07 XCL Photos!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: 07 XCL Photos!

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    174

    07 XCL Photos!

    Here is some photos of the new XCL that landed at our shop today. It looks really high quality! Can't wait to get it built up! Please let me know if anyone wants any better/other shots or measurements...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    174

    Some more...

    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    I might as well be the first one to ask this. How much does the new girl weigh?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    174

    weight...

    sorry i dont have a scale here, but this is still the straight tube version. my guess is about 7 lbs for this one. Ill try and weigh it before I build it up. Its snowing anyway!

  5. #5
    thats right living legend
    Reputation: blackagness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,360
    Quote Originally Posted by uinta
    sorry i dont have a scale here, but this is still the straight tube version. my guess is about 7 lbs for this one. Ill try and weigh it before I build it up. Its snowing anyway!
    What do you mean "strait tub version"?

    I like strait tubes.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    I thought it might have been the butted version. How is the stand over clearance on the xcl? Also, would you recommend a medium for a 5'10" rider. I recall a comment on the xcl vs motolite thread (I think) where it was mentioned that the xcl fits quite small. Thanks.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    174
    straight gauge tubing...not the butted version. Butted version will be out beginning of next month.

    Standover is hard to say without it being built up yet. They have certainly improved it (made more clearance) over the previous model. Yes, at 5 10 you would likely be in the medium category.

    This thing reminds me of a burly motolite...a motolite that you could huck if you wanted. There is no doubt to the strength and stiffness this frame has, if you have never seen a Chumba in person they are definately impressive...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    Cool. Thanks for the info. I own an Evo right now and can attest to the quality of a Chumba frame. The xcl is more of a match for my riding style and it looks like it withstand some abuse.

  9. #9
    thats right living legend
    Reputation: blackagness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,360
    Quote Originally Posted by uinta

    This thing reminds me of a burly motolite...a motolite that you could huck if you wanted. There is no doubt to the strength and stiffness this frame has, if you have never seen a Chumba in person they are definately impressive...

    I agree about the apperant "just plain trucker tough" appearance of the XCL.


    But you should never sell the ML short when it comes to "being able too huck", depending on your defanition of "huck" that is.

  10. #10
    CAO
    CAO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    497
    Why the dependence on an E-type front derailleur? Is there a reason for doing this and eliminating other options? I think I would rather be able to choose the front derailleur. Why not set it up with iscg 05 mounts and have the option to run a chain guide or guide plus dual ring configuration.
    Tomac 98Special in Classifieds

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    17
    The e-type is used because of the large outer diameter of the seat tube-->think massive. One of the nice things about using the e-type versus the traditional clamped derailleur is that in the event of a chain drop, it will drop onto the granny gear and not the bottom bracket shell.

  12. #12
    CAO
    CAO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    497
    Yeah I forgot to check the spec's again, these Chumba's have a cannon for a seat tube. I only ask because I like to run not traditional gears, 24/36 24/38 and 26/38.
    Tomac 98Special in Classifieds

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dubjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    786
    Ronny - I think the medium XCL would fit you well. I'm the same height as you and the mediums I rode at last year's Interbike Dirt Demo fit me perfectly with a 90/100mm stem.

    BTW - love the new head badge. Gives it a nice classy look.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    Quote Originally Posted by blackagness
    I agree about the apperant "just plain trucker tough" appearance of the XCL.


    But you should never sell the ML short when it comes to "being able too huck", depending on your defanition of "huck" that is.
    Yeah, the motolite is a very versatile bike as well. I would probably be more than happy on a dozen or so of the trail bikes offered by various companies right now. Everyone is stepping up the quality these days.

    The xcl reminds me of my old Heckler in the sense that it could be built up in the sub 30lb or 35lbs+ for the light freeride days. At least it looks that way in appearance.

