Official press release from the site that shows Canada's true colors, stinkbike:
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/santa-cruz-driver-8-2009.html
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/santa-cruz-driver-8-2009.html
Pfft... Front mechs are overrated. None of my bikes have had one for the last 10 years.Does it take a front derailer? No. Its not a do all bike.
The same people who are going to complain about a front derailleur probably still have the seat tilted back on their trail bike and would walk any challenging climb anyway.Does it take a front derailer? No. Its not a do all bike.
Come ride with me, my do all bike, and without a front derailer. You wouldnt have much fun.Pfft... Front mechs are overrated. None of my bikes have had one for the last 10 years.
Now you are talking.Hammerschmidt!
Its a pretty slick looking bike, Id rock it!
Its suspension isn't designed around a granny ringHammerschmidt!
Its a pretty slick looking bike, Id rock it!
Have a machined 36th ring to fit the hammerschmidt and remove the one in it! A gide can be moved backwards to allow for the chain to go in. Chris and I have been going over this for the Jedis for a couple of months and hes got a guy thatll machine a new ring to fit. Bump up to a 34th to get it close enough to react right.Its suspension isn't designed around a granny ring
Wouldn't that be a 36t small ring then?? IE the ring size of hamme**** is the small ring equiv??Have a machined 36th ring to fit the hammerschmidt and remove the one in it! A gide can be moved backwards to allow for the chain to go in. Chris and I have been going over this for the Jedis for a couple of months and hes got a guy thatll machine a new ring to fit. Bump up to a 34th to get it close enough to react right.
Theres 1 drive ring that the chain goes around the rest is internal. The ring the chain goes over is like 22 or 24 tooth. 36 is a middle ring! Have a bigger ring equivelant to a 34th and have the internal specss the same so it can replace the small ring.Wouldn't that be a 36t small ring then?? IE the ring size of hamme**** is the small ring equiv??
Yeah? I dunno man, if require gearing smaller than what's on my bike, then pushing is usually just as fast.Come ride with me, my do all bike, and without a front derailer. You wouldnt have much fun.
why not just get an 11-25 road cassete instead of fycking with the hammerssh!t technology????
Pushing on steep fire roads for 5-10 miles is not fun. Id rather be in a granny or 2 or 3.Yeah? I dunno man, if require gearing smaller than what's on my bike, then pushing is usually just as fast.
Front deraileurs are overrated.
Uh, it doesn't work that way. There is no reduction gear. If you put a physically 34t ring on that thing you'll have a 34t and a 52t equivalent.Theres 1 drive ring that the chain goes around the rest is internal. The ring the chain goes over is like 22 or 24 tooth. 36 is a middle ring! Have a bigger ring equivelant to a 34th and have the internal specss the same so it can replace the small ring.
Has anyone peeked at the geometry numbers?
67*HA, 14.5 BBH, 17.4 CS.
Sounds a little funky to me. I completely understand not running a super slack HA and retarded low BB (though I wish they would), but numbers like that equate into a bike that is good pretty much nowhere. Twitchy at speed and top heavy when cornering hard means high speed won't be as fun as it could be. Longer CS means riding tight shore style trails won't be too fun, either.
It looks like a real cool setup, but numbers like a Socom would be much more justifiable than those.
Have to agree in many ways...I'm a huge SC homer, but I was just thinking about a Mongoose Pinn'r and how it compares...The Pinn'r has a 66* and 13.9" BB and 190 mm of rear travel. I would even guess that the frame is a little lighter, but not sure. Also not sure about what fork the Pinn'r is measured with, but it's something like a Totem or 66. That said, I suspect SC won't have any trouble selling everyone they make.Has anyone peeked at the geometry numbers?
67*HA, 14.5 BBH, 17.4 CS.
Sounds a little funky to me. I completely understand not running a super slack HA and retarded low BB (though I wish they would), but numbers like that equate into a bike that is good pretty much nowhere. Twitchy at speed and top heavy when cornering hard means high speed won't be as fun as it could be. Longer CS means riding tight shore style trails won't be too fun, either.
It looks like a real cool setup, but numbers like a Socom would be much more justifiable than those.
surely the pulley on your jedi cancels the need to modify the hammershmidt chainringsHave a machined 36th ring to fit the hammerschmidt and remove the one in it! A gide can be moved backwards to allow for the chain to go in. Chris and I have been going over this for the Jedis for a couple of months and hes got a guy thatll machine a new ring to fit. Bump up to a 34th to get it close enough to react right.
surely the pulley on your jedi cancels the need to modify the hammershmidt chainrings
something SRAM may want to think about in future is having the h/shmidt chainguide set so it guides the chain onto the ring from a higher position than the chainring.. so its more compatible with the majority of frames out there
It's not like I am evaluating leverage curves, wheelpaths, pedalling/braking performance, etc. This is purely handling characteristics based on experience with other rigs.Again, classic ridemonkey example of reading more into the numbers then into the ride itself.
Numbers don't always tell the story. If you go strictly by the numbers, the Large Glory was unridable by anyone under 6'7, but that was not the case at all.
ha ha hilarious! :biggrin:took one look at that gold ano driver 8 and i....