that makes sense. Im sure they're invincible from what my kiwi friends said. So when are you gonna ramp up production so us wankers can get our hands on one? Where can we find the geo specs, the site doesn't seem to have them (unless im a noob of the interweb :'( )
Cast alluminium and scary thin flexy carbon layed up by god knows who. I'm only running it real low but on my xc Goose it has some flex to her,and with everyone you come accross having to push down on the seat to make the suspension move I don't hold my hopes for it.
When I get over my tendancy to snarl like a pitbull whenever I see someone in a suit. (don't ask)
Geo looks good. Very standard DH race. I don't get all the "don't know about the geo" comments.
If you're serious about bringing the joy of Lahar to the world, you're gonna have to get over that.
Nah, it's longer/slacker than most bikes, and you have to keep in mind that it gets even longer (chainstays/wheelbase) under sag cos of the axle path. Most high pivot bikes start off with shortish stays (17" or less) to compensate for that, but the Lahar starts long and gets really long. The really long chainstays are about the only thing I didn't like about the bike (well other than the marketing), they make it pretty hard to square off tight corners.
Well it's true that it is longer and slacker than a lot of off the shelf frames, but not all. Also a lot of racers use custom geo frames that are longer and slacker than stock. Barel's 60 degree head angle=slack.
Yep, you're right there too - especially in NZ, most of our VC's are cowboys, and many of our 'angel investors' would never get anywhere near a halo. (by the way, like the reference to World Class.... It's a bit of a thing where I work...)
marketing efforts you've got a superb ultra-niche brand, backed by a novel and high performing design. There's no need to reduce costs (esp if you're targetting the US and EU markets)... but production volumes (and associated customer services issues) will kill Lahar off/throttle to negligibilty unless you can sort them out.
That is, without a doubt the most bad ass post in any forum I have ever read.
haha, haven't seen too many walking tracks with berms and doubles on em... or braking bumps
oster_oops: . FYI, from what I remember, only one track was closed and that was the Nats track. Yeah we rode goat-track stuff too, but that's not at all what I'm basing my opinion on - please don't bother trying to rubbish what I say just because I have a (subjective) criticism of your bike. Fair enough that you think the chainstays need to be whatever length... I disagree. For sure, it's great when you're going fast (and I had no problems at all with the head angle at any speed, for the record), but in the tight stuff it does make the bike slower-handling. It's a simple high/low speed tradeoff like everyone has to make - if the bike is particularly long and slack, it's going to be very stable, because stability IS simply a lowered response to input. There is no way around this. Conversely, make something super responsive (like an XC bike, which needs it for climbing efficiency at low speed) and it obviously becomes very unstable at speed. Trying to find a compromise is what it's all about, and obviously your opinion of where that balance point is differs from mine. In fact I'd even say that I could live with the wheelbase if the chainstays were shorter (ie BB just moved rearwards relative to the rest of the bike) but again, that's just me.
totally understand You LaharDesign