  15. #15
    ..of the masses..
    Reputation: hagar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    94
    i wonder why they chose to use such a long brace. using a shorter, steeper brace would keep the brace away from, well, private parts, and also drop the top tube. the way it is now, judging by pictures only, the tt may be dropped but it seems if i stand over the bike, my boys are gonna be hanging just above where the brace welds to the top tube. eh, thats like effectively increasing standover...know what i mean? the bike is looking spanking though! i like that it has just enough room even with the piggyback shock to wiggle in a water bottle, very important for fatsos like me who need the extra water!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dubjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by hagar
    i wonder why they chose to use such a long brace. using a shorter, steeper brace would keep the brace away from, well, private parts, and also drop the top tube. the way it is now, judging by pictures only, the tt may be dropped but it seems if i stand over the bike, my boys are gonna be hanging just above where the brace welds to the top tube. eh, thats like effectively increasing standover...know what i mean? the bike is looking spanking though! i like that it has just enough room even with the piggyback shock to wiggle in a water bottle, very important for fatsos like me who need the extra water!
    I have a feeling that's a large frame, so taller people might not have issues with the standover. The smalls and mediums may have shorter seat braces - at least that's what it seems like in some of the other pics.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...23&postcount=1
    Last edited by dubjay; 04-19-2007 at 10:53 PM.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by dubjay
    I have a feeling that's a large frame, so taller people might not have issues with the standover. The smalls and mediums may have shorter seat braces - at least that's what it seems like in some of the other pics.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...23&postcount=1
    Dubjay is correct...that is a large frame, and the top strut isn't so long that it would interfere with standover....
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  18. #18

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502
    The frame has such beautiful lines but the seat brace looks all wrong - way too heavy handed (compare to the brace Turner uses). Was hoping this brace was a "development" thing but looks like it is going into production. Realize everyone has an opinion. Guess I'm hoping others will feel the same and the brace will change and then I can run out and buy one without any hesitation.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    174

    built!

    Actual Geometry Specs (Frame is a large):

    With the Pike at 140mm, all the way out (520mm Axle to Crown)

    Head Tube Angle is 68 degrees.

    Standover at 140mm is 32 inches.

    Bottom Bracket Height is 13.75 inches.

    With the Pike at 110mm, or all the way down (495mm Axle to Crown)

    Head Tube and is 70 degrees.

    Standover is 31.5 inches

    Bottom Bracket Height is 13.25 inches.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134
    as Ronny said before in another thread, that looks deadly.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  21. #21

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502

    Seat brace Photoshop

    What you get when you a 5 Spot and an XCL have too much to drink.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134
    LOL....funny you mention that because the production bikes are going to have braces that look somewhat to what you just posted...
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  23. #23

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502
    They can't get here soon enough!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    174
    nice work jennasdad...looks like your proto design may have created the change you were looking for.

  25. #25

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    208
    That photoshoped bike looks a lot like the bike I was riding last sat. And it ruled .

  26. #26

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502
    So, when are the new XCLs due?

  27. #27
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumbaJason
    That photoshoped bike looks a lot like the bike I was riding last sat. And it ruled .
    CJ,

    Sounds like it rides greeat, but how different are these new XCLs from the old ones?

    From what I understand from the threads so far is the new models will have butted tubes and be about a pound lighter, asym chainstays, a bump in travel from 4.5" to 5Ē, higher seat tube, better opening in chainstays so you donít have to deflate big tires to fit them in, some non-issue cosmetic changes, and a lower price.

    But do they really ride so different? The old models had good reviews. How do these differ in the ride?

    Thank you.

  28. #28

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    208
    The same great ride less filling. What you heard is correct the frame will be lighter. The opening for the tire will be larger. Now you can stuff a fatty in there and not have to deflate the her.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumbaJason
    The same great ride less filling. What you heard is correct the frame will be lighter. The opening for the tire will be larger. Now you can stuff a fatty in there and not have to deflate the her.

    What is the leverage ratio for the rear shock? Improving the rear tire clearance and reducing the weight will make this bike very popular once it hits the masses.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by uinta
    Actual Geometry Specs (Frame is a large):

    With the Pike at 140mm, all the way out (520mm Axle to Crown)

    Head Tube Angle is 68 degrees.

    Standover at 140mm is 32 inches.

    Bottom Bracket Height is 13.75 inches.

    With the Pike at 110mm, or all the way down (495mm Axle to Crown)

    Head Tube and is 70 degrees.

    Standover is 31.5 inches

    Bottom Bracket Height is 13.25 inches.

