Devinci Django 29- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    351

    Devinci Django 29

    The replacement for the Devinci Atlas is going to be called the Django 29. I'll post pictures of actual bikes as soon as I receive them.



    Last edited by Velorangutan; 08-16-2016 at 11:45 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,226
    when are they going to release details, geo charts, etc? 120mm R?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    351
    ***removed the Geometry Chart for now. I'll post it back up once I confirm it's correct.
    Last edited by Velorangutan; 07-29-2016 at 01:13 PM.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by d365 View Post
    when are they going to release details, geo charts, etc? 120mm R?
    It's set up for 120mm rear. Looks like they are pairing it with a 130mm fork.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    500
    Pretty low BBs

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    385
    Looks awesome, have been waiting to hear about Devinci back in 29er territory.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,226
    Looks like a really great update to the Atlas, IMO. Really dig that they went with 120mm in back, and pretty much addressed all my negatives about the Atlas. Though that BBH....

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    351
    Might be worth looking at the Marshall 27.5+ which is advertised and being 29er compatible. I don't have one in yet to check how it changes things to convert it, but the Devinci geo chart shows the Marshall as having a higher BB.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    211
    I wonder if the reach for the large is correct. There's a huge jump from the medium, but then it's the same as the xl.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,348
    Should be 468 based on top tube difference.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    211
    I was going to guess 460/464 based on 20 mm increments between sizes.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,348
    You may be right. The progression isn't totally linear between the top tube increase and the reach increase.
    If you look at the top tube measurement, when it goes up by 20mm(581 to 601) from S to M the reach goes up the same amount.424 to 444
    M to L the top tube goes up by 24mm.(601 to 625). The reach would go up 24mm also.(444 to 468)
    L to XL the top tube goes up by 23mm.(625 to 648) The reach goes up only 16mm (468 to 484) following my linear reasoning it should have been 491.

    So until they fix the number a guess would be 21mm M to L at 465. And 19mm L to XL to 484 that way.
    This looks to be because the ht is the same S to M but goes up 10mm between M and L and another 10mm L to XL.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    638
    Devinci seems to have a trend of releasing erroneous geometry charts, which they later correct. I noticed this most recently when they released the Hendrix last year. I sure hope the BB height is an error; if not, I don't know WTF they were thinking when they designed this frame. I've never seen a 52mm BB drop on a 130/120mm FS frame. 36mm drop is the upper limit of usability on a FS trail bike for where I ride.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    351
    The 2017 bikes have been updated on the website:

    DEVINCI

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    211
    I consider my 2013 Atlas carbon frame to be pretty stout (the front triangle at least- I sometimes detect some flex in the aluminum rear end). I'm perplexed at why the Django carbon frame weighs almost a pound more?

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by TedS123 View Post
    I consider my 2013 Atlas carbon frame to be pretty stout (the front triangle at least- I sometimes detect some flex in the aluminum rear end). I'm perplexed at why the Django carbon frame weighs almost a pound more?

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    Probably because the Atlas was aimed more at aggressive XC/racing and the Django seems to be orientated at trail?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    211
    That makes sense, but the Atlas, at 6 pounds, already seemed more burly and capable than most xc frames (many of which are closer to 5 pounds). The new Intense Primer frame has similar travel and intent, and supposedly is under 6 pounds for the top-level carbon frame only. So I was a bit disappointed to see the Django frame at 6.75 pounds. To me and my riding the added weight has no benefit.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,226
    Squeezing every last ounce out of a carbon layout has to be pretty time consuming, more investment, more of a warranty risk. Maybe they thought sales didn't justify the extra costs, or price point.

    I once had the marketed - lightest Al frame you could buy for a fs xc race bike.... I, and many others, eventually found the weak spot.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by TedS123 View Post
    That makes sense, but the Atlas, at 6 pounds, already seemed more burly and capable than most xc frames (many of which are closer to 5 pounds). The new Intense Primer frame has similar travel and intent, and supposedly is under 6 pounds for the top-level carbon frame only. So I was a bit disappointed to see the Django frame at 6.75 pounds. To me and my riding the added weight has no benefit.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    I'll get one on the scale when I get them in.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    25
    I ordered a 7.5x2" stroke shock and a 2mm offset bushing for mine. Should bump the travel to 135mm or more. Stay tuned....

Similar Threads

  1. Devinci django?
    By spoker247 in forum Devinci
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-10-2016, 01:19 PM
  2. Devinci Wooky SL
    By WookySL in forum Devinci
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-15-2014, 08:32 AM
  3. You know you're a Devinci fan when...
    By pulpwoody in forum Devinci
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2014, 08:44 AM
  4. Which Devinci ??
    By Licketysplit in forum Arizona
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-06-2012, 08:34 AM
  5. My god I want a Devinci Remix
    By stefanb in forum Devinci
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 06:22 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.