Tribute to BG 3x3
- Thread starter hitekrdnk
- Start date
Custom 29er Full Susser??
A 29"er for sure and FS also, but the custom part is kind of vague in regards to the fact that this frame was built following a set of comprehensive plans that were drawn in 2001 by an engineer with a background in designing FS frames, although this differs from any of his other designs.MMcG said:
You may notice that the front triangle as shown is steel which for this "proto type" will allow for changes to be made if necessary without a bunch of running around re heat treating and such. After the bugs, if any, are worked out all further units built will probably feature a Scandium front triangle as one of the goals of this project from the start was to create a light weight, 80mm travel XC bike.
The fork will compliment the frame nicely as it only weighs in the neighborhood of 1400g and works very nicely indeed. It is also a clue to the designer of the frame
Attachments
Is that one of those anti-dive forks?
Nice!
I'd love an anti-dive fork with constant trail in 5". http://www.parafork.com/ For the money there are other options available.
For my riding the difference between rigid and 80mm is just too little. I'd use the 5" bike for trips abroad with actual rocks and roots and mountains.
Well perhaps I live in the mountains with actual rocks and roots and sustained climbs and have tried both and prefer the 80mm? The ride difference between rigid and 80mm is substantial enough for me. Just like the difference between a 30+ lb bike and a 25-lb bike can be. For some the 5 lb difference for an extra 40mm if travel is not worth it.
Great project you got there, I hate the teasing though.
For my riding the difference between rigid and 80mm is just too little. I'd use the 5" bike for trips abroad with actual rocks and roots and mountains.
Well perhaps I live in the mountains with actual rocks and roots and sustained climbs and have tried both and prefer the 80mm? The ride difference between rigid and 80mm is substantial enough for me. Just like the difference between a 30+ lb bike and a 25-lb bike can be. For some the 5 lb difference for an extra 40mm if travel is not worth it.
Great project you got there, I hate the teasing though.
Awesome project. Can't wait to see the finished product.
'scuse me for sayin' so, but that front fork looks alot like a Look Fournales designed fork, only with more burly linkage.
At any rate, it looks quite promising, and it certainly is going to be a looker, even if you painted it battleship gray!
At any rate, it looks quite promising, and it certainly is going to be a looker, even if you painted it battleship gray!
We have a half a weiner!
The Fournales fork was one of the first on the radar as it was pretty much a no brainer it seemed to make one for 700c, just by making longer legs. Gary Klein reworked the one seen by those on the lookout at Interbike 2000 that GF must have absorbed with the same thing in mind. He just cut it and made a sleeve of some sort to lengthen it. There is a picture floating around the web of a Potts steel proto Fisher with it on there.
What we found out after a thousand lines of code to make all new dropouts and setting it in the jig was that there was only 28mm of rake which is probably why the Fisher/Klein version is languishing in Pott's shop as i doubt it rode very well?
It was back to the keyboard and a few more thousand lines of code and a new bottom pivot plate was born that provides up to 50mm if necessary depending on where you drill the pivot hole, but the one in the pic is 38mm to imitate a WB fork. At some point another 15 thousand lines of code or so will have to be written to get the rest of the parts online for the production of the fork itself as Fournales no longer makes the forks but still is in the shock business and Look is totally out of the picture having only been the middle man.
One caveat is that this type of fork is headtube specific somewhat. Fournales made a small, medium and a large. The medium and large were good sizes for most 26" wheeled bikes and most found homes but the smalls were for only up to 4" which was not so good for the 26" market but is just the ticket for the 29" market and that is why after Look dumped their stock to some bike parts brokers, they ended up with mostly smalls. However the supply line for these is about dried up and the amount of machine work necessary to make them work right will keep them seldom seen on the trail I suppose.
But these forks perform really well and at a bit less than 1400g a copy are as light as anything out there. Sure they are only 80mm but that is all some folks will need, especially when mated to a sweet high 4lb 80mm frame that will make an under 25lb weight doable without a bunch of
Did I mention the sick paint job this bike is going to sport
The Fournales fork was one of the first on the radar as it was pretty much a no brainer it seemed to make one for 700c, just by making longer legs. Gary Klein reworked the one seen by those on the lookout at Interbike 2000 that GF must have absorbed with the same thing in mind. He just cut it and made a sleeve of some sort to lengthen it. There is a picture floating around the web of a Potts steel proto Fisher with it on there. What we found out after a thousand lines of code to make all new dropouts and setting it in the jig was that there was only 28mm of rake which is probably why the Fisher/Klein version is languishing in Pott's shop as i doubt it rode very well?
