XCL HT angle changed?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1
    it's....
    Reputation: Strafer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,088

    XCL HT angle changed?

    I thought the head tube angle was 69 for XCL, but Chumba site lists it at 68.
    Did the angle change since my 2007 frame, or was 2007 angle spec'ed with Fox 130mm?
    I'm running Pike dual air 140mm with my 2007 frame, what is the correct HT angle with this setup?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    133
    I'm interested in this as well. If the head angle did change, what year did it happen?

    I've demoed an XCL but I'm not sure what year it was. It didn't have a polished rear end. It had a Fox 36 on it and I really liked the geometry. But I'm wondering if the head angle for that bike was actually 69 degrees (measured with a Fox 32). That would put the head angle of the bike I rode at ~67.5? If I was to put a Fox 36 on this years frame it would then be ~66.5? I'm not sure I want to go that slack, I'm shooting more for 67.5-68. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    10
    Bump...same question I have.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bugrans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    28
    Bump.... Waiting since first posted

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    133
    I don't have a definite answer but I emailed Alan previously and he told me most of the XCLs in the past 2 years have 68 degree HAs. Take what you will from that.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GhisalloWheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    528
    I am fairly certain that they changed the HT angle a couple of years ago. I don't remember the year though. 2007 sounds about right.
    Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia. ~H.G. Wells

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    10
    I had an image laying around of the geometry of the older XCL, 2007 I think? It does say it had a 69 head angle using a 140mm fork. This was when the XCL was only offered in 3 sizes. I would prefer Chumba confirm this though.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    hey alan, instead of posting pictures of evos with a hammerscmidt why don't you help out existing chumba owners. you probably have 200 posts since this was 1st asked.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    Sorry, must type a few more dozen disguised Spam posts before responding to your ridiculous badgering.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    40
    I will ask Si at progressive bikes if he knows

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Merrimack Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    694
    The last thing the XCL needs is a slacker head angle, imo. I have one of the Taiwan prototype frames with a 140mm Pike, and I usually have it cranked down to 130mm. I live in New England which is known for it's tight twisty singletrack, but at 140mm, the front end is a bit floppy on the climbs.

    I also don't understand dropping the B.B. height with a new link. Why the hell would anyone want lower than 13.5 inches? Unless they ride where there are no rocks.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wankel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrimack Dave
    The last thing the XCL needs is a slacker head angle, imo. I have one of the Taiwan prototype frames with a 140mm Pike, and I usually have it cranked down to 130mm. I live in New England which is known for it's tight twisty singletrack, but at 140mm, the front end is a bit floppy on the climbs.

    I also don't understand dropping the B.B. height with a new link. Why the hell would anyone want lower than 13.5 inches? Unless they ride where there are no rocks.
    Because slack head angles and lower BBs are trendy right now. I agree with you, as my rides include rocks, and lots of them. Any lower and I'm smacking my pedals all the time. I also ride down some pretty steep rock faces and I'm sure a slacker HA would be beneficial, but I also like to ride UP some pretty steep hills so the current HA works for me.

  13. #13
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected]
    I think Alan is away, will see if i can get hold of him, as i dont know the answer!
    I think Alan has always been away, in his own little world..
    beaver hunt

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Strafer
    I thought the head tube angle was 69 for XCL, but Chumba site lists it at 68.
    Did the angle change since my 2007 frame, or was 2007 angle spec'ed with Fox 130mm?
    I'm running Pike dual air 140mm with my 2007 frame, what is the correct HT angle with this setup?
    My observation is that the change came about for the '09 model year, which coincided with the introduction of the VF2. The VF2 has the exact same geometry of the '08 XCL (including 69 degree HT angle). The VF2 could kind of play a more XC role, so the XCL was pushed a little more to the AM end of Trail bike end with its new 68 degree HT angle.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Perpetrator
    My observation is that the change came about for the '09 model year, which coincided with the introduction of the VF2. The VF2 has the exact same geometry of the '08 XCL (including 69 degree HT angle). The VF2 could kind of play a more XC role, so the XCL was pushed a little more to the AM end of Trail bike end with its new 68 degree HT angle.
    My understanding is the current VF2 is 68 degrees as well.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by skithebert
    My understanding is the current VF2 is 68 degrees as well.
    Hmm, just checked Chumba's web site. You are right. Must be a change for the 2010s?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Merrimack Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by skithebert
    My understanding is the current VF2 is 68 degrees as well.
    A 68 degree, flagship cross country bike? Ridiculous! No wonder why there was so much talk of using a CCDB on the VF2. It's not a cc bike after all.

    I've loved my XCL since I got it in August 07, despite unknowingly buying a prototype that had a couple of issues that should have prevented it from being sold in the first place. I just assumed I would buy another one when it wore out. Not so sure now. I already have a 67.5 degree bike, and it has 6" travel, front and rear.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Merrimack Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    694
    So the only actual quantifiable difference between an XCL and a VF2 is .9 lbs?
    Oh, and of course $400.

    Am I missing something here?

  19. #19
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrimack Dave
    So the only actual quantifiable difference between an XCL and a VF2 is .9 lbs?
    Oh, and of course $400.

    Am I missing something here?

    Bling Factor man! I don't know why Chumba even offers the XCL. The VF2 has almost identical angles, .5 difference in ST angle. The XCL is beefier build, but Alan states the VF2 can handle a 160 fork and coil shock, so why have the extra pork in the XCL frame if the VF2can do it all.

