Outcast 29er Frames $95.- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    327

    Outcast 29er Frames $95.


  2. #2
    Interlectchewal
    Reputation: tvrbob86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,161
    Quote Originally Posted by RetroS
    That'd look hot with some Thylacine stickers.

  3. #3
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Wow, 23" even! Please, seat tube angles and top tubes lengths, somewhere?

  4. #4
    In FTF We Trust
    Reputation: el-cid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,815
    Here's a link to the geometry table. Funny, the table doesn't list a 23" size but the 21" has a pretty good sized 25.1" tt.
    "I'll disintegrate over time if I expect my body to try to keep up with my mind" -BM

    Race, Rocks or Road...Just Ride

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    And a pretty good wheel base... The 21" is 45"+, has a tall seat tube, so pretty big already... They have a link to the geometry of the 26" bikes, not the 29er.. The 21" does have a 25" top tube. You can also see the shoddy Kenisis welds particularly at the bottom bracket tube. That said, I was about $80 sold on buying one just because that is a killer deal... But the wheels I have are disk only and... No disk tabs on it either...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    16
    I was looking at this and the frame doesn't appear to be heat-treated, which makes it extremely fragile. Does anyone have any long term experience with these? Here is a chart comparing aluminum strengths. Basic 6061 doesn't fair too well:


    ALUMINUM Alloy Tensile Proof Elongation
    Designation Strength (psi) Strength (psi) (%)

    6061-0 18000 8000 25
    6061-T6 45000 40000 12
    7005-T6 51000 42000 13
    7050-T6 83000 73000 11
    7075-T6 83000 73000 11

  7. #7
    29er Geek
    Reputation: tozovr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,529
    Quote Originally Posted by STInk
    I was looking at this and the frame doesn't appear to be heat-treated, which makes it extremely fragile. Does anyone have any long term experience with these? Here is a chart comparing aluminum strengths. Basic 6061 doesn't fair too well:


    ALUMINUM Alloy Tensile Proof Elongation
    Designation Strength (psi) Strength (psi) (%)

    6061-0 18000 8000 25
    6061-T6 45000 40000 12
    7005-T6 51000 42000 13
    7050-T6 83000 73000 11
    7075-T6 83000 73000 11

    Why doesn't it appear to be heat treated?
    unityhandbuilt

  8. #8
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Thanks. Looks like a very close copy of the On-One's and Redline Monocog. which, in fact, do work really well IMNSHO.

  9. #9

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    375
    awesome deal. i'm thinking about picking one up to just build into a cheapie ss

  10. #10
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254

    Rear clearance?

    I would be wary if I had to have fat rubber in back. The BB shell is listed at 68mm which might limit clearances inbetween the chainstays for anything over a 2.1" . I don't know this for a fact on the Motobecane, but most 68mm shells are not going to clear big rubber unless there is some major massaging of the chainstays, and these look pretty tame that way.

    Still, a great price for a beater bike, winter fixie, or a second rig.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  11. #11
    Ebo
    Ebo is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,730
    Here it is built up....cheaply too....http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-MOUNTAIN-BIK...QQcmdZViewItem

  12. #12
    Captain Underpants
    Reputation: Random Drivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,280
    Paging Davidcopperfield . . . buddy, you have no excuse.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    I would be wary if I had to have fat rubber in back. The BB shell is listed at 68mm which might limit clearances inbetween the chainstays for anything over a 2.1" . I don't know this for a fact on the Motobecane, but most 68mm shells are not going to clear big rubber unless there is some major massaging of the chainstays, and these look pretty tame that way.

    Still, a great price for a beater bike, winter fixie, or a second rig.
    The factory build has Nevegal 2.2s which have a very wide tread.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    16
    Regarding heat treating - on Motobecane's site I could only find the 6061 designation... nothing more. A heat treated frame would usually have a "temper" designation after the metal "series", ie 6061 T6. You can get a crash course in aluminum here: bmxbasics.org/new/metal1.html

    I'm afraid this frame has not been heat treated - which would help explain the price, but unfortunately that means it is about a third of the strength it could be, at best.

  15. #15
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    I would be wary if I had to have fat rubber in back. The BB shell is listed at 68mm which might limit clearances inbetween the chainstays for anything over a 2.1" . I don't know this for a fact on the Motobecane, but most 68mm shells are not going to clear big rubber unless there is some major massaging of the chainstays, and these look pretty tame that way.

