mr_malcolm Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 A Wi-Fi brake that doesn't need cables and stuff (you should watch how the battery of it goes though) ....and maybe a Cokeholder, you know for your 0.5l Coca Cola. Oh and a built-in GPS system so that you wouldn't worry where you leave your bike.I liked the iPod holder idea by the way it would be useful, although you'd need wireless headphones then so you don't mess up the cables of the wired ones. Yeah I am a wireless fan....there are acctually electronic brakes and gearsets out, but they cost i think its somewhere near £1800 mark for the lot, not wireless cos it would add weight.they are designed for like top of the rangeroad/race bikes, saves you havingto ever adjust your mechs and brakesafter you have set them up how you want. very smart bitsof kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Harrison Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 I would like to see BB rises of over 150mm, just so I can laugh at TGS freaks even harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVWOCI WVS Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 -Frames made from 4130 or T45 instead of 6000/7000 series aluminium. steel frames feel a lot nicer to ride. -Definitely horizontal dropouts wth snail cams on 135mm.-More frames with internal headsets-Spanish bottom brackets would be quite cool, then you could run some ti profiles.-Some modern steel forks (not pashleys!)-Adjustable rear disc mounts to work with the horizontal dropouts.-Handlebars with lots of rise.-Shorter stems.I built my ideal frame last year, my idea of a perfect bike has changed since then though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty M Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) -Adjustable rear disc mounts to work with the horizontal dropouts.Like the ADS system on the identiti bikes? that would pretty good to see in a trials bike to be honest it is pretty good system! hopefully deng isnt the one to develop it either.. Edited October 7, 2008 by Matty M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 ADS trials frames... So you can make a 26" frame a 24" one! haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bessell Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 frames that dont snap after few months Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r2wtrials Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 -Frames made from 4130 or T45 instead of 6000/7000 series aluminium. steel frames feel a lot nicer to ride. -Definitely horizontal dropouts wth snail cams on 135mm.-More frames with internal headsets-Spanish bottom brackets would be quite cool, then you could run some ti profiles.-Some modern steel forks (not pashleys!)-Adjustable rear disc mounts to work with the horizontal dropouts.-Handlebars with lots of rise.-Shorter stems.I built my ideal frame last year, my idea of a perfect bike has changed since then though!What he said... Steel frames are lovely to ride and easier to repair. And don't suffer from the fatique problems of ally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Bikeshops that know what a trials bike is my local bikeshop thought a bmx was a trials bike and diddnt understand when i tryed to explain what one was lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_Neal Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Better/more innovative tensioners - perhaps an international standard for frame-mounted tensioners similar to the Leeson KISSS. Especially now that no-one really needs gears any more now that the comp rules are relaxed. Better dropouts - QR dropouts are just so last year. In mountain bikes it's all about the 20mm axles/maxles - Why not in trials? SPDs. Honestly.An IS for tensioners would be good, be it 74 kings style or a hidden one for rohloff or leeson. I guess the 74 kings style would give more scope for variation. 12mm bolt through hopes are really easy to come by as the BULBs convert to bolt through but I'm not sure if proIIs do. I would think that kings do a conversion as well - we just need the frames to go with the hubs. They make sense in terms of rigidity.I could have done with SPDs at the weekend to stop me from putting my feet down.Decent chain tensioning systems.Splined freewheel/cranks, silly idea to have a high torque part such as a freewheel, threaded onto a crank (which over time is getting tighter, and without good instalation can soon get stuck).Makes sense.-Definitely horizontal dropouts wth snail cams on 135mm.-Spanish bottom brackets would be quite cool, then you could run some ti profiles.I built my ideal frame last year, my idea of a perfect bike has changed since then though!Personally, I think I'll stick with a tensioner/mech as if you land on the chain, it has some slack - the problem is not quite the same on mods as they have bash plates to stop you getting near the chain.Larger BBs make sense - bigger bearings and axles makes it stronger.Nice looking frame, is it still going strong?My own additions:1.5" steerer tubes.Wider BB shells on frames - why run a 68mm shell with a 128mm axle, its just asking for the axle to snap. Why not make it a 100mm shell (yes I know you'd need some one to make different BBs) with 130mm axles? The external bearinged BBs have gone some way to solving the problem but I still think it needs a major redesign.However, trials and the parts avaliable has come a long way in the past 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusevelt Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Steeper headangles (73-74 degrees) for improved frontwheel/backwheel balance-point, pivotal, and stablity control. No need for slack headangles for modern trials riding, as no one really bothers about rolling down steep stuff nowadays. though fat chance of that happening when you consider the Mk1 Ashton Justice and Planet-X, were the only 73 degree headangle trials frame on the market. cheaper steel frames....but that wont happen with the state of our global economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Yeah, steeper head angles increase rear wheel control significantly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 An IS for tensioners would be good, be it 74 kings style or a hidden one for rohloff or leeson. I guess the 74 kings style would give more scope for variation. 