[norbar]

So why are we not talking about this? People are hyped about the YT which arguably looks better but adjustable reach bike? May we finally have a bike which doesn't leave people in between sizes?


http://www.pinkbike.com/news/propain-rage-cf-first-edition--carbon-dream-bike.html

 

[lobsterCT]

Doesn't look revolutionary, but rather a nice refinement. The reach adjustable headsets in the thread by Udi give you 7mm of reach adjust in a regular old 1.5 head tube and are very nice quality. This bike stretches that to 10mm.

Chain stay adjustments I think were built on the early GG bikes, and others I would suspect.

Even with that bike maxed out in size, it would be too small for me to consider. I'm also wary at my size of lighter end of the distribution carbon bikes. It would be nice for dialing in for my wife who fits in its range and who is sensitive to small changes and who is a relative light weight.

 

[Carraig042]

It is a really good looking bike, and light.

-Brett

 

[norbar]

Doesn't look revolutionary, but rather a nice refinement. The reach adjustable headsets in the thread by Udi give you 7mm of reach adjust in a regular old 1.5 head tube and are very nice quality. This bike stretches that to 10mm.

Chain stay adjustments I think were built on the early GG bikes, and others I would suspect.

Even with that bike maxed out in size, it would be too small for me to consider. I'm also wary at my size of lighter end of the distribution carbon bikes. It would be nice for dialing in for my wife who fits in its range and who is sensitive to small changes and who is a relative light weight.

The thing very few 1.5 bikes are still produced. As for weight 3.1kg w/o shock isn't on the lighter end of the scale for carbon frames. Lighter carbon frames are sub 3kg.

 

[jstuhlman]

because most of us are in the us and they're not easy to get here?

that said, i'm all for adjustability.

 

[djjohnr]

Yeah, too bad they won't ship to the US, I was really interested in a Spindrift.

 

[Electric_City]

I think the idea is kinda neat, but not necessary for us, the rider. I've never been on a trail and said,
-I wish my head tube angle was 1/2 degree slacker.
-If my bottom bracket was 3mm lower I'd strava the shit out of that corner.
-Man, I really could have used an extra 5mm of wheelbase that run.

Besides, how do you decide where to adjust it on a normal, non race day? You're riding with your buddy on Aline all day and he decides to take Tech Noir. "Woah, hang on Larry! I need to lengthen my wheel base, slacken my head tube angle, lower my bottom bracket and shorten my reach... Shit! I left my multi tool in the hotel. I'll just take Easy Does It down and meet you at the lift!"

 

[troy]

I think the idea is kinda neat, but not necessary for us, the rider. I've never been on a trail and said,
-I wish my head tube angle was 1/2 degree slacker.
-If my bottom bracket was 3mm lower I'd strava the shit out of that corner.
-Man, I really could have used an extra 5mm of wheelbase that run.

You definitely have never met @Udi!

 

[Jm_]

I'm more into amateur pain.

 

[djjohnr]

I think the idea is kinda neat, but not necessary for us, the rider. I've never been on a trail and said,
-I wish my head tube angle was 1/2 degree slacker.
-If my bottom bracket was 3mm lower I'd strava the shit out of that corner.
-Man, I really could have used an extra 5mm of wheelbase that run.

Besides, how do you decide where to adjust it on a normal, non race day? You're riding with your buddy on Aline all day and he decides to take Tech Noir. "Woah, hang on Larry! I need to lengthen my wheel base, slacken my head tube angle, lower my bottom bracket and shorten my reach... Shit! I left my multi tool in the hotel. I'll just take East Does It down and meet you at the lift!"

I think they make more sense as set and forget options.

 

['size]

I've never been on a trail and said,
-I wish my head tube angle was 1/2 degree slacker.
-If my bottom bracket was 3mm lower I'd strava the shit out of that corner.
-Man, I really could have used an extra 5mm of wheelbase that run.

must be nice, those are just a few of the excuses that go through my mind during any given ride.

 

[Kevin]

I think they make more sense as a set and forget options.

