Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 322

Thread: Corsair Marque

  1. #1
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,484

    Corsair Marque

    Anyone else salivating over one of these, been idle waiting and wanting one for a bit. Just not a lot of information on them. Seen a few pics from interbike.

    Anyone got more details on the suspension system, etc? Or just post up some pics.

    Going to available come July, and they are establishing a dealership network. Found one near me.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    First Marque prototypes are finished and in paint. I saw raw frame pics last week. They will be at Taipei, then they will be in the US for testing.

    I can't wait to try one because the Maelstrom proto is SOOO plush and a great pedaler, I want to see what a lighter, shorter travel version feels like.

    JMH

  3. #3
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    I too have been anxiously awaiting more information on these frames. I can't wait to see how they ride. Corsair seems to be a very interesting up and coming company, I love their downhill offerings as well.
    Bike good, work bad.

  4. #4
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,484
    Having trouble figuring out the suspension on this.

    Looks kind of like the one on a Commencal?

  5. #5
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    It is a linkage-actuated single pivot. The lower linkage assembly pivots around the BB shell to compress the shock. It's hard to imagine how it works until you see it.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Slyp Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    454
    yes, it is a rather weird linkage system. I think it is basically one linkage connected to the rear triangle, which is connected to another linkage which rotates about a pivot connected to the frame. at the other end of said linkage is the shock. as the rear triangle is moved up by the suspension compressing, the first linkage pulls the non-shock end of the second linkage, which in the process of pivoting also compresses the shock. there should be something on Corsair's website, at least for the Maelstrom that gives an animation of the suspension in action.
    the real question is this: did anyone understand my babble?
    EDIT: I am also pretty interested in the Koing. it might be advertised as a slopestyle rig, but from the geometry specs, apart from the seat tube length and angle it isn't that far off of the geometry of the Marque, and there is only a 5mm travel difference and I want to say a 21mm shock eye-to-eye difference (longer shock on the Marque). it also looks like mounting a front dee on it wouldn't be that hard as long as the tubing used to connect the BB area to the little shock tunnel (if you can call it that) is the standard clamp diameter for a derailleur. if I'm right, the Marque and the Maelstrom both skip the clamp and just straight up bolt the dee to the frame. anywho, the Marque in black looks very very sweet. if they can get a US dealer in my area I might just go to them and ask to demo one of the Marques on the local trails. then come back the next day and do the same with the Koing and the next day with the Maelstrom just so I can see how the three bikes differ. the Crown is a bit too much bike for this area, and the Ducat is a dirt jump bike, not anything close to a trail bike.
    oh yeah, I wonder how the headsets that Corsair uses are, and if they are not up to snuff with the rest of the industry's headsets if they could be swapped out for say a Cane Creek 110 or a Chris King unit?
    Last edited by Slyp Dawg; 03-07-2008 at 07:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdicky View Post
    My butthole would pucker and invert until I was inside-out before I got to the bottom.

  7. #7
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Anybody have photos, or links to photos of the Marque?

  8. #8
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Slyp-

    The headsets utilize the same mehanical design as Sunline and sport some very large bearings. I have heard discussion of an adapter for a standard headset, but I don't think this is currently a priority with so many other things to get done. It would not be a difficult item to make, just some sort of cylinder machined to the correct inside/outside dimensions. You would lose the ability to change head angle by switching to the One Degree headset, though. The +/- 1 degree Corsair headset has the offset built into the cups. The Corsair headset that comes with the frame is the straight (zero degree) version.

    Perttime-

    Not yet, as stated above the Marque is only a prototype at this point. Maybe there will be one at Sea Otter? Big question mark. Perhaps freshWood will have new information shortly.

    JMH

  9. #9
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    Not yet, as stated above the Marque is only a prototype at this point.
    A secret prototype?

    I know of a manufacturer or two who showed early prototypes to the choir and got comments that made the final product better...

  10. #10
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    I don't recall hearing or saying it was a secret... but your version of things certainly is more exciting!

    The photos I saw were of raw main frames with no swingarms attached, snapped with a lame camera in a linoleum-floored Taiwan factory. Not exactly the kind of Bike Porn that goes straight to the internet. Nor were they informative enough to allow armchair designers to get to work on improvements. Suffice it to say, I imagine it's going to be a while. Once the "secret prototypes" are in the United States and have been assembled and ridden, I am sure you will start to see pictures.

    JMH

    Quote Originally Posted by perttime
    A secret prototype?

    I know of a manufacturer or two who showed early prototypes to the choir and got comments that made the final product better...

  11. #11
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    armchair designers to get to work on improvements.


    Perhaps the Corsair designer has thought of everything. On the other hand, showing some early work or even asking for opinions on some details might raise suggestions, good and bad. Listening to the potential users/buyers might even make them "attached" to the product, perhaps enough to make them buyers.

    I bet the Corsair bikes are great. The computer graphics and photos of a couple of other prototypes have been around a while. Why doesn't anybody really say anything about the bikes that exist? The best I've read so far boils down to something like: "yeah, it's a good bike". Bit frustrating, I think.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BikinAggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by perttime


    Perhaps the Corsair designer has thought of everything. On the other hand, showing some early work or even asking for opinions on some details might raise suggestions, good and bad. Listening to the potential users/buyers might even make them "attached" to the product, perhaps enough to make them buyers.

    I bet the Corsair bikes are great. The computer graphics and photos of a couple of other prototypes have been around a while. Why doesn't anybody really say anything about the bikes that exist? The best I've read so far boils down to something like: "yeah, it's a good bike". Bit frustrating, I think.

    I'm pretty sure someone, possibly JMH, rode the maelstrom and konig and gave a pretty detailed review of how they rode. The marque should be similar to the maelstrom, albeit scaled down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Owler
    Do not dispute right of way with a tree.

  13. #13
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by perttime


    Perhaps the Corsair designer has thought of everything. On the other hand, showing some early work or even asking for opinions on some details might raise suggestions, good and bad. Listening to the potential users/buyers might even make them "attached" to the product, perhaps enough to make them buyers.
    I am not trying to dodge you, I totally agree with you. What part of "there are no photos of the Marque" am I failing to get across? I mean, there really aren't. Like I said, there are some blurry shots of swingarms and mainframes hanging on hooks in a factory. If Corsair doesn't want them on the web, I can hardly fail to empathize. It's not a scam, it's not hype, it's just fact. The prototypes are literally being assembled now. Until they are put together, there's nothing to post, is there? Not trying to be coy, I am trying to pass on information that I have access to.

    Quote Originally Posted by perttime
    Why doesn't anybody really say anything about the bikes that exist? The best I've read so far boils down to something like: "yeah, it's a good bike". Bit frustrating, I think.
    Unfortunately, there are only 3 prototype bikes (one each of the Ducat, König and Maelstrom) assembled and rideable, the designer has them all and is riding them every day. So unless you happen to run into him (he is living in Ventura, CA), there just isn't any kind of information out there beyond the hearsay you describe. I have ridden all of them and can try to answer any specific questions if you like? I hope very much to get my mitts on a prototype Marque sometime this summer and if you are going to be in Salt Lake City I will gladly try to get it under you for a test ride. Then again, I might never get to ride one until they hit stores.