    I'd love to see Alan post some verified weights of the VF2 and XCL frames to compare. I'd be really skeptical of what Chumba claims on their website.
    beaver hunt

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    Bling Factor man! I don't know why Chumba even offers the XCL. The VF2 has almost identical angles, .5 difference in ST angle. The XCL is beefier build, but Alan states the VF2 can handle a 160 fork and coil shock, so why have the extra pork in the XCL frame if the VF2can do it all.

    I'd love to see Alan post some verified weights of the VF2 and XCL frames to compare. I'd be really skeptical of what Chumba claims on their website.
    why would alan post verified weights here, if they're not posting them on the chumba site? you realise he's the main man there? if the website is full of it, he would be too by default

  21. #21
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    why would alan post verified weights here, if they're not posting them on the chumba site? you realise he's the main man there? if the website is full of it, he would be too by default
    Alan posts plenty pictures of frames, builds, this and that. How about a picture of each frame in size medium on a digital scale with the weight showing. That would be a cool post, instead of showing nothing but new colors every few weeks.
    beaver hunt

  22. #22
    Mmmm Rocks Good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    645

    I like the heavier option-XCL

    I for one, like seeing the heavier option that the XCL offers because I come in the heavier option as a human being! Most bikes and components are built with an "average" weight user in mind. As a result bigger people like me (6'3" 230 Lbs) tend to push the envelope on frames and such that are designed and tested w/a 165 Lb average. My XCL is the 1st frame I have not broken in almost 2 years of hard riding in rocky terrain. Typically frames last me 6-10 months.
    Big, strong, rock crushing, IPA drinking, big hit bike rider!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by Strafer
    I thought the head tube angle was 69 for XCL, but Chumba site lists it at 68.
    Did the angle change since my 2007 frame, or was 2007 angle spec'ed with Fox 130mm?
    I'm running Pike dual air 140mm with my 2007 frame, what is the correct HT angle with this setup?
    The XCL currently uses a 68 degree headangle - we don't go by model years and we were producing in house for awhile that allowed us to offer various head angles on same production runs - but since have been standardized to 68 for a few years now.

    If your frame has the XCL logo imprinted on the top tube strut, it is most likely a 68 degree head angle, but otherwise you can e-mail me at [email protected] a picture of your frame for confirmation.


    -A.
    Last edited by CHUMBAevo; 10-30-2009 at 02:12 PM.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  24. #24
    Older than I feel
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by PaMtnBkr
    I for one, like seeing the heavier option that the XCL offers because I come in the heavier option as a human being!
    +1.
    Work is the curse of the biking classes.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mar-deeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    24
    Ditto!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    Alan posts plenty pictures of frames, builds, this and that. How about a picture of each frame in size medium on a digital scale with the weight showing. That would be a cool post, instead of showing nothing but new colors every few weeks.
    i honestly never see that happening. it would be nice and honest of a frame manufacturer to do so, but so many people are weight obsessed and most manufacturers are fudging their numbers so i doubt it will happen. myself personally i'd love to see a video of a bike with shimano yumeya components on it. maybe even on a white frame. now that'd be psick!!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Merrimack Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by groo
    I had an image laying around of the geometry of the older XCL, 2007 I think? It does say it had a 69 head angle using a 140mm fork. This was when the XCL was only offered in 3 sizes. I would prefer Chumba confirm this though.
    Did anyone ever get an answer to the HA question on the original 2007 XCL? I recently had my shock Pushed, and while it is fantastic, my old Pike seems kind of overwhelmed and outclassed by the rear. I would love to go a bit longer now that the rear end is stable on the climbs, but don't want a clown bike.

    If my 07 prototype is 68.5 or 69 degrees with a pike, I would think a Revalation would be perfect.
    Thanks

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    34
    Hey Dave:

    I have the same year XCL with a pushed RP23. I recently upgraded to a Fox Float 32 FIT 140 RLC and the bike is perfectly balanced. The FIT is technology is much better for small bump compliance and it eats up the big hits. My old fork was a 2007 FOX Talas RLC and I don't miss the adjustable travel at all. Also, the lost weight in the front end is noticable (~ .5lbs)....

    Mark


    Quote Originally Posted by Merrimack Dave
    Did anyone ever get an answer to the HA question on the original 2007 XCL? I recently had my shock Pushed, and while it is fantastic, my old Pike seems kind of overwhelmed and outclassed by the rear. I would love to go a bit longer now that the rear end is stable on the climbs, but don't want a clown bike.

    If my 07 prototype is 68.5 or 69 degrees with a pike, I would think a Revalation would be perfect.
    Thanks

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Merrimack Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by mad4mtnbike
    Hey Dave:

    I have the same year XCL with a pushed RP23. I recently upgraded to a Fox Float 32 FIT 140 RLC and the bike is perfectly balanced. The FIT is technology is much better for small bump compliance and it eats up the big hits. My old fork was a 2007 FOX Talas RLC and I don't miss the adjustable travel at all. Also, the lost weight in the front end is noticable (~ .5lbs)....

    Mark
    Thanks Mark, that is a very nice fork. I may be mistaken, but I think the axle to crown is actually around 10mm longer on the Pike that I now have, compared to your Float.

    The difference in the bike since it was Pushed, is incredible!

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.