just a thought, i reckon i could do a passable job of converting this frame into a 29er…

i could fit 100mm travel forks instead of 150; – with an angleset in ‘backwards’ if the head angle was just too slack.

and cobble a new back end in ; – 100mmish instead of 150.

i’ve been looking for a new frame-project, i might have found it…

(scratches beard)

🙂

Surely there’s more to the linkage than meets the eye so far.

It could just be a link-activated single pivot.

But there’s also a slim chance that the droplink is a dual link of some sort.
Otherwise – why keep it secret? Why create a teasing logo for it? Why keep the bike out of focus in the video?

Adam, You’ve already built one bike and seem to know your onions so why not go the whole hog and build another?

Very similar dont On-One do these now?

i’ve built 3…

for a while i’ve been mulling over attempting a short-travel 29er. 100mm ish, but with ‘AM / XXC’ geometry (long low and slack – or whatever)

But it’ll take a few attempts (and lots of money), to try out the geometry,

it’s almost worth getting it wrong, just so i know – that a low (or high) BB is great (or terrible) – for example.

if i resign myself to that likelyhood that proto-1 will be bobbins, i might as well save myself the hassle/cost of making a front end, and use someone elses – it’ll do for a starting point.

but it’s tricky to add/move pivots, so i’d have to look at one first to see if it looks like a goer.

(i don’t think Cy would be keen to hand over dimensioned drawings just so some idiot can butcher one of his frames with a little more accuracy)

i think it’s a great idea…

😀

Three! I only knew of one. I can see what you mean about having a few done to make sure you get it right but I would have thought buying a new frame then changing bits would be just as expensive, maybe it is, maybe it isnt. You could do the first one with a 1.5 headtube and adjustable linkages so that you can tweak geometry etc… Its what I’m planning on doing, I just need to get an alu builder on board.

TDE, are you posting in the wrong thread? I know Stevo had some plans but by the looks of it OO are leaving all / most of their full suss stuff in the Titus range and none are that similar to this.

TDE, are you posting in the wrong thread? I know Stevo had some plans but by the looks of it OO are leaving all / most of their full suss stuff in the Titus range and none are that similar to this.

It was a question? I have been looking for a new frame for less than a grand ,missed the CRC Turners ,waited to see what the new Hemlock would be like then someone suggested a Titus.I dont know how to post picture but it looks very similar to the little link on the suspension and with the shock welded to a different locating point.So i figured if they are one and the same?

My original post should have said “do” not “don’t”

well then I guess this is no more an OO / Titus than the hemlock was a specialized since they both use the same horstlink design.

this may not be revolutionary but it does seem to tick all the important boxes

As I said before though, I don’t know what this droplink thing is, is there something we can’t see behind the (triple?) chainring? Though in my limited viewpoint on these things can’t how that would work, if it were just that?

I’d guess that’s unlikely, given the asymmetric chainstays. The non-driveside chainstay looks like it travels directly from a seat tube mounted pivot (mounted in line with the middle or big ring at a guess) to the rear axle.

Provided that is the non driveside chainstay we can see behind the wheel, of course. The background is almost the same colour as the rear triangle, which makes it a bit tricky to tell. 🙂

doesn’t he say in the video that its a single pivot?

Shocks on opposite way to ‘normal’.

No, visualy most bikes put the air can at the top which I guess keeps the COG low, but in terms of suspension performance the air can shoul be attache to the swingarm as it the ligher end of the shock (the other end being filled with oil). So cotic have itt he right way arround.

retro-horst-link-tastic.

rebadged proflex anyone?

No, visualy most bikes put the air can at the top which I guess keeps the COG low, but in terms of suspension performance the air can shoul be attache to the swingarm as it the ligher end of the shock (the other end being filled with oil). So cotic have itt he right way arround.

Generally, beiks have socks fited with the narow bit facing down so teh oil kee[ps the baby seals loobed. I’m sure a hair sock is so lite that performance word to the wise, it doen’t really mattter wich way round it iz.

All the info is now out:
http://www.cotic.co.uk/geek/droplink

😐

Reminds me of our old metal folding garden chairs 😮

It is a prototype I suppose. You’d have to expect the production bike to look a lot better finished.

interesting; that’s a steel back-end on that prototype…

also interesting to read and interpret what Cy means by ‘brake-jack’ and ‘stable-braking’.

I guess the difficulty with steel regarding aesthetic, is that it doesn’t lend itself to machined pivot areas or fancy shapes. That 3-finger thing of Brant’s is about as close as we get!

I guess the best we can hope for is some tidy caps and tidy welding.

There’s something nasty about white paint on round tubes with greasy fingermarks though 🙂

I read the whole of that page and I was totally happy with Anti-squat/curves/rates/jack/etc but I had to look up “alacrity” 🙂

…There’s something nasty reassuringly ‘bike-like’ about white paint on round tubes with greasy fingermarks though…

i couldn’t agree more!

🙂

Anyone got a line drawing of the layout? I can’t quite get my head around it from the photo.

it’s similar to not unlike a specialized camber/stumpjumper/enduro.

but the traditional chainstay-pivot is on the seatstay…

One thing we’ve not seen yet is the rear brake mount. It sounds like it was a critical part of the design.