LaharDesign said:
funky new lahar (carbon exoticness)
- Thread starter xy9ine
- Start date
Is the frame with other cranks as Diabolus available?
83mm saints will work as well.Gelbwurstbrot said:
dhv m9 #007 will be making the long journey to the deep dark rainforests of the pacific northwest...
what about this, if i have this bike i will allways wonder would this hit rock, would this crack,.. this looks scary man...
Aaron what do you say ?!
Aaron what do you say ?!
It's not rigid and has the shock to absorb alot of impact,apparently none of the origonals have failed from impact.
Haha, good old Lava flow, nice trail, perfect for testing a big bike, not much smooth ground down there! 
Lahars look pimp in the flesh people, way better than any photo Ive seen.
Lahars look pimp in the flesh people, way better than any photo Ive seen.
The bike is awesome, but it is definitely the ugliest bike that i have ever seen. Just my opinion although alot of you guys seem to like it.
http://www.laharbikes.com/
they upgrade their home page
but that blue word, i am blind cant see sh!t..damn
they upgrade their home page
but that blue word, i am blind cant see sh!t..damn
I will get some pics up of my one should be here in the next few weeks........
I knew there was something that I wanted to ask. It looks like it's running a 32T chainring. I thought for sure on the Rohloff website, I read you couldn't run a chainring that was smaller than a 34T for a frame mounted gear hub. Possibly because it puts too much stress on the internals of the hub once you start cranking down on the pedals? Anyone know anything about this? I just tried looking for that info on the site and I can't find it.
the gear ratio change between the rohloff & rear wheel (24t to18t) produces the equivalent output gearing (if it was a conventional arrangement) to a ~42t chainring. does it make sense that this effectively reduces the torque on the rohloff? hmmm. i have heard people using smaller rings on conventional bikes without problem regardless. i think rohloff is just covering their collective ass - in case some masher tries climbing walls with 24t granny & breaks something. any significant stress the hub is going to see will be in the lowest gears anyways, and i'm sure most lahars won't see alot of hours pounding up steep xc climbs.
When you have a frame mounted gear hub, you have two chain force components due to the twin chains. While they're not parallel (almost perpendicular in this and most cases) the two chain force components do add up to be substantially larger than any equivalent single chain force (though it varies with what gear you're in) for any given total chainring-to-rear-wheel-cog ratio (disregarding the gear that the actual gearbox/hub is in). Whilst I would have thought that the factors of safety and design loads would have totally encompassed the extra load a second chain can put on a hub (ie they're covering their arses), it DOES provide more load than a standard setup.I knew there was something that I wanted to ask. It looks like it's running a 32T chainring. I thought for sure on the Rohloff website, I read you couldn't run a chainring that was smaller than a 34T for a frame mounted gear hub. Possibly because it puts too much stress on the internals of the hub once you start cranking down on the pedals? Anyone know anything about this? I just tried looking for that info on the site and I can't find it.
All of the origonal five Lahar Mk8s made in 02 have not had any Rohloff issues to date. They're like whine,they mature with age.