Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 51

Thread: New Ion15?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104

    New Ion15?

    TwoNine...

    Ok, so maybe not officially but I'm thinking, now that Nicolai have responded to pressure and committed to 44/56 headtubes and 142mm rear dropouts and made some design improvements to the Ion chassis overall and it seems to weigh a similar amount to an AM/AC, it might be time to consider what an Ion15-29 might look like.

    I'm very very happy with my AC29-150mm (ok 148mm) and 66.8 deg HA but I am a big fan of the Ion looks and the low CofG it appears to have. likely as not it would be very much the same as my current bike just look different but, if I could just stop that itch ;-)

    So I'm thinking of this:
    Ion15 29er
    150mm rear travel with RP23 CTD 216x63mm shock
    150mm Fox F34 fork (555mm A2C)
    67deg Head angle (zs44/56 with Angleset)
    74deg seat tube angle
    470mm seat tube length
    610mm ETT
    454mm chainstays with 142x12 post mount dropouts.
    40mm BB drop
    340mm BB

    XX1 crank 170mm arms with 30t chainring
    MRP Micro G2 SL chainguide
    10-42 rear cassette & chain
    XX1 rear derailleur
    XX1 shifter
    Enve Carbon AM wheels
    XTR trail brakes 203fr/180r
    2.4tyres
    Point One Spit Second Stem 50mm
    Easton Havoc carbon bar 750mm
    OZ riders grips
    Saevid S1.2 saddle
    Reverb seatpost

    Target weight 28lbs with pedals.

    There, I can see it already.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by the_pilot; 08-24-2012 at 11:33 AM.
    Aka chainline...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    Sounds great but it's not going to weight 28lbs. 29lbs maybe, but still doubtful given the size of the wheels.

    That build right there, is very like my AM which weighs 29lbs but has lighter wheels than the Enves and a lighter drive train.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    648
    You need help!

    But I like it!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    That build right there is my current AC29 150mm which comes in at 28bs inc pedals.
    with almost that drivetrain, a slightly lighter11-36 XX cassette and an xtr crank with Straitline silent guide and xtr shadow plus mech (heavier crank/guide setup by 150g compared to X0/MRP blingring/MRP micro G2SL)
    Don't forget things like my saddle and seat clamp only weigh 90g complete ;-) Saving 1/2lb over a normal 'light saddle'. The bar and stem only 330g (Kinesis Strut F750 carbon on the way at 80g lighter than the Havoc). My wheels are 1690g with heavyish Chris King Hubs and 32 CX ray spokes each. All non safety critical bolts are Ti. That's with 330g flats too not 200g Ti clip less pedals. New RP23 CTD is light too. 60g lighter than a vip'r. 350g lighter than CCDB air. Fox F34 29 float is 2kg. Same as a Deville.

    I based it on the fact my AC29 frame weighs the same as my old AM 26". It was posted on here that the Ion16 is slightly lighter than an AM so guessing an Ion29 would reflect that, maybe a little lighter than my AC.

    If the frame comes in at 3.3kg. 27.5lb definitely doable with tough components. Mostly carbon and none cheap. But hey this is the Nicolai forum. We don't do cheap!
    Aka chainline...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    My mistake. Bar and stem 303g not 330g. Marginal gains and all that ;-)
    Aka chainline...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    If the frame comes in at 3.3kg.
    Interestingly that is the weight that they told me they were working to and if that is the frame, shock and mounting hardware, then maybe 28lbs is possible, especially as you're using a string hamock for a saddle

    Seriously, how do you get a saddle that weighs that little?

    Based on what they have shown us so far though, the Ion 16 with shock is coming in just over 3.3kg, which I think makes it fractionally heavier or fractionally lighter than an AM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Hehe my saddle weighs 72g. It's very comfy, just takes a year to harden the backside up ;-)

    I actually meant 3.3kg for the frame only (incl. mech hanger)
    excluding shock and hardware for 28lbs. My AC/AM29 is 3250g without the shock. RP23 CTD weighs 235g with the hardware.

    That's carrying 50g I lard in the Angleset too. If using a std headset can lose another 50g.
    Aka chainline...

  8. #8
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,270
    Did Lance Armstrong procrastinate so much about weight I wonder.....?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,001
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lecht_Rocks View Post
    Did Lance Armstrong procrastinate so much about weight I wonder.....?
    Only of the drugs he was taking.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Hehe.
    Aka chainline...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    Did Lance Armstrong procrastinate so much about weight I wonder.....?
    You know I don't think he did.

