I'd move main pivot in a touch and shorten stays also. Especially if increasing reach.
Ghost are mad for ditching that design if true.
Ghost are mad for ditching that design if true.
Dark Owl DXX (Fatigue testing vid page 6)
- Thread starter troy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- give me it!
Hmm, ok I think I can do that. I will redesign the main pivot clamps + figure out how to make a new fancy cs bridge + move the whole linkage towards the front axle.
How long the CS you should be in Your opinion (at SAG point)? We have 1 idea to make it 16.9" at sag. Yay or ney? Any other ideas?
How long the CS you should be in Your opinion (at SAG point)? We have 1 idea to make it 16.9" at sag. Yay or ney? Any other ideas?
It does make sense for them to have the same system throughout their lineup, if they can...
Idlers are also viewed with a lot of skepticism by a lot of riders. A little too "2004" for many.
Idlers are also viewed with a lot of skepticism by a lot of riders. A little too "2004" for many.
Yeah there are some comments about the idler efficiency. I guess those are coming from Giant riders.
All the while while people clamor for less useful shit like "new" bio-pace rings and fanny packs. What's next, positron the shifting resurgence?
hey ya'll, how much yaw does it have?
i know this complicates things and makes production way more expensive but have you given any thought to building in adjustable features? alutech has a nice adjustable wheelbase system at the rear axel (others have done similar things). this feature may not be that practical for a bike who's wheel base changes more so than others. another thought would be having a couple shock mounting options that allow you to easily change the bb height and head angle. side note: i like to tinker w/my set up
without all the fluffy stuff i mentioned, i'd still be interested in one of these. looks rad!!
i know this complicates things and makes production way more expensive but have you given any thought to building in adjustable features? alutech has a nice adjustable wheelbase system at the rear axel (others have done similar things). this feature may not be that practical for a bike who's wheel base changes more so than others. another thought would be having a couple shock mounting options that allow you to easily change the bb height and head angle. side note: i like to tinker w/my set up
without all the fluffy stuff i mentioned, i'd still be interested in one of these. looks rad!!
adjustment is great, if it can be integrated cleanly. There's little worse than a dozen shock bolt holes or a screw collar that always has a small amount of play.
As for the chainstay, I think low 17s is great at sag, as you're still going to get a little growth past the sag point, maybe similar to what other bikes have. I remember BCD ran 16.7" chainstays with his 29er frame in order to get reasonable stays at sag.
As for the chainstay, I think low 17s is great at sag, as you're still going to get a little growth past the sag point, maybe similar to what other bikes have. I remember BCD ran 16.7" chainstays with his 29er frame in order to get reasonable stays at sag.
Awesome prototype, troy! I look forward for finished result.
I'm 510 and I find 420-440mm reach as ideal, depending on type of ride, track, stem length. Cs 440mm seems perfect for me for dh ripping on shorter front end.
I'm 510 and I find 420-440mm reach as ideal, depending on type of ride, track, stem length. Cs 440mm seems perfect for me for dh ripping on shorter front end.
agree adjustability is nice. it's one of the main reasons I went with an uzzi as a do-most-stuff "one" bike over an sx trail. that said, on a dedicated dh rig it's maybe less of a concern?
Probably not that much hassle to offer two or three chain say lengths if you're building them as ordered.
We talking chainstays now? It's funny how many people used to agree that shorter was gooder until aaron gwinn started whining about it on the demo.......ignoring the fact that the short and forward arc had more do do with those things hanging up than just chainstay length.
I'm still all about short as possible. Everyone assumes it has do with manuals or some such silly, but it changes the way the wheels get weighted. The shorter they are, the more weight gets distributed there in corners. Which is huge in corners where you're yanking the bike around with very little, if any weight on the front wheel. See recent eddie masters/reece vid for reference. Half an inch isn't huge but I'm still on the shorty ass bandwagon.
Plus they scrapey-skrub a little easier.
Like you said though, I wouldn't compromise a structural component to shorten it though. Maybe "as short as you can go, while keeping the bridge". It will also make the rear end stiffer with less of a lever.
I'm still all about short as possible. Everyone assumes it has do with manuals or some such silly, but it changes the way the wheels get weighted. The shorter they are, the more weight gets distributed there in corners. Which is huge in corners where you're yanking the bike around with very little, if any weight on the front wheel. See recent eddie masters/reece vid for reference. Half an inch isn't huge but I'm still on the shorty ass bandwagon.
Plus they scrapey-skrub a little easier.
Like you said though, I wouldn't compromise a structural component to shorten it though. Maybe "as short as you can go, while keeping the bridge". It will also make the rear end stiffer with less of a lever.
For now I want to make small batches (~10-15) of frames. 1st couple of frames will go for EN testing. Rest for sale.
17.1" (435 mm) at sag sounds ok. For now no adjustable dropouts and stuff. Or maybe I will make some kind of eccentric insert with a pinch bolt, so You can adjust Your CS length and BB heigh. We will see
I agree with no adjustments. As nice as they are in theory, it's rare you use them if you have them and they are just a weak link for creaks n sh!t.