    Still, a great price for a beater bike, winter fixie, or a second rig.
    Oh? The bikes I know to clear the Racing Ralph 2.4's bet, are all equipped with 68mm BB's.
    I would say BB/Chainstay interface style and execution are more deciding for this?
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  16. #16
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254

    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Oh? The bikes I know to clear the Racing Ralph 2.4's bet, are all equipped with 68mm BB's.
    I would say BB/Chainstay interface style and execution are more deciding for this?
    Yes, you are correct. When starting from such a narrow stance, (68mm) there has to be more chainstay manipulation, or very long chainstays, to clear big fat tires.

    I was just pointing out that one should be carefull due to the designated BB width, but if it in fact clears a Nevegal, than no worries, right?

    As for the 6061 aluminum: It does not indicate heat treatment, true, but aluminum that is welded and not treated afterwards is unrideable as far as I've ever read. I think the manufacturer is the only one that will be able to answer this question effectively, but my guess is that it's been treated, (chemically aged, heat treated)

    I have a SE Racing Stout that has a 6061 sticker on it, (no indication of heat treatment) of Chinese manufacture and it rides just fine. I would bet this frame would too, but then again, the lack of information on that might be troublesome, I can see that.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by STInk
    I could only find the 6061 designation
    So??? Specialized site doesn't mention heat treating. Trek doesn't either. Niner? Nope... Thompson posts 'only' use 7000 series aluminum. Don't think all of those aren't heat treated? HIGHLY unlikely... While they didn't mention temper that didn't say it was -F or -T0 either!

    FWIW, A -T6 (or other) designation means little anyway. It means it was heat treated and aged. Big deal! Its does NOT specify the exact mechanical properties that were achieved. You can heat treat a little or a lot depending on what mix of properties you're after. You can artificially age a little or a lot. The only thing that really matters is the yield, tensile, etc mechanical properties that are achieved (and even more importantly the fatigue resistance). Even more important is what you do to the frame after welding. If manufacturers throw out specific terms like 6061-T65 then its just a marketing gimmick (which apparently works).

  18. #18
    Is dang happy!
    Reputation: Mr. Doom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,349

    Ok, I am sold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmucker
    The factory build has Nevegal 2.2s which have a very wide tread.
    Shiggy measured the 2.2 Nev treadwidth at 2.39"
    An Exiwolf/Rampage or big apple should fit fine.

    Bikes direct did not know if a 2.5 will fit in there when I e-mailed them.
    The wheel is a extension of the foot

  19. #19

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by smdubovsky
    So??? Specialized site doesn't mention heat treating. Trek doesn't either. Niner? Nope... Thompson posts 'only' use 7000 series aluminum. Don't think all of those aren't heat treated? HIGHLY unlikely... While they didn't mention temper that didn't say it was -F or -T0 either!

    FWIW, A -T6 (or other) designation means little anyway. It means it was heat treated and aged. Big deal! Its does NOT specify the exact mechanical properties that were achieved. You can heat treat a little or a lot depending on what mix of properties you're after. You can artificially age a little or a lot. The only thing that really matters is the yield, tensile, etc mechanical properties that are achieved (and even more importantly the fatigue resistance). Even more important is what you do to the frame after welding. If manufacturers throw out specific terms like 6061-T65 then its just a marketing gimmick (which apparently works).
    Thomson posts aren't welded, there would be no need to heat treat them.

  20. #20
    29er Geek
    Reputation: tozovr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,529
    I honestly don't think they could sell an un-heat treated frame. When folks ask me what the Sinister's are made from, I tell them 6061 Aluminum...They all get heat treated.
    unityhandbuilt

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grawbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Fulton
    Thomson posts aren't welded, there would be no need to heat treat them.
    Wanted: broken Titec 2 bolt seatpost, any size

  22. #22
    N+1
    Reputation: MichiganClydesdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    703

    lots 'o room

    I've got a 19 inch here in my garage that I built up for a friend. 44mm Mutanoraptors on in this pic, but easily holds a Nano, and fairly easily held an EXI with the wheel slightly back in the drops. Overall, I was impressed with the frame - clean threads, evenly machined 'faced' surfaces of the headtube and BB shell. It built up nicely and quickly.

    Now, if in fact it ain't heat treated and that compromises the strength, I won't go for the 23 inch winter beater salt/slush bike that I was thinking about.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    The frame is built by Kinisis (Jamis, some Trek, Giant, and I believe even low end Specialized). I am doubtful they would sell/release a frame that was not structurally sound and/or heat treated if required..

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.