It would also make sense to adjust it depending on the track.
Riding a wide open fast as fuck track = long settings. Technical short turns track = short settings.

Not sure how much of a difference it would make in the real world, but when youre riding on the internet 1cm can shave seconds off your time...

 

[slimshady]

Not necessarily in the middle of a run, but I play a lot with the two geometry options my Rallón gives me. Having the possibility of enjoying a moar upright riding position in my local, flatter trails and a lower, slacker bike when tripping to the mountains is something I really like.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

Adjustability is nice it allows you to test different set up with the possibility to change only one parameter at a time. Then you can know what geometry fits your riding style and tracks. You can even readjust your geometry if you become a better rider or if you suffer from am injury...
One has to be objective when assessing geometry changes. Judging just by feel might be quite missleading! And some might need more time to adapt to change than others.

 

[Udi]

I like the adjustability - like someone else said, many people end up between sizes, so it's more for making a bike fit at all rather than changing between courses or runs.

The thing very few 1.5 bikes are still produced. As for weight 3.1kg w/o shock isn't on the lighter end of the scale for carbon frames. Lighter carbon frames are sub 3kg.

The Mondraker is the only carbon DH frame I know of which is that light (possibly also the current V10C), and I have not seen a verified weight (or a size given for their claimed weight). I do know they are blowing bearings fairly regularly at WC level so I think there are likely to be similar durability sacrifices on any frame that light.

The new demo8 carbon frame is around 3.5kg without shock (again no size specified), which I think is a more average ballpark (Evil Undead is similar, around 3.6kg for large without shock).

I think frame weight claims are always very dubious, with most manufacturers giving no weight at all, and the ones that do are often scamming the system in some way (eg. measuring a small, and not including things that are by convention included with the frame weight - eg. rear axle on through axle frames, shock bolts, etc).

Virtually all the carbon DH frames I've seen that are sub 3.5kg are also ones I've seen cracked (and/or are very flexy in the rear end, somewhat undesirable for a DH frame), so I think 3kg is on the questionable end of the scale at least for now.

 

[norbar]

I like the adjustability - like someone else said, many people end up between sizes, so it's more for making a bike fit at all rather than changing between courses or runs.


The Mondraker is the only carbon DH frame I know of which is that light (possibly also the current V10C), and I have not seen a verified weight (or a size given for their claimed weight). I do know they are blowing bearings fairly regularly at WC level so I think there are likely to be similar durability sacrifices on any frame that light.

The new demo8 carbon frame is around 3.5kg without shock (again no size specified), which I think is a more average ballpark (Evil Undead is similar, around 3.6kg for large without shock).

I think frame weight claims are always very dubious, with most manufacturers giving no weight at all, and the ones that do are often scamming the system in some way (eg. measuring a small, and not including things that are by convention included with the frame weight - eg. rear axle on through axle frames, shock bolts, etc).

Virtually all the carbon DH frames I've seen that are sub 3.5kg are also ones I've seen cracked (and/or are very flexy in the rear end, somewhat undesirable for a DH frame), so I think 3kg is on the questionable end of the scale at least for now.

Wait what? Isn't the Session <3kg? Also aren't a ton of alu frames in the 3.3-3.5 kg area (Session, Glory, Mondraker)

 

[Udi]

Wait what? Isn't the Session <3kg? Also aren't a ton of alu frames in the 3.3-3.5 kg area (Session, Glory, Mondraker)

The Session and Mondraker in alloy are both notorious for breaking, and the alloy Glory (while more durable) I have never seen the claimed weight verified for.

I think you should stop throwing around weights unless they are verified weights w/axle for a medium/large size though (i.e. not claimed weights: provide pictures). I'm all for lightweight DH frames, but it sucks when a) they snap, b) they flex, c) bearings wear out prematurely, and d) when claimed weights bend the truth.

Anyone can make a component or a frame light. To make it light and actually good is a different story, and not many frames achieve both. I like light things as much as (if not more) than anyone else, but I think the "benchmark" figure should always be set realistically - i.e. verified weight, verified durability.

