Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 56

Thread: PVD Mercury.

  1. #1
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003

    PVD Mercury.


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jamenstall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    409
    welcome back PVD

  3. #3
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Aesthetics are...well...there are lots of lines and ridges...
    May the air be filled with tires!

  4. #4
    mwb
    mwb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mwb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200
    Aesthetics are...well...there are lots of lines and ridges...
    +1

    According to the other thread I thought the rings were to aid in the headset transition. Make it more visually pleasing. Not what I was expecting.

    Good looking bike though....

  5. #5
    nothing relevant to say
    Reputation: Cracked Headtube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,362
    Love that BB.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clockwork Bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    667
    Lots of cool stuff going on. What did you do to form the right chainstay?

    -Joel
    NOTHING WORKS LIKE CLOCKWORK

    www.clockworkbikes.com

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    156
    nice work.

    how bout the print?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,047
    Nice bike. But this statement on the website leaves me scratching my head: "this bike is designed specifically to completely dominate Marin California singletrack".

    What singletrack? Tamarancho and China Camp? That's pretty much it unless you are riding illegally. Tamarancho is okay, but you could dominate that one trail with a lot less fork travel and just one gear.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    unless you are riding illegally
    bingo.

  10. #10
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Clockwork Bikes
    Lots of cool stuff going on. What did you do to form the right chainstay?

    -Joel
    Looks like an interrupted tube with a bent piece of flat stock staggering them, no? It's a little obscured beneath the paint, but that's what I'm getting out of it.

  11. #11
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    Tamarancho and China Camp?
    Those are great places for beginners and novice riders to start the learning process, but the experienced riders know where the big game is played. We are probably just swimming in two very different pools.

  12. #12
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Print should be up this weekend. Sorry to be so slack. I've been distracted with a bunch of motorcycle projects.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    45
    Looks interesting, thanks for sharing.

    I do have one question, your spec sheet says the rear dropouts are Paragon low mount dics, yet they don't look like those.

    Jeremy

  14. #14
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    My bad on the specs. I was a bit sloppy documenting bike. I fixed it now and the tubes will make much more sence although I still have to find out where I wrote down the exact top and down tubes.

    http://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?tit...cury_MTB#Tubes


    On another note, I got the bike out on a quality test ride yesterday. The stem needs to come down just a little bit but otherwise the bike rides amazing. The Shimano 2x10 is so solid and works so well. The front shifter/front derailure are dialed. The rear is smooth like glass. The new XTR trail pedal is the only choice now (asside from DX for DH). Like having a platform under your clip, but nothing at all more than is needed. Super cool.

    The rest of the parts, Saint brakes, VAN140QR15, EC90, etc are already established as killer.

    The bike was already slack at 69.25 with a 655 front center. Slacking it more with 0.5 degrees in the Angleset was a bit much for general trail riding, but would be sweet for downieville runs or super d race. The Angleset is interesting, but will probably be replaced after some testing. The head angle of this bike is already in the range.



    The new 2x systems make me laugh. I was running my version of 2x9 at the 2007 Sea Otter. I was stoked when one of the engineers from Shimano asked me if he could take a few pictures of it. I figured that they were working on something.

    Here's a post of mine from winter of 2006/2007 during development:
    http://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=2x9_ala_PVD

  15. #15
    just ride
    Reputation: chequamagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,923
    Peter - nice bike, nice design.

    A few questions - How did you make the tapered head tube? Turned down from a big thick tube?

    I see you are not running a tapered fork, presumably to use the AngleSet. If AngleSet was the primary design criteria, why didnt you build the frame with OnePointFive, which would have been easier to make the HT in steel than the tapered HT? Or was the frame already designed for tapered, and then AngleSet came out, and it was an obvious addition?

    Also, on your mitering if the DT, there is no way to really accurately get the taper of the HT figured in, so did you then just do the final fitting to the tapered HT by hand file?

