# Grove is at it again!



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

Hey all,

So as some may know, I built up my first frame around June of last year. Since then, I've had a chance to ride it hard and find what I do and don't like about it. Given the fact that riding season is here (for most people), I decided that now would be a good time to crank out version number two!

Now for the differences - I decided I wanted to run an eccentric BB w/ vert. dropouts for a bombproof singlespeed setup. I also decided to shortened the stays to 15.375" and lengthen the TT to 23.5". Some may like to take note of the "new" hotrods... For those who lived through the retro days of mtn. biking, you may recognize these cranks. We updated them to be compatible with shimano outboard bearings and overall, I must say they are some of the sickest cranks I've seen or ridden! I wanted to add some "sex" to the frame, so I decided to add a cutout in the seattube and driveside chainstay to allow for clearances, and gave it some new color!! Beyond that, I'll let the pictures do the talking 


































































_Frame Geo
HT Angle: 69
ST Angle: 71
TT Length: 23.5"
CS Length: 15.375" w/ BB @ shortest point
BB Height: 13"_

*The Build
Fork: 426 Pike w/ xfirm spring
Cranks: Hot Rods
BB: Shimano XT outboards
Stem: FIT DLD flipped
Bars: A-Lab LTD Race
R Hub: KHE Geisha 11t
F Hub: DMR Revolver
Rims: Sun Single Tracks
Tires: R Kiniption/F Motodigger
Brake: Oldschool Hayes Mags DHX
Chainring: FIT 25t
Seat: S&M Slim
Pedals: DMR V.12 Mag's
Grips: ODI X-Treme lockons
Chain: Shadow v.2
Headset: Red CK*

I took her to rays for her maiden voyage (mind you, it was mine as well), and I had a BLAST!! Only thing I see in the future is a front brake and possibly taller bars...

We are currently taking small orders for frames for anyone who may be interested. If so, drop me a PM or email at adg14 @ scasd.org.

If you have an questions, ask away!!

Thanks,
Aaron


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

Much better than that last piece of **** you made, much much much better! I'll take one with sliding drops, please and thank you.

Can you give us some more details on the cranks? I'm loving that retro-throwback action.


----------



## kampgnar (Apr 13, 2007)

Wow...can't say much more than that. Do you have pictures of the build process?
For some reason, it really reminds me of the frames produced by the short-lived bmx company, Rigid. 
Maybe a strange coincidence...but Nate Wessell used to ride a Rigid frame in almost the same colors (his had green somewhere in the fade).
Super, super nice.


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

ScaryJerry said:


> Much better than that last piece of **** you made, much much much better! I'll take one with sliding drops, please and thank you.
> 
> Can you give us some more details on the cranks? I'm loving that retro-throwback action.


Thanks - ETA on the cranks is still a little ways out.



kampgnar said:


> Wow...can't say much more than that. Do you have pictures of the build process?
> For some reason, it really reminds me of the frames produced by the short-lived bmx company, Rigid.
> Maybe a strange coincidence...but Nate Wessell used to ride a Rigid frame in almost the same colors (his had green somewhere in the fade).
> Super, super nice.


Unfortunitally - due to the time crunch (wanted to rip on it this past weekend at rays) we didn't take any pictures of the build process. We are going to be making another frame for a guy in ohio starting this week, so I will make sure I take build pictures and get them up once the frame is done!!

Google didn't give me any info/pics on the company "rigid." Anyone have some on their HD's?

Thanks,
-Aaron


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

Wow. I dig the paint. Cranks look nice too. Is the spindle a splined design? Or is it held in place by those "lobes?" The dented seattube is super cool too. It looks like you can even shorten the CS a bit more. The fit of the chainwheel is TIGHT.

Weight of the frame? Weight of the cranks?

Edited a bunch of times.


----------



## kampgnar (Apr 13, 2007)

Google isn't turning up anything for me either. I know he rode it in Road Fools 3, which I have buried somewhere. If I have to take a digital picture of the TV, I will.
The Rigids had a rear seatstay wishbone just like the current Terrible One Barcode and it's daddy, the Hoffman Taj. Also had a off-beat heatube junction, just can't remember the design off the top of my head. I think it was the color that really reminded me of those frames.

Cranks look like Solid Hella Lite cranks. But the pinch bolt throws it off, as well as the sprocket collar. Everything else looks spot on.


