Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 65
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,858
    Quote Originally Posted by LncNuvue
    The reach on the M Ciclon should be shorter than the L Spot since it has a slacker SA and the same ETT. Is this correct or am I missing something?
    I take it you're looking at the "150mm" geometry, as the "140mm" shows a 72.5* STA. It looks to me like they just provided a few key measurements with the longer fork (HTA, STA, BB height, etc.), but did not bother to recalculate reach/stack, so I think the 140mm measurements are probably a better point of comparison.

    Your basic premise is correct though- all else being equal a slacker STA should result in a shorter reach for a given ETT. Probably not even 1/4" less for the .5* difference between the "140mm" Ciclon and the Spot, but definitely shorter, not longer.

    The only mitigating factor I see here is that the stack on the Large Spot is over 1" higher (longer fork/headtube) than the Medium Ciclon, which will also shorten the reach for the Spot. If my trig is right that should decrease the reach on the Spot by almost 1/2".

    So after factoring in the STA difference, there still seems to be ~1/2" discrepency that is unaccounted for. I thought the whole point of reach/stack was to give a more uniform measurement for fit, but in this case something is not adding up and it is only confusing the matter. Same thing on the 19" Ciclon vs. XL Spot- over 1" difference in reach even w/ identical ETT lenghts.
    A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

  2. #27
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,238
    Quote Originally Posted by miles e
    I thought the whole point of reach/stack was to give a more uniform measurement for fit, but in this case something is not adding up and it is only confusing the matter. Same thing on the 19" Ciclon vs. XL Spot- over 1" difference in reach even w/ identical ETT lenghts.
    That's providing Ventana and Turner measure the stack and reach from the same starting and ending points. But at this point it's all arm-chair frame design. I'm happy with the longer ETT because I will not have to get a semi-custom frame.

  3. #28
    destination unknown
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,520
    Quote Originally Posted by miles e
    I take it you're looking at the "150mm" geometry, as the "140mm" shows a 72.5* STA. It looks to me like they just provided a few key measurements with the longer fork (HTA, STA, BB height, etc.), but did not bother to recalculate reach/stack, so I think the 140mm measurements are probably a better point of comparison.

    Your basic premise is correct though- all else being equal a slacker STA should result in a shorter reach for a given ETT. Probably not even 1/4" less for the .5* difference between the "140mm" Ciclon and the Spot, but definitely shorter, not longer.

    The only mitigating factor I see here is that the stack on the Large Spot is over 1" higher (longer fork/headtube) than the Medium Ciclon, which will also shorten the reach for the Spot. If my trig is right that should decrease the reach on the Spot by almost 1/2".

    So after factoring in the STA difference, there still seems to be ~1/2" discrepency that is unaccounted for. I thought the whole point of reach/stack was to give a more uniform measurement for fit, but in this case something is not adding up and it is only confusing the matter. Same thing on the 19" Ciclon vs. XL Spot- over 1" difference in reach even w/ identical ETT lenghts.
    Yep, I was looking at in 150. I agree, the R&S measurements are probably based on the 140 fork setup which skews things when comparing to 150. Still seems a little off as you stated.

    Let the campaign for photos begin

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciclistagonzo
    You better be ordering a Ciclon Lance!
    The Ciclon looks really nice! There's not much to gripe about in the new stock frame.

  4. #29
    Ultra Ventanaphile
    Reputation: Ciclistagonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,143
    Quote Originally Posted by LncNuvue

    Let the campaign for photos begin
    I'm pretty sure Teresa and Sherwood are fed up with my daily, email/text/phone calls pestering them about pictures by now!

    SO I'll amp it up to two a days 'till we get 'em! (Pics that is!)
    -Aaron G.

    "Before D.W., "anti-squat" was referred to as pedal feedback."

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,858
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker4life
    That's providing Ventana and Turner measure the stack and reach from the same starting and ending points.
    It's pretty cut and dry- two lines that form a right angle: one from the center of the bottom bracket up, and another over to the center of the top of the head tube. Again, the whole point of these measurements is to remove ambiguity. I don't even know how else they could be measured, but doing so would defeat the purpose.