    But man did he band on about pedal strikes!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Hehe
    Aka chainline...

  13. #13
    "Its All Good"
    Reputation: Whafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,697
    I am liking it, but you knew that already
    The_Lecht_Rocks: whafe - cheeers - may i offer an official apology for the wagon wheeler "dis-belief"

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    I've put a proposal to Chris Thomas at Nicolai, the designer that worked on my AC/AM 29, let see what he says ;-) 67deg HA on the steeper setting of the eccentric linkage pivot ;-)

    Whafe, what travel would you be looking for? I am after 150mm rear as I have now on my AC. I can't see going to 120mm now as it pedals so well with the RP23 CTD and a 120mm fork, even a stoopid light one, is only 300g lighter. I would want up to 150mm fork but you might want a beefier down tube. Goal for me is the same or lighter frame than my current AC and the Fox 150 as we know will be the same weight as the 140mm.
    My AC is coming in at 27.5lb with pedals now with 140 FOX with burly kit and 1x10, sub 30lb is no problem.
    Would you look to replace the big boy AM or add wideer range to the AC so to speak?
    Aka chainline...

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    So ive exchanged a few emails with Nicolai about the Ion suspension design, differences to the Helius design and the prospect of this bike as a custom and I've met with a pretty favourable response and thoughts of around June next year.

    Any other takers. Gonna be based around 150mm travel with the features of the Ion 16 but with big boys wheels.

    I've been giving the front mech mount some thought. I don't think I'll need it with XX1 but others might.

    I'm thinking direct mount but to the Ibeam section between the BB and the offset seat tube. That way a road style direct mount could be used (As Cube uses actually) to eliminate the yre clearance problem experienced with the Sram direct mount (no bigger than 2.25)
    Alternatively could consider an e-mount style to the BB...hmmm
    Aka chainline...

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shakeyakey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam View Post
    Only of the drugs he was taking.
    hahahahahaa

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shakeyakey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by geetee1972 View Post
    You know I don't think he did.

    But man did he band on about pedal strikes!
    hahahahahahahaha

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Actually Chris has gone now. dealing with a different guy, who's also really interested in this concept for himself too ;-) always helpful..
    Aka chainline...

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Midgetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    210
    ...perhaps we should rather try to persuade him to design a RC29.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    I'm not sure its needed having built up my AC Midgetman. My AC build for AM comes in at 28lbs with pedals.

    If you use a German:A fork with it and run the likes of an xc rim like a BOR or Stans Crest with xc brakes and tyres and 1x10 you can hit 24lb.

    The new one doesn't have as much travel flexibility at the back though as mine or the old one you may need to use a shorter stroke shock. Angles will be fine thou. 120mm German:A fork gives 69deg.
    Aka chainline...

  21. #21
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    funny, just found this thread, been stewing on a similar concept. I've been playing a bunch with what's possible on long travel 29 and finding favorable results. The next step, IMO, is a bump to 150 mm travel (currently have a 135 and a 140 rig), slack out the front end a bit more and tighten up the CS. I ran a 66.5 deg setup at whistler this year and it was darn good but a little steep for Whistler tech trails at full pace and general 30mph riding. I'm thinking more like 66-65.5 for the next project. The other KEY ingredient here is pulling in the CS to around 17.25 ish (438mm). Accomplish this through a dedicated 1x11 design to just clear a 2.35 Hans Dampf, no clearance consideration for FD. Might require a slightly steeper ST and resulting shorter ETT but reach should be able to remain pleasantly generous. Oh and a 100 mm HT (on a med) would go a long way to keeping the front end to a reasonable height. The idea is a long travel slayer with a super short (for a 29) rear and a long, stable front. I think Wafe's AM/AFR beast came in around 17.6 CS IIRC, so squeezing another 7 mm or so out of the CS should be possible.

    Anyway, good to see this dialogue. Would love to hear more more from you guys and details on Nicolai's thoughts.