    The most recent photos of prototypes (Maelstrom V2 and Crown V1) are posted here: http://www.transcendmagazine.com/gallery/taipei08 The Crown is largely unfinished in these pics and has tack welds in a few places, but they give the main idea.

    JMH
    Last edited by JMH; 03-31-2008 at 10:26 AM.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Luigiugueto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,537
    It uses the same Idler Pulley design the Maelström uses. to see how it works click here:

    http://corsairbikes.com/fly.aspx?layout=maelstrom

  15. #15
    Leash Law Enforcer
    Reputation: Pinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,103
    I find this frame's geometry very interesting. The adjustable HA idea is very cool. If I'm not mistaken, Commencal uses the same thing on some of their frames. I would love to try one out when they become available.

    In the meantime, I emailed Doug, President of Corsair, to ask him some questions. He was very prompt in replying to my emails. I was really impressed that his email signature contained all his contact info (cell phone, office phone, email, etc.) short of his home address. It seems like he is really putting himself out there and is confident in his product. There doesn't seem any reason to doubt that these will be quality frames once they hit the market.

  16. #16
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,576
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    Words. Words. Words. Words......

    JMH
    Umm, dude so when are there going to be some photos and ride reports of the protos available??

    Seriously, I want to start some e-speculation about how they handle once I see a photo!

    Thank you.
    EB

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Luigiugueto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,537
    Well he has something to be confident about, his bikes are pretty sick

  18. #18
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Quote Originally Posted by BikinAggie
    I'm pretty sure someone, possibly JMH, rode the maelstrom and konig and gave a pretty detailed review of how they rode.
    I did not manage to find those ride reports. Can anyone point me (us) in the right direction?

  19. #19
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by perttime
    I did not manage to find those ride reports. Can anyone point me (us) in the right direction?
    Here is a thread from a quick ride last fall, Err makes some comments on the bikes: Corsair Test Ride

    I found the Maelstrom a tad cumbersome on the trail we rode, but I had come off of a few weeks of riding my DJ and XC bikes only, it was bound to feel a little weird. I like a bit steeper head angle on a freeride bike, but the adjustable headset will easily fix this for me. The rear shock at that time was a standard compression stack instead of one valved specifically for the 2-1 ratio of the Maelstrom. Pablo is currently riding a new Marzocchi with a 3.5" stroke on the back and loves it.

  20. #20
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    Corsair Test Ride

    I found the Maelstrom a tad cumbersome on the trail we rode, ...
    Err's report, especially, makes the bikes sound very good. The Maelstrom is definitely a "bigger" bike than I need. The trails I ride are pretty twisty with lots of short ups and downs, and I rarely get to high speeds. The only thing that really worries me about the Marque is the seat tube angle which looks pretty steep for my dimensions.

  21. #21
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Photos of a Marque are up on the CORSAIR Flickr:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/corsairbikes/sets/

    JMH
    Attached Images Attached Images

  22. #22
    Steeeeeeve PERRY!
    Reputation: mcflan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    126
    Looks purdy

    That suspension design is interesting.

    I'll be amped to hear how it holds up

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    146
    Any ideas when these will be available? or does anyone know who will be selling them in Canada.

  24. #24
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,273
    Looks pretty sweet, but after taking a look at the web site the geometry numbers -- specifically the head angle -- seem jacked up. Hopefully it's a typo or rough draft, b/c it makes it seem more like a slopestyle frame?

    It's listing a HA of 67 deg., presumably the middle headset setting (with 66 & 68 as the other two settings). Fine as long as you run the 5" fork that they show in the tables, but I imagine many people will want to put a 6" fork on there (like the Marz 55 they have mounted up in the photos), making the HA numbers 65-66-67 degrees. Too slack for a frame of this type, in my opinion. Also a BB height of 13.0" seems way too low. Compared to the Konig, the Marque is lower & slacker. Doesn't make sense to me.

  25. #25
    a tight kick sound
    Reputation: boone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,813
    This thing looks tight! Can't wait to hear more about it.

    Budgie: not trying to stir up a fuss but why would you want a 6" fork on there? I guess the 55 goes to that length
    but with an adjustable HA one would not need a bigger fork to gain slacker HA?
    Anyway, I do kinda agree though that a HA starting at 68 as the mid may be better.
    Then a 67-68-69 could be had without messing with the length of the fork. If other
    angles are needed then maybe an adjustable fork could be used.
    Also, something like a 13.5" BB height would be nice too
    But that is just spec on my part, I am not sure what the intended purpose of this frame is
    at this point.

    Any spec on what the frames weight might be?

  26. #26
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Good geometry (for your preferences) is more important than an inch more or less suspension travel.

    13" BB height on a FS bike may be low enough that you must pay attention to how you pedal among rocks. (I went OTB yesterday when climbing my HT bike with BB at about 12": a pedal got stuck on a root I did not see...)

  27. #27
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,273
    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    why would you want a 6" fork on there? I guess the 55 goes to that length
    but with an adjustable HA one would not need a bigger fork to gain slacker HA?
    Just thinking aloud ... forks like the 55, lyrik or fox 36 would seem to suit the intended use, or what I'm guessing is the intended use. It's not so much a matter of travel, but features like burliness, 20mm TA. Every image of the Marque I've seen has a 55 mounted to it.

    But maybe with the upcoming offerings like the 15mm Fox & Marz 44, and the redesigned 20mm Revelation, 5" forks will have the burliness that you'd want for a frame like this.

    At any rate, I think at least a half degree steeper HA would make the Marque more versatile. It's exciting to see a frame designed with so many new ideas!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    I do think that the 13" BB height is a bit low.

    My first impression is that the suspension design is overly complicated for a single pivot. Isn't the single greatest argument about SP's is their simple, easy maintenance designs. The links are so jammed/compacted into the BB area. Looks like a pain to work on. If people complain about the complexity of VPP and DW designs, This seems way more troublesome.

    That said, I think the frames look killer.

  29. #29
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,843
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    My first impression is that the suspension design is overly complicated for a single pivot.
    Agreed...

    I like the rearward moving axle path and the idler should make things nice at the pedals... But I can't get over the overly complicated way of actuating the shock. Maybe it's to get the rearward axle path and the design of the bike, but I just can't get over it.

    Oh, and the lack of tyre clearance. For that I have my current bike.

    Nice bike, though.
    Check my Site

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    76

    here you go

    Hi, this is Doug from Corsair Bikes.

    this frame has very good mud clearance. We have studied it from many angles and there are many really cool design inputs that assist the bike in its quest to not retain mud.

