Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: ┐26?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194

    ┐26?

    Ben was the only person I've spoken to about the new ride, hinted at spring time. Now that he's no longer with Titus..

    *┐will there be a new El Guapo 26er?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ¿26?-picture-12.png  

    Last edited by Deerhill; 05-26-2011 at 01:42 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,821
    There had F-ing better be or you'll see me cut mine up with a milwaukee porta-band.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,318

    Lets hope so

    They should keep the rear travel at 155mm, slack out the HA to 67, raise the BB a 1/2". Make the ISCG tab a modular bolt on (like Knolly) so you can remove it if you want, add cable routing for a dropper post. They should also look at trying to trim the fat and make it an AM machine, surely they could scrub 1/2 lb off it. Maybe go 12x142 in the rear? Low, slack, shorter travel (ie. 150-160mm) bikes are where its at for all mountain shredding. Then they need to make a FR bike with at least 170mm of travel, 180 would be prefect. 65/66 HA, 13.5" BB, full 1.5" steerer so you can use angle sets. Shoot for a 9-10 lb frame weight with a coil shock. Definitely a 12x142 or 12x150 rear end. That would be a FR ripper, kinda a mini DH bike.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194
    140mm 29er announcment at Sea Otter is what's throwing me.. they called it an EG

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr View Post
    FR bike with at least 170mm of travel, 180 would be prefect. 65/66 HA, 13.5" BB, full 1.5" steerer so you can use angle sets. Shoot for a 9-10 lb frame weight with a coil shock. Definitely a 12x142 or 12x150 rear end. That would be a FR ripper, kinda a mini DH bike.
    This^^ is kind of what I started thinking from what little info Ben was allowed to spill for the spring time announcement.. Came away thinkin' little over 7.5lbs large frame. 66║ 1.5 HT w/ gussets, 12mm rear @ 170 FR~shredder

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ebeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr View Post
    They should also look at trying to trim the fat and make it an AM machine, surely they could scrub 1/2 lb off it. Maybe go 12x142 in the rear? Low, slack, shorter travel (ie. 150-160mm) bikes are where its at for all mountain shredding.
    Yep...this would suit me fine. 145-150mm travel, 67 HA, 13.5"BB (or lower?) would be great. Sort of EG lite, or bring back the Motolite to sit between FTM and EG. I think there's a niche for lower slacker bike that are lighter....for riders who like to climb, like the tech, and want to descend fast but will likely never put the bike in the air...at least not very much.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,821
    Why not send the EG more towards DH and build the FTM into more of an little brother for the EG and a big brother of the race-x?

    I don;t really see a need to change the rear of the eg to another hub spec. Mine is stiff enough with a ck fun bolt rear hub.

    I'd like to see titus build a specialized stumpy killer and something with a coil shock from the factory.

    As for measurments on the EG I'd like to see a taller BB for rough sections ( I like to stay on the gass on the DH's) and maybe less of a ridge on the top tube (have slid off and hist my junk on that edge once.) I'd even go so far as to drop it back to a taper headtube for a bit of weight savings. Especially since no one is building forks with straight 1.5 steerers.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,318
    Motolite was a great bike, it should be resurrected. Names aside, I think slightly raising the BB would be a good thing although I havent had a single pedal strike since I went to 170mm cranks and the RT3, the bike rides much higher in its travel now and I think pedal strikes will be reduced with a shock that actually does its job. I think going with a thru axle rear is a must, it is the trend and the new 12x142 is supposed to be very quick to install the wheel, actually faster then a QR. Most of the higher end hubs have axle conversions to go 12x142. While they are at it, why not post mount rear brake mounts? They could also do an adjustable HA via the adjustable front shock mount (ala knolly).

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    937
    Craig, you just summed up every bit of changes I hope to see.

    ...Not that the fun bolts don't work but 142 rear is really more of a future-proofing looking at the trend of things.

    One little thing...if they can just drop the height of the top tube by a little, that would be perfect.. Kinda hard to run little or no spacers under stem with brake levers positioned downwards and not hitting the tubing when turned

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,821
    why not post mount rear brake mounts?
    Because they add weight. Unless you run threads straight into the frame (that can strip rather easy) an insert like turner does adds more weight than an i.s. standard mount with adapter.

    ...Not that the fun bolts don't work but 142 rear is really more of a future-proofing looking at the trend of things.
    It's a good idea but until I see CK make a 142 hub I just don't see the point. Most hubs that are being used still have the same flange spacing and just run an "adapter" axle to widen them to meet the drop outs. Unless something like a moto style drop out is used (axle surrounded 360* inside the drop out) I don't see any big increases in usefullness or rigidity.

    The idea of the wider dropouts is to increase the size of the triangle that the spokes make at the flanges and at the nipples. When you use a hub that isn't any wider at the flanges you're just adding weight. Or making new parts so people can justify a new frame/bike/wheelset.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,990
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJDOG View Post
    Ben was the only person I've spoken to about the new ride, hinted at spring time. Now that he's no longer with Titus..

    *┐will there be a new El Guapo 26er?
    We are working on it. The EG 26" is not going away and there are updates in the plans.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    The idea of the wider dropouts is to increase the size of the triangle that the spokes make at the flanges and at the nipples. When you use a hub that isn't any wider at the flanges you're just adding weight. Or making new parts so people can justify a new frame/bike/wheelset.


    Wouldn't Hadley/King need to wait for the 142 frames first before making a new hub?

    142mm frame w/ adapters> once that picks up widen flanges and ditch adapters

    If flanges eventually widen, my question would be w/ the bb width. This trickle down gonna snowball more delays..We need some sort of MTB roundtable, all the big wigs can sit down and get the MF ball rolling.

  13. #13
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,990
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJDOG View Post
    Wouldn't Hadley/King need to wait for the 142 frames first before making a new hub?

    142mm frame w/ adapters> once that picks up widen flanges and ditch adapters

    If flanges eventually widen, my question would be w/ the bb width. This trickle down gonna snowball more delays..We need some sort of MTB roundtable, all the big wigs can sit down and get the MF ball rolling.
    The 142/12 hubs do nothing to increase the hub flange spacing. All of the width increase is outside of the axle ends. Cassette and rotor spacing from the centerline is the same as a 135 hub.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,318
    I think its a great concept. I for one am bummed that I had to settle for a Knolly Delirium with standard 10x135 rear. The new model will have 12x142 but wont be available till fall!
    http://www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=1&pk=1314

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194
    Just looked at their PDF, didn't know there's a sort of shelf on the inside of the frame.. takes up 3.5mm on the drive side.

    Not sure their PDF is accurate. Looks like special lockring for the cassette would be the only way to get more room.. if there would eventually be a possibility to widen the hub.

    *larger diameter freehub could do it too
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ¿26?-picture-2.png  

    Last edited by Deerhill; 05-28-2011 at 02:29 PM.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,318
    They could standardize the rear derailluer hanger too. Wouldnt that be cool if you could by a 12x142 hanger at any shop? As far as the PM rear brake mounts go, there may be extra weight involved in the frame but you lose an adapter and two bolts/washers. Pretty much a wash in the weight department but they should definitely heli coil the threads so stripped mounts would never be an issue. Maybe the extra room on the drive side would allow for a 9 or 10 tooth cog? I think 1x10 is the future but you need to be able to run a 30-32 tooth front sprocket with a 9 or 10 tooth rear to have a full range of gearing. I love my new 2x10 drivetrain with MRP XCG guide but I have dropped the chain a couple of times with the lack of a bashring for retention, it happens when I back-pedal while in the large ring.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,821
    They could standardize the rear derailluer hanger too.
    I doubt they would do that. Then you wouldn't have to get them from the OEM manufacturer. Cuts them out of a few bucks.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    36
    Hey Terrible, do you work in a shop or something? You seem so knowledgeable.

  19. #19
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,990
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr View Post
    They could standardize the rear derailluer hanger too. Wouldnt that be cool if you could by a 12x142 hanger at any shop? As far as the PM rear brake mounts go, there may be extra weight involved in the frame but you lose an adapter and two bolts/washers. Pretty much a wash in the weight department but they should definitely heli coil the threads so stripped mounts would never be an issue. Maybe the extra room on the drive side would allow for a 9 or 10 tooth cog? I think 1x10 is the future but you need to be able to run a 30-32 tooth front sprocket with a 9 or 10 tooth rear to have a full range of gearing. I love my new 2x10 drivetrain with MRP XCG guide but I have dropped the chain a couple of times with the lack of a bashring for retention, it happens when I back-pedal while in the large ring.
    Many of the 142/12 frames, from several different companies, I saw at interbike last year appeared to use the same hanger. The mounting bolt also clamps the threaded insert for the through axle in place.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr View Post
    Maybe the extra room on the drive side would allow for a 9 or 10 tooth cog? I think 1x10 is the future but you need to be able to run a 30-32 tooth front sprocket with a 9 or 10 tooth rear to have a full range of gearing.
    Extra gears for 1x, good idea for 26er. Or taller flanges to reinforce BIG gears w/ more cassette range for 1x.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,318
    Not extra gears but a 9-36 cassette would be perfect with a 30 tooth front chainring

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194
    30 36 I would need hulk legs

  23. #23
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr View Post
    ...raise the BB a 1/2".
    Gross.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,821
    The 142/12 hubs do nothing to increase the hub flange spacing. All of the width increase is outside of the axle ends. Cassette and rotor spacing from the centerline is the same as a 135 hub.
    They are SUPPOSED to increase the hub flange spacing in the future. Right now everyone is tossing conversion axles into existing hubs to get people to buy new frames. Then in the next year it'll be new wheelsets.

    From what I've seen specialized roval wheels are the only onse making use of wider hub flanges.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by craigstr
    ...raise the BB a 1/2".

    Gross
    Jigga what? Please do increase the BB height! I'd love to have the same 14.3" bb my enduro had on the EG.

    Hey Terrible, do you work in a shop or something? You seem so knowledgeable.
    I've been known to spend some time at the shop. Hope to have my own place in a year or two so keep your eye out in the vendors section
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by craigstr
    ...raise the BB a 1/2".

    _________
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover View Post
    Gross.

    1/2" via adjustable BB height no gross= extra thick cut bacon

    adjustable

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •