Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

The elusive El Guapo 29

14K views 97 replies 24 participants last post by  terrible 
#1 ·
It's been months since we've seen photos of the prototype EG 29. Any news? What's the word?

Also, any word on finish choices? I am really liking the Super Raw on the Mk3 EGs...
 
#8 ·
So you can answer....with

Bridge is being retooled as I shortened the chainstays. The original sample used the same 26in chainstay bridge. The new one uses a new one.
- perfect answer

Chainstays are down to 458mm from the 471 on the sample.
- perfect answer
Also changed are seat angle and top tube length.
that's very interesting
I ll take it as you shorten the reach...so
- soooo perfect answer
Travel is 140mm
- perfect answer

Rear axle is 142x12, Shimano E-Thru-type.
yeah I know...trends.. : P ...I think I can address that

how i like it when someone answer in a perfect way hahaha

thx Brant
cheers
 
#11 ·
I smell an ultra short stem then and new ultra budget wide bars , at least for me.

just hope I ll be able to fit some some 3x crankset down there that I already have....
else cant do the maths..
Difficult times for a proper new one, very difficult...

and if I manage to fit and my bottom swing sram 7 FD i ll be very lucky.
 
#12 ·
I smell an ultra short stem then and new ultra budget wide bars , at least for me.

just hope I ll be able to fit some some 3x crankset down there that I already have....
else cant do the maths..
Difficult times for a proper new one, very difficult...

and if I manage to fit and my bottom swing sram 7 FD i ll be very lucky.
Yes to a short stem.
I'm sure a triple will fit.
FD is a high direct mount style.
 
#14 · (Edited)
On a second thought and keeping in mind that is more difficult to change balance on 29er than 26" for known reasons, maybe its better to have the weight a little more rear, than you would except to find in some AM 26ers. Maybe its better to have a little longer top tube with a shorter stem. Αpart from accuracy, it would help the fork on descends in plenty of situations (e.g. less rapid dives) and the OTB, and help rider to find the right balance. On 26" short reach is playful but on 29er its not the case.

A real challenge it would be to see if a 29er 140mm travel sus. system, would handle the rough trails with the same speed as a 150mm 26er before the bottom out of its less travel. Bigger wheels cant replace mm of travel in rough technical terrains, and as speed gets higher on these terrains the angle of attack and impact of a bigger wheel does not play role but a 29er suspension design could help so as to the exhaust of travel happen less easily than some 26"AM frames. (different suspension kinematics)
 
#21 · (Edited)
I ve seen some prototype photos of this bike with crest rims and some skinny tires, i think the beavers...ok 29er with this kind of wheelset on a "long travel" 29er might work on some kind of wet uk terrain with a very light rider, but it would be flexy for sure in some many others situations.

Wondering how could be this bike with some real rubber like Hans dampfs to help a little the rear 140mm traver, hope for enough rear clearance for that. Also more stiff rims than crests...right now i m balancing between this frame and an other 160mm 26" frame, but i d like to stick with the big wheels...

I also found this, but nothing really new

Summer Forecast on Vimeo

Ok, Ed 36mm stanchions might help but would cost more than my car especially in 29er version :D and with that high cost someone could lean more easily in a real AM-Enduro 26" or 650b...also 36mm means more weight and i find too much 36mm
with only 140mm travel...usual rider will not take full advantage of that kind of stiff stanchions with only 140mm...36mm would mean heavy AM use but you ll be out of travel there... deadlock here :D

i suppose more info in eurobike :D
 
#31 ·
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?
 
#32 · (Edited)
Firstly if you don't care to read the rest or its boring (I really understand it :D) 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.
 
#37 ·
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.
 
#38 · (Edited)
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top