nouseforaname profile

The physics of how bikes work are pretty complex, even without introducing full suspension, rider movement, trail terrain changes etc etc into the mix. Who can really say what is the end point - without making it yourself and trying it.

Even Mr "bleeding edge" PVD accepts that the bikes he makes that are the best; are only the best for the terrain he rides. And he is literally putting his money where his mouth is and making the solutions to problems he encounters. And able to fabricate and engineer from the ground up.

Bikes shouldn't be a one bike rides all trails design. But that's what we get. And that's why we get 1/2 degree changes every year or two (once the moulds are paid off).

Quote = IanR "We haven’t felt that STA would change relative to sizes… at least not so far. I certainly would like to hear any theories on it." 

The only reason to do that would be to deal with an Xl frame having the same size Rear Centre as a Small. The Xl frames rider weight would be much closer to the rear axle compared to the Small changing the weight balance/handling of the bike. In theory. In Clarkes comments about the frame design he said he preferred the longer stays.

My guess is that the 'geometry wars' will become less about front centre (reach) in the future and more about rear centre. More front centre has been generally accepted. Longer rear centre will be about the type of terrain you're riding in. Big chunky descending focussed terrain = longer rear centres on bikes. Flowy mellower trails = shorter (standard) rear centres. It's all about where you ride. It's kind of crazy that bikes are designed by riders riding trails in Marin or California and then they're expected to perform as just well as bikes designed for a very different set of trails in Western BC.

I don't see why this isn't a thing. I mean they're welding them one at a time. And if you really want the long back end - well Brad just pulls those tubes instead of the M/L tubes.

Sure it might mean that you're waiting a couple of months, not just picking your colour and having it in days (or however long that process takes).

That's the only thing i don't just LOVE about this bike - i wish the M/L stays were longer - I've hesitated pulling the trigger on a Rootdown for a long time for that reason.

I tried fitting an SKS anycage mount to my Longest and even with a 500ml bottle and a side load cage it was a no go. Cable tying the bottle cage to the DT is the only option as far as I can see. Don't see how there'd be room on a Longer. 

With the dropped TT on the new G1 i think it would be even worse! Though I read a comment in the MTBR thread>> https://forums.mtbr.com/nicolai/nicolai-mojo-geometron-build-riding-development-thread-1016388-10.html << Post 921 that made me feel like a bottle option is coming. Which would be nice for when I win the Lotto and can afford to replace my G16 with a G1.

I think they're trying to reposition the Marzocchi brand as the everyman brand. An affordable upgrade/value statement.

A bit less complex than the top flight Fox products, and a a bit heavier as a result. It's about all they could have done really - it wouldn't make sense to have both brands competing for the same customer with the same tech in each one.

Now you've got a Fork like the Z1 - a stiffer chassis than the 36 for a weight penalty, and a coil shock that doesn't have the bells and whistles of the Fox stuff but will perform acceptably for 95% of consumers. The other 5%? Well there's a product for that.

#slowdayatwork

It's just a Fox shock rebranded Marzocchi, so yeah.

No 26" CSUs? Boo.

Hey Andrew - what CSU offsets are available for these forks? I just see the 51mm offset available for 29rs on the Suntour website.

Bespoke - "anything commissioned to a particular specification" I.e the user of this frame. Literally that definition is in the [....] of your quote. It's a perfectly acceptable use of the word. Its not like YT called that bottle bespoke or whatever, *I* used that word. And that's exactly what i want. I want bike manufacturers to start thinking outside the box - triathletes get it, why can't we? 

Just because the standard size for a water bottle and cage was laid down in the the 1920s or whenever, I don't need my super whizz bang jestsons inspired modern mountain bike designs to be forever enslaved to the positioning of those two little bolts and holes, and the idea that water only comes in 500ml or 750ml versions.

I don't want a Jeffsy, but I do want more manufacturers to think about bespoke water carrying solutions on bike.

Posted by: tungsten

Hazard a guess why Ragley cite 74deg "effective" and 72deg "actual" seat tube angles for this frame?

I asked whether the 74deg cited was sagged or unsagged and they said all angles cited were un-sagged.