    Overall, its really nice, and really clean, like how I romanticize steel frames in my mind.....
    Steel is Real: www.advocatecycles.com
    Tires for real rides: www.terrenetires.com

  16. #16
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    The down tube was mitered cylindrically then hand filed at the taper. It was fairly simple to get a great fit. Just a few minutes with a file like any other hand miter. No worries.

    The head tube design was made prior to the ZS44 1.5" release. I needed a tapered design since that's all we'll see from now on for single crown. I would have done the top Integrated 1.125" but I hadn't figured out a design that I trusted so I went with ZS44 to make the whole tube from one peice of thick 4130. I really wasn't too happy about this design thinking it was too crude and below myu personal standards so the bike kinda around for 2 months needing just a few braze on's. When I realized that I could put an Cane Creek Angleset in, the bike seemed much cooler and I got stoked. It's just kinda neat for right now.

    http://www.peterverdone.com/?p=327

    My next few bicycles will feature head tubes with integrated 1.125" top and ZS44 1.5" lower headset. A two peice design using a main tube diameter of 1.500". This will look much leaner and more elegant than what I've got here. I've got it all designed and hoped to do a new version of my urban road bike that will be more fun to ride. Steel forks on road bikes are just donkey and I'd love to have nice tapered carbon fork on the next bike.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    i dont get the high rise stem. you are always gumming off about custom blah blah blah you're the best, but you build a bike specifically for yourself and you need a 10? degree stem? to make it fit. wtf?

  18. #18
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    i dont get it....
    You are 100% correct. You don't get it. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

  19. #19
    Gabe.....
    Reputation: Smokebikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,182
    Welcome back PVD, been a while...........nice concept, looks good.
    "Roll your own..........." http://smokebikes.com/

  20. #20
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by chequamagon
    If AngleSet was the primary design criteria, why didnt you build the frame with OnePointFive, which would have been easier to make the HT in steel than the tapered HT? Or was the frame already designed for tapered, and then AngleSet came out, and it was an obvious addition?
    Getting back to this. A straight OnePointFive tube on a steel bike is wildly heavy and is quite ugly. The scale of the top and down tubes meeting the enormous head tube just looks horrible and crude. The only way to get the weight down and have the scale proper is to reduce the outside diameter to the absolute minimum possible. That is not the case with this design, but it's better than nothing. The next revision with the IS/44 is going to be right. I actually cant wait to make it.

    Also, I had a perfectly good VAN140QR15 with a straight steerer on hand. It seemed like a waste to buy a new fork just to have it tapered. I'll probably spring for a 2012 model fork with a carbon steerer/crown for that upgrade. That's next september.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    434
    I can't even bring myself to lay out an underhanded compliment.
    I'ts just a good looking bike. Period.
    Thanks for putting it out there.

  22. #22
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,785


    hahaha I've met you!

    Sharp looking bike.
    I like cheap stuff that works great and is very sturdy.

  23. #23
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    wtf?
    I guess that I missed class the day you you learned all about putting a bike together. Take a look at this garbage you put together. 30mm spacer stack, a 90 degree stem, and a high rise handlebar. Are you kidding? Seriously? You do lame work like this and you get all worked up when you see me doing it right? Keep your head in the sand boy. It's safe there.




    ps. Man up and put a big ring on that bike. You can't ride slow forever.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    I guess that I missed class the day you you learned all about putting a bike together. Take a look at this garbage you put together. 30mm spacer stack, a 90 degree stem, and a high rise handlebar. Are you kidding? Seriously? You do lame work like this and you get all worked up when you see me doing it right? Keep your head in the sand boy. It's safe there.




    ps. Man up and put a big ring on that bike. You can't ride slow forever.

    if you notice i never put a retarded claim like "the new standard" in any post i've made. why don't you copy another e13 chainguide and tout is as the latest greatest pvd product again. stay as a hero on the internet. it's safe there d00$h

    btw its a 50mm stem and i guess you ran that retarded high rise stem so you could run that flat bar you had lying around and have no spacers.awesome custom work and definitely a new standard

