Quantcast

AM hardtail

kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,149
13,358
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
There are some nice looking bikes around......but seriously what's with the bb heights?

Here's the geo from a 1999 schwinn homegrown for reference.


And yes those wheelbases are adorable. But we've already done this people. Where are the 12"bb 66 deg HA < 16.5" CS bikes that will take a fork made in the last 3 years (aka tapered headtube)? Cain't find none. That chromag stylus looks neat but then they done went all canadian with the BB heights. And spending 1500+ bucks for a steel hardtail just feels dirty with the custom options........like the kind of people that will be buying that push shock.
 
jstuhlman

jstuhlman

bagpipe wanker
Dec 3, 2009
17,314
14,123
Cackalacka du Nord
bb height...because rocks? and you're riding a "mountain" bike? or maybe you ride the dirt highways only? maybe you need some sweet, sweet 165mm cranks? spinspinspin...
 
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,149
13,358
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
Because you can get a super short chainstay with hardtails (which awesomeifies the nimble). And since you're going to be getting bucked (because hardtail) make it stable as hell by lowering your center of gravity. This ain't my first rodeo, this used to exist, and not only that homegrown example. Just not with the rest of the equation that's available now, with longer wheelbases and slacker angles. Why go backwards with the BB heights? It's a better complete package to include them all. And let's be honest, the faster you move, the less you're on the ground anyway.

I've listened to people for years whine about how 165mm cranks are 'necessary' for sub 14" bb dh bikes while riding my 170s. My current trail bike has around a 10.8" bb sagged and I've ridden 175s on it. It's all horse shit. Half an inch makes a pretty big change in feel but only a minor change in clearance with what you're already programmed to avoid.
 
HAB

HAB

Chelsea from Seattle
Apr 28, 2007
11,589
2,021
Seattle
kidwoo said:
There are some nice looking bikes around......but seriously what's with the bb heights?

Here's the geo from a 1999 schwinn homegrown for reference.


And yes those wheelbases are adorable. But we've already done this people. Where are the 12"bb 66 deg HA < 16.5" CS bikes that will take a fork made in the last 3 years (aka tapered headtube)? Cain't find none. That chromag stylus looks neat but then they done went all canadian with the BB heights. And spending 1500+ bucks for a steel hardtail just feels dirty with the custom options........like the kind of people that will be buying that push shock.
Click to expand...


This is what I'm buying. It looks rad as fuck. And yeah, it's got a 44mm headtube so it'll take a tapered fork.
 
Last edited:
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,149
13,358
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
Duh.....I looked at their website earlier and didn't realize that pic had BB drop on it.


Nevermind.

Yup, there it is :D







I mean..........You must ride paved bike paths. That would never work with REAL mountainbaikin!

Hmmm.....strong-ish dollar at the moment......
 
Last edited:
Gary

Gary

my pronouns are hag/gis
Aug 27, 2002
8,492
6,379
UK
kidwoo said:
Why go backwards with the BB heights?
Click to expand...
stupid long forks and even stupider amounts of sag probably.

Anything longer than about 100mm travel or with more than 20mm sag just ruins a hardtail for me.. yeah I'm physically moar ruined riding with only 100mm travel on a choppy steep DH but I just fuckin hate how a long saggy fork feels for EVERY bit of riding that a hardtail actually excels in.

DH only Hardtail... yeah, go nuts.. as Woo says, slam that BB.. you aren't going to be pedalling it in anything rough ever.
 
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,149
13,358
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
jstuhlman said:
Congratulations on your new magic flying bike...
:rofl:
Click to expand...
I float like a butterfly beyotch. Especially on a chattery hardtail.

Do you really not understand what I'm talking about?


Gary said:
you aren't going to be pedalling it in anything rough ever.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not at speed at least. If if you can't hear the wind in your ears you can aim.

I'm mostly with you on the fork travel. Which is why that btr looks like it was put together by someone with a clue. 120 isn't exactly long and saggy to me though. My dirtjumper has 100mm of fork travel. The times I take it out in the woods on some bumpy stuff, I definitely wish it had more. Not 150 though..... But yeah maybe you're right as far as the reason. I don't exactly think it's a good reason.

With a slacker headangle you actually get less of the frame sagging down though when the fork compresses. And bikes came with 100mm and then 120mm forks 10 years ago. That's not new. Plus the whole point of suspension is to get out of the way. Augering into a rock doesn't drop the front end or anything, it just mutes a little. The front wheel is still going to raise the bike. I'm not saying crank length is where the BBs need to be, but at least around 12.5 or less like HAB was looking for. This pedaling thing is really not as hard as people make it out to be.

I should find the posts from JM like 8 years ago saying how sub 14.5" bb bikes are completely unrideable because he lands straddling rocks. I've been having this argument forever. Then someone makes a bike.......people realize it rules. And yes some people stare straight ahead with the expectation that their pedals should never brush a rock never realizing the stability benefits when the trail turns down. But I like the handling improvements, a lot.

