G-Jordan Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 I love number one. Really liking the way it looks a little flatland bmx and i can imagine it looking great built up. liking the long weld and the bent tubing too. It just looks great. I also like the carbon one, cool idea but it doesn't look as good as number one. george Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMAyaRKay Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Gotta say I'm liking the 3rd one! Very urban and streety! I'd like to see it built up in that way too, with riser bars apposed to flat and maybe a bash ring instead of a plate. Some nice designs there, will be good to see the final products fully built and ready to go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefletch Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 they all look very interesting, but there is no mention of geometry, weight or anything. I understand there prototypes but they just seem to be 5 frames in a competition of how many different things they can CNC on one bike. One of them has taken the BB bit straight off the XTP. cant think of any more commernts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartridge Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 I dunno the weights or geometry of these frames, as Ive not seen them in the flesh personally, but i wouldnt have thought any of them (at this stage) to be uber-light or tank-like. None of them are exact shapes or geometries yet as theyre are only prototype ideas. ← Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 maybe we should have a little comp to see who can design (properly) the best frame and show it to onza (N) I doubt theyll wanna use the design but it will give them a proper idea of what we all like as a whole :- ← Anyone think we should do this then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardman Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 so no one agrees with my ideas then, oh well ill remain quite inthe corner, goodbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montybiketrial Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Dissapointed to be honest. All very inovative though... Be good to see what happens if they release some of them though.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corish Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 In my opinion they all look stupid, they've took the step too big with all the stuff it just don't look right (N) But then again its my opinion corish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munkee Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 In my opinion they all look stupid, they've took the step too big with all the stuff it just don't look right (N) But then again its my opinion corish ← maybe a bit too innovative then? they will prolly be looked on as amazing in 10 years time when everyone else catches up.. who knows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onza-Ash Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 i really would hate the job deciding the final one of them, they all look super lush, love all of them in all their different ways. not much help, but the first 2 stand out most for me. (N) Ash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Not so sure on the overall looks of this frame. That seat-tube looks a little... spindly, maybe? I guess the sorta 'spine' design of that frame means that it doesn't need to take so much abuse, but a bit more weld area by having a larger tube joining the BB might've been a nice addition? Aside from the weird gusset, I think this frame looks to have a lot of potential. The double seat-tube idea would be pretty fly for the strengthening around the brake mounts, but the only problem might be if they're the sole means of putting the final side to the front and rear triangles, if they've got that excess lateral motion from the brakes then it might weaken it? 'cos you're going to be applying the back brake heavily when you're nailing an up, or landing a drop/gap, so it means that you're going to be putting maximum force through the frame so if the frame's flexing outwards as well it might get a bit prone to dying? That's purely hypothetical though... I think this one's just a bit needless, really. The 6-piece back end seems excessive. I know CNC'ing parts theoretically means you can reduce all excess material, but with this pic: Where is the need for the extra splayed drop-out region? It just seems a bit excessive, truth be told. I suppose they're playing out different aspects of the design (e.g. the carbon fibre top-tube), which is good, so maybe it'll be good to see how the extra CNC'ing could work. Seeing as the best technology seems to filter down the bike market eventually, it might be good if top-end frames are made like this so that the "every day" frames get the technological benefits? E.g. traction control/abs for commerical vehicles coming down from F1, and so on. This idea seems a bit... weird? On the Cannondale Scalpel they use the cf chainstays so they can get some flex from it which is monitored with a small shock at the top of the seat stays, which is a sorta interesting idea. But if the top-tube is cf, it's not really going to have much effect? It won't really allow much flex because the joining parts between that tube and the other 2 in the front triangle are fixed pretty well, so it's basically just for show? But with the way the carbon fibre element of the frame joins the metal parts, wouldn't that create a focal point for stress? I never really liked the T-Master frameset. It always seemed like a kinda big pissing-in-the-wind sorta project. Monocoque-style frame designs never really took off, and it just seems like they still haven't, really. If it's still as short as it used to be, and with that CNC'ing pushing the price up, I'd imagine people would just buy a Monty X-Lite 221? I think the idea of frame 2 would be cool, but all the frames seem to be a little over the top. Small, neat drop-outs will always look better than big CNC'ed behemoths. I'm willing to be that a huge, huge proportion of riders will be running 18:12 gearing, so if they kinda base the drop-out length on someone running that gearing, they could get a workable, small solution. If they just simply find however long the top line of the chain needs to be to get a nice tension running 18:12, then make it so that that point falls roughly in the middle of the dropouts (or nearer to the front, so it allows for chain stretching?) then it'd be far better. It's similar to what BMX companies are doing now - if you look at almost all new BMX's, the drop-outs will only just be big enough to get an axle in. It's a bugger if your gear ratio means that it's not in the right place and you need to resort to a half-link, but because - like I said - almost all mod riders run 18:12, they could just base the length around that? The thing I quite like about Leesons is that because of the 360 dropout, they know that that's where the wheel will be. This means they can design the rear triangle so the geometry is exactly as they want to be, 'cos the axle-BB distance is a constant. It'd be the same with the mods then. I mean, when you think of how much a, say, 10mm difference in wheelbase makes to the ride of a mod, if you've got 2cm long drop-outs there's a huge scope there. However, because of the fact that you'll only really have one effective area to put the back wheel due to chain tension (unless you use a half-link, but they seem pretty sketchy ime), it's meaningless as to how long the drop-outs are. So yeah, if the drop-outs could be made a bit neater that'd be a start. The BB/chainstay yoke is a nice idea. I know it's not their's, but it's a good idea for a frame, so why not try it? As long as it's not too strong relative to the rest of the frame so there's a big stress point between the CNC'd loveliness and the standard tubing, it should be good. Anyway, that's long enough... Mark. PS. Thanks for the pics Ad. Oh - and to the stock riders, you've all had the new Woodstock and T-Rex, so what are you all complaining about? The Onza mods have remained pretty constant until they did the '05 Mag, and to a lesser extent the T-Pro... PPS. And why does #3 have a seat-tube clamp and stuff? If you're buying that frame, chances are it's so that it's a decent comp bike, so you're not gonna want to put a needless seat on there? Seats on mods do nowt apart from scuff your legs, so I just don't see the need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartridge Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Aside from the weird gusset, I think this frame looks to have a lot of potential. The double seat-tube idea would be pretty fly for the strengthening around the brake mounts, but the only problem might be if they're the sole means of putting the final side to the front and rear triangles, if they've got that excess lateral motion from the brakes then it might weaken it? 'cos you're going to be applying the back brake heavily when you're nailing an up, or landing a drop/gap, so it means that you're going to be putting maximum force through the frame so if the frame's flexing outwards as well it might get a bit prone to dying? That's purely hypothetical though... But if the top-tube is cf, it's not really going to have much effect? It won't really allow much flex because the joining parts between that tube and the other 2 in the front triangle are fixed pretty well, so it's basically just for show? But with the way the carbon fibre element of the frame joins the metal parts, wouldn't that create a focal point for stress? If it's still as short as it used to be, and with that CNC'ing pushing the price up, I'd imagine people would just buy a Monty X-Lite 221? PS. Thanks for the pics Ad. Oh - and to the stock riders, you've all had the new Woodstock and T-Rex, so what are you all complaining about? The Onza mods have remained pretty constant until they did the '05 Mag, and to a lesser extent the T-Pro... ← Few things.. 2. Has a big plate between the seat stays, like the Rex. 4. Weight saving, perchance? Lugs are fine, work great on roadie frames. 5. Like i said, none of these are set geo. They wouldnt make a frame with such dated geometry any more. Pricey? Onza? Haha. Another idea, just trying something out: http://www.trials-shack.co.uk/tart/brake.jpg http://www.trials-shack.co.uk/tart/frame.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Those seatstay mounts are interesting (N) Bit of bmx influence there :- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Yeah, but if we're going by what works on a roadie frame, we'd all have 21" seat-tubes (N) I quite like that idea of the brake mounts. Seems to work well on BMX's, so I don't see why it wouldn't on MTB's? The only problem could be that it's a bugger trying to sort out BMX brakes mounted on the underside of seatstays (especially those bloody chainstay mounted ones! Freaking chain...), so if you've gotta sort a 4-bolt mount out it might be a bit of a whore? I dunno, I guess that's why they do R&D :- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartridge Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Well, the main reason for the mounts is to reduce flex... Since the stays are more supported now, by the seat tubes. Ball ended allen keys allow you to set the brake up fine (N) I dont think the idea will go ahead though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Another idea, just trying something out: http://www.trials-shack.co.uk/tart/brake.jpg http://www.trials-shack.co.uk/tart/frame.jpg ← I may be totally stupid here, but would'nt the cranks come quite close to rubbing? Not sure what length those arms are, but maybe 175 will rub on the cylinders? Probably me being totally silly but heh. Saying that, i dont fancy setting up a magura upside down. Yeah you can turn bike over, but then you have a big old chainstay in your way. Can understand why there not going to do heh (N) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartridge Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I may be totally stupid here, but would'nt the cranks come quite close to rubbing? Not sure what length those arms are, but maybe 175 will rub on the cylinders? Probably me being totally silly but heh. Saying that, i dont fancy setting up a magura upside down. Yeah you can turn bike over, but then you have a big old chainstay in your way. Can understand why there not going to do heh (N) ← Nah, youre right, its a similar situation to that BT that Prawn has. Its not an issue with a 128mm BB and a Ronnie though. Yeah, most people cant set Maguras up properly the right way up, so they'd have no chance when they couldnt see properly. Like i said though, its entirely possilbe with a ball ended allen key... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialskid Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 surely the mounts would rip off?????? cause the wheel goes round clockwise when you kick and then you brake and it is pulling the mounts away from the frame (N) i dunno :- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cultiv8ed ::Chris:: Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 i think they should change the rex but may be not like that just small things like higher bb height make it more uci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendee Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 would the brake not be worse under the seat stays as the brakes would be pulled apart under braking forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janson Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 But the biggest forces on the brake, the ones with the whole body hanging on them, is when standing on edges, brake trying to pull away from the frame with conventional mounts? Isn't that why loads and loads of disk tabs rip off from trials riding? Also, setting the brake up that way woudn't be too hard really? Couldn't you just flip the bike over (put the bike backwards, to quote Ot) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmike Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 (edited) would the brake not be worse under the seat stays as the brakes would be pulled apart under braking forces. ← Think about when you're brakes sturgelling to work. Ie when there's more force being put into by the wheel than it can stop. This is when say you come up short on a gap, or up, and the wheel's turning backwards. Frames look good, i'm not really going to comment personally, since i'm not a mod rider, but fair play to onza for doing this kind of thing, and anyone who introduces new ideas and variation into the sport. :D And also fair play to them for making better frames cheaper, seems like they've hit the trials nail right on the head. Mike. :- :D Edit: Damn swedes. (N) Edited January 22, 2005 by fatmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I never really liked the T-Master frameset. It always seemed like a kinda big pissing-in-the-wind sorta project. Monocoque-style frame designs never really took off, and it just seems like they still haven't, really. If it's still as short as it used to be, and with that CNC'ing pushing the price up, I'd imagine people would just buy a Monty X-Lite 221? ← Orange Zeros had an awsome downtube. Absolutely impossible to dent, and I don't think they were too heavy either. So I think that downtube is a good idea (N) Not too keen on the rest of it though - As you said, it looks like a horrible T-master. But if they geometry's fine, what's the problem? With that brake on the underside of the stays, how does it perform? I would imagine that it's not better, but I'm certainly willing to change my mind if someone says it's good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialsking 55 Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 i like the carbon t+t one - looks good and really light (dunno how i can tell its light by looking at it (N) ) the python one looks really sexy i like the cnc'd one (silver) i bet it'd be really nice to ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali C Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I think the mounts that way would be mint! you could even then weld a booster to the seatstay brace thing and make it even stiffer. Although, that would then be compying my designs :-" but I could forgive you (N) 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.