    Any seat angle numbers with the Pike at those measurements ?
    Whats the effective top tube on the large ? I tend to err on the side of large if I'm
    between sizes. I'm about 5'11".
    Also, can you adjust the travel on the Pike on the fly ? Thanks.

  31. #31
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumbaJason
    The same great ride less filling. ....
    Great answer CJ!

    So then the geometry remains the same?

    Looking forward to the final product.

    Another question though, after reading the literature on the EVO regarding the center of mass of the suspension, and keeping the pivots off the seatpost (very good idea), I was wondering why the Titus ML style top tube mount rather than an EVO like down tube mount on the XCL? The weighted center may remain the same in both, but with a shift in balance to lower on the bike with a down tube mount. I used to like my old BMW bikes with the opposing twin cylinders for that reason. Very low center of gravity.

    Also, the thrust or force from the suspension would be up and forward in the current configurtration (de-weighting front wheel), rather than a more straight forward force in the lower, down tube position.

    Cheers

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by jSatch
    Great answer CJ!

    So then the geometry remains the same?

    Looking forward to the final product.

    Another question though, after reading the literature on the EVO regarding the center of mass of the suspension, and keeping the pivots off the seatpost (very good idea), I was wondering why the Titus ML style top tube mount rather than an EVO like down tube mount on the XCL? The weighted center may remain the same in both, but with a shift in balance to lower on the bike with a down tube mount. I used to like my old BMW bikes with the opposing twin cylinders for that reason. Very low center of gravity.

    Also, the thrust or force from the suspension would be up and forward in the current configurtration (de-weighting front wheel), rather than a more straight forward force in the lower, down tube position.

    Cheers
    Hey jSatch,

    Great question. Most people don't know this, but CHUMBA was one of the first companies to produce Macstrut style bikes early in the 90s. The XCL that was brought to market today went through multiple revisions, geometric and suspension wise for many years, leading to the ride quality felt today.

    We know that each suspension design has its pros and cons, and while the FCC EVO style design has unique advantages that you mention -- i.e. force direction -- the XCL offers a design that can be executed with many of the same concepts other CHUMBA bikes have, such as braces on linkage pieces, inverted bottom bracket shells, and open gussets.

    All of these details combined is what produces the stiff handling ride that CHUMBAs are known for, and while the EVO and XCL may look somewhat different at first glance, they do share a lot as well. Hope this helps.

    -A.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  33. #33
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    Hey jSatch,

    Great question. Most people don't know this, but CHUMBA was one of the first companies to produce Macstrut style bikes early in the 90s. The XCL that was brought to market today went through multiple revisions, geometric and suspension wise for many years, leading to the ride quality felt today.

    We know that each suspension design has its pros and cons, and while the FCC EVO style design has unique advantages that you mention -- i.e. force direction -- the XCL offers a design that can be executed with many of the same concepts other CHUMBA bikes have, such as braces on linkage pieces, inverted bottom bracket shells, and open gussets.

    All of these details combined is what produces the stiff handling ride that CHUMBAs are known for, and while the EVO and XCL may look somewhat different at first glance, they do share a lot as well. Hope this helps.

    -A.
    Thanks Alan.

    I hadn't realized Chumba was one of the first companies to utilize the Mac strut design. I did not mean to imply one bike is a copy of the other, I only mentioned the Titus ML as the comparisons between it and the XCL are physically apparent. BTW- there is a very nice write up on a direct riding comparison on the Titus forum. I don't know if it is also here on the Chumba forum or not. Worth the look.

  34. #34
    Uit Nederland
    Reputation: fujirider1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    342
    Ey',
    Thinking about building one of these up, and have some questions.
    What is the frame weight for the 07' model? Preferably a large but any weight number will do just tell me for what size. How do they climb, I'm a natural climber and it's one of my favorite parts of the sport, how do these fair when it comes to climbing? I ride hardtail now, and that is why I need to know, I want to find a fully that can climb, because descending on my hardtail is no longer fun. Pedal-bob? That's another big one, how much does the pedal bob?