And just for fun.......11.4", again in 1999. I'm trying to find an old stumpjumper geo page from then, they were similar.

http://s32.photobucket.com/user/k4drd/media/Bicycles/Schwinn Publ Pages/1999MoabGeometry.jpg.html

Adding an inch of fork travel doesn't mean you need to add an inch in BB height. Everything else got better including tires and brakes, why raise the center of gravity?

I'm curious to see what HAB's frame ends up being. I bet that thing is going to rail.
 
Last edited:
HAB

HAB

Chelsea from Seattle
Apr 28, 2007
11,589
2,021
Seattle
:stupid:

I rode a 7.5" travel DH bike with a 12.9" static BB for years. I hit my pedals on a lot of shit, but it railed. I'm glad my DHR is a little higher, but the Draco sure as fuck wasn't the unrideable mess that the forum weenies would have you believe.

I think 120mm fork travel seems pretty damn sensible too. I'm going to have a 6" full squish bike too, I don't need this to be a total monster truck. Right tool for the job and whatnot. Based on the numbers it looks like it should corner like a motherfucker, which is what I'm really looking for.
 
Last edited:
Gary

Gary

my pronouns are hag/gis
Aug 27, 2002
8,492
6,379
UK
Sorry Woo.the comment you quoted was just me having a bitch about most of the guys in the UK who fit long saggy forks to their Cotic's, On-One's and Stanton's and use them to pedal sat down round purpose built colour graded loops.. Cy from Cotic and Brant from O-O definitely know that's their market and those guys are exactly the type to go crying all over the internet the second they strike a pedal from being a spaz and having no clue how to ride so there's no way they'll put out anything properly low. Stanton's I'm not so sure about. And Curtis' roots are in BMX and dirtjump but the market's kinda dried up so the bikes have changed direction.

My aversion to these shitty handling hardtails is a little extreme, I'll admit and as you've sussed my preferences are probably good only for me.

around 1998/9 I built up an Alu kinesis catalogue XC hardtail frame I saw real cheap hanging in the local bike shop for my then girlfriend. Realising it had a bit of a slack head angle I ended up putting a 100mm fork (longer than it was designed for) and short stem on it and riding it myself, finally giving it back 10 years down the line. Even with the longer fork that old bike still only had an 11.5 BB. It had a 62deg HA so I've had a pretty good idea how a slack HT handles.ever since.

and yeah, 120 will be a lot nicer than 100 for chop.
 
Gary

Gary

my pronouns are hag/gis
Aug 27, 2002
8,492
6,379
UK
It did feel weird at slower speeds if you weren't used to it but not all that bad at all. it climbed well but it was built up with XC parts except the rims (521s) so only weighed 26lb. You definitely had to adopt a slightly different climbing position but none of my bikes have ever been set-up to be better climbers than descenders so that's nothing new to me either.
 
xy9ine

xy9ine

Turbo Monkey
Mar 22, 2004
2,940
353
vancouver eastside
HAB said:
BTR is ordered. :banana:
Click to expand...
super rad! the chumba rastro i was riding was close, but hta is steeper than i'd like. my ragley bagger has a lazy hta, but could be lower & with a bit longer fc. the btr however looks perfection for my needs / wants. looking forward to seeing the build. what fork you using?
 
HAB

HAB

Chelsea from Seattle
Apr 28, 2007
11,589
2,021
Seattle
xy9ine said:
super rad! the chumba rastro i was riding was close, but hta is steeper than i'd like. my ragley bagger has a lazy hta, but could be lower & with a bit longer fc. the btr however looks perfection for my needs / wants. looking forward to seeing the build. what fork you using?
Click to expand...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Dogboy

Dogboy

Turbo Monkey
Apr 12, 2004
3,215
618
Durham, NC
captainspauldin said:
Kinda wish I saw this before I pulled the trigger on the exlosif(altho it's not steel and the 10x135 rear end):
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/us/en/commencal-meta-am-hardtail-frame-2015/rp-prod123516
Click to expand...
The Commencal is pretty cool and a bargain, but I think you'll dig the Kona. Other than the slightly slacker HTA I like everything else on the Explosif better - CS length, steel, thru-axle, CS adjustment/easy SS setup if you want to go that route. I love mine. For reference, the Kona with a 140mm fork (spec on the geo chart for the Commencal) has a 67* HTA.

Looking forward to seeing the BTR, should be rad.
 
HAB

HAB

Chelsea from Seattle
Apr 28, 2007
11,589
2,021
Seattle
xy9ine said:
super rad! the chumba rastro i was riding was close, but hta is steeper than i'd like. my ragley bagger has a lazy hta, but could be lower & with a bit longer fc. the btr however looks perfection for my needs / wants. looking forward to seeing the build. what fork you using?
Click to expand...
I just got a 36 Float for my Megatrail, so I'm going to lower the Mattoc Pro I have on there right now and try that on the BTR.
 
-BB-

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
HAB said:
Yeah, my last two DH bikes have fallen into the "you suck" and "dangerous/trendwhore/you hate your toes" categories. The "you suck" one was actually too low, but my toe-hating DHR is perfect.
Click to expand...
Was the "you suck" one your Spitty?
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom