Results 1 to 30 of 30
  1. #1
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,369

    Endorphin SL & Chilcotin now up on the Knolly site

    Have at it....

    The Lineup

    First frame run on the new models.... March/April. Pre-order NOW.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dunerinaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,342
    I don't get why knolly designs their frames with such slack seat tube angles.

  3. #3
    Off the back...
    Reputation: pinkrobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by dunerinaz
    I don't get why knolly designs their frames with such slack seat tube angles.
    73 and 73.5 is too slack?
    dgsmills.com
    #pinkrobeyyc
    CMBA

  4. #4
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkrobe
    73 and 73.5 is too slack?
    90 degrees or gtfo.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,771
    Quote Originally Posted by dunerinaz
    I don't get why knolly designs their frames with such slack seat tube angles.


    I love armchair designers.

    What in your opinion would be the benefit of steeper seat tube angles, and what would be the trade-off?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,764
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    I love armchair designers.

    What in your opinion would be the benefit of steeper seat tube angles, and what would be the trade-off?
    For the physical angle - saddle does not move back when raised.

    For the effective angle - moves you forward when climbing, allows you to hang behind when descending.

    Do I get a cookie?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    For the physical angle - saddle does not move back when raised.

    For the effective angle - moves you forward when climbing, allows you to hang behind when descending.

    Do I get a cookie?

    But what if the bike is designed around the "extreme" angles - ie when the saddle is extended, it is nicely above the pedals, when you drop the saddle, it goes down/out of the way for descending (when you are not using the saddle....)



    You want oreo, or chocolate chip?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,764
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    But what if the bike is designed around the "extreme" angles - ie when the saddle is extended, it is nicely above the pedals, when you drop the saddle, it goes down/out of the way for descending (when you are not using the saddle....)



    You want oreo, or chocolate chip?
    When the saddle is extended you are probably climbing - and you want to sit as much forward as possible, would not you? Tradeoff is a cramped cockpit when going down. I guess that is why such a geometry got popular on hardtails recently - you do not stay in the saddle when descending as much..

    You asked about the generic benefits of steeper angles - I am not criticizing Knolly design - they obviously know what they are doing.

    Just another interwebz musings.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    691
    Not any slacker than the old Imp.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Endorphin SL & Chilcotin now up on the Knolly site-dsc_0093.jpg  


  10. #10
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,212
    I rode a rental/demo Knolly Endo at Gooseberry. The angles seemed spot on, what a sweet ride.
    beaver hunt

  11. #11
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    knolly clearly has no clue what they are doing.

  12. #12
    Perpetual Hack
    Reputation: mykel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,976
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul
    knolly clearly has no clue what they are doing.
    True dat... The angles on my Knolly Delirium T were so whack that I went totally insane and picked up the new 2010 Delirium. And I live in flat-land Ontario Canada. Better call the boys with the white coats with extra long sleeves.

    In all seriousness... The seat-tube angle does what it says on the tin. Puts you in great pedaling position for when you are the motor, but when you drop the seat for fun-time, it gets right out of the way. I tend not to sit when going down, so that is not an issue. I run an adjustable seatpost anyway, so the point is moot.

    michael

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    381
    Thanks for the excitement!

    My buddies talk avy reports and ski waist widths non stop now. It's good to have a place to keep up with new MTB stuff this time of year.
    I'm going to rob banks til I retire or get caught. Either way I'm set for life

  14. #14
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    it is that time of year. my skis have a 88mm waist but no avalanches in new england.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,771
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul
    it is that time of year. my skis have a 88mm waist but no avalanches in new england.

    80mm, 85mm, 95mm and 105 mm are my options.

    And avalanche danger is creeping up for this weekend in the Whistler area

  16. #16
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    80mm, 85mm, 95mm and 105 mm are my options.

    And avalanche danger is creeping up for this weekend in the Whistler area
    very lucky. im jealous.

  17. #17
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,540
    Quote Originally Posted by dunerinaz
    I don't get why knolly designs their frames with such slack seat tube angles.
    A couple of reasons come to mind.

    • Full seattube (not interrupted).
    • Allows more travel with shorter chainstays.
    • plays well with the 4x4 linkage.


    You've got to look where the seattube puts the saddle at full extension and how that affects the ETT AND where it puts the rider for seated pedaling/climbing. It's really not any different than a steeper ST that starts above the BB. Then, when the saddle drops for descents, it puts it further out of the way (forward) and allows the rider to get behind the saddle (if necessary) much easier. Frankly, I think it's a brilliant way of looking at the design.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    How about a real question? Why the 1.125 steerer on the Endorphin and a ZS on the Endorphin SL that's compatible with tapered forks? So basically you can run a tapered fork on the 5" frame but not the 5.5" frame?

    They might have a perfectly acceptable reason for this and it's not really a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but it seems like an odd choice.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  19. #19
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    does seem kinda weird but like you said, not a big deal.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dunerinaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,342
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    I love armchair designers.

    What in your opinion would be the benefit of steeper seat tube angles, and what would be the trade-off?
    What a tool!!

    Me saying I don't understand why they do it means I'm an "armchair designer"?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dunerinaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,342
    Quote Originally Posted by ebxtreme
    A couple of reasons come to mind.