Which is all good in this case, but.......that s/t looks mitered center-line w/bb shell and forms a straight line right to the saddle.

I thought "effective" was only cited for s/t's with a bend or mounted from d/t a la Knolly?

Because 72deg is shit and they're trying anything to make it seem more modern.

Yes he would. Theyd go great on my restoration 94 xpresso.

Right click and copy image address. Paste that into the image box. Love the frame colour!

Posted by: Kenny

Posted by: nouseforaname

Posted by: xy9ine

damn, that's aggressive. so 79* ish sagged STA? curious how it corners with such a large front center length bias.

What's up with rear centre length not growing with front centre? I was excited by this for a long time from various insta posts. Now I see that the rear centre is 415.

#armchairengineer

It does. The three sizes go 415, 425, 435. 

As far as the short head tube and stack, it does have a 180mm 29er fork... Not really sure how much more stack you need... ?

I meant - given that the Reach on the smallest 'hawk is longer than a Large Rootdown previously was, but with the same short rear end that all their bikes have used (415mm). I didn't say anything about the Stack i don't think?

I see that the rear centre grows with size, but the shortest is still as short as it ever was. 

As a solid M/L I'd was hoping for a longer rear centre, as I've felt that their rear centres (along with almost everyone in the rest of the industry too) were too short - is it really just because otherwise bikes are awkward to fit on bike racks < my bike industry conspiracy theory. And that has stopped me pulling the trigger in the past on a Rootdown. Stupid maybe, but if i'm going to drop the coin on something, I have a hard time doing it if it's not what I really really want. I *can* move up to a L 'hawk as their ST is now shorter than it was in the past. 

P.S the actual increase in saddle to bar is only 10mm Large Rootdown to Large Doctahawk. And that's before you take into account that the slacker HA decreases that distance as well. Steep SA eats up a lot of the HTT distance, and while the reach changes differently on a hardtail to a fs bike at sag point, this isn't a crazy leap forward for Chromag. Probably recognizing that rear centre doesn't need to be super short on all sizes is the biggest step IMO < Which is worth what you pay for it.

If there ends up being a Taiwanese version and I'm still dumb enough to think I can ride hardtails I'd buy one.

Posted by: rnayel

Posted by: nouseforaname

Two sets of wheels and an angleset and you'll be set. Leave the angleset in all the time and swap the wheels as needed.

Tires are the biggest weight suck on my 29r. 1200g front, 990g rear. If i built a set of reasonable carbon wheels and put trail spec tires on I could drop over 500g of (rotating) weight.

I lost over a kilo by switching to XTR Trail Wheels and Specialized 2.3 tires on the Spider 29c, previous wheels were custom build (to be bombproof) Hope Pro4 heavy gauge spokes to Arc30 rims with Minion TW 2.5f/2.4r tires, shaved another half kilo or so by going to XTR 11 from Eagle GX - XTR9000 can be had for a massive discount over MSRP now and it's sooooooo smooth.

Number one way to make your suspension feel better, your bike feel more nimble and accelerate better. All things that track well towards making your bike feel more XC like.

Posted by: xy9ine

damn, that's aggressive. so 79* ish sagged STA? curious how it corners with such a large front center length bias.

What's up with rear centre length not growing with front centre? I was excited by this for a long time from various insta posts. Now I see that the rear centre is 415.

#armchairengineer

Two sets of wheels and an angleset and you'll be set. Leave the angleset in all the time and swap the wheels as needed.

Tires are the biggest weight suck on my 29r. 1200g front, 990g rear. If i built a set of reasonable carbon wheels and put trail spec tires on I could drop over 500g of (rotating) weight.

Wow, lots of cool stuff there! Glad Pole figured it out and got you sorted.

Interested how you get on with the fork and shock!

Posted by: Stuminator

"Everytime I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race". - H. G. Wells.

"Get a bicycle, you will not regret it - if you live" Mark Twain.

This looks sweet, and there is so much to love: the NUTS system, one front triangle for multiple set up options, adjustable reach, made in NA, progressive geo.