[SuspectDevice]

Hi,
You may have seen the pictures I posted of the new Sinister Mustang XC race bike last week.

We are still somewhat undecided on what we want to offer in terms of seat-tube and top-tube lengths.

How tall are you, what's your inseam measurement (and saddle height if you know it), and what size bike do you ride now?

FTW and I pretty much see eye-eye on geometry ( I have been riding his xc bikes for 11 years now), but we have a bit of a departure from what we have always done in mind.

 

[zahgurim]

How about something similar to the Mustang, but made using Ti?

I am loving my R9, but don't like alu for an XC hardtail frame. Too stiff, and building it light enough to race means it has a short lifespan. I just built up a new Ti XC bikey, and am sofar convinced that I will never spend money on alu again.

 

[The Toninator]

What do you want in an XC race hardtail?

suspension!

link too pics please didnt see them.

 

[SuspectDevice]

Dude, it sounds like You've never ridden a good aluminum xc bike. Good aluminum bikes ride softly and have a nice amount of liveliness to them and are considerably lighter than ti at a 1/3 the price.

And as long as they aren't built from rotten Easton 7000 tubesets they last for at least 2 or 3 seasons....

There are almost no quality alumium frames on the market these days, as steel and piles of glue and plastic are really in fashion right now.

 

[SuspectDevice]

suspension!

link too pics please didnt see them.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155305

Like 2 threads down...

 

[The Toninator]

oHHHH nice bike.
carbon is for suckers although do see the benefit of carbon stays.
Aluminum has it's application but for old folk endurance racers it aint (unless it's applied to a f/sb)

 

[SuspectDevice]

Carbon stays are all hype. They are just easier for lazier framebuilders to glue on. Less welding and alignment issues. They are neither lighter or more compliant than properly designed aluminum stays.

This bike isn't for endurance racing, it's for XC racing. We have a very cool, very lightweight, very efficent 5" travel bike that I'm riding right now. When it becomes less top secret I'll let everyone know...

 

[Zutroy]

I look at it his way, if you're racing a HT XC bike your looking for two things, lightweight, and power transfer. I would think a geometry that lends it self to a good climbing position would be the way to go.

 

[The Toninator]

Carbon stays are all hype. They are just easier for lazier framebuilders to glue on. Less welding and alignment issues. They are neither lighter or more compliant than properly designed aluminum stays.

This bike isn't for endurance racing, it's for XC racing. We have a very cool, very lightweight, very efficent 5" travel bike that I'm riding right now. When it becomes less top secret I'll let everyone know...

true
and not sure about the carbon thing though hey carbon forks on rhode bikes are standard these days why not rear stays?
true
sweet hook that up dawg!

 

[Zutroy]

true
and not sure about the carbon thing though hey carbon forks on rhode bikes are standard these days why not rear stays?
true
sweet hook that up dawg!

Forks are a different beast, the main reason to use a carbon work is to cut down on the high frequency vibrations(think tuning fork), carbon actually does a pretty good job of that. Really light Al forks were prone to transmitting that to the bars.

 

[The Toninator]

Forks are a different beast, the main reason to use a carbon work is to cut down on the high frequency vibrations(think tuning fork), carbon actually does a pretty good job of that. Really light Al forks were prone to transmitting that to the bars.

agreed.

 

[Mike Stone]

To answer the original question:

Merlin XLM, 17.5" seat tube, horizontally the top tube is 23.4", but measured along the tube center to center it is 22.5". 120mm stem. Seat height when the crank is aligned with the seat tube is 36.3."

Before the Merlin, I had a GT Zaskar Team with the same dimensions. Both are 71 degree head tube/73 degree seat tube angles.

 

[Bicyclist]

I rode a 19" Specialized Stumpjumper for a while. I really liked that frame, it was "M4" with a lot of manipulation. Mine was built up heavy at 25 pounds.

I would like to see something with pretty traditional geometry and fit, but maybe a little roomier TT w/ a shorter stem. I like that feel to my bikes. A 100mm stem is my max on a mountain bike.

Disc brakes seem like a must nowadays in XC, but some people are still on V-brakes. Maybe offer both options, or have a disc and v-brake option?

Another thing that is IMO a must is short stays. I just like short stays.

 

[Wumpus]

Height 6'3"
Inseam(PBH) 37.5"

Top tube c-c 23"
Effective(Horizontal) 23.5"
(Stem length 130mm)

Seattube c-c 18"
Seattube cen. bb to top - 20.5

Saddle to pedal spindle - 37"
Seat to center BB - 30"
(I'm running 190 mm cranks.)

HA was 71.5* but I put a 1/2" taller fork on it. SA 73*

One of my biggest things is a taller HT(6 5/8") because I don't like handlebar drop and I still have 30 mm of spacers under the stem.

 

[ATOMICFIREBALL]

19.5" Trek 6700 SLR
FOX Talas RLC set at 4.1" travel..
I'm 6'2" tall & 180# weight..
170mm cranks & works perfect..
TT is actual 23.5" c2c
I like it because it fit's perfect & is fairly light..Bars are apx 25.5" wide risers..2.3" Tioga DH front tire.Guess it's a little overkill but i hardly notice it & can't seem to take it off & go to a smaller tire .I drive the front end REAL hard & a big tire saves me....I use a 2.1" Highroller rear & it's great...
Would like a FS frame,but it's too much $$...I highly recommend a Specialized "ALIAS" seat also,it will keep the FLOW going if you know what i mean..!
oh yeah HA apx. 70*

 

[Biscuit]

Another thing that is IMO a must is short stays. I just like short stays.

I'm personally torn on chainstay lengths. The short stays make bikes feel awesome and flickable, but you lose a lot of stability, especially at the edge (i.e. drifting).

For an XC bike shorter stays help climbing traction a lot, but since they usually handle squirlier anyways, I like longer stays.


I'm 6'0", the things I look for in an XC frame:
- longer top tube ~ 23.75
- shorter stem; with my dh roots I don't like anything over 100mm;
- I like the top tube to be right below knee height with the cranks level. When trying to negotiate really tricky stuff I often end up pressing a knee on the tt while turning (note: I do not clench the tt with both knees, that's just ghey).
- Ability to run a 100mm fork without raising the front end too high or ruining the handling. A fox F100x is perfect because you can stand and climb with no bob and still mob downhills.
- I don't really like integrated headsets, unless they are on a 1.5 ht with an adapter. Like on my Sunday.
- I don't know how I ever rode without disc brakes.
- Wide (wider anyway) carbon bars. Carbon kills vibration, is light, and the wide(r) bars really help a) power; and b) controll on descents.
- I don't really like cables routed on the top tube. I've had too many bad experiences. Underside of the tt is weird, but sweet.
- I like the ability (not always but sometimes) to run a bigger tire. Light, big tires are really nice on choppier rides and can really reduce fatigue and increase fun (kenda small block 8 2.35" or wtb mutano 2.4").
- I like dual compound tires that roll fast.
- I like crazy light wheels. Faster = more funner.

That said, I'm not really a "racer". I like to go fast and have fun. I like my equipment dialed and I despise non-funcional crap. For instance sid's. They work 'ok' if you weigh 120lbs, but IMO you might as well run rigid with a 29" front wheel and it would handle better. I think super narrow bars are retarded as well.