----------



## aggiebiker (Apr 18, 2006)

No comment.


----------



## Windowlicker (Oct 22, 2007)

thats neat.
love your little touches you got in the metal work.
very nice


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

kampgnar said:


> Cranks look like Solid Hella Lite cranks. But the pinch bolt throws it off, as well as the sprocket collar. Everything else looks spot on.


Not really... The Solid had like a gusset at the pedal boss.


----------



## kampgnar (Apr 13, 2007)

XSL_WiLL said:


> Not really... The Solid had like a gusset at the pedal boss.


...looks like gussets at the the pedal bosses to me.
Regardless, sick.


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

Thanks for the compliments - I'll post up answers/detailed pictures of the cranks to clear some things up once I get home!


----------



## ictoacoy (Jul 10, 2006)

Bullseye cranks?

http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

I remember wanting some of those back in the day....


----------



## Strauss (Apr 27, 2007)

dude i want those cranks.


----------



## snaky69 (Mar 8, 2005)

If I ever get tired of my gloss black frame, I was going to paint it that way.

You did a very good job young Grove, I like your work, it doesn't look like anyone else's bike.

I wish I had the materials and tools necessary to build my own bikes. I will do it before I die, I promised that to myself.


----------



## wadly_1001 (Jan 7, 2006)

Very nice!


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

ictoacoy said:


> Bullseye cranks?
> 
> http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html
> 
> I remember wanting some of those back in the day....


Aye - the first pair of Grove Hardcores date before the Bullseyes infact. The only thing that prevents proving it is patents. My father never had the money to get his ideas/innovations patented, not to mention the fact that these days it isn't incredibly hard to get AROUND one's patent. Either way, the retro days are still some of the sickest! 



snaky69 said:


> If I ever get tired of my gloss black frame, I was going to paint it that way.
> 
> You did a very good job young Grove, I like your work, it doesn't look like anyone else's bike.
> 
> I wish I had the materials and tools necessary to build my own bikes. I will do it before I die, I promised that to myself.


Thanks a ton on the compliments - Painting is half the fun of building a new bike  It is an experience one must fulfill most definitally.


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

Very cool. The bike looks really nicely built. 
Good work!


----------



## TXneedmountain (Feb 14, 2007)

wow lovely frame! It's awesome!


----------



## sealclubber (Apr 10, 2007)

i still dont know if i can trust the strength of a design where the tt/dt cross like that...


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

sealclubber said:


> i still dont know if i can trust the strength of a design where the tt/dt cross like that...


How so? The cross adds for more stiffness throughout the frame. It makes the triangulation smaller as well as having the pierced intersection also creates a VERY stiff front end. I'm no smooth rider and weigh around 190 and have cased, dumped, and thrashed my past frame, and plan to do the same to this frame, it has yet to pose any structural problems.


----------



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

Love the paint, but that Pike clashes. 

Paint it match, OR NO APPROVAL!


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

I'd like to see some pics of that thing in action


----------



## DJskeet (Oct 19, 2007)

ScaryJerry said:


> I'd like to see some pics of that thing in action


Some here. Post up some pics grove!


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

It would be interesting to put that frame in a stress testing jig and rip the front end off to see where it breaks.


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

I think you would all be very shocked at what you may/may not find. Can I ask someone to provide a logical explanation as to why it would fail quicker/more likely than any other frame?


----------



## Mwehahaha (Oct 3, 2006)

Wow!!!


----------



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

I'd think it be slightly stronger, because with a normal triangle, the pressure coming down on the head-tube pulls the down-tube away, rotating on the top-tube. All the stress is on the welds directly at the head-tube. If they are weak, you have failure.

With Grove's design, more stress would be applied on the horizontal axis, so if it failed, it wouldn't be at the mass of welds at the head-tube, but rather farther down at the cross over, but because the top-tube is bracing that area, it would likely bend before breaking.

What is the total weight Grove?

Likely, this frame is no weaker than any other frame on the market.

*On a side note, can you ride the frame like an single speed XC bike? It seems that you might be able to get decent seat extension. *


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

Mwehahaha said:


> Wow!!!


Might that be a good "Wow!!" ?



PaintPeelinPbody said:


> I'd think it be slightly stronger, because with a normal triangle, the pressure coming down on the head-tube pulls the down-tube away, rotating on the top-tube. All the stress is on the welds directly at the head-tube. If they are weak, you have failure.
> 
> With Grove's design, more stress would be applied on the horizontal axis, so if it failed, it wouldn't be at the mass of welds at the head-tube, but rather farther down at the cross over, but because the top-tube is bracing that area, it would likely bend before breaking.
> 
> ...


I do know the last frame I built weighed in at around 6.25 w/ bb/hs already in. That isnt a incredibly light frame, but it isnt heavy either. The tubing used is straight gage .035 all around except for the obvious bb shell, dropouts, etc. Because the TT is actually piercing the whole way through the DT, it actually creates a sense of "double triangulation." The welds on the HT cover the same surface area, if not a little more, than any 'normal' frame out there. At this point, We have yet to find any weekness to this frame design vs. any others (within reason, obviously.)

The total weight shall be posted by the weekend. I ought to have frame weight w/ paint/ebb and crank weight w/ bb/hardware up by friday evening.

If I were to buy a full length post, it is possible to get fairly good extension - with a taller stem/bars, it could be done. Prefered? Not so much... (that is actually why I had the ST extend so far past the TT to begin with... but then I realized I liked having the bike dedicated to street/DJ's rather than multi task 

Thanks,
-Aaron


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

I've broken a lot of frames, and almost all of them fail at the junction between the head and down tubes.
I'm just curious whether your design would suffer the same stress at the junction between top and head tube, or if it would stay up near the headtube.


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

sittingduck said:


> I've broken a lot of frames, and almost all of them fail at the junction between the head and down tubes.
> I'm just curious whether your design would suffer the same stress at the junction between top and head tube, or if it would stay up near the headtube.


All in all - the shearing of the headtube from the downtube can be related to any bike. Its bound to happen after some time of riding, adding a fork with a longer A2C than the frame was designed for will slacken the head angle, and increase the load put onto that junction. Thats often why DH/FR rigs with big sus forks and raked out geo have gussets under the downtube... I don't feel this frame will suffer any more than a nempro, or a stp, or any other chromo frame at that. If anything, it may excel. But only time and someone who really rips could tell....:thumbsup:

-Aaron


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

It seems like a great way to get fork clearance, for sure. Have other frame makers used this design? I don't recall seeing it before..... Maybe it will catch on, and you can get rich.  Patent that shiz!


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

sittingduck said:


> It seems like a great way to get fork clearance, for sure. Have other frame makers used this design? I don't recall seeing it before..... Maybe it will catch on, and you can get rich.  Patent that shiz!


Patents are only worth it if you have the money to GET them and then to DEFEND against them if someone infringes upon them  At least thats as I have been told over the years:thumbsup:

I'm not too sure - the EWR's (current and old that my dad used to produce), both had pierced TT's into ST's thou. Those are actually pretty slick looking frames... http://www.ewrbikes.com/ Looking at those, does anyone here think those will break before a traditional frame?

-Aaron


----------



## aggiebiker (Apr 18, 2006)

I would think it would fold or somthin at the cross, like a hing.



But what do i know, im not no enginerer.


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

aggiebiker said:


> I would think it would fold or somthin at the cross, like a hing.
> 
> But what do i know, im not no enginerer.


It's fully pierced. Shouldn't happen.


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

XSL_WiLL said:


> It's fully pierced. Shouldn't happen.


Yeah, maybe if it were just one tube there, it could be a weak spot but the two tubes together probably lend that area a lot of stiffness.


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

sittingduck said:


> Yeah, maybe if it were just one tube there, it could be a weak spot but the two tubes together probably lend that area a lot of stiffness.


Right. If they were just mitered joints welded in place like a gusset... I could see it creating a stress riser or a folding point.

However, it is fully pierced. It distributes the force along the whole tube.

I'm not sure if I'm conveying this concept correctly.


----------



## TacoMan (Apr 18, 2007)

The area where the tubes cross has a smaller cross section, which must handle pure bending loads. Those loads are multiplied by the moment of the distance to the headtube. There are two tubes in that small cross section handling the bending forces, but it places the highest stress on the extreme fiber at the weld zone.

Traditional frames have the two tubes spread apart wider forming a triangle and the load is distributed in tension and compression primarily where the main load is along the axis of the downtube. A direct hit puts the DT in compression and the TT in tension.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

Everything TacoMan says is exactly right. You want your tubes acting in compression and tension, not bending. To handle the same loads in bending, a tube has to be MUCH beefier. Old SE Quadangles had tubes that crossed, but they also has an additional top tube brace to 'widen' the area, structurally. they still broke. For strength-to-weight, you want a truss.