    One should be able to calculate stack themselves based on the BB drop, combined fork & headtube length + lower headset stack height, and headtube angle. If you do that, Ventana's look way low, like over an inch. Turner's figures look low too, but less than half an inch (and they only list BB height, not drop, so I'm using the same axle height as Ventana to calculate their BB drop, which could explain part of that).

    So not only is the reach measurement wonky on one (or both) of these frames, but the stack is off too; it's probably more like .4" difference between the 17" Ciclon/L Spot, not the 1.15" difference the two geometry tables show.

    Oh well, guess that leaves us with good ol' top tube/head tube length & standover to go by. Even if the reach (whatever it actually is) hasn't changed much, if at all, it is nice to see a healthy 24"+ top tube on a "large" (i.e. 19") frame, thanks to the slacker STA.
    A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Ciclistagonzo
    ??? For every size, the Standover is between a 1/2" to a full 1" lower than the previous year El Rey. Example 19" 2010 was 31.5" , 2011 is 30.34" .

    Sultan is 31.5" Tallboy is 29.9" (with a ridiculously low 12.8" BB)

    So how's that highest?
    I did not say the highest. I said the highest I have seen. The Sultan and Tallboy are crap to me. Not really paid any attention to those. Therefore I have not seen the numbers. And from the looks of it, its for more than one reason they are crap to me.

  7. #32
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,688
    Quote Originally Posted by LncNuvue
    On paper, the medium Ciclon's reach is longer than my large Spot. Looking at the ETT and SA the reach seems like it should be shorter on the Ciclon. The reach numbers seem like they could be 1" off by mistake. Or, maybe Turner has the wrong reach measurements posted.

    L Spot w/150 fork: 23.6" ETT, 73* SA, 16" Reach
    M Ciclon w/150 fork: 23.6 ETT, 72* SA, 16.76" Reach

    The reach on the M Ciclon should be shorter than the L Spot since it has a slacker SA and the same ETT. Is this correct or am I missing something?
    I think "medium" - for people of around 5'8" - 5'9" size, which would be average if you take men and women combined - should have reach around 400 to 405mm. (in the neighborhood of 23" ETT for common geometries). But reach is what's important for slotting sizes. No that it matters, of course, just my wish, and I obviously do not design bikes for a living.

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,691

    Bonking ... not feelin' well Top tube

    I'm no engineer but I'm having trouble figuring out why so many frames have the nut clearence compromising, constipated dog arched toptube; many of you may, like me think that top tube is ugly, more importantly to my inseam challenged self is the clearence problem. Hopefully Sherwood will consider us short folk in choosing the top tube for the small size and either go with a straight tube or even better reverse the bend and broaden the fit of this frame for shorties

  9. #34
    Ultra Ventanaphile
    Reputation: Ciclistagonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,143
    Quote Originally Posted by RoundRockTJ
    The Sultan and Tallboy are crap to me. Not really paid any attention to those. Therefore I have not seen the numbers. And from the looks of it, its for more than one reason they are crap to me.
    You better be careful talking like that, you'll get the Turner forum in a tizzy!

    Just chose a direct competitor and a farely popular mass produced one to try understand your point. What have you looked at? Just curious at this point.
    -Aaron G.

    "Before D.W., "anti-squat" was referred to as pedal feedback."

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,151
    I'm not a big fan of the top tube and have to wonder the purpose of a curved top tube like this, seems to add nothing functional to the bike.

    I wonder if a straight top tube could be had by going custom.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  11. #36
    Ultra Ventanaphile
    Reputation: Ciclistagonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,143

    Stand Over Concerns -Why????

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciclistagonzo
    Geometry for El Ciclon and El Rey is posted as well as the first look DRAWING of what the new frames will look like.

    www.Ventanausa.com
    One questions that's been brought up a few times, is the Stand Over heights. And I guess I don't understand the concerns, since both new frames, on all sizes, have gained clearance. As little as .4" to OVER 1" on the 19" El Rey.

