Results 1 to 43 of 43
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    Generation 2 - XCL - Sneak Peek

    Hey guys and gals,

    We thought we'd give you a sneak peek into some R&D work we've been doing over at CHUMBA. We decided to give the option of making the XCL a bit slacker and lower. So - we've been working on some versions of the bike with varying geometry.

    Our current model uses a 68 degree head angle and a 13.5BB - so we decided to take the BB down by a 1/4" and use a 66.5 degree head angle. This new version of the XCL will be adjustable - so you can run either settings on the same frame. In the lower, slacker version - the frame will be offered with a coil shock. We will be posting more details on this adjustable feature a bit later.

    All we can say for now - is we are having a lot of good feedback - and should be able to post more details by next week.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevmortensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    120
    So it's pretty much a new link, same frame and swing arm design corect? So will you offer just the link for people to modify their current bike?
    RIDE 'TILL YOU PUKE

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134
    We're working out the details now - it will likely be retrofittable and available for existing owners as well -

    A.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    170
    This is good news.

    Give it ISCG mounts as an option to run Hammerschmidt and it will be awesome!

    The new tapered .125/.5 head tube (or just 1.5) would be great also....

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GhisalloWheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    524
    Can we start the line forming behind me????
    Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia. ~H.G. Wells

  6. #6
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,677
    66.5 with what fork (or a2c)?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134
    It will be based around the Fox 32mm 140 mm forks.

    A.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  8. #8
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    It will be based around the Fox 32mm 140 mm forks.

    A.
    Fantastic Alan! Love what you are doing here...slacker without having to go with a bigger fork!
    Extreme stationary biker.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    97
    Sounds good, lots of people are wanting slacker, lower and shorter travel bikes at the moment. ISCG would be nice as would a maxle rear end option!

  10. #10
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by si@progressivebikes
    ISCG would be nice as would a maxle rear end option!
    Hallelujah!
    Extreme stationary biker.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    Fantastic Alan! Love what you are doing here...slacker without having to go with a bigger fork!
    I think the PIKE or the REBA 20mm Maxle will be a very nice fit for the slacker version of the XCL - or even the 6 inch 15mm axle Fox.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,677
    66.5 is pretty darn slack. I tend to wash out on bikes like that because I don't have enough weight on the front. But for people who can really charge a turn and get their weight forward it'll be pretty rewarding little marauder. The good thing is if you don't like the slackness you can change it back to 68!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: uconn1150's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    We're working out the details now - it will likely be retrofittable and available for existing owners as well -

    A.
    Cool! Keep us updated. I may be interested in trying these out!

  14. #14
    Flying Goat
    Reputation: mrpercussive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,330
    can you say 4X/DS machine? XD

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    238
    Can I get that for my small XCL? I'd love a slacker HA without going to a bigger fork...we'll I'd like a bigger fork too.

  16. #16
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    66.5 on a trail bike, I just don't get it.
    beaver hunt

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    58
    So whats the cost on this and when will it be available? Also any increase in suspension travel?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    58
    repost
    Last edited by NCETRY; 07-01-2009 at 11:25 AM.

  19. #19
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    66.5 on a trail bike, I just don't get it.
    Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

    My trail bike is 66 to 66.5. Hell, my XC hardtail is 67.5. Slacker is better for me, YMMV.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  20. #20
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    66.5 on a trail bike, I just don't get it.
    It's quite slack but I think if it's adjustable between 66.5 and 68 then why not? You've got nothing to lose. And you get more versatility.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by jaclynj
    Can I get that for my small XCL? I'd love a slacker HA without going to a bigger fork...we'll I'd like a bigger fork too.
    Jaclyn,

    I'm not sure you want to do this on a small-sized frame as your BB is already pretty low - maybe like you said - get a longer fork.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by NCETRY
    So whats the cost on this and when will it be available? Also any increase in suspension travel?
    Hi,

    The links are $80.00 and you can call 714-986-9100 or e-mail me at alan@chumbaracing.com and I'll get you set up.

    A.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Merrimack Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    694
    What are the advantages of such a slack head angle in general trail riding? I find that my XCL is perfect for New England's rocky, rooty trails with my Pike at 130 to 135mm. I used to ride a 6 inch travel Azonic Saber with a 67.5 HA, and it was too slack for general trail riding.

  24. #24
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrimack Dave
    I find that my XCL is perfect for New England's rocky, rooty trails...
    Maybe 66.5 is perfecter .
    Extreme stationary biker.

  25. #25
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,364
    What does this do to the rear travel / leverage ratio? So I just have to change my shock attachment when I want a slack headangle? Sounds perfect since I generally ride flatish trails but occasionally go somewhere where it's just steep trails downhill all day.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    Just playing away from home over here on the Chumba forum and spotted this. I'd like to give a HUGE positive vote to the idea posted here. What I want is a super low, super slack, 140mm trail bike that I can rail local trails on. The thing is, while riding full on DH is the best buzz, it's so desperately impractical for so many people. Full days away on an uplift that might be several hours drive away, whereas your local riding spots, while not necessarily as technically difficult, can be as much fun if you just gun it as fast as possible on a trail bike that handles as well as a DH bike does at speed.

    I'm currently on a 2005 Enduro Elite, which in the UK came with 137mm of rear travel, a 13.2" BB and with an RS Lyrik fork set to 145mm, the HA measured 66.7 degrees. This thing rails corners and is so much fun to ride, but in all honesty it doesn't pedal all that well and it's still a 30lb+ bike.

    Currently the only thing I can find with a BB under 13.5" with 130mm+ travel is the Orange Blood. That's a great looking frame, but it comes with a through rear axle so a new frame would mean a new wheel as well and it's still going to come in over 30lbs.

    My local bike shop brought in some of the original Chumba frames a few years back but they didn't seem to get much attention (perhaps because they are also the importer for Ellsworth, Devinci and Banshee). Compared to those frames, these newer ones are looking really sweet and if you press ahead with this inspired choice of geometry, I may be asking the LBS to bring on in for me!

  27. #27
    Frequent Crasher
    Reputation: SuperBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    516
    Any chance for a Gen 2 XCL that has the ISCG mounts so that I could run a Hammerschmidt?
    I see the light at the end of the tunnel now,
    Someone please tell me it's not a train.
    -Cracker

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperBad
    Any chance for a Gen 2 XCL that has the ISCG mounts so that I could run a Hammerschmidt?
    I have seen bikes run the Hammerschmidt with adapters (although not recommended by SRAM) - we do have a similar adapter we machine ourselves at CHUMBA, similar to the adapter used on the F5. We have tried it, and it does seem to work OK - but really, the tabs should be welded on and faced.

    If you really want one - we may be able to make a custom bike - with ISCG tabs welded on - shoot me an e-mail at alan@chumbaracing.com, and I can see what I can do.

    -A.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vinz132's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    165
    Is there anyway to have more "safe" rear travel with one of your new link, something like 5.5 or 6?

    I know the Evo is there but a bit heavy for a racing AM purpose. The 5 inch are ok but with a 6 inch fork marbe 5.5 would be more homogene?

    Any input?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by vinz132
    Is there anyway to have more "safe" rear travel with one of your new link, something like 5.5 or 6?

    I know the Evo is there but a bit heavy for a racing AM purpose. The 5 inch are ok but with a 6 inch fork marbe 5.5 would be more homogene?

    Any input?
    I think longer travel versions of the XCL aren't out of question - but I think actual rear wheel travel is one component of many facets of the bike that ultimately determine the riding capability the bike is suited for. I can pretty much say with high confidence the XCL can handle just about as much punishment as most 6 inch bikes out there - and with the more aggressive geometry, dare I say - it can even be faster on the downhills - especially suited with something like the PIKE or Lyrik. However, that being said, we are always tinkering with the designs, and new projects are always in the work - and yes, your idea is being considered as well.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vinz132's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    I think longer travel versions of the XCL aren't out of question - but I think actual rear wheel travel is one component of many facets of the bike that ultimately determine the riding capability the bike is suited for. I can pretty much say with high confidence the XCL can handle just about as much punishment as most 6 inch bikes out there - and with the more aggressive geometry, dare I say - it can even be faster on the downhills - especially suited with something like the PIKE or Lyrik. However, that being said, we are always tinkering with the designs, and new projects are always in the work - and yes, your idea is being considered as well.
    Thanks

    I have no doubt the XCL can handle some aggressive trails, it's just sometimes a bit more travel make you feel better in your head . But the current 5 inch will make me ride smoothier and gain some skills

  32. #32
    Is this thing on?
    Reputation: Bradfly85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Can someone explain why you have to run a coil shock with these new links? I'm all for the lower BB and slacker geo...I currently run my Fox 36 Talas wide open in the 160mm setting
    I'm all for adding as much versatility into a frame as possible. Having the option of running an air or coil shock along w/ changing the geo is too good to be true. Several other companies are doing this and I'm stoked to see Alan and the gang working towards this on the XCL. I believe it will give the XCL the ability to be a "trail bike" and a true all mountain machine.
    [[/B][/FONT]

  33. #33
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradfly85
    Can someone explain why you have to run a coil shock with these new links? I'm all for the lower BB and slacker geo...I currently run my Fox 36 Talas wide open in the 160mm setting
    I'm all for adding as much versatility into a frame as possible. Having the option of running an air or coil shock along w/ changing the geo is too good to be true. Several other companies are doing this and I'm stoked to see Alan and the gang working towards this on the XCL. I believe it will give the XCL the ability to be a "trail bike" and a true all mountain machine.
    I think the first post stated bikes with the new link will be offered with a coil shock, not that it is mandatory.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop
    I think the first post stated bikes with the new link will be offered with a coil shock, not that it is mandatory.
    To answer the question - because the shock rates will be altered in different mounting locations - the suspension performs better in the lower position with a coil shock.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  35. #35
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,364
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    To answer the question - because the shock rates will be altered in different mounting locations - the suspension performs better in the lower position with a coil shock.
    But wouldn't it be easier to account for a changing ratio with an air shock? Theoretically to have a shock work in both settings you would need two separate springs.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop
    But wouldn't it be easier to account for a changing ratio with an air shock? Theoretically to have a shock work in both settings you would need two separate springs.
    I see where you are coming from - but it has more to do with the progressive versus linear nature of a coil versus air shock. Whereas the original shock mount location was designed with a clear progressive nature (leverage increases as shock compresses) - the second shock mount does better with linear rates (leverage stays relatively consistent).
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  37. #37
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    I see where you are coming from - but it has more to do with the progressive versus linear nature of a coil versus air shock. Whereas the original shock mount location was designed with a clear progressive nature (leverage increases as shock compresses) - the second shock mount does better with linear rates (leverage stays relatively consistent).
    What about using a DHX air with a high volume air can? Have you tried that?
    Extreme stationary biker.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    What about using a DHX air with a high volume air can? Have you tried that?
    Hey Geo,

    Yes - we have tried that on the XCL - felt that we couldn't really achieve as much of a progressive feel on the original setting - but I see how it might be a good compromise for both shock positions.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    242
    Just reviving this thread to see if anye riders have input on the new rocker links that give a slacker head angle?

    I'm curious how, or if, XCL owners like that setup.

    Thx
    R

  40. #40
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    SO the XCL is gonna be Slacker than the New revised EVO??? WTF!!!

    Someone explain the reasoning to me.

  41. #41
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by TIMBERRR
    SO the XCL is gonna be Slacker than the New revised EVO??? WTF!!!

    Someone explain the reasoning to me.
    While I don't have an explanation, Chumba isn't the only company to do this....Banshee has the Rune (6" travel and 67degree HA) and Spitfire (5" travel and 66 degree HA).

    Personally, I would rather have the lighter and slacker 5" travel bike for my trailbike, but YMMV.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  42. #42
    Flying Goat
    Reputation: mrpercussive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,330
    some bikes are used as AM bikes while some are used to race Dh courses like sea otter... that might be the reason for the short travel slack and low setup... i honestly like slack and low on all my bikes... XD

  43. #43
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,518
    Any updates on this? Is this link in production now?
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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