It was back to the keyboard and a few more thousand lines of code and a new bottom pivot plate was born that provides up to 50mm if necessary depending on where you drill the pivot hole, but the one in the pic is 38mm to imitate a WB fork. At some point another 15 thousand lines of code or so will have to be written to get the rest of the parts online for the production of the fork itself as Fournales no longer makes the forks but still is in the shock business and Look is totally out of the picture having only been the middle man.
One caveat is that this type of fork is headtube specific somewhat. Fournales made a small, medium and a large. The medium and large were good sizes for most 26" wheeled bikes and most found homes but the smalls were for only up to 4" which was not so good for the 26" market but is just the ticket for the 29" market and that is why after Look dumped their stock to some bike parts brokers, they ended up with mostly smalls. However the supply line for these is about dried up and the amount of machine work necessary to make them work right will keep them seldom seen on the trail I suppose.
But these forks perform really well and at a bit less than 1400g a copy are as light as anything out there. Sure they are only 80mm but that is all some folks will need, especially when mated to a sweet high 4lb 80mm frame that will make an under 25lb weight doable without a bunch of
Did I mention the sick paint job this bike is going to sport
I thought that looked alot like a Fournales. I'm a big linkage fork fan, having ridden Amp F-3's quite a bit back in the 90's. (In fact, they are still languishing underneath the bench somewhere down there in the "Guitar Ted Labs")
It'd be cool to see a version of this fork of yours made available someday. I agree that 80mm of travel is plenty for XC applications on a 29"er.
What do you think of a 50mm rake, by the way? Wouldn't something along this figure make a linkage fork react to the smaller bumps in a better fashion? It would also play into the designs for smaller frame sizes in 29 inch wheeled bikes. Perhaps it would even help with the effects of a shortening wheel base, which several linkage forks had a tendancy to do, or have you dialed alot of that out with your axle path?
Hmmm.......sorry about all of the pesky questions! Just curious!
It'd be cool to see a version of this fork of yours made available someday. I agree that 80mm of travel is plenty for XC applications on a 29"er.
What do you think of a 50mm rake, by the way? Wouldn't something along this figure make a linkage fork react to the smaller bumps in a better fashion? It would also play into the designs for smaller frame sizes in 29 inch wheeled bikes. Perhaps it would even help with the effects of a shortening wheel base, which several linkage forks had a tendancy to do, or have you dialed alot of that out with your axle path?
Hmmm.......sorry about all of the pesky questions! Just curious!
Too hard to figure out on paper so that is why the plate was made to accommodate optional placements. Trials in the field will tell the tale eventually. Here is a bit of the initial ride report.
We did some breif riding of the P forks today after
work at the local single track full of roots and dips.
It's not that long of a ride but it gave
and
I some feedback. Tomarrow we hope to get to the 17
miles of singletrack if it isn't raining
too much.
At any rate I think you may have something
serious going on with this fork design! It rides
great! (so far). And it rides totally differant then
the tele fork designs.
So to sum this up as I think you know the first part
of the shock movement is rearward, followed by a
vertical movenemt. I suggest that does the following:
1.) makes fork very active over small bumbs whereas
tele forks bind--in fact you can just watch the P fork
move and soak up the small shock it is crazy!
2.) doesn't seem to have annoying pogo when standing
because the rearward movenment at beginning of stroke
is counter to the standing forces--yet when you hit
something standing the fork is active and does not
bind.
3.) keeps front end stiff side to side without binding
4.) takes the big hits nicely
thought the P fork rocked compared to his WB.
The shock seems to work okay but does have kind of a
top out sound going on even after we set the dampener
down two screw turns.
All in all the P fork seems to work very well on first
ride on a hardtail it even makes me think a rear
suspension would be nice to boot.
We did some breif riding of the P forks today after
work at the local single track full of roots and dips.
It's not that long of a ride but it gave
andI some feedback. Tomarrow we hope to get to the 17
miles of singletrack if it isn't raining
too much.
At any rate I think you may have something
serious going on with this fork design! It rides
great! (so far). And it rides totally differant then
the tele fork designs.
So to sum this up as I think you know the first part
of the shock movement is rearward, followed by a
vertical movenemt. I suggest that does the following:
1.) makes fork very active over small bumbs whereas
tele forks bind--in fact you can just watch the P fork
move and soak up the small shock it is crazy!
2.) doesn't seem to have annoying pogo when standing
because the rearward movenment at beginning of stroke
is counter to the standing forces--yet when you hit
something standing the fork is active and does not
bind.
3.) keeps front end stiff side to side without binding
4.) takes the big hits nicely
thought the P fork rocked compared to his WB.The shock seems to work okay but does have kind of a
top out sound going on even after we set the dampener
down two screw turns.
All in all the P fork seems to work very well on first
ride on a hardtail it even makes me think a rear
suspension would be nice to boot.
would the builder in question be Scott Quiring??
