[Closed] What is wrong with Hemlocks?

Appart from the fear it may have a design weekness around the rear swingarm as stated by a certain mtb magazine ive found mine to be one of the better bikes ive owned.I find it climbs incredibly well and is a killer on the more technical trails.Having owned a few of the more boutique brands over the last few years i rate this bike right up there.As with any bike,setup and the right kit on the bike will make all the difference.Id rate it as a burly trail bike and riden with finess and skill,very capable.

Gareth, some of the 2009 bikes snapped at the chainstay - there was a very small amount of metal actually holding the back end on.

i'm having a dirty / sweaty / love / hate relationship with mine.

i love the handling, it's very downhill friendly, AND it climbs very well, no, i can't really work this out either.

i don't really mind that mine broke, i've been very well treated by cotic, and the design has changed for 2010, i even ended up with a spare chainstay... (don't tell Cy - he might ask for it back)

i hate that i can't take it Dh racing and give it damn good spanking, of all the bikes i've ridden and raced downhill, the hemlock is the one i'd pick for any descent that's technical/twisty/difficult/typically british, but i have to keep reminding myself that the frame only weighs 7lbs (3kg with shock), it's a light bike.

(the BFe is practically indestructable, and has an iscg mount - i wish Cy would apply the same sense of 'Grrr' to his full-bouncer)

I'm still using the very very first Hemlock stays with no problems what so ever, but I do keep killing wheels and forks, I seem to get a bit carried away on the bike rather than "riding light" ; but the stays are fine.

I've recently put photos and vids of the new stupidly chunky stays on the Cotic website and elsewhere:

http://cotic.posterous.com/shakycam-new-chunky-hemlock-stays
http://cotic.co.uk/singletrack/hemlock
http://cotic.co.uk/product/hemlock

I happen to think that they're far more than I need, but I suppose after WMB heavily reporting the break they had with a miss-assembled version of the old frame, it's good to have such reassuringly chunky stays on the new model.

I think they are very underated. I've just got the new stays on my 09 model and they are noticeably stiffer.

wazzed round cwm carn on sat in the rain and it totally took everything. Works best with a 140 or 150 fork I reckon.

Cotic's just break don't they. Proper cotic fans have to have up to seven cotics so that they never wear one out / break one.

Hmm... Looks kind of like a cross between a Turner and Thumpercross. More industrial looking than my Orange5. I'm not sure if i like its looks but the ride sounds interesting.

I rode the Singletrack test Hemlock down all the Hebden Tech (and back up again) and it did just fine.

Vote for the early one here,ex demo with both rockers £675. 4" rocker and 36's and i've dropped 6' to a nearly flat landing with no chainstay issues.

As for looks, i like the simple fat, round tubes and there are boutique brands charging 2x as much for similar designs.

Nearly 1yr on and instead of dreaming of other bikes i'm still loving this one.

As a company Cotic are hard to beat. I have contacted Cy half a dozen times with questions and he is always prompt and patient with his replies.

If you are after a good all mountain/trail bike for steep techy british riding its superb.

hmmm envy.

better get saving I guess. The current deal with the two swing arms seems a good idea.

I'm not an engineer, so don't hate me too much if this isn't possible, but...

Why, considering all of Cotic's other bikes have steel front ends, didn't Cy make the Hemlock with a nice 853 front end, or even the Bfe front end, then with the aluminium rear. I don't see why it couldn't be about the same weight, it would be really unique, and look a lot nicer than those aluminium front tubes do.

I would've also thought that all the properties that make steel great on a hardtail would transfer over. Like I said, I'm no engineer, so maybe it would be awful, but I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

Well they are poisonous plants after all...

Ok Ok Ok IGMC

What's the current deal with the two swing arms?

I would've also thought that all the properties that make steel great on a hardtail would transfer over. Like I said, I'm no engineer, so maybe it would be awful, but I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

It would be great if you wanted to stick fridge magnets to your bike, otherwise it's like making a full susser from titanium isn't it, but heavier? Since the entire frame is sprung you just want it to be as light and stiff as possible, unless you're building a 500cc GP bike in which case you apparently want a little built-in flex. I'm not an engineer either, but...

one of the lads in our club has one, and he's on about his 3rd or 4th swingarm as they keep snapping. I wouldn't have one. Oh and the replacements come with different mech hangers too which have also caused problems.

I've got an '08 Hemlock, though it's only a few months old, built up I believe from some of the spare parts Cotic had lying around. It's SUPERB!! descending is a blast and it climbs so so well (traction!!!).

I have it set up with the '09 short rocker and RS rear shock (50mm stroke) so I actually have 105mm travel rather than the 120mm travel you get with the same rockers on Fox 57m stroke shocks. it's not point and shoot and the bike just takes it (though it takes it far better than a hardtail), but the more you put in and work the bike, wow, it responds so well.

I use 08 FOX TALAS forks. 100mm is ok for very steep climbs and road sections for head down chugging, 120mm is good for tight stuff, but the bike really comes alive at 140. I think you could run it permanently at somewhere between 130 and 160mm fork travel.

I don't agree with the comment above about the Hemlock looking more industrial looking than a 5. Mates 5 and my hemlock in the kitchen... and his 5 looked very much more industrial!

Overall I really really like the bike, so versatile, and with the RS shock with adjustable platform, you can really tune the feel of the bike.

piccie here:-

[img] [/img]

Must replace the lecci tape with copter tape!!

What's the current deal with the two swing arms?

You could always try phoning them up to see if they've got any ex-demos on offer. That's what Mugboo did a year ago and got lucky, you wouldn't have known his frame wasn't brand new. I think Garath_Uglow might have been getting confused at Mugboos post, unless he knows something?