    Specific to Slowrider, 2010 15" Ciclon shows 29.4" SO, with 2" tires. 2011 15" Ciclon is 28.9" SO with 2.3" tires! on paper it's an improvement of a 1/2" and if you ran 2.3 tires on the 2010, it would be closer to 3/4" improvement. And the 2010 HAD the straight tube!

    I think the Top Tube shape is causing the illusion of lost clearance where in fact it's considerably lower. (Note also how the TT now connects to the ST inline with the Rocker, where as before the TT had to CLEAR the Rocker.)

    Now if you don't like it Aesthetically.... I agreed with you at first, it's grown on me, but I've had more time to digest it than you all.
    -Aaron G.

    "Before D.W., "anti-squat" was referred to as pedal feedback."

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Ciclistagonzo
    You better be careful talking like that, you'll get the Turner forum in a tizzy!

    Just chose a direct competitor and a farely popular mass produced one to try understand your point. What have you looked at? Just curious at this point.
    The two bikes from both Ellsworth and Intense. I always look at Ventanas since the X5 was the best 26er I have ever owned. There is no doubt that the new Rey is higher on my list than the older one. There are alot of things that I am digging.

    And I understand that standover is simply just a "Nice Feature" to have. But nice is nice.

  13. #38
    Space Ghost
    Reputation: Coach417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    860
    I actually like the "retro-ish" look of the curved tube. Standover is not really an issue for me.
    "No good deed goes unpunished"

  14. #39
    Single Speed Junkie
    Reputation: crux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,107
    First time seeing the bikes and new profile. Top tube is a departure from what I would expect from Ventana / Sherwood.

    After recently designing my own frame and fabricating it out of curvy tubes here is what I noticed from drawing board to final product. (Note I am not a welder so I had a friend weld it up.) Side profile was created in AutoCAD communicating what the bike was to look like. We discussed and rendered the tubes a few times then off to welding. When comparing the final product to the concept it was curvier than anticipated. The Drawings only give you one plane in which to view the bike. Reality is another matter all together.

    I would expect that the top tube on this bike will be curvier than the pictures let on based off experience.

    Dealing with the stand over question the top tube curves do take away from nut clearance. Not good news when you need to put a foot down on low terrain. Bike I designed compensated for this by having the intersection of the top tube lower on the seat tube. Looks like Sherwood is attempting this with the added piece curving up towards the seat tube. Hopefully this will be a solid tube as I personally think they look better.

    Here is the hardest part for Sherwood. As they must have various size frames the curves and intersections of the tubes with suspension will be different. Some sizes the lines will flow nicely and others the angles will be off slightly. This would not impact riding or handling, just the looks of the bikes.

    If we were talking a hard tail frame keeping the lines smooth I believe is easier than on a suspended bike. I'm looking forward to seeing what the final product will look like.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zonoskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    912
    Standover is reduced with the toptube like Sherwood designed it. If you'd have a straight TT, you'd get something like this (don't mind my paint skills). It looks better IMHO, but with a larger standover height. I left the pointer to the original standover height in the picture.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Ventana Website is updated!-el-rey-2011-geometry2.gif  

    Last edited by zonoskar; 04-05-2011 at 07:48 AM.

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,608
    I like the curved TT design. That is why I was going to get a Vulture. Now I can save money and get a Ventana. Need to sell my Engin/Ventana FS frame now

  17. #42
    11 is one louder than 10
    Reputation: Green Giant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,359

    Outstanding

    Love the new el Rey geometry numbers. Sure I wish the ht was 1 deg steeper as I like a quick handling bike. But if need be an angle set should work. Can't wait for mine!
    "The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care."

  18. #43
    post-ride specialist
    Reputation: icegeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Giant
    Love the new el Rey geometry numbers. Sure I wish the ht was 1 deg steeper as I like a quick handling bike. But if need be an angle set should work. Can't wait for mine!