  25. #25
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    btw its a 50mm stem and i guess you ran that retarded high rise stem so you could run that flat bar you had lying around and have no spacers.
    Just lost. You don't even know what you don't know.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Just lost. You don't even know what you don't know.

    okay whatever. keep reverse engineering stuff and touting it the latest and greatest. some day you'll get some credit from someone other than yourself really, you will

  27. #27
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,083

    A quick explanation

    In the interest of getting everyone back on topic, I *believe* PVD's reason for using a riser stem/flat bar was to minimize the amount of material and weight needed to put the grips/controls in the positions he wanted them.

    Consider 2 setups with identical grip positions:
    -Flat bar, riser stem, no spacers. You've got a shorter steerer tube, no spacers, and a flat (inherently stronger and lighter) bar.
    -Riser bar, spacers, flat/negative stem. You're following a crooked/zigzag path from the steerer tube to the grips. The spacers go up, the stem goes down, then the bars go back up again.

    Does it matter very much? Probably not, we're only talking about 20 or 30g of material at most. But PVD is, technically, completely right - the riser stem/flat bar combo is a stronger/lighter way to accomplish the same task. One could probably also make a stiffness argument for his solution, though my guess is that the differences would be so minimal as to be undetectable.

    People think riser bars look cool, and that riser stems look dumb. I have never understood this, myself, but that's the prevailing fashion. That doesn't mean it's the smartest way to do it.

    -Walt

    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    if you notice i never put a retarded claim like "the new standard" in any post i've made. why don't you copy another e13 chainguide and tout is as the latest greatest pvd product again. stay as a hero on the internet. it's safe there d00$h

    btw its a 50mm stem and i guess you ran that retarded high rise stem so you could run that flat bar you had lying around and have no spacers.awesome custom work and definitely a new standard
    Waltworks Custom Bicycles
    Park City, UT USA
    www.waltworks.com
    waltworks.com/blog/
    instagram.com/waltworks/

  28. #28
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt
    In the interest of getting everyone back on topic, I *believe* PVD's reason for using a riser stem/flat bar was to minimize the amount of material and weight needed to put the grips/controls in the positions he wanted them.

    Consider 2 setups with identical grip positions:
    -Flat bar, riser stem, no spacers. You've got a shorter steerer tube, no spacers, and a flat (inherently stronger and lighter) bar.
    -Riser bar, spacers, flat/negative stem. You're following a crooked/zigzag path from the steerer tube to the grips. The spacers go up, the stem goes down, then the bars go back up again.

    Does it matter very much? Probably not, we're only talking about 20 or 30g of material at most. But PVD is, technically, completely right - the riser stem/flat bar combo is a stronger/lighter way to accomplish the same task. One could probably also make a stiffness argument for his solution, though my guess is that the differences would be so minimal as to be undetectable.

    People think riser bars look cool, and that riser stems look dumb. I have never understood this, myself, but that's the prevailing fashion. That doesn't mean it's the smartest way to do it.

    -Walt
    ...and i thought it was so you didn't have a big old steer tube hanging out there to smash your dong on.
    I like cheap stuff that works great and is very sturdy.

  29. #29
    Full Tilt Boogie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,651
    Seriously nice looking bike. All those little details really add to the whole aesthetic and performace.
    I sell bikes here. Check out the Blog here. Facebook.

  30. #30
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,811
    is that a BOA stem?
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Why don't you build your frames more slack? I've been curious about the newer slack hardtails that are coming out. I've been told hardtails don't need the slack HA, is this true? Because 67 feels so good on my FS.

  32. #32
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Hardtails and FS bikes are different animals. Also, the terrain where they excel are quite different. In Marin, the hardtail is the king of the mountain. It fits the trails just right.

    I've tried to push the angle out as far as I can and for around here, 69.25 is about as far as I can get without the steering feeling completely lame on tight trail and having a wandering front end on steeper climbs.(trying the angleset showed that as true) These are trail bikes so they do have to perform going up as well as going down. Also, if the front center gets too great, the bike becomes clumsy in traversing roots and rock sections.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    I ride in Marin as well, and my 67 HA bike climbs effortlessly, is there something about the frame not having rear suspension that gives the bike a different feel head tube angle wise? If anything it seems like it would steepen the HA more since theres no rear suspension to sag and level things out. 69.5 on a FS trailbike is freakin sketchy.

  34. #34
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody
    Why don't you build your frames more slack? I've been curious about the newer slack hardtails that are coming out. I've been told hardtails don't need the slack HA, is this true? Because 67 feels so good on my FS.
    Note that although it's a 140 mm travel fork, the drawing is based off of the fork being at 100 mm. I'm assuming that's the sagged position. Unsagged at 140 mm would put the head angle much slacker.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    That would make much more sense, good call

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226


    you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000


    you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot
    +1 probably needed a bigger frame. Still, nice bike, just needs a double and a bigger middle ring. Its kinda throwing stones in a glass house telling people to man up and use a big ring when you're still sporting a death-to-leg big ring and a 32T middle ring. Anyway PVD looks like he's building some pretty nice stuff and is pretty sharp. I don't think I would be talking crap to him if all I had done is built up an aftermarket hardtail.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    [IMG]you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot
    Since everyone's legs are proportioned differently there is nothing wrong with using a setback seatpost based on personal fit. Sometimes it's necessary to effectively slack the seat angle, esp on production bikes that have the same seat angle for all frame sizes. If you notice his custom frame was designed around a zero offset post.

    As for stem length, that's personal preference too. Some areas don't have the super steeps that make a super short stem feel good, some people like the climbing feel with more weight on the front wheel, some people prefer a shorter wheelbase, and so on.

    pvd mocked you for not understanding how a straight line if the lightest and strongest way to connect two points (as walt explained), not for fit and setup preferences.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Another Comment on the straight bar deal is that they don't have any sweep, which means worse cornering as it won't feel as natural to get your elbows outwards. To me flat bars are for old school XC riders. I'd rather have maybe just a few small spacers, and either a riser bar or a very small riser bar, something with some backsweep to it. I agree though the picture of that On-One looks funny with all those spacers. Nothing wrong with layback posts at all, in fact I prefer them.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody
    Another Comment on the straight bar deal is that they don't have any sweep, which means worse cornering as it won't feel as natural to get your elbows outwards. To me flat bars are for old school XC riders.
    The Truvativ flat bar in that SC picture has 10degs sweep, which is a degree more than similar riser bars from Truvativ. The Chromag flat bar on pvd's custom has 11degs sweep, which is also more than any of that company's risers

    Not that flat vs rise is related to sweep, but times have changed and flat bars aren't limited to being straight and narrow anymore. There are a lot of good options in 28-31" width and 8-11deg sweep range now, as well as wide flat bars in the 15-17deg sweep range

  41. #41
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000


    you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot
    I'm so glad you brought this bike up. I think talking about it will ensure that everyone can see what a tool you are.

    Recent, I became a part owner of a bike shop. I was in the mood to try a bike that I didn't make on trails. I shopped a few bikes and hands in extreme depth, but the butcher/nomads ended up being the choice for many interesting reasons. I chose the butcher to keep the cost down since I don't ride FS often unless I'm downhill.

    Prior to ordering the frame, I loaded all the geometry data into BikeCad along with my trailbike preferred fit. The medium as the more than obvious choice.

    As most experienced builders know, long rear wheel travel bikes tend to have quite steep seat tubes to give the wheel room to bottom. This necessitates a setback post to produce correct saddle setback for efficient peddling and to keep too much weight from being placed over the front wheel.

    Given the massive front center on this type of bike, there is plenty of room for a stem that makes for a comfortable and relaxed peddling position while still allowing high speed entry into even the most obscene trail drops.