    • Full seattube (not interrupted).
    • Allows more travel with shorter chainstays.
    • plays well with the 4x4 linkage.


    You've got to look where the seattube puts the saddle at full extension and how that affects the ETT AND where it puts the rider for seated pedaling/climbing. It's really not any different than a steeper ST that starts above the BB. Then, when the saddle drops for descents, it puts it further out of the way (forward) and allows the rider to get behind the saddle (if necessary) much easier. Frankly, I think it's a brilliant way of looking at the design.
    Thank you for a decent response. I understand the concept better now.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1
    How about a real question? Why the 1.125 steerer on the Endorphin and a ZS on the Endorphin SL that's compatible with tapered forks? So basically you can run a tapered fork on the 5" frame but not the 5.5" frame?

    They might have a perfectly acceptable reason for this and it's not really a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but it seems like an odd choice.
    ZS headsets are lighter, hence they make sense for shaving weight on the SL. Also, if the rest of the frame design is left the same the shorter stack height of a ZS headset will steepen the head and seat angles and allow the bars to be lower, both of which can be nice for long-travel xc or endurance bike. ZS was not designed to run tapered, hence the extra compatibility is simply a nice side-effect.

    However, I'm guessing the main reason for the difference is just that the SL is new. I bet if/when they redesign the regular version right now it would probably have a 44mm headtube as well

  23. #23
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,429
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1
    How about a real question? Why the 1.125 steerer on the Endorphin and a ZS on the Endorphin SL that's compatible with tapered forks? So basically you can run a tapered fork on the 5" frame but not the 5.5" frame?

    They might have a perfectly acceptable reason for this and it's not really a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but it seems like an odd choice.
    The Endorphin is being replaced by both the Endorphin SL and Chilcotin. The Endorphin is the old school trail bike.
    Employed by Pivot Cycles - www.pivotcycles.com

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by tiSS'er
    The Endorphin is being replaced by both the Endorphin SL and Chilcotin. The Endorphin is the old school trail bike.
    Ah, I thought that was just the listing of all the new bikes. I figured they'd take it off the site if they're no longer producing it.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,155
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1
    Ah, I thought that was just the listing of all the new bikes. I figured they'd take it off the site if they're no longer producing it.

    Me thinks they still want to support the units on the lbs floors.

  26. #26
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,369
    Quote Originally Posted by bing!
    Me thinks they still want to support the units on the lbs floors.
    Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner.

  27. #27
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    But what if the bike is designed around the "extreme" angles - ie when the saddle is extended, it is nicely above the pedals, when you drop the saddle, it goes down/out of the way for descending (when you are not using the saddle....)


    You just described my hardtail. Problems are

    * not nearly enough space to lower seat w/o seat post hitting tire. It just fits on mine and im 6'2 on a 26" hardtail
    *It looks absolutely retarded
    *on mine, the offset is too much- you ride standing over the saddle when it's dropped more than 4 inches or the bike understeers if it handles properly with the seat up.
    *you have to reinforce the crap out of the seat tube junction- heavy.
    *it effectively lengthens the cockpit- great for descending (too good, on a hardtail) kinda big feeling to jump.
    * changing the stem changes the handling DRASTICALLY.
    Next frame will keep the idea, but the offset will only be about 10 degrees. A little is good, a lot is bad.


    It's fun, but it's kinda goofy.
    Last edited by scottzg; 12-08-2010 at 09:02 PM.
    .

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    80mm, 85mm, 95mm and 105 mm are my options.

    And avalanche danger is creeping up for this weekend in the Whistler area
    Creeping up to what extreme? Have you looked at the CAA report lately. I love Whistler!
    I'm going to rob banks til I retire or get caught. Either way I'm set for life

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by dunerinaz
    I don't get why knolly designs their frames with such slack seat tube angles.
    I have found that when riding a particular bike with a slacker STA, I have to raise the seat height a bit higher when in the climb position and lower in the descent position than a bike that has a steeper STA for optimal climbing/descent positioning on said bike.

    Although I don't ride a Knolly, my Turner RFX has a steeper STA than my Banshee Rune (73'ish vs 71) and I can get away without having to adjust my saddle height as much as I do on the Rune for going both up and down. With that said, I like the slacker STA on the Rune, especially for "true AM" riding, cause once you lower the saddle height appropriately, you are in more of a "slack and attack" position, offering more stability on steeeper terrain and much easier to jump, corner and shred on while riding the trail and you can resume a good/decent climbing position just by raising the saddle height a bit more than on something that is steeper when heading back up the hill. The only dis that I can see for me with a slacker STA for "AM" riding, is that a 6" adj. post would be ideal on my large Rune for most of my climbing/descending and nobody makes them bigger than 5", except for Black Mamba.

    Today's bikes climb and pedal so much better than bikes before, that you can get away pedalling with slacker angles now (front or back), and you get more in return for the downs when the saddle is lowered and isn't that's what "AM" riding is all about? That's why you are seeing more trail/AM bikes pop up like the Spitfire, new 5-Spot, Chilcotin with 66-67 deg HA's that are meant to pedal up practically anything.
    Ride On!

  30. #30
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,369

Posting Permissions

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