    If the "tapered head tube" is 44 at the top, rather than the traditional (old-skool) 34 you'll be in luck as you could use an angleset. Guess we still have to wait and see for those numbers.
    Since when did Need have anything to do with this?

  19. #44
    Team Chilidog!
    Reputation: Stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,300
    Quote Originally Posted by icegeek
    If the "tapered head tube" is 44 at the top, rather than the traditional (old-skool) 34 you'll be in luck as you could use an angleset. Guess we still have to wait and see for those numbers.
    If I can remember what Teresa told me when I ordered my headset last week: The taper at the top is 44 at the top, 56 at the bottom. I can confirm later.
    MTB4Her.com: mountain bike site for women, by women

  20. #45
    Ultra Ventanaphile
    Reputation: Ciclistagonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,143
    Quote Originally Posted by zonoskar
    Standover is reduced with the toptube like Sherwood designed it. If you'd have a straight TT, you'd get something like this (don't mind my paint skills). It looks better IMHO, but with a larger standover height. I left the pointer to the original standover height in the picture.
    Thanks Zo, you illustrated what I was trying to say.
    -Aaron G.

    "Before D.W., "anti-squat" was referred to as pedal feedback."

  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    20

    I suppose I am alive

    Been a wild ride. Zap me a PM . I lost your phone and email. Hope youre well, my friend.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ciclistagonzo
    Turtelhead! You're alive! Welcome back!

    The top tube was a shock to me ever since I saw it a few months back, but it's growing on me, I like the fact the taco gusset is still there, keeps the familiar V, look.

  22. #47
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,688
    Quote Originally Posted by RoundRockTJ
    The two bikes from both Ellsworth and Intense. I always look at Ventanas since the X5 was the best 26er I have ever owned. There is no doubt that the new Rey is higher on my list than the older one. There are alot of things that I am digging.

    And I understand that standover is simply just a "Nice Feature" to have. But nice is nice.
    Depends where you measure standover. I am more concerned about nutty clearance closer to the headtube - that's where I end up in case of an unplanned dismount. I usually do not just stand over my bike for any length of time.

    From my experience with Santa Cruz bikes and their hunchback top tubes - I would rather have it straight.

  23. #48
    ridin' Mary
    Reputation: OhNooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    325
    I have the older 23" El Rey. I got it because I needed the 25.4 top-tube length, and it had lower standover than the 21" frame. The seat gusset is a real tube and not a taco, so it resulted in a lower intersection and better stand-over at 32" than the smaller frame at 32.9" (with a higher weight penalty).

    The new design is even longer. With the new design, I could have dropped down to a 21" frame and still had the same 25.4 top-tube I wanted. The standover on the 21" frame is 31.24" which is 3/4" lower than my old 23" El Rey. Win win! I'm sure it's a lot lighter too.

    Sooooo.....
    Lower weight due to dropping a frame size
    Same top-tube
    Increased standover
    Shorter chainstays
    Same BB height.

    That's a winner to me.

  24. #49
    Not dead yet, just playin
    Reputation: ohpossum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    910
    Nobody has mentioned the thing that jumps out at me - Horizontal Rockers..

    They look a little longer as well.

    Turner moved from an angled rocker (XCE) to horizontal (old 5-spot) to help with the suspension movement caused by pedal forces..Horizontal rockers were evidently one of the big deals in the ICT patent. DT cared enough about flat rockers to keep them and go with a seat-stay pivot instead of getting around the ICT patent with angled rockers and a check to Specialized.

    Now that Turner is in the DW camp, maybe that opened up a chance to use some of the older design elements without stepping on anyone's toes..

    Also, if the rockers are longer, that may help with a more linear leverage curve to the shock, which considering how air shocks keep getting more and more linear, may be a good thing.

    op
    www.msmtb.org - Mississippi Mountain Biking

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zonoskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    912
    The ICT patent uses the horizontal rockers in combination with the Horst Link (rear pivot on the chainstay before and below the rear axle). Since Ventana doesn't use the Horst Link, the ICT patent doesn't apply. This is what Turner initially did with the TNT rear's.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •