Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 98
  1. #26

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,286

    Proto

    There pics of the new parts on that link? Think that's from 5 months ago

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,286
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean_29 View Post
    Summer Forecast on Vimeo

    Ok, Ed 36mm stanchions might help but would cost more than my car especially in 29er version

    i suppose more info in eurobike
    maybe suntour has something up their sleeve ?

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Until then some options of forks may be in production like Trace 29 and if it's price is high, always there is the sweet alternative of manitou in 32mm.
    Last edited by ocean_29; 09-02-2012 at 10:40 AM.

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean_29 View Post
    i suppose more info in eurobike
    And I was totally wrong

    Anyway, wondering ..

    Is this bike designed having in mind ( at least in most cases) that the saddle should be below the bars or the opposite?

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    With a 101mm/4in headtube (as short as I want to make it for structural reasons) and a 140mm suspension fork, I'm sure smaller people will find their bars at the same height as their saddle.

    Bar height is a function of:-
    Stem rise
    Bar rise
    Fork length
    Headtube length
    Head angle (to a small degree).

    The first two affect bar height more than anything, and can be controlled and varied more.

    What is your personal preference?

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Firstly if you don't care to read the rest or its boring (I really understand it ) But,
    could you define "small people" I am 183cm with 85cm inseam. would I have the saddle at least the same height with bars?




    I find my current XC bike handles very good in XC trails but I tried to make it a little more trail capable and easy to manual on some more demanding descends. After some trial and error period, I added a couple of cm in AC going from 80mm travel to 100mm , shorten a little bit the stem with 0 rise, wider bars ..

    and with 2cm space under the stem I also have my saddle lower than before but still a bit upper the bars and I am truly satisfied. I can lower the bars even more for more accuracy, and even more proper power tranfer but that's the sweet spot for me and the local trails that an XC bike can handle with my skills. Throw a pro on it and it could handle more but that's not the case.

    With the saddle over the bars you can pedal in more efficient way and put more force to the ground that I general like,

    but

    with 140mm FS 29er wouldn't care about that. I didn't care about all these 100ish FS 29ers that are in the market because when I demoed a couple I didn't feel that I would try different trails that I already run with my HT.

    If I am to loose the simplicity of ht and the efficiency of it's pedaling I would do it for a totally different riding style and for a bike that allows me to try something else.

    Not for a just another 100ish fs XC wannabe AM or vice versa that do all things but nothing good ( that's my view don't like neutral, do it all, boring bikes)
    That's one reason that I m interesting in this EG concept. Designing an 29er with more than 120mm travel is a challenge.

    From AM bike I would expect lower the saddle from bars for the known reasons and just because its 29er at least the same height. Judging from mine I think there is room to be done with 140mm and still could handles fine, at least up to 180-185cm riders.

    Maybe a slacker STA than usual and curved seat tube angle (?) could help (?) and let the 29er longish cs and wheelbase do the rest in climbing (?)
    Btw,
    Maybe the EG29er are deceiving but did I notice the CG a little more forward than it could be for such kind of bike?

    Finally as I can see it
    Most 29ers hates the word "rise" in bars and stem.
    Last edited by ocean_29; 09-05-2012 at 09:52 AM.

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    A quick sum gives the frame's "stack" as 618mm

    Stack is the dimension from the BB centre to the TOP of the headtube.

    I'm sure you can work the rest out from there.

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    A quick sum gives the frame's "stack" as 618mm
    618 !? a typo?

    That stack can't be on Large model it's too short (imo its too short general) for MTB 29er with 140 fork riders with over 33" inseam won't fit there without at least 12" spacers under the stem to get a MTB position and not tour de France one.
    Last edited by ocean_29; 09-06-2012 at 02:37 AM.

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean_29 View Post
    618 !? a typo?

    That stack can't be on Large model it's too short (imo its too short general) for MTB 29er with 140 fork riders with over 33" inseam won't fit there without at least 12" spacers under the stem to get a MTB position and not tour de France one. With 33,85" inseam I ll have to put all the spacers I have spare....
    It is a typo. I got the BB in the wrong place. It's 590mm.

    This is the vertical distance from the centre of the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube.

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    It is a typo. I got the BB in the wrong place. It's 590mm.

    This is the vertical distance from the centre of the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube.
    I know, at least the smallest people will probably have a very stable handling - accurate steering.

    but
    I can't see how the others will manage to fit there maybe with a really slack sta
    We ll see. I'm sure someone with over 33 1/2 inseam had tried it before production.

    It's the shortest stack by far in this category and even comparable to bikes with shorter AC. (of course shorter AC bikes have steeper HTAs but again..)

    Thx brant.

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    I've put all the numbers into Bikecad and can't work out how SantaCruz get the stack height they do for their frames unless they are measuring to the top of the stem mount on the steerer?

    Change of 1deg on the head angle gives 5mm on the stack.
    Change of 10mm on the headtube gives 8mm on the stack.

    You can work it all out from there.

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    I've put all the numbers into Bikecad and can't work out how SantaCruz get the stack height they do for their frames unless they are measuring to the top of the stem mount on the steerer?

    Change of 1deg on the head angle gives 5mm on the stack.
    Change of 10mm on the headtube gives 8mm on the stack.

