Interesting bike!
Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew
Re: Interesting bike!
I really like that.
- Charliecres
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:28 pm
Re: Interesting bike!
Very nice. That back end is waaaaay short.
- mountainbaker
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:34 pm
- Location: Devon
Re: Interesting bike!
Nice frame, and interesting idea. Two trendy wheel sizes all in one package!
Those enve forks are munting though.
Those enve forks are munting though.
Re: Interesting bike!
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)
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)
Re: Interesting bike!
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
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
- Bearbonesnorm
- Posts: 23937
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
- Location: my own little world
Re: Interesting bike!
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
EDIT: White doesn't do it any favours either.
EDIT: White doesn't do it any favours either.
May the bridges you burn light your way
Re: Interesting bike!
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.
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.
Re: Interesting bike!
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...
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..."
- Cheeky Monkey
- Posts: 3915
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:48 pm
- Location: Leeds ish
- Contact:
Re: Interesting bike!
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.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...
As for the bike above, mleh, s'alright I guess
Re: Interesting bike!
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...
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...
Re: Interesting bike!
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.
- Bearbonesnorm
- Posts: 23937
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
- Location: my own little world
Re: Interesting bike!
I'd just like to re-paint itAnyway. I'd like a spin on it
May the bridges you burn light your way
- JohnClimber
- Posts: 3915
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:41 pm
Re: Interesting bike!
Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.
Re: Interesting bike!
Agreed. I'd happily do without the belt.
Re: Interesting bike!
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.JohnClimber wrote:Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.
- ZeroDarkBivi
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:18 am
- Location: Somerset
Re: Interesting bike!
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.
- mountainbaker
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:34 pm
- Location: Devon
Re: Interesting bike!
Fixed.
- mountainbaker
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:34 pm
- Location: Devon
Re: Interesting bike!
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.
Re: Interesting bike!
I've owned enough bikes where fun overcomes grimness of aesthetic.. Still got a couple perhaps.
Re: Interesting bike!
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.
I think you had a bit of a hand in the design of that l last one James.
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.
I think you had a bit of a hand in the design of that l last one James.
Re: Interesting bike!
Is that a recent development John - yours I presume?JohnClimber wrote:Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.
How many miles has it done?
Re: Interesting bike!
Still think it looks fun.. Angles, dimensions, dropper, short stem and wheels. Don't care about the rest : )
I liked the trek 69er tho.
I liked the trek 69er tho.
- JohnClimber
- Posts: 3915
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:41 pm
Re: Interesting bike!
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.Ian wrote:Is that a recent development John - yours I presume?JohnClimber wrote:Belt drive on a bike that can go off road avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs....... unless you only ride on tarmac.
How many miles has it done?
Then 1 mile after it's first deep puddle
and after 1/2 mile of pushing the bike covered in Dorset's finest gloopy sticky mud
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
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
Re: Interesting bike!
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
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