    Once you understand our 'SureLock' system, you will discover how thoughtful we have been in the design details surrounding making our design simple and uncomplicated. We think so many bikes are horrible because their designers have neglected to consider the importance of maintaining a full suspension bicycle. Our frames are not loaded up with hard to fit washers and crude nuts and bolts. All the hardware has been thoughtfully designed so that mechanics from shadetree to professional can work on the frames without going crazy. So from this perspective, our frames are quite simple and uncomplicated compared to many others.

    Its also worth pointing out that using the BB as the pivot for the rocker has several important benefits. Large bearings, rock solid, low center of gravity.

    We think the BB height and head angle are correct for this type of bike. Generally speaking we think many bikes have bottom bracket heights that are too high which adversely affects a bikes performance.

    Finally, with our idler pulley technology, this frame is made to be an efficient pedalling and climbing trail/all-mountain bike. Words can not describe the effect that our idler pulley technology has on this bikes pedalling efficiency. Quite simply, it is a game changer.

    I think that addresses many of the questions that have been brought up.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by freshw00d
    Hi, this is Doug from Corsair Bikes.

    I think that addresses many of the questions that have been brought up.

    Hey Doug,
    Thanks for your input.
    In regards to the Headtube Angles, On the website the frame is shown with a Marz 55 fork. A2C of around 545mm. Recomended fork A2C is 510mm. Is this correct?
    Is the bikes 67deg HA based on the 510mm A2C? If so the 55 would slack 67 deg to close to 65 deg??????

    I really want that bike to have 67-68 deg HA with a 160mm fork!!!!!

  32. #32
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,484
    Doug thanks for the input any info. on availability of the Marque in the U.S.?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    76

    HTA and Travel

    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    Hey Doug,
    Thanks for your input.
    In regards to the Headtube Angles, On the website the frame is shown with a Marz 55 fork. A2C of around 545mm. Recomended fork A2C is 510mm. Is this correct?
    Is the bikes 67deg HA based on the 510mm A2C? If so the 55 would slack 67 deg to close to 65 deg??????

    I really want that bike to have 67-68 deg HA with a 160mm fork!!!!!
    Hi,

    Its quite interesting how many e-mails, etc that I receive from riders who immediately want to change the lay-out of the bikes we have designed. We have designed this frame for a fork with travel in the 130-140mm range. While you may choose to select a fork with more travel, its a bit hard to understand why you would want to do that. We have built adjustable headtube angle into all of our bikes because we understand riders have personal preferences. Its really easy and more manufacturers should do it. We are quite certain that the range of adjustability is appropriate to accomodate riders desires to manipulate steering feel or use different travel forks.

    Additionally, as pictured on our bikes, you will notice we have used an adjustable travel 55 fork. We think this is an ideal fork for this bike. It is of medium weight, its tough and it has adjustable travel to accomodate the various terrains that riders of this type of bike may encounter. Other brands offer forks with the same attributes and we would recommend using a fork like this.

    Its also really important to understand three important attributes of this frame. First is the 2:1 leverage ratio for the rear suspension, second is the idler pulley technology and finally is the rearward axlepath. When added to the adjustable headtube angle, I would encourage you to first ride one of these bikes before drawing conclusions concerning how they might be set up differently.

  34. #34
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,599
    Slack head angles rule! Well for me at least ;o)

    Nice looking bike Doug - wouldn't mind trying one out one of these days.

    Cheers!

  35. #35
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,484
    Hey get out of here. You got enough toys!

  36. #36
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by baycat
    Hey get out of here. You got enough toys!
    you can never have enough bikes

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by freshw00d
    Hi,

    Its quite interesting how many e-mails, etc that I receive from riders who immediately want to change the lay-out of the bikes we have designed. We have designed this frame for a fork with travel in the 130-140mm range. While you may choose to select a fork with more travel, its a bit hard to understand why you would want to do that. We have built adjustable headtube angle into all of our bikes because we understand riders have personal preferences. Its really easy and more manufacturers should do it. We are quite certain that the range of adjustability is appropriate to accomodate riders desires to manipulate steering feel or use different travel forks.

    Additionally, as pictured on our bikes, you will notice we have used an adjustable travel 55 fork. We think this is an ideal fork for this bike. It is of medium weight, its tough and it has adjustable travel to accomodate the various terrains that riders of this type of bike may encounter. Other brands offer forks with the same attributes and we would recommend using a fork like this.

    Its also really important to understand three important attributes of this frame. First is the 2:1 leverage ratio for the rear suspension, second is the idler pulley technology and finally is the rearward axlepath. When added to the adjustable headtube angle, I would encourage you to first ride one of these bikes before drawing conclusions concerning how they might be set up differently.
    It depends on what 55 fork you spec with it cause a 160mm 55ATA can be travel adjusted but the performance changes significantly when travel is changed. This is a negative trait of the ATA itself and I would not rely on it to help the bike. Do not expect the same performance @ 160mm vs 120mm.
    If you are specing it with a 140 55R then that would be different IMO.
    From what I have seen here is that the 55 series has lots of issues and the only other fork that is AM worthy IMO is the Pike 454 @ 140mm



    As far as coming up with alternate setups, well that's what we do here on MTBR. And if many people have expressed their OPI on BB height and HA well we are your buying public and we know what we want. Whether you choose to listen or not is up to you.

    Check out this thread:
    MTBR users have lots of ideas to make things better or worse.
    Marzocchi ETA....what do you think?
    Last edited by wormvine; 04-30-2008 at 07:34 PM.

  38. #38
    a tight kick sound
    Reputation: boone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,813
    Great info on this rig, thanks!
    I think some people might be concerned about the HA (me included) for 2 reasons: 1) the bike flat out looks Bad**S and might want one! and 2) a lot of us would be climbing some steep sections of trail with a frame like this and while it is not a set rule, bikes with slacker HAs tend to wander a bit while climbing steep sections of trail. From what I have found, again not set rule, an AM HA of 68-69 is optimal for climbing steep stuff while 67-68 is great for DH. Starting off with 68 then allows for a fork that can take you both ways. IMO, starting off at 67 might not allow the HA to become steep enough while maintaining an adequate BB height for climbing nasty stuff. I'm not talk 14 inches or anything here
    I ride a SS with a 12" BB. But starting at 13" while decreasing the HA on climbs with 5" of rear travel may be a bit low.

    Many things go into designing a good frame for a specific purpose and the engineers at corsair will be WAY ahead of me on this
    For my sake I will hope to be able to test one of these bad boys out because it is not every day that one finds a sweet looking AM bike with this kind of great geo starting point.

    Keep up the good work!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    Great info on this rig, thanks!
    I think some people might be concerned about the HA (me included) for 2 reasons: 1) the bike flat out looks Bad**S and might want one! and 2) a lot of us would be climbing some steep sections of trail with a frame like this and while it is not a set rule, bikes with slacker HAs tend to wander a bit while climbing steep sections of trail. From what I have found, again not set rule, an AM HA of 68-69 is optimal for climbing steep stuff while 67-68 is great for DH. Starting off with 68 then allows for a fork that can take you both ways. IMO, starting off at 67 might not allow the HA to become steep enough while maintaining an adequate BB height for climbing nasty stuff. I'm not talk 14 inches or anything here
    I ride a SS with a 12" BB. But starting at 13" while decreasing the HA on climbs with 5" of rear travel may be a bit low.

