Hi All,

I’m in the process of resurrecting my old frame, and i’m curious to find out what the geometry of them are – anyone got any ideas?

Thanks

Ed

I’ve got one and I have no idea – does it matter?

Stupidly as I should have been doing some work or going to bed, I’ve been doign some research and there’s 2 avenues of inquiry if you’re actually bothered.

Kev at Evolution Cycles used to be the UK importer (no idea if the shop still exists or if he’s still there mind). He may be able to shed some light on it.

If not this http://www.keewee.co.nz/nz/about.html gives you some info and a good lead to Trevor Porter the guy that used to build them.

Actually – just found his LinkedIn page HERE. Easy.

If you do get anything back, post it up. I’d be interested to see the results.

Good luck

Gaz

Angle finder app on google play

I think I’ve got a copy of the geometry page from the old Keewee web site. I’ll look it out when I get home.

Head angle 67°
BB height 356mm
BB to rear axle 464mm
ETL small 508/523/538mm
ETL large 533/549/564mm
Wheel centres 1156mm

Interesting that it’s not very slack at all. Guess it gets away with it by having a super long rear end. There are times where you just think it’s the most stable bike in the world and at super high speed in rough terrain you feel like it’s the best bike in the world.

Just been out to measure mine up for comparison. I can’t do the head angle as it’s not got any wheels on it and it’s hung on the wall but I can get to the wheelbase and rear chainstay length. Mine’s a K (later) version

Wheelbase – 1195mm
Chainstay – 470mm

The BB looks to be about 1″ above the wheel centrelines (2006 8″ Boxxers fitted). No idea how to compare with the above figure without knowing what tyre those numbers are defined against.

Thanks all, much appreciated!

Funnily enough I did try and find trev on linkedin, but i didnt have much luck…

Interesting that it’s not very slack at all. Guess it gets away with it by having a super long rear end. There are times where you just think it’s the most stable bike in the world and at super high speed in rough terrain you feel like it’s the best bike in the world.

I also think that has to do with the shock and linkage all being in the bottom bracket area. Weight is low and central. I remember mine being super stable round corners, it would just sort of dig in and pull you round, however I didn’t find it very ‘playful’. It was basically the opposite experience to the 222 I had had previously.

I didn’t find it very ‘playful’.

It’s certainly not a bike that encourages you to pop the front wheel up at every opportunity that’s for sure.

I have wondered what sort of reaction you’d get by putting Steve Jones on one built with modern parts. It was incredibly long for it’s time and it’s only recently that wheelbases have started to overtake it but it was done in a fundamentally different way to current thinking.

G

Is it the 8 or the zone that pedaled like a rugby ball?

Just put the angle measure on mine and the head angle is 64.5° with 170mm marzocchi 888s from 2005. Didn’t measure the others, couldn’t lay my hands on my tape measure.

I measured this at 65.5ish earlier using a few lines overlaid in CAD. Not quite as steep as the numbers up there but that’s probably becaus it’s got 8″ forks rather than the 7″ ones it was designed for.

wysiwyg – Member
Is it the 8 or the zone that pedaled like a rugby ball?

Care to elaborate?