What's the shortest chaInstays that you can get on a 29er. I've seen around 16 inch on custom frames but what can you get in non custom.
Lightweight, sliding drop out would be good too.
Anything out there - ive seen the Konas but they seem heavily built.
Just measured up and On-one ti29er and Scandal appears to be 17.5" c-c (BB to Axle) Not sure how you squeeze it all into 16"! 😯
a wheel with 2.1" tyres has a radius of about 14.5" before you have room to start bringing the stays into the BB shell.
For a bike only frame then I think a Canfield YS or N9 has the shortest stays and for a off the peg build a Whyte 29er or the Kona Honzo?
canfield, curtis, mythic paradox and for full suss the new devinci atlas looks short out back.
Unless you are very short, you need to try before you ride to make sure you are not too far up and back.
Seen very short chainstays from waltworks and other US manufacturers but custom only. Usually by having an ofset seat tube but not always
Will look at the Whyte, the others seem to be all mountain frames
Trek Superfly - 17.5"
Karate Monkey is a few mm shy of 17"
how are the short stay being accommodated on a lot of these bikes? Are they kinking the st? The Canfield amongst others struggle with large volume tyres and mech interface with the short stays.
The KM has a kinked seat tube, singlespeed removes the rear mech issue.
Drawings for first proto of new Singular model are at 16.5" to centre of ebb, so 16" at minimum length. This will be more all mountainy though. The Canfield Nimble 9 is probably closest to what you are after that is still relatively XC oriented, slack head angle though.
From the website the whyte 29er seem to be 16.7 inches. Pretty good.
New Singular sounds very interesting Sam - what's the ETA? Early 2012?
being a tall rider which inevitably puts your weight further back, quite nice to have longer stays.
The Cube alloy 29ers are 438mm (17.2"), the carbon frames are 440mm.
[url= http://www.2soulscycles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34&Itemid=120&lang=en ]2 Souls QH ?[/url]
New Singular sounds very interesting Sam - what's the ETA? Early 2012?
Haven't even got protos yet so won't be until mid-2012 at the earliest.
2 soul QH weighs a ton - thinking more along the lines of a Cotic Soul for the 29er world (yes I know there will be the Solaris but there needs to be others) but the type of bike that can happily mix it up on the Peak or Lakes classics but is not built like a tank and still has lots of finesse.
Cheers Sam for the info.
Looking forward to seeing the new Singular, will it be 4130?
My homemade custom 29er runs chainstays at a smidge under 16". Combining this with Sam's Hummingbird fork (55mm offset) and a 70 head gives rather nice handling in my opinion (I'm 5ft 10" so my weight isn't too far back). It won't suit everyone but I'd suggest people under 6ft shouldn't flame the idea until they actually try riding one. It is just another way to get a sensible wheelbase 29er instead of the normal long stay / steep head angle route.
I can't / don't run a front mech. Usual setup is singlespeed but took it to the alps this summer with 5 cogs at the back and it climbed just fine (not lifting the front wheel). 2.4" tyres and bags of mud room thanks to subtly elevated chainstays (just enough elevation to clear chain running 32:32 max ratio).
I put a big curve in the seat tube to clear the tyre but most others are using a straight tube joining the downtube ahead of the bb shell.
Starting to get a reasonable range of production models (Canfield, Kona etc mentioned above). However looking at some build photos I'm a little sceptical of some of the claimed chainstay lengths - there seems to be a lot of daylight between bb shell and tyre on some photos of bikes claiming 16.25" stays 🙂
Will be building another next year to suit a suspension fork and maybe with regular stays (there is room to fit them with careful design and a single chainring).
Solaris has 435mm horizontal (440mm c-c), which 16mm longer than a Soul. I've not found it a problem compared to the Soul.
Santa Cruz Highball is 17.4 inch, i'll check if thats c-c
sounds interesting layout mick - got pics?
Chumba HX2 17.2 inches.
Why one earth would you just be interested in one measurement taken in isolation?
Combining this with Sam's Hummingbird fork (55mm offset) and a 70 head gives rather nice handling in my opinion
..gives you the same front end geo as a Jones. Works very well imo.
I don't think there's any real need for a 29er to be any shorter than a 26". I've ridden 29ers with 435-440mm rears that hop and jump (in a trail-riding way rather than DJ) better than a 26" 425mm rear end bike. It seems like short rears are the current focus but overall balance from bb drop, front centre and bar position all add up to be more important. The Canfields aren't measured along the stay either, it's measured horizontally from BB to axle - I think it's about 16.75" measured normally and people seem to be very happy on them.
In fact a 17" stay on a 29er with more BB drop puts your feet a bit closer (horizontally) to the rear axle than a 26" bike with a 17" stay.
The Kona's not light but it seems reasonable for what it is. Most short-stay 29ers are working out at 5lbs or more partly due to the curved seat tube needing to be plain gague or the added supports needed for the offset tubes, XX44 head tubes aren't light either. Those 2 features alone can add close to half a lb. Add in an EBB or sliders and it takes some good tubing and design to get the frame under 5lbs.
2 soul QH weighs a ton
rumoured to weigh around 6lb. not that heavy for an all mountain frame.
swift frames arent exactly light, but because they are well designed they ride superbly
rumoured to weigh around 6lb
A recent QH review sample was 8lbs but they reckoned nearer 7 for production without the smoothed welds.
The Canfields aren't measured along the stay either, it's measured horizontally from BB to axle
That's a bit misleading!
The measurement would not be in isolation though but it is a very important measurement when taken in relation to head angle and front centre to maintain a wheelbase that is not like a barge.
Longer front centre and shorter chainstays (within reason) has got to be a good thing within a given wheelbase.
My Swift with 100mm Rebas has a shorter wheelbase (by about 1cm IIRC) than my inbred with 130mm Paces. Both handle very well.
And FWIW, I often think that longer stays can actually improve some aspects of handling if you get it all right together - certainly when doing really steep climbs, a longer chainstay will help prevent you wheelying the front of the bike...
Kona Honza is 16.3". I've had a quick rip on one and it actually feels like a mountain bike, and not a barge, which for a 29er is quite a novelty! You can't run a front derailleur, but unless you just ride on roads or fields isn't a big deal.
That 2Souls is one of the nicest bikes i have seen in a long time.....although i'm not convinced a trials style demo vid is the way forward 😕
Plenty of build pics of my E stay thing on MTBR frame forum (but need to be logged into MTBR to see them). There are also a few on Retrobike but sizing went a bit screwy at first (some better ones at the bottom of page).
http://forums.mtbr.com/frame-building/29er-e-stay-homebuild-715751.html
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=167593
Apart from wanting a suspension fork at some stage, I don’t actually feel any need to make another – I’m happy that I got the geo right first time and the E stays work just fine (but I guess stays / downtube will probably crack after a few years of use). The big advantage of this set up as a prototype is that I have a full size working model with completely unhindered BB area – so can play with different chainstay shapes before committing to make anything else.
And as people have touched on above - it was designed as a "whole" bike to go with the slacker front not just a dimension in isolation.
Solaris has 435mm horizontal (440mm c-c),
Cy come on - why propagate this bollocks "horizontal" chainstay dimension.
Chainstay length is chain stay length.
Chainstays should be measured centre to centre from BB centre to axle centre.
Very interesting build there Mick. Not the type of bike I would ride but bravo for the executing an idea and riding the product.
[URL= http://inlinethumb45.webshots.com/49452/2713592510036898833S600x600Q85.jp g" target="_blank">
Ok it's currently a prototype
Here are some numbers
Ha 71
SA 71.6
Bb 300
Eff TT 609
Chain stay 417-437 All measured c/c
There is another on the way from china v2 has a few differences chain stays are even shorter 407-427 but this is so I can try a belt drive. At 417
I have been riding this for the last 6 months and it climbs really well and is great on the. Single track downsides are limited ankle clearance and the bb isn't as stiff as I would like but these have been sorted on v2 ( I hope)
Jones is 17.1" - it handles pretty well.