    Many things go into designing a good frame for a specific purpose and the engineers at corsair will be WAY ahead of me on this
    For my sake I will hope to be able to test one of these bad boys out because it is not every day that one finds a sweet looking AM bike with this kind of great geo starting point.

    Keep up the good work!
    Thanks Boone,
    I think you summed up a lot of poster concerns. I have a 14" BB height and try as I might I smack the pedals hard sometimes. An All Mountain bike should have these issues in mind. I have read lots of posts where a rider was upset that the BB was under 14". The BB of the IH Sunday is 13.9".

  40. #40
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,273
    Quote Originally Posted by freshw00d
    Its quite interesting how many e-mails, etc that I receive from riders who immediately want to change the lay-out of the bikes we have designed. We have designed this frame for a fork with travel in the 130-140mm range. Additionally, as pictured on our bikes, you will notice we have used an adjustable travel 55 fork.
    Not to speak for anyone else, I'm just trying to understand the design of a bike that seems unlike anything else out there, geometry included. Consider it curiosity sparked by a curious bike. Serves you right for being innovative. And naturally many of us obsess over every last detail of geometry tables, since it's hard to gauge new features like the idler without actually throwing a leg over the bike.

    But thanks for the info: can't wait to try one out! I bet it rails...

  41. #41
    a tight kick sound
    Reputation: boone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,813
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    Thanks Boone,
    I think you summed up a lot of poster concerns. I have a 14" BB height and try as I might I smack the pedals hard sometimes. An All Mountain bike should have these issues in mind. I have read lots of posts where a rider was upset that the BB was under 14". The BB of the IH Sunday is 13.9".

    Yeah this very same issue is a hot topic right now over on the Turner forum. It seems as though there are two groups of folks, DHers and XC dudes. The DHers want slacker and lower AM bikes and the XC dudes seem to like Higher BB (not nec higher COG) and steeper angles.

    I guess I find myself right smack in the middle. I like my DH bike low, long and slack. I like my XC bike lowish (no suspension) and steep. And the AM bike is a bit of a problem for me. I like to be able to climb steep stuff like the XC bike and like to DH like a DHer. For me this is a frame with an adjustable HA around 68, BB at the highest around 13.75 (no lower than 13 at the lowest), gobs of standover, roomy cockpit and about 5" of travel front and rear.

    This is what really caught my eye about the Marque; it is pretty low, relatively slack HA
    and the large TT is not 24" like 90% of the rest of AM frames. Damn near perfect for me

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by boone

    Yeah this very same issue is a hot topic right now over on the Turner forum. It seems as though there are two groups of folks, DHers and XC dudes. The DHers want slacker and lower AM bikes and the XC dudes seem to like Higher BB (not nec higher COG) and steeper angles.
    ...
    This is what really caught my eye about the Marque; it is pretty low, relatively slack HA
    and the large TT is not 24" like 90% of the rest of AM frames. Damn near perfect for me
    I hear you. But what about the FR'rs. They like higher BB's as well. Doesn't AM include it all?
    I really like the numbers on the Titus El Guapo. I love curvy tubes though.
    I am not looking for too slack of a bike. 67 deg works well for me. I wouldn't change my HA very often or at all if I had the option anyways. If I can't do it in 10 seconds it is of no use to me.
    The Transition Bottlerocket has similar spec to what you want. 24" TT in large though. But it has 67deg HA, 13.8" BB height, 5,5" travel.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    76

    BB Height

    In a 'world of compromises', I think the following should be considered when evaluating BB height:

    If a rider wants to have a bike which will 'never' hit its pedals, then it is important for that rider to understand the performance loss associated with that higher bottom bracket.

    In designing and setting up a bike, generally speaking Corsair is attempting to get the bottom bracket as low as possible while maintaining pedal clearance that will result in occassional or rare pedal hits.

    We believe the performance and handling benefits of lower BB height, center of gravity, etc outweigh the occassional hitting of pedals.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by freshw00d
    In a 'world of compromises', I think the following should be considered when evaluating BB height:

    If a rider wants to have a bike which will 'never' hit its pedals, then it is important for that rider to understand the performance loss associated with that higher bottom bracket.

    In designing and setting up a bike, generally speaking Corsair is attempting to get the bottom bracket as low as possible while maintaining pedal clearance that will result in occassional or rare pedal hits.

    We believe the performance and handling benefits of lower BB height, center of gravity, etc outweigh the occassional hitting of pedals.
    How is 13" a compromise? If the Race proven IH Sunday has a BB height of 13.9", How does 13" equate to a compromise? This is supposed to be a AM bike, right. Not a short travel DH bike.
    Intense Socom FRO has a 14.124" BB height.
    Transition BR = 13.8"
    Turner 5 spot = 13.6"
    Titus El Guapo = 13.85"
    Santa Cruz Nomad = 14.2"
    Just debating, don't take it personally!
    Last edited by wormvine; 04-30-2008 at 09:12 PM.

  45. #45
    a tight kick sound
    Reputation: boone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,813
    I very much agree with a lot of things that are being said here.
    Lower BB is almost always good in my eyes. My DH rig last year was at 13.5 with big tires!

    At this point I am gonna reserve judgement on a 13" BB until I can ride it and see how I like it

    How much does this frame weigh btw...if you don't mind me asking?

  46. #46
    a tight kick sound
    Reputation: boone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,813
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    I hear you. But what about the FR'rs. They like higher BB's as well. Doesn't AM include it all?
    I really like the numbers on the Titus El Guapo. I love curvy tubes though.
    I am not looking for too slack of a bike. 67 deg works well for me. I wouldn't change my HA very often or at all if I had the option anyways. If I can't do it in 10 seconds it is of no use to me.
    The Transition Bottlerocket has similar spec to what you want. 24" TT in large though. But it has 67deg HA, 13.8" BB height, 5,5" travel.
    true true, I guess AM does include it all. I am glad I don't design frames. The guapo numbers look cool, I have heard some rumblings about the numbers not being what people are actually finding. I don't know if that is real or not. Cool bike though.

    BR is a sick bike and I commend the guys at Transition for bringing such a bike to the market. It is a bit of a porker for an AM bike for me. An AM bike for me does not need to be able to hit 8 ft drops. If there was a bike like this that did not weigh as much I would love it. Then again, it would be implied that a frame like that might not handle as much abuse as the heavy one! Now the new tranny preston on the other hand...very nice geo!

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    true true, I guess AM does include it all. I am glad I don't design frames. The guapo numbers look cool, I have heard some rumblings about the numbers not being what people are actually finding. I don't know if that is real or not. Cool bike though.

