Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 292
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    Bit off-topic here under AC-setup database- tread, but...

    Just got new AC-frame yesterday and noticed one small difference - there are two oval
    holes placed in chain stays / lower links on all pictures available here and in tech specs diagrams too. But in my new frame there´s only one - that in chain stay, lower linker is
    without that hole. Only wondering why - may there be other small constructial changes done too? This frame is the first one here (maybe) and cannot compare to others - except images...

    Any inside-information? These missing holes there (one in each side) are not an issue for me ... can live with this

    Sorry, not pictures / specs yet - coming as soon as we`ve here light enought for taking pictures

  2. #52
    from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
    Reputation: derekr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,478
    Post a pic of what your on about and i'm sure someone can help?
    Visit - www.gravity-sports.co.uk - Exclusive high end MTB Products

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by derekr
    Post a pic of what your on about and i'm sure someone can help?
    Here`s one pic - this is what my frame looks like and all other AC-frames posted here
    does have hole in chainstay - mine is without that
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #54
    from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
    Reputation: derekr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,478
    Is it a size small?
    Visit - www.gravity-sports.co.uk - Exclusive high end MTB Products

  5. #55
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,672
    Quote Originally Posted by pergamonx
    Here`s one pic - this is what my frame looks like and all other AC-frames posted here
    does have hole in chainstay - mine is without that
    Did you ordered any custom geo? That'd be some explanation as your rear tyre looks closer to the seat tube also. The rectangular chainstays look closer to the machined yoke.

    I think it's just that.. the rectangular stay looks ending slightly forwards if compared to Mugtree's. I measured comparing the size of the brake line guide. On yours is slightly greater than two lengths and on Mugtree's is more like two and a half. It could be just the perspective of the picture and a mental jerk off of mine.

    If anything, your rear end will be heavier, but stiffer... look for any probable interference just for kicks (tyre hitting seat tube, FD, etc.).

    I'm intrigued also...

    Comparison pic... if you don't mind, Mugtree...

    Last edited by Warp; 09-30-2009 at 08:20 AM.
    Check my Site

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    @warp - geometry should be the standard one, frame size is M without any other mods than ISCG mounts ...
    Noticed too that mine rear tyre seems to be closer to the seat tube than Mugtree`s nice coloured example shows, my tyre is Fat Albert 2.4 UST, which is BIG compared to Mugtree´s Maxxis Ignitor(?)

    I was positively surprised about tyre clearance in rear; geo specs claim that in AM there´s
    clearance enough for 2.5 and in AC for 2.4. That FA 2.4 is big, but tried Conti`s RubberQueen 2.4 too with nice results - no problem. And RQ2.4 is huge - there are slimmer DH-tyres at 2.4 - 2.7 category

    Anyway - have had only few hours to test AC yet on local trails and so far so good - frame with DTSwiss EXC150 in front and EX200 / 55 in rear seems to work smoothly

  7. #57
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,672
    Quote Originally Posted by pergamonx
    @warp - geometry should be the standard one, frame size is M without any other mods than ISCG mounts ...
    Noticed too that mine rear tyre seems to be closer to the seat tube than Mugtree`s nice coloured example shows, my tyre is Fat Albert 2.4 UST, which is BIG compared to Mugtree´s Maxxis Ignitor(?)

    I was positively surprised about tyre clearance in rear; geo specs claim that in AM there´s
    clearance enough for 2.5 and in AC for 2.4. That FA 2.4 is big, but tried Conti`s RubberQueen 2.4 too with nice results - no problem. And RQ2.4 is huge - there are slimmer DH-tyres at 2.4 - 2.7 category

    Anyway - have had only few hours to test AC yet on local trails and so far so good - frame with DTSwiss EXC150 in front and EX200 / 55 in rear seems to work smoothly
    Look closely at the rims... I know tyres could deceive.

    Good news on tyre clearance... keep them coming. More pic are welcome.
    Check my Site

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    More pic are welcome.
    I second that!!!

  9. #59
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    @ cyril_88

    thats still the best looking Nicolai I've ever seen from a pure aesthetic perspective.
    i couldnt live with the fragility of the PACE, sorry, DT forks though.
    how are they holding up in the ALPS ?

  10. #60
    "Its All Good"
    Reputation: Whafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,715
    Interesting that cyril_88, Mugtree & pergamonx all have Medium Helius AC's and that as pergamonx mentions, his is the only one with the one hole on the rear stay, also from the info, all are standard medium frames, no custom stuff....

    I too am perplexed....
    The_Lecht_Rocks: whafe - cheeers - may i offer an official apology for the wagon wheeler "dis-belief"

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    Some fresh meat!




  12. #62
    from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
    Reputation: derekr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,478
    Yeah i saw that on the german forum, very unique!
    Visit - www.gravity-sports.co.uk - Exclusive high end MTB Products

  13. #63
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Testmaen
    Some fresh meat!
    Is it just me or that one doesn't have the second hole???

    Granted, that's a 12mm rear.

    What gives? Just curious... I'm actually more fond of the one without the second hole. Stronger for a few grs.
    Check my Site

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Is it just me or that one doesn't have the second hole???
    I'm wondering too. But I think you can spot the 2nd hole on the right chainstay. Quite hard to spot anything with the dizzy-tiger-camou, or whatever the he** that colour is called.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    @Warp - I second; I personally prefer chainstay without (additional) hole - maybe more stronger, don`t be sure about that - and adds bit more weight ... but still - at least one place less to dig when cleaning up mud etc

    As said earlier - question about this missing hole was actually question for other possible changes / variations in 2010 AC frame - I`m mostly interested are there other changes in rear frame and if there are - why?? Simplier to build / some estimated weaknesses / what ever ...

    Geometry fits at least for me / my poor driving style perfectly - still waiting some parts - new stem, handlebar with bit higher rise and thicker lock-grips fitting better with grippers ... maybe next week it`s ready for presentation with some pics.

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    You know I am sure I've seen the same thing on a Helius AM. I was comparing an AM with an AC in HFTH last week, trying to see what the specific tubing differences were and one of the things I noticed is that the AM had solid chainstays like the ones in peramox's picture while the AC had two holes.

    It's possible that Nicolai have slightly revised the design of chainstays recently. This happened with the Ion ST which had some subtle differences in design between the earlier and later models.

    When my AM turns up later this year, we can check again.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    @geetee1972 -

    tried to compare to AM´s too, but all those (two) AM-frames were older (2008?) production and they both have 2 holes - but I still believe that you`re right; there are changes done in both frames and newer ones does have those solid stays. There are not very many frames available for closer looking here in Finland, our market is so limited But big thumb for our local LBS here selling Nicolai - it`s not his fault that there are not more Nicolai`s here - I´ll give five stars for service!

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mugtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Testmaen
    Hey Mugtree,

    thanks for your reply! How do you like the AC compared to your previous CC ? A lot of difference ? From your pictures i cannot spot a lot of differences in the build...

    Good to hear that it climbed so well in the Alps. Was wondering since you're riding it with a setback post and the some spacer and (what looks like?!) a short stem.

    Did you choose the coil and Rohloff setup mainly for reliability reasons ? Not that they aren't good gear, they're excellent, but you don't see them very often combined on a bike in that class.
    Hiya Testmaen

    Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. Right CC compared to the AC. If I’d replied when you posted this I’d have said the CC was better but after Saturday I kind had an epiphany and everything made sense. I’ll try and explain. My CC was perfect and if it had not been stolen would never have been replaced, but **** happens and it was stolen. I got the AC because for the type of riding I enjoy I was told the AC would be better. In the Alps I had a fantastic holiday but something wasn’t right and I couldn’t put my finger on it. I was un-fit after 3 months off the bike so that did not help but the bike didn’t feel right. Yes it climbed better than the CC, it went down faster and better than the CC, it did the tight switch backs better than the CC but I still preferred the CC? After getting home I played with the set-up some more and finally got it right. I’ve ridden a lot too since getting home and on Wednesday and Saturday last week it all came together. I think what was wrong was partly the set-up being slightly off but mainly my head. It had been three months without a proper bike and in that time the CC had gone form a bloody good bike to perfect with no flaws, I believe it could actually fly too so all the AC could do was not be the CC, being new too every thing was tight and need wearing in. On Saturday I finally realised how good the AC is when I did the Lean Back and the Kinicker trail. Two trails I could do on the CC but with difficulty. The AC just laughed and made the whole thing look easy and they were wet!! So I finally realise the CC was not perfect, it did not climb better than the AC or come down better, but I do know the AC goes round corners and damn sight better and on fast rocky descents just floats.

    Why springs and a Rohloff? Yeap reliability. I only weigh 55/60 kgs but seam to break air as if it is made of paper so springs work and I love the plushness. As for the Rohloff same. As I use this bike everyday the chain, chain rings and cassette just died each month so the ‘hoff is a cheaper option, works in the mud (my fav surface) and it maintenance free. This is my second one and I’ll never go back to normal gears – ever.

    As for the spacer, short steam and set back seat post. Spacers for my bad back, can’t be too hunched, short steam for quick responsive steering and setback seat post to fit the bike, I seem to have a longish upper body.

    Hope all this helps?

    Warp no worries about using the pic, just wish the bike was still that clean

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    506
    The AM no longer has more than one hole per chainstay. Don't know why.

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    Strength probably.

  21. #71
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    what weights are the AC's coming in at folks ?

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    400g less than the AMs I guess, i.e. the difference between the frame weights.

  23. #73
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    nah - fork choice is more 32 biased.....AM is more 36 biased.

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mugtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    207
    My cow weighs 33lbs, about the same as my CC

  25. #75
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    33lbs............i'm disappointed..........

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 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
  •