Words fail.

[mikesee]

.....

[mikesee]

.....

[benwitt11]

Art. That's all I have to say. Damn you.

[lanpope]

Are they still taking submissions to the "Best Looking Bike of 2005" thread.

I nominate that!

Perfect!

LP

[Padre]

Me likes the cable routing...

[tamjam]

Man I could stare at that all day long. Especially nice with the photo effects.

[mcd]

was drooling.

[Limon]

I'm crying overhere, that thing is beautiful.
first post here makes me want to get my own black sheep.

[Lutarious]

Is your fork cap missing, or is that the bud vase? (so to speak)

[Nater]

What hubs are those?

[Chequama Mama]

Pretty, but that really doesn't sum it up. Words really do fail to describe it.

YO MAMA

[the_dude]

Originally Posted by Padre

Me likes the cable routing...

i'll second that. one of the most elegant cable routing designs i've seen on a mtb.

the rest of the bike.......amazing. thanks for sharing it with the rest of us who may never know such fine machinery.

the_dude

[JJT]

Aaah, that bike is beautifull!

But why these ugly cranks??

JJ

[Spookykinkajou]

How many jars of PB for it? Beautiful bike, Mike! I hope I get to see it in about 6 months.

[cocheese]

Whoa! Speechless is right. That is one darn purty bike.

[terminaut]

Originally Posted by mikesee

.....

Nicely done, Mike. I've gotta have one (or two!) of those forks... Sending off email now!

[neville]

You have very good taste.
Now to work out how to fit one of those into my MUST have bike buying list.

[Aquaholic]

Whoa!

Stunning, simply stunning. Let's hear about the ride...if you can find the words.

Post some color pics as well.

[Rainman]

..Different.. in a strange sort of way.


R.

[the_eleven]

Paging Jeff Jones

[AteMrYeats]

I'm speechless too, Mike. Just awesome.

[KONA_in_SB]

Beautiful, simply beautiful.
Is it a Ti frame and fork? Is that the reason for the extra fork braces or whatever those are.

[evilbike]

I really like the black sheep logo art (and script I've seen on other bike pics posted). Is it a decal? Vinyl?

And what hubs are those? They look like Campy track hubs on steroids... nice!

The bent seat tube to the laid back post make for a really cool effect. or affect. Can never remember what the diff is.

[HoSS]

That's one beautiful bike. Does it ride any different than a traditional frame?

[the_dude]

among the hordes of questions you'll likely fetch regarding this thread, i selfishly have a request of you, mike. more pictures. lots more. not today, or soon even. but take lots of pictures of this bike (preferably in it's natural environment ). i can always use good wallpaper material!

the_dude

[DWF]

Originally Posted by Rainman

..Different.. in a strange sort of way.


R.

It looks just like a Don McClung in Ti. Major Props to James for doing such a nice job!

[GlowBoy]

Wow .

[~martini~]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Words Fail.

Indeed.

Man, James has been puttin' it out lately! I LOVE the cruiser that was posted on the SS board, and this one...like...um....wow. A Don in Ti. NICE.

[the_dude]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scary

I know I am going to get flamed but I am not impressed.

i'd hate to spend a day at an art museum with you.


edit: i believe the curved tubes of the frame to be asthetic only. the trusses on the fork strengthen the structure while maintaining low weight. beautiful design. beautiful execution. also, cruiser-styled frames have been around forever. they're functional, and to some, beautiful.

[2melow]

WOW. Wonderful things are ooozing from James' Fort Collins garage.....

Very nice.

[Wish I Were Riding]

Whats the STA? It looks perfectly slack!

[motoman711]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scary

I know I am going to get flamed but I am not impressed. The welds are nice (stacked tightly), but it is excessive with no reason to be (just like Jeff Jones stuff). It's not even overengineered, just convoluted. A triangle is considered the strongest structure so what is the point of all of the curved tubes (like Jones)? I'm not sure if they claim it's for engineered flex or what (I've never ridden one) but it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. Same with the cable routing. Is the guy German?, that would explain it....

You are right: a triangle is strong. Who said we need the stiffest frame possible. Flex is a good thing in the right direction. Curved tubing in this case adds to the aesthetics. Aesthetics may not be important to some people. But, some people really like the looks of things. Of course, it is all subjective.

[thaumazein]

One of the best looking bikes I've ever seen. Ever. Many happy miles to you!

[Enel]

Very Nice!

Started a new thread with truss fork question. Don't want to muddy this one up with technical stuff. Just art!

[OneGearGuy]

Originally Posted by Aquaholic

Whoa!

Stunning, simply stunning. Let's hear about the ride...if you can find the words.

Post some color pics as well.

Me too! Me too!

Curious about the build, angles, hubs...
For me, personally, V-brakes just look wrong these days. Of course, I don't live in a very dry climate. Otherwise, 9.9 out of 10.

[serious]

If we are talking about the artistic aspects, yes that is a fantastic looking bike. Outstanding pictures too.

If we are talking about functional, efficient mountain bikes, I have to wonder about the additional top tube and the trusses on the fork (I assume they can be removed if you are a light rider and create little flex). Also, the fork clearance on the front wheel seems almost non-existent.

Reminds me of a Rolls Royce that wants to be a 4x4 Jeep.

[motoman711]

Originally Posted by OneGearGuy

Me too! Me too!

Curious about the build, angles, hubs...
For me, personally, V-brakes just look wrong these days. Of course, I don't live in a very dry climate. Otherwise, 9.9 out of 10.

I actually really like the v-brakes on this bike. The hubs really look good without all of the stuff hanging off of them. They really fit the theme too.

[flyingsuperpetis]

Holy moly. I've seen a lot of BS's work out here lately, and it's all first rate, but this is unique enough... well, I may have to take a trip northward for a chat... Anyway, congrats Mike, stunning ride. Looking forward to seeing some action shots...

[pacman]

Looks good,
but won't those bolt-on trusses loosen and rattle? The bolt itself takes all the stress. I'd have it welded at the bottom.

Must be a hassle to put the proper pre-load on the headset.

[laffeaux]

Wow!! That bike is amazing to look at! I'm jealous.

[ssmike]

Now that's a thing of beauty!

[Soloracer]

been wanting a headset like that for quite a while now.

[PeT]

It's simply elegant. Bicycles should be beautiful and this certainly fits the bill -- kind of the anti-thesis of a Walmart bike...

I am 10 months into ownership of a fully firm Black Sheep 29er, run sometimes with a Rohloff and sometimes as a single speed. I simply love that bike. It's kind of like your child -- there isn't another child in the world as beautiful as you own, but it's possible to acknowledge that there are other very beautiful children out there, even some that others might consider more beautiful than your own. Mikesee's Black Sheep might just be one of those -- not quite as nice as mine, but I can see where some might think his is finer yet...

Originally Posted by OneGearGuy

For me, personally, V-brakes just look wrong these days. Of course, I don't live in a very dry climate. Otherwise, 9.9 out of 10.

Disc brakes look wrong to me, but of course I live in a very dry climate. Five people on a group ride yesterday on real Wyoming single track -- the only one complaining about his brakes was the one with discs. You just never know...

[DWF]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scary

I know I am going to get flamed but I am not impressed. The welds are nice (stacked tightly), but it is excessive with no reason to be (just like Jeff Jones stuff). It's not even overengineered, just convoluted. A triangle is considered the strongest structure so what is the point of all of the curved tubes (like Jones)? I'm not sure if they claim it's for engineered flex or what (I've never ridden one) but it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. Same with the cable routing. Is the guy German?, that would explain it....

Doood, the front triangle is a triangle in name only.

[motoman711]

Originally Posted by pacman

Looks good,
but won't those bolt-on trusses loosen and rattle? The bolt itself takes all the stress. I'd have it welded at the bottom.

Must be a hassle to put the proper pre-load on the headset.

Probably about the same as those bolt-on wheels will loosen and rattle..

[Tobias/Frost]

Most impressive... (in a Darth Vader voice)

...really stunning beautiful and a piece of art as well!

[Fluid Dynamics]

Originally Posted by motoman711

Probably about the same as those bolt-on wheels will loosen and rattle..

If the fork and the truss flex up and forward, that would cause a torque at the junction of the dropout and the truss. That bolt would 'want' to act like a pivot as the fork flexs. I can picture how the non-drive side bolt might have a tendency to loosen up.

The wheel bolts on the other hand are isolated by the bearings. Invalid analogy.

I am not saying that it is going to cause the bolts to loosen up, perhaps there is a splined interface that I cant see, or an otherwise engineered solution.

Funny how people jump down the throats of anyone that doesnt go completely googly for these fancy bikes.

I think that its beautiful bike BTW, congratulations.

[DirtDad]

Originally Posted by mikesee

.....

Wahhh...wahhh...that is the sound of me crying. What a drop dead beauteous steed you have. I hope the words don't fail long (per the title of your post), tell us a little bit more about the bike.

[jace]

Originally Posted by the_eleven

Paging Jeff Jones

Correction: Don Mclung



P.S. Mike, what's the minimum chainstay length? Looks like it might be a bit longer than on one of Don's?

[eurorider]

definitely unique!

[slippy_luv]

After seeing that bike. I ran to the bathroom like a 14 old boy with the new Victoria Secret catalog.

[415m3]

O fock! That's amazing!

[shiggy]

Beautiful bike, Mike.

Nice self-portrait, too!

[Monte]

Originally Posted by mikesee

.....

Very, very nice.

Monte

[number2]

Giddy Up!!!!!

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by pacman

Looks good,
but won't those bolt-on trusses loosen and rattle? The bolt itself takes all the stress. I'd have it welded at the bottom.

Must be a hassle to put the proper pre-load on the headset.

After a few hundred hard off road miles I'll let you know if they loosen. So far so good.

As far as the preload on the headset, it's the easiest threadless headset adjustment I've ever had. The trusses preload the top cap, so all I had to do was slip the stem on and tighten it. Simple, effective, and done.

Not to mention that the trusses negate the need for a star nut and top cap.

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by DWF

It looks just like a Don McClung in Ti. Major Props to James for doing such a nice job!

Truth be told, I had originally wanted Don to build this bike. I went so far as to take a deposit down to Salida and spend a few hours with him in his shop, talking details over a few beers. Don's passion for bicycles and motorcycles is as obvious as a slap in the face. He loves the history behind it all and loves to reminisce about his days racing bikes and motos. He's got a mini-museum in his shop (and a less obvious but more pertinent one in his shed), and he would have gladly talked into the wee hours about all of the things going on therein.

In the end, I wanted a lot of small things done that didn't fit with the way Don wanted to do things. We talked about it a lot, I test rode two of his bikes, then we talked some more. Despite the fact that our opinions were a ways apart, I came this close to having him build it anyway, as I'd been hopelessly seduced by the lines of his bikes, not to mention the fine fillets.

But it just didn't work out. In addition to the look of the bike, I wanted it to ride a certain way, and that's why I ultimately turned to James at Black Sheep.

The pics below are the look that I was after. Early 1900's HD and IJ.

MC

[RobW]

Originally Posted by motoman711

I actually really like the v-brakes on this bike. The hubs really look good without all of the stuff hanging off of them. They really fit the theme too.

I was thinkin' how cool a set of Paul's cantis would look on this beauty...

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scary

I know I am going to get flamed but I am not impressed. The welds are nice (stacked tightly), but it is excessive with no reason to be (just like Jeff Jones stuff). It's not even overengineered, just convoluted. A triangle is considered the strongest structure so what is the point of all of the curved tubes (like Jones)? I'm not sure if they claim it's for engineered flex or what (I've never ridden one) but it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. Same with the cable routing. Is the guy German?, that would explain it....

How's that quote go? Something like, "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it..."?

You don't have to like it and you don't have to praise it.

But the least you could do is educate yourself before dismissing it.

And, failing that, perhaps you could simply appreciate it for what it is: a modern bike, built to a customer's exact requests, copying (and IMO improving upon) a hundred-year-old design.

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by serious

If we are talking about the artistic aspects, yes that is a fantastic looking bike. Outstanding pictures too.

Thanks for the compliments. Much appreciated.

Originally Posted by serious

If we are talking about functional, efficient mountain bikes, I have to wonder about the additional top tube and the trusses on the fork (I assume they can be removed if you are a light rider and create little flex). Also, the fork clearance on the front wheel seems almost non-existent.

Reminds me of a Rolls Royce that wants to be a 4x4 Jeep.

What about it is non-functional or inefficient?

The extra top tube? Traditionally it was used to make the frame look more like the motorcycles of the era. Sure, that's aesthetic. But most that rode them (back then) agreed that it made the frame more controllable in a lateral sense. Tubing in the early 1900's was not very high quality. So there was a functional benefit to it as well.

Even with the extra top tube, the frame weighs 3.4 lbs.

The trusses? I'm 180lbs, aggressive, and I like my teeth. On a ti fork, isn't it possible that they might be necessary? If you've ridden any of the non-truss ti forks, you know what I mean. Scary flexy. The trusses on my fork are functional, efficient, and drop dead gorgeous. To me. And that's all that matters.

Nevermind--I just looked at your username to try to get an idea of where you were coming from. And that seems to sum it up.

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by shiggy

Beautiful bike, Mike.

Nice self-portrait, too!

Nice catch--hadn't noticed it til you pointed it out.

MC

[jeff]

Nice job Mike,{and James}.I would proudly ride that bike.Hubs?

Jeff

[motoman711]

Originally Posted by mikesee

What about it is non-functional or inefficient?

The extra top tube? Traditionally it was used to make the frame look more like the motorcycles of the era. Sure, that's aesthetic. But most that rode them (back then) agreed that it made the frame more controllable in a lateral sense. Tubing in the early 1900's was not very high quality. So there was a functional benefit to it as well.

Even with the extra top tube, the frame weighs 3.4 lbs.

The trusses? I'm 180lbs, aggressive, and I like my teeth. On a ti fork, isn't it possible that they might be necessary? If you've ridden any of the non-truss ti forks, you know what I mean. Scary flexy. The trusses on my fork are functional, efficient, and drop dead gorgeous. To me. And that's all that matters.

Nevermind--I just looked at your username to try to get an idea of where you were coming from. And that seems to sum it up.

MC

I totally agree Mike. Who said that aesthetics are non-functional anyway? They do function in that they evoke a certain feeling from the owner. That is enough for me! At 3.4 lbs I don't think that I would be too worried about extra top-tubes etc.. The bike is gorgeous.

I am having a hard time believing that people are coming on here and bashing somebodies personal ride like this anyway. It seems very rude to me. It is not like this is some prototype of a manufacturer where they value our input and will make changes. This is Mike's personal ride, he spent a lot of money on it, designed it himself, and he loves it.

Moto

[Fluid Dynamics]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Not to mention that the trusses negate the need for a star nut and top cap.

MC

Nevertheless, It might be a good idea to throw a top cap on. The edge of that stem looks like it has the potential to do some damage.

[bobde]

Congratulations on the bike! It looks timeless, and I'm sure it rides great. So this one would sure be a nice ride for next yr canada - Mexico race, right?!

Builders such as Black Sheep, Willets, McClung, Jones, Vanilla sure keep me interested in bikes and riding! Bringing back these older styles and designs in modern materials (For performance, style, and historical connection) are so nice to look at. Interesting that the "Normal" bikes such as stumpjumpers and treks, just don't catch my interest in the local shops. Maybe the tide is turned in favor of the small builders again???

I hope you enjoy the heck out of that bike and I am already looking fwd to see what your next one will be!!

Bob

[velomental]

I love to see things done well, very nice.

Are those Profile hubs?

And if my eyes are not deceiving me, that bad boy has 110mm rear dropout spacing.

Are my eyes deceiving me?

If they are not, I dig your commitment!

[highrustler]

Well, you didn't keep the new ride to yourself for that long... and no wonder! What a sweet machine!


jyo

[mikesee]

For the tech types...
Hubs: http://www.zipp.com/products/hubs/t2track.shtml
Rims: http://www.dtswiss.com/index.asp?fus...ikedetail&id=8
Spokes: http://www.dtswiss.com/index.asp?fus...ikedetail&id=7

And yes, I did exhibit exceptional commitment by going with the 120mm OLD. In non-geekspeak, that's a track-spaced rear end.

Got in a good solid ride on it tonight. Not enough to say that I've even begun to bond with it, only enough to say that the tentative first date is over with and we've agreed to hold hands for awhile.

After 3 rides/6 hours in the saddle, I'd still call them first impressions:
-slack head angle and 92mm of trail = nimble. No front wheel tuck in descending switchbacks, and (co-courtesy of the soopah slack STA) no front wheel wander when climbing seated.
-super slack seat angle keeps my weight over the rear wheel when climbing seated. No matter how blown my quads get while honking out of the saddle, once I sit back down I'm using an entirely different muscle group--glutes and 'strings. In short, it's like having two gears.
-At speed, on rough trails, no matter how much passive suspension you have, it's still a rigid bike. Early on in the ride I had to snap myself out of it and remember that I wasn't riding the Behemoth. After that it was much better. You just have to remember to ride rigid.
-Descending a local trail known as "Bo suckin' fumpy" (rearrange the first letter of each word and you'll get it) while following a bud on an FS bike, I kept expecting to get rattled off the trail. After the first section I thought, "OK, here comes the bad stuff", but proceeded to smooth on through. Then, after a short, relatively smooth respite, we entered the third section and I thought, "Hold on--this is where it gets rough". But it never did get rough. Slower than the fs bike, for sure, but way, way, way smoother than I thought it was gonna be.

Enough for now.

More later.

MC

[Wish I Were Riding]

Originally Posted by mikesee

soopah slack STA

Thanks for posting those beautiful pictures Mike.

So whats the magic STA number for you? (In my convoluted brain I keep thinking a slack STA only found on a custom will finally make me happy...)

[Daner]

Originally Posted by RobW

I was thinkin' how cool a set of Paul's cantis would look on this beauty...

The cable routing wouldn't allow for them at this point, but he could switch to some Paul Motolites for a brake with cylindrical arms and a satin metallic finish that better matches the rest of the bike:


I'd also go for a satin finish on the crankset - maybe a set of Jeff's cut-down XTR's (if they could be narrowed to work with the frame spacing) using a Boone Ti ring.


If for some reason that wouldn't work, I'm sure that Doug and Lynette could arrange a Scotch-Brite finish on a set of Eno cranks. Just need to make sure that you don't end up with one of the green chainrings on that bike. I'd have to fly over and shoot you myself if you did that.

[Adam]

Wow. That is one of the nicest bikes I have seen. I really like the subtle black sheep graphics in general and specifically the lack of downtube graphics on this bike. This bike and that Willits with the action-tec fork and the curvy rear end are the best two looking bikes I’ve seen on this forum. The Backyard bike Co. lines have always been a favorite of mine.

Enjoy the ride.

Adam

[DWF]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Truth be told, I had originally wanted Don to build this bike. I went so far as to take a deposit down to Salida and spend a few hours with him in his shop, talking details over a few beers. Don's passion for bicycles and motorcycles is as obvious as a slap in the face. He loves the history behind it all and loves to reminisce about his days racing bikes and motos. He's got a mini-museum in his shop (and a less obvious but more pertinent one in his shed), and he would have gladly talked into the wee hours about all of the things going on therein.

In the end, I wanted a lot of small things done that didn't fit with the way Don wanted to do things. We talked about it a lot, I test rode two of his bikes, then we talked some more. Despite the fact that our opinions were a ways apart, I came this close to having him build it anyway, as I'd been hopelessly seduced by the lines of his bikes, not to mention the fine fillets.

But it just didn't work out. In addition to the look of the bike, I wanted it to ride a certain way, and that's why I ultimately turned to James at Black Sheep.

The pics below are the look that I was after. Early 1900's HD and IJ.

MC

I'd be interested in hearing where the water parted for you two. I had Don build me a bike this year too. I had liked Don and his bikes since I first met him in 90-something. He's not going to be building forever so I wanted to get one from him before he quit. My wife and I went to visit him this Spring and I ordered one up. It's classic McClung with the truss fork with lots of nice little details - many exactly like your Sheep. It's been done for 5 or 6 months and I haven't had it painted yet -- just can't decide how I want it.