    Wafe, The_Pilot, pipe up!
    Last edited by Err; 11-09-2012 at 10:13 PM.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,407
    I reckon we must be up to 5 individuals now that want this frame.
    www.gravity-sports.co.uk

    flash bikes for flash gits

  23. #23
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    I'm definitely interested if Nicolai can get the numbers right. I've been thinking for a while that with 1x drivetrains growing in popularity, that it's high time we see a really short chain stay, long travel 29. I know Whafe got his current AM/AFR hybrid to 446.9 which is roughly 17.6". I'd like to see how much farther they can take it with a design that's not limited by FD compatibility and further enabled by a seat tube that's forward and out of the way. 438 mm might be a tall order, but somewhere close to that and we could have a game changer in terms of aggressive riding on 29" wheels. Long front, short rear, that's where we need to go here folks.

    Where the heck is Whafe an the The_Pilot???? Ugh, probably out riding. 30" of snow hitting here now so I have lots of internet surfing time on my hands when I'm not out snow sliding.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Ha, I'm here, broken to at the moment so not much riding. After much discussion Nicolai wouldnt go any shorter than 454mm on my AM/AC29 and Cyril ended up increasing his from 447mm to 454mm the same as mine, that's with 150mm of rear travel. That is with a significantly offset seat tube.

    So my current AC has 150mm rear travel and 140mm front (Until I get around to sorting a Fox CTD fork to go 150mm OR Scoop?? A little bird told me that Rockshox are bringing out a 160mm 29er fork next year...)

    I think not designing for the FD helps (Certainly with tyre clearance. I can't use my 2.4 ardent with an FD due to the FD design more than anything (I don't need to with 1x10 28/11-36) but the axle path and not whacking the ST are the key constraints Nicolai were designing for wh mine not FD, along with big tyre e.g. 2.4 Ardent compatibility fore/aft.

    Personally I think the CS length is a slight red herring, Obviously it helps keep the wheelbase down for tight switchbacks etc but I don't think it affects the ability of the bike to be popped and jumped. Too many other factors come into that like the dynamic CofG of rider on bike, BB height etc...I think my AC29 is easier to manual than my old AM26

    I don't know the axle path of the Ion Vs the AC so that will be interesting to get Nicolai's view. If the rear CS could be shorter, 450mm or slightly less I wouldn't complain but I also don't think it would impact my desire for the bike either.

    As for head angle well that is a balance isn't it, like anything depending on how downhill oriented you wanted to go. I don't get to ride whistler so sub 66.5deg would be too slack for me, I currently run 66.7deg and am thinking of increasing that to 67.5 for general riding, stability is barely affected in my experience but my general experience isn't Whistler at full pace!!

    The best option here is to use the angleset, configure the bike at around 67.5deg basic to allow between sub 66deg and 68.5 on an angleset which should cover all the bases.
    However on this Ion we mustn't forget the eccentric linkage bolt which may well reduce headangle by 1deg and lower the BB by 0.5" so even more flexibility.

    My headtube is 110mm for the record but has an external angleset. Now Nicolai have relented and produced a 44/56 taper it can be zero stack and reduce the stack by 15mm.

    Things may be calming down a little at Nicolai now after Eurobike so I may send Max another email on this subject.

    I am of the view that 150mm rear is about the max sensible for a 29, 160mm front may be too much in terms of wheelbase too except for maximum gravity situations. It would be ok if it could be travel reduced for some of the time but also if it is relatively light. My AC29 is an all round bike as I would want this Ion to be. The target would again be 28.5lbs so hopefully not a much heavier frame than I have now but that remains to be seen if its possible. It seems to be the case for the Ion16 Vs Helius AM so if that carries through then it could be ok.

    I'll write to Max and see what he says...

    He was very receptive, although non of the other Senior guys have commented, as he was also very interested in such a frame....
    Aka chainline...

  25. #25
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    Ah ha, thanks the_pilot.

    So to kind of pull together a few past discussions, here is Cyril's build and here is Whafe's AM/AFR.

    I'm not going to try to bring all of the discussion points of those threads to this one but the short version is fitting the 29" wheel in to a 447 Chainstay with a 2.4" tire is not a problem. The problem is that with 140+ travel you run into issues of hitting the seat tube. Whafe's frame appears to have the seat tube offset a bit further forward than Cyril's and I see that he appears to be running a 2.4 Ardent on the rear. Not sure what's up there.

    Cyril had his chainstay redone and extended from 448 to 452 mm clear a 2.4 tire.

    I have a couple 29'ers that have right around 454mm CS and they're both great bikes. My main trail bike has an angleset in it with the HTA set at 67.5º which I find to be just perfect for AM/Trail riding. Getting up and down tight switchbacks is no problem at all. I can manual and jump my bike no problem. a little vid we did this summer to give you an idea of how I "trail ride" my 29'er.