I'm excited to see Grove building again. I was a big fan of eastern builders back in the day and accidentally stumbled upon your shop while turning around for a slice of pizza about 7 years ago. 'Holy crap, that's Grove!' I peeked in the window and saw boxes and equipment, but no people. Later talked to some mohawked dude who looked dangerous, but was super cool and loaned us his Purple Lizard map, and he said you were tinkering and had helped him out a bunch.

Congrats on the resurrection! I look forward to seeing more.


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

D.F.L. said:


> Everything TacoMan says is exactly right. You want your tubes acting in compression and tension, not bending. To handle the same loads in bending, a tube has to be MUCH beefier. Old SE Quadangles had tubes that crossed, but they also has an additional top tube brace to 'widen' the area, structurally. they still broke. For strength-to-weight, you want a truss.
> 
> I'm excited to see Grove building again. I was a big fan of eastern builders back in the day and accidentally stumbled upon your shop while turning around for a slice of pizza about 7 years ago. 'Holy crap, that's Grove!' I peeked in the window and saw boxes and equipment, but no people. Later talked to some mohawked dude who looked dangerous, but was super cool and loaned us his Purple Lizard map, and he said you were tinkering and had helped him out a bunch.
> 
> Congrats on the resurrection! I look forward to seeing more.


Welp - the reason you saw no people 7 years ago would be because that was whenever my pops was doing a lot of prototype machinework, etc. Grove Innovations was no-more only a few years earlier. My dad still worked out of the old shop up until just 3-4 years ago when we had to have the shop moved.. The sign was hanging until the building sold, then he took it down and moved all the equipment.

I understand everyones concern on the frame design - but we have yet to witness any issues with the frame. I would not consider the frame to be "overbuilt" by today's standards. At that - the x-frames themselves never had any breakage issues and if people here think that this frame looks "sketchy" I would hate to think what they would have to say of the x and a lot of the retro style frames.

Thanks,
-Aaron


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

Final build weight.... 30.44 lbs... with lots of weight to spare if I wanted to nit-pick.


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

I still want to see some riding pictures


----------



## Eastcoaster (Feb 13, 2004)

*Standover!*

I'm a short rider. Well, I'm 5' 7" yet I only have like a 28 - 29" inseam. And, a rider of a Grove built 1997 size Small EWR Original Woods Bike frame.

I'd buy that sucka' for the standover alone! Even willing to lengthen the chainstay a little to, maybe, 15.9" to gain full seatpost length. (Yet, still keep the added design features to allow the bigger rear tires.)

That's be a NICE burly trail brawler!

Aaron's design is KEY to a rider like me. BTW, how high is the BB? I didn't check back to see if I missed it on the first page.

Nice job! Glad to see you building!

To quote an old Spooky T-Shirt: "Eastcoast Hardcore!"


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

i STILL want to see some damn riding pictures of this thing.


----------



## aggiebiker (Apr 18, 2006)

ScaryJerry said:


> i STILL want to see some damn riding pictures of this thing.


X2...


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

I'll be keeping this post up until I see some pics of this thing in action.


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

Eastcoaster said:


> I'm a short rider. Well, I'm 5' 7" yet I only have like a 28 - 29" inseam. And, a rider of a Grove built 1997 size Small EWR Original Woods Bike frame.
> 
> I'd buy that sucka' for the standover alone! Even willing to lengthen the chainstay a little to, maybe, 15.9" to gain full seatpost length. (Yet, still keep the added design features to allow the bigger rear tires.)
> 
> ...


I have sent you a PM. The BB is set at 13". The bike feels awesome. Everyday I ride it i manage to have more fun than the time before...

NOW! Who wants to come be my photographer


----------



## scorpionsf (Nov 16, 2006)

http://scorpionsf.pinkbike.com/album/B-and-A-at-spring-creek/


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

My jumping skillz are...sub-par to say the very least  Still a good time, tho.


----------



## scorpionsf (Nov 16, 2006)

well for what sc has...


----------



## crazy Jim (Mar 31, 2005)

sick, sisck, sick, total sickeeness


----------



## A Grove (Nov 12, 2006)

You're just jealous


----------

