Bike Forum
New singular buzzard
-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
Looks good
Posted 5 months ago # -
Looks like that photo was shot in 'wide screen' and has been displayed in 4:3 format.....
Posted 5 months ago # -
that looks great.with those short chainstays should be a ripper!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Ok, curious, a 69 degree head angle on a 29er....whats the rough equivalent for a 26er?
Posted 5 months ago # -
is it a 29r?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Yes wheel diameter is 740 on the drawing
Posted 5 months ago # -
glad i did not buy a kona honzo..........
Posted 5 months ago # -
not to many all mountain 29ers about yet but thats the next step.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Looks good.....I think.
Not sure I like the fat steel down tube to be honest but I understand the reasoning.
Looks like it would be better without the EBB - Clearance looks dodge here.Think it looks like the 'brant' designed 26r ragley's at quick glance !
Posted 5 months ago # -
Bristol - yes, shot quickly with my compact and wide converter, should have taken it off.. need to get some better shots....
Ton - yes it's a 29er
These are just the first protos so there are definitely a few details which still need to be work out, though I think we've pretty much got the basics. Things which will definitely change fro production;
ST will be for a 31.9mm post for dropper compatibility - do we need dropper post cable routing as well if you already have guides on the TT for rear brake? Could easily double the cables with a zip tie on to the same set of guides. I kinda want to keep the frame as clean as possible.
Tyre clearance will be improved, it's pretty tight even with the Ikon 2.2" in there. There are a couple of ways we could improve this without compromising chainstay length. First would just to be have a little more manipulation of the non-drive chainstay and the driveside plate. Second, and possibly my preference, would be to use a standard british threaded 73mm shell. This obviously would remove easy singlespeed/IGH-ability, but I wonder how in demand that is on a frame like this.
At the moment it's a standard 135mm rear end, would going wider be a positive thing or is compatibility with existing wheelsets more important. I think possibly the latter especially as this will be sold as frame only.
Anyhow, I know you guys have got lots of opinions, let's have 'em!
I'm gonna go out for a play
Posted 5 months ago # -
I like the concept but not the oversize steel tubing. It's lost the elegance of the Swift. I bet the front mech will be a squeeze with the rear tyre too (not that I'd run one).
Posted 5 months ago # -
I bet the front mech will be a squeeze with the rear tyre too (not that I'd run one).
That problem could be made better with a direct mount mech.
I think it shows a lot of promise Sam.
You realy need to get clearace for large tyres on a frame like this though or it kind of misses the point a bit.Hope you're bringing it with you to Jase's at the weekend.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Hows the clearance for the fork top controls under the down tube? I suspect its fine but on the swift the cable guide made it a bit tight, burly bike might be taking some tumbles. Ditch the ebb and make one in ti...please.
Posted 5 months ago # -
You can't have everything CD - if you want a stiffer frame able to cope with the kind of riding this is intended for then it needs larger tubing.
At this point probably not going to be front mech compatible, though I'm also contemplating direct mount.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Thread title sounds like it should be a Fall song-ah
Posted 5 months ago # -
Don't like the plated chainstay yoke, otherwise, where do I sign?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Don't like the plated chainstay yoke
If I make it definitely single ring specific and go for standard BB shell we can probably manage without it. Would probably add ISCG tabs in that case.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Fantastic colour choice!
The loss of the EBB for a 73mm shell would make sense. An all mountain set up has to have gears in my book.
Out of interest, what about doing a 19 inch centre to top with a decently long top tube for those over 6 feet tall? In my mind, an all mountain frame should have extra standover but then I am fussy! Ha! Ha!
Did I say I love the colour?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Thanks Sanny - yes, there will be a size smaller and a size bigger.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Sam - Member
You can't have everything CD - if you want a stiffer frame able to cope with the kind of riding this is intended for then it needs larger tubing.At this point probably not going to be front mech compatible, though I'm also contemplating direct mount.
But I want everything Does it ride like steel even though it looks like alu?
No front mech is probably fine for most.
Posted 5 months ago # -
"ride like steel" is a pretty broad term.... it's certainly stiffer than the Swift, but the relatively slender stays still give a good level of compliance. haven't had a huge amount of time on it yet though.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Iscg?