    BR is a sick bike and I commend the guys at Transition for bringing such a bike to the market. It is a bit of a porker for an AM bike for me. An AM bike for me does not need to be able to hit 8 ft drops. If there was a bike like this that did not weigh as much I would love it. Then again, it would be implied that a frame like that might not handle as much abuse as the heavy one! Now the new tranny preston on the other hand...very nice geo!
    Yeah as Freshw00d said, it's a world of compromises. For me, an all mountain bike includes 5-8' drops to tranny. It includes crazy rock gardens and smooth flowy single track. It also include technical climbs with step up ledges and rock garden climbing.

    I agree the BR is a porker. It's built to last. Preston looks good too. About 9lbs with dhx-air. The marque looks like it's gonna be heavier than lighter. My guess is it will be around 8lbs. with shock. Or more.

    There's another compromise... Is AM bike weight 32lb or 36lb?

    Oh, Banshee Rune looks nice as well. Switch shock stroke to 2" and you get less than 6" travel.

    All nitpicking aside, I def wouldn't kick the Marque out of bed for eating crackers!
    Last edited by wormvine; 04-30-2008 at 10:06 PM.

  48. #48
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by freshw00d
    In a 'world of compromises', I think the following should be considered when evaluating BB height:

    If a rider wants to have a bike which will 'never' hit its pedals, then it is important for that rider to understand the performance loss associated with that higher bottom bracket.

    In designing and setting up a bike, generally speaking Corsair is attempting to get the bottom bracket as low as possible while maintaining pedal clearance that will result in occassional or rare pedal hits.

    We believe the performance and handling benefits of lower BB height, center of gravity, etc outweigh the occassional hitting of pedals.
    I like the way you guys are thinking! Especially the part about setting up a BB height "that will result in occasional or rare pedal hits." It seems many want to have their cake on the descent and eat it too on the climb. While I like the definition of AM as a bike that can do it all, I think it's a little unrealistic to expect a bike that would never have a pedal strike in technical climbing yet still shred on the descent. IMO effortless techy climbing is for a purebred XC bike, an AM bike introduces the factor of being able to shred on the downhill which I think means compromises in climbing ease.

    Mind you I say ease, not ability! I want a bike that pedals great and is light enough to haul up a techy climb. If that means having to choose my lines a little more careful I'm okay with that! I like whats happening with the Corsair bikes, I look forward to having the opportunity to pedal one around myself.
    Bike good, work bad.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    I like the way you guys are thinking! Especially the part about setting up a BB height "that will result in occasional or rare pedal hits." It seems many want to have their cake on the descent and eat it too on the climb. While I like the definition of AM as a bike that can do it all, I think it's a little unrealistic to expect a bike that would never have a pedal strike in technical climbing yet still shred on the descent. IMO effortless techy climbing is for a purebred XC bike, an AM bike introduces the factor of being able to shred on the downhill which I think means compromises in climbing ease.

    Mind you I say ease, not ability! I want a bike that pedals great and is light enough to haul up a techy climb. If that means having to choose my lines a little more careful I'm okay with that! I like whats happening with the Corsair bikes, I look forward to having the opportunity to pedal one around myself.

    Not that you are referring to me but I never said I wanted a bike to never have pedal strikes. I have enough pedal strikes with a BB height of 14.25". When the majority of bikes out there have BB heights 3/4" or more than the Marque, What do you think will happen with a bike with a 13" BB height. It's not going to decrease pedal strikes. They will increase. There's no magic in the design to prevent pedal strikes.
    Lower BB height = more pedal strikes.

    Like feshw00d said, It's about compromises. My bike already corners and rails berms awesome. Would I compromise more pedal strikes for better cornering/handling? Probably not.

  50. #50
    Leash Law Enforcer
    Reputation: Pinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,103
    I think this is one of the most interesting new frames out there. If you set the HA to 68 and throw a 36 TALAS on there you could climb with the 68 HA @ 130 and then bomb down with the HA ~66.5 @ 160. BB does seem a little low @ 13" but I'll reserve final judgment on that. I think people tend to unnecessarily freak out about lower BB height.

    I like to climb, but I like the descent more, particulary steep, chunky and techy. I'll take to the air when there is an opportunity too. This looks to be a great frame to handle all of that.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    76

    further thoughts

    First, let me say that I am having Pablo check the geometry we have posted on the website versus the actual geometry. I suppose I will have a confirmation later today as to whether it is 100% accurate or not..

    But there are a few more considerations that should be mentioned concerning the BB height topic;

    First, I find it next to impossible to come to a real conclusion when comparing the Marque, which I consider to be a 'pedalling' bike designed for full leg extension pedalling to bikes like a Bottlerocket or DH frames like a Sunday or others which are gravity specific bikes made for low saddle height and 90% + standing while riding. If you want a bike that offers both of these attributes, then I would recommend the Maelstrom. Uniquely it is one of few bikes that effectively bridges the gap between these two styles of bikes.

    Next, I would say that bottom bracket height does have a relationship to rear wheel travel. Remember, Marque is a 5" (130mm) travel bike. Because we are using 2:1 leverage ratio, mid-high pivot for rearward axlepath, etc. our choice to make this bike with 5" of travel versus 6" of travel was very deliberate. We think the Marque offers the suspension performance of a 6" travel bike, while not having some of the compromises that come with a 6" travel bike.

    Finally, while I didnt bring up the word 'magic', our idler pulley technology does have an affect on this BB height topic. And that is that it firms the rear end of the bike during pedaling and climbing. So while with many bikes some amount of pedal force is actually being absorbed by the rear suspension, thus lowering the overall height of the bike, our idler pulley technology greatly limits this affect.

    And really finally, the weight of the Marque as you see it pictured on our Flickr site is a touch less than 31 lbs.

  52. #52
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    How is 13" a compromise? If the Race proven IH Sunday has a BB height of 13.9", How does 13" equate to a compromise?
    The Sunday has 3 more inches of travel and is going to be run with more sag. You're comparing apples to pizza. Looking a ratio of travel to BB height, the Sunday is significantly lower than the Marque.

    I'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but if you want a higher BB, get a 5 Spot or some other AM bike. There are plenty of people that want an AM frame with slacker, lower dimensions, including a nice low BB, and the Marque is pretty dead on. Different bikes for different tastes. I personally ride up so that I can go down, so I'm willing to sacrifice the climb w/ a few pedal strikes if it means I can have the best possible handling when I'm descending.

    2 cents

  53. #53
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Somebody show me an AM bike or a trail bike that is not a compromise in some way....

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley
    The Sunday has 3 more inches of travel and is going to be run with more sag. You're comparing apples to pizza. Looking a ratio of travel to BB height, the Sunday is significantly lower than the Marque.

    I'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but if you want a higher BB, get a 5 Spot or some other AM bike. There are plenty of people that want an AM frame with slacker, lower dimensions, including a nice low BB, and the Marque is pretty dead on. Different bikes for different tastes. I personally ride up so that I can go down, so I'm willing to sacrifice the climb w/ a few pedal strikes if it means I can have the best possible handling when I'm descending.

    2 cents
    I hear ya dude! But 13" isn't a compromise. 13.5" BB height would be a compromise. It is on the extreme range of most current AM bikes available today. And I listed more bikes than just the Sunday.
    The majority of AM bikes out there are closer to 14" then 13".
    I also pedal up to go down. My bike has a 67 deg HA with a 14.25" BB and handles like a dream.
    Regardless, I am just debating these issues. freshw00d has given some great answers to these questions. I respect that.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by freshw00d
    First, let me say ...
    .
    OK, OK, you win,
    You can send me a frame to test out if you must!

  56. #56
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    I hear ya dude! But 13" isn't a compromise.
    That's what I like about it.

  57. #57
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    As freshwood and a few others stated, this is a 130mm travel rig, not a FR bike. Maybe the 55 fork is deceptive and implies that this is a bigger rig than it really is? I could see that being an issue. But if you look beyond that (or run it cranked down to 130 or 140mm) the numbers look dialed with a nice slack HA.

    I admit to being fooled by this earlier, I was comparing this frame to a 150mm bike and thinking the BB sounded low.

    If you take a look around at other bikes in this category you see that most 140mm bikes have approximately 13.5" BB height. As you get down to 115mm or 120mm, you see BB heights in the 12.75" range. So how is a 13" BB height on a 130mm bike too low? It's on the low end, but maybe by a quarter inch or less... hardly out of control.

    SC Blur XC (115mm) 12.6"
    SC Blur LT (140mm) 13.5"
    Turner 5 Spot (140mm) 13.6"
    Intense 5.5 EVP (140mm) 13.25"
    Cannondale Rize (130mm) 13"
    Specialized Stumpjumper Carbon (120mm) 13.2"
    Corsair Marque (130mm) 13"

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    As freshwood and a few others stated, this is a 130mm travel rig, not a FR bike. Maybe the 55 fork is deceptive and implies that this is a bigger rig than it really is? I could see that being an issue. But if you look beyond that (or run it cranked down to 130 or 140mm) the numbers look dialed with a nice slack HA.

    I admit to being fooled by this earlier, I was comparing this frame to a 150mm bike and thinking the BB sounded low.

    If you take a look around at other bikes in this category you see that most 140mm bikes have approximately 13.5" BB height. As you get down to 115mm or 120mm, you see BB heights in the 12.75" range. So how is a 13" BB height on a 130mm bike too low? It's on the low end, but maybe by a quarter inch or less... hardly out of control.

    SC Blur XC (115mm) 12.6"
    SC Blur LT (140mm) 13.5"
    Turner 5 Spot (140mm) 13.6"
    Intense 5.5 EVP (140mm) 13.25"
    Cannondale Rize (130mm) 13"
    Specialized Stumpjumper Carbon (120mm) 13.2"
    Corsair Marque (130mm) 13"
    I see where you are coming from. So what fork are you thinking would be good.
    Pike 454 would be good. Add coil u-turn for supreme plushness.
    Manitou Nixon Elite 145mm

    I would not recommend a 55 ata dropped down. Unless you plan on taking out the PAR piston and setting up the fork for the travel you want. The fork performs completely different at 120mm then it does at 160mm. And 160mm is it's optimum configuration. This all has to do with the PAR chamber.

    A custom 140mm OEM 55 RC2X or 55RC2 solo air.
    With the angles this bike has, I wouldn't want less than 140mm. From what I keep hearing, This bike was made to go fast.
    Maybe the Maz 44.

  59. #59
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    I see where you are coming from. So what fork are you thinking would be good.
    Pike 454 would be good. Add coil u-turn for supreme plushness.
    Manitou Nixon Elite 145mm

    I would not recommend a 55 ata dropped down. Unless you plan on taking out the PAR piston and setting up the fork for the travel you want. The fork performs completely different at 120mm then it does at 160mm. And 160mm is it's optimum configuration. This all has to do with the PAR chamber.

    A custom 140mm OEM 55 RC2X or 55RC2 solo air.
    With the angles this bike has, I wouldn't want less than 140mm. From what I keep hearing, This bike was made to go fast.
    Maybe the Maz 44.
    I think you are on the same page as me... While I don't mind the way the 55ATA feels at 140mm, a Pike would be good for a light build, maybe a Lyrik Solo Air with all-travel spacers would probably be the best compromise: A light-ish 140mm air fork with more beef than a Pike or Fox 32.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    [QUOTE=JMH]I think you are on the same page as me... While I don't mind the way the 55ATA feels at 140mm, a Pike would be good for a light build, maybe a Lyrik Solo Air with all-travel spacers would probably be the best compromise: A light-ish 140mm air fork with more beef than a Pike or Fox 32.[/QUOTE]


    Exactly!

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    367
    Ressurecting this thread.

    Do we know more about this frame? What's the weight? HA with Pike454? Anybody ridden one? Hammerschmidt tested?

    Thanks,
    Sylvain

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    That's pretty much the only frame for which I would consider trading my Terremoto.

    just a couple of questions:

    can you run a 160mm fork?

    what colors are available?

    what's the weight?

    Anyone with a pic in a Large size?

    what comes stock? headset, maxxle...?
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  63. #63
    etruscan biker
    Reputation: lorenz0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    84
    An italian magazine has reviewed the Marque: you can read the article here (in italian). From a rapid read I guess that, despite the short travel, it's a pretty heavy and aggressive bike. I'll see if I find some spare time to translate the review (with my really bas english )

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    Thanks ,man.

    a British mag had one too:

    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  65. #65
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Bling
    That's pretty much the only frame for which I would consider trading my Terremoto.

    just a couple of questions:

    can you run a 160mm fork?

    what colors are available?

    what's the weight?

    Anyone with a pic in a Large size?

    what comes stock? headset, maxxle...?
    most answers to your questions are at www.corsairbikes.com.

    Yeah, a 160mm fork is fine, I just picked up an 09 Talas in anticipation. Geometry is based on a 130mm fork, 160mm will be fun for DH but probably a drag when climbing, so I strongly suggest a travel adjust fork. The Marque at interbike was not that heavy, but it's no carbon scott either. I am betting 32lb builds will be common. There are no Large frames until the production bikes arrive in the US this winter, so there are no pics. The official Corsair photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/corsairbikes/

    JMH

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    Yes thanks. I could find most of my answers on the website indeed.

    still waiting in anticipation
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BillT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    870
    Maybe I'm missing it, but I haven't come across a frame weight anywhere. Just curious if it is a 6-7 lb frame, 7-8 or 8+...