    So, as a point of progression, I'm interested in trimming the CS, even it if means a 75º STA and/or the ST shifted forward. I primarily hoping to gain a more playful feel, a rear-end that's easier to back into corners and roll into manuals with a bit less effort. As for the HTA, I already have 2 bikes in the 67.5-68º range and am looking to go a bit slacker this time around. The "chip" system in Ion16 allows for 1º of adjustment so perhaps a 66/67º would be ideal for me.

    The key here is getting the CS at least down to around 448 and no longer than say 450. I'm really not worried about a steep STA and resulting super-short ETT, this will not be my primary bike for going uphill. I think the other points of geometry that I'm after are pretty basic.

    It's disappointing to hear that perhaps 454 mm is as short as we can go at 150mm. I might be rather inclined to back down to 140 mm or so if would allow for 448 mm CS.

    A couple other interesting reference points on CS length:
    Banshee Prime - 130 mm travel - 443 to 448 mm adj CS length
    Yeti SB95 - 135 mm travel - 444.5 CS length (does not fit 2.35/2.4 tires without rubbing ST)
    Santa Cruz Tallboy LTc - 135 mm travel - 455 CS length
    Niner WFO - 140 mm travel - 455 CS length

    Clearly a trend towards either reducing travel (Prime) or living with a 455 CS, or being compromised on tire size. Hmm...
    Last edited by Err; 11-12-2012 at 10:11 AM.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    I thnink, I need to check, that both Cyril and Whafe were running, and happy with 2.25 tyres, although some 2.25/2.35 can be within 1mm width of a 2.4 Ardent BUT a Nevegal for instance has HUGE knobs and is a much taller tyre. I definitely have clearance, though not with, a front mech for a 2.4 with slightly shorter stays, but its the seat tube thing.

    My seat tube is the same as Cyrils was at 74 deg, I would expect that a 75deg STA could well give the necessary clearance at 150mm (Actually 148mm) although whether it would with say a big Nevagal or not I'm not sure. I could try using a shorter shock and deflating it with my current mount which is 8mm forward to see what kind of ST clearance you could expect.

    Personally I don't want a crazy short ETT as I race Enduro so I have to climb too.

    The Ion does have a more offset Seat tube (Like Whafes) so it may be that the extra STA is not needed with a shorter CS.

    If Max will have a look at creating some drawings we will get an idea if we can get down to 450mm CS. It would be good as I want at least a 610mm ETT so at 66.7deg mine is getting pretty long.
    Aka chainline...

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Here is the thread with my final geo.
    Colour is sometimes the easiest decision...

    and here Helius AC29e Experience

    Mine is slightly differnt now with a Sram crank/28t bling ring and MRP Micro G2 SL chain guide along with Easton 35 800mm bars and Easton 35mm stem.

    I should do a write up on what I've learned in that second thread really and what I am basing my desire for the Ion15 on, but its mostly more of the same. better sealed bearings, the eccentric link, the 44/56 headtube, 142mm rear spacing complete with Post mount brake. A tidied up BB area is the icing on the cake really.

    I think the head angle needs to be for what you want to do but with an angleset and a deg on the eccentric link I think something like 67deg with a 150mm fork would be spot on.
    Aka chainline...

  28. #28
    "Its All Good"
    Reputation: Whafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,697
    I am at a loss as to why there was the agreement to shorten my CS up more than they have said you can the_pilot...

    The setup on mine of which is taken from the first AFR type setup is mint, I would do it again if in fact it could shorten the CS even more...

    At present I cant fit a 2.35 Hans D tyre and that is a problem for me... Lack of suitable tyres at Whistler hurt me some days, try 4 punctures during a lesson !
    The_Lecht_Rocks: whafe - cheeers - may i offer an official apology for the wagon wheeler "dis-belief"

  29. #29
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    The Hans Dampf is definitely the reference point for AM/DH/FR 29er tires. I ran 2.35 HD's front and rear tubeless at Whistler and Winter Park all summer with zero issues. It's a tall and wide tire though, so there definitely needs to be a fair amount of room reserved. But, I think it's worth it to jump through hoops to get a shorter rear and longer front for a gravity oriented 29'er.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    The 2.4 Ardent is 1mm wider than the HD And it fits in my CS with room to spare. I also have to keep clearance in mind living in the UK!