Chainstays should be measured centre to centre from BB centre to axle centre.
So, from a handling pov when you're stood up on the pedals the actual chainstay length, which is what you're on about above, is what matters right? But if you're sat down then the effective (if there is such a thing) chain stay length - based on where your arse is at compared to the rear wheel axle is more important, yes?
So, for a bike where you are out of the saddle more (i.e. a singlespeed) then the actual chainstay would be most important and there is little that can be done about that given the size of wheels and the need for a bottom bracket at a sensible position. Where as for a full susser, where you might (might) be sat down more, there seems to be more opportunity to play about with things, is this right.
(I've been to the pub)
Horizontal is just bollocks to make it sound shorter.
I'm in the bath.
@ Brant - I know you're just winding me up for shits and giggles, but I'm going to bite anyway.
When people are getting their knickers in a twist about chainstay length on 29er (which is only part of the story, I'll agree), they're really talking about rear centre. On a 26" bike the rear centre and c/stay length are virtually identical. That's not the case on 29ers and the horizontal gives a more accurate comparison IMO.
Yes but if everyone is quoting actual chainstay length (as is the norm for the 26" historical reasons stated) and then someone else claims (or insinuates) that theirs are shorter by using a horizontal measurement instead that's the aforementioned bollocks, isn't it?
When you're pulling the bike into a hop or jump the actual chainstay is what matters, it dictates the arc the bb moves around the axle and is fixed. Horizontal is ok for seated pedaling but road bikes don't use it either.
Edit to add- Fair point about comparisons tho. Do we have to show 2 CS measurements now? Ffs )
It's not bollocks if you tell people what you're measuring and it's not wrong. It's also more accurate to compare horizontal 29er with regular chainstay measurement on a 26" bike IMO.
It's not bollocks if you tell people what you're measuring
Of course not though jameso made a fair point.
It is bollocks when people fixate on one measurement in isolation and you maybe take advantage of that. Of course, that may not be the intention in this instance...
all this talk of short chainstays reminds me of the good/bad old days of 'we have the shortest chainstays' when big rings over lapped tyres!
like:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
weirdly someone pulled up at the lights the other day on a estay star that had been turned in a hack bike.. still cool!
i have enough trouble when some bike geometry is quoted in inches and others in mm,, when designing mine i looked at the "others" to see what people are doing and spent ages converting into mm
i think center to center is easier, but on bikes like 29ers with the bb a long way below the axle height then there can be a big difference between both measurments
while we are bitching i like bb height rather than drop, and i may start quoting HA and SA in radians
Whats the collective noun for bike designers - seems like a little convention going on here 🙂
Just for the record - I'm happily riding 15.95" (405.4mm) along the stay and 15.75" (400mm) horizontal. Not exactly a huge difference between the two dimensions.
I think the fixation on certain numbers (rear centre, head angle, fork rake etc) does have more relevence to 29ers where people are trying to get a bike that feels as responsive as a 26er whilst retaining the good bits that can come with larger wheels.
rootes 1 - click on my links on previous page.....
rootes 1 - click on my links on previous page.....
missed those. ace! like you frame and especially your 80/20 jig
On my horizontal Scandal, I have the rear wheel slid as far forward in the drop outs as it will go, the tyres only 5-10mm from the seat tube, but I dont run a front mech so its not a problem.
really? I mean do most people know what they want, or just repeating what they have heard and think they want?they're really talking about rear centre.
Imo keep measurements simple. Bit like when the discussion was about sag and how some like to quote HA when sagged, all pointless and confusing.
Some more news on the Singular Buzzard prototype [url= http://singularcycles.posterous.com/new-singular-buzzard-all-mountain-prototype-f ]here[/url]. CS 420mm (centre to centre 🙂
[img] 
[/img]