  68. #68
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by BillT
    Maybe I'm missing it, but I haven't come across a frame weight anywhere. Just curious if it is a 6-7 lb frame, 7-8 or 8+...
    No, you're not crazy... I think official frame weights will be a mystery until the production frames arrive in the US of A.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BillT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    870
    That is what I thought...I'm not super concerned with weight but just curious if anyone knew a ballpark figure. My guess is that it will be much closer to 8lbs than 6lbs.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by BillT
    That is what I thought...I'm not super concerned with weight but just curious if anyone knew a ballpark figure. My guess is that it will be much closer to 8lbs than 6lbs.
    My guess also. 67HA and designed by a guy living in Whistler.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    Anyone got a frameset yet?
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  72. #72
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,571
    This frame looks like exactly what I've been looking for. I'm wondering about the 2:1 leverage ratio. Will the shocks on this bike be specially tuned? I would think it would be very difficult to get a stock shock's rebound fast enough, particularly for lighter riders.

    Also, will a coil shock fit?

    Can't wait to for the frames to arrive and see some built up!

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BillT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    870
    The last I heard was that the frame should be at dealers in very early March. Also, I heard back from one of the guys at Corsair and he said the frame weighs right at 8lbs with shock which is what I thought it would be at.

  74. #74
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,571
    Looking at the Corsair site, I'm wondering about the seat tube lengths listed. Does the medium really have a 16.2" seat tube, same as a small? What is the recommended minimum seatpost insertion?
    Last edited by Marshall Willanholly; 03-10-2009 at 01:49 PM.

  75. #75
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall Willanholly
    Will the shocks on this bike be specially tuned? I would think it would be very difficult to get a stock shock's rebound fast enough, particularly for lighter riders.
    Yeah, absolutely. They need a low leverage tune and the shocks will all be tuned accordingly. I heard the shocks went to the frame manufacturer early this week.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,764
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    A light-ish 140mm air fork with more beef than a Pike or Fox 32.
    That's Magura Thor.

  77. #77
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,571
    Any word on the ETA for these frames?

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    367
    The Corsair is now listed on the Wrenchscience website.
    5" - 8.41lbs
    $1799.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall Willanholly
    Any word on the ETA for these frames?
    The last I heard was frames arriving in the US sometime next week - fingers crossed.

  80. #80
    Shortcutting Hikabiker
    Reputation: Acme54321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Sylvain
    The Corsair is now listed on the Wrenchscience website.
    5" - 8.41lbs
    $1799.
    I hope that frame weight includes the shock...

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BillT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by Acme54321
    I hope that frame weight includes the shock...
    The guys at Corsair told me around 8lbs w/ shock.

  82. #82
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,571
    Some photos of the Marque in black:








    Large frame?
    Last edited by Marshall Willanholly; 03-23-2009 at 04:53 PM.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    aaaaawesome, thks so much
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    aaaaawesome, thks so much
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    667
    sweet sweet ride..
    HA is with a 160mm or 140mm?
    check out great video coverage of anything mtb (well almost).

    http://www.mtbcut.tv

  86. #86
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,571
    Quote Originally Posted by zephyr11
    sweet sweet ride..
    HA is with a 160mm or 140mm?
    Indeed, both are sweet rides. Sadly, neither of them are mine. I'd too would love to know the HA, SA, and BB measurements on the bike with the Fox 36. I'm planning on running mine with a Lyrik u-turn.

    I'd also love to find out the reach and stack measurements (http://www.pinkbike.com/news/08ReachStackStandard.html) for both the medium and large frames. I am sold on the Marque as my next frame, but I'll have to order it without a demo so I'm trying to compare it size-wise to my current bikes. The reach and stack measurements, particularly the reach, I find very useful in determining the feet-to-hands relationship. The Marque has a much steeper seat angle than my current bike, so the eff. TT measurement isn't quite as useful.

    I always find myself in between the M and L sizes for most frames. I'm 5'10.5" with a 33.25" inseam. Any guidance from the Corsair folks would be appreciated.

  87. #87
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    I talked to the corsair guys last week and the gave the frames an eta of the 25th of this month, but that is arrival at the factory, excluding final finishing so probably a week or so after that.

    The rear wheel is a 135mm width, 12mm diameter thru axle. Anyone have any suggestions on a good wheel that isn't freekishly heavy? Would it be best just to build my own? seems like any wheel running a maxle stock is built for downhill or freeride which is overkill for the riding i will be doing on this bike.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerdonian
    The rear wheel is a 135mm width, 12mm diameter thru axle. Anyone have any suggestions on a good wheel that isn't freekishly heavy? Would it be best just to build my own? seems like any wheel running a maxle stock is built for downhill or freeride which is overkill for the riding i will be doing on this bike.
    Your best bet may be to build something. For the hub I would say a Hope Pro II, DT 240 or 340, Hadley, Chris King, Nuke Proof, I9, would be good options depending on your budget and use whatever rim suits your weight/strength goals. I will be using a Hadley laced to a DT5.1 rim with DT Supercomp spokes. My frame will hopefully ship today so I will give first impressions next week.

  89. #89
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy
    Your best bet may be to build something. For the hub I would say a Hope Pro II, DT 240 or 340, Hadley, Chris King, Nuke Proof, I9, would be good options depending on your budget and use whatever rim suits your weight/strength goals. I will be using a Hadley laced to a DT5.1 rim with DT Supercomp spokes. My frame will hopefully ship today so I will give first impressions next week.

    Thanks dogboy! after your reply i called corsair and the frames have arrived!! mine was bought and shipped out TODAY! OH MAN I CAN'T WAIT!

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    944
    Trigger pulled on a Large Marque frame. Will be here Friday.

  92. #92
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,571
    Ordered mine on Monday. Can't wait.

  93. #93
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    That bike leaning against the blue garage door is mine. Got out for a few rides in Moab last weekend. Disclaimer - Corsair Bikes is a client, I do the graphic design and creative along with a reasonable amount of product testing and rah rah rah.

    Long Winded Stuff Starts Now:

    I am not sure what was being weighed to get 8lbs, my large weighed just under 9.5 lbs with shock, seat clamp, headset and Maxle. Not light, but that includes a few more parts than usually considered when listing a frame weight. Also, my feeling is that if you are attracted to a trail bike with a 66 degree head angle with a 6" fork, you probably aren't going to be too broke up when your bike weighs 34 lbs. Build is lots of SRAM stuff with lots of Gravity Light stuff. Mavic Crossmax XL wheels and 2.35 UST Nevegals. I predict that most builds will be in the 32-35lb range.

    Geometry with the Fox Talas is just as you would expect, when the fork is at 130 the head angle measures right at the listed 67 degrees, so cranking it up to 160 or down to 100 gives you a one-degree change.

    Down: The frame is a bit shorter than I am accustomed to (for a size Large trail bike) and fits more like my FR or DH bikes so it was instantly comfortable going downhill. The suspension design loves square-edged hits and it rails flat, loose corners quite nicely, thank you. The pivot location causes the wheelbase to grow a bit as you push into corners or g-outs, so it has an extremely grounded feel with lots of predictability. The flip side of this is it took a little more effort to get the front end up or snap out of corners quickly, but I was so busy being impressed by the traction and stability (particularly whenever I remembered I was riding a 34lb bike) that I didn't mind the trade-off. I never felt the rear suspension bottom until I was running almost 40% sag... I was happier (and so was the shock) at about 30% sag which I achieved with 70psi in Roco, or 40% of rider weight for those of you that want a quick reference to start from. The suspension gets really progressive in the last 25% of the stroke so I am running the absolute minimum recommended air pressure in the piggyback.

