Interesting bike!

Talk about anything.

Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew

jameso
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Interesting bike!

Post by jameso »

User avatar
Hoojum
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:57 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Hoojum »

I really like that.
User avatar
Charliecres
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:28 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Charliecres »

Very nice. That back end is waaaaay short.
User avatar
mountainbaker
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:34 pm
Location: Devon

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by mountainbaker »

Nice frame, and interesting idea. Two trendy wheel sizes all in one package!

Those enve forks are munting though.
User avatar
FLV
Posts: 4250
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Northern Edge of the Peak - Mostly

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by FLV »

I dont like it. i think it looks wierd.
I suppose they were going for the handling of a short back end.

I didnt like it when trek did them either (slightly different I know)
Ben98
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:21 am
Location: Somewhere in the 4th dimension

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Ben98 »

That's truly hideous
The different wheel size looks like the whole bikes at an angle, the fork is gopping and the bar/seat post combo looks so out of place
:YMSICK:
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 23937
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

Nope, not for me. I can have slightly 'interesting' tastes at times but that pushes the boundries a bit too far. I've nothing against different sized wheels front and back and like 69ers, etc but that just looks wrong ... it might ride really well but I'll never find out because of the 'slapped with the ugly stick' looks :wink:

EDIT: White doesn't do it any favours either.
May the bridges you burn light your way
jameso
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by jameso »

I did say interesting / looks like fun, not 'is aesthetically pleasing' which I think is only a significant consideration for steel road bikes : )
MTB = Ride experience first, looks later.

I would want a steel fork on it though, agreed that the enve is no selling point. A truss would be nice : ) I guess I like bikes where someone does something relatively new or different purely to improve the ride and makes no concessions to aesthetics which can have technical compromises involved.
User avatar
Pyro
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:39 pm
Location: Out.
Contact:

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Pyro »

It might just be the angle it's shot from, but I'm with the 'that's gopping' crowd.

And James, aesthetics obviously aren't just for steel road bikes, or the Whyte PRST-1 would have sold better...
"Where you've been is good and gone, all you keep's the getting there..."
User avatar
Cheeky Monkey
Posts: 3915
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:48 pm
Location: Leeds ish
Contact:

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Cheeky Monkey »

Pyro wrote:It might just be the angle it's shot from, but I'm with the 'that's gopping' crowd.

And James, aesthetics obviously aren't just for steel road bikes, or the Whyte PRST-1 would have sold better...
Err, the preston sold badly because when you went downhill the J profile of the fork travel meant it dived at the worst possible time.

As for the bike above, mleh, s'alright I guess :|
User avatar
Alpinum
Posts: 2635
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Alpinum »

That fork looks odd. Like its got half a meter of trail. Then the HA isn't slack at all at 68.5. Don't get to what the front is up to on that bike.

Then the rear.
My enduro (26") has 428 mm chain stays and long front and feels great in tight, techy stuff.

I recently tested the BMC Trailfox (29") with 435 mm stays, felt great too, albeit beeing to high off the ground (150 mm suspension). Despite the long travel, thus throne like feel of it, it was one of the most lively 29" I rode 'till now.

Note to myself:
Go as short as possible without sacrificing the options of componentry you’re opting for. I think that’s a good way to go. Best for HT clearly is sliding drop outs…

I believe that for a snow bike a long rear is better (tracking in groundless fluff), but J. Petervary seems to believe otherwise and he's deffo the expert...
jameso
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by jameso »

68.5 is pretty slack for 29+, depends what you like etc, it'll have a fair bit of trail at least. Anyway. I'd like a spin on it, nothing more than that.
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 23937
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

Anyway. I'd like a spin on it
I'd just like to re-paint it :wink:
May the bridges you burn light your way
User avatar
JohnClimber
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:41 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by JohnClimber »

Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.

Image
jameso
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by jameso »

Agreed. I'd happily do without the belt.
User avatar
Ray Young
Posts: 3443
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Ray Young »

JohnClimber wrote:Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.
I think that belt drives on bicycles are worth pursuing. After all, regular chains snap too and if belt drives can cope with large capacity 1,340 litre Harley Davidson motorcycles chucking out huge amounts of torque at irregular intervals (v twin) then i'm sure reliable belt drives for bicycles can be produced.
User avatar
ZeroDarkBivi
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:18 am
Location: Somerset

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by ZeroDarkBivi »

This could be the best riding bike in the world, but it is just so fugly I would never give it a try - perhaps my loss. BIkes don't have to be works of art, but they cannot be this aesthetically challenged.
User avatar
mountainbaker
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:34 pm
Location: Devon

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by mountainbaker »

Fixed.

Image
User avatar
mountainbaker
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:34 pm
Location: Devon

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by mountainbaker »

Looking over this carefully, it's basically proof that you can't polish a turd. It's hideous, covered in super expensive crabon parts, but still just looks like a recycled kebab.
jameso
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by jameso »

:lol:

I've owned enough bikes where fun overcomes grimness of aesthetic.. Still got a couple perhaps.
evilgoat
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by evilgoat »

There's an old adage in engineering that goes something like ' if it looks right it'll go alright.'

That looks so totally wrong I wouldn't want to even touch it.

It looks like a cut n shut!

Mountain bikes can (should) look pretty too. :wink:

Image

Image

Image

I think you had a bit of a hand in the design of that l last one James. :wink:
User avatar
Ian
Posts: 4653
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:10 pm
Location: Scotlandshire
Contact:

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Ian »

JohnClimber wrote:Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.
Is that a recent development John - yours I presume?
How many miles has it done?
jameso
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by jameso »

Still think it looks fun.. Angles, dimensions, dropper, short stem and wheels. Don't care about the rest : )
I liked the trek 69er tho.
User avatar
JohnClimber
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:41 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by JohnClimber »

Ian wrote:
JohnClimber wrote:Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.
Is that a recent development John - yours I presume?
How many miles has it done?
I have the prototype Travers built up with it and rode it for 350+ miles on dry summer trails off road, fire roads and tarmac.
Then 1 mile after it's first deep puddle
Image

and after 1/2 mile of pushing the bike covered in Dorset's finest gloopy sticky mud
Image
Belt drive still in tact above

I knocked off as much mud as I could and on a flat farm track I jumped on and pushed down normally on the pedal and then "snap"

This is the dried on mud the day afterwards that caused the problem
Image

Did I mention the 7 miles walk back to the road and flagging down a guy in a pick up truck to take me back to my car and spending the full day afterwards not riding but sorting out parts, tools and having a chain drive fitted?

Belt drive = Avoid, avoid, avoid
User avatar
Dave42w
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:09 pm

Re: Interesting bike!

Post by Dave42w »

John,

Scary.

I have done about 5,000 miles on my Shand Stoater with Centretrack belt and Rohloff.

I did get a free replacement belt after the 1st developed a crack. The new belt is slightly different to the 1st (it has side to side ridges across the outside of the belt).

I have not done any deep mud off road riding.

It does make me think I'll carry a spare belt with me on my Sabbatical ride next year (1,500 miles in 3 months). Although the only real off road will be the WRT
Image
Post Reply