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by DWF

I'd be interested in hearing where the water parted for you two. I had Don build me a bike this year too. I had liked Don and his bikes since I first met him in 90-something. He's not going to be building forever so I wanted to get one from him before he quit. My wife and I went to visit him this Spring and I ordered one up. It's classic McClung with the truss fork with lots of nice little details - many exactly like your Sheep. It's been done for 5 or 6 months and I haven't had it painted yet -- just can't decide how I want it.

Well, obviously it wasn't in the look of the bike!

Don is set in his ways (just like me) as far as how he likes his geometry. I don't ride like him (at least I don't think I do, based on the preferred numbers) and I don't ride where he rides, so I wanted to deviate from his recommendations. And on the first few requests he hemmed and hawed before agreeing that yes, okay, maybe that could be done. But on a few of them (parallel 69 degree angles and a trail of 92mm) he wouldn't go there.

And I don't blame him--if I hadn't experimented with/ridden this stuff for a few years I'd try to steer people away from it too.

I was in the same boat as you; seduced by the lines and the fab, and knowing that they wouldn't be available much longer. But I also wanted a certain ride quality, and I wasn't confident I could get it from Don. There will always be a bit of wonder in my mind about what could have been...

Like you, I can't decide how to paint mine. I hemmed and hawed for a few days before I built it up, opting to ride it while the ideas form.

Would love to hear/see how yours comes out, when you get to that point.

MC

[DWF]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Well, obviously it wasn't in the look of the bike!

Don is set in his ways (just like me) as far as how he likes his geometry. I don't ride like him (at least I don't think I do, based on the preferred numbers) and I don't ride where he rides, so I wanted to deviate from his recommendations. And on the first few requests he hemmed and hawed before agreeing that yes, okay, maybe that could be done. But on a few of them (parallel 69 degree angles and a trail of 92mm) he wouldn't go there.

And I don't blame him--if I hadn't experimented with/ridden this stuff for a few years I'd try to steer people away from it too.

I was in the same boat as you; seduced by the lines and the fab, and knowing that they wouldn't be available much longer. But I also wanted a certain ride quality, and I wasn't confident I could get it from Don. There will always be a bit of wonder in my mind about what could have been...

Like you, I can't decide how to paint mine. I hemmed and hawed for a few days before I built it up, opting to ride it while the ideas form.

Would love to hear/see how yours comes out, when you get to that point.

MC

My interpretation from talking with him, is that a lot of Don's geometry preferences has to do with the tight rear end. Short stays kind of constrain you on seat tube angles (don't want the rider's weight too far back) and HTAs. A short stayed bike with a too-slack HTA hunts around crazy on climbs. But, in the end, it's all about rider preference. I think Don's bikes are pointed towards any particular terrain, kind of an all-rounder and definitely slanted towards SS.

I really like the McClung paint in this thread but wouldn't want to copy it. I did a bunch of hunting around at classic paint jobs on the big tire historical sites. It's amazing how far back the "Breezer" points go back! I've been looking at this site's bikes a lot: http://www.bikeicons.com/Heavy%20Weights.html and I love the paint job on this bike: http://www.bikeicons.com/1954%20Schw... Edition.html

[PeT]

Originally Posted by mikesee

And yes, I did exhibit exceptional commitment by going with the 120mm OLD. In non-geekspeak, that's a track-spaced rear end.

Presumably the advantage of that spacing is the ability to run a crank with a really narrow Q-factor. What crank and bottom bracket combo are you running, and what's the
resulting Q-factor? One of my design constraints when I had James build my bike was to allow the use of a crank/bb setup that has a 154mm Q-factor. James got me clearance so that I could run 145 mm Q-factor if necessary (road crank/bb setup).

I must say, for a dedicated single speed, that spacing makes so much sense...

Originally Posted by mikesee

-slack head angle and 92mm of trail = nimble. No front wheel tuck in descending switchbacks, and (co-courtesy of the soopah slack STA) no front wheel wander when climbing seated.

I would so much like to try out a bike built with your geometry, because from my experimentation this just does not make sense. I'm sure you're right and I know that you are a far superior technical rider than me, but for the life of me I can't figure out how this geometry would be "nimble". I suppose it really might come down to a problem of biology -- different reflexes, weight distribution, eyesight, sense of balance, or testosterone levels.

[Jayem]

Xtra tubes!

[Daner]

Originally Posted by PeT

I would so much like to try out a bike built with your geometry, because from my experimentation this just does not make sense. I'm sure you're right and I know that you are a far superior technical rider than me, but for the life of me I can't figure out how this geometry would be "nimble". I suppose it really might come down to a problem of biology -- different reflexes, weight distribution, eyesight, sense of balance, or testosterone levels.

Maybe where a persons preferences lie on the nimble/sluggish scale is sort of like the idiot/maniac dichotomy, where everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot and everybody who drives faster is a maniac. Mike's preferred geometry does what he wants it to do and nothing more, and that is the way that he likes it. It matches his expectations.

One guy I know is about my height (5'10"/178cm), but when I get on his FR bike the bars are so close and high it feels like my elbows are behind me. I never spend enough time on his bikes to get used to the positioning, but it seems to work well enough for him. Another guy makes do with a 140mm stem and bars that are 6" lower than his saddle. Feels like a TT bike to me, but he somehow manages to ride trails that way. Damn guy makes more time on the uphills than I do on the downhills, but that's the story of my life.

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Daner

...he could switch to some Paul Motolites for a brake with cylindrical arms and a satin metallic finish that better matches the rest of the bike:

...maybe a set of Jeff's cut-down XTR's (if they could be narrowed to work with the frame spacing) using a Boone Ti ring.

If for some reason that wouldn't work, I'm sure that Doug and Lynette could arrange a Scotch-Brite finish on a set of Eno cranks. Just need to make sure that you don't end up with one of the green chainrings on that bike. I'd have to fly over and shoot you myself if you did that.

Blasphemy, all of it. I'll put cheap crap like that on this bike the day after I die...

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by PeT

Presumably the advantage of that spacing is the ability to run a crank with a really narrow Q-factor. What crank and bottom bracket combo are you running, and what's the resulting Q-factor? One of my design constraints when I had James build my bike was to allow the use of a crank/bb setup that has a 154mm Q-factor. James got me clearance so that I could run 145 mm Q-factor if necessary (road crank/bb setup).

Actually, the hub spacing has presented more of a problem in that I don't like a narrow Q factor, especially not on a SS. Since the hub is so narrow, if I use my standard crank/bb/ring combo, I end up with a whacked chainline. Never having used the 120mm OLD combo on a SS mtb, I didn't foresee this issue. That, and my head was spinning with all the other numbers and it just never occurred to me.

Crank/bb/ring will change several times before I settle on the final, so for now, No Comment.

Originally Posted by PeT

I would so much like to try out a bike built with your geometry, because from my experimentation this just does not make sense.

I'd be really curious to hear your thoughts on it. I have a friend that's planning on racing the Laramie Range Enduro next year--maybe I can arrange a test ride for you with him delivering it. Or, if you're ever in the neighborhood, please call...

Originally Posted by PeT

I'm sure you're right and I know that you are a far superior technical rider than me, but for the life of me I can't figure out how this geometry would be "nimble". I suppose it really might come down to a problem of biology -- different reflexes, weight distribution, eyesight, sense of balance, or testosterone levels.

Perhaps this is just semantics, but I just don't see how geometry can be "right" for everyone. To steal a line from Pirsig, 'geometry isn't right, geometry is advantageous'. What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa.

I agree that the difference probably lies in reflexes, weight distribution, and balance, PLUS a heapin' helpin' of past experience, geographic location (aka type of trails ridden), mental blockages (steep, loose descents terrify me, and your preferred rake/trail/HTA would have me whimpering/walking in no time...) and much other hocus pocus.

Plus you can never discount outside factors. If I'm having a really good day and I go for a bike ride, I'm likely to enjoy the ride (and by extension, the bike) much more. Maybe I picked up some weird preferences along the way, just by riding weird bikes on good days.

It could happen...

None of us will ever know how all the numbers work and interrelate for sure, but I think that we're all obligated to try as many different variations as we can to find out what works for us, and why/why not.

Sure is an enjoyable pasttime, for me anyway...

Cheers,

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by highrustler

Well, you didn't keep the new ride to yourself for that long... and no wonder! jyo

Yeah, I was getting hit from all sides, includling a few sneak attacks, and I caved.

So much for my integrity...

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Wish I Were Riding

So whats the magic STA number for you? (In my convoluted brain I keep thinking a slack STA only found on a custom will finally make me happy...)

Trick question, because of the curved seattube.

The STA is 69*. But that's only part of the story.

From the top of the ST to the clamp on the post is an effective 65* STA. When I climb seated and I'm too blown to use my upper body, I can steer from the hips and feet much more easily. Many, many more benefits to it as well, but I haven't figured out all the relationships yet so I should shut my yap.

MC

[Daner]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Blasphemy, all of it. I'll put cheap crap like that on this bike the day after I die...

Well at least you didn't go with the Arch Supremes. Good action or not, they would have ruined the look.

So how about some Cook Old Bonz cranks on a Phil BB?

[Wish I Were Riding]

Very cool. Now that I know your STA, can I have some of your skill and say 1/100th of your endurance? I could finally be a good rider!!!

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Daner

Well at least you didn't go with the Arch Supremes. Good action or not, they would have ruined the look.

Agreed. Blech.

So how about some Cook Old Bonz cranks on a Phil BB?

You'll just have to wait and see...

MC

[Thylacine]

What do you define as reason? If a bike looks and fits great, makes the owner happy, and is not going to fall appart in the next few decades, where's the problem? The bike looks great, the fit proportions seem good from what I can see, and the construction seems pretty nice too.

Heck, if you want to go the pure engineering route, many bikes are pretty stupid. Bikes like this however exist more in the 'form' realm, which I think is great.

Well, except for the forks maybe

[Thylacine]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Perhaps this is just semantics, but I just don't see how geometry can be "right" for everyone. To steal a line from Pirsig, 'geometry isn't right, geometry is advantageous'. What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa.

I agree that the difference probably lies in reflexes, weight distribution, and balance, PLUS a heapin' helpin' of past experience, geographic location (aka type of trails ridden), mental blockages (steep, loose descents terrify me, and your preferred rake/trail/HTA would have me whimpering/walking in no time...) and much other hocus pocus.....None of us will ever know how all the numbers work and interrelate for sure, but I think that we're all obligated to try as many different variations as we can to find out what works for us, and why/why not.

Sure is an enjoyable pasttime, for me anyway...

Cheers,

MC

MC, your angles don't seem that whacky to me. I typically run a 71.5 degree seat angle with a layback post, so if I was to shift to a straight post you can imagine how slack it would be.

I generally find that the further you sit back, the more you predominantly utilise the 'back' of your legs (glutes) and when you sit forward or stand you're using your Quads (front). What I think (annecdotally) in terms of positioning - especially on a mountain bike - is you need a balance between the two to be able to switch muscle groups with positioning. Obviously I'm ignoring handling here just ot keep it simple.

That's my take on it anyway. It's tough to convince people they don't need a 73 degree seat angle. We've been so indoctinated with 'industry standards' it's ridiculous sometimes.

[Daner]

If the narrow Q-angle proves to be too much of a problem you could try some of these:



(The extenders, not the pedals.)

Read more about them here: http://www.bikescor.com/product/knee.htm

They work well enough for sit and spin roadies who need a bit more toe-out, but I get nervous thinking about even the 20mm versions on a SS.

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by DWF

My interpretation from talking with him, is that a lot of Don's geometry preferences has to do with the tight rear end. Short stays kind of constrain you on seat tube angles (don't want the rider's weight too far back) and HTAs. A short stayed bike with a too-slack HTA hunts around crazy on climbs. But, in the end, it's all about rider preference. I think Don's bikes are pointed towards any particular terrain, kind of an all-rounder and definitely slanted towards SS.

Agreed--Don's first priority is the short rear. Well, it might be a tie between that and an insistence on flat pedals... Not unlike Willits' insistence on 170 cranks... When climbing, a short rear end is nice because the bike becomes so quick--following you closer than your shadow at high noon. But I've never cared for the feel of a short rear-ended bike on descents (FS maybe, but rigid--NO). Too choppy, too harsh, not stable. There are other compromises that would have happenned if we'd mated his preferences to mine (as you pointed out) and I didn't want any of 'em.

Originally Posted by DWF

I really like the McClung paint in this thread but wouldn't want to copy it. I did a bunch of hunting around at classic paint jobs on the big tire historical sites.

Yes, the paint on the McClung above is exceptional. I spent a few nights on the 'net searching for something similar but not identical, and nothing caught me out. So I decided to just enjoy it and wait for the moment that something jumps out. For now, naked suits it just fine.

Cheers,

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Thylacine

MC, your angles don't seem that whacky to me. I typically run a 71.5 degree seat angle with a layback post, so if I was to shift to a straight post you can imagine how slack it would be.

Huh? Did you write that backwards? If you go to a straight post your STA steepens...

Originally Posted by Thylacine

I generally find that the further you sit back, the more you predominantly utilise the 'back' of your legs (glutes) and when you sit forward or stand you're using your Quads (front). What I think (annecdotally) in terms of positioning - especially on a mountain bike - is you need a balance between the two to be able to switch muscle groups with positioning.

Exactly. I just exaggerated it to fit my SS riding style.

Originally Posted by Thylacine

That's my take on it anyway. It's tough to convince people they don't need a 73 degree seat angle. We've been so indoctinated with 'industry standards' it's ridiculous sometimes.

Indoctrinated? Who? Cyclists?

Heh heh heh...

MC

[Thylacine]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Huh? Did you write that backwards? If you go to a straight post your STA steepens...Indoctrinated? Who? Cyclists?

Heh heh heh...

MC

No, if you keep your contacts point constant, shifting to a straight post lengthens your top tube and slackens your STA.

Sorry, I tend to think about the contact points first and let the numbers fall where they may. It's just the way I've indoctrinated myself!

Thanks for posting the pix of your new frame, it's kind of inspired me to attempt find a way to squeek yet another design I've been wanting to do for a while now into the stable.

Now to find a way to sweet-talk the missus....

[lanpope]

Originally Posted by Thylacine

No, if you keep your contacts point constant, shifting to a straight post lengthens your top tube and slackens your STA.

Come again...

How does changing a seatpost have any affect on TT length? Are you talking about cockpit length?

I guess you could be talking about altering a customer's bike's geo based on what seatpost is chosen as opposed to the actual effect of changing from a layback to straight post on a existing frame...is that it?

LP

[DWF]

Originally Posted by lanpope

Come again...

How does changing a seatpost have any affect on TT length? Are you talking about cockpit length?

I guess you could be talking about altering a customer's bike's geo based on what seatpost is chosen as opposed to the actual effect of changing from a layback to straight post on a existing frame...is that it?

LP

Yeah Warwick, you lost me on that one too. If you have a frame with a setback post and the saddle positioned in the center of the rails and if you then switch to a straight post with the saddle still positioned on the clamp in the middle of the rails, the seat tube angle will steepen and will shorten the cockpit length.

[Daner]

He is approaching it backwards from what most of us expect, thinking in terms of contact points (BB and Ischial Tuberosities) being identical and the frame/post configuration needed to maintain those relative positions being "malleable" for the designer of the frame, depending upon whether the seatpost that is to be used has setback or not.

With the proliferation of curved seat tubes and available setback options we need to start thinking in terms of Effective STA with the BB and saddle contact points being the basis for measurement. The range of possible mechanical gymnastics between those points is simply a means to an end.

I find the multi-kink ST/layback Moots post that Mike and James have employed on this bike to be superior aesthetically to the single kink/Thomson post combo that JJ is fond of or the straight ST/kinked Thomson post that Sacha used on the Black/Pink Vanilla that I saw at Sea Otter. Not that I have anything against Thomson posts or Oregon-based framebuilders, quite the contrary! (Swapping saddles on a Thomson is pure bliss when compared to swapping on a Moots, even when using the spreader tool.) I just think its prettier.

[donkey]

Mike-

No sooner do I get to Gooseberry away from my computer and Carol Ann calls me and says "you gotta see Mike's new bike". I kid you not I wondered all weekend what it was that you'd built up!

Very, very impressive. I hope to see it in person sometime in the future...perhaps the KTR?

Congrats.

B

[Thylacine]

Originally Posted by DWF

Yeah Warwick, you lost me on that one too. If you have a frame with a setback post and the saddle positioned in the center of the rails and if you then switch to a straight post with the saddle still positioned on the clamp in the middle of the rails, the seat tube angle will steepen and will shorten the cockpit length.

Draw up a bike where the contact points are FIXED - Bars, pedals, seat. If your customer say wants to use a Thomson layback, you'll find that the seat tube is decidedly steeper and top tube shorter than if you designed the bike around a Thomson straight post. The contact points remain fixed and unchanged, remember! All we're doing is designing around available components.

Does that make sense? Obviously if you just get an off-the-shelf bike and switch from a layback to a straight post you're effective seat angle will steepen and cockpit length with shorten (duh), but we're talking about MC's custom bike here, where he (hopefully) had his contact points set, and designed the bike around those. He then could play around with different STA's and TT lengths, yet his position would remain unchanged throughout the process.

Custom is neat, huh.

[Wish I Were Riding]

Originally Posted by Thylacine

Draw up a bike where the contact points are FIXED - Bars, pedals, seat. If your customer say wants to use a Thomson layback, you'll find that the seat tube is decidedly steeper and top tube shorter than if you designed the bike around a Thomson straight post.

Custom is neat, huh.

Now I can picture what you are saying. Thanks for finally explaining it in a way that makes sence to me.

So here's the million dollar question to those in the know: How does someone with no experience get the info they need to figure out what and where they should have their "contact points" placed in space? So that their custom frame is sure to ROCK!?!

[Thylacine]

Originally Posted by Wish I Were Riding

Now I can picture what you are saying. Thanks for finally explaining it in a way that makes sence to me.

So here's the million dollar question to those in the know: How does someone with no experience get the info they need to figure out what and where they should have their "contact points" placed in space? So that their custom frame is sure to ROCK!?!

The unfortunate answer to that question is that there is a rich history of road fit but in all honesty, in the MTB world we're using that as a guide and then using our experience to fill in the gaps. There's a strong correlation between the two, but also a lot of philosphy built in.

In a lot of ways, because of the amazing variance in the style of riding and type of terrain we encounter, even one blanket philosophy doesn't work. Your cross country race bike will not have the same contact points ( or more accurately perhaps, correlation between fit / wheelbase-handling ) as your 24hr racer or your mountain-trials bike.

To make matters worse, fit changes with flexibility and fitness too! If you plan on loosing 100lbs and have just joined a Pilates class, you want your new custom bike to account for that, too.

The best thing you can do is find a custom company you can identify with, one that makes sense, and go with them.

[DWF]

Originally Posted by Thylacine

Draw up a bike where the contact points are FIXED - Bars, pedals, seat. If your customer say wants to use a Thomson layback, you'll find that the seat tube is decidedly steeper and top tube shorter than if you designed the bike around a Thomson straight post. The contact points remain fixed and unchanged, remember! All we're doing is designing around available components.

Does that make sense? Obviously if you just get an off-the-shelf bike and switch from a layback to a straight post you're effective seat angle will steepen and cockpit length with shorten (duh), but we're talking about MC's custom bike here, where he (hopefully) had his contact points set, and designed the bike around those. He then could play around with different STA's and TT lengths, yet his position would remain unchanged throughout the process.

Custom is neat, huh.

Got it, in the context of the discussion, I was focussing on changing posts on an "existing" bike. You're talking about designing a bike around a post in which case you're absolutely right.

[jh_on_the_cape]

cool bike!
I would not paint it. But if you must... black. with an old font saying something like 'Special Edition' on it.

Or have it anodized.

[bigwheelboy_490]

All of this talk about slack seat angles makes me think of Steve Bauer's race bike he used in the early nineties(?) that had something like a 60 degree seat angle. I tried to find a picture of the bike to share, but was unsuccessful.