He definitely does nice work! And his Qballs are nice affordable options too.
Sunset Pearl with black and silver
Pretty cool! After five years it looks like you are pretty close to riding it!
Those rear stays look pretty slender. Odd to see that on a full susser. Hopefully it rides as well as it looks.
Those rear stays look pretty slender. Odd to see that on a full susser. Hopefully it rides as well as it looks.
This particular bike was a platform, a prototype I think they call it in the industry, if it does work as good as it looks after tweaking others will follow. Thus the steel front triangle from tubes on hand which would make for easier mods if necessary to it and the stays were what were speced on the original drawings and are subject to change if necessary. A bit of thrashing on it here soon should tell the tale. There is also a Leviathan at Q's right now to be able to ride side by side to see how it stacks up against a really good current FS bike.
Build and ride report will follow when available.
Beautiful!!!
That's really cool! Did you use the 5th element because that's what you had laying around?
Can't wait to see it fully built and then a ride report. Also do you plan on riding it with a conventional suspension fork up front as well??
Keep us updated.
Can't wait to see it fully built and then a ride report. Also do you plan on riding it with a conventional suspension fork up front as well??
Keep us updated.
That's really cool! Did you use the 5th element because that's what you had laying around?
Can't wait to see it fully built and then a ride report. Also do you plan on riding it with a conventional suspension fork up front as well??
Keep us updated.
Can't wait to see it fully built and then a ride report. Also do you plan on riding it with a conventional suspension fork up front as well??
Keep us updated.
Actually, yes.
I don't but others might. I don't like tele forks all that much. The fork in the picture is lighter (1400g) and stiffer, anti dive and less bob out of the saddle which all suit my style of riding.
Will do.
thanks. I realize that is your fork of preference, but those aren't readily available to the masses for any real good price so it would be great to hear how the bike rides with a Reba or a White Brothers up front.
Dag...that's a looker.
There are plenty of me too bikes out there in FS and more on the way. I don't think these frames will ever make it to the mass market and there are enough of the P forks to supply the expected demand for at least a while. And with another 20 thousand lines of code perhaps a permanent replacement?
I guess what I am saying is that if you can't afford the fork you probably won't be able to afford the frame. I am not trying to sound like an elitist here and neither is the builder who has a darn nice lowcost option available in the Qball and will custom build in any material pretty much for a more than fair price. Some things cost more to produce by one person, but at least the results are usually worth it.
I am sure someone at some point will mount a tele fork on there and say something about it though and you will probably read it here first on ride
Nice photos - but how does it ride?
And do you have to use an e-type front derailleur on it?
And do you have to use an e-type front derailleur on it?
What do you mean by lines of code???There are plenty of me too bikes out there in FS and more on the way. I don't think these frames will ever make it to the mass market and there are enough of the P forks to supply the expected demand for at least a while. And with another 20 thousand lines of code perhaps a permanent replacement?
I guess what I am saying is that if you can't afford the fork you probably won't be able to afford the frame. I am not trying to sound like an elitist here and neither is the builder who has a darn nice lowcost option available in the Qball and will custom build in any material pretty much for a more than fair price. Some things cost more to produce by one person, but at least the results are usually worth it.
I am sure someone at some point will mount a tele fork on there and say something about it though and you will probably read it here first on ride
In order to setup a CNC mill you need to write the code for each individual part of the operation based on an x y z axis. It took 20,000 lines for the frame parts alone. In order for the fork to be fully replicated probably about that same amount will be necessary.
Initial observations from Q,
The weight built up makes it kind of a serious pig right now. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that with the correct build I can get a frame like this in the 24-25 lb range. But for now the boat anchors are the fact that the tires are wire bead, the BB was heavy, those brakes are like bricks, it has XTR pod shifters, and the wheels are not super light either. Plus, the weight of a steel frame is not helping.
I took it out to some rough stuff and short trails around town and sprinted around on it for a couple hour or until I couldn't sprint anymore. It works. It is amazing how much you can hit stuff hard with the big wheels and travel. I actually have a longer stroke shock than is on the drawing and I am getting the full travel on the shock. It means I must be getting more then the 3 inches in back but I was also jumping the bike and all around being abusive to it.
It is a very efficient bike too. The stable platform shock works. What I mean is it does not compress while under pedal load, but when you hit a compression with the bike the suspension still works and soaks up the bumps.
I wantta seriously get out on a long and rough trail before the work week starts to see how it goes over the braking bumps and other chatter like roots and holes and all around abuse trails that are overused see.
Keep us posted on it.
So you guys plan to build your own version of that fork or something - is that what the code would be for?? Still a bit confused on that part.
So you guys plan to build your own version of that fork or something - is that what the code would be for?? Still a bit confused on that part.
nice, i like the colors!