[img] [/img]

I know they must be good as Craig, who used to ride with us a lot before he kept breaking himself and became a Dad, and moved away... he's a right fussy bugger, and he's got one.

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 doubt the new 2010 chainstays will snap. Much more solid around the BB pivot point. Take a look at the photos and compare.

From the Cotic website:

£1080 including Fox RP23 Boost Valve shock, Hope Seat QR, and UK delivery.

DEAL PRICE - £1135 for frame package with [b]both short and long travel rocker links[/b].

Sorry, think I mixed up 'rocker link' and 'swing arm' up there somewhere ^

you just want it to be as light and stiff as possible

But isn't the Bfe really stiff already? And it would look so much better than that rather ugly gusset beneath the downtube. It seems like a steel Hemlock would fit into the Cotic range better and carry the Cotic aesthetic over into their full susser.

right now i'm struggling to see the point of [i]any[/i] 6" bike that can't survive Dh racing.

mansonsoul - Member

you just want it to be as light and stiff as possible

But isn't the Bfe really stiff already?

Steel is flexy vs aluminium. Didn't you read MBUK in the 90's?

Love mine... & enough so that it's my main / only mtb in use at the moment... climbs well & descends even better 🙂 'nuff said!

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

well the only hemlock i've seen has the back wheel noodle about like a noodly thing. nowt wrong with the bearings - you can see the plates at the top of the seatstays flex.

That's a lot of seatpost.

LOL! Same on all my bikes... it's what happens when you're tall 🙂

Freeeeeeeks!

I have about a third as much post showing!

Intresting these hemlock posts. I really like the look of them esp with nthe new paint jobs. Intresting that the cant take a beating if they come with 150mm rockers!?!?!

Either way if my 5 ever died I'd be tempted by one of these, or a bfe!!

Calling Cy to the thread... Strikes me that some of these comments might not be quite as true as they seem at first glance 😉

(No, I don't own a Hemlock)

Either way if my 5 ever died I'd be tempted by one of these

i really considered one of these earlier this year but decided against a demo because i knew the handleing would convince me to buy one and i didnt want to take a chance after the reported faults. i know they have sorted it now but its a lot of money so why take a chance?

didnt the brake mount warp in that magazine one too? i dont want to join the witch hunt, in fact i want to be persuaded the other way but i think it might take some doing.

oh, its definitely better looking than a five (and i ride a five).

I have an '09 Hemlock, and love it. Did the transRockies on it in august. I had one rear end 'go' but was due to the faulty assembly of the swingarms. Cotic replaced the part FOC with one with the correct washers. Since then,the whole back end issue has totally gone away.

Also to be fair to Cotic, look at their news page and their reply to the above mentioned mag 'issue'with the warped seat stay. I think Cy clearly disputes their 'appraisal' of the situation and very generously (imho)agreed to disagree.

Seriously my advice is try one... And the customer service is second to none.

> Calling Cy to the thread

I think he is on holiday this week.

ok, well, the example i've seen is an older hemlock, and the swingarms are exceedingly flexy, and FWIH cotic couldn't care less - ie 'we'll give you stiffer ones in exchange for flippin' great wadges of cash'.
hmm....

wookster:

my large hemlock frame weighs a smidge under 3kg / 7lbs, it's probably about as strong as any other frame that weighs the same.

it's the 2009 chainstay that's a bit dodgy, the 2008 and 2010 chainstays are different designs.

(the 2008 chainstays are often dismissed as 'flexy' - it really isn't an issue, but if you think it is, the 2010 chainstays are totally gulliver)

plus points: awesome handling, climbs well, descends better, well made, cheaper than most comparable frames, changeable rockers.

bad points: 2009 chainstays were a bit iffy, it just doesn't seem fair that i've found my perfect Dh frame but it's been built with xc tubing.
.
.
(i broke my '09 chainstays, i was given an '08 part to tide me over until the 2010 bits arrived, i've ridden all 3)

Yeah, Cy is away.

Some 2010 stays for you:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Also, both 2009 (correctly assembled) and new 2010 Hemlocks are CEN compliant as far as I know. The following is taken from Cy's [url= http://cotic.co.uk/news/hemlock_rear ]response[/url] to the WMB review, and refers to the 2009 model:

It's also worth mentioning that following some recent lab testing for the latest CEN safety regulations (BS EN 14766), the existing Hemlock frame was found to be fully compliant to these new and quite onerous requirements for testing frontal fatigue, pedaling fatigue, vertical fatigue, frontal vertical impact and horizontal impact.

I've not noticed my 08 chainstays flexing, too busy enjoying myself to care. Possibly more magazine bullshit??

No problem with my Hemlock, by far the best XC bike i've ever riddeen, loads of fun on the DH's and a superb climber.

Nothing wrong with them IMO, especially the mark II version with the chainstay tweaks. I considered one but went for a Pace RC405 instead. 😈

Saving the pennies as we speak... shsh don't tell MrsG

I love mine (not in a wrong way).

The 2010 model is really good. rides great, great finish and british company (ok, built overseas but still good to support uk engineering).

Not had a single problem, perhaps I should ride harder!

I have a 2009 one and have ridden pretty hard with no problems, although don't do jumpy stuff mostly XC. It's survived trips to Lakes, Wales, Peaks, Dales and abroad in Spain, Lake Garda and Picos. Handling is lively and climbs very well too. One negative is that the rear mech dropouts are made of cheese and I have broken 4 so far.

Nothing wrong with them IMO, especially the mark II version with the chainstay tweaks. I considered one but went for a Pace RC405 instead

Deejay from here went the exact opposite route.

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">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2680/4086010151_6652c8f6fe.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

😀 😀 😀 😀

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.