    Up: Climbing with the short top tube was awkward for me. The bike definitely pedals better than just about any other frame I have ridden because of the idler pulley, but the short cockpit made things tricky for my knees if I got out of the saddle. Maybe it's for the best - staying in the saddle caused me to discover my favorite aspect of this bike: the Marque is unreal if you just keep your butt planted and pedal. The high rearward pivot was eating the ledges on the Amasa Back climb like no bike I have ever ridden. Where I might normally stand to let the bike ease up a ledge, I was able to stay seated and let the suspension do the work. I experimented with fork height and naturally the 100mm setting on the Talas gave me the most comfortable climbing geometry at the expense of several bashring/pedal strikes. If you plan to shorten your fork for climbing I think 165mm cranks are probably a good idea.

    What else? It took me a few minutes longer than usual to get the front derailleur dialed, but once adjusted the shifting was very good. The idler pulley is louder than a traditional drivetrain but not really any louder than most chainguides. I am running a blackspire stinger and everything is nice and secure. I stuck strips of fuzzy velcro inside the top and bottom interior of the chain tunnel and that made the bike basically silent when coasting through chunky stuff (learned this trick on a prototype Maelstrom) Oh, and in my rush to ride I forgot to wrap my chainstay but there isn't a single mark on it after some serious Moab chunder.

    Wrap Up: The bike does what you hope it will do when you read that geometry chart and start to smile. Its a freeride bike in a trailbike package. I would confidently hit just about anything on this rig that I would hit on my FR bike. It climbs surprisingly well, especially considering you can smoke your buddies on their big bikes when you head back down. Was there anything I didn't like? The pedal strikes on the climb (with the fork in shorty mode) didn't bother me, but I fully understand that it's annoying to some people. My only gripe is with the TT length. I wish it was longer like the Large Maelstrom. That would put it more in the All-Day Bike range (for me) but maybe then it wouldn't be as much fun going down? There's always a trade-off.

    Hope this is helpful, I am sure with a few of these frames starting to pop up we will soon be getting a good range of setup info and opinions.
    Last edited by JMH; 03-26-2009 at 06:07 AM.

  94. #94
    Huckability Consultant
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    40
    I am going to demo a Marque as soon as I can, my only reservation is the BB height.

    But truthfully, I have been looking for a trailbike with with an around the BB pivot and similar geometry ever since my first Cove G-spot in 2001. The G-spot's BB pivot allows you to "feel" the trail like no other design, a reason why most on a G-spot have never defected to another ride for FR. I hope this design retains that "feel" with the BB pivot. The idler pulley's effect might negate this...but it is worth a demo. These bikes have the potential to be very special...but worm is right to raise a red flag about the drastically low (lower than most 4x and slalom specific bikes).

    I just hope the bike doesn't end up like the Intense 5.5 I built up and immediately sold. The designer said when you pedal the bike there is a "firming of the rear end" just like the 5.5. I hated that sensation. The neutrality of a BB pivot design is its beauty and secret. The rider has no pedal feedback and is connected to the trail...That "firming of the rear end" is now a bigger turn off than the BB height. They could have figured it all out at Corsair, though. We'll see, but I love BC designed bikes.

    BTW...my ski mountain is closed and there is too much snow and ice and mud in the hills for me to ride my bikes...obscure speculation is now my only joy..forgive my waffling, and any ride reports would be welcomed.
    Cove G-spot
    IH MKIII
    Barracuda A2M

  95. #95
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by idtrailmonger
    I just hope the bike doesn't end up like the Intense 5.5 I built up and immediately sold. The designer said when you pedal the bike there is a "firming of the rear end" just like the 5.5. I hated that sensation. The neutrality of a BB pivot design is its beauty and secret.
    I don't want to contradict Freshwood, but I am going to...

    The pulley is so close to the pivot that there is no significant effect on the suspension. I certainly haven't noticed any feedback or firming during my rides on the Marque or the Maelstrom, in fact my experience has been quite the opposite, they are extremely neutral, much more so than the VPP bikes I have thrown a leg over. In my opinion (and it sounds like you agree) this is a good thing.

  96. #96
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,571
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    My only gripe is with the TT length. I wish it was longer like the Large Maelstrom. That would put it more in the All-Day Bike range (for me) but maybe then it wouldn't be as much fun going down? There's always a trade-off.
    How tall are you that you found the TT on the large a little on the short side? I went back and forth deciding between a medium and a large. I finally settled on a medium. I'm 5'10" with a 33.25" inseam. I usually like to run very short stems (50-70mm)as well.

    I based my decision on the front-center measurement. I'm currently on a large IH 6point. The front-center measurement on the Corsair website for the medium Marque was within a 1/4" of the 6point.

    Thanks for all the "long-winded" info. It is much appreciated. Particularly the shock set-up. You've just made me a little nervous about sizing...

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    keep the pics and specs coming!!!
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  98. #98
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    The pulley is so close to the pivot that there is no significant effect on the suspension.
    I recently browsed through the German Freeride magazine, with a pretty big FR bike test. There was a mention about the pulley interfering with something (sorry, I don't remember the details, maybe gearing or shifting was involved too).

    edit:
    that was about the Maelstrom.

    Do you see where the pulley could get in the way or make something work worse?
    Last edited by perttime; 03-26-2009 at 06:14 AM.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    944
    JMH,

    thanks for the write-up. The snow is going to hamper what has been a pretty epic winter for riding here in Coloraod, but hopefully I will be able to get it out by next weekend.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall Willanholly
    How tall are you that you found the TT on the large a little on the short side? I went back and forth deciding between a medium and a large. I finally settled on a medium. I'm 5'10" with a 33.25" inseam. I usually like to run very short stems (50-70mm)as well.

    I based my decision on the front-center measurement. I'm currently on a large IH 6point. The front-center measurement on the Corsair website for the medium Marque was within a 1/4" of the 6point.

    Thanks for all the "long-winded" info. It is much appreciated. Particularly the shock set-up. You've just made me a little nervous about sizing...
    Hey Marshall,
    I am roughly 5'9" and have a 32" inseam, and I went with the medium. I based it around my current bike (med. Meta 55) and felt like it was the size for me. I was also comfortable on a med. 6Point. It may be helpful to check out this program: http://bikegeo.muha.cc/
    It approximates a reach/stack of 398.8/586.6 for a medium with a 160mm (545mm A2C) fork. You could plug in your 6Point numbers and compare.

    And thanks for all the info JMH! It's a great starting point for getting my suspension set up.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

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
  •