    I've gone as far as testing this setup on the more aggressive trails in Pacific. I does fine there but I do have another bar and stem setup that I use to put me in a position closer to what I run on my DH bike.

    So. What was it that was done wrong here?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    I didn't even bother to look, learn something new all the time. That's good you can get the sweep. I guess I just use shorter stems exclusively and always need some kind of rise to my bar since you can't get rise out of a short stem, well not much at least. Short stem is not nearly just about riding steeps, its about much more.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,047
    I still want to know which trails this thing is designed for.

    I promise I won't actually ride there since I can't afford any fines and I don't like getting into confrontations with angry old self-entitled rich ex-hippies. C'mon, spill the beans.

  44. #44
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    The Truvativ flat bar in that SC picture has 10degs sweep, which is a degree more than similar riser bars from Truvativ. The Chromag flat bar on pvd's custom has 11degs sweep, which is also more than any of that company's risers
    A lot of riser bars have a backsweep and an upsweep, using the riser portion as reference for the up direction.

    The wide flat bars have no reference for "up", so they combine the up and back, and when you do the math it adds a degree or two to the backsweep.

    For example, when I designed the Titec Flattracker, we matched it to the 9 degree backsweep and 5 degree upsweep of the Helbent riser, which added together to 11 degrees of total sweep.

    I can't say this is what everyone does these days with their bar designs, but that was our thinking.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.welby
    A lot of riser bars have a backsweep and an upsweep, using the riser portion as reference for the up direction.

    The wide flat bars have no reference for "up", so they combine the up and back, and when you do the math it adds a degree or two to the backsweep.

    For example, when I designed the Titec Flattracker, we matched it to the 9 degree backsweep and 5 degree upsweep of the Helbent riser, which added together to 11 degrees of total sweep.

    I can't say this is what everyone does these days with their bar designs, but that was our thinking.
    interesting. Thanks for the insight

  46. #46
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    I still want to know which trails this thing is designed for.
    Sent PM.
    Last edited by pvd; 12-28-2010 at 03:42 PM.

  47. #47
    Who turned out the lights
    Reputation: Francis Buxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg
    ...and i thought it was so you didn't have a big old steer tube hanging out there to smash your dong on.
    Post of the year, right there. True and funny, all in one.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,640
    As for flats vs risers.. first and foremost..... who cares.

    For discussions sake, 'back in the day' we liked risers exactly b/c they had more material from the center of the stem to the end of the bar for a given bar length. We 'tuned' our ride feel with different rises and material... Ti... to get the ride we wanted, often with rigid forks. A nice byproduct was a more upright position, this coming on the heels of the long ass stem and short bar era. Delusional? Possibly.. but the memories are good.. argue with them if you want. There was even a blurb in one of the mags about 'guys putting riseres, short stems, and long travel forks on hardtails' like it was some new cutting edge thing. Wide flats with good sweep were rare, headtubes were generally short, wheels were small. How far we've come.

    Risers can also allow more tapered area making for a stronger bar... it doesn't have to taper down as quick for fitting levers.

    I'm all for function trumping form.... to a point.. I personally like longer headtubes, stems in the 90-115 range, at least 5mm of spacers, but no more than 10, and a stem close to 90 so it can be flipped for different bars, riders, etc. Oh... and risers! Looks proper.


    -Schmitty-

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tamen00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,025
    Lots of cool stuff going on with this bike - well done!! Very nice frame but not sure about "The new Standard"....

    I know the 10 degree rise stem and flat bar are technically right... but to me it just looks funky - along with the 400 mm of seatpost sticking out. Makes it look like compensating for a too small of frame (I know that is not the case with this bike, designed that way on purpose)

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: scooter916's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,269
    I really like the valve caps
    Quote Originally Posted by thefuzzbl
    aluminium has a tendency to fail when you need it most. i.e. you end up with a bad day.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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