Don't. I had a Transition Bank with those and they were a PITA. Creaky, I had a hard time keeping them tight, adjusting the brake sucked because the axle moved, etc.Or maybe I will make some kind of eccentric insert with a pinch bolt, so You can adjust Your CS length and BB heigh. We will see
The ideal CS length at sag actually depends heavily on the tracks you are riding, because the biggest effect CS length has is on mass distribution over each axle and thus the F/R traction bias.
There is actually no right answer and "short as possible" is not necessarily ideal either, because on less steep tracks there's a tendency for that to make cornering (particularly out of traction corners / drifts) very sharp/snappy and unpredictable. However the same bike that might behave like that on a flatter track will become more predictable to drift on a steeper course and have more rear traction than one with longer chainstays.
I think aiming for somewhere between 17.1 and 17.3 at sag would offer a reasonable balance, in this case probably 17.1 as it will grow more than other bikes beyond sag.
There is actually no right answer and "short as possible" is not necessarily ideal either, because on less steep tracks there's a tendency for that to make cornering (particularly out of traction corners / drifts) very sharp/snappy and unpredictable. However the same bike that might behave like that on a flatter track will become more predictable to drift on a steeper course and have more rear traction than one with longer chainstays.
I think aiming for somewhere between 17.1 and 17.3 at sag would offer a reasonable balance, in this case probably 17.1 as it will grow more than other bikes beyond sag.
I agree with that, but would say it has more do do with what's going on with the rest of the bike more than the track. Every corner has crappy traction if you go fast enough.
"Flatter tracks with crappy traction" pretty much defines most of the long standing riding where I live and is where I came to appreciate the sharper bite of a tire further up underneath you. And yes the bikes I've owned with longer chainstays, I'd say were more suited to built up berms and hero dirt where you don't need to move around to bias one tire over the other to get it to bite.
We're most likely talking about an inch and a half defining the extreme ends of 'long vs. short' given. But I've owned some older bikes with 18ish chainstays and some specialized 16.5 things and where suspension performance isn't really involved, I definitely prefer the tire up me arse in sketchy corners, flat or not.
Either way I'd say it's a fairly minor preference. With troy's pivot design I don't see a whole lot of reason to not try and get it short. I'm only talking like at or sub 17. No one's making 20" or 14" chainstays on suspension bikes so none of us have even ridden the true extremes.
Last edited:
i havnt got a friggen clue what a sweet CS length is lol
I like the idea of adjustable CS, but how easy it is to change makes the difference in its over all usage. My example is the v3 Commencal IMHO is less convenient than the v2, I felt the v2 allowed the bike to be easly catered to a track with a simple adjustment. The v3 had 3 settings that required the wheel to be removed and many other (brake related) small parts interchanged PITA. I also think that as the top tube gets larger to accommodate a larger rider the CS should also, but the relationship is not easy as a TT to a riders height, CS are even more of a personal preference. A shorter rider may like longer a TT and shorter than avrage CS. Or I think of it like this, a xs frame most times has the same CS length as a XL and to me that's not right. And speaking of other bikes I've had, I had great luck with the bank and thought the adjustment was solid and simple. I found that if I used two short L wrenches in the eccentric pucks it made the adjustment easier.
If you ask me, it should be 666 mm (or ~ 26"), although it may not work well with the Jesus Link™...Besides, manualing is only for pussies who aren't man enough to just run stuff over.
Also the frame looks rad!!! Wish I had said that earlier!
Looks like it'll eat bushes. Does it have a lot of falling rate to suit air shocks? Or is that just an optical elusion? Maybe slap a shuttle on the front shock mount to suit different shocks and ideals.
Actually an air shock model is there just for show, because I have no fancy 3D coil shock model at the moment. It is a linear'ish-rising rate design. Yakuza Kumicho kinda like, but more progressive through the travel.
8" of travel
idler
16.7" CS
0.7" rear axle path
44mm HT
26"
~7.8 lb on 4130 straight gauge tubing (we will use some fancy Reynolds and Columbus tubing for Kamil, and flilet braze the whole frame, so it will be much lighter)
Yeah, but, still gotta steer that boat. Length/height doesn't equal mass exactly.
More powerful and skilled riders that ride faster and/or on faster tracks will appreciate longer stays more than the rest of us. At higher speed the maneuverability isn't hindered as much. The current trend of larger mainframe to gain wheelbase length with shorter stays is pretty logical. Also a good way to cater for larger riders.
Cool, just optical elusion then or my accurately my poor judgement of angles. Air shock didn't throw me, shock just looked steep, getting steeper.
Last edited:
German Steel!
4130! eeeee i machined a bunch of that last week. that stuff is TOUGH (understatement)
destroying inserts all day son!
bitchin' tubing though
destroying inserts all day son!
bitchin' tubing though
That's just an empty box!A new roll bender just came in
View attachment 120313
Moar pixzors!!!!!!
yasss tube benderzz!!
Build a 29er!!!!!
Maybe in the future I will offer it as a custom made 29er version. Right now I'm focused on making 26" DH bikes and 650b and 26" Enderpo bikes 
Dark Owl website will be up soon 