G'ah double post, quick think of something else interesting to say
um
Ah
Urhm
Oh yeah this is up to date and relevant - where is the square tubing eh? not a proper Pace is it eh?
Agree reach is short for a bike like this. It wouldn't be out of place on something more conservative though.
I'm kind of glad they're so short - no chance of me getting tempted.
Seems very odd though, when high-quality steel 29er frames with a decent reach are so thin on the ground anyway.
Maybe very mainstream would have been a better term17.5" whyte is 449
17.7" last FF is 450
18" stanton is 435.4
18.5" kona is 475
19" pace is 435
The Kona (Honzo I presume?) is 475 with a 120mm fork, add 20mm and you lose 10mm reach for a ~67 head angle and same bb drop as the Pace. So 30mm difference, still big but the Kona is longer than everything else by a huge chunk anyway.
Throw 30mm sag on the Pace and its closer to 450mm reach (ish, cant get exact number match).
Id still not buy a Pace though, other than the name I cant see what it offers.
As far as I can tell all the above are static so there is no issue with sag, it's all like for like comparison.
But that orange! 🙂Id still not buy a Pace though, other than the name I cant see what it offers.
It's a nice looking frame.
Boost if that's what you want and + if that's what you want.
853
Swappable dropouts
Steel, if that's what you want
Designed in UK if that's what you want.
I like it!
Scienceofficer - Member
It's a Pace. If anything goes wrong you're on your own.
I've problems with 3 Pace frames,
2x RC129
1x 305
Been sorted every time. If I didn't have a stooge I'd seriously look at one of these.
I'm kind of glad they're so short - no chance of me getting tempted.Seems very odd though, when high-quality steel 29er frames with a decent reach are so thin on the ground anyway.
Yup
It's why I've designed my own!
So close and yet so far with the new Pace I feel.
Interested to see the mboy stuff as I think we're after similar things
Mboy, if you're welding t in your shed using worcestershire steel I'm in!
thepodge - MemberAs far as I can tell all the above are static so there is no issue with sag, it's all like for like comparison.
Different length forks though as I pointed out. You cant criticise reach with different fork travels on each.
The Kona ive mentioned above
The Whyte is also 120mm, with a 140mm fork and the reach drops to ~440m
The Stanton 27.5/27.5+ model the switchback is 435.4.. but with a 510mm fork, which is just plain wrong as with the wheelbase, headangle and chainstay listed you cant get that reach number, you get 400mm at most.
Basically, unless you actually look at it in detail, dismissing something based on a number doesn't work. You ride it of course and decide you like/hate it, but who does that when you can look at spreadsheets 😆
I kind of disagree, if I sit on a 150mm bike with 450 reach it feels good, if I sit on a 100mm bike with 450 reach it feels good. No one is going to fit 100mm forks to the Pace to make it right.
My rule of thumb is along the lines of the reach must be the same or greater than the seat tube length, if its not I'll move on to something else, if it is then I'll start looking at all the other details.
hmmm - not sure about this. Sag amount differs with fork travel, so that would be a factor if all these numbers are static.if I sit on a 150mm bike with 450 reach it feels good, if I sit on a 100mm bike with 450 reach it feels good.
Stack plays a pretty big role on a hardtail too because the seat remains in the same place regardless of travel, so on longer forked bikes you've got a higher stack bringing the reach shorter.
I'm not sure how it all plays out, but I'm pretty sure they aren't directly comparable.
Always best to ride and decide.
Yeah it differs but not a massive amount, its not like I'm saying I only ride 450 and cant ride anything else, but If its about 450 then I know I'm on a good starter.
Yes but someone might want to run the pace with 120mm forks, which would give it a reach of ~445mm and the same BB height as the bikes above with that length fork. So its a lot closer than it looks initially. Yes if you plan on running 140mm forks its shorter, but if you want 140mm forks then when choosing your frame you dont look at its figures for when running it with a 120mm fork.
Also, sitting on a bike with 450mm reach unsagged geo and a 140mm fork will be much more sagged reach reach than frame with the same unsagged reach but a 100mm fork. You can obviously compensate for this with a shorter stem on the longer forked bike, but that only works if you didn't want a shorter stem on the 100mm travel bike (which goes against STW policy of 50mm stem on all bikes!! 😆 )
I totally agree you buy what feels right for you, im just trying to point out unsagged reach needs to be compared like for like as reach changes with fork length (sag).
Mboy, if you're welding t in your shed using worcestershire steel I'm in!
It's not been ruled out making it locally. In fact it really depends whether it's economically viable to get more than one made and then sell them (even at nominally low bike industry margins). Thing is it would be a premium product with, at best, a very limited market appeal. More likely is that I'll get one made, ride it, then evaluate some months down the line whether it's potentially viable as a sales proposition. Have been evaluating various avenues for getting the prototype made, have recently got back in touch with an old friend who now makes one off motorcycle frames for a living and has got a few MTB frame ideas of his own he's keen to make.
Was looking at the numbers for your 2016 Bigwig again last night, weight aside (cos they're not light!) if the reach was a little longer on them it would be very close to ideal.
Interested to see the mboy stuff as I think we're after similar things
Quite possibly. The problem would be making it financially viable to make any of them! I'm realistic that it's likely to end up being a one off that I end up riding and enjoying myself, but if that's the case, there's worse things to blow £1k+ on than a custom steel frame!
The problem would be making it financially viable
I've looked at this so many times but I don't have the patience to deal with the public never mind bringing finance into it.
Dealing with the public is easy in comparison to members on here 😆
Going off topic but isn't the 2017 bigwig longer (than the 2016)? Sure I read that here or somewhere?
Depends how you look at it. I think its longer in both reach and seat tube. If you were maxed out on a 18 you now have to buy a 17 so its shorter...
My stumpy legs and a 125 reverb aren't compatible with anything over a 18 seat tube.
Some of you gents must be real gorilla's. I'm 5'9" with a +6" ape index and that medium would be perfect for me. It's almost the same as the OO DeeDar, just a little higher at the front and that fits me perfectly.
sq225917 - perfect for me
We're not all you though are we?
I always wondered why the Parkwood was so short, 419mm in Large with a 120mm fork. Id be smashing the bar with my knees!
sq225917 - It's almost the same as the OO DeeDar, just a little higher at the front and that fits me perfectly.
Oh really? Is it the perfect blend of vertically compliment and laterally stiff? I assume the 650b makes the trail come alive too. I love these unbiased cycle reviews.
I like my parkwood but it does feel short with my 120mm recons. It is great fun and I've enjoyed it a lot over the years but when you get used to a longer bike it feels quite old school. Horses for courses, some might prefer it not saying one is better than the other.
