky side, around 6.8lbs with the EBB. I'll be aiming for around 6lbs which should be doable without the EBB and perhaps a slightly slimmer DT. But this is not an XC race bike, so weight saving steps won't be taken to the detriment of performance of the bike as a whole.

    Will definitely be a 31.9mm post. However I'm struggling to see what real advantage specific dropper post cable guides would have over just doubling up the cable with the brake cable along the existing TT guides? Then those who don't use a dropper post aren't stuck with superfluous guides.
    Yes - I do own Singular Cycles

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Singular Cycles Film
    By Ackie in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 02:31 PM
  2. New Singular Cycles Prototype Pics
    By singlespeedstu in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11-11-2008, 01:22 PM
  3. Singular Hummingbird 69er proto
    By Singular in forum 27.5 - 650b
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 09:20 PM
  4. Singular cycles-with pics of the beast
    By EGF168 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 12:50 PM

Posting Permissions

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