Posted 5 months ago # -
I'm leaning towards ISCG with standard BB shell for production in order to increase tyre clearance.
Posted 5 months ago # -
This is very similar to what I'm having made, im going with 73mm bb with swinging dropouts at most ill run it 1x9 it looks very nice that Sam, ideally I want to be able to run a huge tyre at back min of 2.5
Posted 5 months ago # -
AFAIK there are no 2.5" 29er tyres....
Posted 5 months ago # -
My wtb comes up big on a wide rim, and I believe maxxis have one coming out next year
Posted 5 months ago # -
Ok IMO you should go -
Normal BB NOT EBB.
Yes to the gravity dropper guides on the top tube.
Yes to ISCG tabs, You'll want the option of a chain guide system.
Make the rear compatible with existing wheel width to make it more accessible as a frame only option. Good new rear wheels cost over £250 no days!!
Is there anyway to incorporate a replaceable mech hanger? Using it on the rough stuff makes it more likely that you'll catch the rear mech & bend the hanger. Straightening a steel hanger will surely weaken it over time where as having a replaceable hanger means this is no longer an issue.
Is it worth having a gusset under the headtube/downtube to add a bit of strength?
Just me 2p's worth
Posted 5 months ago # -
S-S-Stu; while you are visiting;
She has just been washed in that pic as the snow was coming this weekend.I think she is off to hibernate for the next 3 months. Done a couple of Bothy weekends on her already. I may have to put some suspension and a hub gear on for next year.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Pretty much what the others have said.
73mm bb (or pressfit 90 but they don't seem to last too long)
Don't bother with a front mech.
ISCG tabs.
Keep it 135mm.
I'd add-Lots of standover and tt lengths for short (sub 70mm stems).
It better not be better than my Yelli Screamy!!!Posted 5 months ago # -
That looks nice and I would be tempted if there was a tad more standover....
Posted 5 months ago # -
I like the cut of its jib- big tyre capability a must on a bike like that me thinks- 1 x9 would be fine
Posted 5 months ago # -
Interim conclusions and responses....
More standover? seriously? Anyhow, I want this to be a bike you can still ride uphill, not an immediate get off and push beastie as soon as the trail goes up. At the moment with a 410 post in there I can get the saddle up to a reasonable riding height for this frame size, around 800mm, and still drop it a long way. If the standover was much greater then you wouldn't be able to get the saddle very high. Not everyone will want a dropper post. Can maybe push the TT/ST junction down a little... There will be a size smaller and a size larger than this.
Definitely aiming for clearance with 2.4" Ardents, a standard 73mm BB shell would allow us to do this. Jury's still out on whether to go for ISCG tabs or rely on seat tube or bb cup mounted retention devices. Which ISCG standard if so? (hanging his head and admitting to not knowing much about such things....)
Weight at the moment is a little on the porky side, around 6.8lbs with the EBB. I'll be aiming for around 6lbs which should be doable without the EBB and perhaps a slightly slimmer DT. But this is not an XC race bike, so weight saving steps won't be taken to the detriment of performance of the bike as a whole.
Will definitely be a 31.9mm post. However I'm struggling to see what real advantage specific dropper post cable guides would have over just doubling up the cable with the brake cable along the existing TT guides? Then those who don't use a dropper post aren't stuck with superfluous guides.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Sam,
All sounds good. Looking forward to adding yet another Singular to the collection!
I'd say yes to dropper post tabs. I've tried zip tying the dropper cable to the rear brake cable on another bike and it 'works' to an extent but isnt ideal. I found that i needed to pull the zip ties that tight to get them cable to stay put that they were more prone to snapping. Perhaps more importantly i also found that the two cables together sat too 'proud' from the frame and rubbed my leg when going round 'pedally' turns.
If you can make a Buzzard which suits a 5'8" rider and gives a touch more standover than a medium Swift then you will be on to a winner. The swift is a fantastic XC bike but when things get really technical (which i guess is where this bike will be in its element) then a little more standover would be a good idea.
Chris
Posted 5 months ago # -
The colour is a bit cheap looking. There are loads of strong colours that suit that kind of bike without going bright orange. All the existing Singluar range are really nice classy colours.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
