Forum menu
Make a BFe front end mated to a Hemlock-esque 4" rear but to take the same sh*t my 4X does and I'm first in the queue!
I'm second, as long as its cheep (which it wouldn't be, so I'm not).
I'm still tepted to buy a heckler rear end, learn to braze and fit it to a steel hardtail front end, (BBshell inserted into DT, HTII cups, alloy axel machined to fit the cups and heckler swingarm) just to see if it works.
Deejay from here went the exact opposite route.
[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2680/4086010151_6652c8f6fe.jp g" target="_blank">
😀 😀 😀 😀
dave, what size is that neo guard...............
oh, and nice bike............... 😉
what size is that neo guard...............
Unlike yourself it is a small 😆
Great looking bike Deejay 🙂
WTF, get rid of all those mudguards, and the chainstay protector on the non drive side...Awful.
looks seriously nice dj
hows it ride compared to the pace? g
(ok, built overseas but still good to support uk engineering)
How is it british engineering if its entierly made overseas shipped in? If it was finished here or even prepped and painted here then maybe, but as is its just plain not engineering.
Still a nice bike tho. :0)
but as is its just plain not engineering
designing is engineering 🙂
I think they're assembled over here, but could be wrong. And as above, isn't a big part of engineering the design?
What's tyre clearance like around the chainstays with the new 2010 back end? The one I saw at cycleshow looked like it had very tight clearance on the sort of tyre size you'd want to use with that type of bike, due to the stays being so chunky.
hows it ride compared to the pace?
g - I have only had 2 rides on it since it was finished. Climbing, the Pace has the edge but only cos I have got the longer fork and the front end gets light - traction is great. Descending the Hemlock is superb - more testing required. . . . . . . . . 🙂
Dicky - I am using 2.1 ADvantage's which come up quite big but I am not sure it will take much bigger
just finished my hemlock build tonight (2nd hand) but have noticed every build has the rear brake cable on the outside of the rear shox mount. this the rubs like made on the rear swing mounting. if run through and under the shox then it has nothing to rub on First ride 2moro night with a mate who hates cotics and cotic owners 😳
Dicky: the answer is; 'enough'
i've had 2.5" high-rollers in the back with no problems.
.
.
Showerman: i attach my rear brake hose to the outer-side of the shock mount with zip-ties.
(make an 'O' with your thumb and first finger of your left hand, make an interlocking 'O' with the thumb and first finger of your right hand, now imagine that the 'O's are zip ties, one O goes around the shock mount, the other O goes around the brake hose - this stops the hose rubbing)
Looking at Kelvin's pics above, the chainstays don't look that different to My Nicolai Helius ST's - so whereabouts do they "keep breaking"?
Is it always exactly the same spot?
Is it at a weld or halfway across?
Are they being re-built properly? i.e. it is publicised that the magazine test wasn't assembled correctly, so are replacements being assembled as they should, or being mackled together using what's left over?
What's the riding 'style' of those that break them - are they big fat clumsy oafs, or super smooth bmxers?
I'm just gobsmaked, and frankly don't believe that a manufactuer, even one as small as Cotic, would send out replacement parts with the same problem as the original. Is this whole issue being blown out of proportion? And no, I don't have a Cotic, but I do believe the internet tends to exagerate 'issues' such as this.
the problem was caused by a part being assembled incorrectly.
Cy not only put in place extra checks to ensure they are all done proper from now on he also re-designed some of the bits.
podge: my chainstays broke in classic fashion, the washers [b]were[/b] installed, the bolts weren't loose.
i weigh 12 stone, and ride like a coward. i shouldn't be able to break [i]anything[/i].
(if i can break something, that thing is seriously flawed)
i was aware of the possible issue with the chainstay, and moderated my cowardly riding accordingly; no drops, no jumps, wheels firmly on the ground. 3 months later - 'chunk'...
the '09 chainstay broke because the loaded part of the 'eye' was only about 1.5mm thick.
(chainstays are under tension, the hemlock c'stay can be likened to a curve, the tension is greatest on the inside of the curve, this is where the [i]very[/i] thin web was - just above the steel threaded insert. There really wasn't a lot of metal there)
Mildred: it's the 2009 chainstays that are a bit dodgy, if they go, it'll be on the very thin web above the steel threaded insert.
the 2008 chainstays are fine, the 2010 chainstays are even bigger.
Ah, didn't know that, thought it was just installation error failures.
i generally like the hemlock a lot but there is something not quite right in its aesthetics for me, problem is I cant quite put my finger on what it is.
and just to nit pick, wouldn't the inside of a curve be under compression not tension? or am I reading you wrong?
chainstays are under tension - yes?
the hemlock chainstay is basically curved - yes?
the inside of the curve will be under more tension than the outside of the curve.
trust me, i'm good at this sort of thing.
.
.
The 2010 Hemlock is a very good bike.
Showerman - I ran the brake hose through the lower shock mount as you suggest.
had 2 rides on mine now and its a good platform, my 2 bikes are more xc style so am having to learn a little as the front is higher than i am used to, saying that i seem to be going down faster climbs a little slower again cos i think the front is higher but i will get used to that over time oh and it has just started some creeking around the pivots so guess what i am upto tonight in the kitchen. gloves and grease and a pizza on the side 😆
I think it's the next bike. Still like the Pace.
Ive got one up for sale in the classifieds if anybody is interested ;o)
using short rocker anyone ride all the time with the longer rocker, will swap mine over to see if any different when just riding local wood stuff
who dose ride with the bigger rocker
09 no problems but don't mention the forks I bought.
I wouldn't say it was the best climbing bike but then it's not set up for that. It get's up the hills.
I like straight tubes and hate bendy down tubes so having the clearance with a big gusset is fine by me.
[i] Van Halen - Member
I was told by cotic that they would not be suitable for my riding: general woodsy dh razzing, bit jumpy fun, bit of shore and occasionally xc and barrelling down rocky welsh/lakes bridleways as fast os poss.
bearing in mind i`m located on the south coast i recon it is pretty much a perfect bike for what i want on paper (longer forks, adjustable travel, not hugely overbuilt and heavy)
mainly i was worried about hte warrenty and snapping. i was looking at buying a demo original version from a local shop and at the time i would have only be allowed 4 months warrenty - which i thought was pants really considering my worries and not hugely confidence inspiring. (the demo orange i bought yonks ago came with a full warrenty)
it seems (from the posts above) that those that ride theirs hard are snapping them which means they they are essenially a very heavy xc bike and (from their comments to me) cotic know that. [/i]
I think the key comment there is "a bit of shore" that can mean anything from 2" drops to 15' hucks. I don't want an overbuilt long travel full sus.
i've had the long rocker on for a couple of months now.
it's only 30mm more travel, but it feels like loads more than that.
The short rocker is ace for just riding, uphill, downhill, whatever, i can get away with forgetting the propedal, and it still feels solid enough to stand up and mash the pedals.
the long rocker seems to love being set up with lots of sag (about 40%), obviously you can run it harder, but i think you'd be missing some of the charm of the long-rocker. but if i stand up and stamp on the pedals, i'm quickly reminded to switch on the propedal (level 3)
the long rocker offers loads of climbing traction, and a magic carpet bottomless ride.
i wouldn't say that you 'need' one rocker for one type of riding, or the other. they offer a different 'feel' more than anything else.