    Thanks for all of your input

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    148
    Bob is not here right now, though I will try to help you..
    I have no idea about the weight. I tried snoopng around the mighty interweb for weights on 06 frames as well, but no luck. I'm guessing the 06 medium is around 7 lbs / 3,2 kg. Rumour is that 07's will have lost a pound or so, give or take.
    This is my first full suspension, so I have very little to compare to, but I'm climbing lines now that I could never clean on my hardtail (which was not ascend optimized, mind you). The rear seems very planted, provided you set the shock up right, and climbing in general feels very grippy.
    As for Bob, I haven't gotten to know him very well. He's not around too much. Sure, if you get up and stomp, he appears, but only just slightly. He's no one you should worry about...

  36. #36

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    208
    Bone collecter is right on. The 07 will be around 1 lb lighter and still be just as stiff. Most of the people coming from hard tail bikes really love the XCL . You can set it up anyway you like . The bike will not bob much if you have the air set up correctly. You can fine tune it with pro peddle. This is a bike you just have to ride it feel great. Contact your local shop . I can set up a test ride for you . Have them Ask for Jason when calling Chumba .
    I will do the rest .
    This goes for any of you out there that want to test ride a Chumba .
    I can get your local shop on our dealers list this will give you the chance to try before you buy. The bikes sell themselves in one ride. You can also contact me with any dealers you think should carry Chumba bikes. There are new bike shops opening all the time and some are not listed on the dealers list .
    I hope I can get everyone a chance to test ride a Chumba .

    Sorry if I have been a little slow on the info I have been busy setting up a tour.
    I will be in Utah, Colorado and all the surrounding areas from the 7th to the 18th.
    if you live out in that area please call the local bike shops and have them schedule a bike demo. I might even go on a ride with you myself if I have the energy.



    [email protected]

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    LOL....funny you mention that because the production bikes are going to have braces that look somewhat to what you just posted...
    We measured the standover on the medium and the large, and the large is only about one inch more than the medium, so we're gonna keep that tube the same for now.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    174

    Brace

    Brace looks tame compared to Large Motolite...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by CAO
    Why the dependence on an E-type front derailleur? Is there a reason for doing this and eliminating other options? I think I would rather be able to choose the front derailleur. Why not set it up with iscg 05 mounts and have the option to run a chain guide or guide plus dual ring configuration.

    According to the website the seatpost diameter is 31.6mm?? Why would be this require an e-type derailuer? This would seriously dissapoint me... as I have an e-type now, and I'm shopping for a new frame, and I hate it. Yes, it's true that when you have chain drop it doesn't fall onto the BB, but when you do have chaindrop it gets stuck between the granny and the e-type mounting bracket... forcing you (at least this is what happens with my bike) manhandle the chain to force it out because it's wedged between the granny and the e-type mounting bracket.

    So, why is an e-type necessary? Thanks!

    matt

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dubjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by matteus
    According to the website the seatpost diameter is 31.6mm?? Why would be this require an e-type derailuer? This would seriously dissapoint me... as I have an e-type now, and I'm shopping for a new frame, and I hate it. Yes, it's true that when you have chain drop it doesn't fall onto the BB, but when you do have chaindrop it gets stuck between the granny and the e-type mounting bracket... forcing you (at least this is what happens with my bike) manhandle the chain to force it out because it's wedged between the granny and the e-type mounting bracket.

    So, why is an e-type necessary? Thanks!

    matt
    While the seat post diameter is 31.6, the seat tube is somewhere in the 38.1mm range I believe.

    I have a feeling the chain getting wedged between your bracket and granny might be a problem unique to your bike.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by dubjay
    While the seat post diameter is 31.6, the seat tube is somewhere in the 38.1mm range I believe.

    I have a feeling the chain getting wedged between your bracket and granny might be a problem unique to your bike.

    That's good to know! hahaha... would the e-type limit the derailuer choice in any way? e.g. can I get an x.9 in e-type? And is this a compromise with quality? What about BB choices? Sorry about all the questions...Thanks!

    Matt

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    148
    You'll probably have to go with outboard bearing type BB like Shimano or Race Face X-type. This, I recon, because you'll need a pretty wide stance for the cranks to clear the chainstay and the main pivot. Someone wiser on this issue, feel free to comment.. This also brings up the chainline question. Anyone?
    I've been very happy with my XT e-type front derailleur, flawless performance and very easy to set up. SRAM does not have an e-type derailleur.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,221
    looks like a titus motolite.

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.