    You can work it all out from there.
    Yes I can imagine.., I hadn't calculated tho, thx! It seems it works for around 68deg (of course these functions are not linear or independent e.g. the slacker HTA the smaller difference changing the length of ht. At this range the 2nd one is closer to 9mm difference with 540-550 AC, i think..but that's no big deal)

    till now made rough estimations without paper or autocad (dont have bikecad)
    in autocad with a good photo taken exactly from 90 deg (for proportions sake it can be done with a little margin of error)

    irrelevant
    except Santacruz lets see others

    Stumpjumper the EVO one is a good comparable example 68HTA - 140mm fork
    S - 90HTL - 610
    M - 100HTL - 619
    L - 125HTL - 643 lets say - 20 there
    XL -145HTL - 661

    WFO 9 68 HTA 140mm fork 130 HTL
    L - 640 with 100HTL would be about -24 to -26

    Banshee Prime about 68 HTA, but 120mm HTL so to all numbers lets say about -16mm
    M - 635
    L - 635
    XL - 645

    Salsa Horsethief little over 68 HTA 140mm fork 110HTL to all numbers -8 or -9
    S - M - L - 623
    XL 632

    Bandit29 little over 68 HTA 140mm fork
    M (HTL 100) - 628
    L (HTL 110) - 637 - 8 or - 9
    XL (HTL 120) - 646

    the numbers are about of course...we should take into consideration the differences in AC but this is the general picture

    other 29ers more XC ish with shorter fork travel and steeper HTAs
    have a little less stack...but not 590

    thats why EG29 Large for 180-190cm with 590mm surprised me
    I cant be totally sure for how taller people could find an appropriate AM and even trail position there (I really really ...really hope for the opposite,or the different rider's position of EG than that i have in mind for AM /trail works good too...)

    because stack is one piece of puzzle STA (reach) where is the riders CG and some others play their role. Nevertheless some Large models Enduro or convert or similar have 585-600 stack but in 26" wheels with slacker HTAs longer AC etc...we ll see...
    and sry for my english.
    Last edited by ocean_29; 09-06-2012 at 05:58 PM.

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Titus EG 29 and Transition Covert 29 are.... brothers!!

    [imo]the first will be calm meek and maybe more pedal friendly and his brother
    will be ferocious adventurous more AM and maybe less pedal friendly[/imo]

    identical design approach with major [edit:(major is just guess,imo)] differences in geo values
    Last edited by ocean_29; 09-07-2012 at 06:16 AM.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    Is there any Covert 29 geometry around?

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    why is there any EG29 geo around ?

    well I edited my previous post to a more apropriate one
    just guessing that will have the same philosophy of bandit 29 2012

    the best I can find for covert 29 till now is this
    http://www.dynamicbike.ch/mondraker/...13_preview.pdf

    that provide a good photo for Autocad measurements given that lets say the length of fox shock is known or the ISCG-05 distance between 2 holes.

    if they havent major differences in geo ........in november - december ....we will not have just brothers....... but twins!! hehehe

    edit: they state bandit29 in trail category, with longer reach 120mm travel and state that a 130mm replicate the bandit29 12 geometry.

    so imo and as it seems from the photos the covert29 (they put it in AM enduro category)
    it will have even more aggresive geo than bandit29 of 12 because there is no point to have in line 2 models that with a change of a shock they replicates each others
    Last edited by ocean_29; 09-07-2012 at 06:57 AM.

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,286

    Photo to Autodesk

    Interesting, what lens are you using to count mm in Autodesk?

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    Interesting, what lens are you using to count mm in Autodesk?
    I have some time to use cad, but if i remember right you have just to insert the photo and give manualy a number to known length, and thats all the others are shown accordingly


    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    It is a typo. I got the BB in the wrong place. It's 590mm.
    .
    are you sure that this is the stack with 140mm travel fork?

    and not with a black 100mm reba or something
    with 100mm traveled AC length is understood

    with 140mm cant solve the equation
    (without having to put the BB to a place nearly over 35cm which is not bad here in rocky trails )


    even this bike in 16" size with 100mm HTL and 68deg has over 620...
    CUBE*Stereo Super HPC 140 SLT

    perhaps other companies give sagged ? measures for the stack.....
    Last edited by ocean_29; 09-16-2012 at 04:25 AM.

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    88
    Will this be US or Asia manufactured?

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,828
    Asian I would say. Other than the aluminum ftm and rockstar everything else is Asian. Would be nice to see them built here but I really doubt it happens. At this point is be happy to see any thing new on them.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    Asian I would say. Other than the aluminum ftm and rockstar everything else is Asian. Would be nice to see them built here but I really doubt it happens. At this point is be happy to see any thing new on them.
    The alloy El Guapo model has always been manufactured at Kinesis in Taiwan.

  22. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    71
    I read on twitter that the 29 El Guapo is in production. Is the EUR price already known?

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    398
    Just a couple of questions in regards to the new El Guapo 29er...

    Any word on availability?

    Color choices?

    Pricing?

    Will a 140mm front fork be ok?
    http://kevinboyer.zenfolio.com/


    *2014 Knolly Endorphin...Custom Build*
    *2013 Intense Spider 29...Custom Build*

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,828
    Any word on availability?

    Color choices?

    Pricing?

    Will a 140mm front fork be ok?
    NO

    Minimal

    High

    Sure.

    These are all just gues's and I hope Brant comes in to answer for real.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    NO

    Minimal

    High

    Sure.

    These are all just gues's and I hope Brant comes in to answer for real.

    Just received this email reply from Brandon at Titus....


    "Kevin,

    I have no information about the EG29er yet."

    Thanks.
    Brandon
    http://kevinboyer.zenfolio.com/


    *2014 Knolly Endorphin...Custom Build*
    *2013 Intense Spider 29...Custom Build*

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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
  •