    Whafe your seat offset is definitely bigger than mine, yours having the Ion style BB area box section. Mine is only offset by a single seat tube width the same as the original AFR. You also have a steeper seat tube by 0.5 deg so you will have more seat tube clearance, although clearly less tyre clearance.

    The front/rear ratio is surely relative too, the front of the 29 is longer too don't forget. I think there might be 4mm that could be taken out of the CS and still fit a HD or Ardent without compromising seat tube or mud clearance too much. Realistically when it gets really muddy the 2.0s go in.

    I suspect a STA of 74 would still work with the Ion style BB as again it is bigger than my design. It is clear that the swingarm has been carried over from mine/Cyril's setup web though a tidier offset BB area has been developed. (I asked for that too but they also wouldn't do that for me at the time..)
    Last edited by the_pilot; 11-13-2012 at 01:11 PM.
    Aka chainline...

  31. #31
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    I guess I'm not clear if the HD is contacting Whafe's swingarm or seat tube. I had assumed the latter. Either way, it sounds promising that a fairly short rear, long front based on the Ion 16 could be built if Nicolai had the appetite to do it.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Just seen how bad my typing was in that last post. Ill get that cleaned up! Phones eh.

    @Err, I would bet, and I'm sure Whafe will chime in that its the CS clearance not the seat tube clearance that's the problem with the HD. The 2.4 Ardent has clearance in my CS BUT you couldn't take 7-8mm off it and fit a taller tyre (which I am pretty sure the HD is ( like the Kenda Nevagal, not quite as wide as an Ardent but bigger knobs(sic)

    I'll have to do some more checking but I've got the beaver mud tyres on at the moment!

    I think I saw that the Knoa Satori had super short stays did read it could take a big tyre on a forum. Haven't checked that. But there is also more than one way of measuring/quoting CS length I have noted too!
    Aka chainline...

  33. #33
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    I would tend to also assume that it's a seat tube clearance issue, just hadn't confirmed. Whafe's effective seat tube angle is 74.5º. Bumping that .5º to 1.0º steeper seems to be the solution to shorter CS.

    The Satori claims 17.3" (439.4 mm) CS and 130 mm travel. That's the shortest out there of the long travel 29'ers, even shorter than the Lenz.

    I just checked a Kona thread here Kona Satori - rear tyre size and fitment issue?, looks like 2.4 ardents fit at full compression

    Also in this post, someone claims the Hans Dampf 2.35 fits without issue on the Satori but no pic.


    It bears repeating that the Prime has CS as short as 443 mm and reportedly fits Hans Dampfs without issue. It appears that they, in part, accomplished this through using 75º to 76º seat tube angles.

    It's all quite encouraging for a 140-150 mm travel setup with CS somewhere between 440-447 mm. And yes, I recognize 7 mm is quite a range, but I'm armchair engineering here, no Solid Works loaded up on this laptop

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Must have misread my post. I think it's more of a CS issue Not ST. CS length obviously includes up to the pivot point. The Yoke on a Nicolai is quite forward of the pivot, which may not be the case to the same degree on other designs, I'll have a look. Bear in mind that 150mm is a ful 15% more travel so it would be reasonable to assume an increase in CS length for ST clearance.

    However for me, I can't stress enough how much of a non issue I think getting the CS shorter than 450mm-454mm is.

    If you read Cyril's comparison of his Prime compare to his Nicolai you will seen
    he says the Nicolai was more agile and Cyril rides tight rocky technical terrain.

    It sounds to me Err like you are looking for more of a feeling that perhaps 650b might give? (You may verbally lash me for that!!)
    But again, I find my 150mm AC29 playful, fast, stable, grippy...did I mention fast...66.7deg HA...and fast...
    Aka chainline...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,407
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    Must have misread my post. I think it's more of a CS issue Not ST. CS length obviously includes up to the pivot point. The Yoke on a Nicolai is quite forward of the pivot, which may not be the case to the same degree on other designs, I'll have a look. Bear in mind that 150mm is a ful 15% more travel so it would be reasonable to assume an increase in CS length for ST clearance.

    However for me, I can't stress enough how much of a non issue I think getting the CS shorter than 450mm-454mm is.

    If you read Cyril's comparison of his Prime compare to his Nicolai you will seen
    he says the Nicolai was more agile and Cyril rides tight rocky technical terrain.

    It sounds to me Err like you are looking for more of a feeling that perhaps 650b might give? (You may verbally lash me for that!!)
    But again, I find my 150mm AC29 playful, fast, stable, grippy...did I mention fast...66.7deg HA...and fast...
    i agree phil. without riding one id also say shorter is better but in reality its been a non issue as you say.
    www.gravity-sports.co.uk

    flash bikes for flash gits

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Getting the BB height righ and the dynamic CofG on the bike definitely as important and a nice 'poppy' shock/linkage.

    I stressed sooo much about CS length (as Dipper and Nicolai know!! How many emails...) before getting this and pushed and pushed Nicolai to reduce it further but they wouldn't at this travel. I do wonder a little if that was something to do with designing for a direct mount front mech also.

    I tried to design in so much flexibility into the geo as I really want sure what I would prefer. I'm glad I did as it has enabled me to find that out and be pretty sure about the next one.

    My biggest fear was it would be too long, too slack and slow steering and be a pig to manual, I was completely wrong!
    Aka chainline...

  37. #37
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    Yeap, sorry, misread your post. And now that we're talking about it, I do recall that my old Helius-ST had really tight CS and was a pain to put a big tire in without partially deflating first. I could very well see that issue popping up in Whafe's ride.

    On the debate of longer CS being quite rideable, I totally hear ya. I have 2 bikes in my stable at 455 mm and I've ridden a host of others I spent some time on one recently that measured up at 450 mm that wasn't too shabby. I've also done quite a bit with anglesets and offset bushings to tweak HTA, BBH, etc. I've held some nice long manuals with 455 mm CS. There are however, certain attributes that I'm hoping to improve on with tighter CS, for instance, I like to rear-wheel steer in steep tech and that gets to be much better with shorter CS. Rolling into manuals under fatigue is also improved with a shorter rear as is popping off of small trail features to gap over roots and rocks. But like you said, and I totally agree, balance in geometry at all points must be correct.

    No worries on the 650b, I'm always opent to alternatives. I've ridden a few 650b so far, nothing that's really blown me away but each have had their strong points. I'd almost be keen to build a 650b and a 29 version of this bike and see which one I like best! Now that would be a fun project.
    Last edited by Err; 11-14-2012 at 08:05 AM.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Doing some noodling the KonaSatori has approx 12mm clearance between the back tyre and seat tube at full compression with 130mm travel with a2.4 ardent.

    The ardent fits and lots of guys saying loads of clearance and you don't use a big tyre in the mud...well maybe not where they live but you never know when a ride might turn muddy and we ride big rocks and big mud in the same ride! The clearance to me in 444 stays looked pretty tight, wouldn't need much flex in a wheel, out of true to cause rub, let alone another 30mm of travel. the HD is a taller tyre still.

    This is with a 74deg ST so maybe the steeper tube would sort it.

    For me it looks like 450mm could be the limit with 150mm AND a 2.35 tyre like the Dampf but whether Nicolai would build one I don't know.

    And yes comparing 650b and 29er would be ideal. Perhaps this recent comparison posted in the forum is the answer, a lot of them though the 650b was the best of both rather than the worst of both.

    Me, I manual out of necessity to get over obstacles, jump, usually, to maintain speed and want a bike that is fast and grippy and takes out the small stuff, I can ride a long way and uphill for big ascents, the 29er ticks that box.

    If I'm really just playing, that's what the fatbike is for :-)

    I'll get on to Max and see what he says about CS but I think the answer will be if you want it to guarantee to fit all tyres then 454mm might be min.
    Aka chainline...

  39. #39
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    It's incredibly rare that I ride in mud living in UT. Even when I travel to Oregon, Whistler, Washington, it's usually during mid summer with little mud.

    With Whafe already at 150 mm travel with 448 mm CS and no assumed ST clearance issues, the question really becomes, can they accomodate a 2.35 HD in an updated CS design at 448, maybe 550 mm. I'm 100% no FD on this build which hopefully helps make this possible.

    BTW, have you measured your actual BB height resulting from the 40 mm drop spec? Curious what you ended up at with 2.4 Ardents.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    I'll measure the BB height, IIRC it's about 455mm with the 2.4 in 150mm. No FD definitely helps, fitting an FD to mine makes the 2.4 a no no. I never intended to use one, just my chainguide isn't in yet for the 28t front so using it to keep the chain on but I couldn't get the 2.4 past it..
    Aka chainline...

  41. #41
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    I assume you meant 355 mm. 455 mm would be pretty funny. Old Skool San Andreas territory.

    Looks like the Ion 16 geo adjust design allows for 1º at the HTA and 7 mm change at the BB. Something like 333 in the low and 340 in the high setting with high-volume 2.35/2.4 tires could be real nice.

    I have a 140 mm bike set to 338 mm with 2.35 Hans Dampfs right now and it's lovely. In stock form it was about 350 mm which was nice for pedaling through rock gardens but not quite optimized for getting through corners.
    Last edited by Err; 11-14-2012 at 11:49 AM.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Gotta love phones!! Yes 350mm, it's probably closer to 340mm now as I measured it roughly at 68.2deg HA not the current 66.7. It was designed at 340mm on the basis of Ardents. Don't think I'd want it much lower. It's about the right balance between low as but getting away without pedal strike. That's static, unsagged so 290mm give or take sagged height.

    I'd plan for a 340mm basic height in the high setting.
    Aka chainline...

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    So, Nicolai have come back to me and confirmed that they are up for an Ion15 29er as a custom beastie with Kalle's blessing, bonza.

    It (or they) depending on how many are ordered will obviously be tailored for the individual but initially going to use my intial specs to work out chainstay length, seat tube angle, head angle, wheelbase etc etc. might even get some suspension curves.

    The basic HA for the first draft will be 67deg using a 565mm fork reference, which is a 150mm Fox 34. There will be a 571mm 160mm 29er fork out next year, which this bike could be accomodate, but its not worked out yet whether that would require a stronger downtube and thus more weight.

    We will start with a BB at 335mm-340mm at 67 deg, which would mean 66deg and 330(ish)mm if the eccentric was switched.

    Also part of the initlal design brief is to try and make the chainstay 450mm or shorter and still fit a 2.35 Hans Dampf and not foul the seat tube. This does assume no front derailleur mounts, so Hammerschmidt or 1x 10/11.

    For me and Dipper this is an all rounder in the manner of a Helius AM so whilst weight isn't the driver, it is a consideration. 150mm is pretty much spot on as an all rounder for me with a target weight of 29lb or under with a 1x10/11 drivetrain, 30lb with a hammerschimdt (Assuming my current other components)

    If it can be designed with a 571 max fork ref in mind without adding more weight then great.

    Err, obviously with the above, fitting an angleset would give you the ability to go to 64.5deg if you wanted :-O and maybe 320mm BB!!! but you might want to tweak that if this thing interests you too.

    Awaiing initial drawings this week! We're going to work out the basic geo based on what's been proposed on here.

    If it all looks like it will work out there is a possible production slot at the end of Feb 2013 for an end Mar/mid Apr delivery....
    Aka chainline...

  44. #44
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    Interesting, sounds like a it could be quite a bike. 450 mm CS is a bit longer than I'd hoped for but also not too shabby. Could be quite a weapon. Hmmm, worth some serious consideration.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    Err, 450mm OR shorter, to be determined. There is a question of what is more important, fitting a 2.35 Hans Dampf or a 4mm shorter chainstay? Based on my experience, I'd take the bigger tyre! But lets see what Max comes up with.
    Aka chainline...

  46. #46
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    Err, 450mm OR shorter, to be determined. There is a question of what is more important, fitting a 2.35 Hans Dampf or a 4mm shorter chainstay? Based on my experience, I'd take the bigger tyre! But lets see what Max comes up with.
    Excellent. Yeap, gotta have room for the Hans Dampf, no compromise there.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,407
    Personally, I'd put the ability to take a big tyre before big travel. My order of importance would be- Big tyre(2.35 HD or 2.4 ardent), light weight, short chain stay, more travel.
    www.gravity-sports.co.uk

    flash bikes for flash gits

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    28
    Is there a reason Nicolai can't raise the main pivot, or adjust the Horst link for more rearward axle path at bottom out. This would allow shorter stays, more anti squat, but a bit more pedal kickback when bottomed out. Not to big a deal with sub 160mm travel.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,104
    If you look at my Ion29 uncut thread you will see that's what we have done to an extent. But it's not so much to head into the 150's in rear travel (too much has other detrimental effects?). However we have now optimised around a 28-32 ring, raised the pivot for better initial pedalling/anti squat.
    Aka chainline...

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    28
    Oh okay, cheers, I'll check it out. I noticed the Pinioned Nicolais have a slightly higher pivot. I'll be getting a Pinion for sure on my 650b wheeled one. I wonder if I can get them to raise the pivot more.

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
  •