12mm bolt through hopes are really easy to come by as the BULBs convert to bolt through but I'm not sure if proIIs do. I would think that kings do a conversion as well - we just need the frames to go with the hubs. They make sense in terms of rigidity.I could have done with SPDs at the weekend to stop me from putting my feet down.Makes sense.Personally, I think I'll stick with a tensioner/mech as if you land on the chain, it has some slack - the problem is not quite the same on mods as they have bash plates to stop you getting near the chain.Larger BBs make sense - bigger bearings and axles makes it stronger.Nice looking frame, is it still going strong?My own additions:1.5" steerer tubes.Wider BB shells on frames - why run a 68mm shell with a 128mm axle, its just asking for the axle to snap. Why not make it a 100mm shell (yes I know you'd need some one to make different BBs) with 130mm axles? The external bearinged BBs have gone some way to solving the problem but I still think it needs a major redesign.However, trials and the parts avaliable has come a long way in the past 10 years.You have some good points.12mm rear axles are a good idea - perhaps a type of conversion so that those frames can take 10mm hubs too - got to think about the weight weenies!20mm maxles could work, same as above though.Cranks need to be made to work with external bottom brackets. Splined freewheels as well, perhaps, with matching splines hubs and cranks, with lockrings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycholist Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 There's a lot to be said for going for steel parts, especially high stress parts like forks, handlebars and stems. I've snapped enough Aluminium and steel parts to know that the mode of failure (Usually bending) and the amount of warning you get with steel justifies the extra weight... Wider BB shells and bigger diameter shells would be a great addition too - wider shells will give more tyre clearance/allow wider rims, keep your ankles off the back brakes if you've got Maguras or V's and give the axle more support (And less bending) from the bearings. Bigger diameter BB shells should allow bigger BB axle diameters (Better stiffness to weight) and potentially more weld area. 1.5" or 1.5" bottom 1 1/8" top steerers would be nice to add strength without making a big weight difference.I'd like to see disk mounts on everything too to give people the option to use disks. The weight weenies will grind them off if they want to save the weight anyway, so better to have them and give people more options. I'd love spline mount freewheels too. If a lockring similar to that used in adjustable chainline BB's or like that used to hold the spider on Middleburn cranks and a shimano standard freehub spline (This is a slightly smaller diameter than the BB threads currently used on freewheels, so possible freewheel sizes will be the same or potentially smaller) was used, no new tools would be needed either. Making steel inserts on pedal threads the standard would be a nice too.Really reliable chains, or a tool for testing trials bike chains (Chain stretch measurement is good for high mileage chains, but useless for high load chains). Something that checks stiffness of the chain, loading it link by link to spot weak links before they snap and/or a go/no go gauge for quickly measuring the rivet protrusion past each side plate would spot some snappages early. Chain tools that mushroom the chain rivet heads on joining would be good too (I think one exists, but costs a ridiculous amount).Trials rims made to Mavic standards would also be nice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 What about frames made to fit 3" tyres?Athough, I managed to get one on my ciguena 24, but it's bloody tight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVWOCI WVS Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Personally, I think I'll stick with a tensioner/mech as if you land on the chain, it has some slack - the problem is not quite the same on mods as they have bash plates to stop you getting near the chain.That's fair enough, but i've never had any problems with landing on my chain, personally.Larger BBs make sense - bigger bearings and axles makes it stronger.It's crazy that BMXs are going in the opposite direction, using 38mm bearings with 22mm axles now! (they dont last long!)Nice looking frame, is it still going strong?Nope, it cracked on the braze where the toptube joins the headtube, a combination of my poor brazing and gaps to front!1.5" steerer tubes.Wider BB shells on frames - why run a 68mm shell with a 128mm axle, its just asking for the axle to snap. Why not make it a 100mm shell (yes I know you'd need some one to make different BBs) with 130mm axles? The external bearinged BBs have gone some way to solving the problem but I still think it needs a major redesign.What's wrong with 1 1/8" steerers? the actual steerer never snaps, it's where the legs are welded on. If you want a stronger joint there, something like the odyssey director forks (bmx forks) are really smart, take a look at a pair. It means theres a lot more are welded than on coventional forks. I really think someone should make a trials equivalent to a set of directors from 4130 with some hollow disc mounts like the dropouts... would be interesting, but expensive to prototype if theyre a failure.FSA already make 100mm bottom brackets, and the Vario Styx already has a 100mm bottom bracket shell. (I have one!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroMatt Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Strong forks snap at the steerer, 1.5" steerers would be great but slightly ott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 23" bikes.The true midpoint of mod and stock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 An Ozonys Cannibal, without the disk tab and supporting tube, and with horizontal dropouts.I would actually buy two, and if they make one, you can keep me to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Whats wrong with disc tabs? They're amazing things, and must weigh about 15g. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basher Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 A frame with vee mounts and non of this high bb crap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Whats wrong with disc tabs? They're amazing things, and must weigh about 15g.For the majority of us who don't like dual disk on stocks - its 15g more than it should be (anyway, that and the supporting tube would be well over 15g, but feel free to buy one and chop it up to prove me wrong). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_hundley Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Steeper headangles (73-74 degrees) for improved frontwheel/backwheel balance-point, pivotal, and stablity control. No need for slack headangles for modern trials riding, as no one really bothers about rolling down steep stuff nowadays. though fat chance of that happening when you consider the Mk1 Ashton Justice and Planet-X, were the only 73 degree headangle trials frame on the market. cheaper steel frames....but that wont happen with the state of our global economy.slacker head angle is better for taps.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVWOCI WVS Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) I got it, relaunch the 04 echo pure with disc mounts! the perfect frame!edit: actually: 04 echo pure geometry in 4130 with disc tabs! oooooh yeah Edited October 7, 2008 by Sam Doman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basher Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Whats wrong with disc tabs? They're amazing things, and must weigh about 15g.I actually do inderstand the reason most people are going disk on mod.But for the love of god its a discrase to trials using it on stock. May be a tad over the top but yeah theres no need a rim brake works and feels better and saves a new wheel every week if your more than 5 stone and ride harsher than stan shaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigjames Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 A frame with vee mounts and non of this high bb super long crap decent inbuilt tensioning systems that dont rely on a mech hanger, which will get bent. and dont rely on any type of concentric dropout or bb that will efffect geo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.