 

[was?]

The Santa Cruz V10 XL weighs about 2850gr including fork bumpers, rear axle, chainstay protection and shock bolts, the older Session 9.9 weighs about the same. There is a dedicated weight section on mtb-news.de

Apart from the weight, which for the most part may be down to basic frame layout or construction, i would just wait for the frame to prove itself. The rage al wasn't particularly bad regarding its durability and stiffness.

 

[WestCoastHucker]

 

[Udi]

The Santa Cruz V10 XL weighs about 2850gr including fork bumpers, rear axle, chainstay protection and shock bolts

Yes, I already mentioned the V10 as the exception (aside from Summum-C) - but I've seen a few broken in person now. The breakages I've seen have been at the lower pivot where it connects to the mainframe (pivot cracks from frame).

I do think SC are at the top of the game when it comes to building reasonably strong frames at very light weight, but most other frames I've seen around those numbers are not multiple-season frames.

Not a stab at Propain here - I too try to stay on the "wait a season" train as a general rule with all frames.

 

[norbar]

The Session and Mondraker in alloy are both notorious for breaking, and the alloy Glory (while more durable) I have never seen the claimed weight verified for.

I think you should stop throwing around weights unless they are verified weights w/axle for a medium/large size though (i.e. not claimed weights: provide pictures). I'm all for lightweight DH frames, but it sucks when a) they snap, b) they flex, c) bearings wear out prematurely, and d) when claimed weights bend the truth.

Anyone can make a component or a frame light. To make it light and actually good is a different story, and not many frames achieve both. I like light things as much as (if not more) than anyone else, but I think the "benchmark" figure should always be set realistically - i.e. verified weight, verified durability.

I'm actually not for lightweight frames. I just assumed most carbon ones are lighter given the first weave of carbon frames were around 3kg and less claimed so I doubt mfgs were lying by 500g.

As for Mondraker and session really? i know they were notorious for dents but they seemed pretty solid outside of the first gen session which got beefed up to 3.5kg alu. Glory was 3.4kg if I remember right. Frango had a small weighting a bit below that but that was the short reach old version

 

[Gary]

Internet bike forums suddenly be like "my frame is 6mm too short"

Internet bike forums still be like "help? I can't manual"

Bike industry be like "Ker... ching!"

 

[norbar]

Internet bike forums suddenly be like "my frame is 6mm too short"

Internet bike forums still be like "help? I can't manual"

Bike industry be like "Ker... ching!"

I don't think it's that. As Udi pointed out it's more for people who find themselves in between sizes. Hell there are a ton of frames that are amazing if not for a certain geometry quirk. Udi and I have the same problem as being in between M and L often and it's really annoying since you either have to ride a schoolbus or feel cramped and end up with a higher cog.

Imho the oval headset with adjustable reach would be a much better standard than 100% of what I have seen in the last 2 years since it actually fixes a problem me and many other people often face.

 

[Gary]

Which size can you manual better?

Choose that one!

#FirstWorldProblemSolved

 

[lobsterCT]

I don't think it's that. As Udi pointed out it's more for people who find themselves in between sizes. Hell there are a ton of frames that are amazing if not for a certain geometry quirk. Udi and I have the same problem as being in between M and L often and it's really annoying since you either have to ride a schoolbus or feel cramped and end up with a higher cog.

Imho the oval headset with adjustable reach would be a much better standard than 100% of what I have seen in the last 2 years since it actually fixes a problem me and many other people often face.

I agree with you, that that would actually be a nice headtube standard. You could make headsets, with extension anywhere you liked from 0 to its max 10mm. The oval would eliminate placement concerns present if you have a 1.5 headtube with no center marking and are using a reach adjust headset. SInce the plane of the headset is on an incline, increasing the reach, also pushes up the height of your bars. I'm struggling with this on a build for my wife with a GG DH small and the 7mm reach adjust headset. Negative bar rise direct mount stem on order, and fingers crossed it will be the last piece of the puzzle.

 

[4130biker]